![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There was an article here, but it seemed to be identical to the one at http://www.mead2001.org/Biography.htm . I couldn't spot any copyright notice over there, but in most countries stuff is copyright by default and can't be used without permission, so i think it is best to not use the article unless someone gets explicit permission.
Moved above comments here, to Talk, and added stub bio and bibliography. BruceMiller
I actually do not know any anthropologists who support Freeman, but I think it is wise to avoid definitive statements through words such as "most" or "many." But I did remove this line:
I have no objection to it being moved back into the article after "many anthropologists" is followed with a few notable examples. slrubenstein
When I entered Gregory Bateson's name in the search bar a page came up with his information. It mentions that he was married to Margaret Mead and mentions "Trance Dance in Bali" which is a work they did together. Yet he is not mentioned at all in the page on Margaret Mead. He is not listed in the Anthropologists category. Is there a particular reason for this? Also on Freeman. It seems that Freeman's intent it is to provide a conservative 'alternative' to ideas that were taken seriously in the 20th century. The world is round? "Opinions differ" says Freeman. This is part of the well funded neo conservative goal to nullify as much of the underpinnings of post modern thought as possible. Result? Creationism is now taught side by side with Darwin's theory of evolution. Freeman's observations, based on interviews with women now thoroughly brainwashed with christian shame, have no credence. Bateson and Mead can be criticized for many things but mendacity is'nt one of them. Freeman's intent in using the surviving women Mead interviewed was not to produce new information at all but to nullify and discredit what Mead had observed before. Why? Because Mead's life and her work informed many of the women who would be at the forefront of the women's liberation movement in the second half of the 20th century. That is something the neo conservatives have wanted to root out of our academic institutions since Barry Goldwater.
Gregory Bateson is mentioned in the Wikipedia as beeing famous among other things for beeing the husband of Margaret Mead, Mead is not introduced as the wife of Bateson. Now, in my mileue (Central Europe, psychology and psychotherapy) it is the other way round - citing Mead (occasionally), I would add, "by the way she was married to Gregory Bateson and Mary Catherine Bateson is their daughter", while mentioning Bateson(often), I would expect everyone to know the name.-- Georgius 18:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As yet, the article is much more about Ms. Mead's renowned study (on Samoa), rather than an adequate entry on Margaret Mead. She had a life. I'm no expert on Ms. Mead, but I have read things here and there (such as by Jean Houston, Stewart Brand, etc) and it's clear that Mead's continuing personal and professional lives did influence the evolution of her interests and opinions. Otherwise, there might just as well only be an entry for Coming of Age in Samoa, per se.
For a few bio models, see the entries on J.R.R. Tolkien, Amory Lovins, Gary Snyder.
As good as the one about Tolkein is the biographical article (life & work) about Jonathan Swift.
But I agree, this one on Margaret Mead leaves much to be desired, so far.
I just rewrote a good deal of Arnold Perey's recent contribution. To be clear, I did not do this because I think he is wrong; on the contrary, I am sympathetic to his views and they added important balance to the article. BUT much of what he wrote seemed like editorializing, and expressing his own opinions. This violates our policy against original research. If we can provide sources from published re-evaluations of Mead's ethnography, or contemporary published ethnography of New Guinea, then we can put those points into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for noting the difference between editorializing and encyclopedia writing. I'll catch on. Yes, for some of this material I can add documentation. It isn't "opinion" as such, although some of these views definitely are my own observations. Her ethnography was of the first order, by the way--though sometimes her analyses contained too-swift summing up. Meanwhile, they were always based on something she saw and felt in the field, and she was an accurate and sensitive observer. I was a student of Mead, took courses with her, heard her lecture on Tchambuli, Arapesh, Mundugumor, complete with slides etc, and have read closely her 3 volume The Mountain Arapesh ethnography (much detail about these interesting people). Also her other work.
As to Gregory Bateson, he was, at one time, her husband and is an outstanding anthropologist in his own right. His Naven concerning a New Guinea ceremonial is deeply insightful and can be of use today. They did collaborate on trance in Bali.-- Arnold Perey 19:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am glad you are contributing. Hopefully, our main policies are clear. Surely you have a lot to add, but all of us try to write in a relatively impersonal style, in part because no article belongs to any one author, and in part because we must be very careful not to put our own views in the article, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Whatever it means, it's a pretentious word in this context. According to my dictionary, "premiere" as an adjective is the same as "premier". And for "premier", the adjective, it says "first in rank, position, or importance. First in time. EARLIEST." So not only is it pretentious, it is equivocal. So I'm glad you changed my edit to "first" rather than back to "premiere". But, of course, it is also (arguably, I suppose) also her most important work. Hayford Peirce 15:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
The addition of a "trivia" section seems somewhat frivolous, and even moreso when one considers that this section currently contains only one fact, and that this one fact is not even related to Margaret Mead. Margaret Mead's "small group of dedicated citizens" quote has been featured in the mission statement of every single activist group formed since it was first spoken. Does the fact that a quote of Mead's prefaced a book otherwise entirely unrelated to her life really deserve inclusion in this article? Does it really deserve its own section?
Is there any valid reason for keeping the section? It seems that at the moment it serves no purpose, and that even if it were to be expanded, any facts about her life might be more appropriately integrated into her biographical information. If they aren't relevant enough to include as biography, are they relevant enough to include at all? I hesitate the delete the section outright myself without prior discussion, so please contribute if you disagree with me.
I've been trying to find the source of that quote. Does anybody know its context? Where/when it was said or written and for what purpose? Thanks. 13:30, Nov. 1, 2005 Argentina Dan 19:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed the part about the collegiate studies institute naming her book as worst book of the 20th century because puritan values. Their stated claim is against the scholarly value of her research. The drawn connection with American puritan values is unprovable unless you can read minds. If someone wants to put it back in adjusted, go ahead, but I removed the single sentence as it was because it is not "encyclopaediac".
--Erik
Hey so I clicked on the Weird Repubublic link about Margaret Mead. It's a poorly written peice of extreme polemic (which isn't necesarily a bad thing) but I wonder just how relevant it would be to someone wanting to learn more about Margaret Mead. I mean if you go on the Weird Republic site there are links to the "Brown vs. Board of Education Hoax" and "Race Norming for Dummies", whoever writes this site is not only out of his mind but is a paranoid anti-communist racist homophobe too. I don't know if this is enough to disqualify the link in of itself, but I can't imagine it provides any new or relevant information. I'm thinking either get rid of it entirely or just put a qualifier, something like "The Margaret Mead Hoax: The Batsh*t crazy perspective".
-- 24.127.127.236 21:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
While I don't have a Wikipedia username yet (will rectify shortly), I ran across this article during some studies and it seems to be generally non-neutral. It takes a somewhat harsh stance towards any criticism of Mead--the section regarding Freeman spends more time criticising Freeman (better handled on his own page) than on discussing Mead herself. The comment to the effect that male anthropologists miss things that female anthropologists do not is basically an unsupportable opinion at this point. In all, it's best to avoid hero worship in an article, so I thought I'd tag it for now, and hopefully we can get it cleaned up soon. --Thanks!
I feel I must agree with the original writer's (who had no username)point of view. I read seven lines criticizing Freeman's method, not a single line criticizing Mead's. Not even Freeman's critique of Mead's methods is quoted. Freeman is accused of projecting his own ideas on the Samoans, Mead is not. Furthermore, I read no critique of Mead's far-fetched way of drawing conclusions of the entire human nature based on a comparison of only two cultures. In its current form, I must strongly question this article's neutrality. Sensemaker 10:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know Mead was bisexual and it isn't discussed in the article. The category is silly, anyway, makes me wonder if they were having sex while writing or if they were ambidextrous. -- 68.217.111.53 19:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Provide us with a verifiable source that Mead identified herself as a bisexual. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
See all the discussion above. Some people calim Mead as a Lespbian. She never identified herself as such. When you find evidence that Mead identified herself as a lesbian, then we can add the category. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Comply with our NPOV policy. All you have proven is that SOME people think she was a lesbian. That doesn´t mean she was one. At most, all we can say is "some people identify her as a lesbian." and I do not dispute that. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Find me the wuote where Bateson calls her mother a lesbian, please. (by the way, Bateson did not out her mother) Slrubenstein | Talk 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: Luther Cressman. At the time he married Margaret Mead Luther Cressman was not an anthropologist but a clergyman and sociologist.
I believe the revision by slrubenstein re: Luther Cressman is definitive and should stand.
At the time he married Margaret Mead, Luther Cressman was not a "fellow anthropologist." He was a clergyman. The year was 1923.
During the years Cressman and Mead were married, he was primarily interested in the ministry and in sociology--minoring in anthropology. It was only long after they were divorced that he became fully an anthropologist, as the passages below make clear.
This is rather important because the way he saw anthropology, Margaret Mead's chosen intellectual pursuit (and not a 'minor' matter with her) could have had bearing on the fate of their relationship.
External links to a blog ( Live journal) are not appropriate as an encyclopedia citation. A blog is not a publication, and has no editorial review. Please find a more reliable source for the article. -- Blainster 20:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone put in the edit summary that the delted (and reverted) paragraph is plagiarism. Okay, I wil bite: where is it plagiarized from? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The following are reasons why I tagged this section as having a POV in favor of Mead on the controversial issue of her work in Samoa.
I think you misunderstand me. NOWHERE have I said that the controversy should no0t be presented fairly. I do not claim the article is perfect. On the contrary, I suggested it could be improved. All wikipedia articles are works in progress so one should expect to find articles that could be improved. where we differ is this: instead of deleting accurate content, i am for adding more accurate content. The Mead Freeman controversy is important in the history of anthropology, and such controversies reveal a lot about anthropology. They should be explained accurately. It is inaccurate to say that the controversy has been eclipsed, as if more recent events have taken the place of informed debate among anthropologists. That is not the case. Anthropologists debated the matter and the majority ended up rejecting the bulk of freeman´s argument. To state that group x does not accept a particular position is not a violation of NPOV; it is to providce a point of view properly identified and sourced. You seem to think that so far the article is weighted too heavily in favor of Mead. All i suggest is to create balance by adding what is lacking. This is an encyclopedia. the more information we provide, the more informative we are. So let us add information rather than delete it. Go ahead and add what you think is missing, as long as you follow our policies. SR
I removed this because no one questions that the women said these things - this is not disputed and it is enough that Freeman reported this (indeed, he elicited the statements). The issue is not whether the statements were made, but how to interpret them. That film was made to express Freeman´s arguments, which it did. This does not change the fact that most anthropologists reject this argument. Many of the journal articles cited in this encyclopedia article go into detail why. SR
I don't know if this is the right place to put this, but anyway... I think that the section on Coming of Age is, on the whole, dreadful. Way too much space (more than half the section!) is given to Freeman, when the article should be telling us about Mead, her work, and her significance in relation to anthropology and perhaps society. Freeman deserves little more than a footnote. --
Quasitopia
05:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Gotta agree with the person who tagged this article NPOV. The author of the section on Freeman presents criticism about him even before the conflict is fully described. There's no mention of the specific criticisms that Freeman and others have made of Mead's work -- i.e. claims that interviews were conducted in Samoan, claims that she had immersed herself in Samoan culture. Reliance on terms like "vast majority" and "many" are vague and slanted. Scientists generally sign off on criticisms as groups rather than individually in order to avoid this kind of thing. Further, the criticism of Freeman's work is more focused on his motivations and personality than the actual facts of his claims while there is little mention of the counter claims about Mead's motivations. -- 70.22.192.127 13:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
After this kangaroo court session, dismissing Freeman's subsequent 1999 publication without acknowledging its vital new information can only rebound against Wiki if it gets "out". Ombudswiki 24 September 2006
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There was an article here, but it seemed to be identical to the one at http://www.mead2001.org/Biography.htm . I couldn't spot any copyright notice over there, but in most countries stuff is copyright by default and can't be used without permission, so i think it is best to not use the article unless someone gets explicit permission.
Moved above comments here, to Talk, and added stub bio and bibliography. BruceMiller
I actually do not know any anthropologists who support Freeman, but I think it is wise to avoid definitive statements through words such as "most" or "many." But I did remove this line:
I have no objection to it being moved back into the article after "many anthropologists" is followed with a few notable examples. slrubenstein
When I entered Gregory Bateson's name in the search bar a page came up with his information. It mentions that he was married to Margaret Mead and mentions "Trance Dance in Bali" which is a work they did together. Yet he is not mentioned at all in the page on Margaret Mead. He is not listed in the Anthropologists category. Is there a particular reason for this? Also on Freeman. It seems that Freeman's intent it is to provide a conservative 'alternative' to ideas that were taken seriously in the 20th century. The world is round? "Opinions differ" says Freeman. This is part of the well funded neo conservative goal to nullify as much of the underpinnings of post modern thought as possible. Result? Creationism is now taught side by side with Darwin's theory of evolution. Freeman's observations, based on interviews with women now thoroughly brainwashed with christian shame, have no credence. Bateson and Mead can be criticized for many things but mendacity is'nt one of them. Freeman's intent in using the surviving women Mead interviewed was not to produce new information at all but to nullify and discredit what Mead had observed before. Why? Because Mead's life and her work informed many of the women who would be at the forefront of the women's liberation movement in the second half of the 20th century. That is something the neo conservatives have wanted to root out of our academic institutions since Barry Goldwater.
Gregory Bateson is mentioned in the Wikipedia as beeing famous among other things for beeing the husband of Margaret Mead, Mead is not introduced as the wife of Bateson. Now, in my mileue (Central Europe, psychology and psychotherapy) it is the other way round - citing Mead (occasionally), I would add, "by the way she was married to Gregory Bateson and Mary Catherine Bateson is their daughter", while mentioning Bateson(often), I would expect everyone to know the name.-- Georgius 18:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As yet, the article is much more about Ms. Mead's renowned study (on Samoa), rather than an adequate entry on Margaret Mead. She had a life. I'm no expert on Ms. Mead, but I have read things here and there (such as by Jean Houston, Stewart Brand, etc) and it's clear that Mead's continuing personal and professional lives did influence the evolution of her interests and opinions. Otherwise, there might just as well only be an entry for Coming of Age in Samoa, per se.
For a few bio models, see the entries on J.R.R. Tolkien, Amory Lovins, Gary Snyder.
As good as the one about Tolkein is the biographical article (life & work) about Jonathan Swift.
But I agree, this one on Margaret Mead leaves much to be desired, so far.
I just rewrote a good deal of Arnold Perey's recent contribution. To be clear, I did not do this because I think he is wrong; on the contrary, I am sympathetic to his views and they added important balance to the article. BUT much of what he wrote seemed like editorializing, and expressing his own opinions. This violates our policy against original research. If we can provide sources from published re-evaluations of Mead's ethnography, or contemporary published ethnography of New Guinea, then we can put those points into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for noting the difference between editorializing and encyclopedia writing. I'll catch on. Yes, for some of this material I can add documentation. It isn't "opinion" as such, although some of these views definitely are my own observations. Her ethnography was of the first order, by the way--though sometimes her analyses contained too-swift summing up. Meanwhile, they were always based on something she saw and felt in the field, and she was an accurate and sensitive observer. I was a student of Mead, took courses with her, heard her lecture on Tchambuli, Arapesh, Mundugumor, complete with slides etc, and have read closely her 3 volume The Mountain Arapesh ethnography (much detail about these interesting people). Also her other work.
As to Gregory Bateson, he was, at one time, her husband and is an outstanding anthropologist in his own right. His Naven concerning a New Guinea ceremonial is deeply insightful and can be of use today. They did collaborate on trance in Bali.-- Arnold Perey 19:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am glad you are contributing. Hopefully, our main policies are clear. Surely you have a lot to add, but all of us try to write in a relatively impersonal style, in part because no article belongs to any one author, and in part because we must be very careful not to put our own views in the article, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Whatever it means, it's a pretentious word in this context. According to my dictionary, "premiere" as an adjective is the same as "premier". And for "premier", the adjective, it says "first in rank, position, or importance. First in time. EARLIEST." So not only is it pretentious, it is equivocal. So I'm glad you changed my edit to "first" rather than back to "premiere". But, of course, it is also (arguably, I suppose) also her most important work. Hayford Peirce 15:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
The addition of a "trivia" section seems somewhat frivolous, and even moreso when one considers that this section currently contains only one fact, and that this one fact is not even related to Margaret Mead. Margaret Mead's "small group of dedicated citizens" quote has been featured in the mission statement of every single activist group formed since it was first spoken. Does the fact that a quote of Mead's prefaced a book otherwise entirely unrelated to her life really deserve inclusion in this article? Does it really deserve its own section?
Is there any valid reason for keeping the section? It seems that at the moment it serves no purpose, and that even if it were to be expanded, any facts about her life might be more appropriately integrated into her biographical information. If they aren't relevant enough to include as biography, are they relevant enough to include at all? I hesitate the delete the section outright myself without prior discussion, so please contribute if you disagree with me.
I've been trying to find the source of that quote. Does anybody know its context? Where/when it was said or written and for what purpose? Thanks. 13:30, Nov. 1, 2005 Argentina Dan 19:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed the part about the collegiate studies institute naming her book as worst book of the 20th century because puritan values. Their stated claim is against the scholarly value of her research. The drawn connection with American puritan values is unprovable unless you can read minds. If someone wants to put it back in adjusted, go ahead, but I removed the single sentence as it was because it is not "encyclopaediac".
--Erik
Hey so I clicked on the Weird Repubublic link about Margaret Mead. It's a poorly written peice of extreme polemic (which isn't necesarily a bad thing) but I wonder just how relevant it would be to someone wanting to learn more about Margaret Mead. I mean if you go on the Weird Republic site there are links to the "Brown vs. Board of Education Hoax" and "Race Norming for Dummies", whoever writes this site is not only out of his mind but is a paranoid anti-communist racist homophobe too. I don't know if this is enough to disqualify the link in of itself, but I can't imagine it provides any new or relevant information. I'm thinking either get rid of it entirely or just put a qualifier, something like "The Margaret Mead Hoax: The Batsh*t crazy perspective".
-- 24.127.127.236 21:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
While I don't have a Wikipedia username yet (will rectify shortly), I ran across this article during some studies and it seems to be generally non-neutral. It takes a somewhat harsh stance towards any criticism of Mead--the section regarding Freeman spends more time criticising Freeman (better handled on his own page) than on discussing Mead herself. The comment to the effect that male anthropologists miss things that female anthropologists do not is basically an unsupportable opinion at this point. In all, it's best to avoid hero worship in an article, so I thought I'd tag it for now, and hopefully we can get it cleaned up soon. --Thanks!
I feel I must agree with the original writer's (who had no username)point of view. I read seven lines criticizing Freeman's method, not a single line criticizing Mead's. Not even Freeman's critique of Mead's methods is quoted. Freeman is accused of projecting his own ideas on the Samoans, Mead is not. Furthermore, I read no critique of Mead's far-fetched way of drawing conclusions of the entire human nature based on a comparison of only two cultures. In its current form, I must strongly question this article's neutrality. Sensemaker 10:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know Mead was bisexual and it isn't discussed in the article. The category is silly, anyway, makes me wonder if they were having sex while writing or if they were ambidextrous. -- 68.217.111.53 19:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Provide us with a verifiable source that Mead identified herself as a bisexual. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
See all the discussion above. Some people calim Mead as a Lespbian. She never identified herself as such. When you find evidence that Mead identified herself as a lesbian, then we can add the category. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Comply with our NPOV policy. All you have proven is that SOME people think she was a lesbian. That doesn´t mean she was one. At most, all we can say is "some people identify her as a lesbian." and I do not dispute that. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Find me the wuote where Bateson calls her mother a lesbian, please. (by the way, Bateson did not out her mother) Slrubenstein | Talk 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: Luther Cressman. At the time he married Margaret Mead Luther Cressman was not an anthropologist but a clergyman and sociologist.
I believe the revision by slrubenstein re: Luther Cressman is definitive and should stand.
At the time he married Margaret Mead, Luther Cressman was not a "fellow anthropologist." He was a clergyman. The year was 1923.
During the years Cressman and Mead were married, he was primarily interested in the ministry and in sociology--minoring in anthropology. It was only long after they were divorced that he became fully an anthropologist, as the passages below make clear.
This is rather important because the way he saw anthropology, Margaret Mead's chosen intellectual pursuit (and not a 'minor' matter with her) could have had bearing on the fate of their relationship.
External links to a blog ( Live journal) are not appropriate as an encyclopedia citation. A blog is not a publication, and has no editorial review. Please find a more reliable source for the article. -- Blainster 20:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone put in the edit summary that the delted (and reverted) paragraph is plagiarism. Okay, I wil bite: where is it plagiarized from? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The following are reasons why I tagged this section as having a POV in favor of Mead on the controversial issue of her work in Samoa.
I think you misunderstand me. NOWHERE have I said that the controversy should no0t be presented fairly. I do not claim the article is perfect. On the contrary, I suggested it could be improved. All wikipedia articles are works in progress so one should expect to find articles that could be improved. where we differ is this: instead of deleting accurate content, i am for adding more accurate content. The Mead Freeman controversy is important in the history of anthropology, and such controversies reveal a lot about anthropology. They should be explained accurately. It is inaccurate to say that the controversy has been eclipsed, as if more recent events have taken the place of informed debate among anthropologists. That is not the case. Anthropologists debated the matter and the majority ended up rejecting the bulk of freeman´s argument. To state that group x does not accept a particular position is not a violation of NPOV; it is to providce a point of view properly identified and sourced. You seem to think that so far the article is weighted too heavily in favor of Mead. All i suggest is to create balance by adding what is lacking. This is an encyclopedia. the more information we provide, the more informative we are. So let us add information rather than delete it. Go ahead and add what you think is missing, as long as you follow our policies. SR
I removed this because no one questions that the women said these things - this is not disputed and it is enough that Freeman reported this (indeed, he elicited the statements). The issue is not whether the statements were made, but how to interpret them. That film was made to express Freeman´s arguments, which it did. This does not change the fact that most anthropologists reject this argument. Many of the journal articles cited in this encyclopedia article go into detail why. SR
I don't know if this is the right place to put this, but anyway... I think that the section on Coming of Age is, on the whole, dreadful. Way too much space (more than half the section!) is given to Freeman, when the article should be telling us about Mead, her work, and her significance in relation to anthropology and perhaps society. Freeman deserves little more than a footnote. --
Quasitopia
05:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Gotta agree with the person who tagged this article NPOV. The author of the section on Freeman presents criticism about him even before the conflict is fully described. There's no mention of the specific criticisms that Freeman and others have made of Mead's work -- i.e. claims that interviews were conducted in Samoan, claims that she had immersed herself in Samoan culture. Reliance on terms like "vast majority" and "many" are vague and slanted. Scientists generally sign off on criticisms as groups rather than individually in order to avoid this kind of thing. Further, the criticism of Freeman's work is more focused on his motivations and personality than the actual facts of his claims while there is little mention of the counter claims about Mead's motivations. -- 70.22.192.127 13:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
After this kangaroo court session, dismissing Freeman's subsequent 1999 publication without acknowledging its vital new information can only rebound against Wiki if it gets "out". Ombudswiki 24 September 2006