Talk:William Blum

Contradiction

Who "stationed" Blum in Chile 1972-3? Presumably not the State Dept which he left in 1967 according to the article. Lenbrazil 02:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Lol, "populist-nationalist." Marxists are so good at denying they're Marxist. J. Parker Stone 02:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

ly pop ---Dagme (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The "populist-nationalist" label is not only used for left-leaning governments; Perón was also considered one. You think he was a closet Marxist too? -- Viajero 12:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. I also don't think that the FMLN, FSLN, Castro, URNG, MIR, ERP, Montoneros, FARC, Shining Path, Viet Cong, Khmer Rouge, Pathet Lao, PKI, Lumumba, ELN, PFLP, etc. are "harmless" "populist-nationalists." J. Parker Stone 03:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone claim they were. This is a straw-man argument. -- Viajero 08:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I don't expect a reply 16 years later, but including Lumumba in that list is comical. The term "populist-nationalist" actually is pretty appropriate for him. He was not a communist. Soviet academics, writing decades after his death, stated that his outlook "contained elements of petty-bourgeois influence and distinctive African populism" although they were open to the possibility that "in the course of further struggle, he could eventually have arrived at an understanding of the ideas of scientific socialism." (Fighters for National Liberation, p. 246) I'm aware of no Western historians who claim Lumumba was a communist either. --Ismail (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Blum apparently thinks so. I'm sure he'd list the FARC and Shining Path amongst the "populist-nationalist" heroes struggling against "intolerable regimes." J. Parker Stone 05:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

That quote is in the introduction to his book Rogue State. HTH. -- Viajero | Talk 19:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mel, referring to the fact that Agee leaked several names of active CIA agents and assets is not POV. This was a big deal in the U.S. and he should not be referred to as if he is just an ex-CIA man critical of the agency. J. Parker Stone 12:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

This is another non sequitur; being "a big deal in the U.S." does not show that something isn't PoV. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

putting aside the fact that it was a big deal in the U.S., the fact that Agee leaked several names of CIA agents is not POV. it's an accurate description of what he did. J. Parker Stone 00:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

J. Parker Stone, are you just being silly or have you never read Blum? You indicate that, among other silly examples, he would consider the Khmer Rouge to be "harmless nationalists". If you read his book Rogue State, you will find that he's actually got a chapter on the Khmer Rouge, where he makes it very clear that this is not his position. If anything, he seems rather to accept descriptions of Pol Pot as comparable to Adolf Hitler. --M.K.

well i don't know about Blum specifically, but it's interesting to note that Chomsky, Herman and other leftists portrayed the U.S. bombing of Cambodia as entirely responsible for the KR's extremism -- ie, it wasn't _really_ their fault. it wasn't until the '80s when the U.S. was "supporting" the KR (which they weren't -- they were supporting the non-Communist opposition, KPNLF and ANS) that they became evil in their eyes. Stoned Trey 02:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous and unnecessary slander of Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman. It is also a wilful misunderstanding of their argument which is that the bombing by the U.S. contributed to an atmosphere that resulted in the rise of Pol Pot and the KR. This is vastly different from dismissing the responsibility of the KR.Troyc001 01:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

To back up the above, Chomsky believes that people are responsible for their own actions and is not a marxist and so would not have backed the KR -- who do not appear to have been marxist. Blum is not at all supportive of the KR in Killing Hope or Rogue State, the two books of his that I have actually read. I have a feeling that people let their anti-socialist and anti-communist feelings get in the way of the facts. Why are we even talking about such things (Chomsky and Herman, FARC, Sendero Luminosa) on the edit page of William Blum? A note on Sendero Luminosa and the FARC: under a brutal regime, the opposition to such a regime will sometimes be brutal -- this is not to say that people are not responsible for their actions, it is only to contextualise events.

The Osama Bin Laden Statement is notable

It's notable. People may not want to be endorsed by the world's most notorious terrorist, but that doesn't change the fact it happened. It doesn't change the fact that sales on this book jumped astronomically. I had never even heard of Blum prior to this. This is notable, and it should stay in the article. (Bjorn Tipling 03:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

The statement Blum made, covered in the Washington Post [1] is also notable. (Bjorn Tipling 16:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

At first, Blum said he was pleased about the endorsement, not because he respects Bin Laden, but because it gave him attention he could use to further spread his message. A completely reasonable and pragmatic view. But it seems that the tide has changed, and that the endorsement is now working against him, at least according to the quote by Blum currently in that section of the article. In any case, it's noteworthy and should stay in. --Kvaks 13:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I made some adjustments/expansion of material about Blum that gave it more fuller, accurate context. Please review, though. I note that he is called a "Washington Historian," so I added that, and looking at the source its not clear that his entire employment with the State Dept. was that of a low level computer worker, so I left that out and simply stated he worked for the State Dept.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete sourced information. Please do not insert unsourced and opinion statements.Ultramarine (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are doing that. You are cherry picking what information to include and exclude on the basis of POV. For instance, as the other editor pointed out, you remove "historian' despite what the sources say. And I disagree with your moving around the material and putting it in other places that makes the article harder to follow. What specifically are you claiming is "unsources"? Can you list it here so I can see what your talking about instead of edit warring? And what material that you want to add that is sourced that you say needs to be there? If so, we should agree about that and agree where in the article it belongs. The place to solve this is here on talk, not in edit summaries. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what sources say. Historian included. What was unsourced was marked as such earlier and then removed when no source given.Ultramarine (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

2 of the citations provided are weak

1. The article refers to "a May 22, 2006 article entitled, Come Out of the White House With Your Hands Up", but does not indicate who published it.
2. The statement about the no-fly list is cited to a blind link. When I follow the blind link, it goes to a RE/Search interview with Paul Krassner. Now, I like RE/Search and Krassner as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't consider either a particularly reliable source. Krassner is as much a satirist as a journalist, and it can be hard to tell sometimes whether he is factual or deadpanning. He can be a useful pointer to information, but I would always follow up and look for a more solid citation before presuming he was factual. - Jmabel | Talk 14:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerns of Edits from Philip Cross

There's a recent Reddit post Concerning edits from Philip Cross that his replacing of references to democracynow.org with nytimes.com, suggested as a form of propoganda. It's not the first time someone noted Cross doing something similar, but I want to bring attention to this page specifically. 50.125.92.35 (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If Philip Cross is indeed responsible for replacing references to activist sources closely affiliated with the subject of this article with references to far more reputable news organizations known for fact-checking and accuracy (I haven't checked the history), then he should be commended for hewing so closely to Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:RS and WP:DUE. Alas, I suspect that far more work needs to be done on that front.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

NY Times a "far more reputable news organization" than Democracy Now.

NY Times "known for fact-checking and accuracy".

You are a bad joke. ---Dagme (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments, User:TheTimesAreAChanging. I added the Democracy Now source myself as a substitute for a citation to Global Research, a website which is on the List of fake news websites and is not a reliable source (RS). As the Democracy Now article is a brief ephemeral piece mainly confirming that William Blum had died, I did not consider it worth retaining when the cause of Blum's death (kidney failure) became possible to cite using the NYT obituary, from Wikipedia's perspective a blue chip reliable source. The Democracy Now article relates no information which cannot be sourced from elsewhere. Improving the sourcing is what editing Wikipedia is about. Philip Cross (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thank you very much for providing your insight! 50.125.92.35 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Blum's socialist views.

Blum was known to have very socialist/anti-capitalist views. Yet I have noticed it is not mentioned anywhere in the page. One edit that mentioned it was removed. 174.215.161.120 (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)