"==NPOV October 2004== 

 Anonymous edits are reverting to old version, which describes the Tribunal as being an investigation of U.S. Vietnam war crimes while blithely ignoring that no enemy war crimes were examined.  The old article also ignores the membership of the Tribunal and the assistance from North Vietnamese forces.      
 : Comparison of two versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Russell_Tribunal&diff;=6512899&oldid;=6512576 

 By the indications of the sources provided in that article, war crimes and conduct were indeed the topic of that hearing.  Additionally, are you complaining that each member of the Tribunal isn't listed? -Rob 

 : No, I'm complaining that the point of view of the Tribunal is not described.  It is relevant to any of their decisions.    
 :: The ""point of view"" of the Tribunal as alleged by the Tribunal, or as alleged by the U.S.?  Both views appear to be stated. -Rob 
 ::: The point of view of the world which the Tribunal had.  Remember hearing any teachers mention the Cold War?      

 The Tribunal members were GOOD.  They managed to make decisions on all these issues, and they all happen to agree with the aims.  But they keep talking about Vietnam, when there were two Vietnams.  Golly Gee, what a mistake to make.    
 :At what point were there two Vietnams?  Upon review of the Geneva Convention, there appears to be just one Vietnam.  I wonder if historians refer to the ""two Americas.""  In your opinion, with which of the two Vietnams does the U.S. presently have trade relations, and why?   Golly.  Gee.  -Rob  

  
 ==Tribunal membership== 

 You managed to delete some info, but forgot to note who won which of those awards to which you referred.   
 : Only deleted POV commentary.  And I didn't ""forget"" to note who won what - I leave extraneous and irrelevant information like that for more appropriate articles.  This is not an article about awards and their recipients. -Rob 

 ==Show trial== 

 In what way was the Tribunal not a show trial?     

 It wasn't a trial as much as it was a tribunal - where a judgement (pre-formed or not) is presented and supported.  Did it qualify as a ""public"" event?  If you wish to insert the allegation by some that it was a ""show trial,"" you should do so without the exclusion of other descriptors.  See latest revision. -Rob 

 ==Solzhenitsyn's Indirect Comments and Rhetorical Questions to Russell== 

 Why is one Nobel Laureate in Literature's (Solzhenitsyn) three direct comments to another Nobel Laureate in Literature (Russell) 

 (1) Not interesting 

 :Not relevant, you mean.  ""Interesting"" was never an issue.  I don't see any direct comments.  Only unattributed footnotes on some anonymous persons blog page that appears to be filled with out-of-context snippits of text that say absolutely nothing about the Russell Tribunal. -Rob 

 (2) Been removed twice by an anonymous user Gulag Archapelgo 

 :An external link to your personal blog on a Wiki-article page?  Trying to drum up website hit count, are we?  There isn't any copyright protected material on your blog, is there? -Rob   

 The medium of samizdat that Solzhenitsyn's work first appeared in was the only way for him to directly communicate because of Soviet censorship.   

 :Regardless of his method of communication (apparently by Blog...), unrelated comments to Russell would be better off, perhaps, on the Bertrand Russell article page.  You might try there.  Oh...  wait.  I see you already have. -Rob 

 *The alternative to the link is to write the Solzhenitsyn footnote comment into the article text  
 :I assume you mean the Bertrand Russell article text, correct? -Rob 

  
 *Solzhenitsyn gives two referances addressed directly to Bertrand Russell, and one referance directly to the 'Bertrand Russell Tribunal', challenging the Tribunal to use Solzhenitsyn foregoing text derived from testimony of Gulag witnesses. 

 Here is the complete material in question, text & footnote: 

 Part II Perpetual Motion 

 Chapter 2. The Ports of the Archipelago 

 {v.i, p. 534}….”Well, even if the Ivanovo Transit Prison isn’t one of the more famous, my friends, just ask anybody imprisoned there in the winter of 1937-1938, the prison was unheated—and the prisoners not only didn’t freeze