Removal of at least one slanderous publication.

15 Mar

After finding
last year a slanderous paragraph about Errol on the Hermann
Wikipedia page about Errol being anti-Semitic and various other nasty things and that a letter exists to proof this
I went to work and  requested this paragraph to be removed!  I had to repeat my entries several
times as Wikipedia removed my entries consistently and I re-entered it just as

Below is now the confirmation of
deletion of that paragraph
– small success, but one less slanderous entry about


My words below are in an edited format by
Wikipedia.  PROOF is the word to use! Also, read it carefully you will
notice that it is not slander when a person is dead.  How
convenient for all those slanderous ink slingers.

Talk:Hermann Erben from Wikipedia

Jump to: navigation,

Nothing but slanderous talk about Errol Flynn! It says about the
letter “if genuine”! If genuine indeed – is the key word! Is
there such letter? If so, it MUST be produced, where is it? Why even
speak about something that cannot be substantiated? Therefore it is only
hearsay and only slanderous talk about Errol Flynn, who never was
“ANTI” to any race, creed or color!

To the editor of this page! It says in your rules and
regulations that what is printed in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Your
statement of Errol Flynn's letter is not verifiable! Where is the
letter? If you are unable to produce this “letter” you should remove
this paragraph as it is not verifiable and only malicious slander! —Preceding comment added by Bariebel (talkcontribs) 23:25, 31 January
2010 (UTC)

Technically, it's neither slander nor libel because Flynn is dead (or that's how I
understand it, anyway)
. And – from what I understand – it is
verifiable, in that it's been quoted in a reputable scholarly biography
of Flynn. However, it is not relevant to an article about
, and so I have removed it. DS (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2010

— Tina


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  1. Anonymous

    March 15, 2010 at 4:52 am

    Congratulations, Tina!

  2. Anonymous

    March 15, 2010 at 11:31 pm

    Clarification: I think I still have a copy in my files of a letter where Flynn made a remark that many would consider anti-Semitic by today’s standards. I maintain there was nothing unusual about this and it does NOT mean that Flynn harbored anti-Semitic sentiments. It simply means he made a blue comment. Who hasn’t? A proper historical evaluation entails recognition of commonly accepted behavior circa 1930s-40s-50s males. Women were “dames” or “broads.” In any major city like Chicago or Boston we Irish-Americans were “Micks” and our Italian neighbors were “Wops.” Such language is considered politically incorrect by today’s standards. Flynn was speaking in colloquial terms that were common for his era. THAT is an historical fact that has been misrepresented (and misunderstood) by today’s breed of mamby-pamby revisionists who fail to grasp the big picture. Flynn was no Saint, God bless him, but he remains a fascinating and brilliant man to study; and I might add a man that demonstrated his love and compassion for humanity in many forums throughout his troubled life. Conrad pegged him right– an enigma. But anti-Semitic? Nazi spy? Homosexual? No, but a man like all men who at times may have opened his mouth or penned a letter that included a disparaging comment or two. Again, I ask you – Who hasn’t? And I’m sorry, no, I won’t be posting those letters because they are copies and don’t belong to me, nor will I share them, but numerous collectors other than myself have access to this information. As much as I hate Wikicrapia, Flynn did indeed make such comments in writing which are still being blown out of proportion all of these years letter. As L. Ron Hubbard once wrote: “The critic but follows the fad of a cynical and apathetic age.” And finally, to change the subject, aren’t all of you excited that Uncertain Glory will be in the next boxed set? I am! Best to all….

  3. Anonymous

    March 15, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    Hi Shamrock;
    I think you have slightly misunderstood my posting.
    I demanded that Wikipedia remove their slanderous posting of Errol and remove it as a Wikipedia entry, because they had no such letter and no proof – And they removed the slanderous entry!

  4. Anonymous

    March 16, 2010 at 12:01 am

    Thank you, I’m glad that Wikicrapia removed their slanderous entry. Slander, of course, being the utterance of a defamatory or misleading statement that damages a person’s reputation. I didn’t look at the Wikicrapia entry because I refuse to devote time to such a bogus website, but if you say it was slanderous I’ll take your word on it. Cheers!

  5. Anonymous

    March 16, 2010 at 2:05 am

    I have a scan of this letter, too.
    It is just an off-hand comment, as Tom says, jotted down in a letter during a moment of anger over a relatively unimportant issue. It was written in a hasty moment and I am sure young Flynn forgot all about it, quickly. His detractor's surely have not (in veiw of the facts of world history that followed) but those who knew Flynn well say he was never anti-simitic, or a racist of any kind.
    That wikicrapia didn't have the document to back up their entry is a breach of their own rules but having fought with them before I know that certain contributor's have their pet subjects and try to control what is written on those pages in ways that are not even handed, let's say.
    Whatever conclusion the contributor came to (without the benefit of showing a reference to the letter, or a reasoned explantion of its contextual history?) is suspect, and I think this is why a moderator agreed to remove the material.
    There is no doubt Errol penned the words in this letter but they should be viewed as nothing more than an ill-considered comment in a private letter that showed how naive this young man Errol Flynn could be about the newsmakers of his day.
    He did not have a Crystal Ball in which to look forward and see how evil Hitler was preparing to become. Few did, or Hitler might not have reached power, at all.
    Tip 'O the Hat to Tina for getting right in there and fighting the good fight for Flynn!

  6. Anonymous

    March 16, 2010 at 2:51 am

    Dear David – thank you so much. That is exactly what I am after, I caught them at their own rules and they had to delete it.
    I spend a lot of time in searching and finding derogative stuff about Errol and I go right to their jugular vein. Have you seen it? Have you been there? What proof do you have? Did you knew him? etc. etc. etc. and it works very well. Everybody is just repeating what they read some place and they have no idea about anything – just shooting their mouth off to feel important.
    I just keep going and right now I am concentrating on David Bret and Charles Higham and their websites. What I am posting to their websites you can see in our article “New EF Book”. The new book of David Bret has 67 books for sale for .98 cents each. What does that say for his book? A #one flop!
    I am working on my latest scenario, but I am not sure if this would be a good approach and I wonder if our authors could help me to formulate it better as I think we have some professional writers here on the blog.
    What do you think of this approach? It's a draft!
    Higham published many books about famous deceased people, which are derogative, but Higham merely provides a new line of fiction writing entertainment by shocking the public with outrageous fiction news about people they know and are able to relate too, certainly, a creative way of fiction writing and creating an impact, but the truth is non-existent.
    Higham writes these fictions about deceased people, because proof is not necessary as the law does not protect deceased people, under the law dead person have no rights, as technically, it is neither slander nor libel because the person is dead! Therefore, anything goes! All the accusations are merely fiction and have no resemblance to actual occurrences or facts in the said person’s life.
    The be-read and informed public is quite aware of these books are just being nothing other than a new form of entertainment.

  7. Anonymous

    March 16, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Tina! Bless your heart for sticking up for Flynn but I prefer The Errol Flynn Blog not engage in planned attacks against other websites although your opinion is highly valued here. What you do on your own time off the blog is up to you, of course! I am afraid that any sort of combined effort to place critical material on other websites will diminish the quality of what we do here every day.
    Make sense?

  8. Anonymous

    March 16, 2010 at 5:48 am

    Hi David,
    Yes, it makes great sense and I am very sorry please accept my apology. Maybe I better delete the article of what I have written or maybe you could delete my entry? I am extremely sorry and I hope you can forgive me!

  9. Anonymous

    March 16, 2010 at 10:01 pm

    Wiki certainly has its faults but are you sure you want to reference a clown like L. Ron Hubbard?!!

  10. Anonymous

    March 17, 2010 at 12:02 am

    Tina, yours is still a noble cause. I think your comments are insightful and clearly strike a chord with many of us who may from time to time respond with a knee-jerk reaction. I hope you don’t take those things personally. No offense is meant. A blog such as this creates a dichotomy that provides a venue for two distinctive groups, i.e.; the average fan and the analytical fan. One fan is not better than the other fan, although both have different approaches to their subject matter. With such strong viewpoints more than one of us at any given time plays the role of proselytizer. So keep at it. As for my reference to Hubbard, those that know me well (and, frankly, few do) are acquainted with my personal library where I have studied and quoted from various authors whose work interests me. If this is treason I speak it fluently. I don’t judge writers by the generally accepted – and often false – public perception, but rather by the words they leave behind. If I like it, I quote it. In Proverbs 9:12 it is written: “If thou be wise, thou shalt be wise for thyself: but if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it.” Y’all have a great day!

  11. Anonymous

    March 17, 2010 at 4:17 am

    Hi Shamrock;
    Thank you for your nice words, which I appreciate very much and the wisdom you have added.
    I think this Blog has wonderfully united members and there, at least I think so, no dichotomy. If we go a little sidewards David “The Wise” is always there to guide us back where it all belongs.
    I must admit that I am a proselytizer with a mission! I feel Errol got most of his life a raw deal, yes, he was a World Star and everything that comes with it, but he only could enjoy it at certain periods, which I call – life during Intermissions. Problem after problem followed him around, was it all his own fault or by his own doing? I don't think so, unless one is a masochist and that Errol was not. Much to often he was the play ball of envious and very vicious people, which brought him sheer horror! As he was not a meek man he lashed out. Furthermore, Errol in his early years had a shortcoming in education and was forced to become an autodidact to make up the discrepancy. His luck was that he was very intelligent! Although in some situations a deeper diplomacy would have warranted instead of the fist. One must not forget that he had a temper and had a very rebellious nature. If parental love would have been the foundation as a child he would have dealt in many situations entirely different. The lack of this ever so important emotion brought him a lot of shortcomings when and if needed and in particular at precarious situations. Very important not to overlook, as one never must forget his roots, Australian man are tough no-nonsense man, yet very gentle too! That was Errol in an extremely short synopsis!
    Now my mission! I feel he gave to the people of this world so much and I am sure I don't need to list his contributions of enhancing our lives with his presents. My mission, due to the slanderous maligning he had to endure during his life and after his death that I owe him for all the pleasures he gave to us by trying to give back to him as much dignity as possible and what ever I can do to restore as much as possible his distinction and honor!
    I know it is all the way up the hill, but so was Pork Chop Hill and it was conquered!
    I know I am optimistic, but if one doesn't try how will one know how to succeed!
    That's all for now! Have a great day!

  12. Anonymous

    March 20, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    Tina! You just got a little excited and who hasn't when talking about Flynn? You stand up to bully's and fight the good fight as we all do in our own ways. That's very admirable!
    I think we have earned a great reputation as a Flynn blog and if I have learned anything in life, it is that you get back the kind of energy you put out. If we put out attacks we will be attacked. If we put out truth in a positive way, we will receive wisdom.
    It is one thing to parody something as a way to bring out the truth, for example, and quite another to create and deliver an attack.
    Flynn's detractor's have felt the sting of all the new research and books, documentaries, and events that have placed Flynn up higher than ever before in the minds of his fans and film historians.
    For them, this is all negative, for us, all positive!
    It is much better to throw light than darkness, in other words, and that's what we do here and that is why we have had so many happy times and experiences together on an off this blog.