WikiEN-l October 2003

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

91 participants
397 discussions

"Louis Kyu Won Ryu"
by Robert 01 Oct '03

01 Oct '03

Can someone get "Louis Kyu Won Ryu" to stop vandalizing my home page? He has no right to dictate what is on my page. (He probably is Martin, but I will pretend otherwise. for the moment; Martin has assumed other false identities in the past. However, the present issue is that no one has the right to dictate what is on our own homepages.) RK ===== "I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous". The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

1 0

a marketing company (re c mahan)
by Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] 01 Oct '03

01 Oct '03

Although I could not prevent you, I would find it personally abhorrent if you people wasted money hiring some marketing company to "give the wiki a facelift". If you got money to blow, go feed children in third world countries. I think the wiki is pretty enough as it is. As for a mascot, I think we should pick one of those tripped out deep-sea fish cuz, like them, we are bringing light to dark places.

2 1

Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 3, Issue 2
by Robert 01 Oct '03

01 Oct '03

Please stop Martin (MyRedDice) from writing on my User page. I am tired of his support of Jew-baiting in Wikipedia articles, but obviously Wikipedians feel that his behaviour is Ok. But I can, and do, ask that he stop harassing me by writing on my own home page. Martin's obsession with me is NOT funny; neither is his constant support of violently anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish bigotry. RK ===== "I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous". The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] [roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE aWIKIArticle--]
by Roy Royce 01 Oct '03

01 Oct '03

>From: "Eric Demolli" <demolli(a)unice.fr> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l][roy_q_royce(a)hotmail.com: --A Request RE >aWIKIArticle--] >Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:16:37 +0200 [RR wrote:] >>No one has yet used two clocks to measure the speed of light (one way). >I'm not a specialist, but there is no need to measure the speed of light as >SI time unit (the second) is defined by reference to the speed of light. (So why didn't anyone chew you out for not even having a Sig?) First of all, no mere definition can cause the outcome of any scientific experiment. Second, the definition that pertains to a speed of light is the one that states that - by pure definition - a speed of light is _exactly_ 299,492,458 m/s, but what speed of light is being defined to be an exact number here? It cannot be light's two-clock, one-way speed because no one has ever measured this speed. Thus, it has to be either Maxwell's _NO-clock_ speed or the one-clock, round-trip speed. I fully agree of course that Maxwell's c is very close to the above number, and I also fully agree that the round-trip, two-clock light speed is very close to the above number, but I cannot agree that the one-way, two-clock speed is close to the above number, and no one has shown that it is close. If you think that I am speaking some sort of gibberish here, then please recall the fact that Einstein himself obtained a value for the one-way speed of light that differed greatly from c. No, I am not making this up. See the next paragraph. In his book "Relativity_, Einstein noted that - given the truly synchronous clocks of classical physics - (and he was not able to prove that such clocks cannot exist) light's one-way, two-clock speed will vary with the observer's velocity (and Einstein wrote this mathematically as c - v for a departing light ray's speed). If you still want to protest, then look again at Einstein's little equation (which contained c - v as light's one-way speed) and tell me how he derived it. Also tell me what it means physically. I guarantee you that you will have to conclude that it was due to the use of the truly synchronous clocks of classical physics on paper. No amount of protesting or objecting from anyone can do away with the fact that Einstein himself obtained the result c - v on paper. And Einstein was not able to prove that this result will not _still_ occur truly synchronous clocks are used; all he did was force clocks to obtain his chosen value c, supposedly chosen or given purely by mere definition! It was certainly NOT given by any experiment using two clocks! This is why it is extremely important to separate the two-clock case from the other cases (i.e., from the one-clock and the no-clock ones). These three cases are fundamentally different. There are three different speeds of light. And the one-way speed has not been determined yet. (By the way, the second is 9, 192, 631, 770 cycles of some atomic radiation, so it is not "defined by reference to the speed of light," as you said.) One final remark: What is your personal prediction for the outcome of "the one-way light speed measurement by using two clocks"? ------RR------(you can call me a stupid crackpot all you want, but I speak with unforked tongue! :-) ) _________________________________________________________________ Help protect your PC. Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

1 0

RE: [WikiEN-l] Christian-Jewish reconciliation.
by Poor, Edmund W 01 Oct '03

01 Oct '03

Robert, Thank you for bringing this issue to the mailing list. I appreciate your efforts to keep important articles from getting mangled. By the way, it was I (Uncle Ed) who 'protected' the page. I think everyone would agree that the word "apostate" has a negative connotation. Perhaps it's best used in a sentence like: *Francis Xavier McDougal called Friar Travers an "apostate". Also, most of us would agree that the article should attribute the POV that Vatican II is a "heresy" to adherents of that view, rather than stating it as a fact or implying that it's 'common knowledge.' I have high hopes for a quick Wikonciliation of this issue. Sincerely, Ed Poor

2 1

Christian-Jewish reconciliation.
by Robert 01 Oct '03

01 Oct '03

An anonymous user has been attacking our entry on "Christian-Jewish reconciliation". He has added grossly anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic comments in the Talk page, and has been using the article to slander all Catholics as "apostates". This new person is trying to make the Wikipedia article present as a fact that Catholicism since Catican II is heretical, and that he alone understands the true interpretation of the Bible and of Church dogma. This new user appears to be a so-called "Traditional Catholic", who holds violently anrgy beliefs towards Catholics and Jews. In response, Martin (MyRedDice) and Stevertigo have egged this person on, and have protected multiple anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic comments. Stevertigo then added a bizarre rant on oil, the middle-east, Arabs, the USA and the State of Israel, none of which has anything to do with this article. (i.e. evolving relations between Christians and Jews.) It is just another one of his attacks on Israel. Stevertigo has also made bziarre and false accusations towards me, claiming that I am writing "anti-Christian" propaganda, and that I am being racist towards Chrisitans. This, of course, is a total fabrication. In fact, I am concerned about the way that this new user, Martin, and Stevertgio are allowing people to slander and harass Catholic Christians. Wikipedia should be a community where all people, including all Christians, should be comfortable participating. The way that this trio is allowing hateful slander of Catholics is simply unacceptable. To falsely accuse _me_ of Christian-bashing is shocking, as only they are attacking any Christians. Stevertigo has further added sections to this article that include total fabrications on Jewish views of Christianity. he then criticises Jews for these positions (which they never held in the first place.) And Martin is egging him on, for reasons I can't fathom. Finally, they protected this page. Please help deal with thos shockingly hateful anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish baheviour, and this total violation of all Wikipedia norms. Robert (RK) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

4 3

Re: Stevertigo should not be allowed to write about Jews
by Brian Corr 01 Oct '03

01 Oct '03

[Sorry about that lest email -- no html this time. Brian] I've been trying to follow this, so I decided to "research" by looking at the David Irving article Robert referred to. I'm new to the list, so I don't know who's on it or what they know, but I want to weigh in with the facts as I have found them (I know it's very long, but please read before making any judgments). In short, I think that Richard has taken things out of context Therefore I've put in below: 1) a short part of Richard's email -- specifically what he says Stevertigo says about Irving. 2) the link to the page history 3) the article before Stevertigo edited it 4) the article after, which was posted with the comment line: (This is a minor edit of about 2000 words... Definitely in need of some edits...) Thanks, Brian <http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bcorr> ================= At 04:36 PM 10/1/03 +0000, you wrote: >Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 09:36:23 -0700 (PDT) >From: Robert <rkscience100(a)yahoo.com> >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Stevertigo should not be allowed to write about > Jews >To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org ...snip... >3. [[David Irving]] is a much-maligned academic. He is a >"young >and talented writer," who has simply, and misguidedly tried >to point out that post the second generation of Germans >after the Holocaust "were no less victims of Hitler than >the Jews were." Irving then wants "to bridge the gap >between victor and victim." > >4. David Irving gave reasons why the numbers attached to >the [[Holocaust]] could not be authentic. He repeats >Irving's famous assertion: "more women died on the back >seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever >died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz." ----------------------------- Here is the page history: <http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Irving&action=history> ----------------------------- David Irving (Revision as of 02:22, 21 Sep 2002) < http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Irving&oldid=674726> David Irving (born 1938), historian well known for his Holocaust revisionism. Among other things, he denies that the Germans exterminated jews in Gas Chambers during World War II ----------------------------- David Irving (Revision as of 19:29, 16 Feb 2003) <http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Irving&diff=674731&oldid=…> David Irving (born 1938), historian well known for his Holocaust revisionism. Among other things, he has denied that the Germans exterminated jews in Gas Chambers during World War II. In a judgement by the High court of Justice, Irving was found to be a Holocaust denier and an "anti-Semite." A forgiving view of David Irving might see him as; a conflicted, ambitious, and talented, (albeit entirely misguided) young man, who tried to shake off, instead of reconciling, the legacy of German shame for his its Nazi past. He originally stirred up a hornets nest of very sensitive issues in a sensationalistic and irresponsible way, and in the light of the aftermath; the stinging controversy, the focused attacks upon his person, and marginalized prospects for future academic acceptance. Too quick to rush to the assertion of his premises. he published books, perhaps originally with little understanding of the kind of backlash they would cause. 'Bad press being good press', he continued to work under conditions of ever-increased marginalization, and rejection by whatever limited academic connections he had. His associations with racist or quasi-racist groups, began in an attempt to seek support for his work, while perhaps negotiating issues in a way that tried to reconcile disparate facts and social elements. Irving, however, often was neither courteous or tactful; nor in the least bit considerate of the passionate anger his books, theories and comments would face, and he often spoke quite "tastelessly." As he put it, : "I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's a legend. Once we admit the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and large numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent people died elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney? ...I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz." Criticism The critics of Irving claim that his scholarship is poor, the substance in his work trite, and its keen to make assumptions. In Richard Evans' Lying About Hitler, London University Professor David Cannadine was quoted (Re: Irving's first volume of his biography of Winston Churchill): "It has received almost no attention from historians or reviewers...It is easy to see why.... full of excesses, inconsistancies and omissions... seems completely unaware of recent work done on the subject... It is not merely that the arguments in this book are so perversely tendentious and irresponsibly sensationalist. It is also that it is written in a tone which is a best casually journalistic and at worst quite exceptionally offensive. The text is littered with errors from beginning to end." Richard Evans, himself, said: "Irving's conclusions were completely untenable. I thought his scholarship was sloppy and unreliable and did not meet even the most basic requirements of honest and competent historical research." Revisionism In essence, the judgement of Irving and revisionism, by most historians is that he and it represented a dubiously suspect middle ground between outright Neo-Naziism and Legitimate historianism, in some attempt to legitimize the Neo-Nazi movement. The general consensus on Irving, among established historians, is that he was in far over his head, making the typical mistake of amateur historians and scientists, of starting with a premise, and seeking to prove it, instead of researching, and letting the facts speak for themselves. This eventually led to his making academic blunders, and to consequent public denouncements, and thus "revisionism" was became a genre-of-sorts, sub-academia, attempting to tie together any work that countered any previously established research into Nazi history, as "revising" of history, and would attempt to include neo-Nazi racism in the same category as thorough research that might challenge an established fact. Irvings "revisionism" centered around the idea that Hitler did not know in any detail about the events of the Holocaust, and that the coordinated actions by Nazis to murder 6 million Jews took place at some administrative level, beneath the attention of Hiter himself. While it is true that Hitler, was clever enough to sanitize records connecting him with the concentration camps, the idea that the absolute dictator of a large, modern country, having long-established political and administrative connections and heirarchies althroughout Germany, Austria, and other Nazi occupied areas, is highly suspect. There turns out to be very little paper evidence indeed, of the administration of the Holocaust, regardless of any connections to Hitler himself. Irving, his critics say, in order to accept that Hitler knew of the holocaust, (disregarding, for the moment, any direct role he may have had in its orchestration), would be, in essence, saying that Hitler was only a benign figurehead. The evidence supports otherwise. Irving was someone who reacted defensively to sharp attacks of anti-Semitism working with limited credentials - doing serious work, albeit with little assistance and connection to familiar circles. Working with limited evidence, such as the forgery of a "Last confession of Hitler", as the partial basis for some of his work. Irving claims this as a defense, that others have cited these false sources, and yet still recieve legitimate attention, despite a flaw in their publication. As the heated feelings about the Holocaust continue, but there has been some recent academic consensus on an important Holocaust issue: That in the late 1930's, Hitler had not yet planned to murder Jews of Europe, rather had hoped to forcibly move them out of Europe entirely. Only later, the theory says, after pressures from the war, did Hitler act to deliberately murder millions of Jews. This idea is contradicted by the that fact that the Nazis made prisons out of the Jewish ghettos, not allowing them to leave en masse. It is supported by the fact that there was not yet any devised way to kill and dispose of millions of people, in the camp furnaces. Only more recently, and in the context of debunking Irving, who claimed that it was impossible to incinerate and dispose of 6 million people, was it discovered that the Nazis had calculated that human bodyfat, after preheating, could provide the added fuel that would sustain the feasible operation of the furnaces. Irving v. Lipstadt David Irving, in 1996, sued writer Deborah Lipstadt, and publisher Penguin Books in the High Court of Justice for her book Denying the Holocaust, on the claim of libel. The verdict in Irving v. Lipstadt was short: 14.1 It follows that there must be judgment for the Defendants. This followed numerous court findings, including the counterclaims of his "anti-Semitism", of his being a "Holocaust denier", and of his misrepresentaton of fact in his books. On the issue of Irving's anti-Semitism, Mr. Justice Gray of the Queen's Bench Division, in giving judgment against David Irving in April, 2000 wrote: "[Irving's] words are directed against Jews, either individually or collectively, in the sense that they are by turns hostile, critical, offensive, and derisory in their references to semitic people, their characteristics and appearances. A few examples will suffice: Irving has made claims that the Jews deserve to be disliked; that they brought the Holocaust on themselves; that Jewish financiers are crooked; that Jews generate anti-semitism by their greed and mendacity; that it is bad luck for Mr. Wiesel to be called "Weasel"; that Jews are amongst the scum of humanity; that Jews scurry and hide furtively, unable to stand the light of day; that Simon Wiesenthal has a hideous, leering evil face; and so on... The inference which in my judgment is clearly to be drawn from what Irving has said and written is that he is anti-semitic." (Matas, David. Bloody Speech. Winnipeg & Niagara Falls, 2000, p. 64) ===In defense of== Irving has had, at least, one defender in Dr. Joel Hayward of Massey University in New Zealand. Hayward, responding to claims that Irving was unqualified, having never finished a batchelor's degree, by citing respected historians Gerald Reitlinger, Georges Wellers, Jean-Claude Pressac, and Walter Laqueur, as having unusual qualifications as historians. Hayward also wrote: "I have critically examined - keeping issues of truth, objectivity and bias at the forefront of my mind -- ALL his thirty-one books... [I have] been able to check his sources and they way he used them... I can say with confidence that I am as well positioned to comment on Irving's scholarship as anyone. My judgement: I certainly don't agree with all his arguments and conclusions, and strongly disagree with some, but I can't find serious flaws in his methodology and I have never found a single example of deliberate falsification of evidence. ...Deborah Lipstadt's book is hopeless [and] Gerald Fleming's [book] is easily the best of the anti-Irving books, but even that ultimately fails to prove falsification or improper consideration of evidence." Hayward's motivations, however, have been called as suspect as well: His masters thesis at the New Zealand's University of Canterbury, caused an uproar, in making the claim that far fewer than 6 million Jews, perhaps fewer than 1 million, perished in Nazi concentration camps; adding that Hitler could not be held personally responsible for any suffering experienced by the Jews of Europe. Hayward later apologized for the thesis, expressing remorse over the "mistakes I made as an inexperienced student", adding that he was "inexperienced in the historian's craft and knew relatively little about the Holocaust and its complex historiography." David Irving's 'Focal Point Publications' official website - Holocaust victims website

1 0

Re: Stevertigo should not be allowed to write about Jews
by Brian Corr 01 Oct '03

01 Oct '03

1 0

Stevertigo should not be allowed to write about Jews
by Robert 01 Oct '03

01 Oct '03

I really am unhappy with the way that Christian Identity anti-Semites such as Stevertigo are being allowed to push hatred of Israel and Jews on this e-mail list, and on multiple Wikipedia articles. I am even more unhappy about the way that several people are writing me privately, admitting to me that they too see huge amounts of anti-Semitism, but that they are publicly unwilling to say or do anything about this, especially in regards to Stevertigo. This man is a violently hateful anti-Semitic racist, and the way that so many people consider him a valuble controbutor onl serves to further the impression that Wikipedia is becoming an internet haven for anti-Semites, as well as people who Catholics and others. The following analysis of Stevertigo shows that he is a "Christian Idenity" style anti-Semite. What people do with this information will show whether or not anti-Semitism is considered acceptable or not on Wikipedia. Just stop allowing him to edit articles on Jews, Christians, Israel, etc. ****************** Stevertigo's latest efforts have been to whitewash that much maligned beacon of academic integrity, [[David Irving]]. I immediately removed the text, only to start a minor edit war and provoke censure for the act, even from people I believe acted out of good intentions. You might also want to see the essay on Irving that SV posted on his personal page. Before you react, here are some thoughts. SV is acting cleverly-so cleverly, in fact, that for a while I thought that SV was actually Irving himself. By the way, it's not that far off. Notice how, on the Talk Page, when I called Irving a Nazi apologist, he signed his response "The Apologist." I was up to three this morning, tracing his contributions, and their development is too sophisticated for the standard anti-Semitic gibberish that people post. In short, his argument over several weeks is leading somewhere. The points he is trying to make are as follows: 1. Anti-Semitism should be defined as taking extreme actions against Jews: killing them, maiming them, or hurting them in some other, physical way. Anti-Jewish sentiment is not anti-Semitism. 2. [[Henry Ford]] may have published anti-Semitic articles, but by this definition, he is not an anti-Semite. I call this stage, "testing the waters." He continues: 3. [[David Irving]] is a much-maligned academic. He is a "young and talented writer," who has simply, and misguidedly tried to point out that post the second generation of Germans after the Holocaust "were no less victims of Hitler than the Jews were." Irving then wants "to bridge the gap between victor and victim." 4. David Irving gave reasons why the numbers attached to the [[Holocaust]] could not be authentic. He repeats Irving's famous assertion: "more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz." By following this logic, 5. The Nazis could not possibly be anti-Semitic (point 1), because while they spoke about the Jews harshly, they did not actually do any harm. Therefore: 6. Who is responsible for the supposed imbalance between Germany and the rest of the world if not the Jews? As evidence for this, I quote Stevertigo's misquote of Chomsky on his homepage: "Those who express their fear and concern over manifestations of anti-Semitism among Blacks and others might be taken seriously if they were to pay even the slightest attention to what is said by their friends and associates. They do not." In other words, Blacks are justified for anti-Semitism because of anti-Black racism supposedly prevalent among Jews. In other words, anti-Semitism can be justified. Once again, we go back to "testing the waters." This argument is remarkably sophisticated-more so than, for example, Clutch's rantings. Stevertigo is using quite a few techniques used in top-notch propaganda efforts: * He is combining fact with fiction in sophisticated ways, so that readers immediately make the assumption that if one statement is truthful, the other must necessarily be truthful too. * He is appealing to the innate sense of identification with the underdog that most people have: notice his quote from Thomas (originally in Psalms, but who is gonna check): "the discarded stone is the keystone." * He presents as fact things that only people with specialized knowledge will know is wrong. In "Letter versus Spirit" last night, he wrote: The Hebrew word "Torah", in fact, similar to the Christian Old Testament, translates as "the Law." He got a little snide when I called him on that. * He is trying to drive wedges between people involved in the debate. * He is employing cynicism to fend off criticisms of him: "And due to my ties to the Neo-nazi Filipino hemp mafia…" * He is citing NPOV as a justification for promoting his agenda. * He is transferring guilt from the victims to the oppressors. For instance, "Even though they were only small children while Hitler was alive, they still shouldered the heavy hand of guilt - of War-raped mothers and sisters, of destroyed country, and a long lost sense of who they were." In other words, the poor German children watched their mothers raped by the Allies, their country destroyed by them, and their sense of identity "long lost." Poignant, painful imagery, but what the fuck is "long lost?" "Long lost identity" is actually a Nazi phrase regarding the lost of German culture because of Jewish infiltration, but who the heck is gonna know that unless they actually studied the history. * He is claiming to take a middle ground between two extremes: "I think Irving represents an important middle ground between victim and victim." In other words, Nazis should be rejected (or at least at this point, their arguments should be rejected), but so should Jews, because the two represent extremes. Please understand that we will not change SV's mind. He is too steeped in his belief system for that. My concern is that he is fooling others. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

5 4

RE: [WikiEN-l] Stevertigo should not be allowed to write about Jews
by Poor, Edmund W 01 Oct '03

01 Oct '03

RK, Just to respond to your first numbered point, re the statement: * Anti-Jewish sentiment is not anti-Semitism. I'm fairly sure that anti-Semitism is generally held to include "anti-Jewish sentiment". I faintly recall that at one point, the [[anti-Semitism]] article even defined it that way. Those who advocate a different DEFINITION of the term are welcome to their POV, of course, but any non-standard (or controversial) usage should be marked as such. I'm sure we can reach a harmonious resolution of this issue, through calm discussion just like this. Keep up the good work! Ed Poor

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l October 2003