Hi,
inspired by the recent discussion on non-commercial-use-only images, I
have proposed to change the text of the Upload page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Uploadtext
In particular, I think information on how the form works (or how to add
images to articles) does not really need to be there (people skip it
anyway if they think they know how it works, and if they don't, then
they will happily follow a link to find out). I think it is more
important to place information on this page that people usually regarded
as "not important" or "not necessary", as is the case with a detailed
description of the source of an image and the licence of the image.
Thank you,
Timwi
I think things are settled. The user was objecting mostly to the
inclusion of a link to his own web site in the article. His edits
were probably well-meaning but quite a bit heavy-handed. He has since
been unblocked and is certainly welcome to make further
contributions. My other comments are the talk page of the article.
Matthew Trump
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I see that this page is the subject of quite a little edit war. I
> know nothing about it one way or the other, and just wanted to bring
> it to the attention of a wider audience.
> > --Jimbo
> > ----- Forwarded message from arcadian127 <arcadian127 at
yahoo.co.uk> -----
> > From: arcadian127 <arcadian127 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:48:04 +0100 (BST)
> To: jwales at bomis.com
> Subject: Priory of Sion
> > Dear Sir,
> > Your definition for the entry "Priory of Sion" in
> Wikepedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion
> > is a mish-mash of romantic twaddle.
> > I keep trying to change the definition by creating a
> more realistic account but my version keeps getting
> deleted. Furthermore, the link to our website:
> http://www.priory-of-sion.com
> is part of the useless romantic definition
> > I do not want that article to use a Link to our
> website because we do not want to be associated with
> that particular "definition" - it is pure nonsense.
> > I have used a partly translated chapter from a book by
> Pierre Jarnac as the main part of my definition - no
> copyright has been violated because Jarnac and myself
> interchange each other's material - he uses my
> material freely in his books.
> > I enclose the definition on the Priory of Sion that is
> a reasonable definition below this message - Is there
> any possibility that you can make this version stick
> without it being constantly deleted?
> > Thank you very much.
> > Most Sincerely Yours,
> Paul Smith
> > > > > > > Pierre Jarnac, Les Archives de Rennes-le-Chateau
> pp.567-575 (1987)
> > > Historical Note on the Priory of Sion
> > For the obviously capable reader who has an uncanny
> ability to transform a tiny French village of 70
> inhabitants into the secret society capital of France,
> then the name "Priory of Sion", itself, appears to be
> a mysterious and untouchable entity. After the name of
> this organisation appears on the scene, one Pierre
> Plantard swiftly follows and with him a whole secret
> society seemingly hidden away for centuries
> re-emerges.
> > In reality, the name "Priory of Sion", given almost 40
> years ago by Pierre Plantard to an organisation
> without any financial goals, is hardly original. Not
> only is the name "de Sion" found close to where
> Plantard lived, hence the mountain in Haute-Savoie
> called, "Mont Sion" on the route to Annecy-Geneva,
> this name also goes back to a religious community at
> the time of the Crusades, whose demise came after
> several centuries on the outskirts of Orleans.
> > In 1967, those for whom this confusion was to be most
> profitable, bestowed upon themselves the legacy of
> this ancient order, one that was far from their own. A
> book called the LIVRE DES CONSTITUTIONS DU PRIEURE DE
> SION, allegedly published in 1954 in Geneva and which
> to everyone's great chagrin has never been seen (it
> has been established by Pierre Jarnac that this book
> never existed), claimed a link with the original
> religious community called "Sion". The only trace of
> this Phantom Book is to be found in - guess where? -
> the Bibliotheque Nationale in one of those mysterious
> pamphlets that were deposited in the 1960s under the
> name "Dossiers Secrets".
> > Where a historical connection does emerge is that a
> "Priory of Sion" was recorded as having existed. Only
> its real name was the "Abbey of Notre Dame of Mount
> Sion", or "of the Mount of Sion". Godefroi de
> Bouillon, in 1099, founded the Abbey of Notre-Dame of
> Mount Sion in Jerusalem; it was a religious community
> comprised of monks. Situated at Saint-Jean of Acre it
> subsisted until 1187, however, in 1291, with the
> Muslims reclaiming Acre from the Crusades, the monks,
> having lost their possessions in the Holy Land, fled.
> The last of the monks from this order went to Sicily
> on the invitation of Count Roger and his wife, the
> Princess Adelasie.
> > In France other monks of this community, who were
> living close to Orleans, had previously been brought
> back by Louis VII in 1149 when he returned from the
> Crusades. They started a priory of Saint-Samson of
> Orleans. They were given a donation and confirmed by
> Pope Adrian in 1158. By 1281, this community was
> already in decline as there are records that show that
> only two members were in their choir, then in 1289
> there was only one member. At this point in time the
> abbey was on the verge of extinction, but then its
> other members from Sicily came over to find refuge
> after years of persecution. This last community, for
> whom Henri IV offered to build an abbey, died out in
> the early part of the 17th century for various reasons
> such as lack of recruitment, ageing monks, no money,
> etc.
> > E.G. Rey, an archivist from Paris, living in Orleans
> during the 1880s became interested in the Abbey of
> Notre-Dame du Mont Sion. He found out that the
> archives of the Priory of Saint-Samson, repatriated
> from Sicily in the 14th century, were kept in the
> department of the Loiret, where they had been placed
> during the Revolution. Therein he discovered a Charter
> of the Acts for the Priory of Saint-Samson of Orleans.
> In particular, in the Act by Pope Alexander III there
> is confirmation that the Monks of Mount Sion are the
> owners of the Priory of Saint-Samson of Orleans. Rey
> was also able to compile a list of all the Abbots of
> Notre-Dame de Sion.
> > The only outstanding traits of this religious
> community are that they had an illustrious founder,
> Godefroi de Bouillon, and a religiously inspired name.
> Otherwise they were an Order without much history and
> void of prestige. Because of their relative obscurity
> they were probably chosen by Plantard and Co as
> perfect fodder for their bogus historical claims.
> > > Note from Paul Smith:
> > In 1989, following a period of retirement from 1984,
> Pierre Plantard revived his bogus Priory of Sion with
> a new Pedigree and Mythological History - the
> "Dossiers Secrets" version of the Priory of Sion was
> rejected as a fraud with it being written under the
> influence of LSD in 1967 by Philippe Toscan du
> Plantier - the latest 1989 version of the Priory of
> Sion had nothing to do with either the Crusades or the
> Templars but had rather been founded in 1681 in
> Rennes-le-Chateau.
> > Pierre Plantard also concocted a new and different
> List of Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion that was
> to prove his downfall - he claimed that Roger Patrice
> Pelat had been a Grand Master. When the French
> Magistrate Thierry Jean-Pierre investigated the
> financial scandal involving Pelat he ordered the
> search of Plantard's house in 1993 that yielded a
> hoard of documents claiming that Plantard was the
> "true King of France" - detaining Plantard for a
> subsequent 48-hour interrogation Thierry Jean-Pierre
> forced a confession from Plantard that the claim was
> made up. Plantard was let-off with a warning - and he
> was never to revive his Priory of Sion activities
> again.
> > Plantard lived in hiding between 1993 and his death in
> 2000. This was not the first time that Plantard was in
> trouble with the French Legal System - Plantard had
> served time in prison previously during the 1940s and
> 1950s.
> > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
> your friends today! Download Messenger Now
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
> > > ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I see that this page is the subject of quite a little edit war. I
know nothing about it one way or the other, and just wanted to bring
it to the attention of a wider audience.
--Jimbo
----- Forwarded message from arcadian127 <arcadian127(a)yahoo.co.uk> -----
From: arcadian127 <arcadian127(a)yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:48:04 +0100 (BST)
To: jwales(a)bomis.com
Subject: Priory of Sion
Dear Sir,
Your definition for the entry "Priory of Sion" in
Wikepedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion
is a mish-mash of romantic twaddle.
I keep trying to change the definition by creating a
more realistic account but my version keeps getting
deleted. Furthermore, the link to our website:
http://www.priory-of-sion.com
is part of the useless romantic definition
I do not want that article to use a Link to our
website because we do not want to be associated with
that particular "definition" - it is pure nonsense.
I have used a partly translated chapter from a book by
Pierre Jarnac as the main part of my definition - no
copyright has been violated because Jarnac and myself
interchange each other's material - he uses my
material freely in his books.
I enclose the definition on the Priory of Sion that is
a reasonable definition below this message - Is there
any possibility that you can make this version stick
without it being constantly deleted?
Thank you very much.
Most Sincerely Yours,
Paul Smith
Pierre Jarnac, Les Archives de Rennes-le-Chateau
pp.567-575 (1987)
Historical Note on the Priory of Sion
For the obviously capable reader who has an uncanny
ability to transform a tiny French village of 70
inhabitants into the secret society capital of France,
then the name "Priory of Sion", itself, appears to be
a mysterious and untouchable entity. After the name of
this organisation appears on the scene, one Pierre
Plantard swiftly follows and with him a whole secret
society seemingly hidden away for centuries
re-emerges.
In reality, the name "Priory of Sion", given almost 40
years ago by Pierre Plantard to an organisation
without any financial goals, is hardly original. Not
only is the name "de Sion" found close to where
Plantard lived, hence the mountain in Haute-Savoie
called, "Mont Sion" on the route to Annecy-Geneva,
this name also goes back to a religious community at
the time of the Crusades, whose demise came after
several centuries on the outskirts of Orleans.
In 1967, those for whom this confusion was to be most
profitable, bestowed upon themselves the legacy of
this ancient order, one that was far from their own. A
book called the LIVRE DES CONSTITUTIONS DU PRIEURE DE
SION, allegedly published in 1954 in Geneva and which
to everyone's great chagrin has never been seen (it
has been established by Pierre Jarnac that this book
never existed), claimed a link with the original
religious community called "Sion". The only trace of
this Phantom Book is to be found in - guess where? -
the Bibliotheque Nationale in one of those mysterious
pamphlets that were deposited in the 1960s under the
name "Dossiers Secrets".
Where a historical connection does emerge is that a
"Priory of Sion" was recorded as having existed. Only
its real name was the "Abbey of Notre Dame of Mount
Sion", or "of the Mount of Sion". Godefroi de
Bouillon, in 1099, founded the Abbey of Notre-Dame of
Mount Sion in Jerusalem; it was a religious community
comprised of monks. Situated at Saint-Jean of Acre it
subsisted until 1187, however, in 1291, with the
Muslims reclaiming Acre from the Crusades, the monks,
having lost their possessions in the Holy Land, fled.
The last of the monks from this order went to Sicily
on the invitation of Count Roger and his wife, the
Princess Adelasie.
In France other monks of this community, who were
living close to Orleans, had previously been brought
back by Louis VII in 1149 when he returned from the
Crusades. They started a priory of Saint-Samson of
Orleans. They were given a donation and confirmed by
Pope Adrian in 1158. By 1281, this community was
already in decline as there are records that show that
only two members were in their choir, then in 1289
there was only one member. At this point in time the
abbey was on the verge of extinction, but then its
other members from Sicily came over to find refuge
after years of persecution. This last community, for
whom Henri IV offered to build an abbey, died out in
the early part of the 17th century for various reasons
such as lack of recruitment, ageing monks, no money,
etc.
E.G. Rey, an archivist from Paris, living in Orleans
during the 1880s became interested in the Abbey of
Notre-Dame du Mont Sion. He found out that the
archives of the Priory of Saint-Samson, repatriated
from Sicily in the 14th century, were kept in the
department of the Loiret, where they had been placed
during the Revolution. Therein he discovered a Charter
of the Acts for the Priory of Saint-Samson of Orleans.
In particular, in the Act by Pope Alexander III there
is confirmation that the Monks of Mount Sion are the
owners of the Priory of Saint-Samson of Orleans. Rey
was also able to compile a list of all the Abbots of
Notre-Dame de Sion.
The only outstanding traits of this religious
community are that they had an illustrious founder,
Godefroi de Bouillon, and a religiously inspired name.
Otherwise they were an Order without much history and
void of prestige. Because of their relative obscurity
they were probably chosen by Plantard and Co as
perfect fodder for their bogus historical claims.
Note from Paul Smith:
In 1989, following a period of retirement from 1984,
Pierre Plantard revived his bogus Priory of Sion with
a new Pedigree and Mythological History - the
"Dossiers Secrets" version of the Priory of Sion was
rejected as a fraud with it being written under the
influence of LSD in 1967 by Philippe Toscan du
Plantier - the latest 1989 version of the Priory of
Sion had nothing to do with either the Crusades or the
Templars but had rather been founded in 1681 in
Rennes-le-Chateau.
Pierre Plantard also concocted a new and different
List of Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion that was
to prove his downfall - he claimed that Roger Patrice
Pelat had been a Grand Master. When the French
Magistrate Thierry Jean-Pierre investigated the
financial scandal involving Pelat he ordered the
search of Plantard's house in 1993 that yielded a
hoard of documents claiming that Plantard was the
"true King of France" - detaining Plantard for a
subsequent 48-hour interrogation Thierry Jean-Pierre
forced a confession from Plantard that the claim was
made up. Plantard was let-off with a warning - and he
was never to revive his Priory of Sion activities
again.
Plantard lived in hiding between 1993 and his death in
2000. This was not the first time that Plantard was in
trouble with the French Legal System - Plantard had
served time in prison previously during the 1940s and
1950s.
____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
----- End forwarded message -----
The article [[Hinduism]] presently uses several "for noncommercial use
only" images.
We had agreed a while ago that we don't want to allow such images. In the
time since, people have tagged all these images with
{{msg:noncommercial}}. Most of them are still in use. It would now be easy
to locate and remove them all.
However, I certainly don't want to get into an edit war about that,
especially when some people continue to insist that such images should be
allowed.
So we need to make this policy official ASAP. An official pronouncement
from Jimbo would be the most effective, failing that, we should hold a
vote (English only, I guess) on whether to allow such images.
Regards,
Erik
Okay, I screwed up. I moved Kirksville back to Kirksville, Missouri, by
cut-and-paste, then realized I'd goofed, and I moved the talk page
properly. Then tried to redo the page move, but it wouldn't let me
because of the talk page. So I moved the talk page back, and it still
wouldn't let me because of the page history. Would someone please
straighten this out? All that needs to happen is for Kirksville and its
talk page to be moved back to Kirksville, Missouri.
--
"That is one beautiful tree." -- John Wayne as Davy Crocket in the movie
The Alamo.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>> We can only come to understand that better when we come to
>>> understand Arafat's duplicity, and the anti-Israel
>>> propaganda that is rampant in the Palestinian culture.
>>
>> Ray Saintonge (Ec) mistook this for a quote from me, It
>> wasn't. Ray writes:
>>
>>> This seems like a blatant attempt to manipulate a text,
>>> or a series of assumedly accurate facts in support of
>>> propaganda for the Israeli POV.
>>
>> No, it isn't. Your accusations are angry and unfounded. On
>> Wikipedia, NPOV policy demands tha we provide a situation's
>> context. Context requires that we provide quotes from many
>> different people, at different points in their lives
>> (especially if they offer multiple contradictory
>> statements, like Yassir Arafat.)
>
> The word that I objected to was "duplicity". NPOV requires assuming
> good faith.
I think the objection is fair, but I disagree that NPOV requires
assuming good faith. That's good Wikiquette, but a bad approach to NPOV.
In my opinion, NPOV requires not assuming either way, just presenting
the facts. If somebody is figuratively talking out of both sides of
their mouth, we can discuss the relevant statements. But if dishonesty
or duplicity is alleged and disputed, then we need to present both sides
of that issue as well.
> I don't dispute that we should include quotes from many different
> people at many different times in their lives, but that too must be an
> orderly process. If something was said 20 years ago it may not
> reflect the person's current thinking.
This I have no arguments with. Not only do people change, but they also
have the capacity to believe things that others may find obviously
contradictory. Not just 20 years apart, but even simultaneously. Within
their worldview, most ideologies tend to be internally consistent. We
need to address the views of both the apologists and the critics.
--Michael Snow
Paul Vogel has been adding an anti-Semitic link to the Judaism page. I
explained in detail on the talk page why I think this is inappropriate, and
I deleted the link. Although some other users believe that such a link is
acceptable as long as it is clearly identified, I think if Wikipedia is
going to have any links to anti-Semitic material it should be on the
anti-Semitism page.
In any event, after I explained why I deleted the link, Vogel responded,
"Any hue and cry of "anti-semitism" or "nazism" etc. ad nauseum for such a
link is not relevant, if one is being hypocritical in actually allowing
similar pov and slanderous links on cosmotheism, or any other religion,
within Wiki articles.-PV " -- a response that ignored my explanation
entirely.
I replied, "I am not "allowing" slanderous links on the cosmotheism page.
Two rights do not make a wrong. If you have a problem on another site, seek
mediation -- don't take out your frustrations here."
And then Vogel made clear the anti-Semitic logic by which problems on the
cosmotheism page are really "Jewish" problems: "Aren't you? Each one of
those 4 slanderous POV articles and each one linked as "criticisms" on the
cosmotheism page have been written by "Jews", and you have not ever
protested and ever insisted upon their actual "removal" have you? The
problem is on THIS SITE, WIKIPEDIA. The lying hypocrisy of your own "ilk"
is responsible for this nonsense, and so it actually is YOUR OWN PROBLEM.
Unfortunately, there is no effective medication for psychological
projection on your and your own ilk's part, but, hope springs eternal!.-"
Do I need to explain my outrage? Vogel doesn't identify the people working
on the cosmotheism as wikipedians but as "Jews." He doesn't identify me as
a wikipedian but solely as a "Jew." And because I am a Jew, he holds me
responsible for what other "Jews" have done on another site.
This use of "Jew" as a slur; the identification of my "ilk" as hypocrites,
reeks of anti-Semitism. If this itself does not merit banning, I certainly
think some strong action should be taken.
Thanks,
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 3/24/2004
I sent a message to this list explaining why Martin Harper
(MyRedDice), and Mr Natural Health, needs to immediately
stop their campaign of reversions and politically motivated
mass deletions. Most of what I sent was a detailed
explanation of precisely why Martin's actions are a clear
violation of NPOV, and why they constitute censorship.
These explanations were not written by me, but rather by
Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder.
Jimbo writes:
>In the present case, we see why deletion is bad. We are
>left with a horribly broken presentation in which readers
>are unable to discover why it might be that, despite the
>PLO officially no longer calling for the destruction of
>Israel, and Arafat himself announcing a right to exist,
>the majority of Palestinians polled support the
>destruction ofIsrael.
>We can only come to understand that better when we come to
>understand Arafat's duplicity, and the anti-Israel
>propaganda that is rampant in the Palestinian culture. But
>because some supporters of Palestine are uncomfortable
with
>that material, it is censored from Wikipedia. No, I don't
>think censorship is too strong a word."
Ray Saintonge (Ec) mistook this for a quote from me, It
wasn't. Ray writes:
> This seems like a blatant attempt to manipulate a text,
> or a series of assumedly accurate facts in support of
> propaganda for the Israeli POV.
No, it isn't. Your accusations are angry and unfounded. On
Wikipedia, NPOV policy demands tha we provide a situation's
context. Context requires that we provide quotes from many
different people, at different points in their lives
(especially if they offer multiple contradictory
statements, like Yassir Arafat.)
You are still assuming that Arabs are liars, and that any
quote from them "makes Arabs look bad and Jews look good".
But that just is not true. The fact that you just don't get
is that many Arabs have views that differ from your own.
For instance, the Palestinian Authority has funded the
publication of Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf, and funds
teachers and preachers who teach holocaust denial. That
isn't an "anti-Arab" statement. In fact, to them these
positions are PRO-Arab. You disagree? Fine; if you can't
stomach reading views that you disagree then go away. But
don't use our encyclopedia to rewrite facts to make all
Palestinian Arabs look like left-wing pro-peace people.
Where I come from, this is called lying.
For the last year, many Wikipedians on this list have acted
in rage, and lashed out in mass-censorship, when facts have
appeared which showed Arab leaders to have views which are
not democratic, or are anti-Jewish or anti-Chrisitian. We
have been told by left-wing Wikipedia contributors that
these views are "anti-Arab and pro-Jewish".
The problem is that they are not anti-Arab, nor are they
pro-Jewish. They are just honest points of view from people
who happen to be Arab leaders. We have to allow our
encyclopedia the ability to state such views, even when we
disagree with them.
Ray closes his letter with a personal attack on me, which
clearly is encouragement for Martin and MNH to continue
damaging the encyclopedia. This is called biting one's nose
off to spite one's face. Should I respond in kind? Should I
find people who hate Ray and encourage them to violate
Wikipedia policy - simply to enrage Ray?
Some people like to talk the talk, but when it comes to
walking the walk many people here seem willing to dump NPOV
in order to tweak someone. That is unacceptable behaviour.
Robert (RK)
=====
"No one is poor except he who lacks knowledge....A person who has knowledge has everything. A person who lacks knowledge, what has he? Once a person acquires knowledge, what does he lack? [Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, 41a]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/