http://judicial-inc.biz/wikipedia.htm
Well, looks like we've been found out. Then again, maybe that's just what the Cabal wants him to think.
Christopher Larberg wrote:
http://judicial-inc.biz/wikipedia.htm
Well, looks like we've been found out. Then again, maybe that's just what the Cabal wants him to think.
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_cabals there is neither a "Jewish cabal" or "Zionist cabal", which means it /must/ be true!
I have to say that in that picture, Jimmy does look kinda evil......
On 8/24/06, Christopher Larberg christopherlarberg@gmail.com wrote:
http://judicial-inc.biz/wikipedia.htm
Well, looks like we've been found out. Then again, maybe that's just what the Cabal wants him to think. -- Christopher Larberg [[w:en:User:Slowking Man]] christopherlarberg@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:53:59 -0700, Christopher Larberg christopherlarberg@gmail.com wrote:
http://judicial-inc.biz/wikipedia.htm Well, looks like we've been found out. Then again, maybe that's just what the Cabal wants him to think.
w00t! Now I'm Jewish as well as a communist, nazi, censor, liberal, neocon, child, old man...
Guy (JzG)
On 8/24/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
w00t! Now I'm Jewish as well as a communist, nazi, censor, liberal, neocon, child, old man...
In short, you're a wikipedian :D
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:53:59 -0700 Christopher Larberg christopherlarberg@gmail.com wrote:
To a degree the guy does have a point. Wikipedia has a huge jewish/zionist bias on a large number of articles. (Newsflash: There's biased articles in/on Wikipedia?)
But the guy is ultimately wrong. Of course it's not that Wales & Sanger are secret zionist overlords. Wales, like many americans and many liberals, just has a rather common pro-israel/pro-judaism bias. Personally, I really don't see that jews on Wikipedia need a sort of protection that other religions/folks don't receive.
If I remember correctly, in the beginning of 2005, a self-proclaimed nazi community announced it'd go to "npovize" etc holocaust and judaism related articles.
In a, what I find, rather poor move regarding NPOV, Jimbo himself figured NPOV, the demographics of Wikipedia, and the usual editorial mechanisms weren't enough to keep Wikipedia from turning into a nazi propaganda site and brought on a ton of jewish people to administrator posts, and in addition amended a couple of policies that ignore NPOV when it is about stuff like holocaust denial.
As a result from this action, the jewish community is now a huge, powerful force inside Wikipedia, that turns it into zionist propaganda.
One might say "Well that's still better than nazi propaganda" but I am far from convinced that without this sort of intervention, the holocaust articles would now say "Some people argue the holocaust happened, while others don't", but I'm pretty sure the articles on circumcision and foreskin wouldn't deny that the penile skin is erogenous
(This is not a hyperbole. I'm not kidding. Did you think Holocaust would be the only article complex that Jews write on?)
All in all, Wikipedia *is* jewish/zionist propaganda, and it's all Jimbo's liberal-pro-judaism-biases fault :P
D> To a degree the guy does have a point. Wikipedia D> has a huge jewish/zionist bias on a large number D> of articles.
That's systemic bias: our Jewish contributors are very good writers, while our Nazi contributors are mostly vandals who can't understand NPOV. :-)
D> If I remember correctly, in the beginning of 2005, D> a self-proclaimed nazi community announced it'd go D> to "npovize" etc holocaust and judaism related D> articles.
A reasonable nazi would have done more to "NPOVize" than 1000 angry vandals, but I guess that being a reasonable person and being a nazi are mutually exclusive.
On 24/08/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
In a, what I find, rather poor move regarding NPOV, Jimbo himself figured NPOV, the demographics of Wikipedia, and the usual editorial mechanisms weren't enough to keep Wikipedia from turning into a nazi propaganda site and brought on a ton of jewish people to administrator posts, and in addition amended a couple of policies that ignore NPOV when it is about stuff like holocaust denial.
This is history as I ... do not quite recall it. References please.
As a result from this action, the jewish community is now a huge, powerful force inside Wikipedia, that turns it into zionist propaganda.
I will refrain from intimating that you are smoking bad crack unless and until you fail to show you aren't gibbering.
- d.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:30:08 +0100 "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is history as I ... do not quite recall it. References please.
Yes, it is history as *I* remember it. Someone else may remember it in a different, possibly more enlightening way.
I will refrain from intimating that you are smoking bad crack unless and until you fail to show you aren't gibbering.
I infer that I could give you 100, or 1000 links to blatant violations of npov, to jewish-controlled articles, to unreasonable administrative sanctions against users who opposed the "jewPOV" etc and you would find that "uncompelling, anecdotal evidence". If you have not noticed this sort of thing going on by now, you wouldn't notice it when hit over the head by a cluestick either.
And my crack is first rate.
On 24/08/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:30:08 +0100 "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is history as I ... do not quite recall it. References please.
Yes, it is history as *I* remember it. Someone else may remember it in a different, possibly more enlightening way.
No, I mean give any damn evidence whatsoever.
I will refrain from intimating that you are smoking bad crack unless and until you fail to show you aren't gibbering.
I infer that I could give you 100, or 1000 links to blatant violations of npov, to jewish-controlled articles, to unreasonable administrative sanctions against users who opposed the "jewPOV" etc and you would find that "uncompelling, anecdotal evidence". If you have not noticed this sort of thing going on by now, you wouldn't notice it when hit over the head by a cluestick either.
Cool. I think I'm about to exercise my Zionist cabal credentials.
- d.
On 8/24/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:30:08 +0100 "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is history as I ... do not quite recall it. References please.
Yes, it is history as *I* remember it. Someone else may remember it in a different, possibly more enlightening way.
This exchange should be framed and hung on [[WP:NOR]] as an example to the world.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:16:24 +0100 "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
This exchange should be framed and hung on [[WP:NOR]] as an example to the world.
Wasn't there recently a ruling that people who invoke WP:NOR or WP:NPOV to talk pages, user pages, or mailing lists, get crucified?
On 24/08/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:16:24 +0100 "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
This exchange should be framed and hung on [[WP:NOR]] as an example to the world.
Wasn't there recently a ruling that people who invoke WP:NOR or WP:NPOV to talk pages, user pages, or mailing lists, get crucified?
Please prove you're not an idiot before the end of today.
- d.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:15:50 +0100 "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't there recently a ruling that people who invoke WP:NOR or WP:NPOV to talk pages, user pages, or mailing lists, get crucified?
Please prove you're not an idiot before the end of today.
You're basically asking the impossible - the negation of an universal negative? (Proving you an idiot?)
But then again you ask for "evidence" - always a good habit. What I said was what I interpreted from once idly skipping through the archives of this very mailing list (with the goal of getting to know the people, especially Jimbo)
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ <- there you go
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027842.htmlgo <- there, a particular example of what I am talking about. But there's probably better material that I'm not finding right now
What I remember was that, to my surprise, Jimbo appeared to be rather nervous regarding certain threats of neo-nazi-sites (namely stormfront) to insert their point of view, and announced that he would not let this happen to some degree - for which he, I remember, has then been criticised by other members of the list: NPOV and the regular process should (and would, imho) have proven sufficient without resorting to outright censorship.
I also remember reading somewhere a presentation that, IIRC, WP:RS was at least partly modified or instated in reaction to this "threat." Or first instated as a reaction, then again modified to specifically include stormfront as an example for invalid / unreliable sources. However that is the presentation of a site that I remember as being rather Wikipedia-critic, (not a nazi site mind you) I don't remember which one though. Memories are blurry ;)
On 24/08/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
But then again you ask for "evidence" - always a good habit. What I said was what I interpreted from once idly skipping through the archives of this very mailing list (with the goal of getting to know the people, especially Jimbo) http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ <- there you go
Fabulous.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027842.htmlgo <- there, a particular example of what I am talking about. But there's probably better material that I'm not finding right now
That's evidence for your assertion that Jimbo "brought on a ton of jewish people to administrator posts"?
You appear to be a net negative to wikien-l. Bye.
- d.
On 8/24/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:16:24 +0100 "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
This exchange should be framed and hung on [[WP:NOR]] as an example to the world.
Wasn't there recently a ruling that people who invoke WP:NOR or WP:NPOV to talk pages, user pages, or mailing lists, get crucified?
That wasn't an invocation.
Sam Korn wrote:
On 8/24/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:16:24 +0100 "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
This exchange should be framed and hung on [[WP:NOR]] as an example to the world.
Wasn't there recently a ruling that people who invoke WP:NOR or WP:NPOV to talk pages, user pages, or mailing lists, get crucified?
That wasn't an invocation.
The crucifiction of one criminal insurgent 2000 years ago is a bit of a stale joke; Christians like Dabljuh should learn to get over it. :-)
Ec
Dabljuh wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:53:59 -0700 Christopher Larberg christopherlarberg@gmail.com wrote:
To a degree the guy does have a point. Wikipedia has a huge jewish/zionist bias on a large number of articles. (Newsflash: There's biased articles in/on Wikipedia?)
But the guy is ultimately wrong. Of course it's not that Wales & Sanger are secret zionist overlords. Wales, like many americans and many liberals, just has a rather common pro-israel/pro-judaism bias. Personally, I really don't see that jews on Wikipedia need a sort of protection that other religions/folks don't receive.
To the extent that such biases may exist systemically, that observation does not imply that the actions are systematic, nor does it warrant the imputation of motives. The relationship between American society and its internal Jewish communities has always been a mixed bag anyway. Let's not forget the [[MS Saint Louis]] incident from 1939; the underlying attitude to that event did not disappear in a sudden stroke of altruism on the part of the American government. In the years that followed until the creation of the State of Israel the tiger did not change his stripes.
I find it grossly deceptive when serious criticisms of Israel, such as its breach of the Geneva Convention by using cluster bombs against civilian populations in Lebanon, become twisted by both sides into fraudulent claims of anti-semitism. It would come as no surprise to find that many Jews, as well as goyim are thoroughly disgusted by the actions of the Israeli government. It would be a great help to the cause of truth if you desisted in your conflation of the two concepts.
Ec
Dabljuh wrote:
To a degree the guy does have a point. Wikipedia has a huge jewish/zionist bias on a large number of articles. (Newsflash: There's biased articles in/on Wikipedia?)
But thats not because of the software, its policy, or its people. Its because of 1) the "Islamofascists" dont follow NPOV and 2) other... fascists, who exploit the above weakness to their own views.
But the guy is ultimately wrong. Of course it's not that Wales & Sanger are secret zionist overlords.
Sophisticated reasoning (somewhat) is good...
Wales, like many americans and many liberals, just has a rather common pro-israel/pro-judaism bias.
Ugh. Liberals = pro-Israel? I dont recall ever hearing the current "neo-conservative" political administration called "liberal." And keep in mind that that (apparently "conservative") anti-war movement which probably could have derailed the Iraq War was scattered largely due to the problem that certain people were confusing anti-Israeli policy with anti-Semitic beliefs.
That "confusion" of course has often been attributed to Muslims (rightly or not) and its something which... others have exploited politically. With much success I might add -- a point which Ray pointed out quite well. So don't confuse Judaism with Zionism, which in fact has undergone extreme changes from its origins as a religious "homeland" movement to whats now largely an statist ideology (both having only the ethnic dimension in common).
There are ethnic biases on Wikipedia, just as in the world, so it should be understood that opposing biases are easily exploited to serve some short-sighted agenda. To acceptance of any bias means that the tie between NPOV and universality and therefore human rights will continue to be clouded by this same... exploited confusion.
-SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com