Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:59:15 -0700 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Helga again Reply-To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C250E5.D464E4B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
1. For the record, I don't think that Helga is particularly anti-Semitic -- although she often comes off that way.
2. My take is that she pretty much discounts anything that distracts from or in any way disproves her assertion that non-Jewish Germans were the biggest victims of WWII.
3. For her the Holocaust is minor -- as are the Stalinist purges that ran into the tens of millions -- except those directed towards the Heimatvertriebene.
4. This also keeps her from seeing that there may have been long-standing resentments caused by German actions over a long period of time and began well before Hitler -- not that this is a reason for genocide or any other wartime or post-war atrocity.
5. She just seems incapable of seeing any of this in context because she's got her own agenda that borders on obsession.
6. It's because she can't see context that the rest of us have to judge and weigh what she says in terms of the big picture, and then make sure that it gets appropriate mention -- but sometimes not at all is appropriate.
Jules --------------------
I just started the subscription and the first thing I read is this message, which seems to be in answer to some other message, which I do not know.
J Hoffmann Kemp probably means well.
However
1a.I have to reject even the hint of the "not particular anti-semitic" and replace it with "not at all".
2a.I reject also "My take is that she pretty much discounts anything that distracts from or in any way disproves her assertion that non-Jewish Germans were the biggest victims of WWII."
I have never said anything like this.
3a. Have never said anything like that either.
4a. I see and know a lot more about things that she could ever read in her school books. Her books tell onesided stories, war propaganda, but not the full truth.
For example : There was a Daily Express Newspaper declaration March 1933: Judea declares War on Germany. This militant Zionist group has in 1997 been verified by other religious Jewish groups http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia article: Neturei Karta) as cause of WW II.
One has to wonder why any of this is being hidden ?
5a. If wanting to get answers and find out the truth is bordering on obsession, then I guess you could call it that.
However I believe I see the complete picture more clearly than she does.
6a. Editing or correcting etc is fine.
Control by censorship, keeping basic truth out, not mentioning it at all, leads to a warped picture. It becomes a lie.
I guess, one has to ask the question, does wipedia want to be like any other commercial enterprize, that only tells you, what the general public wants to hear or is there some commitment to be truthfull ?
H. Jonat
Hello Helga, and thank you for joining the mailing list.
--- Helga Hecht helgah@email.com wrote:
I just started the subscription and the first thing I read is this message, which seems to be in answer to some other message, which I do not know.
You can find the Wikipedia mailing list archives for August at this URL: http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-August/thread.html
Just look for the word "Helga" and I think you'll find all of the threads concerning you.
1a.I have to reject even the hint of the "not particular anti-semitic" and replace it with "not at all".
Good. I'm glad that's on the record.
2a.I reject also "My take is that she pretty much discounts anything that distracts from or in any way disproves her assertion that non-Jewish Germans were the biggest victims of WWII."
I have never said anything like this.
Perhaps you haven't said anything like this, but your actions speak otherwise.
I see and know a lot more about things that she could ever read in her school books. Her books tell onesided stories, war propaganda, but not the full truth.
Given that Julie is a historian and can read German, I suspect she has access to a broad range of sources beyond simple "school books".
For example : There was a Daily Express Newspaper declaration March 1933: Judea declares War on Germany. This militant Zionist group has in 1997 been verified by other religious Jewish groups http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia article: Neturei Karta) as cause of WW II.
One has to wonder why any of this is being hidden ?
It's not "hidden" that such a headline was printed. What is being disputed is your claim that this was a cause of WWII.
If wanting to get answers and find out the truth is bordering on obsession, then I guess you could call it that.
However I believe I see the complete picture more clearly than she does.
Your actions contradict your words. When I read your contributions, all I see is a one-sided perspective that is hostile to the views of others.
Editing or correcting etc is fine.
Control by censorship, keeping basic truth out, not mentioning it at all, leads to a warped picture. It becomes a lie.
Absolutely.
I guess, one has to ask the question, does wipedia want to be like any other commercial enterprize, that only tells you, what the general public wants to hear or is there some commitment to be truthfull ?
There is a strong commitment to be truthful. The problem, Helga, is that you ignore the many, many sources that contradict your positions... or you claim they were fabricated because of some sort of conspiracy. In addition, you have:
- consistantly ignored simple Wikipedia conventions (such as using English names), even after having them pointed out to you. - added long lists of rulers and geneologies to unrelated articles. - ignored the arguments made against some of the questionable sources you use.
Helga, you have a specific agenda to push, and you seem unable to step back and look at the wider picture, or work with other people who point out problems with your contributions and sources.
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
At 02:13 PM 9/3/02 +0800, H. Jonat wrote in response to J Hoffmann Kemp's post, Helga again
Most of which I have deleted
For example : There was a Daily Express Newspaper declaration March 1933:
Judea declares War on Germany. This militant Zionist group has in 1997 been verified by other religious Jewish groups http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia article: Neturei Karta) as cause of WW II.
One has to wonder why any of this is being hidden ?
5a. If wanting to get answers and find out the truth is bordering on
obsession, then I guess you could call it that.
However I believe I see the complete picture more clearly than she does.
6a. Editing or correcting etc is fine.
Control by censorship, keeping basic truth out, not mentioning it at all,
leads to a warped picture. It becomes a lie.
I guess, one has to ask the question, does wipedia want to be like any
other commercial enterprize, that
only tells you, what the general public wants to hear or is there some commitment to be truthfull ?
H. Jonat
First, let me welcome you to the list. You appear rather under a cloud, but no reason that should continue. The vast majority of what happens here is about Wikipedia in general not about you or any particular issue. I hope you begin to participate and help us solve our more general problems.
My information is that Hitler, for whatever reason, and it is very hard to figure out why, since he was raised in a part of Austria with almost no Jews, was obsessed with them and ascribed to them all sorts of qualities which to a person acquainted with Jews seem fantastic. The following is taken and partly quoted from recent biography of Hitler, the first volume, Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris, by Ian Kershaw, W.W. Norton, ISBN: 0-393-04671-0. (The one CBS is basing its planned miniseries on). In a letter of September 16, 1919 when asked by one of the participants in the courses of political education he conducted for the German Army in Munich for clarification of the 'Jewish Question,' he replied that antisemitism should be based not on emotion but on 'facts,' the first of which was that Jewry was a race, not a religion. Emotive antisemitism would produce progroms, he continued; antisemitism based on 'reason' must, on the other hand, lead to the systemic removal of the rights of Jews. 'Its final aim,' he concluded, 'must unshakably be the removal of the Jews altogether' Ian K cites as sources: Deuerlein, 'Hitler's Eintritt', 199; Joachimsthaler, 247; and Eberhard Jackel and Axel Kuhn (eds.), Hitler. Samtliche Aufzeichnungen 1905-1924, Stuttgart, 1980.
It may be that a small Jewish group as it contemplated the distruction of Jewry, "declared war" on Hitler's government in 1933 when he was taking power. But you say:
"This militant Zionist group has in 1997 been verified by other religious Jewish groups http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia article: Neturei Karta) as cause of WW II."
The actual situation is quite different. England had pretty much stood by as Hitler expanded the territory of Germany to include Austia and Czechoslovokia and built up his army. It was his invasion of Poland that triggered the war. It has always been England's policy to prevent any continental power from growing too strong, the balance of power policy, so no idealistic motives need to be ascribed to England, but this has nothing to do with Jews, who had they been given the chance, probably would have supported the national government as they did during World War I.
So it isn't the little footnote to history, that a small Jewish extremist group delcared war on Germany, that is objectionable, if it occured; but the broad stroke you make maintaining that this act somehow caused World War II by some 'butterfly effect'.
Anyway, welcome aboard,
Fred Bauder
Welcome to the mailing list Helga.
Helga Hecht wrote:
<snip some of Dr. Kemp's summary>
- It's because she can't see context that the rest of us have to judge and weigh what she says in terms of the big picture, and then make sure that
it gets appropriate mention -- but sometimes not at all is appropriate.
Jules
Helga, I think you should be aware that this is part of a larger issue that the mailing list has been attempting to address. How do we appropriately include all views, summarize concisely and accurately for casual readers, yet still provide comprehensive detail for the interested readers to form their own conclusions?
Many of us find it useful to examine specific cases for insight or inspiration on how to attempt to improve our approach. I hope you will keep this in mind as you review the archived material. The discussion is not intended as an attack or indictment of you or your knowledge and contributions although some of it could be interpreted that way; if one were not aware of the larger issues being addressed via illustration with specific situations.
If you search the archives regarding "troll", "24", "mirwin", "Michael Irwin", "Ark" or "infanticide" you will find further discussions involving similar issues. How do we include minority views or strong claims for which there is little detailed acceptance or evidence viewed as credible while building a world wide reputation for accuracy, reliability, and truthfulness that our readers can depend upon?
I have learned a lot regarding scholastic research, academic credibility, evidentiary standards, etc. from Dr. Kemp over the last few months. I would urge you to consider her criticism of some of your contributions as a constructive effort to maintain Wikipedia's reputation for being able to substantiate claims presented as factual truth or "history".
As one of our few professional scholars Dr. Kemp has perhaps shouldered an unduly heavy burden in fact and source checking and attempting to discuss our desire for accuracy and credibility with the general community of new contributers. To me it appears that appeals for assistance occasionally trigger a "lynch" mentality which should not be attributed to Dr. Kemp. This has been under extensive discussion as we attempt to learn better ways to develop a project consensus and propagate improvements through out the participating community and the Wikipedia.
We have similar controversy underway regarding some scientific theories. Some people would like to present their understanding of the natural processes governing our universe as "truth" or "fact" or dismiss more widely accepted theories. Obviously we have a responsibility to present the best available scientific consensus appropriately.
I agree with you that all information potentially belongs somewhere in the Wikipedia but I also agree with many others here that believe it should not all be given equal weight or front page billing with more widely accepted theories or scientific "fact".
I just started the subscription and the first thing I read is this message, which seems to be in answer to some other message, which I do not know.
J Hoffmann Kemp probably means well.
However
1a.I have to reject even the hint of the "not particular anti-semitic" and replace it with "not at all".
Excellent! I am not certain that I could meet the "not at all" criteria myself but I also attempt to be fair and open minded with individual people and regarding politically sensitive issues.
2a.I reject also "My take is that she pretty much discounts anything that distracts from or in any way disproves her assertion that non-Jewish Germans were the biggest victims of WWII."
I have never said anything like this.
I believe Dr. Kemp was defending you here against impressions that might have been given by other people such as myself. Please accept my apologies. I am glad you have confirmed her defense of your character.
3a. Have never said anything like that either.
4a. I see and know a lot more about things that she could ever read in her school books. Her books tell onesided stories, war propaganda, but not the full truth.
For example : There was a Daily Express Newspaper declaration March 1933: Judea declares War on Germany. This militant Zionist group has in 1997 been verified by other religious Jewish groups http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia article: Neturei Karta) as cause of WW II.
Surely not the only or primary cause of WWII?
The history I learned in U.S. schools spoke of many factors and causes all the way back to WWI and before which involved entire economies, continents, and governments.
While I can see how you might classify my education in the U.S. similar to: "Her books tell onesided stories, war propaganda, but not the full truth.", I harbor similar suspicions regarding your own educational access. Dr. Kemp, however, is a scholar with much deeper, broader, access to source materials than anything I have ever studied. Further, part of her professional responsibilities include estimating or making judgements regarding the relative reliability of often contradictory historical sources. Her long term success and reputation as a scholar will depend upon her skills in successfully determining and presenting the possibilities and probabilities that we call "history" from primary and secondary sources.
How shall you and I come to some mutual agreement on how to present our (I would accept Fred Bauder's summary as a better summary of my understanding than I can currently write.) opposing views of history; if we cannot usefully rely on Dr. Kemp and other professionals attempts or methods to evaluate the relative weights of various evidence?
How shall we include all views such that as additional evidence or new contributor's views and sources arrive we can tweak the Wikipedia to keep the presentation of all views, summaries, and cited substantiating evidence accurate and useful to most, or better, all readers?
One has to wonder why any of this is being hidden ?
Some have expressed the view that as an encyclopedia attempting to summarize all human knowledge and point to further detailed information (act as a general reference and starting point) we cannot give everything equal weight. Somehow we must treat the most important or general knowledge as most useful and important to the general reader and point to further more detailed subject material for those who wish further information.
Others, including myself, have taken the stance that there is no near term limit on the breadth, or depth as long it does not effect our perceived reliability for the general reader. I think most people in my faction have or will acknowledge that packaging considerations will limit the depth and detail to the media available such as: cd, dvd, or online access. Whether the available convenient one piece packaging will continue to grow in density and size as fast or faster than the full online Wikipedia is probably determined more by how fast and large the available community of contributors can grow in effectiveness.
This is why many of us feel it is important to learn how to work together as effectively as possible and continue to improve our individual ability to contribute productively.
5a. If wanting to get answers and find out the truth is bordering on obsession, then I guess you could call it that.
However I believe I see the complete picture more clearly than she does.
This is quite a strong claim. May I inquire as to the basis for this belief?
Are you a professional scholar in a related field?
As an educated layman in the U.S., my exposure to WWII is quite limited: routine high school studies, television documentaries, random magazine and books read on casual interest or whim, the occasional usenet debate etc. Still, to me the preponderance of evidence available leaves me with the impression that the powers involved in this world wide conflict would not take an isolated statement from a specialized media outlet seriously. Just as President Bush, or Saddam Hussein, would probably dismiss a declaration of War from the New York Times or an Iraqi newspaper. If an additional U.S.-Iraqi occurs it will not be because a few influential hot heads publish a statement demanding it. The underlying or root causes are numerous and widely understood and talked about. It would be misleading in fifty years for Wikipedia to publish that the initial cause of the possibly impending U.S.-Iraqi war was a newspaper story demanding that the Iraqi or Saudi people attack the U.S., even if this could be shown to have been influential in recruiting individual 9/11 terrorists. This would imply a single writer and publisher triggered a war that various tensions, economic, and political interests have been building towards for decades. Very misleading, partial, presentation even if factually correct. If selectively so, by design, then the very essence of propaganda.
6a. Editing or correcting etc is fine.
Control by censorship, keeping basic truth out, not mentioning it at all, leads to a warped picture. It becomes a lie.
I would agree with this to some extent. I would also like to see participation preserved even if it appears to "unbalance" our quantity of material available in the depth of details. Other people have raised the excellent point that we do not want to allow partisans of any kind to present a misimpression of the relative importance through sheer weight of participation.
A question I have brought up previously, for which I feel we do not yet have an adequate policy answer is: How do we preserve as much accurate detail as contributors wish to provide while providing a balance Neutral Point of View (NPOV) summary or presentation for casual readers?
I guess, one has to ask the question, does wipedia want to be like any other commercial enterprize, that only tells you, what the general public wants to hear or is there some commitment to be truthfull ?
It is my impression that there is a firm committment to remaining a non traditional activity which is not unduly influenced by commercial enterprise. We expect and hope that our valuable product will be utilized by commercial enterprises so that it is widely used and disseminated. The creation process, however, is not currently dominated by commercial or academic organizations.
Since we have a committment to truthful presentation of all relevant knowledge, information, sources, etc. we have been grappling with how to best reach a consenus on how to present the multitude of various versions of "truth" that people create, allege, discover, etc.
I look forward to your continuing participation in helping us resolve some of these detailed and general issues in ways that are beneficial to our project, contributors, and readers.
Sincerely, Mike Irwin
or is there some commitment to be truthful?
H. Jonat
Yes, there is. I think where you need to start is with a serious study of historical revisionism. I feel you have been victimized and misled in this area. Once you understand you cannot rely on the approaches taken then you can turn to more reliable sources. A part of the misinformation involved in historical revisionism is misdirection as to what relevant issues are and misplaced and distorted emphasis. I know it is hard to sort things out once you fall into the grip of skilled propagandists, but I think that's your path.
Wikipedia can legitimately set forth truths, what it will not do because of the editing process is allow gross distortions of the significance of a fact to distort a greater truth. So it's fine to point out that not all Jews support Zionism, just don't forget to mention that the vast majority do. A misplaced emphasis on things is hardly going to go unnoticed and unchallenged. A thesis that zionism somehow caused the war and the holocaust (even if advanced by a Jewish group) is simply not in accord with the facts. One of the historical revisionist websites makes much of fact that judicial notice was taken of the holocaust at the Nuremberg Trials saying that no actual proof was presented. Judicial notice is taken only of facts about which no reasonable person would disagree.
Fred Bauder
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org