-----Original Message----- From: John Kavalos [mailto:johnkavalos@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 04:49 AM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] From Romanian Wikipedia, the Nazi Encyclopedia
There are some serious issues on Romanian Wikipedia, where a few Nazis have been taking over lots of articles, while the admins are supporting and defending them.
I tried arguing, but it's useless with such a horde of freaks.
The issue is spread on dozens of articles and I choose for example, one of them, the article on Zionism:
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sionism
The article on Zionism is completely written from an anti-semitic POV, and it even has a section of comparison between Zionism and Fascism, one about propaganda in the "corporatist press" and one about "ethnic purification".
Here are some excerpts:
"Zionism is not Judaism, not Semitism (sic!), but a racist ideology which glorifies violence, just like Fascism"
"the Jewish Romanians of Bessarabia betrayed the interests of their country"
"later, Zionism got a fascist "colour". Vladimir Jabotinsky is an ideologue of terrorism, while the first modern terrorist state, Bolshevik Russia..."
"when their leave was refused, the same Bolshevik-Zionist-anti-nationals become refuseniks, then neo-conservatives by leaving directly to America, where they promote Zionist wars."
There's absolutely nothing that can be kept from that article. Everything is just the lowest kind of anti-semitic propaganda.
So I tried to revert to an older explaining that it's written from a neo-nazi POV. I got a warning for that, it was reverted and protected.
I don't want to waste my time negotiating with Nazis. Any solution, apart from stopping editing Romanian Wikipedia?
The solution is broader participation by Romanian speakers. So don't give up and don't engage in a meltdown on the site. Continue to advance alternate versions of the disputed articles, but don't overdo it.
The Foundation may chose to intervene, as I doubt this is an isolated problem.
Fred
The solution is broader participation by Romanian speakers. So don't give up and don't engage in a meltdown on the site. Continue to advance alternate versions of the disputed articles, but don't overdo it.
The Foundation may chose to intervene, as I doubt this is an isolated problem.
Fred
The majority of the sensible Romanian Wikipedians on the English Wikipedia don't go anywhere near the Romanian Wikipedia, and I don't blame them.
Imagine a Wikipedia where the admins are either uncaring, trolls or hopelessly biased. Thats what you're dealing with, and thats why articles such as
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimele_%C5%9Fi_ororile_comise_de_comuni% C5%9Ftii_evrei_%C3%AEmpotriva_rom%C3%A2nilor_%C3%AEn_timpul_evacu%C4% 83rii_din_Basarabia_%C5%9Fi_Bucovina_%C3%AEn_1940 "Crimes and horrors committed by communist Jews against romanians in the time of the evacuation from Bessarabia and Bukovina in 1940"
and
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comunismul_%C3%AEn_lume_%C5%9Fi_evreii "World Communism and the Jews"
still exist after months.
Fran
Francis Tyers wrote:
The solution is broader participation by Romanian speakers. So don't give up and don't engage in a meltdown on the site. Continue to advance alternate versions of the disputed articles, but don't overdo it.
The Foundation may chose to intervene, as I doubt this is an isolated problem.
Fred
The majority of the sensible Romanian Wikipedians on the English Wikipedia don't go anywhere near the Romanian Wikipedia, and I don't blame them.
That sounds like a big part of the problem. Viewed in the context of Nazism, an important factor in the rise of the Nazis was all those ordinary citizens who saw that something was wrong, but contented themselves by believing it was somebody else's responsibility to fix the problem.
Ec
On Apr 15, 2007, at 7:51 AM, Francis Tyers wrote:
Imagine a Wikipedia where the admins are either uncaring, trolls or hopelessly biased. Thats what you're dealing with, and thats why articles such as
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comunismul_%C3%AEn_lume_%C5%9Fi_evreii "World Communism and the Jews"
still exist after months.
Wow. Rarely does Godwin have such a blatant real-life exception... The online "sources" for that article are mostly in english, BTW, and you can gather some perspective about their publishers at their sites: 1. http://www.stormfront.org/ 2. http://wake-up-america.net/ 3. http://usa-the-republic.com/ 4. http://www.jewwatch.com/ 5. http://www.marxists.org/ 6. http://www.asymetria.org/
The article doesn't seem to exactly have an unbiased set of sources, or even a wide range of biased sources, representing differing perspectives on the article's topic, which could be detrimental to the pillar of NPOV.
Pillars are all wikipedia, not just language spaces, right? http:// meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
In the EN space, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources would certainly be a criteria that be applied to this article.
Is there a similar policy or guideline spelled out in the RO space?
-Bop
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org