[Wikipedia-l] [Wikipedia-1] Helga again

[Stephen Gilbert]

Hello Helga, and thank you for joining the mailing
list.

--- Helga Hecht <helgah at 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