Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: guy

Have a look at this article, where Vulturell is doing sterling work against a concerted campaign by Grace Note and others, including someone who doesn't like people ganging up on her.

It seems that uniquely among ethnic lists, even among lists of Jews, this list cannot include anyone unless they are explicitly described as Jewish. And it's no good having a reference that says their parents were both Jewish.

In an attempt to minimise criticism, Vulturell's even had to change the name of the list, putting it out of line with every other Jewish and ethnic list on Wikipedia!

Posted by: CDRome

Wikipedia cabal types favor listings of individual Jews when only when "positive". When they deem listing the person's Jewish background as negative, they will censor it, using all kinds of excuses.

This is cleary seen, for example, in their efforts to make sure the Jewish roots of Bolsheviks are hidden. In cases like that, they are deemed "Russian". However, if a "Russian" scientist has Jewish roots, it's cleary listed.

Posted by: guy

So why don't they want the Miliband brothers listed as jewish?

Posted by: CDRome

I don't know. But they also fight the correct listing of certain Russian oligarchs as Jewish too. Sometimes they succeed, but other times they fail, as they cannot continually cannot keep encyclopedic facts out.

Mikhail Fridman
Mikhail Khodorkovsky

Posted by: jorge

I removed the the reference from Khodorkovsky as he explicity said he doesn't consider himself Jewish.

Posted by: blissyu2

Can we link?

Posted by: vulchy

That "someone who doesn't like people ganging up on her" is a real peace of work. She was just given a Barnstar by Gracenote for her "patience".

Thanks for the compliment, guy.

Posted by: Blu Aardvark

This is because I called her a troll, PoV pusher, and censor. It looks like I have been censored, judging by my talk page history. I could restore it now, but I'll wait until later.

Posted by: vulchy

Yeah, but.... she is all those things. And a backstabber, too.

If it's verifiable, why can't it be on Wikipedia?

Posted by: blissyu2

Oh Vulterell, who I presume "Vulchy" is - you were praised widely as a mediator. I have heard great things of you everywhere. Welcome to the board.

Posted by: guy

My pleasure. I am delighted to welcome one of the finest and bravest editors on Wikipedia.

Posted by: CDRome

Then you are part of the problem, because Khodorkovshy is Jewish, and those who protest his jail sentence bring it up constantly. As if he didn't commit tax evasion, and his sentence is "anti-semitism". What rubbish.

If he were a Russian scientist, you would not have removed it.

Posted by: guy

So, the current position is that Grace Note and SlimVirgin have created a new set of rules for admission to lists of Jews, which they have no intention of applying to other similar lists. ArnieP and Vulturell have protested vigorously but to no avail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_British_Jews&diff=next&oldid=42078335

Posted by: vulchy

Thank you for the compliments.

Well, the great thing here is pure psychology. You give someone what they want, and they don't want it anymore. When the dissent was higher, they were taking out one person after the next. Ever since I started indicating that I don't care anymore, there hasn't been one removal.

It goes with what I said to someone recently. SlimmyVirgin is not an editor - an editor contributes. She's a reverter. And once the pleasure's gone out of the battle and out of the reverting, she's off battling elsewhere.

Anyway, don't worry, if they make serious moves towards other lists action will be taken everywhere, on all similar lists that I can find. And remember, I work a lot faster than they do...

Posted by: Blu Aardvark

If a single editor opposes SlimVirgin, that editor will be accused of PoV pushing, edit warring, vandalism, etc - if SlimVirgin doesn't simply use the rollback feature and not explain her revert. If more than one user opposes SlimVirgin, it's "ganging up" on her. You just can't win against this PoV pusher, particularly since she has the support of her handful of meatpuppets (her own little cabal).

Edit: Anyon else see the irony in SlimVirgin's statement, "You've been allowed for too long to take ownership."? She is the WRONG person to accuse someone of article ownership - all a person has to do is check her contribs to see that she works VERY hard to keep articles at her preferred version.

Posted by: vulchy

I'll win. I'm not giving up against this horrible person.

Posted by: Blu Aardvark

Well, I didn't say it wasn't worth a fight. But in the end, you can expect some bullshit like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v._Ed_Poor.

Posted by: vulchy

That's what sock-puppets are for

Posted by: Blu Aardvark

You know, I really hate to say it, but I'm beginning to think that jackwelsh was right - not in his politics, but in his critique of a particular group of editors and admins. Far be it from me to judge these editors based on their religious beliefs (which I don't really know anyway), but there is strong evidence of collusion between Jayjg, SlimVirgin, Grace Note, El C, Sean Black, and others. I'd even go so far as to say that it's a coordinated PoV campaign. Look over the evidence in the Fuelwagon case, and the evidence related to the recent libelous attacks on this board, and it's quite apparant that, more or less, it is the same editors and editting pattern involved - although Jayjg has distanced himself from this one, at least, publically.

Posted by: vulchy

I believe there is too much politics on Wikipedia. All these arbitration committees, mediation, etc. are a waste of people's time. If they've got nothing better to do, they could go to the cleanup area, take over a letter of the alphabet, and fix up the articles.

All these committees, subcomittees, elections of various people to various posts - nonesense - they should be replaced by simple common sense. The articles are the most important. Action is better than words.

Posted by: blissyu2

I think that there should be part of the disclaimer:

"Note: The following users are permitted to write whatever they like, and any attempts to oppose them will see you reverted, and persistent opposing will see you banned"

And then have a secondary note about people who have control over certain articles (e.g. Longhair over Australian crime articles).

If people were explicitly aware of such things, then I can't see that there would be such a big problem with it. If we all knew that Snowspinner, Slim Virgin, Raul654 etc were allowed to run amok, then what's the problem? The issue is that we aren't explicitly aware of it.

Posted by: vulchy

Well, we are aware of it now. I mean, they can't spell everything out for us, can they?

Posted by: guy

One of the funniest things about this is SlimVirgin's alleged justification: "we're limiting ourselves to the ones we're directly interested in, because we believe they may pose a special threat to the people listed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_British_Jews&diff=next&oldid=42132802

So Greville Janner and Gerald Kaufman can rest easy now; they've been deleted from the list so nobody will know they're Jewish. But if that were really the motive, why delete people who are long dead?

Posted by: vulchy

Yeah, like the evil Muslim terrorist from outer space can't just scroll over to discussion and see their names there......

Posted by: blissyu2

I would have thought that becoming a potential victim of a terrorist threat would rely on something a bit more than being listed on a Wikipedia list. I mean, like I would have thought that they'd actually know them and a bit about them first. Calling someone a Jew when they are a Jew isn't exactly slanderous or anything, is it?

Posted by: vulchy

You know, what disturbs me the most is that some of the comments by SlimVirgin or IZAK suggest they think it's a near form of slander. Their January proposal seemed to indicate that they think that most Jews wish to hide their background and that Wikipedia is "exposing them" or some such thing.

I think the explanation is that they are both very old people. (Or at least very old compared to me)

Obviously, anything (accurate) that is on Wikipedia can most likely be easily found anywhere else on line anyway.

Posted by: guy

After all, the "worst offenders" in "outing" Jews are Jewish newspapers and yearbooks, not to mention web sites like www.jinfo.org. Oh, and the Encyclopaedia Judaica.

Lulu attacked the Jewish Year Book as a source because it was from a "sectarian organisation" (i.e. a publisher who publishes many books of Jewish interest) and would therefore, he implies, include many non-Jews to swell numbers. They're trying to have it all ways!

Posted by: vulchy

My goodness, did Lulu actually say that?

I do believe I've missed a bit of fun by not being involved in that tussle.

Yes, there are plenty of websites on the net that lists famous Jews, the best of which was Jewhoo. And all of these web sites were run by Jews. I'm really beginning to think most of the big detractors of the Wikipedia lists are just way too politically correct non-Jews.

Posted by: guy

Yep, it's still on the List of Jewish jurists talk page.

"From what I can determine in some searches, at least in the USA, the American Jewish Yearbook is a vanity publication of the American Jewish Committee, which is a sectarian right-wing organization. I'd put very low credit in this as a source of information, enough that I'd object to inclusion of a name if this was the only reference. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)"

After RachelBrown explained that when she said the Jewish Year Book, she meant the Jewish Year Book and not the American Jewish Yearbook, he added

"Oh, it appears that the British version of Jewish Year Book is a similarly sectarian publication of Vallentine Mitchell Publishers. I had not hear of them, but their web site makes them seem approximately equally reliable as the American Jewish Committee (i.e. very low, but non-zero). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)"

I'm sure that it will come as news to everyone that the American Jewish Committee is a sectarian (i.e. Jewish) organisation. I will say to SlimVirgin's credit that she slapped Lulu down on the the Jewish Year Book.