Helen Thomas and KeptSouth Options

[EricBarbour]

Has anyone else been following this?

Her BLP got very little attention, until the week of 4 June--shortly after she made her comments about Israelis "going back to where they came from". Just in the week of 4 June, her BLP was edited more than 400 times. During that period, it went from 8,346 bytes to about 34,000 bytes.

And oh, BTW, until June 14, David Nesenoff did not have any significance on Wikipedia. Now, he has a 27k-byte BLP. All because of the video he posted of Thomas. Since when does that rabbi suddenly deserve a BLP?

The Nesenoff BLP is almost entirely the product of an ARS member named KeptSouth (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Look thru his contributions. They have a remarkable consistency. He only messes with articles about right-wing pundits, Sarah Palin, IBM and the Holocaust, assorted Muslim terrorist activities, and that Gaza flotilla clash business. And oh yeah, Helen Thomas's BLP.

Who says Wikipedia has a purely "left wing bias"? Here's a dedicated editor who is apparently pushing a classic neocon teabag evangelical-Christian pro-Israel POV, however carefully. And nobody on WP says "boo" to him.

(Wanna see some rather disturbing stuff? Read the comments below this article. Then have a look at Nesenoff's website.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Milton Roe]

Has anyone else been following this?

Her BLP got very little attention, until the week of 4 June--shortly after she made her comments about Israelis "going back to where they came from". Just in the week of 4 June, her BLP was edited more than 400 times. During that period, it went from 8,346 bytes to about 34,000 bytes.

And oh, BTW, until June 14, David Nesenoff did not have any significance on Wikipedia. Now, he has a 27k-byte BLP. All because of the video he posted of Thomas. Since when does that rabbi suddenly deserve a BLP?

The Nesenoff BLP is almost entirely the product of an ARS member named KeptSouth (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Look thru his contributions. They have a remarkable consistency. He only messes with articles about right-wing pundits, Sarah Palin, IBM and the Holocaust, assorted Muslim terrorist activities, and that Gaza flotilla clash business. And oh yeah, Helen Thomas's BLP.

Who says Wikipedia has a purely "left wing bias"? Here's a dedicated editor who is apparently pushing a classic neocon teabag evangelical-Christian pro-Israel POV, however carefully. And nobody on WP says "boo" to him.

(Wanna see some rather disturbing stuff? Read the comments below this article. Then have a look at Nesenoff's website.)

Somebody has to say this, and I've said it before, so here it is again.

Wikipedia has a pro-Jewish POV. Not completely, but the bias is palpable. They're usually fairly leftish because usually so are the Jews. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) But when it involves Israel, the viewpoint swings "right" as in "shoot em all, and let YHWH sort em out". And of course, due to the Christian Fundie evangelical Zionist-supporters, who are "rightwing" Republicans who are trying to bring the end of the world in, a little faster. Their only point of contact with Jewish-influenced politics (which otherwise they fight ferociously in the form of the ACLU) is Israel. Otherwise they have NOTHING in common. Zip.

The "neocons" were mostly a bunch of pro-Israel Jewish persons like Paul Wolfowitz, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, etc. They are "conservatives" only in being in favor of a powerful US military to kick ass against the enemies of Israel (see the second Iraq war, and basically war with anybody Muslim). Otherwise, they really aren't "conservative" at all. See above about the only point of common interest with the Right. The "neocons" have no domestic policy for a very good reason, because if they did, they'd reveal that it's all Leftist. Since they are, after all, Jewish.

Okay, I said it. Call me a Nazi for it if you like, but it's all true. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

More Nutzi than Nazi, I guess.

I've never seen anything remotely Leftist or Liberal about Wikipedia.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Milton Roe]

More Nutzi than Nazi, I guess.

I've never seen anything remotely Leftist or Liberal about Wikipedia.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Oh, come on. Take any issue that divides the Right from the Left in American politics, and take a look at the coverage of it in WP, and see which side and which viewpoint gets the crap kicked out of them, ala Global Warming.

[Jon Awbrey]

More Nutzi than Nazi, I guess.

I've never seen anything remotely Leftist or Liberal about Wikipedia.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Oh, come on. Take any issue that divides the Right from the Left in American politics, and take a look at the coverage of it in WP, and see which side and which viewpoint gets the crap kicked out of them, ala Global Warming.

I guess I judge Liberalism more by the character of a person's conduct than the prestidigitation of their play-acting. Words that come off Wikipediot fingertips are as φlakey in the political sphere as all their other pseudo-values. Full of zound and furries, nothing more.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Sxeptomaniac]

That various editors perceive WP as either liberal or conservative doesn't really say very much about WP, per the hostile media phenomenon.

The pro-Israel editors do often seem a bit better organized and set up to take advantage of WP policy, but WP's overall bias is likely to be somewhat to the center, as the regular complaints that WP is either rightist or leftist indicate it does not go far enough to one side of the spectrum or the other for either side to perceive it as "fair" ("fair" meaning conforming to their biased perceptions). I'm inclined to agree that WP overall tends to lean slightly left of center, though not problematically so, but that's my own opinion, obviously colored by my personal biases.

[Milton Roe]

More Nutzi than Nazi, I guess.

I've never seen anything remotely Leftist or Liberal about Wikipedia.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Oh, come on. Take any issue that divides the Right from the Left in American politics, and take a look at the coverage of it in WP, and see which side and which viewpoint gets the crap kicked out of them, ala Global Warming.

I guess I judge Liberalism more by the character of a person's conduct than the prestidigitation of their play-acting. Words that come off Wikipediot fingertips are as φlakey in the political sphere as all their other pseudo-values. Full of zound and furries, nothing more.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Oh, you're talking about classic John Stewart Mill classic "liberalism". The meta-position. Today we call that "libertarianism". It really has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi style liberalism.

[GlassBeadGame]

More Nutzi than Nazi, I guess.

I've never seen anything remotely Leftist or Liberal about Wikipedia.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Oh, come on. Take any issue that divides the Right from the Left in American politics, and take a look at the coverage of it in WP, and see which side and which viewpoint gets the crap kicked out of them, ala Global Warming.

I guess I judge Liberalism more by the character of a person's conduct than the prestidigitation of their play-acting. Words that come off Wikipediot fingertips are as φlakey in the political sphere as all their other pseudo-values. Full of zound and furries, nothing more.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Oh, you're talking about classic John Stewart Mill classic "liberalism". The meta-position. Today we call that "libertarianism". It really has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi style liberalism.

You can't possibly believe that selfish libertarians have any moral high ground. I'll hazard the always risky interpretation of Jon and say I don't think that is what he meant at all. Maybe more like inclusive, generous, neighborly and open hearted values. The liberalism that Garrison Keillor has been talking about for the last few years.

[Kwork]

Has anyone else been following this?

Her BLP got very little attention, until the week of 4 June--shortly after she made her comments about Israelis "going back to where they came from". Just in the week of 4 June, her BLP was edited more than 400 times. During that period, it went from 8,346 bytes to about 34,000 bytes.

And oh, BTW, until June 14, David Nesenoff did not have any significance on Wikipedia. Now, he has a 27k-byte BLP. All because of the video he posted of Thomas. Since when does that rabbi suddenly deserve a BLP?

The Nesenoff BLP is almost entirely the product of an ARS member named KeptSouth (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Look thru his contributions. They have a remarkable consistency. He only messes with articles about right-wing pundits, Sarah Palin, IBM and the Holocaust, assorted Muslim terrorist activities, and that Gaza flotilla clash business. And oh yeah, Helen Thomas's BLP.

Who says Wikipedia has a purely "left wing bias"? Here's a dedicated editor who is apparently pushing a classic neocon teabag evangelical-Christian pro-Israel POV, however carefully. And nobody on WP says "boo" to him.

(Wanna see some rather disturbing stuff? Read the comments below this article. Then have a look at Nesenoff's website.)

Somebody has to say this, and I've said it before, so here it is again.

Wikipedia has a pro-Jewish POV. Not completely, but the bias is palpable. They're usually fairly leftish because usually so are the Jews. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) But when it involves Israel, the viewpoint swings "right" as in "shoot em all, and let YHWH sort em out". And of course, due to the Christian Fundie evangelical Zionist-supporters, who are "rightwing" Republicans who are trying to bring the end of the world in, a little faster. Their only point of contact with Jewish-influenced politics (which otherwise they fight ferociously in the form of the ACLU) is Israel. Otherwise they have NOTHING in common. Zip.

The "neocons" were mostly a bunch of pro-Israel Jewish persons like Paul Wolfowitz, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, etc. They are "conservatives" only in being in favor of a powerful US military to kick ass against the enemies of Israel (see the second Iraq war, and basically war with anybody Muslim). Otherwise, they really aren't "conservative" at all. See above about the only point of common interest with the Right. The "neocons" have no domestic policy for a very good reason, because if they did, they'd reveal that it's all Leftist. Since they are, after all, Jewish.

Okay, I said it. Call me a Nazi for it if you like, but it's all true. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

What makes you think you are a leftist? Israel had a lot of support from the political left in America, when there was still a political left, particularly from the labor unions. Now there is only the New Left, which is as much Leftist as as New Democrats are Democrats. The New Left has even pretty much abandoned its support of the Labor movement. Some bunch of leftists.

The reason that Israel exists is because during and after WW2 Jews had no other place to escape. When the war ended, the Jews that tried to return to Poland faced new pogroms, and the Jews in Germany, and elsewhere, were in displaced persons camps. If Western Europe and the USA had made a better effort to settle those people, very few of them would have gone to Palestine, there would be no state of Israel, and the whole mess that now exists between Jews and Palestinians would not have happened.

[Milton Roe]

Oh, you're talking about classic John Stewart Mill classic "liberalism". The meta-position. Today we call that "libertarianism". It really has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi style liberalism.

You can't possibly believe that selfish libertarians have any moral high ground. I'll hazard the always risky interpretation of Jon and say I don't think that is what he meant at all. Maybe more like inclusive, generous, neighborly and open hearted values. The liberalism that Garrison Keillor has been talking about for the last few years.

Well, there are selfish people, and then there are generous people. And then there are the third sort, typified by what will happen when the Clintons get to the Pearly Gates and St. Peter says: "No, no, no. You get in here by giving away your OWN money, not other people's."

The inclusive, generous, neighborly and open-hearted liberal-controlled congress gave itself a $4700 (house) and $5300 (senate) raises this year. At the same time social security COLAs are frozen because the economy is bad, don't you know. And medicare premiums are going up. (Congress doesn't have to worry about that, because they have their own medical insurance that never gets more expensive).

I'm not selfish. I just hate hypocrisy, and I do have some concern for justice as well as mercy. Mercy should come first, and justice second. But you can't just leave justice out.










(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/oldman.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Oh, you're talking about classic John Stewart Mill classic "liberalism". The meta-position. Today we call that "libertarianism". It really has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi style liberalism.

...which in turn has nothing to do with traditional Democratic Party liberalism. Nancy Pelosi subscribes to the ideology of Wall Street harlotry.

[Jon Awbrey]

You can't possibly believe that selfish libertarians have any moral high ground. I'll hazard the always risky interpretation of Jon and say I don't think that is what he meant at all. Maybe more like inclusive, generous, neighborly and open hearted values. The liberalism that Garrison Keillor has been talking about for the last few years.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he knew that — he was just being coy.

Card-carrying YDD (Yaller Dog Democrat) — never voted for a Republican in my life and never will. Texas was still a Democrat State when I left it — I must have cut the collective IQ in half when I did. And most of my time in college was under the gov'ship of Bill Milliken, a Republican who was Green before Green was cool — in GOP eyes today he'd look like a pea in a pod with Malcolm X for all the diff they can see.

The first wiki-politics I ever encountered happened by accident when I was trying to pin down a link to the friend of Charles Sanders Peirce whose name was W. Garrison and who edited The Nation. The YRPs (Young Republican Phrøøtcakes) I ran into on that little excursion told me all I ever needed to know about Wikipediot Politick.

And the soi-disant "liberals" are like all the other pisants in Wikiputia — utterly pseud in the link between their words and their deeds.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

[ulsterman]

Oh, come on. Take any issue that divides the Right from the Left in American politics, and take a look at the coverage of it in WP, and see which side and which viewpoint gets the crap kicked out of them, ala Global Warming.

I don't know how Global Warming is regarded by the Left and the Right in the US. No doubt the US is different from the rest of the world. In general it is not a left-right issue in most countries. I know left and right wingers on both sides. For example some right-wingers regard it as a hoax to try to interfere with capitalism; some left-wingers regard it as a hoax to try to interfere with the economic development of third-world countries.

[A User]

The reason that Israel exists is because during and after WW2 Jews had no other place to escape. When the war ended, the Jews that tried to return to Poland faced new pogroms, and the Jews in Germany, and elsewhere, were in displaced persons camps. If Western Europe and the USA had made a better effort to settle those people, very few of them would have gone to Palestine, there would be no state of Israel, and the whole mess that now exists between Jews and Palestinians would not have happened.

There were many attempts such as building a Jewish homeland in Uganda, Madagascar and north-west Australia, for example, before during and after the second world war, but all these failed because 1) the colonial governments realized they could no longer keep their territorial domains under direct control 2) many Jews simply didn't want to settle anywhere else unless it was near the 'Holy land'. Theodor Herzl, one of the founding fathers of Zionism believed that the resettlement of Jews to anywhere but the Palestine would simply be a temporary solution.

[Push the button]

a classic neocon teabag evangelical-Christian pro-Israel POV

What does the "teabag" part of that sentence mean or imply? It's a genuine question, my avatar aside!

[Kwork]

The reason that Israel exists is because during and after WW2 Jews had no other place to escape. When the war ended, the Jews that tried to return to Poland faced new pogroms, and the Jews in Germany, and elsewhere, were in displaced persons camps. If Western Europe and the USA had made a better effort to settle those people, very few of them would have gone to Palestine, there would be no state of Israel, and the whole mess that now exists between Jews and Palestinians would not have happened.

There were many attempts such as building a Jewish homeland in Uganda, Madagascar and north-west Australia, for example, before during and after the second world war, but all these failed because 1) the colonial governments realized they could no longer keep their territorial domains under direct control 2) many Jews simply didn't want to settle anywhere else unless it was near the 'Holy land'. Theodor Herzl, one of the founding fathers of Zionism believed that the resettlement of Jews to anywhere but the Palestine would simply be a temporary solution.

The modern Zionist movement was founded in 1897 (First Zionist Congress), and by the eve of WW2 they had accomplished very little. If a better attempt had been made to resettle the Jews who were in displaced persons camps into communities in Western Europe and North America few of those refugees would have gone to Palestine, and history would be different.

[Kwork]

a classic neocon teabag evangelical-Christian pro-Israel POV

What does the "teabag" part of that sentence mean or imply? It's a genuine question, my avatar aside!

Apparently just a comment about Tea Party support of Israel.

There are some of members of this list who hold New Left ideas in their inventory of preconceptions, and think that makes them Leftists. So far all that has actually been accomplished by the New Left was achieved in the 1960s, when their flag burning and draft card burning succeeded in destroying the credibility of the the entire Left with virtually all Americans.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The reason that Israel exists is because during and after WW2 Jews had no other place to escape. When the war ended, the Jews that tried to return to Poland faced new pogroms, and the Jews in Germany, and elsewhere, were in displaced persons camps. If Western Europe and the USA had made a better effort to settle those people, very few of them would have gone to Palestine, there would be no state of Israel, and the whole mess that now exists between Jews and Palestinians would not have happened.

The Brits did not set up Israel out of benevolence toward the Jews (see Sykes–Picot Agreement in order to understand the context for the Balfour Declaration.) It is also untrue that Palestine was the only available spot to relocate European Jews. I don't recall the Reliable Source™ for this, but I believe that a number of nations, in particular Peru, offered to donate land for this purpose, but the Brits quashed the suggestion. The last sentence in Kwork's paragraph is undoubtedly true.

[Jon Awbrey]

There are some of members of this list who hold New Left ideas in their inventory of preconceptions, and think that makes them Leftists. So far all that has actually been accomplished by the New Left was achieved in the 1960s, when their flag burning and draft card burning succeeded in destroying the credibility of the the entire Left with virtually all Americans.

Yeah, because Nixon had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam all along.

Go back to yer Saturday Morning Cartoons and your Uh, Nintendo Consequences.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

a classic neocon teabag evangelical-Christian pro-Israel POV

What does the "teabag" part of that sentence mean or imply? It's a genuine question, my avatar aside!

It is simply misleading. The Tea Party phenomenon is an unfocussed, bi-partisan, diverse grouping of people who are reacting for the most part to the bail-out, but are generally politically naive and subject to manipulation by all sorts of demagoguery. Despite all that, I think it is for the most part a healthy indication that the American population is emerging from years of apolitical complacency and indifference.

So far all that has actually been accomplished by the New Left was achieved in the 1960s, when their flag burning and draft card burning succeeded in destroying the credibility of the the entire Left with virtually all Americans.

Strong agreement here. There was a strong element of agent-provocateurism involved. Just check to see where the Ford Foundation money went [<cough> Mark Rudd, Chip Berlet].