Talk:Rotary International/Archive 3

Rotary edit war still beginning

Hello CeeGee, I noticed that as a Rotarian you began a new edit war on Rotary. As I dislike the act of waring when having (social or community) interests into a conflict, I want ask you now to remove biased facts by Rotary on the Rotary wiki. This war is combined with AndyJones, as it was done by you both or three on the last time it happened.

All should be sourced per our verification policy. Per WP:RS#Company_and_organization_websites, information sourced from an organisation such as Rotary can be used as long as you do not copy biased material.

As Rotary is competing with other organisation on the charity market, these information cannot be verified. More of all, copy is forbidden -as long as I may know -

Thank you for your attention, Pierre Larcin PierreLarcin 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC) [cookie problems with ID, sometimes IP placed] 84.100.98.55 19:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your latest posting on my talk page, all what I can say is, it has been explained several times to you before by others. That means, nothing remains to me anymore to say. CeeGee 20:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. So I note that you refuse to explain your edit. Good. You know the purpose of my question. I thank you for the clear answer. PierreLarcin 22:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Rotarian presence on Wikipedia

About the objection "you cannot say that Rotarians are active on this Wikipedia, it is self reference" First, there is no self reference as Gribeco said, but the fact of a wikipedia fiddling. There is no reference to other wikis, but explaining the existence of Rotarians on Wikipedia.

Secondly, I think it is important to mention the presence of wikipedians as Rotary members, as some of make intervention on the Rotary wiki, and as I noticed, never in a critic way. So of course, as the wiki may be a kind of showroom for the Rotary club, I think that wiki users may think about the possibility of wikipedia fiddling by Rotarians.

a good example is user CeeGee of en.wiki or user Enguerrand44 on fr.wiki. They NEVER put critics or negative points (I ME MYSELF CREATED THE PARAGRAPH ABOUT THE WOMEN DISCRIMINATION and they transformed that in "a success for Rotary to allow women")

CeeGee is labeled Rotarian and Enguerran does wiki ONLY on Rotarian organizations with facts taken from internal sources. This of course lead to a biased presentation of the Rotary as we may not have access to sources to check "positive" points and underline "negative" points.Plus AND the fact that many contributors do wikipedia fiddling on Rotary as "normal users" without declaring that they are Rotarians. I think a good exemple is for me user AndyJones, who as an english lawyer and associated to the Shakespeare festival has the ideal profile to be Rotarian or a "Rotarian partner" as Rotary names the spouses and husbands.

PierreLarcin 84.100.98.120 12:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

to user Nick : I understand the need to withdraw all self references. But there is a fact : Rotarians on Internet develop a wiki on Rotary on the wikipedia, which is a main internet media, which may lead to a biased wikifacture. Maybe you could turn the info in another way ? Please consider that I brough load of info on the Rotary on their wiki, and completely changed (a bit...after real wars !) the unilateral presentation. The former wiki presentation, done by Rotary about themselves, is still viewable on the Indonesian wiki Thank you. Pierre 12:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pierre 14:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this is a self-reference, and it is original research and it shouldn't be here. See WP:SELF and WP:OR. I've removed it. Also, I've just noticed the odd name-check of me in the previous paragraph, but I can't think of any response. AndyJones 12:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You know Andy I BET you would do this. Anyway look to the chapter of Nazi germany.

Try to blank that if you can. Maybe a friend ? Rotarian greetings, Pierre 12:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RotaryIntLogo.png

Image:RotaryIntLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RotaractLogo.png

Image:RotaractLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Conferencemaker??

Can someone please tell me what a conferencemaker is? (Besides a piece of software) No such word in the english language. Are we trying to say 'attendees' or 'participants'? if this is the case, the list is somewhat superfluous & very cherrypicked. If it means something else, please explain.Bridesmill 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A conference maker is a person who gives conferences.

You maybe know that Rotary evenings are thematic, and sometimes invite a person for a thematic speech.

For example, you have Pinochet who gave regular speeches to the Santiago Rotary club.

Maybe you can write a paragraph on that Pinochet subject, BridesMill ?

I know that this subject is particularily hidden by Rotarians. I'll write it if you do not.

Have a good day,

[by the way I noticed you found a way to blank Mel Gibson ALSO, I restored it]

Pierre Larcin 86.73.32.5 02:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"conferencemaker" is not a word because you decide that it is; I hubly suggest you defer to someone who has English as a first or second language. The people you list under this rubric may have been invited to speak at various Rotary meetings - but that does not mean that they 'made conferences' (if thats what our word 'conferencemaker' means). If this piece stays, it should be renamed to "Notable Speakers" or some such; which also raises the issue - are all of those listed there actually Rotarians? Just because someone speaks to a service club, does not mean that either they are members or that they espouse the ideals of the club.Bridesmill 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well i do not remember that Lenine or Mr Dougatchvili gave speeches to Rotary luncheons.

It may me lead to think that Rotary allows speakers to give conferences if their values are compatibles with "Rotarian ethics" (which is not morality as ethics is the part of philosophy who discuss morality). Well, it seems that Pinochet is more close to the Rotarian "ethics".

As you know, all these are the same family : all conservative politicians : Thatcher, Bush, Ford, and even an old Ku-Klux-Klan man : Truman was indeed a perfect Rotarian. He was not Staline...

Rotarian greetings

Pierre 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

86.73.32.5 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not take this ad hitlerum This still does not justify listing any of these people as 'conferencemakers', esp. as it's not even a word in the english language.Bridesmill 18:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you take that ad vacuum. You may notice that the word is lecturer. Once again, you speak of your own visions of the wiki. Try to stay on earth please, we are not here in a Rotarian congress, following visions of a brave new world. Rotarian greetings Pierre 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the list for two reasons:

• Listing lecturers isn't done anywhere else
• This is only propaganda as the only listed lecturers are well chosen conservative speakers; They were chosen only to demonstrate a POV. The list doesn't correspond at all to the truth, it corresponds to the idea someone has of the truth.

--Bombastus 23:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry I did not see your "justification" earlier.

This list is not a closed list. If you find another famous lecturers, please enhance it.

You said that the list, you took the LIBERTY to remove it. Well no : you can't as these facts

exists that Ron Hubbard and others gave lectures to the Rotary Club.

When saying "This is only propaganda as the only listed lecturers are well chosen conservative speakers; They were chosen only to demonstrate a POV. " you insult me AGAIN.

I never did that as the list is open. I NEVER removed any "not-in-my view" fact. NEVER.

Pierre 17:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedy's aim isn't to publish everything but it must also select and organize the data. Listing lecturers for example isn't the goal of an encyclopedy even though there is verifiable facts. Without mentionning the self evident POV of the list.--Bombastus 07:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mel Gibson

What exactly is the substantiation for listing Mel Gibson as a Rotary Partner? Is he? besides the point that he donated some money - what's the point here? Bridesmill 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.rotary.org/newsroom/programs/060411_gibson.html

it fullfills the definition of partnership. Pierre 00:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You've GOT to be kidding -- by what definition? certainly not as per this site - Partnership -- your twisting of the definition is about as disingenuous as it gets. So I'm a "partner" of the red cross because I donated money to hurricane Katrina relief ops? If I am not, then I guess Mel goes as well. List him as 'significant contributor or donor' if you want, but I see no indication that he is actually a participant in their decisionmaking process.Bridesmill 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop being scorning, please : here you say "kidding", beneath you say "ad hitlerum". I find in your words some parts of that elitism that we humans all probably find in the syntax, words, actions and theory of the Rotary International elite members.

Well partner is NOT ONLY about economical business, you know. It is also in the compassion business. It has also a signification about sexuality. As you know, there is a sexual signification in the act of donating.

I find strange that you are so accurate about business, and you restrain the concept of partnership to formal business activities. Many business activities are partnership without being formal. For example, you have the cooperation between CIA and Mossad in the business of Abu Ghraib. Or you have the cooperation between ITT and the Pinochet regime. Or the cooperation between Fruit Companies and the "banana regimes" in South America. As a WASP, you may be understanding what I mean : these are partnership. So Rotary is Mel Gibson's partner in the compassion business of helping villages under the Mexican regime, for one million dollar. Maybe can we find some business result evaluation ? I suppose there is an "after" evaluation of that donation of Gibson to mexican "peones" ? No ?

By the way, my answer is YES, you are a red cross partner because I donated money to hurricane Katrina relief. You know here in France we have books about "charity business".

Rotarian greetings,

Pierre 00:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No definition of the "special partner" term has yet been given by PierreLarcin despite Bridesmill's questions. Therefore we have here in the article a § nobody knows what it talks about. For the same reason as for the lecturers list, this list should be removed:

• POV: Partial choice of name chosen by a contributor to illustrate his POV. See WP:POINT
• What is the use of a list of donators to an association? Am I to be added to the list if I donate to Rotary?

--Bombastus 07:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User Bombastus is marking my IPs

YES I use IP 84.w.z.y. Stop tagging me. This problem comes from change of cookie between fr.wiki and en.wiki

THEN you wiped-off the paragraph of Rotary lecturers (scientology founder, Hubbard and some pro-nazi others like Pinochet or Von Braun) and "conservative" mentions, while you define yourself as a right-activist ("liberal"). This is wikipedia political fiddling.

Pierre 00:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ollier and

As a matter of fact, I forgot mentionning WP NL where you also have been blocked for POV pushing. Thanks for taking into consideration the messages of the community. [1]

For French speaking persons, this page is also quite self-explaining.

Best regards

--Bombastus 11:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, user Bombastus, who defines himself as "a liberal" (and as he is from France, I reminder to the user that "liberal" in France means "right extremist" : for example Alain Madelin, in France is a politicus who defines himself as "a liberal" but who was member of the extreme-right and pronazi league "Ordre Nouveau"...check on Bombastus : he LOVES Alain Madelin), user Bombastus seems to LOVE marking me as "banned" (YEs : second time indeed in Dutch nl.wiki) from the Dutch version on the nl.wiki : indeed I was banned three days because of provocations of right-activists having the role of administrators there : these right-wing administrators did not like then that I remind them that Pinochet was HONORARY member of the Rotary. The apparent reason of MY punishment was there that I changed "Pinochet dictator" into "Pinochet president" of the Chile (or the reverse : I do not remember : in that case, Pinochet president or dictator, who cares ?)

My greetings, Bombastus : be warned : I will not tolerate that you blank facts about Rotary on wiki. Have a good weekend : I know perfectly know how you work, you "liberals" on wiki : you make provocation and your coordinate via mail for RV and for allegations on the opponent user.

I reminder to the user that Bombastus came here for these blankings, just the days where my 3-monthes bannish stopped on French fr.wiki

PierreLarcin Pierre 13:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you consider giving any argument for the list or for the useless detail you want to add? --Bombastus 22:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

two objections

1/ first you argue AFTER committing an edit war (more than three reverts)

2/ second these "useless details" are facts that YOU blanked. These are NOT useless and NOT details.

Pierre 08:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you consider giving any argument for the list or for the useless detail you want to add? I stated clearly why this list has been removed. As there is no logical argument against, the decision is closed for me.--Bombastus 13:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rotarians on wiki

They use sometimes a Rotarian wiki label. Sometimes no. Mentioning "Wiki" is a recursive mentions and this was abandoned. So we choosed that formulation : "online encyclopedia projects"

Stop blanking Bombastus and IF YOU HAVE TO BRING FACTS, bring them. Do not blank the fact that Rotarians are active on Internet, on wiki and that on wiki they are not obliged to declare themselves as Rotarians.

PierreLarcin

Rotarians go to the supermarket, sleep, eat, they even go on the Internet; Is it worth mentioning it..

Else, if you want to show there's a rotarian plot on WP, then bring sources and proofs. Else don't mention your theories..

Regards

--Bombastus 13:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I never stated of a plot, or a theory. You insult me and blanked without reason.

Pierre 17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I mentionned the reasons a few lines upwards. Rotarians use the internet, as you and I. And so what? Is it worth mentionning on an encyclopedia? If you have any valid reason, please mention it here else I'll continue thinking you indeed suspect a plot of rotarians on WP. --Bombastus 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I never stated of a plot, or a theory. You insult me AGAIN and blanked without reason.

84.102.229.189 08:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pierre 08:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you consider giving a logical argument? Except if some new elements are brought here; the discussion is closed for me --Bombastus 13:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

any logical argument for what ? That I never stated there was a Rotarian plot ?

YOU state, you have to proof. Rotarians are active on Internet. The proof is simple : they are 4 millions worldwide, all with comfortable revenues, they CERTAINLY are 80% to use Internet, and they FOR SURE use wiki. The point is that some wiki users do not allow "negative" facts related to Rotary International. Rotary is a very anecdotic wiki in the whole wikipedia. This edit war is OF COURSE very suspect. To know more, we should lead a deep inquiry about BridesMill, you Bombastus or AndyJones, but we have not the money for that. A chance for POV pushers, who hide their conservative values, speak many different langages as do Rotarians, etc. PierreLarcin 84.102.229.189 06:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting of the 1933-1938 German part

I brought some substantial changes to the §, with a view to show the complexity of the period and not to sum up the period as Rotary = Baddies. As a result I added some precisions about the chronology, reordered the facts to get something logical and brought a few details. Reactions welcome on this talk page if you disagree about something (or not). --Bombastus 14:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

this is a completely biased way to change the article to sustain the conservative vision of the Rotary as a philanthropic association. Did you ever read the book of d'Almeida ?

For a proof, at which page of his book does it speak that the Rotary went at repeated times to the NSDAP party court to establish its compatibility with the German doctrine ?

Pierre 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

to be clear, d'Almeida in his book links between nazi of Rotary and International link at THE END OF THE PERIOD OF 1934 and 1938, as Germany was closing herself on nationalist political views.

And he clearly states that Rotary was judged incompatible with Nazi NSDAP party doctrine by the 'NSDAP court' AFTER repeated attempts of "Rotary compatibility with nazi doctrine" by Rotarian German officials.

You transform that, begin international aspect first, and make the rotarians negociating at nazi court as International representatives. This is a complete deformation of the facts reported by Mr d'Almeida.

Pierre 08:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is my paragraph on the point you raise. Please notice all is in it

During four years, negotiations took place between the central headquarters in Chicago and the Nazi Party. These negotiations have been studied by a French scholar, Fabrice d'Almeida, who claim Rotary representatives advocated the cause of the organisation in front of the NSDAP party court. As example, D'Almeida claims that Dr Grill, Governor for the Rotary 73d district, argued that the German Rotary was compliant and necessary to the goals of nazi German government, at a time when Nuremberg laws were in application in Germany

Best regards

--Bombastus 13:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Organization of the article

The current organization of the article is:

• History
• Membership
• Philosophy
• Programms
• Politics
• Popular Culture
• Famous rotarians
• Organization
• Publications

This is clearly not ideal and I suggest this organization instead:

• History (+Politics)
• Philosophy
• Organization
• Membership (+Box with a list of famous members to illustrate each category of membership)
• Programms
• Publications
• Popular Culture

It will be implemented in the coming days if no major objection is raised. Regards --Bombastus 15:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "Politics" section should be separated Pierre 07:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is commonly accepted on WP than "critics" or paragraphs of that kind must be included in the main text and not be splitted away. Thus the logic of the history of the RI is preserved and there is no POV-forking. Do you have any reason for advocating a subsection for politics? This history part could be longer btw.--Bombastus 07:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

NO it is NOT commony accepted that POLITICS are critics, or whatsoever.

And the good reason to separe politics is that Rotary is NOT a political party

Pierre 08:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The two parts analysed in the politics § refer to a specific period of time and not to any global political opinion of RI as a whole. It is coherent to mention them in the history of RI and not isolated.

I'll assume that what you call "politics" here is stating that RI is, in your own words, a "conservative" club having "conservative" lecturers and so forth. This needs two precisions:

First, WP is not here to host any original research so only works recognized as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject are adequate. See WP:OR and WP:RS.

Second, there is no point imho in stating what the assumed political "line" of RI is; Indeed, this association doesn't donate funds to politician and doesn't advocate any specific politics. To my knowledge, it isn't involved in politics and the question of a possible political consensus among its members doesn't bring anything to the encyclopedy.

Regards Bombastus 14:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Again you are biasing. I said you that if you do a politics part, you have to separate it.

And stop insulting me, I have always expressed my opinion that this club was a conservative club on the TALK area. My opinions do not have to be expressed on the wiki page, and that is why I never blanked "positive" facts. The Arbitration request I acted againt you is on the point that you BLANK "negative" facts to "orient" [...] the wiki in your "liberal" or "conservative" POV.

For example, that is why you "request" a "complete" list of speakers that is impossoble to do.

You want to flood the fact that ALL foundable speakers are conservative. Because IT IS a conservative club.

PierreLarcin -- 84.102.229.189 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to the facts: Is there any reliable source except you to assert that RI is "conservative" and is it worth mentionning? If you have any logical arguments, please give them.

And note that "liberal" doesn't have the same meaning in English so use "classical liberal" or "libertarian". Last but not least, conservative and classical liberal or libertarian have different if not opposite meanings..

Regards --Bombastus 08:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Pierre Larcin

This article and its talk page badly need a break from Pierre Larcin's disruptive campaigning. Larcin should leave this article and its talk page alone for at least one month. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, PierreLarcin's IP have been blocked for one year on French wikipedia. You can find the details here if you can read French.--Bombastus 16:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For your info, Bombastus is blogger and libertarian French activist BanquiseTropicale, who committed several calomnies on his blog agaist Pierre Larcin and continues on Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.229.105 (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Polioplus Logo.png

Image:Polioplus Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RotaryCommunityCorpsLogo.png

Image:RotaryCommunityCorpsLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TRF Logo.jpg

Image:TRF Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ernest Medina who ordered My Lai Massacre Assistant Governor of a Rotary branch

From his article: "In 2004, he was an Assistant Governor of the Wisconsin and Michigan branch of the Rotary International service group." Where in this article should such scandals be mentioned? There seems to be no section for criticism even though some is collected under specific points. This discussion here is very long and seems to be dominated by very few editos, which probably shies away many others. Barcovelero (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Which "scandal"? Bradipus (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

the informations are splitted because Bradipus (a conservative activist), Bombastus (a libertarian activist) and CeeGee (a Rotarian) (plus another Canadian Rotarian) splitted them.

They smoooth the image of Rotary, for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.229.140 (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

List of members or of honorary members

I have deleted the list of honorary members for various reasons, but partly because this list was, in a sense, original research that is not allowed. I have tried to replace the list with something that looks more acceptable to WP rules while at the same time maintaining a good piece of the information that was in the list. The list of members should be deleted accordingly. Anyboby an opinion on this? Bradipus (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, Pierre Larcin is still around. The personnal attack in the comment to this revert leaves no doubt about it.

Ok, it is quite simple: the list was hidden for weeks or months. Deleting the list does not change that much. But while deleting the list, I did add a brief text that gives to the reader the core of the necessary information, and the notes put in the text do use a great deal of what was in the hidden list, inluding the reference to Pinochet.

I can see no good reason to go back to a version where there is less to see for the reader.

Besides, I would appreciate if personnal attacks could be stopped.

Regarding the list of members, I see nothing that could be done to save it from the original research sin. Except if someone finds a good reason to keep it, I will delete it shortly. Bradipus (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

there is no reason that we accept the role of CeeGee and Bradipus (who played the same censuring role on the French Wikipedia) who wages here an edit war to hide the "ugly" members of Rotary International. In France and Belgium there is a censorship around masonry and the fantasized role of FreeMason in the Rotary, due to linkage with nazi activities, it is their problem.

As far as I may see, no-one did blank the list of "good" members of Rotary International.

Wikipedia is not a media to support the fantasy that Bradipus may develop.

I think they should be quickly banned for the edit war they continuously wage here.

Please note that

• CeeGee is a declared Rotarian and NEVER brought here "negative" facts about Rotary
• Bradipus *NEVER* admitted a negative fact about Rotary.

These users are not positive and seem motivated by the hate of someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.229.42 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Pierre, read again what you wrote: your text does not contain a shred of argument about how the article is written, but is full of personnal attacks. And you speak about hate? La paille et la poutre, really! You know this is not the way it works, don't you?

What do you mean by "no-one did blank the list of "good" members of Rotary International"? The whole "honorary members" list was replaced by an explanatory text plus footnotes (and in the footnotes there is Pinochet, one of your favourite ones). Bradipus (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

First, do not call me pierre or PierreLarcin.

All right, how do you want me to call you, "84.102.229.242"? Or should I just say "84" (if it is not too familiar to you of course). Bradipus (talk)

Second, you lie, Bradipus : - just above you said "I will delete it shortly" - here you said "list was replaced by an explanatory text"

Yes, what is the problem? Where is the lie? The list of honorary members was deleted and replaced. "I will delete it shortly" refers to the other list (the list of members) for which I was waiting a bit before deleting it. Bradipus (talk)

As far as French version shows, you never added information on the page of Rotary International, you use the "reformulation" opportunities + arguing there is an edit war THAT YOU INITIATE YOURSELF, you use your politician relations with other Administrators on Wiki, to edit pages following your own politician convictions. As you seem to be a "liberal" belgian politician and AS LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS seems in Belgium related to Rotary (politicians as Richard Miller, Louis Michel, Michel Foret ), you use your politicial influence on Wiki to edit WP pages according to your personal opinions.

blah, blah blah, can't you post anything without personnal attacks? Bradipus (talk)

Bradipus is related to "MR" (abusively called "Mouvement Réformateur" as he ALWAYS smooth on French wiki the pages of MR Politicians : verify, wikipedians:

1/ Bradipus as a "liberal" activist on MR pages http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mouvement_r%C3%A9formateur_%28Belgique%29&diff=18032283&oldid=18032169 please note Bradipus superb/provocative comment for edit : "un inconnu qui a une thèse bizarre sur base du programme 2003"/ "a stranger with a bizarre thesis on the 2003 project/(political)program" which means that Bradipus know the political project

Please stop these personnal and pointless attacks. BTW, your paranoïd vision does not seem to take into account the fact that the programme of political parties is a public document. Bradipus (talk)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mouvement_r%C3%A9formateur_%28Belgique%29&diff=18031454&oldid=18031360 please note Bradipus superb/provocative comment for edit : "this funny thesis"/"cette these amusante"

2/ Bradipus as a provocative (see above) liar : Bradipus IS HIMSELF concerned by Pinochet, and what did Bradipus delete here  ? Rotarian affiliation... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augusto_Pinochet&diff=prev&oldid=190361495 and above he says : "you ...are interested in Pinochet" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.229.242 (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The information about the fact that Pinochet is a rotarian, although not very interesting, is still in the article. What is the problem? Bradipus (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A data is significant when it is RELATED to another data. By hiding datas, you Bradipus withdraw data from the view of Wikipedia readers. That's the purpose of your behavior on this wiki. Note that you NEVER added any data to the article. You always withdraw data, or rearrange data in a political way : yourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.229.140 (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

THE DATA IS THERE ! Is that clear enough? Is is there. It was hidden by somebody else than me weeks ago. It is not hidden any more. It is there. Look at the text. The data is there yeah, I know I am a bit repeating stuff here, but you do not seem to understand concepts who are contrary to your beliefs very quickly, do you?

And by the way, I did add data to the article, as I rearranged (and unhid) the text that had been hidden. By rearranging, and creating a new text, I, by definition, did add data. On the other hand, you seemed to have great pleasure in destroying a good deal of data that CeeGee had brought in the article. See how this game can be played? There is no point in accusations of destruction, except blatant vandalism: each person contributes to the article as deemed necessary to reach the best quality. In a lot of articles, this sometimes implies simplifications and reorganisations.

I note that, again, your message does not include any clear comment or argument or proposition in relation with the article. Would you care maybe discussing the article here, instead of our respective merits? Bradipus (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

my problem with you, Bradipus, is that you went to admins to say that I brought death threads to you, and to WP.fr. WOULD YOU ACERTAIN THAT, liar ?

If not, it would seem then that you "talk" issue is some manipulation, isn'it ?

By the way, would you maybe inform .en admins about the NUMBER of arbitrations you had on WP.fr ? Strangely, most of your opponents were banned from WP AND they were nor admins as you are...

Thanks ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.98.200 (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you are incapable to understand I will leave your text from which it is perfectly clear that you do not have anything to say about the article. If you have nothing to say about the article, you have of course nothing to say in the article (except if you want to list me under the famous rotarians or something like that ^_^), so please refrain from editing it in the future, except if you have anything constructive to say.

And as nobody opposed to my project exposed in my first message in this thread, I deleted the list of "famous rotarians". As a choosen extract of a list that can be found on the internet, the list is a non interesting piece of what looks like an original research. 14:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bradipus, you do not have to say that I am unable/incapable to understand (The idiot is me, or not me....) It seems that you try your provocative way to edit wikipedia as you showed the behavior on fr.wiki and nl.wiki. You are not allowed to destroy the collective work of Wikipedians.

You want to force your ownn choice to wipe lists, well wikipedians choose lists in the past... I suppose that these past behaviors are the reason why you wiped off my preceding comments here. Bradipus, are you always blanking what is a problem for you ? It seems you are rather pro-Rotarian, aren't you ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.98.200 (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is what Bradipus hides : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rotary_International&diff=prev&oldid=211841764 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.98.200 (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My specific issue is that you keep on posting on this page stuff that do not belong here. I explained 2 weeks ago that I was about to delete that list, and I explained why at length. In 2 weeks, you haven't posted one single comment on this project. Now that I have done what I had said, you revert me and apparently your sole reason for doing that it is me. You do not seem to revert an edition, but a person, as your sole posting here is directed at me. You should stop that because it will not serve your purpose. I recommend you explain here why you think this list is important and valid using decent arguments not adressed at the person who edited the article. Bradipus (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This last comment of yourse is a complete fake, Bradipus. Bring on date, enrich the wikipedia text on Rotary and you won't be reverted by me... Scanning the blanking work you did on the fr. wiki of Rotary International, it seems you're conditioned by your European taboos about Masonry, left-right activist, your own values, etc. For example, you could bring data to the wiki about special Rotary sites, Rotarian members renewal, criticisms by famous authors, medic programs, Thai Aid, etc.

You and you friend Bombastus, who seems to come here with you for same purposes, you never add an info until this day...You blank, for politician reasons, it seems ...84.100.98.200 (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had enough of this. Since weeks, you have done nothing but disgusting personnal attacks, like this sick message on my talk page or these insults. This last example, on the occasion of a revert of my edition of Wallonia, shows that you are only interested in reverting and attacking me.

On top of the constant personnal attacks on this talk page, the above examples show us that you have developped a strange obsession about me on top of other strange obsessions. But Wikipedia is not a therapy group, and this talk page is not a medium for you to satisfy these obsessions, and this is the last time I adress your personnal attacks on this page.

Back to business.

The list of "famous rotarians" was deleted for the same reason as the list of famous honorary rotarians was deleted:

• this list does not add anything to the article. The only thing that the article needs is, if available, a description of Rotary policy as to members,
• It is an extract of a list that can be found on the internet. why this extract? Why these 21 names? Nobody knows, but putting on a WP article an extract of a list created by the Rotary and as the case may be adding some names for some reason is an original research, not allowed on Wikipedia.

This is really the basic issue with this list. The only way to treat it as a list is to give the whole list and add a caveat such as "this is a list of famous rotarians prepared by a Rotary affiliated website". But of course this would be completely uninteresting. And on the other hand, doing a list with some of the names only is an original research. The only way to use this material would be by doing something like this: incorporating them as examples in a text that gives information about the concept of membership that is then exemplified. But even that would be difficult for simple members (as opposed to honorary members, for which it is easy to include example in a pattern: (former) heads of states, various celebrities, ...), and this is the reason why I just deleted the list without replacing it, as I do not see how to write a decent text using this material.

These are the reasons for the deletion of the list. Do you have any argument that would make that list acceptable? Bradipus (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, your "args" are fake, Bradipus.

I do not know where the list comes, and I do not care. You said from Rotary itself, well no, as the complete Rotarian list is not copied into ourse (maybe simply because a Famous Rotarian cricket pro player is not a famous person for Wikipedia. In France you have Florence Arthaud, well here she is unknown, because it is our CULTURE, you know, not the French culture...)

Resuming your arg, you said "these comes from RotaryFirst100". As far, Ernest Medina does not come from that list. Or Angela Merkel. The list was made by Wikipedians, readers, etc. You are not allowed to decide what were the reasons they completed/edited the thing... I noticed you are an admin in France AND that you are there perpetual, but here you have to respect the community... (I will add Angela Merkel - because I respect my fellows...)

What you can do is to enhance the list. If Wikipedians do think your edits are not "known" persons who are also members of the Rotary, well, they will edit : it is one of the principle of this encyclopedia, you know...

84.100.98.200 (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You did not read what I said properly. The main argument is that it is an original research, not allowed on Wikipedia. Choosing some names out of a list is a form of original research; adding some names out of the blue, whether or not the information is correct, just means adding some more additional original research, wathever the reason for the person who is adding the name, not even mentioning another fundamental issue which is the WP:NPOV issue.

This list cannot be enhanced, because it is an original research, but the article can be enhanced by deleting the list.

Just do not confuse yourself and the community. The list had been hidden for weeks by other wikipedians, and since I announced that I was going to delete it, there was not one single person who came forward to defend it except you and your personnal attacks.

Again hereabove, you do not put forward any valid argument.

Basically, your arguments are:

• I am an evil cabal member of the french Wikipedia (that you confuse with some unknown wikipedia in France)
• I am not allowed to delete the work of other: that argument is invalid, because adding content, reorganising content and deleting content are the way articles are edited on Wikipedia. Forbidding to delete the work of wikipedians would reduce articles to objects where stuff is piled up with no end.

So I did what I had to do, and much more than that: I announced 2 weeks ago what I was going to do and why, and discussed here while you were insulting me, I am trying to discuss again while you do not utter one single begining of what could be an argument, this is a meaningless process, and unless you have an argument to defend this list, I will delete it for good. Bradipus (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorrry, I do not use your way. Indeed, I read perfectly what you wrote.

You make a confusion between "original research" (to use Wikipedia as a media for original researches) and the collective work that Wikipedians bring to the project, and you admitted it : "to delete the work of wikipedians would reduce articles to objects where stuff is wiped out with no end", that's what you do.

That's why the list is good. A user brought Ernest Medina, another brought Mrs Merkel, well it's good, and your blanking job is now on your single subject of interest comes to its end, Bradipus.

84.100.98.90 (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

More Bradipus, I read (<- this is a past form) on fr.wikipedia that the leader of your party in Belgium, Louis Michel is a Rotarian, a FreeMason and the European Commissary for HumanitAid.

I will add it to the list. I suppose that your action is motivated by European taboos about FreeMasonry, well there is no place for obsessions here. I read also that Rotary seem linked to nazi ideology (much more that written on YOUR french wikipedia, as you seem to consider that the french version is your property, as a French Administrator)

According to your edits and fights on Wikipedia, you are a member of the "reformative liberal" party (MR), no ? You edit Olivier Maingain, you attack anti-MR politicians...

This confusion between 'Humanitarian' public role and "philanthropic" Rotarian role is a bit strange for a European politician, no ? But it's Europe, with so much corruption...

The list will stay, there is no reason to wipe it and impose your ways. It will be good for your behavior, I think, that you receive a clear and bold "Nuts !" (Bastogne) 84.100.98.90 (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I am a bit upset by your "out-of-the-blue" insult.

I checked also the multiple conflicts you had on french wikipedia, including with your past "friends", it seems that these conflicts began with discreet insults that you placed in your comments, like "you idiot", "you do not understand", etc. Stop that, were are not in France, here.

As far as I checked on Internet, all names are mentioned in Official Rotarian literature or sites. It seems you did not check the validity of the facts that you try to wipe. But why ? 84.100.98.90 (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just reverted your most recent vandalism and asked admins to take action. See here. Bradipus (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

+1. --Bombastus (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems that Bradipus called friend (they had an arbitration on French Wikipedia together about Rotary International, already together against another user) to have an hand on edit war waged by Bradipus See recent edits by Bombastus : nothing but Rotarian issues.

84.102.229.77 (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

well, again you try to confuse people. I am not Pierre Larcin but I will call him, you practice some kind of manipulation. In your last edit, for example, you pointed vandalism about a part of the article which was dismissed, but you took profit, Bradipus, to wash the list member.

You went OF COURSE to Pinochet to wipe his membership to Rotary in your very recent edits... There is a reason, I guess : you do not allow to see the chief of your political party, Louis Michel in the list with dictator Pinochet. So, Rotary is not your point, you just want to hide facts...for political reasons. I'll restore the list. 84.100.98.90 (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Let us be clear, as long as you refuse to hold a normal discussion with normal arguments, the arguments in favour of the deletion of the lists stand and your edits will be reverted. If you want to have a normal discussion, just let us know. Bradipus (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I have semi-protected this page from what appears to be an army of IP-hopping sock- or meat-puppets who seem intent on promoting a particular point of view. This protection, like any protection, is not an endorsement of the current version, but let's try to back off the personal attacks and stupidity and get down to an actual discussion of what belongs in the article. Ad hominem attacks will result in blocks with little additional warning warning - this article's a mess and the talk page is worse. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe there is chance he will talk, now. Bradipus (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean talk not to himself I assume :)

Is there really some chance, it is more than time to think of blocking the range of IP used by this personn. --Bombastus (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I do not really think there is chance he will understand after more than 2 years of personal attacks and a constant decrease in quality of its interventions. But we are supposed to try...but not too hard. I mean, he did have his chances. Bradipus (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As some Frenchmen (or Belgians) would put it, l'espoir fait vivre ;) --Bombastus (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with an IP range block is that it would have to be an awful long block, and cover an awful long range. Neither one of those is particularly appetizing. I, for one, would rather have the article locked to IP editing forever than have a long-term block on an entire ISP. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It does seem that blocking edits from the the ISP (gaoland.net) would be a lot of IPs (the source network is 84.96.0.0/13 with 524288 IPs). But there is a new capability to allow exceptions - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-05-12/IP_block_exemption and the block would not apply to logged in users anyway?? Ariconte (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is telling that in a week of semi-protection the user totally disappeared. If you are not willing to discuss controversial content changes *before* making them - even after it has been made clear to you that these are controversial and perhaps not supported by consensus - then you are no better than any other disruptive user, and may be subject to blocking and/or continued page protections. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

The recent addition of the NPOV tag with the Edit Summary of "This article needs a serious peer-review, it completely masks deep pro-nazi past of Rotary" does not come with a concise explanation or opportunity to discuss. I propose we have the explanation (and evidence) or we delete the tag.Ariconte (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

there is above a clear explanation and sourcing (Fabrice d'Almeida scientific book about proNazi past of Rotary International) about the elitist and pro-Nazi actions. Recently we had the blankings of two conservative activists, Bombastus and Bradipus, who blanked a list which confirm the conservative and elitist action of the Rotary. This has been completely wrapped from the wiki.

On the counterpart, we have on the page the actions of CeeGee and different proRotarian or registered Rotarian wikipedians (Ordifana, IPs who come here to detail the different philanthropic actions of their respective Rotary clubs) and this is not edited. On the French wiki, where Bradipus and Bombastus had an arbitration ABOUT Rotary, which various allegations about their activist behaviors, we find scientific mentions (thesis) about Max Gallo and Rotarian links with Mussolini's regime, and explicite Rotarian service offers to Adolf Hitler ("Dr Grill, Governor of Rotary Germany", or also "offers of the Belgian Rotary Club". Note that Bradipus seems to be a Belgian conservative activist). If we have a look on other wikis, we observe that Bombastus removed systematically lists on es and it wiki, while German wikipedians have a full list of "Good" and "Bad" rotarians. Bombastus, who is a member of German wikipedia (and Bradipus) did not remove such lists there.

To resume, we have the blanking of "negative" parts and we have the "passive" support of "positive" parts, which justify the NPOV tag. This article needs a serious peer-review. Bye. 84.100.98.164 (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not work like that. You can't just refuse discussion, disappear during the semi-protection week, and then come back and start again this stupid POV war of yours. If you are unable to discuss, then leave WP alone.

Ariconte, I guess you can see from the above discussion who we are confronted with again. For a summary about the guy, see here.

It is unclear what the issue would be for "nazi germany": the bulk of the information in d'Almeida's book is in Rotary International#World War II and Nazi Germany (as a matter of fact, this section is not well written, and biased against Rotary: the sentence "Thomas Mann was removed from the membership as a political enemy of the Nazis" is not sourced, and not neutral).

Regarding the list of rotarians, I am happy to read hereabove a sentence referring to the list as "a list which confirm the conservative and elitist action of the Rotary": the IP confirms that he had an agenda in putting this list in the article, and that the list is not neutral in essence.

The IP just inadvertently confirmed that the article is more neutral after the list has been deleted. I propose we delete this NPOV tag until the IP shows some capacity to expose actual arguments or facts. Bradipus (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bradipus, stop personal attacks. You are a conservative activist, OK. That's not because we write that M. Bormann and Hitler were close friends of Rotarians that we "have an agenda". It is a fact, that's all. When we COMPARE with the work that other wiki communities do (German for example, who seem to have a much clearer approch on nazisme and pro-nazism movements, see their federal, Constitution), we see that YOU BRADIPUS AND YOUR FRIEND BOMBASTUS HAVE AN AGENDA deleting any list of (conservative) rotarians, like Pinochet, Richard Miller, Louis Michel. The list speaks of itself, and is a counterpart of the "Officially Rotarian" "humanitarian" work. That's not because Rotary propaganda shows itself as non-politic, humanitarian that we have here to duplicate that propaganda.

More of all, you do not have any God-driven right, you Bradipus, to decide what must and what is not allowed to take part of the wiki, as you showed on the French article of Wikipedia about Rotary International. Truly, you used ANY argument to wipe-off what you do not like, no ?

Who has an agenda, here ? Me ? You 're sure ?

84.100.98.164 (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's really funny, but anyone only needs to read your comments (including on my talk page) to see where the personnal attacks come from.

Let me give you just one little example: you start your message with "stop personal attacks", and in the next sentence, you launch your usual personnal attack ("You are a conservative activist").

Agenda...who has an agenda? Looking at you editions, focused on one single subject, it is a rather theoretical question, isn't it?

We are not here to describe facts. We are here to write an encyclopedia, which is about sources but also relevancy, as was explained to you numerous times, and not only by me.

All the people who have participated in the discussions in this page have disagreed with your point of view. It is maybe time to reconsider your position?

But you can also try to discuss. For instance, you could try to do what you never did until now: tell us some good reasons why this list should be in the article (hint: the fact that the list would confirm "the conservative and elitist action of the Rotary" is not a good reason). Bradipus (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr the Bradipus-source-of-the-law-here, I may consider that if for Spanish, Italian and German wikipedians a list may seem to be relevant, I can also think that for a UK- or US-Wikipedian, a list may be relevant also. In the reality, two persons have an agenda with such a list

By the way your editions about Rotary proNazi past is completely biased. As far as I may read from Pierre Larcin's inclusions here about the d'Almeida's book, you completely hide what Mr d'Almeida's book says explicitely. As usual (I do not really think were this habit of biasing comes from...while I MAY have an idea about...) you seeem to have just placed oriented extracts and washed the sense of that SCIENTIFIC book.

Conclusion : a list of known Rotarians (including Ron Hubbard) has a place here, and a complete review of your inclusions and bias needs to be done. 84.100.98.164 (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Time to finish this game:

"Rotary pro nazi past": either you have something specific and sourced to say about it or the discussion becomes impossible. If you think d'Almeida book says something else that what I wrote, please quote.

"list": you have not yet brought one shred of argument in favour of the list, the discussion is still impossible.

Bradipus (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly using some other references regarding the Nazi period would allow consensus. I have identified some that may be useful... I don't have the books so cannot tell. They are:

Biess, Mark. Conflict, Catastrophe and Continuity: Essays on Modern German History. Germany: Berghahn Books. pp. P 309. ISBN 1845452003. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |chapterurl=, |month=, and |origdate= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

De Grazia, Victoria. Irresistible Empire: America's Advance Through Twentieth-century Europe. Harvard University Press. pp. P 71. ISBN 0674016726. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |chapterurl=, |month=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help)

Hayes, Peter. Industry and Ideology: I. G. Farben in the Naxi Era. Cambridge University Press. pp. P 103. ISBN 052178638X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |chapterurl=, |month=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help)

also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSUE . Regards Ariconte (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ariconte, I am not sure what issue you are willing to address. I mean, it is OK to give source suggestions, but allow me to brief you on the issue here: there is a book by historian d'Almeida which is fine, about high society organisation in the nazi regime. The core of the book is about the destruction of the old elite and of the old circles and relationship and the creation of a specific nazi high society. In the destruction process, there are 3 pages about how the nazis dealt with Rotary. This is described in the article for the moment, including the efforts of Rotary to appease the nazis prior to their dissolution. But although one can feel that d'Almeida is not sympathetic with the way certain Rotary officials expressed that the Rotary was in agreement with the regime, it does not go further than that.

The IP is a POV pusher who seems to have decided that Rotary was deeply compromised with the regime. But that is just not in the book. Please note that I asked him to be specific about the issues he raised, but he will never be. All he knows is personnal attacks (see above, see the previous administration intervention, ....). Further to the previous incidents, he could not push his POV, so now he resorts to the NPOV tag. But the NPOV tag implies a discussion, and there was never anything close to a discussion with that guy. So I suggest we delete this tag, because he just has caused enough trouble on this article since 2 years. Bradipus (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't read French. Therefore I (and other editors with the same limitation) can not use the d'Almeida reference. Users of the article can not check the reference. That is the reason for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSUE . I will use one or more of the references I suggested to replace the d'Almeida reference.... then English limited editors and users of the article can check the reference to see that it says what is claimed. You can use http://books.google.com/ and search 'Rotary nazi' to see parts of these books. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at what was available. Well, not much, although there are indirect confirmations of what d'Almeida wrote. I used a interesting piece of information in the article. D'almeida definitely brings informations that are not in the english sources you indicated, but what you can guess from these sources does not contradict d'Almeida. I think it is fair d'Almeida is used as source and cited as such. Bradipus (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I will try to obtain the sources mentioned and additional sources - this might take some time. Ariconte (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ariconte, we might be loosing time for not much here. Wikipedia:RSUE does not preclude from using sources who are not in english when there are no sources directly available in english treating the same subject. BTW, I do not fully find acceptable the way Wikipedia:RSUE is written, which can jeopardize the universalist character of WP. I will probably go to that page to express my concerns. But anyway, I would like to understand why you are trying to replace the french source: is it to adress the issue raised by the IP or is it for another reason? Bradipus (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have obtained two of the references (De Grazia and Biess) and read them. There is lots of material! I am not good at composition but have made an attempt to add some material at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ariconte/RIhistWW2 Comments welcome - I suppose I should just insert it into the RI page.....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariconte (talk • contribs) 02:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind if I edit User:Ariconte/RIhistWW2? Bradipus (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is better to have in in the article - so I have move it there. Ariconte (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have somewhat reorganised. The sole part I deleted is "The time of the Nazis (National Socialism) and the Holocaust have been known as a "rupture of civilization"". I just did not know what to do with that text. Bradipus (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Protected again

Semiprotected for a week due to the IP socks. To the anon: edit-warring and insulting people gets nothing done. Discuss here. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Famous Rotarians

• General Augusto Pinochet, Chile, involved in tax-fraud and in the 'death-caravan' activity, and into the Plan Condor in Chile (DINA activities)
• General Douglas MacArthur, United States, who negociated the protection of Japanese war criminals against the bacteriological weapons researches of Japan, for United States
• Walt Disney, United States, who named worker representatives as 'communists' before the MacCarthy commission, to avoid worker unions activities in the Disney company. Walt Disney was close to Wernher von Braun, ex-member of the prussian nobility, ex-SS officer.

Freiherr von Braun was member of the NSDAP, the nazi parti as 1937, and gave conferences for the Rotary club. Disney founded Epcot, a dreamed ideal city of the future (it should be interesting to check the percentage of Afro-Americans in Epcot, and compare it to the average of Florida).

• Soleiman Franjieh, Lebanon, founder of the Marada phalangist brigade, pro-Syrian
• Charles Lindbergh, United States, who tested nazi weapons and made attacks 'against the jew lobby in United States'
• Konosuke Matsushita, Japan, who built remote controls for Japan conventional and future bacteriological weapons, the Fu-Go balloons, who killed at least 4 persons in U.S.A.
• Prince Bernhard of Holland, The Netherlands, involved in the Lockeed weapons corruption scandal
• Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister, Birmingham, United Kingdom, who allowed Hitler to kill Czecoslovakia and Austria, and the expansion of nazis in Europe before WWII
• George W. Bush - Rotary Club of Washington DC (honorary member by 'RI Past President' Frank Devlyn at a ceremony on July 2, July, 2001 at the White House), who lied on 'Iraki massive destruction weapons' to allow warfare between American youth and Iraki youth, who allowed the detention of people without judgment in Guantanamo, Cuba (500 people, 35 nationalities)
• King Hassan II of Morocco, Marocco, founder of the Tazmamart jail (opponents detention without judgment)
• Rainier III, Prince of Monaco, Monaco, involved in tax fraud scandal by the French parliament see http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/rap-info/i2311-611.asp

and specially concerning Rainier : http://www.assemblee-nationale.org/rap-info/i2311-2.asp

and many more...

Today 14 February 2006,16:27, my addings to the Rotary propaganda, used onto Wikipedia to define what is Rotary Club, were again vandalized by someone who tried to hide that Augusto Pinochet, tax frauder and one responsible of the 'missing' of 4.000 opponents in Chili, is a Rotary-honoured person, and clearly mentioned onto the Rotary fellowship official site. He removed the name of the Rotarian criminal, one of the parts of the Condor plan.

Can someone help me in knowing were comes the 200.113.140.92 Address ? United States ? Europe ?

Thank you very much, Pierre Larcin

Adding a valid date so this section will archive in 21 days Ariconte (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Last minute alert

Dear friends, I just saw that Famous Rotarian Pinochet (if we follow the Rotary Fellowship for Famous rotarians) as ALSO be deleted by user 200.113.140.92 in the en.wikipedia and ALSO in the it.wikipedia for Rotary International. I'll check in other langages. YES, that user 200.113.140.92 removed Pinochet from all version listed at the top of this critic, except for nl version, whose link was bad and written es.wikipedia.org.. So he followed the above links... I corrected in all, so Pinochet is still mentioned as a Famous Rotarian in all langages I use.

According to IP (if the vandal does not use spoofing) it seems that the Rotarian attack comes from Uruguay. For a comprehension of that attack, see Condor Plan under Wikipedia about mass murdering in Latin America under conservative and pro-Rotary dictatorship.

Pierre

Adding a valid date so this section will archive in 21 days Ariconte (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia and Critics section

I think adding such a section in the main article is a great idea. It will allow for the introduction of information of a more contentious nature. I have temporarily deleted the section whilst we try to decide what the subsections should be. Can the criticisms of Rotary be separated into some nice categories? Perhaps the following:

• political influence
• membership demographics
• links with other organisations and movements

any others?

Yes there is also

• role with other organisations (UN, Unesco, other movements (Ashoka, Hamas))

Yep.

• old criticism that Rotary overwon (old critic against freemasonry done by Vatican church in years 1930). But personnally, I am pro-masonic, so...

I don't understand what you mean by "overwon".

• use of Wikipedia. I do not know if you noticed, but in the langages versions of Wikipedia, where some criticism appear on the pages of Rotary, the Rotarians logos (including Rotaract) and photos of Paul Harris disappear. Also, the old versions of pages were all the same ;-)

Wikipedia fiddling, I think, should be left for the discussion page and not part of the main article.

Adding a valid date so this section will archive in 21 days Ariconte (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Fabrice d'Almeida's book on the high-class life under nazism

Fabrice d'Almeida is Doctor in History and researcher at the French famous CNRS, http://www.ihtp.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article84

Extracts of the book :

In a book "la vie mondaine sous le nazisme" ("high-class life under nazism"), Perrin Editors, Paris, 2006 p 154-156, p 322, he shows the concomitance between nazism rising in Bavaria (Munich) and the foundation of Rotary Clubs (Munich on october 2d 1928, Berlin and Nuremberg 1929) under an uprising nazi regime "which in the beginnings allows that organization where sit members of the NSDAP. During the Olympic Games of 1936, a showroom of the regime, the Rotary Club of Berlin multiplies invitations. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to see Rotary as a league of opponents, as it is composed of notorious people, doctors, military personnel, businessmen and some member of the nobility. The german Rotarian monthly, 'Der Rotarier', does not hesitate to publish citation of the book 'Mein Kampf' with under others in february 1937 an ambiguous phrase : "the art of reading as the art of learning is today again : remember essentials, forget useless".

'Hostile papers appear in the nazi revue 'Blitz', suspicioning Rotary to help opponents and to work as a free-masonry. To proof its bona fide, the Rotary asks to meet the Fuhrer and to establish somee expertise in the tribunal of the NSDAP party who published in 1933-1934-1936 des ordnances autorizing the double membership, to Nazi Party and to Rotary Club. But the Ministery of Intérior forbids in 1937 Rotary membership to main central main public clerks and to authority clerks (police, military, etc) as against a national commitment. In july 1937, NSDAP decides to suppress the authorization of double membership at january 1stn 1938, between NSDAP and Rotary, with the argument of links between german Rotary and stranger Jews. This is a sentence to death for Rotary as more than the half of Rotary members are members of NSDAP.'

'"Humanist" Rotarians strangely do lobbying to attempt withdrawal of there restrictive measures. Dr Grill, head of the Rotary 73d district, attempt to show that his organization is compliant and necessary to the goals of Government. Conforme car elle a rejeté tous les non-Aryens des juillet 1936 ("lois raciales de Nuremberg") et s'engage à ne pas en réadmettre. Conforme car elle a interdit l'accès aux francs-maçons depuis 1933n et.... "n'a conservé que six adhérents antérieurs sur mille trois cents cinquante membres", encore ces derniers ne peuvent-ils plus adhérer aux hautes responsabilités. NEcessaire, car grace ç sib réseau international, le Rotary exerce une influence en faveur du Reich par-delà les frontières.

Les dirigeants du Rotary International tentent à leur tour de convaincre le Gouvernement nazi qu'ils ne sont pas un danger pour lui. Ils invitent le Fuhrer à leur Congrès International. Ils affirment par lettres comprendre l'action du Gouvernement nazi. Emile Deckers, gouverneur du district belge à Walter Buch, juge au Tribunal du NSDAP, envoyée le 28 apout 1937 à l'Ambassade d'Allemagne à Bruxelles pour transmission, regrette l'interdiction comme dommageable aux relations entre l'Allemagne et la Belgique. Il souligne que les Rotariens ont pour principe essentiel de respecter l'autorité établie avec cette citation "Nous avons peine à croire qu'il existe dans le Rotary allemand un autre esprit que celui de la discipline et du respect de l'autorité légale du pays" et ajoute à propos de la Belgique "il est vrai que, par la nature de l'organisation, il y a certains membres de la religion israélite, mais comme cela n'est pas une objection légale dans notre pays, nous ne pouvons en faire grief à nos clubs. Si la situation est différente en Allemagne, je suis persuadé que le Rotary pliera devant les décisions gouvernementales". Deckers semble déplorer la situation de tolérance belge. Sa position à l'égard des francs-maçons est ambigüe : il affirme sa confessions catholique partagée par Paul Harris, présudebt du Rotary International, contradictoire avec le maçonnisme. Il concult "la présente démarche n'est faite que dans le dessein de parfaite entente et d'amitié suivant les préceptes mêmes du code rotarien qui s'harmonise si bien dans ce cas avec nos sentiments personnels".

"La tentative d'un rotarien anglais de fléchir le gouvernement en arguant de l'impossibilité de forger en Allemagne une autre organisation capable de promouvoir de telles relations amicales reçoit une réponse cinglante, il en sera pour ses frais : il écrit "I have a great adlmiration for the splendid efforts you have made to build up a great german nation (j'ai une immense admiration pour les splendides efforts que vous avez faits pour construire une grande nation allemande, ecrit-il à Adolf Hitler". Et Fabrice d'Almeida de remarquer : "jusqu'ou cette complaisance serait elle allée si les nazis eux memes n'avaient pas imposé aux rotariens de mettre un terme à leur complicité ?" "

Devant l'inflexibilité du Gouvernement, le Rotary Clubv allemand oisit de s'autodissoudre : si bien que le prsident du Rotary International dira avec amertume en 1938 qye kes deux pays qui ont interdit le Rotary sont l'Allemagne et l'URSS. Toutefois d'autres pays devaient connaitre des évolutions similaires, telle l'Italie ou malgré la bonne entente initiale entre rotariens et fascistes, les dirigents décident d'une autodissolution à la fin de l'année 1938n dabs doute dans la perspective d'une rupture des liens internationaux...En Allemangne, l'antisémitisme a été un des moteurs essentiels de la fermeture...apres 19387 uk b'exuste plus aucune association ou cercle de la haute société qui accorde une place aux Juifs. Mieux, la certitude absolue de leur absence garantit la sélectivité du milieu..."

d'Almeida conclut sur le fait que les mécanismes de sociabilité sous le IIIe Reich ont rempli une fonction primordiale pour le pouvoir : la mise en conformité des élites dirigeantes, en modifiant les canaux de fonctionnement, en détruisant les partis, les syndicats, les organisations liées à l'étranger, comme les loges maçonniques ou le Rotary Club, favorisant le développement des réunions autour du NSDAP.

End of book citations before translation PierreLarcin 1 avril 2007 à 19:50 (GET)

IN FRENCH

Fabrice d'Almeida, is Doctor in History and researcher at the French famous CNRS, http://www.ihtp.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article84

Extracts of the book :

In a book "la vie mondaine sous le nazisme" ("high-class life under nazism"), Perrin Editors, Paris, 2006 p 154-156, p 322, he shows the concomitance entre la montée du nazisme bavarois (Munich) et la fondation de Rotary Clubs (Munich le 2 octobre 1928, Berlin et Nuremberg 1929) with a nazi regime "which in the beginnings allows that organization where sit members of the NSDAP. During the Olympic Games of 1936, a showroom of the regime, the Rotary Club of Berlin multiplies invitations. It is so difficult de voir le Rotary comme un repaire d'opposants, avec une composition de notables, médecins, militaires, hommes d'affaires et quelques nobles. Le mensuel rotarien, Der Rotarier, n'hésite pas à citer Mein Kampf avec notamment en février 1937 une phrase ambigue : "l'art de lire comme d'apprendre est aujourd 'hui encore : retenir 'essentiel, oublier l'inutile".

"Des articles hostiles apparaissent dans la revue nazie Blitz, soupçonnant le Rotary d'abriter des opposants et de fonctionner comme la franc-maçonnerie. Pour prouver sa bonne foi, le Rotary demande à rencontrer le Fuhrer et d'établir une expertise devant le tribunal du NSDAP qui avait rendu en 1933-1934-1936 des avis autorisant la double appartenance au Parti Nazi et au Rotary Club. Mais le Ministre de l'Intérieur interdit en 1937 le Rotary aux fonctionnaires centraux et aux fonctionnaires d'autorité comme contraire à l'engagement national. En juillet 1937, le NSDAP dédide de supprimer l'autorisation de double appartenance au 1er janvier 1938 entre NSDAP et Rotary, avec l'argument des liens entre Rotary allemand et Juifs étrangers. C'est l'arret de mort du Rotay car plus de la moitié des adhérents Rotariens sont membres du NSDAP."

"Les Rotariens "humanistes" font "étrangement" des démarches pour tenter d'obtenir une levée de ces mesures restrictives. Le Dr Grill, responsable du 73e district du Rotary, tente de montrer que son organisation est conforme et nécessaire aux buts du Gouvernement. Conforme car elle a rejeté tous les non-Aryens des juillet 1936 ("lois raciales de Nuremberg") et s'engage à ne pas en réadmettre. Conforme car elle a interdit l'accès aux francs-maçons depuis 1933n et.... "n'a conservé que six adhérents antérieurs sur mille trois cents cinquante membres", encore ces derniers ne peuvent-ils plus adhérer aux hautes responsabilités. NEcessaire, car grace ç sib réseau international, le Rotary exerce une influence en faveur du Reich par-delà les frontières.

Les dirigeants du Rotary International tentent à leur tour de convaincre le Gouvernement nazi qu'ils ne sont pas un danger pour lui. Ils invitent le Fuhrer à leur Congrès International. Ils affirment par lettres comprendre l'action du Gouvernement nazi. Emile Deckers, gouverneur du district belge à Walter Buch, juge au Tribunal du NSDAP, envoyée le 28 apout 1937 à l'Ambassade d'Allemagne à Bruxelles pour transmission, regrette l'interdiction comme dommageable aux relations entre l'Allemagne et la Belgique. Il souligne que les Rotariens ont pour principe essentiel de respecter l'autorité établie avec cette citation "Nous avons peine à croire qu'il existe dans le Rotary allemand un autre esprit que celui de la discipline et du respect de l'autorité légale du pays" et ajoute à propos de la Belgique "il est vrai que, par la nature de l'organisation, il y a certains membres de la religion israélite, mais comme cela n'est pas une objection légale dans notre pays, nous ne pouvons en faire grief à nos clubs. Si la situation est différente en Allemagne, je suis persuadé que le Rotary pliera devant les décisions gouvernementales". Deckers semble déplorer la situation de tolérance belge. Sa position à l'égard des francs-maçons est ambigüe : il affirme sa confessions catholique partagée par Paul Harris, présudebt du Rotary International, contradictoire avec le maçonnisme. Il concult "la présente démarche n'est faite que dans le dessein de parfaite entente et d'amitié suivant les préceptes mêmes du code rotarien qui s'harmonise si bien dans ce cas avec nos sentiments personnels".

"La tentative d'un rotarien anglais de fléchir le gouvernement en arguant de l'impossibilité de forger en Allemagne une autre organisation capable de promouvoir de telles relations amicales reçoit une réponse cinglante, il en sera pour ses frais : il écrit "I have a great adlmiration for the splendid efforts you have made to build up a great german nation (j'ai une immense admiration pour les splendides efforts que vous avez faits pour construire une grande nation allemande, ecrit-il à Adolf Hitler". Et Fabrice d'Almeida de remarquer : "jusqu'ou cette complaisance serait elle allée si les nazis eux memes n'avaient pas imposé aux rotariens de mettre un terme à leur complicité ?" "

Devant l'inflexibilité du Gouvernement, le Rotary Clubv allemand oisit de s'autodissoudre : si bien que le prsident du Rotary International dira avec amertume en 1938 qye kes deux pays qui ont interdit le Rotary sont l'Allemagne et l'URSS. Toutefois d'autres pays devaient connaitre des évolutions similaires, telle l'Italie ou malgré la bonne entente initiale entre rotariens et fascistes, les dirigents décident d'une autodissolution à la fin de l'année 1938n dabs doute dans la perspective d'une rupture des liens internationaux...En Allemangne, l'antisémitisme a été un des moteurs essentiels de la fermeture...apres 19387 uk b'exuste plus aucune association ou cercle de la haute société qui accorde une place aux Juifs. Mieux, la certitude absolue de leur absence garantit la sélectivité du milieu..."

d'Almeida conclut sur le fait que les mécanismes de sociabilité sous le IIIe Reich ont rempli une fonction primordiale pour le pouvoir : la mise en conformité des élites dirigeantes, en modifiant les canaux de fonctionnement, en détruisant les partis, les syndicats, les organisations liées à l'étranger, comme les loges maçonniques ou le Rotary Club, favorisant le développement des réunions autour du NSDAP.

End of book citations before translation PierreLarcin 1 avril 2007 à 19:50 (GET)

HOW TO JOIN Mr D'ALMEIDA Fabrice d'ALMEIDA +49(0) 30/20 93 37 95-85 Chercheur associé +49(0) 30/20 93 37 95-98 Histoire [email protected]

Thèmes de recherche La vie mondaine sous les fascismes

source : http://www.cmb.hu-berlin.de/cmb/main/index.php?cms_menu_id=423&language=pl click on "d'Almeida presentation" link He is also researcher at the French "CNRS" National Scientific Research Center

Adding a valid date so this section will archive in 21 days Ariconte (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pinochet speaks at the Santiago Rotary Club

in Spanish http://www.avizora.com/publicaciones/derechos_humanos/textos/0006_juicio_historia.htm

http://www.copesa.cl/DE/1996/_Des1996/09_11/politica.html

in French : http://www.humanite.fr/journal/1990-09-29/1990-09-29-803154

http://www.humanite.fr/journal/1993-09-09/1993-09-09-683789

in Dutch : http://www.menschenrechte.org/beitraege/vergangenheit/beitV004.htm

there is a close relation between Rotary Santiago and Defense Forces of Chile ::

search also on this site : http://www.europapress.es/noticia.aspx?cod=20070608183601

http://www.rotary.cl/club4340/rcnunoa/public_html/lospapeles/El_Papel_120.pdf

search on google

"chile ROTARY CLUB homenaje a las fuerzas armadas"

http://nicolasvegaanjel.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html

http://www.ejercito.cl/noticias/detalle_comunicados.php?id=698&PHPSESSID=1c5257259bd949ee7034ef3834536438

Adding a valid date so this section will archive in 21 days Ariconte (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Le Juppé crew Mai 1995 : Jacques Chirac est élu président. Trois rappeurs, Karré Hermès, MC Filip Pet'1 et Communist Killer, décident de crier à la France leur amour de la Droite, de l'ordre et du libéralisme. C'est ainsi que se crée le groupe de rap Liberal D. Foncez écouter leurs tubes : « Amoureux de la police », « In da rotary club », et surtout l'énorme « Libérez Alain Juppé »

http://www.marianne2007.info/HUMOUR_r24.html

http://www.moutonclan.com/juppe/

Adding a valid date so this section will archive in 21 days Ariconte (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Right activists as Rotarians

UMP in France : ce sont des blogs politiques UMP. Vous y trouverez des mentions Rotary (conférences, reconnaissance de l'affiliation, etc)

http://romainmouton.hautetfort.com/archive/2007/06/05/je-soutiens-bernard-accoyer.html

http://jeunespopulaires34.midiblogs.com/archive/2006/11/02/palavas-les-flots-journee-sur-le-liban.html#comments

http://www.desmaziere.com/blog/index.php?2007/05/03/206-debats#co

http://www.genevievelevy.com/index.php?id=59

http://solere.blogs.com/boulogne/2005/04/diner_de_gala_d.html

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-french&y=2005&m=November&x=20051116154459cmretrop0.2094843

Adding a valid date so this section will archive in 21 days Ariconte (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rotary on the Internet

I would like to request that someone rework the section "Rotarian Presence on Internet".

[I am not a Rotarian, but I have been a member of Rotaract, one of Rotary's programs]

It currently reads:

"Rotary has begun to build "virtual" Rotary e-Clubs on Internet [34]. Rotary shows on the Internet its own selection of "famous Rotarians"[35]. Rotary is active through the site: "Digaria"[36]."

There are thousands upon thousands of Rotary-related sites on the internet; as well as Rotary International's own site, there are many sites maintained by Rotary clubs, districts, fellowships and zone directors, as well as sites about various Rotary projects and programs. If a section about Rotary's presence on the internet is warranted, shouldn't there be a better indication given of just how many and varied the sites are, rather than picking 3 isolated examples only? In regards to the three examples listed,

• Rotary eClubs have been around for a number of years now, so saying Rotary has "begun to build" them is incorrect.
• I'm not sure why saying Rotary has "its own selection of famous Rotarians" is worth mentioning in this section, compared to all the other sites that could be selected to illustrate Rotary's presence on the Internet.
• It is also not correct to say that Rotary (as a whole) is active through the site Digaria. Digaria is run by a business (not Rotary) selling social-networking services to Rotarians who aren't aware they can get them for free elsewhere (I can elaborate if needed). It is certainly not indicative of how Rotary (as a whole) is active.

Better choices could include sites like:

• Rotarians on the Internet (http://www.roti.org)
• The Rotary Global History Fellowship (http://www.rotaryhistoryfellowship.org)

etc, which are sites maintained by Rotarians on a voluntary basis from all over the globe and are much more indicative of the actual work of Rotarians working on behalf of Rotary.

Sgcc (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, if you want my opinion, the whole section may be removed for lack of relevance. We do not create in each article related to an organisation a section related to the website(s) such organisation has created or maintains, so there is no reason to have such a section here. There is nothing encyclopedic in this section, and any relevant data should be moved to the "internet links" section of the article. Bradipus (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I did not move to any link section. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNO Ariconte (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

not a good idea. As showed hereunder, some Wikipedians are pro-Rotary activists.

Rotary as assets on wikipedia (CeeGee, Bradipus) and I DO NOT THINK that hiding that Rotary speaks about Rotary on Wikipedia is a good idea. Yes I know "no circular references" was the "objection" to hide that.

Rotary is VERY active on Internet, masks via "third clubs" like Digaria, speaks on Wikipedia, that's not a good idea at all to remove the "Internet activities" section. (see what became the "Women discrimination section" : it's obvious that Rotary was CONDEMNED by supreme court for anti-women segregation : now the wiki section is a full recopy of the Rotarian propaganda). I do not think we gain quality and fame by recopying the Rotarian litterature about Rotary. Pierre Larcin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.96.49.54 (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If you persist in making personal attacks on other editors, the talk page will be protected to prevent your further disruption of this page. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive??

I think it would be a good idea to archive this talk page. See Help:Archiving_a_talk_page . Comments? Ariconte (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything above the "NPOV Tag" section might be archived according to me. Talking of the NPOV tag, we might as well remove it. Bradipus (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree re the NPOV tag. Any other comments re Archiving? Ariconte (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have set it for auto archiving. The bot (MiszaBot) should create archives for sections with dates older than 21 days but leaving the last 5 sections in the (non-archived) talk page. After it runs the first time - I will set up an archive box and index. Ariconte (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

it's not a good idea at all : Rotary and pro-rotary wikipedians trie desesperately to hide that Ernest Medina, Hassan II and King Baudouin (Pinochet also, it seems, with George Bush and Prescott Bush) are HONORARY rotarians.

I think that Bradipus is a Belgian : Rotary has there a Rotarian : Ministry Louis Michel, who supports American actions around the world. It seems also that Wernher von Braun was a Rotarian, despite he was a nazi officer and the vice-commander of the Dora concentration camp, which built nazi "massive retaliation" missiles.

By the way I saw that Ariconte and Bradipus have some problem to "pack" the fact that Rotary excluded jews in Germany....because there were jews...(yes I know 'Nazi forced Rotary', "we just obey to orders" etc. We know that system).

As Bradipus always support on french Wikipedia the image of MR-Parti politicians, which is leaded by Louis Michel and populated by Rotarians in Belgium (as most conservative parties are around the world) I DO NOT THINK THAT BRADIPUS IS RATHER OBJECTIVE TO "CRITIC" Rotary. Bye pals. PierreLarcin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.96.49.54 (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no point in answering the personnal attacks of Larcin, but I can't help laughing when I read "Ministry Louis Michel, who supports American actions around the world": everybody, except Larcin apparently, remembers that Michel was instrumental in precluding NATO from intervening in the Iraq War (see here, here and here for instance). Bradipus (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And where are the links to the archives? Bradipus (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added links to the archives and set up indexing of them. I also added a valid date to each section above so they will archive in 21 days Ariconte (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My conclusion is that these archiving bots are still missing some features, aren't they?  ;-) Bradipus (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

AGAIN ROTARIAN FIDDLING on this page : Rico Tice - Rotary - All Soul's London

It seems that, with Google, we can see that User AriConte is linked to Rotary... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ariconte/sandbox#cite_note-bio-0

all the crap installed recently seems to be copied from Rotarian literature... Is'nt that FIDDLING on wiki ?? Bye Bradipus...How are your friends in belgian "MR" political movement...read "Rotary" ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.229.101 (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You keep on saying "bye", but you keep on coming back. Your personnal attacks are getting more en more irrational. I think you should consider taking a professional advice about your delusions. Bradipus (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your so sophisticated insults, Bradipus. Your signature, indeed.

Bye means I am polite, which you are not. As such you should go immediately cry by the admins and beg for MY exclusion. You are such a democrat that you prefer to avoid discussion, aren't you ?

84.102.229.101 (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Polite? Like in this edit on my talk page? :-o Bradipus (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we all know that you are a victim, aren't you Bradipus ?

That's why you try to impose your own view of Rotary... That's why ALSO Rotary wiki is your ONLY point of edition on WP, during this last period... Bye, dear... and stop attacking me. You should oil your point of view and work on the subject. Really work. 84.102.229.101 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just answer the question: is that what you call being polite? Bradipus (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

to be clear, I did not write that. So MY question is :

"you are a victim, aren't you, Bradipus ?". That's why, while I am a coward, you hide your own name to assume your own violence, don't you, Bradipus ? You know, an expert of your behavior understant WHY you insulted me so "smartly " just above...now find an admin's jacket and cry that you are a poor victim. That's the strategy of a poor lonesome smart boy, a victim of these BAD socialists !

You're a victim, and that's OBVIOUSLY the reason why you hide your name, your violence, and your support on constant tough Rotarian politics : discrimination (women, homosexuals, non-natives), killings (in Irak, in Chile), low taxation for rich people, which means higher taxation of poor people, etc, etc. But you are RIGHT, you have A MISSION, don't you, Bradipus ? And you would KILL me for that, don't you Bradipus ? That's why you contribute ONLY on Rotary. To clean the world of my presence, not true, Bradipus ?

A question : "you are a victim, aren't you, Bradipus ?" 84.102.229.192 (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So, the guy who wrote that sick garbage on my talk page is not you? Do you expect us to believe that there are two guys who have the same provider as you (Neuf Cegetel), who are located in Lille as you are, who share the same single interest, who share the same way of editing (including the fact that you always forget to indent your paragraphs, like here, where you pretended to be american)? I understand you are ashamed of what you wrote, but lying won't help.

The rest of your message does not need any answer. How you end up accusing people not agreeing with you to be in favour of killings is just another example of your strange approach. Bradipus (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I just received intimidations from Tony Fox.

See Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:84.102.229.192&redirect=no by the way, where do you [see] an insult, Tony ? The disruptive is there, OK, and I know it. But it comes from Bradipus, your wikipedian-officially-wikipedian-friend, who ALWAYS goes to claim that he is a victim, and NEVER has BROUGHT a NEW element of information on the "wiki Rotary". I DID. Bye, violent visionaries 84.102.229.192 (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All of your discussion on this page since it became obvious that the consensus on this discussion was against your views for inclusion has been to attack the editors involved. If it does not stop, I will semiprotect this page, and consult with other admins more experienced with regards to these kinds of issues to find more permanent options for removing your disruption. And for the record I know none of these editors, nor am I involved with Rotary; I'm an independent administrator. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

what I find strange is that my answers to you here and on my IP talk page were blanked by user SWJS Bye, violent visionaries... 84.102.229.192 (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh? WHat are you talking about? Nobody deleted any of your answers. SWJS reverted your strange vandalism on this page and wrote a warning to your talk page. Tony Fox did the same revert. So the two did put back stuff you deleted (why you decided to delete stuff that is purely administrative -timestamping sections for a proper archiving- escapes me), and you are again complaining about non existent things. Bradipus (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protected for a week due to excessive disruption; disruptive edits undone. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Once more, my opinion is clearly that this article should be protected for a few months and reprotected each time the Rotarymaniac Pierre Larcin tries to edit the article. Letting trolls creating such a mess on WP is the best way to make people flee from our project.. And remember, DFTT --Bombastus (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)