Talk:Rotary International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] WP:WPChi

This article shoud'nt be in "ChicagoProject" :-) as Rotary International is a worldwide organization (confusion with local plant or local Rotary club) Pierre 12:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RI is headquartered in Evanston, IL. I added Category:Evanston, Illinois to the article to document the propriety of this affiliation. Please contact me if you still want to remove the tag, but you must feel the category is malplaced as well. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Wow! It is amazing that this has such a contested talk page. Anyways, I was thinking that some of their youth activities should be put on the page - such as Rotaract. That is all.Isaac Crumm 20:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


la critica del Rotary en Italiano http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_International

______________________________________________________________________

People seem to have forgotten that Rotary is an organisation whose main functions provide enormous input to local communities in which they operate (as with many other service organisations). The membership of Rotary should not be in question - rather, debate should be centred on the activities of Rotary and the consequences of these activities. People with a soapbox should set up a blog and spew to their hearts content. If you want to provide information on individual Rotary members and their non-Rotary activities, for goodness sake make those comments on the information pages for those individuals, not here.



______________________________________________________________________________________


My dear anonymous Professor, remember this good old age where my critic of the Rotarian Lie is so messy, because I am preparing such a critic that your movement will never survive to.

Please never forget that, before my critic, what you had here was the same text on Wikipedia as on the FreeEncyclopedia, and onto the Rotary pages speaking of Rotary itself Rotary is not a propaganda media. We have to use our critic spirit. We are not slaves or "crap".

Just an piece of my next memo : "I would not be amazed that Rotarians usual members claim about taxes in the same time as giving aid. A good clue is that, everywere around the world, Rotary clubs support conservative politicians and ONLY CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS PROPOSING TO ENLIGHT THE REVENUE TAXES AND THE PUBLIC EXPENSES. In a way, such an attitude is forgetting the concept of the Republican Law, mother of our modern democraties, who taxes the revenues to point the public money to a goal wich is adopted by the law : schools, hospitals, peace forces. It is symptomatic that Rotary club defends public schools OUTSIDE UNITED STATES AND OUTSIDE THEIR OWN COUNTRY. This is a typical double-face Rotarian attitude. In a way, claiming for tax reduction and giving free money to some foreign aid aid, is getting back to the old ages were the richests were the law, and the poorest, claiming for their private generosity. In the modern age of the 21st century, were we have so much poor in our Rotarian countries and rich people exporting the workshops in the foreign countries protecting their private interests, it is not acceptable for the States to allow this spirit of Community, because this communautarian spirit is a negation of the Republic of the Law.

In a way, it should be shocking to have the example of a Rotarian member, managing a national clothes company, claiming for tax-reduction in his country, having foreign women workers assembling his clothes in a foreigb workshop with work conditions that would nationally be illegal, paying them for a minimum of life, 'a cup of rice', and going "by night" in the disco's of that foreign country, having sex for money with a young prostitute, without even knowing that he pays sex with a worker of his own workshop, a worker condemned to do prostitution to have simply a just better life. That's the market, no ? Everybody is free ? AND AM I SO FAR FROM THE TRUTH ?
Rotary, for example, pays the vaccination of anti-polio in Botswana, allowing Botswana to forget to pay vaccination of his own people, BUT giving Botswana the (free..) possibility to pay billions of dollar to buy Canadian and Swiss WEAPONS.
Pierre Larcin, Lille, France


Hi. Where is your information coming from?
As I understand it, Rotary membership is by invitation. Is there something wrong with this? Surely they can invite whoever they feel like, and they shouldn't have to justify themselves for it. After all, do you have to justify who you are friends with, or who you invite into your home.
As for all this rubbish about Rotarians exploiting the world... where on earth do you get your facts? Rotary is a big organisation, and it's totally expected that there'll be a few bad apples. The way you write you make it sound as though all of the Rotarians are evil exploitationists. I've met Rotarians I didn't trust, and didn't like (but most of them are very nice people... just like most nice people), but that's a far cry from branding Rotary because of these few people.
ANSWER TO User:FRADE: The information comes from the link I added myself, it was not in the previous version of Wiki onto Rotary (that was the Rotary propaganda, same on all sites : wikipedia, freeencyclopedia and RotaryInternational site) and also from the wiki on Pinochet, the wiki on Lindbergh. You speak of bad apples, but there is a constant, no ? By the way, you write like you never knew what crimes did HassanII of Morocco, RainierIII, etc. You knew that Prince Bernhard was involved in Lockheed weapons scandal ? In other groups ? It seems that you do not know what it implies to name as Honorary Rotarian. Read what CeeGee, the Rotarian, wrote : "People who have distinguished themselves by meritorious service in the furtherance of Rotary ideals may be elected to honorary membership of a Rotary club. Honorary membership is conferred only in exceptional cases" Naming Pinochet as Honorary Member is simply as naming Adolf Hitler Honorary President of the International Scout Movement. Did you read Wiki about Pinochet. Did you read Wiki about the Plan Condor ? Do you understand now the importance for Rotarians to come to Wiki and wrapp off the name of Pinochet from the list of Honorary Rotarians.
I agree of course for your subsections idea and trust any Wiki arbitration for that. I just hope I helped you to search, to study and cross-use Wiki articles in your work on human science subject, and I hope with modesty that you learned a bit from my indignation about Rotary. Here in Europe we accepted refugees from Pinochet exactions, and the only courageours judge who BEGAN the trial against Pinochet is a courageous spanish, Baltasar Garzon.
With my best regards, Pierre Larcin, Lille France, 15JUL2006 - 23:15


I still hold my initial comments that much of the discussion here should left for either a blog or inclusion in biographical pages rather than this Rotary page.

___________________________________________________________

note to "CeeGee", Wikipedian and also Rotarian 'since 1993'

you added Members just to 'hide the others' and you deleted the only Democrat member of the Rotary, Dianne Feinstein

you should mention that you are a Rotary Member before banging my work on Rotary Honorary Members

I do not have a problem if you list all the Rotary famous, instead of to let "and many others". All wiki readers understand that you want to hide Pinochet and Bush among the poor guys.

By the way, I have a political assault here in France with Pierre Lellouche, for the defense of public services (like health and education, financed in France by progressive imposition of the revenues) Lellouche is a conservative deputy of the French Nation, and Lellouche gave conferences for Rotary Turkey.

"Ceegee", I do not mind that you place a full list of conservative, But please let Pinochet and Bush at the first place. Bush is now under an impeachment (if you understand what Impeachment is) process in USA. Before Nixon, I think it is a good Rotarian example.

If I remark some international banging of my Rotarian critic, I'll make an official claim about you on Wiki.

Pierre Larcin ________________________________________________________________________________________ to read my critic in French // pour lire la contestation en français, please consult // consulter http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Rotary_International Pierre ________________________________________________________

The actual Wiki article is not neutral as it is obviously taken from the Rotarian literature onto the Rotary itself. To have an idea of this propaganda, check the items "Rotary" in the various versions of Wiki, and also TheFreeEncyclopedia : same text, generally.

I just remarked in the de.wikipedia.org, and that is awful from Rotary that German Rotary clubs excluded Jews before 1937 and in Bavaria before 1933. The Rotarian movement MADE NEGOCIATIONS WITH THE NSDAP from 1933 to 1937. You know all that Prescott Bush made support to Thyssen and to the NSDAP nazi party with his bank UBC. Werner Von Braun, who made contacts with OSS after german Stalingrad defeat, who was an NSDAP member in 1932 and an SS officer (tatooed) was a regular Rotary conference-maker. So Ron Hubbard also. What is the percentage of Africans/colored/Afro-American/black people in the whole Rotarian recruitment ?

By chance all that is completely ignored by Rotary "official" literature.

I added the "Neutrality doubt tag" and the section of Famous Rotarians with Pinochet, Matsushita and Mac Arthur, on my own, because Rotary usual literature mentions people like Thomas Mann, Walt Disney, Amiral Byrd, but forgets generals and dictators. Which is simply strange and allow questions. The other side should be hiding that damned past, but this should bring questions more... Have in mind that Rotary writes his history itself, like Catholic Church, or communists parties or, generally, totalitarian regimes.


ABOUT THE FAMOUS ROTARIANS Please have in mind that Matsushita was probably linked to the 1944-1946 affair of the "Fu-go" balloons, strategic japanese weapon, and that Panasonic-Matsushita is still a leader of remote control for balloons. These Fugo were planned to carry incendiary bombs, but also bacteriological bombs

Please have in mind that General MacArthur dismitted japanese war criminals from the Tokyo trials (1944), and that awful japanese crimes in Mandchouria were never judged. This allowed United States to gains profit (see Rotary rules "is this profitable for both parties ?") from the japanese researches on bacteriological subject. For info, Unit 731 in Mandchouria made dissections on living civilians (without anesthesy) and bombing of pest bombs onto living civilians linked to piloris.

So, did MacArthur dismiss war criminals, or did Rotary dismiss war criminals?

And of course, you know all that Pinochet is now a filed criminal for tax fraud (like Al Capone) for american money that he received privately (from American banks) when he was an acting President, and also (sorry to forget) for about 4000 'missing' persons. May I remind that the Condor plan was executed in South America under CIA control and with the execution of French extreme-right criminals (OAS) and ex-nazis like Klaus Barbie ?

So, is Pinochet a tax fraudster, or is Rotary a tax fraudster? Did Pinochet execute the Condor Plan, or did Rotary execute the Condor Plan?

By the way, President Bush jr, Honorary Rotarian, has about 4.000 bodies on the hands, coming from the suburbs of American towns, in the center of which Rotarians live. It is also the truth that President Bush jr lied about Iraki massive destruction weapons, and that is not conform to the Rotarian criteria : "Is is conform to the truth".

So, did Bush lie about WMD's, or did Rotary lie about WMD's?

Please have in mind that Rotary clubs were forbidden by Hitlerian regime in 1937, "as both appartenance to Nazi Party and Rotary is incompatible", which means that, DURING FOUR YEARS MINIMUM, Rotarians negociated with Nazis ? I speak of a "minimum", because of that Nazis had the power in Bavaria BEFORE 1933. And you know all that Bavaria is the cradle of Nazi party.

Thank you for your attention and thoughts pierre.larcin@ifrance.com __________________________________________________________________________________

to Martin Kramer : Martin Kramer Winter Springs, Florida U.S.A., msk995@gmail.com

I have a few questions Martin : can you answer to my email about details on tsunami ? I mailed you asking details about what was sent by the Rotary to Tsunami victims.

Did they sent salt against deshydratation-water loss ? Systems for purifying water ? Medicine sent, I mean drugs ?

Are you member of the Rotary ? (according to Max WEBER, the founder of modern sociology , you should mention it before speaking, because we speak here about human sciences : politics and sociology, and the Rotary is certainly an object of sociology)

Can you answer to these two simple remarks :

  • do you have "coloured" people in your Rotary club in Winter Falls ? Which percent ? Is this percentage related to the percentage of general population of Winter falls ?
  • why does Rotary NOT launch local programs (except for handicapped and students exchange, actions only in other countries) : you do not have poors in Florida ? Is this lack related to the fact that these poors could be employees of the companies owned by members of the Rotary ?

We wait for your reflexions, Martin. Reflection : thought, but also reverberation of light ray onto the source emitter of light

Pierre :-) ______________________________________________________________________________________ This text was suppressed by Martin Kramer in the beginning of my "Rotary Discussion" :

"If the Rotary club has for goal to give assistance to suffering communities such as blind men, young people, handicapped people, AIDS patients, one can notice:

that the Rotary programs against the AIDS victims are or invisible or non-existent that the communities "helped" by the Rotary are not represented in the authorities of the Rotary itself.

One can thus question the future of a movement which comes to assistance to men without agreeing to count them in its rows..."

Pierre Larcin, pierre.larcin@ifrance.com

______________________________________________________________________________________ hereunder the text of Martin Kramer Winter Springs, Florida U.S.A., msk995@gmail.com ______________________________________________________________________________________

Rotary International is the largest service club in the world, boasting of over 1.2 million Rotarians in over 32,000 local Rotary Clubs in 164 countries. Rotary in non-political, as well as non-denominational. As a matter of fact, major Rotary meetings begin with a prayer that is common to ALL religions of the world. Rotary is not the rich, white man's club as many think it is; but it is comprised of business men and women from all walks of life.

Many do not realize that Rotarians world wide have been involved in a campaign to rid the world of Polio, and the end of this ravishing crippling disease is almost complete. Rotarians world wide have raised hundreds of millions of dollars, and have sent armies of volunteers into countries to innoculate children without any other agenda but to save the children.

Those that question Rotary International also would be surprised to find that this organization was at the forefront of the creation of the United Nations; and today, has seats as permanant observers.

Rotary has an agenda. That being to feed the hungry, house the homeless, and heal the sick. Rotarians give of themselves and their time to go to third world countries where doctors performs surgeries and dentists provides dental care all at no cost whoatsoever. In India, it was 3 Rotarians who put their heads together to create the Jophur foot; a prothestic device for those who have lost limbs. Agains, these services are provided at no cost to the needy.

During the Tsunamis of 2005, Rotarians led the way in providing Shelter Boxes, temporary and immediate housing as well as basic cooking untensils and water sanitation to hundreds of thousands of displaced persons literally hours after the disaster; through donations from Rotarians throughout the world.

And the people who criticize Rotary as an eliteist organization of Kings, politicians and CEO's; Rotary International gives out more academic scholarships than all of the other known scholarships combined. It's latest undertaking is the Rotary Centers for International Studies In Peace and Conflict Resolution. Here, at universities in seven countries world wide, students at a higher education level can study conflict resolution; with the idea that inyears to come, they will be able to work with governments to settle disputes without war.

There are literally thousands of projects constantly going on with Rotary Clubs throughout the world. AIDS awareness project, clean blood projects, clean water projects, health projects, education; the list goes on.

Always remember Rotary's motto: "Service Above Self." Plus the Rotary 4-Way Test:

  • Is it the Truth?
  • Is it Fair to All Concerned?
  • Will it Build Good Will and Better Friendships?
  • Will it Be Beneficial to All Concerned?

Martin Kramer Winter Springs, Florida U.S.A. msk995@gmail.com

[edit] Recovered censured text

here is my text who was censured by Martin. The first two paragraphs are above. Pierre One can thus question the future of a movement which comes to assistance to men without agreeing to count them in its rows... For example, European executifs of the Rotary (in France, Belgium, Italy) include/understand, neither black, neither Jew, neither Arabic, neither Asian, neither handicapped, neither woman, nor patient of the AIDS, for example.

In addition, one can observe that

  1. the Rotary tries nationally to obtain national Presidencies of eminent personages:
    • the King Albert II of Belgium, implied in various scandals of armament or prostitution (ASCO affair, Fortunato Israel affair),
    • the Pinochet General in Chile, implied in various disappearances and embezzlements,
    • and many other preserving personalities
  2. Rotarian recruitment often includes/understands political personnel criticizing the State role ("liberal" politicians, affiliated for example to Belgian liberal "reformers" or RPR-UMP in France, with the American conservatives, such as the former presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush junior)
  3. the Rotary does not emit any action against the armament, the prostitution, the AIDS, and does not support nor the victims of the wars, crimes, or the traffic of human beings neither join or complete actions of public institutions, whereas its actions releve of the public services (health, education, UNESCO, third age, handicapped). The fact that the Rotary 'have contribute' to found UNESCO is thus relevant of a conceptual abuse.

The role of the Rotary thus remains associated to the question of knowing, in a human society, which role is associated to the public services of government. Under these conditions, how to be astonished that the "liberal" personalities associated with the European liberal political parties claim the privatization of the public services?

Whereas in 2005-2006, in Iraq the Bush administration goes in its madness of appropriation until defending a design of the war which returns to private war (engagement of many private companies, -iow "mercenaries"- for 'private' security), can one admit that the State allows the Rotarians to exert

  1. the assistance toh education (private curses of studies)
  2. the assistance to handicapped (management of work centers)
  3. the development of international co-operation (private programs of assistance)

Can one admit in Europe to come to a situation where public services are partially taken by private corporations, such as missions of guarding, circulation, education, international assistance ?

Finally the ritual (banquets, white gloves), the symbols (freemason symbol as compass and triangle hidden in the six rows of the Rotarian Wheel) the exclusively male composition of the Rotary clubs ("with evenings where the ladies are allowed") (associated with the exclusively female composition of InnerWheel, which gathers... the wives of Rotarians) (and this, despite a recent "reform" that allowed women in Rotary clubs...in theory ), calls to 'the compassion' and 'to fraternity ', the mechanism of co-optation, the costumes (aprons in the United States Rotary clubs), the gloves, the banquets are connected with ritual the freemasons.

One can thus wonder on the one hand if such a sociologically conservative movement as a future, on the other hand if the movement is not used to give good conscience to some businessmen which, nowadays, work on world-outsourced products (iow manufactured... in the Third World), or that the Rotary, in countries where it is pursued, is used as public frontage to the activities of the free-mason lodges, held by "the secret".

Pierre Larcin, Lille, France pierre.larcin@ifrance.com

Recovered from "http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Rotary_International"

I find this article perfectly in line with a neutral point of view, and I see nothing worth disputing. I understand that much of it is directly taken from Rotary-published literature, but I find nothing wrong with that. I therefore recommend removing the npov tag. garybrimley 03:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Reiterating Garybrimley, I also find the article perfectl yin line with a neutral point of view, excepting the 'Famous Rotarians' A list of famous rotarians is fine, even the names listed are fine, but the description of the persons is inflamatory, partial, and tells nothing about those individuals with respect to Rotary. 68.188.221.105 02:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Fritz

__________________________________________________________________

All the above just proof that we Wikipedians can not allow to reproduce the propaganda. Notice that en.wikipedia and es.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia texts were the same about Rotary Notice that NPOV tag is just contested in en. version, which indicates at least a cultural problem from anglo-saxon culture.

Above cultural aspects, all this violence in above commentaries remembers me the critic of John Barron, who wrote the famous 'KGB'. He wrote that the usual way to allow dictatorship (of KGB) is to make a distinction between the role of the persons and the role of the organisation. And that a sign of Soviet dereliquiscence was that persons could not believe anymore. So, dear Fritz, it seems that you do not believe in Rotary anymore...

Well the fact is that, for the moment, it is rather difficult to find some representative of the US Democratic party which could be also a member of the Rotary. Except Dianne Feinstein,OK, but you know that Dianne Feinstein is NOT ALWAYS considered as a REAL democrat (death penalty, warfare in Irak, abortion, same-sex marriage, etc). I am a democrat, I mean a French socialist. I mean that I am then a traitor, a cynical, a pervert and a *foul language removed* communist. A target. Anyway, I am rather sure that Dianne Fenstein will give back her badge as she considers the list of the other "Famous Rotarians" published by the Rotary on the URL mentioned. Pinochet, Lindbergh, Bush, Frangieh, are not exactly friends of the mankind...

When you read Lindbergh's biography, you may not say that Lindbergh was EXACTLY a patriot and a democrat, as said Roosevelt. Same for what did Rotary in Bavaria before 1937 and even before 1933.

Same for family Bush. Did you know that Prescott Bush helped the nazi economy at least three times with his bank : Oswiecim mines, bavarian bank and money laundry during WWII ??

It is also true that General Augusto Pinochet is an honorary member of Rotary Chile. It is the subject of some mi-shocked 'jokes' in about all Rotary conventions. It is also true that Pinochet received money from anglo-american companies for his role against the "communist subversion", namely the opposition against anglo-american companies onto the Chilean economy. This was certainly an aspect of the Plan Condor.

Another strange aspect is that the Rotary movement gives proudly the 'Famous Rotarians', but forgets Tom DeLay, a brave Rotarian.

OK I remove the biography of famous Rotarians from the wiki, but I add Tom DeLay AND Dianne Feinstein. I publish the biography of the Famous Rotarians hereunder, in the Discussion Area.

pierre.larcin@ifrance.com

[edit] 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).

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

[edit] Alphabetical Order

How about putting the list of famous Rotarians in alphabetical order? Completely impartial and unbiased.

I think we should keep it simple. I like the idea of dead/living lists, or even better might be past (ie dead or expelled) Rotarians and current Rotarians.
Answer : PierreLarcin2 11:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC) I intended to place that against all names, because the problem is that some readers do not think to click to have the bio's. Specially young students or old people. I think to place some reminder upside. I think also to make clearer by making a distinction between ALIVE and DEAD Rotarians. The problem is not that.
- We have to make people aware to study (Wiki-or other media) to inform themselves about the Rotary. For example, German wiki is very interesting about German Rotary relations with Hitler's Party (NSDAP) between 1933 and 1937. This is also to fight "culture-relation" or 'nationalistic orientation' in Wiki. PierreLarcin2 11:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant edit by User:PierreLarcin2

To User:PierreLarcin2: It seems that you are mistaking Wikipedia for a place for your own hatred against Rotary. Even though it may be possible that some people, who have been once elected honorary member to Rotary, have no clean slate, the right place is in his own biography and not the article Rotary.

So, I will delete now once again the part you added on 23:43, February 12, 2006. This is to inform you that in case of your repeated action I will report you to a sysop. CeeGee 19:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my dear CeeGee, I think you are now unveiled. the claim is already done by me against you, Rotarian, and in charge of Wikipedia helpdesk since some hours, they will gently inquiry, and due to the facts, I do not doubt about the issue.
It seems that you are aware, no, of my claim ? Turkey is a BIG friend for military in Eastern Europe, no ? Turkish government is so... violent. You remember the recent contests ? The sustain of war against Armenians, against Kurds, and now against Iraki people?
You catched, indeed : this place is not the place for a Rotarian to speak about Rotary. By the way, I have no hate about Rotary and I do not have to justify this calomny. If you have something to say, say it here and now.
It is exact that I know Rotarians who had bad behaviours, specially going to public schools to 'help' girls, if you see what I mean, but I am not personnally concerned. That is just Rotary, and I combat all the Rotary bad behaviors. Rotarian criminals do always the same : difficult to proof anything, behaviors just in the limits of the law, abuse of power, hijacking of law caracteristics, just like Pinochet did. So... Pinochet will die... who cares about his prison ? What he did speaks for him, and for his Rotarian friends, his American friends, his violent friends. He is condemned by his acts, just like Rotary if Rotary does bad actions...
So here is my conclusion : your calomny against me does not change anything to what Rotary is...
I hate what Rotary did and does (dialog with nazi parti at the Hitler times, see German Wiki on Rotary), not what Rotary is : sustain Georges Bush 'as Honorary Rotarian' a war against a nation without United Nations agreement (crime against peace following -ALL- U.N. General Assembly resolutions), while claiming that Rotary contributed to United Nations, is a least a paradox, or more simply : a lie...
I hate that Rotary still now promotes Charles Lindbergh as Honorary Rotarian, because Lindbergh was a proofed antisemist... and a support of the Nazi military expansion : this American pilot even tested the military nazi aircraft Messerchmitt BF-109 !!! Who killed so many Allied soldiers in the world !!! And you Rotary promote him as a Famous Rotarian !!!!
Another big error in your conservative Rotarian texts was to promote General Pinochet, without considering that, OUTSIDE CONSERVATIVE CIRCLES IN UNITED STATES AND OUTSIDE WESTERN EUROPE, Pinochet is simply a criminal who made laws to protect his own conservative actions : killing by ordering shooting of more than 113 opponents, participating in the Condor Plan. The rest of the world exist, and think. And Wiki is present just for that : register, archive, inform and allow to think. See Wiki for more information...
A last nail in your propaganda : George Bush gracied Rotarian who had led to bankrupt a retreaty fund for old pensioned people. More info in next wiki -subchapter- adding...
Rotary speaks itself by its own past about Rotary. Wiki will CERTAINLY find a way to publish that, some TRIVIA subsection, why not ? I do not care.. You can bet on that, CeeGee, and they can all bet in the same way, all the Rotarians trying to hide some parts of the facts...
It is symptomatic that you Rotarians pulled several same texts on Rotary sites, FreeEncyclopedia and Rotarian sites.
Your error, Rotarians, was to mention as Honorary Rotarians, and to FORGET Tom DeLay and Jesse Helms : pure conservative members of the House...
I will kindly ask to Wiki community a section here under Rotary_International for conference authors of Rotary : Wernher von Braun, ex-SS, and Ron Hubbard, in the old Rotarian Racist Rhodesia.
I will gently and constantly pull up a site to demonstrate that Rotary aid to Governments for health, education, diseases avoids these Government to pay money for these public mandatory actions, and to use this money to pay WEAPONS, under the control of Rotarian members of public institutions.
My dear : Rotary is what Rotary does, not what Rotary says about Rotary.
Pierre Larcin, Lille, France - best wiki salutations
By the way, do not speak about Dianne Feinstein as a Democrat. ALL politicians sustained by Rotary are ALL conservatives : she is not REALLY considered as a true democrat, you know. If you read Wiki, you can simply make that deduction.

[edit] 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

[edit] Irrelevent - Censure pro-Rotary

Whatever petty bickering on this page should end now, the majority of the kennings on the links have no bearing on the material at hand. I don't understand the aversion to Rotary International being about Rotary International.

Is a question of NPOV. pro-Rotarians cannot speak of Rotary with NPOv... PierreLarcin2 18:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
And vice-versa Pierre. How can anti-Rotary people speak of Rotary with NPOV?
Sure. The main solution, described by Max Weber, is to announce your values and try (I said try) to build a balanced text. The annoucing of your values, accorded to Max Weber, allows the reader to decode your opinion and also the "balanced text", allowing him to "recode" the text

This is applicable for all human sciences...opinions, according to Weber PierreLarcin2 07:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

agree! If the contributors wish to keep their views intact on this Talk page, they should gather them into a concise form, sectionise them, and remove repetition.
Sure! why did you suppress Mentions of Tazmamart, Unit 731 and Condor Plan ? Any reason ? They speak of Rotarians actions ? PierreLarcin2 18:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
If you want to connect Rotary directly with the Condor Plan (and others), you should do it in a "history" or "contraversy" section with documented facts and references, not in a "members" section. A list of members should be simply a list of members. Why is there no mention of Rotary on the Operation Condor page?
Why? The reason is : when I came on this page, it was a Rotary propaganda. So I added the NPOV tag, and later the list of Rotarians. Anyway, anyone can fullfill the list with all (about 1.2 millions of) members of Rotary, the only politicians listed in Rotary are all conservative.
What is strange is that Rotarians HIDE Pinochet.
About the not-mention of Rotary in the Condor page, no-one can answer.Because, if Plan Condor was really close to the politics of USA in Latin America, this action is close to conservative political plans, and also because many persons in the US administration are conservative.
Anyway, since the years '60 and the "Phoenix plan" in Vietnam, there is a "credible denial" politic in the CIA, FBI, NSA services.
But if you take time to read Rotarian real literature (constitutions, acts, internal and mandatory monthly forms, advices for recruitment, ), and also (carefully,but it is a sign of something very bizarre) the HAMAS charte-constitution, you can certainly understand that there is a BIG database in Illinois (like in Vatican, my dear, because all prayers since centuries make reports) with a lot of information about one million of members across the world.
For a US governemental service, it is VERY interesting, of course. So maybe HAMAS reaction can be explained by covert actions against them. Maybe also for some (now rare) links (really existing) between Rotary and FreeMasonry. Make a difference at that point, please, between Anglo-Saxon 'regular' masonry, which is deist and conservative, and French masonry, which suppressed mentions of God in its constitution, and is in the country seen as "progressive", despite, FOR ME, they still protect people who exploits other people. So, that's probably a part of the sorrow who came on Chile in 1974 : some networks of conservative people who decide to suppress an election, and to kill some dozen of citizens dangerous for their interest.
About "no mention of Rotary in Condor Plan"Remember the times of Cold War. There were contact between business men of both world (businessmen of the free world), namely with directors and engineers of the soviet part of Europe. This was certainly spoken in some Rotary meetings, and these personal links are still the basis for re-foundation of Rotary Clubs NOW. In these days, was that type of information not interesting for some governemental services ? Specially close of the Department of State ?
By the way, the problem of Pinochet (sociologically) is not exactly 'only Plan Condor' (about 100.000 victims, anyway...). Did you noticed that Pinochet
- is tax-frauder to hide commissions placed in US banks
- had these commissions with weapons traffic : tanks and flight-fighters Chilean markets ?
So? Is Rotary involved in tax fraud? Is Rotary involved in weapons traffic? If no, then I repeat my arguement that this information should not be placed on this Rotary page, but elsewhere on the pages of the Pinochet.
Well, there is no sign of Rotary condemnation of weapon traffic.
They prefer to collect HUGE amounts of money and a HUGE literature on World peace and the Rotarian part in the UNESCO and even United Nations (48 Rotarians at the foundation !!). But a moral condamnation of international weapons, a simple petition
That's a bit of a leap of faith isn't it? Saying that because Rotary hasn't made any official condemnation of international weapons implies that Rotary, henceforth, must in fact support this industry.
Look to the bio of Robert White (implicated in the Condor Plan), see that he is "Fellow_Something" and to the bio of the US ambassador in Botswana. There is a speech of him on the Net. As you know, there was a scandal recently in the US, where the WOMAN-SPOUSE of an US ambassador was unveiled by White House as a member of the CIA.
You see the link not as I see the link. For me, the problem is in the conservative views of Rotary. The fact that they say "Rotary is politically neutral" in their propaganda is simply a lie placed (by pro-'s...) on Wiki, as the membership proofs : there is no progressive or leftist political leader in their membership. If you think to Rotarian recruitement, it is simply impossible. So... their POV on themselves is simply obvious (not neutral..) : certainly pro-God, conservative, and certainly no anti-human_exploitation. For the same reason, there is a distinction to do between pro-peace (as Rotary claims) and a real condemnation of weapons (which they can't do) (look to the past of Family Bush : Remington and guns factories).
What I find very strange is that, since I found about all same texts on all langage versions of Wikipedia about Rotary (some Rotarian propaganda), and after I placed Famous Rotarians and also some criticism
PierreLarcin2 07:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 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.

[edit] Membership section

We can also repack some membership section, actually there is a part upper for normal membership and down there is honorary membership in "Famous Rotarians" PierreLarcin2 09:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How were you thinking of reformatting the section? I think perhaps keep five or six of the most famous and noteworthy Rotarians, and then create a new Wikipedia page for "famous Rotarians and Honourary Rotarians". This way, we can create a "famous" list as big as we like, without wasting space in the main article. A separate page could also allow for a few notes to be written about the persons activities as a Rotarian, and/or the reasons the were made Honourary.
Creating a separate page should be a bit useless. I think to keep only the living "Famous Rotarians" to be shorter indeed and not annoy users with all Rotarians (there should be 1.2 millions members). This way we will keep your idea of the list and keep the interest.
We can also for example join a "see also" link, for example Apollo Mission for "Armstrong".
Above, I speak to create a section "Membership" to explain membership, then a section "Famous Rotarians" then maybe a link to another place, another page ? Maybe can you place there your list with all members ? PierreLarcin2 14:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
My thinking is that this will work well if we keep the list very short (only 5 or 6 names). Otherwise, it will be way too much information for the average person to pay attention to. How about this
Membership section
- Membership subsection
* information about membership
* short list of famous members
* link to Wikipedia page of more famous members, and other links
- Honourary subsection
* information about becoming honourary
* short list of honourary members
* link to wikipedia page of more honourary members, and external links.
What do you think?
There is already a page with Rotary club members. I added, for example, Dianne Feinstein membership. Have a look at the end of the page. PierreLarcin2 19:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Honorary members should be placed upstairs, because they highlight the values. In any public meeting the honorary president, member, guest, is placed under the spotlights.
If they have Koffi Annan as honorary member, of course it is significant. Honorary members exprime, say, reveal the values sustained by the organisation.
Membership information should be placed upstairs. You can imagine that many pupils across the world study a bit the Rotary, as Rotary goes INTO schools, as it sustain students exchanges, so they certainly report to their classrooms about membership. So why divide the point ?
* A Rotary membership is 1/cooptation 2/ honorary
* B Famous members
* C Actions or whatsoever subsection which can be significant
You can have any order CBA/ACB/BAC... for subchapters, I think it is better to just enhance info and synthesis according to main points, in some structure.
Why a subsection for membership ?
In any encyclopedia, there is a description of the membership mode of the Rotary. It is famous for that. Keeping the membership upstairs also disconnect from the members itself (downstairs). As Rotarians usually say, that's not because Rotary elects Pinochet as Hon. Member, that Rotary is an active part of the Condor Plan...If you allow me that joke. So we can be at year 2100, Pinochet will be dead for sure, they can fullfill their honorary members row with any politician they choose, the real thing will be : a constant, or not, in the sort of politician they sustain. Of course you know that naming a politician as honorary is a kind of support.
I would like here to remark that Tom DeLay is an active Rotarian in his county...so for George Bush himself (sorry to shock, but naming GW Bush as honorary member is a support of the Rotary)
So... saying that Rotary is not political-oriented is rather bizarre...it is ashaming ?
No reason to hide it beneath and beneath the page (I mean in the basement of the house, in the cave, or in the cellar if you prefer). If it is OK for you, let's place the honorary members above in a section downstairs with Famous Rotarians. Who does not care has not to scroll and list the Famous Rotarians.
PierreLarcin2 18:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
sounds good to me. I think you're right. Honourary membership probably does reflect the type of organisation that Rotary is, since it is public support for people, actions and ideologies that they feel are in line with Rotary.
Can we perhaps set up a couple of categories so we can link biographies directly to Rotary? What should we call these categories? Rotary_(Honorary_Members) and Rotarians_(famous)?
Yes, I will setup this in a few days, it is rather complicated in xHTML for wiki (I need to use the sandbox to have something clean) and ask for your advice, if it is OK for you. For the moment I am translating the Tazmamart and all related names (Ali Bourequat, how schocking, being a French politic refugee...into USA, Hassan II authorities being involved in drugs traffic by DEA) thing into French Wiki, because of course, Marocco being an old colony, all this is NOT in the fr.wiki. Will come in a few days, maybe tomorrow. Salutations, PierreLarcin2 08:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello "Frade" I made some table samples for Rotary members and interesting links
Would you give me your advice ? They are on my UserPage discussion. Salutations.PierreLarcin2 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added some comments on your discussion page. I think that a nice "table", like the ones you've designed, would make this page much easier to read and to absorb the information. Lists are great things, but I think tables are generally easier to navigate for what we want to do here (ie names, fame, country, etc). The tables you've designed look really good, but we should change the colours to either be "Rotary" colours or change them so that they are a little softer.
Feel free to try it on my User:discussion page. You can maybe copy-paste a new Frade table and make your own tryouts. For the moment I am active on the French wiki for Marocco and "Years of Lead" aspects. I will come back in a few days. I am also very busy for the social movement here in France, as a worker union activist. You know maybe that we strike against social precarity caused by liberal politics.... supported by Rotary... ;-) I saw youre from Australia, no ? Did you know "Rogernomics" ? Feel free also to mail me, I am not some kind of communist oger ;-) PierreLarcin2 08:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

How can an active member be dead? --71.112.173.51 19:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

well there's no way to quit Rotary neither to dismiss so... Check Rotary covenants ! You're Rotarian forever !! 84.100.98.33 13:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


erm, honorary members; so I get someone to be an honorary member. Why? so that I can leverage theri fund and assistance and publicity power. no other reason. Not so that they can secretly control my organization. Honorary members of anything tend to have little or no real power. its Honorary. So can we drop the conspiracy theorizing? Bridesmill 22:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Membership: Explanation of how to use links

I notice that the membership section has explanations for how to use a link!? "to read a biography, click on a name. For example : click on Augusto Pinochet to read the bio of an honorary Rotary member" This seems odd and I notice it has been deleted and added back maybe a couple of times. Why is this needed? Jjinfoothills

Good morning. I have restaured two times that vandalism and explained two times.
I am happy that you use now the disc. page as said in "History".
You said "If some people can't see links, how are they supposed to get to Wikipedia in the first place? Instructions removed.)" and I answered you : " Blind people use a max the caracter-reading system, wikipedia is not accessibility-compliant, or older people are not always equipped to see the links".
I notice that you corrected the social actions of Rotary and seem to know well the Rotary social life. Are you Rotarian ? I speak of vandalism because we had a lot of vandalism onto that page, because Rotarian did not like to enumerate some "Famous Rotarian". For example, Pinochet was removed from a so called Central America IP address.
Rotary-certified people tried also to flood "Bad" Rotarians in a full list of other members.
I have a few questions :
Can a disabled person learn by text-mode that she can read any bio ? GW.Bush, Armstrong ?
Is the problem linked to to have some name choosed as an example ?
Can Pinochet be a problem as an example ?
Do you prefer somebody else than Pinochet for an example of Famous Rotarian ?
I do not mind at all to place anyone. Who do you prefer ?
By the way at a time there was a distinction between Famous Active and Famous Honorary,
to show a symetry with the two types of membership. I have restored it.
Best regards,
PierreLarcin2 09:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I am totally confused. As of the current time, I have not edited anything on the Rotary page. If you are referring to the comments on the edits, I'm afraid they are not my edits and they are not my comments. I'm just here asking about these odd directions. Personally, I think they're irrelevant. What other Wikipedia articles have such a explanation for how to use a link? I've never seen one, but I've seen many similar lists. My question is, "Why this article? Why Rotary?" Jjinfoothills 03:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Well this is the only wiki I developed for the moment on en.wiki and most of European langages. You're right there is some list problem about the long list and also for the readibility or accessibility. I can't help on that, because this list is the result of a flooding technique for wikipedia fiddling, done after the work I did to add facts onto Rotary.

The real problem is that is a closed club, like freemasonry, and...not really transparent. The only way to add info is either to think on facts, either to accept info from Rotarians. I plan to change the presentation to make the list more readable for a non-blind. I do not want to cut anything, as it could be some censorship. By the way, I cure for blinds also, which could be upset by the length of the list. That"s already the case for non blinds, and the purpose of the flooding. This flooding, I repeat was done by people close to Rotary (User CeeGee for example). About the way to explore accessibility, I can't help more than that for the moment, I suppose wiki will evolve to comply to nex accessibility standards. PierreLarcin2 12:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing is though, Wikipedia links, when rendered, are just standard HTML links. Look at the HTML source: the link appears as 
<a href="/wiki/Ron_Hubbard" title="Ron Hubbard">Ron Hubbard</a>
- they should appear to a screenreader exactly the same as any other link, because they are exactly the same as any other link on the rest of the Internet. Linking is a standard way of doing things on the entire Internet. Any screenreader should support this somehow. This is not done on any other article, by the way, so I don't see why we need it here. ...Scott5114 15:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Just a precision : blind people do not use screenreaders. They use sensitive bars.

These bars just pull the texts as pins under fingers. You understand ? Links are seen as texts. Even Rotarians or Lionists should know that : among a lot of misery, these service clubs take care of blind people, don't they ? PierreLarcin2 19:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I just ran across this article trying to find out what the Rotary Club was, and in the course of reading the article I found the link explanations. They bothered me, because we tend to leave meta-information like this out of articles; see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. So I removed them, not knowing there was an ongoing edit war over this.
This will most likely inadvertantly happen again, as most editors would see this, think whoa, that's not right, and remove it. I would advise talking about it somewhere like the Village Pump, as I'm not sure what to do with this now...Scott5114 03:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
My humble addition to this discussion... If only to support Pierre Larcin's viewpoint which quite impressed me. He is correct in pointing out the good and the bad of Rotary International. That would be the only way of reaching an objective presentation of this rather mysterious organization. If it would not have a hidden agenda, the membership would not be closed to general public. I would dispute, though, the statement that Rotary only invites conservatives as this is not the case in my country. The fact that most of the members (globally) are liberal/conservative must be in some way explained by the invitation procedures. It is businessmen who wish to be involved in such organizations (clientelism anyone?) and it is their friends who will invite them that inevitably leading to perpetuation of liberal/conservative elite within such organizations.
Yes, your analysis is correct for me. The problem in Europe is that this alternative between conservative/liberals is not "seen", "perceived" as an alternative, but as two branches of the same conservatism. That's why here people speak of distinction between "governance" and "government". There is also some extreme kind of that conservatism, that we could call "governator" ;-). That's why I spoke of "conservatism", simply. We see in Europe some general movement to "let pass" "alternative" forms of social movement : "anti-GMO", "altermondialism", "populism-not of extreme-right", "white marches", "orange movements", "support to Chavez", etc. That's why -conscienceness- such a person as Michel Moore is so popular in Europe, as far as I think.
You're also right, I think, on the "sociologist" aspect of the Rotary : perpetuation of an elite. Some U.S. University professor made a book on that, I think, about Rotary, Skull and Bones, etc. Days of change seem to come. Who knows ? PierreLarcin2 19:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
This is silly. This section was meant for comments about the "explanation for how to use a link". I think, PierreLarcin2, that your opinion on Rotary is quite clear and places your decisions on this topic well outside wikipedia's NPOV pillar. Adding this useless explanation for how to use a link, does not seem to be based on information, but instead seems clearly based on a personal agenda. I also question if there is some sock puppetry going on here as "other" supportive comments go unsigned and are written with very similar poor grammar. I have yet to get involved in the "edit war" itself as I think this needs to be resolved here on the talk page. It looks to me, however, that the removal of the explanation has been by quite a few different individuals while the reversion has been by a single person. That in and of itself could be kinda questionable. I'd vote to open up an opinion poll on this issue. And if possible, I'd ask that everyone keep *this* section of the talk page to the topic of the "Explanation of how to use links" and find and/or create another section of this talk page to go on rants about Rotary. Jjinfoothills 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki references are disruptive in an encyclopedia because they distract from the topic at hand. Also, wiki references limit the use of Wikipedia as an open source encyclopedia, the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, not merely to perpetuate itself, so the articles produced should be useful even outside the context of the project used to create it. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references Meaning, if someone were to print the Wikipedia Rotary article out - the links are not going to be visible in the printed material and will not work, as a result the reference to linking makes the wikipedia entry less useful for other purposes without the article being modified to remove the link usage explanation first. The reversion of these paragraphs again and again (and getting quite close to violating the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule) is easily seen as fulfilling an anti-Rotary agenda that is in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Therefore, it is my strong opinion that these wiki explanations be removed. Jjinfoothills 21:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right : I am "silly" and "poor of grammar", you tried an edit war, and yes, Rotarians try wikipedia fiddling from anywhere in the Worlds. 4 millions Rotarians, waoh, what a number of possible Wikipedia contributors...

About the sample, you may change the name. Blind or handicapped people do not see links, you should know that. About Rotary, well I have my opinion, but I do not censure anything and even add more data on rotary (double motto for example). I do not blank any line on Rotary. You, are pro-Rotary. Why did you blank things, and overflood the list of Famous Rotarians ? The NPOV does not mean I have no opinion. I just announce it, following Max Weber's doctrine, as we speak here of human science. Why don't you ? Rotary does good thing, like taking care of blinds, sending blinds to do sport in Himalaya with Army donations, etc. You should be proud of that. PierreLarcin 84.100.98.189 04:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me just repeat: I haven't edited the Rotary entry at all. Not one bit. I've only been involved in this issue here on the talk page. Direct the edit war comments somewhere else, I haven't been editing. Jjinfoothills 03:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, this battle has become quite involved and apparently somewhat heated. It has also been listed on Request For Comment, which is why I'm here. In my opinion, there are points being made about accessibility for the blind/disabled, but they're being made in the wrong place. A huge part of wiki is the inline internal links that allow readers to jump to other relevent information, so it shouldn't need to be explained; my response to the RfC is that the comments to click on the names to read their biographies should not be included. That said, if there are legitimate accessibility concerns, it needs to be addressed for the site as a whole because, as mentioned, internal links are everywhere. Consider bringing this issue to The Village Pump where it can be discussed more generally and by a larger group of people, and where a site wide solution can be implemented.
Also, just an FYI, some blind people do use audible screen readers, and some use sense bars. I'm sure there's a handful of other methods out there, as well.
B.Mearns*, KSC 18:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a worldwide Rotary congress running on end June in Sweden/Denmark

You have maybe some explanation PierreLarcin2 00:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Huh? This must be the only place on Wiki that tells people how to use links. Most of the internet, for that matter. Just isn't needed. And if your sight is so bad you can't read the mouseover, chances are you can't read the banal instructions either. Sense bars & readers don't need it either. Please stick to established WP style - if that is such a problem, please discuss it at the Pump, as obviously this affects more than just this one page/article.Bridesmill 04:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Came here from RFC. Without reading the huge amount of guff above, it is obvious that all articles must conform to the general style of Wikipedia, incuding the self-reference rule. The page is on my watchlist, and I will revert any restoration of "click on a link..."-type comments. AndyJones 21:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I had no idea that my changes had come in the middle of an edit war. I did not intend to join, but seeing where this is going, I guess I will. Like the others above, I too will revert any attempt to reinsert the frivolous text. I understand the arguments for the text made above and they are noble. However, if you wish to make such amenities, please do so for all articles rather than just for a favorite few. Such inconsistancy in the encyclopedia will only serve to frustrate people more than do them good. -- 127.*.*.1 21:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
well I cannot edit all articles. I concentrate on Rotary as they care of blinds (less than Lion's ;-) and because I am becoming blind myself. I need an help to maintain here. The main problem is the huge list. Such a number of members in the Rotary version does not help, they have 4 millions member you know, it was done to flood the bad boys (Pinochet, Prescott Bush) in a lot of names. I restore what the guy blanked again. Anyone may have the hability to study Rotary and sorting out was is an interesting member, or not. PierreLarcin May21th 2006
By all articles I meant you could make suggestions on the Village Pump and bring awareness to others. There may be people who have come across the same problems and found other solutions. I do not think that Wikipedia is very friendly towards the visually impaired. For example, the equations in most of the math articles are images, not text. This stems from limitations in the software, and there is a project to overcome this limitation. So I think if you bring up the fact that lists of links are hard to go through for the blind, I'm sure someone will at least start looking into the situation and try to find a solution. Since I am in an authoritarian mood, I will add this: if you do not bring it up, I will. (Insert evil and diabolic laugh here.) -- 127.*.*.1 11:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry we do not find the Vilage pump. Could you do it for us ? Thank you. I suppose we can begin to have some tryout here. We noticed that CeeGee, Rotarian, came after you. PierreLarcin 84.100.98.189 19:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way this kind of problem is solved the way I did here, but on the French version of wiki and since weeks, or even monthes, without any contestation, specifically for blind people. I am not sure that such a structure is a problem for Wiki consistency, and I suspect heavily some Wikipedia fiddling by Rotarians. I suppose that the real problem is to have Pinochet in the example. Well, you can put Lindbergh if you want : he was antisemist

The fact is that his name cannot been seen in the huge list Rotarian CeeGee made. We noticed also he came again on the page after you, while he is a declared Rotarian PierreLarcin2 19:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Following comment moved from my talk page:
    • It seems you begin an edit war on the Rotary page. Would you justify please. There is an explanation page. Can you edit it ? as a blind such an huge list as enlarged by Rotarians is not usable. Were is the problem in placing some header ?
    • another question : are you member of the Rotary Club ? You seem to have the profile for.
    • Thank you PierreLarcin2 20:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • My rationale is above. I've nothing to add. Amazed by the suggestion that I started an edit war which had an RfC before I knew about it. AndyJones 08:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that at least one user is having a problem with this article due to their sight. This is something that should be resolved. However, I do not see anything particularly different about this article in comparison with the rest of Wikipedia. Therefore the problem will affect all the articles. As such it would be better to step back from this article and stop changing it back and forth. As to ways forward perhaps changes to the media wiki software or a new skin would be the best resolution. That discussion would be better held at somewhere like the village pump. Perhaps PierreLarcin2 could outline the general problem on the village pump to get community support for a solution. --MarkS (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radical criticisms

"in the past years" - a single decade 80 years ago hardly qualifies as that. This sentence also clais that the Rotarians used the Masons as 'cover'. Erm, that is just totally counter-intuitive. Next sentence makes no grammatical sense. Next sentence - Hmas; OK - So the Canada article should also be amended because bin Laden calls Canada a bunch of bums? In other words, not a germane criticism. Then the final sentence states that all of this is spurious becuase it is all based on the critic's not having a clue. Verdict - Please totally redo this if there is any validilty to any of this before re-inserting it.Bridesmill 22:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

this is totally fake. You should follow the 'famous Rotarians' link and read what Rotary says with freemasonic critic [linked to conflict between Catholic church and freemasons in years 1920]. And Hamas mention of Rotary in its charter is a fact. Even if this kind of critic is a fake or folkloric (made for a political purpose) it is a fact, but has to be relocated in its context for eventual study. I restored the text. PierreLarcin2 03:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you do not understand the normal criteria for scholarship. Just because someone wacked says 'These folks are bad and I am going to target them' does not mean that these folks are bad. Or that it is reportable. Your text concludes by stating that it is spurious - why put anything spurious on WP???Bridesmill 03:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Iam not spurious, I am just remarking that you came here to blank Pinochet and criticisms.

About Hamas, I am neither member of the Hamas, but the folklorical text of Hamas do not have to study Rotary on wiki. If you have facts, place that. It is a fact that Rotarians (CeeGee, you, Andy) try to present Rotary.OK. Place facts. it is a fact that Rotary is active on Internet, and also a fact that on German wiki, it is stated that they excluded jews. You may not contribute to wiki just by blanks on points which are negative. I DO NOT BLANK ANYTHING ON WHAT ROTARY DOES IN THE WORLDS : numbers, programs, honorary membership, etc. WHAT YOU DO is replacing infos and facts by blanks. I call that "wikipedia fiddling" as Dianne Feinstein did for her wiki (Dianne Feinstein who is a Rotary club member) PierreLarcin284.100.98.189 03:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not presume what I am here to do. I am not rotarian - I am interested in good scholarship.Bridesmill 03:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

a good scholarship is not to blank the facts. It does not help neither schools, neither science, neither study, neither philosophy. PierreLarcin2 84.100.98.189 03:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, you should notice that Rotarians GO INTO SCHOOLS TO PRESENT THEMSELVES, their actions, their programs. Do you think they speak about ALL ASPECTS of their activity OR DO YOU THINK THAT ROTARY PRESENTS ITSELF WITH ONLY THE GOOD ASPECTS

1/ first why allow any public relations club (see mottos) in a school 2/ in schools there is scholarship as you say. Do you think that it helps scholarship to present only one point of view? PierreLarcin2 84.100.98.189 03:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I need to be away for a few weeks, surgery needed. I suppose edit war will continue during that, I will send one Wikipedia arbitration request about Rotary after that. I deeply think that it is needed due to wiki fiddling by Rotarians. 84.100.98.189 08:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Many critics in the past <weasel word> (originally emitted in the years 1920-1930)<one decade that long ago? so what> were focused on the so-called role of 'façade' given by the Rotary to freemasonry <this makes no intuitive or logical sense. profide proof of Rotary using freemasonry as a facade.>. There were mostly caused, according to the Rotarian literature itself, by a Londonian freemasonic lodge of Rotarians.<sentence makes no gramattical sense> In the same genre, the Palestinian group Hamas declares the Rotary to be its enemy in the Hamas charter among freemasonic and zionist organisations<Hamas statements do not carry scholarly weight, the fact Hamas said this means squat>. These criticisms of the Rotary have to be handled carefully, as they are not based on any analysis of its composition, its actions, and its sociological or political role.<this sentence says everything before it is ill-founded - in other words, not encyclopedic> Does it need any more explanation? If you want to put it back, fix it and/or respond to the critique, don't just play peurile revert games.Bridesmill 13:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] What to do

This page (and other rotary related pages) is quite obviuously under attack by a one-agenda user who has a personal grudge for whatever bizarre reason, and assumes that anyone who disagrees with him is either an idiot or a Rotary meat-puppet (which I consider to be a WP:NPA). I would stongly suggest getting the page protected and/or getting this user blocked to start with.Bridesmill 13:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I'm copying the following directly from the article. I'll then revert the main article. I'll be back here later today to work through this. AndyJones 08:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Radical and folklorical criticisms in the past

Many critics in the past (originally emitted in the years 1920-1930) were focused on the so-called role of 'façade' given by the Rotary to freemasonry. There were mostly caused, according to the Rotarian literature itself, by a Londonian freemasonic lodge of Rotarians. In the same genre, the Palestinian group Hamas declares the Rotary to be its enemy in the Hamas charter among freemasonic and zionist organisations. These criticisms of the Rotary have to be handled carefully, as they are not based on any analysis of its composition, its actions, and its sociological or political role.

sources :

Internet proselytism criticisms

Criticism be emitted to the activity of Rotarians onto Internet. For example, on Wikipedia and until 2006, all texts presenting Rotary were all the same, based on the following Rotarian general structure and presentation (text, image, chapter, Paul Harris picture) that subsists in the Indonesian version. See structure : http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_Club The only exception was the German wiki about Rotary, were it is notably stated that German Rotary Clubs excluded Jew members in the years 1933-1938, links to "regular" (theist) freemasonry, and the discussion between NSDAP and Rotary International authorities about compliancy to the Hitlerian regime. According to the general behaviour charter of Rotary International itself, when the texts were edited in a way which cannot be admitted to be from a Rotarian authorized source, the logos and Paul Harrris pictures were generally withdrawed from the wikis, and restored to comply to the "fair use" wiki politic of logos.

Of course, with 4 millions members, -and developing even "virtual" Internet Rotary Clubs -, Rotarians can statistically become Wikipedians, but since the Dianne Feinstein wiki affair, the general wiki line is to develop an equilibrated editorial line. Dianne Feinstein is Honorary Member of the California Rotary-Club

Links between service clubs and extreme-right organizations

The german wikipedia mentions that german Rotary clubs, between 1934 and 1938, excluded jew members from Rotary clubs until 1938. As the NSDAP party saw international organisations as suspect, and Nazi Party declared incompatible both membership to Rotary and membership to NSDAP or official nazi functions. After four years of negotiations between the central headquarters in Chicago and the NSDAP party, club were closed and Charters withdrawed in 1938. Some clubs maintained an activity as "Friday Clubs". [RC Kiel-Freitagsgesellschaft].

Source :

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_Club#Zur_Zeit_des_Nationalsozialismus

Some Famous Honorary Rotarians were close to the Ku-Klux-Klan, as Woodrow Wilson and the "Birth of a Nation", Harry Truman, when he began as a politician. This phenomenon can also be noticed for Lion's, with Senator Robert Byrd, who was member of the Ku Klux Klan. Another Famous Rotarian, Senator Jesse Helms, had nostalgic remembrances of segregation

Sources : http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_Club#Zur_Zeit_des_Nationalsozialismus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#The_second_Klan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_national_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms#Controversies


Well, since you came on the page, you just blanked criticisms. You shoud add positive actions. I can't, I am not member of the Rotary. My main point of view is that you blank because, for the moment, there is a major Rotary world event in Copenhagen, and that Internet can't be avoided by Rotarians. That's why you blank...

If you have problems with wiki mentions, just say it on the discussion page, do not blank. Today, I will send a RfC on Wikipedia for Rotary wiki fiddling. It will be easy for arbitration members to see where the IP you use was coming from. If it came from Northern Europe, it will be shown what you are exactly... OK, go ! And use Wiki following the rules. I do have any "agenda", I just cross what Rotary did on wiki and what wiki says on Rotary members... Have a good reflexion, PierreLarcin2 10:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. No particular comment on the above for the moment. AndyJones 12:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Right, let's start breaking this down:
    1. "Internet proselytism criticisms", the heading, doesn't make sense to me at all, I'm afraid. I've looked up "proselytize", a word I've never previously used, and it means "to try to convert a person, esp. to one's religion". Even with that knowledge I cannot see what it is getting at, sorry. Is it a criticism of any organisation that it tries to attract members through the internet? Or am I missing something?
    2. The story in this passage seems to be that Rotary wrote a template for wikipedia "Rotary International" pages, and that Rotarians translated it and put it up on the various language wikipedias. That's possibly a WP:AUTO problem (and in passing I agree that it's important that the page doesn't become owned by Rotarians). However, I have trouble seeing it as a scandal worthy of discussion in main space unless it has an existence in the real world, for example if it has been commented on by outside media.
    3. As I've said before, copy containing sentences like "Criticism be emitted to the activity of Rotarians onto Internet" cannot be permitted onto the page, purely on grammatical grounds. Also, what on earth does "emitted" mean in this context? This can obviously be repaired by someone like me translating the whole lot into good English (I imagine that sentence means "Rotary has been criticised for its activities on the internet" or something similar). However, if the story itself cannot be shown to be notable and externally verifiable, is there any point in me doing that work?
    4. Conversely, it seems to me that (if verifiable) the claims of an historical connection between Rotary and the government of Nazi Germany - and indeed any other right-wing state - are appropriate material for this page. If so, they should be here in their own context, not in the context of criticisms of Rotary articles on Wikipedia.
    5. "Rotarians can statistically become Wikipedians." Wow, really?
    6. I am particularly confused by the reference to the Dianne Feinstein affair. What on earth is meant by that? Our article Dianne Feinstein doesn't mention anything that I can identify. Context is required, here. If this means anything at all, it needs to explain what it means. Otherwise, this material cannot stay.
    7. What the blippity-plop is "an equilibrated editorial line"? And whatever it turns out to be, presumably it should be in an article about Wikis, not an article about Rotary.
    8. Verifiability is a major problem with this post. I've started working through the links, but all of them (except one to Rotary's own site) are simply links to other language wikipedias. Firstly, I cannot understand them. Secondly, a wiki is not a verifiable source for anything. If there are external sources, ideally print sources, for any of this we need to know what they are. Failing that we cannot admit this onto the article.
    9. Turning next to Radical and folklorical criticisms in the past I have many of the same problems mentioned above. What on earth does this heading mean?
      1. What's "radical" about? Is Rotary criticised for being radical? Or is Rotary criticised by radicals? (And if so, in which of the many senses of the word radical?) Or are the criticisms themselves radical (i.e. extreme)? No idea.
      2. Folklorical? What's that about? Presumably derives from "folklore", which just makes me think of elves and pixies. No obvious connection with the subject of the paragraph, anyway.
    10. What does the paragraph itself mean? I've read the source page, which says that there was at least one lodge composed entirely of Rotarians. Fair enough. What criticism are we implying here, though? Are we in fact saying anything meaningful? The source doesn't support the idea that Rotary was ever a "facade" for freemasonry. Besides the similarities between the two organisations are pretty obvious.
    11. Who or what is the referent of "they" in "they were mostly caused"?
    12. Londonian?
    13. "These criticisms of the Rotary have to be handled carefully, as they are not based on any analysis of its composition, its actions, and its sociological or political role." Don't understand. Needs to be handled carefully? Handled carefully by whom? Why? In what sense? What happens if you don't handle them carefully? Do they explode?
    14. I'm getting very bored of the repeated accusations that Pierre's edits are being reverted as a result of censorship or a Rotarian conspiracy of some kind. I think Pierre is unaware how bizarre, and how badly expressed, his posts on this page appear: to be honest the quality of his English is too bad to make anything useful out of his edits. The reality is that there aren't Rotarians ganging up on you: just, in my case at least, a belief that this page should not be complete bollocks. I can't speak for other editors here, but I'm not a Rotarian, and I have no personal opinions on the substantive issues in the article.
    15. Finally, I'm not going to do this exercise again or debate these issues further. I'll gauge the consensus on this. I'm not sure if someone's put this on RfC, but if so that might be useful. If the concensus is that Pierre is broadly right and my criticisms are wrong I'll walk away from the page. If the consensus is that Pierre's edits are as bad as I consider them to be I'll simply revert all his future edits as (I suspect unintentional) vandalism (and 3RR be damned).

That's my wikirant over. AndyJones 19:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I believe PiereLarcin's behaviour here is fairly repugnant & has gone well beyong hour having to assume good faith. Refusal to engage in debate and simply re-inserting material which has been clearly and conclusively refuted/dispelled or makes no grammatical sense or is patently irrelevant (e.g. 'the material above is not reliable' piece - if this is so, why put that material in??) Methinks this individual needs to be blocked if they continue this behaviour.Bridesmill 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

all you do is insulting me plus blanking what I bring. I do not blank the positive things that you bring. I will answer later to all that mess. I do not have capacities and time to fight against two, three or for Rotarians on four guys. We work here at two : a blind and a good french-english writer. You even blanked the full text of a Rotary governor. PLUS THERE IS WHAT ROTARY DID TO HIDE PINOCHET ONTO THAT PAGE. Well, discover that in my claim in the front of the Wikipedian community PierreLarcin2 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ARBITRATION REQUEST AGAINST ROTARIANS PLUS RfC PREPARED on the way now

Please stop harassment. You will fight in front of the respective colleges for RfC and for arbitration PierreLarcin2 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)



next change : BridesMill : we bet ? ;-) 84.102.229.124 21:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • No, was me. And yes, as I've said above, I think an RfC on this page would be useful. AndyJones 21:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No BridesMill came just after you, and everyone of you are just stopping at two reverts. Superb team work. I think that the community will appreciate.

Now Aldux does not like the title. What's next reason for blank ? Typo perhaps ?

    • BTW, the anon. editor is PierreLarcin2, trying to evade the WP:3RR; the IP is from Lille, exactly as he is.--Aldux 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Of Course we are ! We just saw you playing with the 3 reverts rules : two by AndyJones,

then two by Aldux, then two by Bridesmill. Who will now dare to remove the women trial against Rotary ? Aldux perhaps : the typo is awful in that chapter !!

OK. We go to bed now, here in Lille France. Nice show guys, they'll love it at wiki, again !! Rotary all over the world, isn't it ? PierreLarcin2 22:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

22:15 - 16 june. And both "links between some members and extreme right organizations"

and "problem of Women in rotary the Duarte case" chapters they both stay ! Miracle of the 3 RV max rule. They are just looking for a pro- guy coming to blank again ! 84.102.229.124 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subsection title should be changed

I think the section title "Criticisms against male preeminence in Rotary International" should be changed; I don't have any great ideas as to what, though.

Yes : try "Modern ways to transform a discrimination trial in an Internet asset for a public relations Club" :-)

More seriously try : "Criticism due to the Duarte trial for women equality in membership" 84.102.229.124 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women & rotary

The subject is addressed in the appropriate paragraph on women & rotary; as well as in the footnote explaining the motto change. The phrase removed - "This change in the second motto, from "He profits most who serve best" to "They profit most who serve best" , was adopted to recognize the final entry of women in the Rotary in late 1990 's and was adopted by Rotary International in 2004, after the Duarte R Club affair - an example of successful change from within." Is thus superfluous, but also pure guess and unlikely - the likely assumption is that this was a natural 'gender equity' change; not that it was done to celebrate entry of women - practically 20 years & legally 10 years earlier. In addition, as it reads, it means women did not enter after the 1990s (implying it is now male only, which is patently false).Bridesmill 03:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

are you sure you read about InnerWheel ? What is the Inner Wheel purpose ?

And how does it matter that a club went in Supreme Court ? By "inner work" of course ? Of course that Rotary is mainly against women. Have a look on the pictures in the world ! The women on the pics are the spouses of the Rotarian male members ! In our area, all the "mixt" Rotary club is ONLY populated by males ! Come to the meetings and see ! The problem is that wiki is not a living experience... How can someone deny reality like this, it is incredible !! Did you see a Rotarian program for pro-abortion ? Is pro-abortion a conservative motto ? Is "against abortion" a way to maintain girls in their dependance of family, males, work, etc ? PierreLarcin2 01:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RI on Internet phrase

"Some Rotarians enumerated by the Rotary International on Internet" = I thjink what you are trying to say is that Rotary listed their names on the web. Of course if you had famous people in your org, you'd list them on the web; so that's basically 'so what' & irrelevant. And they missed the fact these guys had in one or two cases credible racist tendencies (at a time when most Americans did); Truman prob shouldn't even count as his KKK associations were superficial & spurious at best. If there's anything this line contributes, is it says 'RI is not trying to do a cover-up'....which would lead me to believe that even M. Larcin would prefer not to see it there.Bridesmill

I would remember you that

1/ Rotary DEFINES itself as a philanthropic movement. 2/ KKK or segregation [even against women] is not EXACTLY philanthropy 3/ that these people were nominated HONORARY rotarians. Please read again the definition of Honorary rotarians : "Honorary membership is given by election of a Rotary Club to people who have distinguished themselves by meritorious service in the furtherance of Rotary ideals. Honorary membership is conferred only in exceptional cases". And this text was included by CeeGee, the only registered Rotarian wikipedian :-) 84.102.229.124 01:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC) PierreLarcin2 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ROTARY INTERNATIONAL : Removal of section on political criticism

I know this article has been subject to some controversy, but I went ahead and removed this section because it was completely in conflict with Wikipedia policy, as well as just plain poorly-done. It was not cited, not really NPOV, and was one big weasel-word free-for-all. "Some alledge"-type statements DO NOT belong in Wikipedia, no matter how you feel about an organization, especially when some are objectively wrong, such as referring to Senator Dianne Feinstein, a liberal Democrat, as a conservative one. I believe any objective or subjective source, as well as anyone who knows anything about US politics, would disagree with that analysis. Paragraphs like this make the project look sloppy and inaccurate, so I removed it. --SuperNova |T|C| 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We will restore this paragraph. Your problem is that
1/ We do not find a synonym for conservative. You may find conservatives even in the liberal Democrats. The real problem is to know what is your way, your personal way to make a distinction between left and right. Maybe should we use the word "pro-weapon" politician ?
2/ Dianne Feinstein is not EXACTLY a friend of wikipedia. Did you know it ?
She tried to "enhance" her wiki directly from the Capitol. And I think that Rotary does the same... So my claim that we will give to Wikipedia
3/ the problem is that Rotary is not, AROUND THE WORLD, sustaining any progressive politician. They did not even support Gandhi, did you know that. And I am not sure that the German Wiki community does allow wikipedia fiddling for Rotary, due to some racists support. I will come back with the Lindbergh sample, Honorary rotarian, and antisemist.
4/ anyway all this will be cleared by the arbitration request we want to submit to Wikipedia. So let"s use the "bad" version for the moment ;-)
84.102.229.124 01:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
PierreLarcin2 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I understood most of that, but it sounds like you want to use this site to express your personal anti-Rotary views that would probably best expressed on a "Why PierreLarcin2 Hates Rotary" website. And the latter option would be fine, that's your business, and I don't care about Rotary in the least, so go right ahead and make such a site. However, this is Wikipedia, and I do care that we keep it neutral and verifiable. Thus, removing my {{fact}} template from the racism paragraph without actually citing a source is offensive to Wikipedia policy; please see WP:Cite.
Further, you are correct (if I understand you) that the liberal/conservative distinction is a matter of opinion; thus, it does not belong here at all! You could say something like, "John Q. Example, writing in The Nation, notes that Rotary tends to support conservatives such as..." We should not ever say, "Rotary tends to support conservatives such as..." because Wikipedia has to stay neutral; after all, why give Dianne Feinstein (if she truly doesn't support this project) more ammunition against WP's accuracy? I hope you knew that neutrality was a policy; if not, please read WP:NPOV. (Gandhi, of course, being irrelevant in every way to this discussion.)
Finally, I'm glad someone will be arbitrating this issue, as it is clearly one where some individuals have some very strong views. That said, there is never any call to use a "bad version" as part of Wikipedia; the best, cited, neutral, verifiable version should always be presented, because most readers won't look in the history to see what "other" versions exist. The arbitrators, though, can, should, and probably will do that. Though I haven't been involved in this dispute (until now, I guess), I trust that they will make the right decision. In the meantime, I have to do what I think is the right decision and revert your last edit. --SuperNova |T|C| 06:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
We understand here that you are pro-Rotary, which is perfectly your right. Where you make a mistake, is by blanking proven facts against-Rotary. Personnally, you may have remarked that we never blanked pro- information. First.

Second, Rotary is clearly an elitist and racist organization. Their members, ALL AROUND the world, support conservative actions, and even indirectly weapons commerce [by allowing African States to spare money on the wealth budget]. Why should we NOT write it ? They are facts... So, do not worry, 1/ first we will show that your actions are POV 2/ second we have links with facts that... tend.. to assume... that Rotary is conservative. Were is it a problem ? Not really. As we/I said, Rotary is a public relations organization. Of course "they" (and all conservative and elitists around the world) tend to shade their actions. The problem is that wikipedia is not a showroom, and that it is widely used by scholars. Rotary goes into schools, and sustain children of their own to go to universities. They pay students. Don't you know :-) ? Do you think that these students (like Aldux probably, or you) will criticize them ? And why shouldn't children in these schools, when Rotary prepares an auto-presentation in their school, read on wikipedia that, for example, Charles Lindbergh, showed as an example by the RI as a "Famous Honorary rotarian" had an affair with very younger woman and expressed antisemistic public opinions. -Yes I know already, he has certainly excuses as any Rotarian.- By the way he tested nazi war aircrafts for the nazi Luftwaffe. Brilliant. Do you think that, in 1939, Henry Ford could have been approached by the Rotary to become a member ? He was rather a businessman, no, interested by ethics, no ? I am rather sure that you voted for Bush junior, it's OK. Did you know that his grandfather, a Rotarian, worked for the financer of Hitler ? Did you know that Rotarian founder Paul Harris was in Germany in 1938 TO PLANT A FRIENDSHIP TREE ? At that time, - jews were already OFFICIALLY persecuted since 5 years in Germany - concentration camps in Germany were active. With a club in nearly all big town, don't you think that, as Vatican, Rotary club was NOT aware about the existence of concentration camps ? The exclusion laws against jews, freemasons and handicapped were published starting 1933. Dachau was active in 1933 at 20 kms of Munich. Do you think that businessmen of Munich, in 1934, would have been aware of the activity of a concentration camp, 20kms from Munich ?

Do not forget : Rotarians define themselves as philantropists : they "Serve".. For sure, they served Jewish people ! And do not forget that the jewish founder of the Rotary dismissed "for professional reasons" in 1906. Waow ! Strange !

How real problem is that we have difficulties to manage all these texts, including the claim to build against pro-rotarians blanking negative aspects based on facts.

PierreLarcin2 08:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It was I who pulled tha fact tag from the Racism bit, the reason was that a. it's common knowledge and b. I hadn't noticed that you had changed the wikilinks, which pointed at the relevant sections. On the other hand, context is important. I would challenge anyone to find an organization of comparable size which did 'not' have (during the period in question) some members who had KKK associations. So unless we tar every organization that existed in the US during this period with the same brush, this is cherry-picking & POV. In addition, we must recall that 'Honorary Membership" has as much to do with the organization seeking the 'Honorary Member's" support as the other way around. Finally, how are we to know that RI was aware of KKK associations or how deep they ran when Hon. status was bestowed. In other words, unless there is *proof* of collusion and KKK involvement in RI decisionmaking process, this is all circumstantial & contextually dependent. QED not for wiki.Bridesmill 19:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bridesmill, you can blank as far as you want, it does not change anything to facts.

About wiki, you know, I am not really afraid they will take your arguments as relevant... Another fact ? We do not know what did the founder, Paul Harris, between 1938 and 1946. Why ? Strange.

Another thing is : You do not use the same system for "positive" thing on wiki. Many things are not verifiable, but you leave them. You are partial and you give me pain. You give us pain because you do not respect the truth.

You give us pain You give us pain You give us painYou give us painYou give us painYou give us painYou give us painYou give us painYou give us painYou give us painYou give us painYou give us painYou give us painYou give us painYou give us painYou give us painYou give us painYou give us painYou give us pain.

That all what you conservatives are able to do. Pay weapons, hide truth and give pain. And we do not like that. Go away. PierreLarcin2 19:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the WP:NPA. And please go take a few deep breaths. Why all the hate?Bridesmill 03:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You began multiple reverts, edit only negative aspects and transform it in positive music, and you do not even bring new informations. When you add info, these are just "contexts" who smooth the Rotary image. I do not hate you, but what you do is clearly giving us pain, because you alter truth and you cause much (useless) work to us. 84.102.229.124 07:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about me - I'm wondering why you hate RI so much, seeing as they are no different from so many other service clubs. And, BTW, on wiki you can't make up quotes or WP:NOR as in your new tripe on women in Middle East - pure opinion on the one hand, on the other hand that only makes RI like everything else there, so to point it out is not balanced - and your quote about women, ('dames') which you have altered but can't provide a cite for, which implies you invented it. Female membership is not 'a problem' - for whom is it a problem? it was a problem, just as it was for many organizations/countries for many years (Women couldn't stand for election in Belgium until 1921, for example).Bridesmill 13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SO CALLED FEMALE MEMBERSHIP who was in the truth WOMEN SEGREGATION IN ROTARY

Stop wikipedia fiddling. If females are just members like others in the Rotary, there is no reason to add a distinct paragraph for women. An equilibrated way ? If you place a section "female membership" then you should place a section "male membership". But you can't :-) It is simply impossible : all Famous Rotarians are men !(exept Dianne Feinstein, but... ;-)


Plus you completely fade to grey the aspect of Inner Wheel . We have things to add about Innner Wheel and what you do is to impeach that by continuous reverts. Let us do our work, which is just mention of facts, and stop your Wikipedia fiddling : women WERE NOT welcome in Rotary until years 1970. Strange for a "serving community" club. But you do not answer to that, do you ? With a "profile of Mensanean"....

You are CERTAINLY rotarian or pro-rotarian. And your duo with SuperNova is interesting. Just interesting for our community.

Why don't you admit ? We are her both against-Rotary, WE SAY IT, BUT I DO NOT BLANK OR ALTER POSITIVE FACTS ABOUT ROTARY. 84.102.229.124 07:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC) PierreLarcin2 07:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And above all : you are racist against French. You said that in your above critics. That's the first step to war. You should be ashamed to speak about Mensa in your profile You GIVE US PAIN. Stop continous reverts.

84.102.229.124 07:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC) PierreLarcin2 07:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please cease the personal attacks. Please read WP:NPA. Continued insults and comments of this nature will leave me no choice but to refer this to an admin for action.Bridesmill 14:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC issued on Rotary International

What does "despite for example, there were allowed to vote in France in Belgium in 1921 only" mean? and why was it placed in there with a {fact} tag? I am assuming you invented that after my comment on suffrage in Belgium, which has nothing to do with RI. And why do you insist on re-inserting bogus quotes? And why are we talking about cultural habits in other parts of the world that RI (may) happen to follow there, without mentioning that this is a cultural norm? And once again, what do you have against RI?Bridesmill 19:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We work here on an International movement Bridesmill. And a movement which defines itself as philanthropic. All facts show that is a public-relations club who supports only conservative actions. The proximity of extreme-right or racism, whose Rotary sustained notable members by its program of "Honorary Rotarians" shows it.
Plus what they DID about the Famous Rotarians... that they changed AFTER the wiki sourcing of the URL where all Famous Rotarians were, included Pinochet.
As you did : you moved Pinochet in the alphabetical list, they removed Pinochet from the URL and they placed a second page with only the Honorary Famous.
It was humor Bridesmill. You placed fact tag on our edits immediately, asking for sources but never sourced positive addings (the International Congress by Bruce?? speech on Polio these days) but always put on ourse, and you and Supernova (you never restaured what she illegally withdrawed) ever withdrawed what was not IMMEDIATELY sourced.
We know perfectly that all that fiddling is justified by this International Congress held in june 12-14 ? in Copenhagen. Of course Internet was a subject there, no doubt.
And of course, as Rotary goes to schools, as year ends, of course scholars need to read "soften" wiki on Rotary, isn't it ?
Now it is over Bridesmill. We just put a Wiki Request for Comments about all this, a few minutes ago. We spent more that 30 minutes today to find out what you Bridesmill and SuperNova blanked since one day. We have no time for that AND it is difficult for both of us to retrieve info, take care of what was added [we do not censure], and replace what you faded, truncated or changed, smoothed. We have plenty of source facts, questions, etc, and we hope that the community will help us to put light onto this.
The official claim for arbitration against Rotary wiki fiddling will be put in a few hours. Salutations, PierreLarcin2 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Our salutations also to you, SuperNova, who are probably a "RotaryStudentExchange" or a "Rotary ambassadorial" student. PierreLarcin2 20:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, please leave my talk page alone. I am perfectly capable of reading it here. Seconldy, please answer the question. That fact tag was //not// placed immediately - but I do start too get irate when people change the words in a supposed quotation and still claim it is a quotation. Third; using humor to play with editors on wiki in mainspace is //not// on - are you telling me that you actually believe that 1921, RI, Belgium and France are somehow related? Fourthly - what the dickens are you talking about Copenhagen? Like I am operating under orders form RI or something? I told you, I have NOTHING to do with RI. I came here on an RfC, if you recall, instigated by your revert war in May.
Balance is the aim here - if an organization has 10% idiots, then a balanced article will list 9 decent folk and one idiot (assuming the level of idiocy and decency are the same). Balance in that case does //not// mean you have to have 5 decent folks and 5 idiots. Bridesmill 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, welcome an RfC, because it would hopefully mean that there would then be more than two reasonable people trying to prevent your inane and biased opinions from tainting Wikipedia. I second Bridesmill in asking that you refrain from copying huge pieces of this discussion to User Talk Pages; trust me, I check this page often enough as it is. As I said before, I have nothing to do with Rotary or any of their programs, and for you to assume that only Rotarians believe in citing sources, not making up quotes, and keeping your ridiculous, invented conspiracies out of Wikipedia only underscores how ignorant you are of how this place operates.
I could go on about your edits, but the facts in the History page and here (and now copied to two User_talks) speak for themselves. Please, please: STOP EDITING NOW. You only make yourself look more and more foolish, and you will be reverted until you respect what Wikipedia is about. I suggest you move on to somewhere more friendly to your idea of "the facts". --SuperNova |T|C| 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Bridesmill, we LOVED your last trick : modifying our RfC. You're...a genius, don't you think so ? We are not sure Arbitration will love that.

Specially we DO NOT appreciate that you modified OUR text WITHOUT warning us.

Thank you also for the "Rotarian plot parano" image glued onto our face. We love. Two remarks - related to the recent RI congress in Copenhagen-Malmo, what does the Sweden flag onto the part "must go to" on your spouse personal page ? So you're not pro-Rotarian hé ? - ... because YOU BridesMill spoke about a plot when altering our RfC : we have a very bizarre idea of what a "organized official information agency" can make with such a HUGE amount of pictures and professional bios of Rotarian people registered around the world. Rotarians fill personal forms no ? Some rotarians should maybe be amazed that they have an "alias" doing dirty trick elsewhere in the world, no ? You do not see ? With all the langages you speak, including russian, you never read spy stories ? Salutations PierreLarcin2 21:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] From Rfc

I've come here via Rfc. It seems that this dispute is rather complicated and drawn-out, which could result in fewer comments from persons viewing the Rfc than it would otherwise, which is unfortunate (I've experienced this phenomenon multiple times, which can make consensus-building difficult, even where the result appears to be obvious). I haven't examined every edit made or argument posted (on this talk page), but I will note that, based on my parsing of the recent history of edits to this article, I think the following policies and guidelines dictate that a lot of information that PierreLarcin wants to add should not be in this article as written: WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. I understand that English is not PierreLarcin's first language, which explains why some passages he has inserted are poorly worded. However, grammar mistakes and poor wording are mistakes that are easy to fix, so PierreLarcin should not be discouraged from contributing to this article simply because of those. PierreLarcin does need to understand, however, that his contributions must adhere to relevant Wikipedia policies, and many have not thus far. - Jersyko·talk 23:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. For example, the insertion of the stuff about Charles Lindberg is completely irrelevant to the article. Unless it can be proven from a reliable source that he was acting on behalf of the Rotary, his actions should be in the article about him. Sxeptomaniac 00:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You do not understand Sxeptomaniac. The criticism is that Rotary use for Famous Rotarian (did you follow the link) an Honorary Rotarian, Charles Lindbergh, who said antisemistic positions. Here is the link :

If you look to that, Lindbergh and Pinochet are not anymore in the list. A few weeks before, it was there directly under the link. Now you have to click again above on the link "Honorary"... since I had that link

- first Lindbergh and Augusto Pinochet were placed under the OTHER page "Honorary Rotarians" - second on the Rotary first 100, the structure was changed to "hide" extremists

In the previous version, and specially in his "100 years of Rotary" Rotary used in his publications the figure of Lindbergh as Mann, as other "normal" persons. PierreLarcin2 05:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is still irrelevant to this article whether or not Lindberg was an antisemite. You say the structure of their list was changed to hide the extremists, but that is just an assumption without sources. To add something like that, you would not only need to have valid sources that the list was changed, but also that the reason for the change is what you claim it is. As it stands, your link does not support any of the claims you just made, so they would rightly be removed from the article as original research.
Besides, Wikipedia is not here to criticize anything. We are to document criticism, using valid sources, not insert our own. If you can't tell the difference between the two, you are going to have a hard time making any progress here. Sxeptomaniac 06:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Friends wikipedians, we work here in human sciences: service clubs, sociology, ethics. Having just "positive" things or "smoothing" negative aspects is wikipedia fiddling. Wikipedia is a source of facts, a basis for work, for scholarship.

1/ If you look to the list of editing "History", you will remark that we did not blank any positive fact despite we annouce my very negative analysis of Rotary. But you will remark that yourself : it is a very difficult work, but look what they did and I did, chronologically....

2/ we may all admit (privately :-) that Rotary is a public-relations club. We know all (privately :-) that public relations is a very complex work with presenting facts, smoothing image, dissimulating effective power, biased comments of other, etc. A complex and discrete work. First, we would reminder that there are about 4.000.000 Rotarians in the World. We may suppose, with their profile, that 90% of them use Internet and 30% know wikipedia, right ? Our question is : is wikipedia a showroom for a public relations club ? How does it matter that, BEFORE WE CAME on this particular wiki : - almost all wikis on Rotary were with same structure on all wiki langages (see Indonesian version) - partial things announced : no list of Famous Rotarians as used in Rotary (in Europe the use of Pinochet is internally criticized... and strongly criticized), no second motto change -and the link to women-, no info about women. Nothing on Cathrina storm help also, nothing on actions in Africa, nothing on collaboration with Ashoka network, nothing on recuritment, no explanation on membership, no info on the founder Paul Harris, who is a real icon in the Rotarian movement (look to any Rotarian site), nothing on Inner Wheel, no info about numerous things, huge amount of document. And just ONE book of Paul Harris online... Strange.. If you look to Rotarian biography of Paul Harris, there is some ...change of rythm after 1932. He goes to Europe, and what was going there at that moment ? Did he remarked anything... [hunt of jewishes in the streets by freshly created nazi SA, terrible civil climate before German elections, civil war in Spain, coup attempts by extreme right leagues in France] We do not know if he remarked anything.. Paul Harris travels into SouthAmerica. It is a time of extreme right regimes in Paraguay, in Argentina (Peron and Stroessner coming times) and he does not remark anything, for a "serving" personality... strange no ?

How does it matter that we have ONE Rotarian declared, CeeGee, who did not bring any "negative" fact ? Any "positive" fact ? Even a positive fact like woman membership ? "Because he is Turkish" ? Easy.. too easy. We speak of a philanthropic club here, who negociates with World Heath Organisation, who has an observatory chair in the UN That is NOT also put on the Wiki, and we opposite here to "positive" men and even ONE declared rotarian ! Strange !!

And I have to multiple replace facts to base my criticism, my contradictors just blank my thing and transform a SUPREME COURT TRIAL for women membership right into a servicing club into a "intern victory for women" (Bridesmill). If this is not public relations... And of course Bridesmill is not Rotarian. Or not pro-Rotarian. Strange.

Evidently, when you have a look on what SuperNova, Bridesmill and AndyJones did , we are in front of a smoothing campaign : no fact, etc.. Of course Wikipedia is not a showroom, neither for negative, neither for positive facts. So please : place positive things about Rotary : how much help for Katrina in Florida, for example, with wich shelters :-) ?

SPOKING about LINDBERGH : it is a fact that Rotary uses Lindbergh as an example, it is a fact that the founder of Rotary was in Germany in 1932, it is a fact that Ford was pro-nazi entrepreneur, it is a fact that Rotary recruits "ethical" entrepreneur, it is a fact that in 1935 Ford was known as an ethical entrepreneur, it is a fact that Ford lived in Detroit, not far from Evanston in Illinois, and it is a fact that we have no clue at all of a contact between Rotary and Ford. Strange for ethical entrepreneurs, he ! Ford, after a huge work, and Lindbergh, after a huge work, are now known as pro-nazi.

And it is a fact that Rotary recognized and publish Lindbergh in its list of Famous Rotarians. So do they with Pinochet So did they hide Lindbergh and Pinochet onto another link than what I gave So did they hide Pinochet ... alphabetically into a full flood of Famous Rotarians list. PierreLarcin2 07:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me by your above comments that you don't get the difference between criticizing and reporting criticism. You see, I don't really care about the Rotary article. I care that Wikipedia is and should remain an encyclopedia and not a soapbox for people attempting to expose "bad" organizations. Right now, it doesn't matter what your facts are, or whether or not they are true, because they are not based on verifiable sources.
I was responding to the RfC, and now that I've made my comments, I'll go back to editing in other areas. Sxeptomaniac 15:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Everytime I/we bless Wikipedia. You know why ? If this was not equilibrated, no one should have known that Lindbergh based his think on race differences. Times change my dear. We now understand what some people accuse us from "soapbox". Well we can help without problem on placing positive things about Rotary. The problem is that, due to wiki fiddling, the urgency for us was to equilibrate that Rotary_wiki_showroom by placing critical points, like sustain on extreme right presidents, "war on terror" (date of honorary nomination of George Bush jr should be examined) etc

84.102.229.124 16:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC) PierreLarcin2 16:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for administrator involvement

Well, thank you AndyJones. You certainly feeled that our arbitration request is ALSO concerning you...For your repetitive blanks on the facts I brought. Nice huge work you did on me. As you maybe saw upstairs : I did not ask blocking of pro-Rotarian users because the repeted blankings they do (only on "negative" aspects) and repeted request for fact sourcing (only on "negative" aspects- no such request on "positive" rotarian). Such a huge work just show that you are concerned by restriction in critic facts only to Rotary International in a wiki. See you at arbitration.

Yes : i forgot. Sorry. Ooops. You are CERTAINLY not Rotarian or pro-Rotary We apologize. Rotarian salutations. PierreLarcin2 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • That's right. Not a Rotarian, not pro-Rotary. AndyJones 15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Who can believe that ?

1/ If you are neutral.. try to find some negative points about Rotary. For example : elitism due to "on invitation" recruitment (surgeons, clerks, lawyer, businessment, conservative politicians etc) poor black or muslim representation, sociology works on Rotary. Rotarian blanked (amnesty) by Georges Bush (Honorary rotarian) for fiscal problems. 2/ You have the same professional profile as Paul Harris, founder of Rotary ! What a joke ! :-)) 84.102.229.124 16:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC) PierreLarcin2 16:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it just possible that aside from the odd scandal and spurious/coincidental link, an organization can exist without serious negative aspects? Does everything have to have a 50% negative side? Inventing negatives that aren't there just to sound neutral is in fact very, very biased. Bridesmill 16:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did we here in France INVENT anything and biased anything ?

All sources we use to feed criticisms are from Rotary ! It is not INVENTING a chapter named 'a problem in admitting women' to resume the fact that a TRIAL was mandatory. And "your part" transform that in "an inside work to make an internal evolution of somewhat like that". Of course it was not a transformation of Rotary : a TRIAL was necessary, and IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT. Is it "internal" ? Is is "an internal evolution" ? What a joke !! PierreLarcin2 18:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


  • As far as "your part" did, Hamas mention of Rotary disappeared, Nigerian critics mentions disappeared (again a muslim aspect), Internet activity of Rotary disappeard,

Rotarian second motto was hugely disputed -of course because linked to women recognition in Rotary- and even the mention of Paul Harris and his wife disappeared to make the link between Rotary and InnerWheel. Should InnerWheel not be spoken "by a stranger"? How does is matter that it was such a problem to cite this Rotarian club of women ? How can it be so hard to speak about Harris ? Is it a saint of so what ? Not possible to cite the name of Harris : blanked again. Last time, surrounded by personal details, as a visit in Germany, in 1932 is something.... usual. Is it ?

We know that Rotary makes the cult of Harris like it was done by communists to Lenin, but the time of icon is over. What the matter if Rotary is 50% negative. To be clear, here we are 80% against, but we NEVER deleted any positive information. To be honest, we think here that, DESPITE SOME HUMANITARIAN HELP, Rotary is is 80 % negative. Just a clue : think about the relation with Hamas' hate. What was done in the middle east to cause that the Hamas nominate Rotary in its charter ? And how does it matter that "your part" blanked it, despite that we did put on wiki ? Is it a problem to cite the name of Hamas here. Does it implies that we should support terrorism ? No : these are just fact : it is a fact that the Hamas cite Rotary, and of course it is a folklorical critic, because no one can take it seriously, as probably coming from the "Protocol of the wise of Sion", the famous tsarist police fake booklet

Above all, not a Rotarian site in the world, without a mention of Paul Harris, PARTS of his life, multiple PARTIAL citation (and multiple times). All wiki pages were the same in all langages about Rotary, but NOT A WIKI ABOUT PAUL HARRIS ! Is there something to hide in his life ? And this uniformed-repetition of the jewish founder of Rotary -"who left for professional reasons"- Do we have some percentage of Rotary implantation in Israel ? Of black people in the Rotary ? No... And they have FOUR MILLIONS of members ! A seat at the United Nations (hopefully just as observatory member !) !! 84.102.229.124 18:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC) PierreLarcin2 18:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE TO SUPERNOVA and ANDY JONES ABOUT THE ROTARIAN ex-SEGREGATION OF WOMEN

we have well undestood that you do not want to present the segregation of women in the Rotary as a problem. But we need the chronological way to present the evolution between Inner wheel and Rotary.

we need the following text to go ahead on relations between RI and InnerWheel: please leave us working, you make our work harder.

You are agree that Paul Harris spouse was in the Inner Wheel ? What is the problem of "poor text" - which poor text ? Thank you

AndyJones, please explain the grammar. For me there is no grammar, just a chronological presentation which explain final change of second motto

Female membership From 1905 until the 1980s, women were not allowed in Rotary clubs, and Rotarian spouses were members of the "Inner Wheel" club.

Until years 1980, women were not allowed in all Rotary clubs around the world, in a world context where for example, there were allowed to vote in France in 1945 or in Belgium in 1921 only. Paul Harris spouse was member of the Inner Wheel.

Gender equity in Rotary International was finally put on the public place by the Duarte RI club affair. In 1976-1978, Rotary Duarte, California, allowed three women to join the club. Official Rotary International representatives expressed alarm at the presence of women in the Duarte club. Requests by Rotary International to terminate the women's memberships were rejected by the club, and as a result Rotary International revoked the club's charter in 1978. The Duarte club filed suit in the California courts, claiming that Rotary Clubs are business establishments subject to regulation under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on race, gender, religion or ethnic origin. Rotary International then appealed the decision to the U. S. Supreme Court. The RI attorney argued that "…[the decision] threatens to force us to take in everyone, like a motel". The Duarte Club was not alone in opposing RI leadership; the Seattle-International District club unanimously voted to admit women in 1986.[2]The United States Supreme Court, on May 4, 1987, confirmed the Californian decision at the unanimity of its members. Since that time, women have been allowed to join Rotary. [3]

The change of the second Rotarian motto in 2004, from "He profits most who serves best" to "They profit most who serve best", 99 years after its foundation illustrates the move to general acceptance of women members in the famous philanthropic club.

[edit] "Female membership controversy"

Just a note to explain my full rationale for renaming the "Segregation on gender in the 20th century" section (which was itself just renamed from "Female membership"), since it's too long for an edit summary alone.

The "Segregation" title could not stand; it doesn't make sense grammatically, and given that Rotary was founded in the 20th century, that part was redundant. Rather than revert the name change (not a true revert due to Dale Arnett's (helpful) additions), I felt it might be more appropriate to add the word "controversy". While that can be a loaded (NPOV) word, I felt like this situation is self-evidently controversial, given that a local club sued the national organization in federal court. I think the new title, then, addresses the point that critics often make, that allowing women in Rotary was a divisive and, well, controversial topic rather than an easy, widely-accepted change.

Please explain how the segregation is a grammatical problem. Also please explain why the 20th-century-segregation is redundant while Rotary was founded in 20th century... As far as I know, black segregation was in the 18th and 19th centuries, and in the paragraph for United States, there are much references to these centuries without redundancy... Of course, you try again to blank and fiddle.

My definitive advice on that is that - the Supreme Court referenced the women membership in the Rotary as linked to the laws of california against segregation. So it is a truth in the court : segregation. As you know, everyone has to respect court judgments, so please say the word : segregation. - there is no controversy at all. YOU INVENT THE CONTROVERSY AS ROTARIANS MAY NOT ADMIT THAT THEY DID SEGREGATION : where are the texts about your "controversy" ? Any authors pro or against the judgment. The controversy exists just in your head : it WAS a SEGREGATION. That's the reason why we will here restore the text, introduce new one about segregationS in the Rotary and explain what you do in front of the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia. Please go ahead : blank and fiddle more : acts speak... The judgment stays. PierreLarcin2 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I know this section has been retitled numerous times, and I hope this new title can serve as a NPOV compromise that incorporates the critics' views without taking the "Rotary is evil" stance that some might prefer. --SuperNova |T|C| 22:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this works. ---J.S (t|c) 22:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This cannot work except for wikipedia fiddling. A segregation is a segregation. No one here, including me, does want to show Rotary as evil. As you know, SuperNova, I never blanked any positive information. More of all, I included new ones. But YOU blanked.

Indeed, transforming first "criticism against women place" in "female membership[without anything else]", then in "female membership controversy" is wikipedia fiddling. I thank you for this new fiddling action, as it will be placed in our claim against fiddlers. Indeed, that is not the ONLY segregation in Rotary. See the pictures : no blacks in US, no asians, no LGBT, no handicapped. They are just for the Rotary "objects of compassion". Have a good reflexion on that : a first segregation against women, then segregation against blacks, asians, handicapped also...

Did you remark : in the Rotary they have programs for Africans, but just a few afro-american members in their US membership !!! How strange ! Show the pics guys ! And your handicapped friends : show the pics !! Where are they in the RI executives !? PierreLarcin2 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lost references...

I have recovered two lost references. When you are edit-waring don't just copy/paste the plane text please. That amounts to vandalism and makes the article worse. ---J.S (t|c) 23:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you're right : a lot of info, including MY references, where lost [blanked is the truth] by the edit war of BridesMill and his wikipedian pal SuperNova.

And indeed I (yes ME) placed references with copy of the text. The problem was : just between my parts of work, SuperNova and BridesMill blanked my text.

Hey Supernova : how much time co-working with BridesMill ? What is your next trick to hide what Rotary is ? We here are both curious ! Your problem SuperNova : you are religious and intend to force your "vision" of "controversy" where there is no controversy but facts : Rotary, ACTUALLY, is segregationist, for example, or for example, the war in Irak is religious, as any war. Remember Vietnam war ? Religious war : christians agains buddhists... Remember Somali war ? Religious war : christians for christians agains muslims So is Iraki war and so is Rotary : religious : christians angains muslims. Eveyone may notice WHERE the headquarters of Rotary is....Check Evanston in wiki...

You maybe noticed WHEN Bush received honorary RI membership ? What do you think about Iraki war ? "War of Freedom" or "Freedom of War" ?? But is a HERO no, for you ? Go in Irak then yourself ! And also : give us FACTS about positive rotary INSTEAD of systematycally BLANKING our infos, because you do not like that they were negative. For example : next time we reintroduce the mention of Rotary in the Hamas charter. PierreLarcin2 00:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, check the diffs - you're the one who lost his own refs. Methinks you should take a few deep breaths & perhaps have a coffee.Bridesmill 01:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre, please calm down

I hate to respond to M. Larcin, but I feel like I can breiefly address some points.

Firstly, Pierre, your rants are hilarious. I'm glad you've popped back up, as reading the gibberish that passes for your talk page messages always makes me laugh. I apologize if this is uncivil, but at this point, I think we know each other well enough that it's alright.

Second, I don't know and have never met or spoken to Bridesmill outside of this page. In fact, even here, the conversation seems to be between one of us and you; we may have had one or two exchanges between just him and me.

The reason we don't blank positive stuff is because it's usually well-cited, verifiable, and written in English. If we blank negative stuff, it's only issues based on rumors, invented conspiracies, and out and out lies. Correctly-cited, valid criticisms of Rotary that adhere to the conventions of basic written English are more than welcome; it's not really our fault that you can't come up with much of it.

Finally, on the "Segregation" title: Yes, segregation is the correct term; women were, in fact, segregated by being placed in a different organization, but "Segregation on gender" makes no sense to this native English speaker. Rather than leave that word there, I used "Controversy" because the section isn't just about the segregation, but also the controversial change that came about after the Duarte case. And yes, it was controversial -- defined as something that people debate. As I am quite sure than both Duarte and RI advocated their opposing positions in court, that quite clearly leads to a controversy. In fact, the idea that allowing women even had to be debated says some pretty negative things about RI to a lot of people; the "c" word advances your position better than you might think.

So in conclusion, Pierre, please continue to contribute here and even address this issue with ArbCom, if only so that we might continue to read your irrelevant, nonsensical prose about how Vietnam was a religious war against the Buddhists. I cannot even imagine what train of thought led you to put that in an article about the Rotary Club, but that's your business. Thanks for making Wikipedia a little more colorful. --SuperNova |T|C| 04:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to jump in on the 'segregation' issue; firstly, the practice of having separate organizations for women/spouses was endemic at the time; so should we apply segragation as a term to every organization which applied the socially accepted norm of men-only? Using it here onbly makes Rotary somehow appear 'worse' than everyone else. Segregation also implies 'no women' - but that is not entirely true; although women could not be 'members' per se, at least Harris' wife spoke at conventions - so they certainly allowed them in the same room. (See, I don't always agree with SuperNova, whoever he/she may be).Bridesmill 05:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

About war : EVERY war is a religious war. Even against nazis : it was Christians against paganists. Who does not know that nazi SS did build their own pagan religion on Wotan, etc...
About conspiracy. There is no conspiracy theory at all here. We just know that

- there is a problem in Africa (muslim critics) and MiddleEast (Hamas charter critic) about Rotary - Rotary is based in a region were many episcopalian churches are based in US - many episcopalians are ALSO (theists) free-masons. Do not confuse with atheists freemasons (mostly... in France) - freemason membership is secret, so your conspiracy theory comes from that point. And then ? That is their problem ! Not mine, not ourse here... We speak about Rotary, not about the evil.... - many Rotarians are freemasons, at least in Europe. Who can prove that ? No one. Stop secret membership then ! And stop placing a conspiracy theory in other's head. - In Europe there are theists AND atheist masons. Atheists masons are rare in Rotary - the Rotarian movement holds a huge database with member profiles. This can be used by secret services, for example to give a biography to an active agent... in other parts of the world... - Rotarians support ONLY conservative politicians (do not play with Dianne Feinstein, she is NOT REALLY a Democrat, huh !) - Catholic church condamned Rotary and YMCA during first rotarian decades. It is a deep sign of many theists in the Rotary - you BridesMill&friends blanked most of the informations : Church conflict, Italian song, Hamas mention, etc.

[edit] Are you accusing me of being Episcopalian?

Are you accusing me of being Episcopalian? or at least 'pro-Episcopalian theist'? Cool.Bridesmill 22:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr BridesMill is trying to bring the problem of wiki fiddling on a personal ground,

as he did once or twice. I will remove this in a few weeks. 84.100.98.13 09:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Who fiddles here ? May the reader remark that your post, BridesMill is just full of "hate" (you used that word) and also insults. There is NO INFO in ALL your posts. Just controversy. WE here place INFORMATIONS. Salutations, PierreLarcin2 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CONTROVERSY OR SEGREGATION : vote here !

About controversy : yes and it this is now a CLOSED controversy: the court judged that keeping women out was breaking the anti-discrimination laws. PierreLarcin2 07:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Segregation is segregation : no women as rotarians along 20th century. Black people were segregated in the public busses and transportation, and also in Rotary. Black people were not allowed to have same rights, that's the definition of segregation. That's not because it was "endemic at the time" that this was not segregation. Black people were "allowed" in the bars and to speak sometimes in clubs. SO... what does it CHANGE : it WAS segregation.

You say it yourself : segregation is already in your word "allowed". You are just fiddling Wikipedians as you ALWAYS did for Rotary. And then ?

If you want to claim, you and SuperNova, please go, do not be afraid... We are just delayed here by your (religious-who does not see it) edit wars. PierreLarcin2 07:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is the word "segregation" a problem for Rotary ?

Of course because it segregated women in the past, before the Supreme Court judgment, but of course for ONE reason : Rotary recruitment is 90 % white in Western countries. And in Botswana recently, the Governor was a women indeed... a white woman ! They could not find a black afro-american Rotarian female ! Of course ! With 10% of women... PierreLarcin2 09:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

SuperNova, we will in a few days replace the word Segregation about anti women segregation - the args of BridesMill "yes the times were so"... are irrelevant. The times were antisemistic in the years 1920, and it is not an excuse for pro-nazis at these times. I would remind a correlation. Between 1900-1920, times were hard for Jews receiving racists attitudes, and that's exactly the time when Hiram leaved Rotary founders. - for the moment, there is just one person for Segregation (me) and against (using controversy : you Supernova). There is no agreement at all for "controversy". More obviously, since you edited this wiki, you just withdrawed informations and brought no info at all, nothing. You are not NPOV, you are just leading an edit war (using same exact above-described behaviors as BridesMill). WE ARE THE PERSONS who brought (negative) informations about Rotary. AND WE NEVER WITHDRAWED positive informations. There is even a non justified positive info in the Polio chapter, that we leave intact.

So, we will wait for add info on "segregation", ask an arbitration against both of you, and restore the "Segregation againt woman" title. - Because it is OUR chapter, with these related SupremeCourt info, WE brought it to wiki - Because it is indeed segregation, and recognized as segregation by a judgment - Because you want to smooth it, as this is related to ACTUAL segregation in the Rotary Internation al against non white people.

Best regards, PierreLarcin2 09:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Pierre, my arguments are not irrelevant. And stop using the peurile Reductio ad Hitlerum. I am not arguing that the atitude towrds women at the time was proper; but it must be kept in context. Every article on WP which discusses that period of time would have to refer to segregation of women - the Segregation of women in Belgian politics, the egregation of women in the medical profession etc. etc. etc. You cannot pick on one organization in the world when it was standard practice. And you still haven't told us - why do you hate Rotary so much? why this campaign of yours? You should read the articles on fallacy. Bridesmill 15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I FORBID you to use my first name. Be polite and call me "Mr Larcin" and not "Larcin". Second, you bring the problem of wiki balancing pro-con- on Rotary to a personal ground, as usual. This will be sliced by the Arbitration Commitee as we have still here to launch an arbitration request against YOU. Three I do not hate Rotary, I have compassion for racists Rotarians :-)). Fourth what I hate is wikipedia fiddling. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SHOWROOM.

And I want Rotarians to be condemned to use wiki as a propaganda media. Simple. And proven in the "historic" part of their wiki :-)). Byyyye PierreLarcin2 13:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


For what it's worth, while women may have been segregated (though Bridesmill is correct that Rotary was hardly unique in the practice), the section of this article under that subheading contains exactly one sentence about segregation (the first one), while it contains two paragraphs about the controversy over it. Setting aside the debate over whether or not there was "segregation", and whether or not it matters, the most important data for this issue is what that section is actually about. If you read the text, it's pretty clear. --SuperNova |T|C| 22:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
as usual you find anything to justify your edit war. First is was the grammar, then the proximity between the word 'controversy' and both the anti-women image of Rotary and the controversy within the Rotarian movement, then the term "controversy" as it was a controversy in front of the Supreme Court. Now the context, what's next ?

Of course Rotary practiced segregation. May I remind you the "four criteria" and the philanthropic goals of that club ? And the BEGAN to work on mixity in 1980 ? And what do they do for racism in their club ? Did you see a picture of Rotarian executives in USA ? Do you see many black people ? Many mexicanos ? 5% ? 10% maybe ? And what are the proportion of these "minorities" in the business population of USA ? 30% ? 40%? And women in the business ? 20%? 40 %? Since when ? 1980 ? The purpose of a philanthropic club is "is it fair for everyone". WAS IT FAIR TO SEGREGATE WOMEN UP TO 1980 AND BLACK PEOPLE UP TO 2006 ?

It does not correlate to your own opinions on Rotary ? Then change your opinion. Wiki readers have the right to know the fact and ask questions : is Rotary really philanthropic ? Is is real christian sharing than to exclude people ? To give to people on a "compassion" base ? Or is the goal to keep money under a cover of philanthropy, as Pharisians did in the times of Jesus ? Think to that ! And stop blanking facts ! PierreLarcin2 13:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An example situation

For the sake of being constructive, I wanted to bring to your (collective) attention an example of how this article might better handle the "segregation" of women. Please direct your attention to Freemasonry#Women_and_Freemasonry. Interestingly, the Freemasons continue to keep women separate to this day. The article heads this section as "Women and Freemasonry", with the title making no judgment whatsoever about the fact that women are not members of most Masonic groups. The section itself seems pretty well-done, also; no judgments, just straight facts. Wikipedia readers are smart enough to judge for themselves. Anyway, I see from the article history that things have been heating up here, but when you get a moment, might want to check out that link. --SuperNova |T|C| 05:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a very bad and biased example.

1/ There is absolutely no way to compare Rotary and Freemasonry. There were accusations, and there are scientific works to say that many masons are in the Rotary, but no-one can proove that. Rotary keeps member listings confidential, but Lodges listing are not published. I brought even Rotarian Internet links making that link, but they were blanked...

2/Freemasonry membership is secret or at least discreet. There is no way to check how it evolves. Rotary is public despite we have mostly and uniquely Rotarian sources to speak over Rotary. Which is a kind of discretion, or secret. Despite I agree on the distintion "mixity masonry==Droit Humain+GrandOrientDeFrance" and "segregation=so called 'regular'+theistic Masonry", we cannot proove that Rotarians act as freemasons. Never forget that many episcopalian executives [members of the Episcopalian church] are also masons, "regular" masons, in Canada, northern USA and England of course. Your friend BridesMill tried to bring that on the personal ground... and links on freemasonry were blanked

2/ freemasonry is either a religion either a politic movement. Rotary is a politic movement, a conservative movement and your blankings (AndyJones+Aldux+Supernova+your penfriend Bridesmill) tend to smooth that it is a politic movement. All that from me was blanked by you.

3/ in the years 1920, Vatican did a... controversy... to Rotary, arguing that Rotary and YMCA tended to bee freemasonic and incompatible with christianity... Blanked also by you

All what you claim supernova tends, like a detective novel, to assume that there is a link between Rotary and FreeMasonry, but no-one can assume that. It is a scheme of behavior, but nothing more.

Anyway, it does not change anything : a so-called "philanthropy" club, Rotary International, using the famous "is it fair for everyone" criterium since about 1920, practiced segregation against women from 1905 until 1980, when it was condemned into Supreme Court. Using an approximate and politically difficult comparison to FreeMasonry does not change anything to segregation... and comdemnation. Note that in many countries and clubs, segregation continues... as in Belgium and Turkey..but this was ALSO blanked recently !! 84.100.98.154 07:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read my post?! I wasn't saying there was any link between Masonry and Rotary; that's irrelevant. The point I was trying to make was that Masonry, like Rotary, has had issues in the past and currently with the question of women membership. I was saying the page on the Masons was much more neutral and non-biased than this one. Of course, you saw the word "Freemasonry" and flipped out, but then what else would I expect from a good conspiracy theorist? And to think I wonder why this page can't be NPOV...--SuperNova |T|C| 17:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Behaviour and resolution of dispute?

Fed up with wikipedia fiddling. This IS done and IT IS scientifically proven. Hopefully for wiki, it is not possible to hide the historical truth. Try again to blank this, fiddlers.... PierreLarcin2 13:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Pierre, you are blatantly violating WP:NPA and WP:CIV, which are not options, but official wikipedia policies. The next time you call an editor "fiddler" or "pro-rotarian" or "communalist", I will have to delete your message on the talk and bring the thing to the attention of another administrator. Also, please remember: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.--Aldux 13:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
well, do it immediately then. There is no reason to punish me, as I am constantly bringing new elements of information, while THEY are constantly blanking and smoothing facts to smooth them. Segregation becomes controversy, there was just no more support to conservative politicians (I just restored that part, and will develop), exclusion of Jew members of a philanthropic club (PROMOTINGTHE CRITERIUM "is it fair for everyone ?") becomes "well some excluded some not". The founder Paul Harris was in Germany in 1932, there is absolutely nothing on that in the whole Rotarian litterature, but is is "as a part of a European tour". EVERY problem is smoothed. If we add a part on the segregation against afro-americans, will it become "well just 1% of black US rotarians... because they do not ask to...because in the context there are no blacks in the business". OF COURSE THEY FIDDLE. ALL WIKIS ABOUT ROTARY WERE THE SAME BEFORE WE ADDED HERE NEGATIVE PARTS. And we never distroyed positive parts, even positive facts (propaganda) not justified.

You are certainly kidding, Aldux : don't you understand the ENORMOUS work they put on us, just to be fact-related, check what they blank, etc. And sometimes they play : a first makes a revert and blank, I restore for the second time, the second reverts and blank, etc. And you were playing in that, as I remember. Check this : there is about the same WikiUsername in the main langage wikis history. Is not that fiddling ? Changing "criticisms on women segregation" into "controversy on woman membership", is not fiddling like Dianne Feinstein did on wiki ? If you look to the facts, Rotary is a public relations club. OF COURSE THEY HAVE INTEREST in a smoothed image on wiki ! And interest for money, the money they use to pay their indemnity and functioning budgets !

What a joke....Call your administrator immediately, it won"t change anything ! I will put a claim on the Wiki Arbitration Committee that Rotary will NEVER forget ! And the more they blank, for sure the more they will be punished. They are sophisticated and certainly mail-coordinated, but no-one can stop science and history on facts ! PierreLarcin2 14:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh*. It really seems that an administrator is needed, or else this story may drag on for months :-( Oh well, I'll search somebody willing to try to solve the issues in question.--Aldux 15:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, go, and do not forget to mention that

1/ I and nobody else brought new infos on that wiki, and that "the others" never brought ONE

2/ I asked personnally for RfC and that BridesMill went event there to modify my request

All what I want now is to be able to bring into the wiki large parts of an University thesis on Rotary... and of course be able to put my claim for arbitration on the Arbitration Committee desk.

By the way, go on BridesMill userPage History and check if he works (just the hazard) sometimes with Aldux...

Best regards, PierreLarcin2 16:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty obvious, or else, I would have dealt directly with some of the issues in question, being an admin. myself.

--Aldux 16:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. PierreLarcin2, I'd like to strongly recommend that you use less inflammatory language, present your points as calmly and persuasively as you can, and decide that you will put up with the frustrations of working collaboratively with other editors that disagree with you. If you fail to assume good faith, be civil, and criticise the editors instead of their edits, the outcome is that any valid points you may have are going to be lost as outside parties are going to react to your approach instead of your arguments. It really cannot be emphasised enough that the kind of over-the-top rhetoric above is just going to stall improving this article, not "win" any debate.

As for the article, a brief glance suggested to me that it could use some improvement. We should largely avoid having a section devoted to "Criticism". Significant disputes and points of view should, preferably, be worked seemlessly into the text, not get broken out into their own individual sections. If we must have a section where all of the criticism of this organisation goes, it really, really should not be titled "Critics and trivia". Perhaps someone can fix this? Further, the article is rather sparsely referenced, and every single reference is to a rotary website. Surely some reliable secondary source has written about this organisation? Jkelly 16:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point. Will have a look at EBSCO & JSTORs to see what academia has to say. Bridesmill 18:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you now try to work scientifically. Let's collaborate on that :-) PierreLarcin2 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, I've been doing that all along; there are very, very few non rotary sources out there; and a lot of the rotary ones are remarkably good (e.g. fortrightness about the whole Duarte business). JKelly's suggestion to dig deeper is valid prompted a pub search on EBSCO; if you actually have done university level work on this organization, you know exactly what that comes up with; you therefore also realize that I have attenuated use of the many gloriously pro-rotary documents that praise how wonderful their work is. Re Bush: Imagine the same logic applied to anyone in Belgium who 'happened' to frequent the same bank as Dutroux. The Lindbergh bit; we can have just as many citations of how his testing of Nazi aircraft helped the US war effort; and unless this is related to his Rotary activities (i.e. Rotary sponsored him, or he spread nazi manifestoes on Rotary time) this is a spurious non-sequitur.Bridesmill 15:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Please don't say I 'blanked' the material you just put up there, PL - and material like that is just not acceptable on WP. it is Cherry picking at the least and academically dishonest to use a half-dozen bums as representative of an organization of hundreds of thousands.Bridesmill 16:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize - I had deleted that way back in june - but with cause as explained above. BTW - the source for their membership is probably the Rotary site itself isn't it? I wouldn't call that 'manipulating the internet to hide the truth'.Bridesmill 16:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Pierre, you have also violated once again the WP:3RR. It's not that hard too understand; if you completely or partially return to a previous version for more than 3 times, you get blocked for a certain number of hours. I won't block you now, in the hope that you've understood the point and won't do it again. And remember, it is of no importance if you are acting rightly or wrongly when it happens; rules are rules, and nobody can revert more than 3 times without expecting to get blocked.--Aldux 16:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The so-called need for Aldux to block me about Lindbergh, P.Bush and Rotary

Aldux, If you want to block me, do it now.

As far as I know, I have placed conferencemakers on the wiki MYSELF, restored two time and that's your friend BridesMill who blanked that three times WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION. HE needs to be blocked.

About the proximity between Rotarians Lindbergh and Prescott Bush and the nazi theses, there is absolutely nothing in the talk page. So WHAT ?? Place it here, so I can answer. If nothing between two days -clock in the hand-, I replace the both phrases. PierreLarcin2 16:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Pierre, you don't understand; the WP:3RR (follow the link, please!) has nothing to do with right or wrong. Many good editors have been blocked just because they were taken by vis polemica, even in those cases when they were in the right and those with whom they were disputing were in the wrong. So please calm down. As Jkelly said, all this rhetoric is of no no help in solving the disputes in question.--Aldux 17:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Bridesmill, explain here CLEARLY what you talked : "I had deleted that way back in june - but with cause as explained above." BTW - the source for their membership is probably the Rotary site itself isn't it? I wouldn't call that 'manipulating the internet to hide the truth'. For Christ'sake where did you see that phrase under my pen about proximity between rotarians P. Bush and Rotarian Lindbergh ? PierreLarcin2 16:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat myself. "material like that is just not acceptable on WP. it is Cherry picking at the least and academically dishonest to use a half-dozen bums as representative of an organization of hundreds of thousands", and "Re Bush: Imagine the same logic applied to anyone in Belgium who 'happened' to frequent the same bank as Dutroux. [This is a classic Attributional bias.] The Lindbergh bit; we can have just as many citations of how his testing of Nazi aircraft helped the US war effort; and unless this is related to his Rotary activities (i.e. Rotary sponsored him, or he spread nazi manifestoes on Rotary time) this is a spurious non-sequitur." (I added the bit about attributional bias, and for the portion on Bush the same needs to be determined - did Rotary have anything to do with this if indeed there is causation proven?). Finally, please don't throw about threats like deadlines - that's getting personal & there is no need for that/Bridesmill 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

First, YOU tried several times to bring the contestation to personal grounds. Again recently, with your last provocation "do you intend that I am an episcopalian", and several times before.

Second, you do not impress me with terms like "non sequitur". You use bias, as of course Rotarians like Prescott Bush made actions to support Hitlerians, AND NEVER WERE SUED BY ROTARY. If we go that way, we see also that Rotary does not withdraw Rotarian membership to Pinochet. If we push too far, of course they will say "Hey we have nothing in our charter to make exclusions". You know, when you pretend to be philanthropic, you try to add exclusion facilities and you sue unfair people. I do not know if you may understand that.

What is cherry picking is simply the use of ThomasMann as a Rotarian anti-nazi icon. OF COURSE THAT Rotarians did not protest against Hitler. Paul Harris was even in Germany when Hitler won elections in 1932 (30% in an extreme violence climate). We do not know who he met there. Strange. We just know about his friendship tree. This guy mounted an international movement for philanthropy. In France he meet the Minister and receive a decoration, but in Germany : he plants a tree ! Waow ! YOUR PROBLEM is to find ONE Rotarian that politically fought nazi regime. There is no-one. Except Mann. I would remind you that there is no need to place Mann here in the Rotarian wiki as Mann was not prosecuted because of his Rotarian membership. But Rotary clubs excluded jews, and no-one find that strange or opposite to the famous Rotarian four-criteria test !

And YOU placed or let that in the Nazi links of Rotary. Of course ! ALL Rotary uses Mann as an antinazi Rotarian icon, but no one wants to speak of Pinochet, as you, who never restored the name of Pinochet in Rotary wiki.

Anyway, the biggest problem is not that. The problem is that, now and never, Rotary does not make a condamnation of Lindbergh or Prescott Bush, and they do not condamn Pinochet. We can neither find a condamnation of antisemistic words. Despite the Rotarian criteria : "is it fair to everyone". But they use Honorary membership to distinguish, and they did for Bush and Pinochet.

I won"t use Godwin's law (I condamn your ways to insult me with "Dutroux" allusions (as I have Belgian origins -- thank you for your little attention). The real thing is : they support political right and extreme right positions. For example, I never saw a Rotarian action for support abortion right or poverty in United States. They fight poverty OUTSIDE their national country. But you Canadian-American would difficultly support foreign help to your poor people, no ?

Indeed Rotarians were not in Dutroux'bank, but they do not condamn Dutroux -but I do condamn Dutroux. Well : say it : you KNOW that Rotary supports conservative and extreme-right politici, don't you ? You should admit it. You would feel better. AND INDEED I WILL DO TWO THINGS - I will ask you to source, with verifiable Internet links, the recent pro-Rotary that you recently added - I will base myself on a scientific study to prove that Rotary support conservatives, and always did. That's why Rotary did not condamn Hitler"s regime : at these times, it was just seen as conservative. The problem is that such politics lead to criminal activities. See Abu Ghraib wiki.

So : your position is not justified. If you can prove there were no links between rotarians and Hitler's regime, please add. Rotary still supports antisemistic Lindbergh, fascist Pinochet and hitlerian financer Prescott Bush. So I readd this. You still have about two days to justify your blankings. If you don' agree, arg that before the arbitration committee.

Best regards, PierreLarcin2 20:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The blanking of Rotarian Conferencemakers by BridesMill- Polemic

Please explain me WHAT I have to refute. SO I WILL BE ABLE CAN DO IT. But for the moment I dunnot know what I need to refute. Place it here clearly.

If nothing between two days -clock in the hand-, I replace the whole list of conferencers I found PierreLarcin2 16:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice that isn't the first time this list is deemed irrelevant by contributors. Thanks for taking that into account PierreLarcin, PierreLarcin2 or your several anonymous IP adresses.
Regards
--Bombastus 13:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The problem of Rotarian Pinochet

Does anyone disagree with making a subchapter for Pinochet and Rotary ?

Here is a wikiquote on Pinochet "Me critican porque viene la enfermedad de la "democratitis". Ahora todos son democráticos. Yo también soy democrático (...) Esta nunca ha sido dictadura. Esta es una dictablanda."

  • Nota: en un almuerzo que le ofreció el Rotary Club, septiembre de 1985.

source: http://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

TRADUCTION : 'They criticize to Me because the disease comes from the democratitisation. Now all are democratic. I also am democratic (...) This never has been dictatorship. This is one dictablanda (?)"

  • Note: in a lunch that offered the Rotary to him Club, September of 1985.

Bridesmill ? A question please. You speak Spanish as I remember. What does mean "dictablanda" ? A joke with words maybe ? Can you help us ? Thank you. 84.100.98.154

More citations of Rotarian Pinochet coming soon. Specially on gays and in front of Rotary Santiago, as a speech. Stay online ! 84.100.98.154 20:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you really want a list of thousands of notable people who made speeches in front of Rotary who are not wacko? I don't think that's the point. And in regards proving the hitler-rotary link, 1st year logic would teach that a negative proof is by definition nearly impossible, so please do not be silly; a positive proof should be (if it exists) rudimentary. My Dutroux example stands. Dictablanda = Dictadura blanda. So the man made silly speeches at Rotary luncheons; he wouldn't be the first one. Shall we slam the UN because Kruschev said some silly things there? Balance, Pierre. If you want to mention the 1% 'bad' rotarians, you have to mention the 99% good. Find me one credible academic source that discusses these claims of yours.Bridesmill 21:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC) The Dutroux example is a comment on the lack of logic of the Bush point in the article; it is not a comment on Belgians. Your comment on me, however: I am NOT American, and even if I were, your stereotyping of North American atitudes to poverty is highly insulting and totally WP:NPA. Please have a cup of coffee.

I do not need a cup of coffee. I need facts. You seem to need cooling : I note your (habitual) use of words like "wacko" "silly" "you are stereotyping" "highly insulting" "you ask negative proof" (WHERE ??? 84.100.98.154 21:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC) ), "slam" "you can't find credible academic" [while he gives not verifiable sources, and forgets that 'pro'-citations were made by Rotarians...], etc, etc.

AND AGAIN, he tries to pull debate on personal ground....No Bridesmill, I do not need a cup of coffee 84.100.98.154 21:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked you kindly not to call me "Pierre". This is my first name, I do not allow that to you.

Please use "Mr Larcin", or PierreLarcin. Be polite.

I notice again that you refuse to give names of Rotarians who were against nazi DURING NAZI MOVEMENT RISING IN GERMANY. About Kruschev, I notice the use of a leninist, but he is dead and everyone condamn it. Rotary does NOT make condamnations of Rotarian Pinochet.
You do not answer to the question [as usual...], please do : what means "dictatura blanda" ?

another point is : how does is matter that Rotary keeps "a wacko" [as you said for Pinochet] as JONORARY member ?

I will once again repeat something i wrote above: "Dictablanda = Dictadura blanda" If you do not understand that, I would suggest ssevere caution in interpreting (using Babelfish?) Pinochet's words. Please do not forbid me anything; you have no such authority. In my culture "Mr." is reserved for one's superiors; if we were speaking French I would use vous, but I am not about to start giving you honorifics. Please do not cross-post this talkpage onto my Usertalk page. It is unneccessary and disruptive. You never asked me to give a list of whatever Nazi Rotarians; so therefore I have not yet refused to. But a. I am not a rotatarian and do not have access to their archives, and b. I doubt that such a list exists. In reference to Thomas Mann, I would assume he joined Rotary after 1939 at the earliest as that is when he joined Princeton. Are you suggesting Rotary recruited him specifically as a public token anti-Nazi?Bridesmill 23:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC) You wanted me to remind you where you asked me to provide a Negative Proof: You stated "If you can prove there were no links between rotarians and Hitler's regime, please add" above at 20:17, 15 July 2006 Along a related vein, please check your logic: "Paul Harris was even in Germany when Hitler won elections in 1932" - so what - where were you when Dutroux did his crimes and where was I when Paul Bernardo? Bridesmill 23:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AGAIN THE QUESTION : who is against a section of "Rotary and Pinochet"

I am for : I have nice quotes of Pinochet in Rotary luncheon, I mean the Santiago Rotary club, chartered by the Rotary International ! PierreLarcin2 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm against. Unless Pinochet said this at the international conference or something, it represents only the views of one member out of thousands worldwide. Making him an honorary member does not establish that Rotary endorses everything he's ever said. I think putting Pinochet in the list of honorary Rotarians, without comment, is enough. We certainly don't have sections for other honorary members... can you imagine if we did? "Eisenhower, whose work in WWII defeated the Nazis, was also an honorary member, and he once said ..." "Thomas Edison, without whom we would not have electric lights, was named an honorary member, thus proving Rotary's support for technology and inventiveness...." etc etc. It's clearly ridiculous, but unless you're prepared to have subheadings on each one, I suggest you not put one for Pinochet, as otherwise it would be POV. --SuperNova |T|C| 23:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I am for.

Pinochet's dictablanda (see your friend Bridesmill for traduction) is about 4.000 victims. Of course, for SuperNova it is not important : they were communists ! [JOKE] Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valech_Report PierreLarcin2 04:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Oops, sorry I made a mistake : for the moment multilingual BridesMill does not DARE to give a traduction of dictablanda. Does he ? In a few days i will give you the reason why he does not dare to translate the Pinochet's words [game with words "dictadura" and "dictablanda"] PierreLarcin2 04:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


http://ssdc.ucsd.edu/news/chip/h95/chip.19950907.html#a1

http://ssdc.ucsd.edu/news/chip/h95/chip.19950908.html#a0

http://www.humanite.fr/journal/1993-09-09/1993-09-09-683789 Pinochet ne regrette rien -- 9 septembre 1993 Pinochet does not regret anything -- september 9th, 1993

AUGUSTO PINOCHET, le général félon, auteur du coup d’Etat contre le gouvernement de Salvador Allende, qui l’avait placé à la tête des armées chiliennes, ne perd pas une occasion pour tenter de justifier sa trahison et la longue suite de ses crimes. Célébrant, mardi au Rotary Club de Santiago, le septième anniversaire d’un attentat manqué dont il avait su tirer profit, il n’a pas craint de déclarer : « L’autre jour un journaliste m’a dit : « Ces pauvres mères, qui ont perdu leurs fils, qui avaient été arrêtés et que l’on a jamais revus. Mais ces fils n’étaient rien d’autre que des bandits. Ils disent que nous sommes allés trop loin. Nous étions en guerre, vous devez comprendre cela. » Pinochet et les siens ont toujours prétendu que 150.000 Cubains armés se trouvaient au Chili au moment du coup d’Etat mais n’ont jamais apporté la moindre preuve de cette allégation, démentie aussi bien par l’opposition à la dictature que par La Havane. Dans une interview au magazine « Caras » l’ancien dictateur ose affirmer que l’armée ne sait rien de l’endroit où sont enterrés les corps des disparus. Les organisations de défense des droits de l’homme les chiffrent à plus de deux mille.

TRANSLATION - Pinochet does not regret anything -- september 9th, 1993

Augusto Pinochet, the felony general, author of the coup against the government of Salvador Allende,which placed him at the head of chilean armed forces, does not loose any occasion to attempt to justify his trahison and the long sequence of his crimes. Celebrating, last Tuesday at the Santiago Rotary Club, the seventh anniversary of a failed assassination attempt whose he could take profit from, he was not afraid to declare : "These poor mothers, who have lost their sons, who had been arrested and who we never saw again. But these sons were just nothing than bandits. They say that we went too far, but we were in war, you must understand that."

Pinochet and his supporters have always pretended that 150000 armed Cubans were in Chile at the time of the Coup, but they never brought any proof of that allegation, who was denied as was as by the opposition to dictatorship as well as by Havana. In in interview given to the "Caras" magazine, the old dictator dares to pretend that Chilean army does not know the place were are buried the corpses of the disappered persons. The human right watch organizations amount them to more that two thousands.

http://www.humanite.presse.fr/journal/1990-09-29/1990-09-29-803154 GREY SEPTEMBER IN SANTIAGO - september 29th, 1990

TRANSLATION Patricio Aylwin's government, since the presidential election, did not took the resources to ensure its politics, refusing to base himself on the forces sustaining political change and try to request a support of the chilean people. The governemental team did not want to face the old chief of the military regime and to withdraw all his responsabilities. Taking the opposite position, the team confirms Pinochet at his functions of commander in chief of the armed forces and minimize the role and intervention of workers.

This weakness is deeply used by Pinochet and his friends who multiply provocations against the actual government, who are insulted as « hypocrits ». On septembre 11th, at the « Rotary Club », the old State head pronounce himself as against a so-called democratization of the armed forces who would transform them « in ae band of haired, drug-dependents, homosexuals and syndicalists ». On septembre 18th, during the Te Deum in the Santiago cathedral, Ricardo Lagos, minister of the Education, was insulted by a scholar-officer.

There is also this quote from Augusto Pinochet

"Me critican porque viene la enfermedad de la "democratitis". Ahora todos son democráticos. Yo también soy democrático (...) Esta nunca ha sido dictadura. Esta es una dictablanda."

Nota: en un almuerzo que le ofreció el Rotary Club, septiembre de 1985.

  • it is a terrible game with words, with two dimensions : it softens the role of Pinochet
  • and its softens the word of dictatorship

TRANSLATION : " They criticize to me because the disease comes from democratisacion. Now all are democratic. I also am democratic (...) This never has been "dictatorhard". This is one dictatorSoft. "

  • The word blanda means "soft".
  • Pinochet softens his dictatorship (4000 victims see "Valech Report")
  • as Rotary softens his support to Pinochet (3 or 4 speeches at Santiago Rotary 'in the good old days' before 1995, at least)

PierreLarcin2 11:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)



[edit] The sourcing of pro-Rotarian claimed facts

[I have splitted because user:Bridesmill makes a mix in the problem]

Last point: every single item I added yesterday came from academic sources and highly reputable media sources. 21:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

please would you give me LINKS to be able to VERIFY this.

Thank you. If not, I will remove the so-called facts as not verifiable. PierreLarcin2 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The problem of Thomas Mann

Is anyone able to give the date of Thomas Mann's Rotarian Membership ? Thank you.

As Rotary uses that to makes a garantee of anti-nazi Rotary. But of course if Thomas mann became Rotarian AFTER WordWarII, it seems that Rotary recruited him then ! Why such a recruitment ? PierreLarcin2 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Gay, Lesbian and Asian tolerance clues in Rotary International

Dear BridesMill

01:42, 15 July 2006 you have edited the Rotary wiki to add this

      • Minority membership ****

While formerly a "bastion...of the straight male world". Rotary and other service clubs in the last decade of the 20th century became open to gay and lesbian membership.[1] Other minorities, in the face of general changes in demographics and declining membership, are also encouraged to join, but these demographics show little interest in spite of efforts to reach out to minority communities; such as Oakland California's $10,000 scholarships for students in inner-city schools[2]. There have been some individual exceptins; as early as 1963 a Hindu Bengali, Nitish Chandra Laharry, served as Rotary International's first Asian president[3]. The past tendency to favor the "old boys club" has also passed; so it is no longer just legislation or membership pressures driving these trends; according to Fost, only 2% of middle aged men interested in joning a club were interested in joining exclusive male-only clubs.

You Bridesmill based these clues on the following bibliography references

  1. ^ Quittner, Jeremy. "Join the Club." Advocate, 4/16/2002, Issue 861
  2. ^ Fost Dan. "Farewell to the Lodge." American Demographics January 1996, Vol. 18, Issue 18 (NOTE THAT YOU DO NOT GIVE THE PAGE REFERENCE)
  3. ^ Bird,, John "The Wonderful, Wide, Backslapping World Of Rotary." Saturday Evening Post 2/9/1963, Vol. 236 Issue 5, p59

My problem is that I have a speech of Pinochet at the Santiago Rotary Club, plus a scientific reading here of 800 pages, which show that Rotary is not EXACTLY open to gays.

As I do not find any clue of these readings on my Google, I have a few questions :

  • 1/ what tool did you use to find these references
  • 2/ where on Internet may we check these references
  • 3/ if possible, I would like you to send me a copy of these articles and will pay for that.
  • 4/ it is precised, reference by reference, that the author is a Rotarian, or not.
  • As you may read above, the problem is that only Rotary speaks over Rotary so we have a deep risk of Wikipedia fiddling !

If you do not answer within two days, I will suppress the references and addings you did, as not sourced.

  • And of course we will discuss that in front of the Arbitration Committee ;-)

I suppose that you have the same interest as me that Wikipedia is not a showroom for the Rotary.

Thank you, best regards, PierreLarcin2 08:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Conferencemakers in the Rotary - Blanking by Bridesmill

Bridesmill, you have four times blanked the following list -that we built and made after reserarches on Internet - and you did it without any explanations. You did that on :

  • 14 JUN 16:19
  • 15 JUL 16:00
  • 15 JUL 16:10
  • 15 JUL 16:33

Famous conferencemakers at the Rotary

  • Augusto Pinochet, member of the Rotary club of Santiago, Chile
  • Joseph Davidovits, Docteur es Science, "father of the theory of false stones" about building of the egyption ancient pyramids (Rotary Club Liège, BE)
  • Louis Michel, Belgian European Commissary (Rotary Club Wezembeek-Kraainem, BE)
  • Charles Pasqua, former French Minister of Police, involved in weapons and Saddam iraki petrol scandals (Rotary Club Neuilly, FR)
  • Ron Hubbard, founder of the Scientology (Rotary ex-Rhodésia, Zimbabwe)
  • Wernher von Braun, ex-major of the nazi SS, father of V1, V2, Titan II missile and Saturn rockets for the NASA (Rotary Club Huntsville, Alabama, USA)
  • Would you please expose hereunder clearly your reasons to blank this list.

Thank you. Without you reasons within the coming 24 hours, I will place it again on the Rotary wiki. This list is perfectly verifiable on the Internet. PierreLarcin2 09:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

PL, Please READ what I have written. The sources are pointed out, as is the logic and the flaws in your logic. Respond to this, discuss it, but please don't ignore it. And again, please don't cross-post to my Usertalk page - I am more than capable of reading this here.Bridesmill 14:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And erhaps you could share with us the source of this 800 page academic work, as I have not been able to locate any academic works approaching that size about any service clubs. The point on Pinochet's speech has been made above; politicians make speeches everywhere, sometimes those speeches do not reflect their party, or the group they are speeaking to. And this speech was made some time ago, no? I noted " formerly a "bastion...of the straight male world". " as well as past tendency to favor the "old boys club" - I believe that properly provides context for where this club came from? Bridesmill 14:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So L.Ron Hubbard spoke at a Rotary Club in Salisbury in 1966 when his Scientology was just beginning. What is your point here? Bridesmill 22:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you know, the purpose is to establish if, whether or not,

first Rotary played with Wikipedia as a showroom (Wiki fiddling) like D. Feinstein, who did for sure second to have independent sources to check what kind of people are populating the Rotary (conservative or not). As you maybe know, in the United States and England, conservatives are NOT EXACTLY pro-gays or pro-labor. Of course a conference or a speech is a kind of support (a support like nominating someone as Honorary Rotarian) About Ron Hubbard, Nicolas Sarkozy, Charles Pasqua, well, they are NOT EXACTLY pro-labor public persons. For the rest, well, they did conferences for the Rotary, they are Famous, these is a fact so ... I place them in the list. Wiki readers will make their opinions on that, of course if the list is not overflooded as it was done for the Honorary Rotarians, to hide Pinochet of course. For example, there are no needs to place Alain Afflelou, Guillaume Sarkozy or Nathalie Kociusko-Morizet, who are known in France as conservatives, but not in the anglo-saxon cultural world. Here are our both reasons. PierreLarcin2 07:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Enough

Could an albatross kindly look into these activities with a look to blocking permanently this individual? Misreading of quotes, manipulation of qotes, repeated bias, refusal to read or acknowledge the responses of other editors, WP:NPA on numerous grounds, refusal to accept cited references even though te editor was advised the source of these references (I believe I mentioned JSTORS & EBSCOHOST several times, the documents cited are available in most respectable libraries). The list goes on, I am getting frustrated...Bridesmill 14:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My source are verifiable. Yours are not as I and others may not access to that. I want that wiki community be able to check if these pro-rotarian texts were, or not, written by Rotarians. We may not admit that Rotary writes on Rotary on wiki. Again, this is not a showroom

The main problem is Rotary fiddling over Rotary wiki. Or not.

  • Again, you do not answer to the question : why did you blanked the conferencemakers list ?

You do not translate "dictablanda", you speak of bias and non-sourced (despite all my adding are sourced and verifiable), but you leave non-sources facts (speech by Rotarian over polio) when they are pro-Rotary. And you use a bia : now again, you ask to block me. On which base ? I did not blank anything.... So, again, BE SO KIND TO ANSWER TO THIS SIMPLE QUESTION : why did you blanked four times the Famous Conferencemakers (with Ron Hubbard, now Pinochet and Wernher von Braun). I checked this whole mess you did (usually you "derive" the conversation... we come from grammar to contexts; from segregation to controversy, you change the order of phrases to smooth Rotary past.., here we come to a simple args request to a bia for blocking...) Do not hesitate to use copy paste : I really want to know your justifcations for blanking this list. Be kind ! Waste time ! Say us WHY ! Answer simply ! Thank you very much ! PierreLarcin2 14:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop modifying this page to hide remarks and requests. You have not even told us what this verifiable source is. All of the sources currently there are WP:V; go to a library.Bridesmill 14:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC) I note that I have forgotten a page reference (although I am the only editor to have provided these in the first place) I will remedy that immeiately. Stop vandalising my userpage, please.Bridesmill 14:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not vandalize at all your userpage. I did not hide remarks and request.

You did it and you alone, hiding my question on your talk page as I want to know if 1/ 2/ we may check your source saying 'Rotary is gay tolerant' 3/ we may check your source saying "Rotary speaking women changed life of women in these countries". You still not say what it change, where, who spoke and if the source was Rotarian. As usual, you play with our feet.

I and only I remarked that a reference of yours, was not paged. Again you play with our feet. Second you claim that you are first to document, but it has been THREE MONTHES THAT YOU EDIT-WAR, without any source, and all my addings were sourced, and Interned checkable sourced. YOUR documents MAY not be checked. I ASK YOU THE WAY TO CHECK THAT. WERE DID YOU FIND THAT. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIANS CHECK THAT.

  • Last, I do not have to give my source, as I still not used that on wiki. AGAIN, you play with my feet, playing like an boy in a school ('well I am first') just to bring that on the personal ground and claim "hey he attacks me personnally".

Again your addings on so-called gay tolerance and asian tolerance in Rotary are still not verifiable and sourced. If you do not give us a way to check, I will remove all your propaganda within a day. Be warned on that. PierreLarcin2 15:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Those statements are all sourced; and WP:V in accordance with WP guidance. None from the rotary site; should be rudimentary for you to fact check who the presidents of rotary international were; I got the information from the Sat. Eve. Post - not from Rotary. Go to a library is how you check that. None of your input, PL, has been sourced from anything other than rotary sites and your own WP:OR, except that you claim to have an 800 page academic document; please put up or shut up. If we restrict ourselves to the Internet, what is the sense of WP if "all" the info is already on the web? Please recall that any material from before the internet (i.e. the 90s) tends to be very, very poorly represented online. And the question on Thomas Mann; please tell us, do you believe he was especially recruited to be a token anti-Nazi? Bridesmill 18:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


OKay, let's stop your game. First, your last chapter will be removed by me and splitted

by me into the appropriate chapters : Phrase on Evening post in sourcing, phrase on MAnn in Mann chapter, TRY ALSO NOT TO INSULT ME like "shut up" "or put up". Thank you.

  • 1/ You use personal attacks [saying that I do not original research and that Mann is a token for me], and as usual you do not answer to the question : how by Christ can we verigy ONLINE your sources ? And you mix that with questions of Thomas mann, My academic document. This whole messy approach is completely opposite to what I can wait from a self called Mensanean. Be scientific.


  • 2/ We will stop your way to mix all. So I warn you : you transformed this Talk in a whole mess with your war. The above Bridesmill chapter will be removed by me. You place your comments into the appropriate chapters. For example you have a chapter above for Mann. Place your comments into this. and I will open a chapter for sourcing, including mine.
  • 3/ please answer clearly to the question of blanking conferencemakers. You still did not.
  • 4/ I want to request a mediation for introducting the following chapters : Internet activities of Rotarians, support from Rotary to conservative politicians, the perception of Pinochet in an out the Rotary, the segregation (or not) of women by the Rotary, segregation of minorities in the Rotarian executives, a list of persons who gave and give conferences to the Rotary, the use of Thomas mann as a token for Rotary [I do not understand the word token but you used it, so I place that word].

I want to have a mediation also on the checkable sources about the Rotary, including my doctoral these and yourse, of course. This verifiability is a condition for the Arbitration we try plan here to ask on the use of Wikipedia by the Rotary.

  • DO YOU AGREE ON THAT MEDIATION Bridesmill ?
  • Without clear answer "yes I accept a mediation", we consider here you say "no"
  • Answer clearly HERE. Thank you PierreLarcin2 19:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediate away. I have asked for admin help; as you can read above. This thesis you speak of if not published is worth nothing; it does not meet WP:V if you will not share its citation. And to date you still have not identified this thesis you have access to, or who wrote it; I am curious, as I have not encountered any recent published theses on Service Clubs in general, Rotary in particular.Bridesmill 22:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THE SOURCING on the Rotarian facts

The use of Internet for Rotarian to promote famous Rotarians Here is the link :

About the conference makers on the Rotary : a simple google is enough. Anyway, here are the links : http://www.rotaryneuilly.org/conferences.shtml http://xenutv.bogie.nl/print/africa/chronicle-hubbard-071466.htm http://www.rotary.belux.org/contact/fr/rc274/interview.shtml

The thesis I have here : Here the link on a resume


can someone help me ? Were on wiki can I upload documents I have a screenshot of Rotary fiddling to upload I have a thesis on Rotary whose weight is 12 (twelve) megabytes.

Thank you PierreLarcin2 19:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

BridesMill, please explain HERE were and how we can check if your readings on Rotary (about respect of gay communities and asian communities and also the role of women rotary speeches in the liberation in "SOME countries" (which ones ?)) can be checked as being Rotarian-independent. PierreLarcin2 20:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

First you go to a library, preferably a good one like in a university. Or you can go online in a university or other such place. If you are a grad student I would expect you have access at home and access a normal academic publications database, or read through the copies most good libraries have of these documents; none of them are particularly hard to find or particularly obscure; if you have trouble, a librarian can help. Or are you accusing me of faking citations? That, Sir is a serious charge and I would suggest you think very carefully before implying it again; If you are really a university student you would know that. I made the point that Rotary was white male dominated for a long time; the fact they had an asian president is not a secret. Bridesmill 22:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So L.Ron Hubbard spoke at a Rotary Club in Salisbury in 1966 when his Scientology was just beginning. What is your point here? If this thesis is published, it should be accessible to the rest of us; a proper academic citation would help. Bridesmill 22:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, stay to the point, Bridesmill. Here it is a chapter about sourcing on Rotary.

Look to the title. The above paragraph (yourse) will be splitted by me in the respective points (sourcing, conferencemakers) within the 24 hours if you do not just do it (yourself). Try to stay to the point, your way to dialog is just a way to put a huge mess in this Talk. You mix args and you use bias PierreLarcin2 07:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify - "here is a chapter about sourcing" - what do you mean? Could you just answer the questions, please; if you want people to take your work seriously, be willing to discuss how your work is WP:V and not WP:OR and is balanced...Bridesmill 13:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing means : put here sources that anyone online can check.

Valuable sourcing for me on the Rotary is sourcing not with sources that Rotarians wrote themselves.

And stop making allusions on me like : "people can difficultly find your own work serious". And stop making allusion to me as not balanced. I am fed-up of your allusive phrases.

Bridesmill, I dislike your ways not to answer clearly on a simple question. My simple question on your sources are : WERE THEY WROTE BY ROTARIANS AND WHICH ONES WERE NOT ?

I am against Rotary because it is a conservative club, globally racist, segregating women [just look to the pics of a Rotary club and compare with pics of the streets] and also minorities [just look to the American pics of Rotary].

Well if they were not segregating gays, [even at least "in the past"], they WOULD NOT communicate on that, no ? Open your eyes... and be serious. We are not here to make politic propaganda. And a way to show that Rotary does propaganda is to show the facts, AND NOT TO HIDE THEM AS THEY DO.

One proof of your "serious" attitude, Bridesmill, would be that YOU restore the fact that HAMAS movement criticize Rotary. But you blanked or let blank that simple fact. And what was blanked also is that the HAMAS movement, in his critic, is reduced to a folkloric attitude. In sociology, "folklorism" it is a way to reduce the value of a foreign people, to condamn its attitude by the "goog western researcher", and also a way for the studied objet to reinforce its identity on local roots. About who is serious, I will make a [mensanean] JOKE Bridesmill : as children say here : "the*one*who*is*not*serious*is*the*one*who*said*it*himself". Sorry, I have quit the kindergarden a lot of years in the past... Best regards, PierreLarcin2 04:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:V does not imply that the source has to be online. Please, please note that WP:NOT a soapbox. Please read the Cherry picking article; I have a sense you did not understand. Bridesmill 12:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] conference-makers

A partial list of "conference-makers" is inappropriate for this article. Partial lists suffer from "selection bias" and are potentially POV. However a complete list of "Rotary International conference-makers" would likely be acceptable. ---J.S (t|c) 01:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Three questions then to User J.smith :
  • - how can we make a COMPLETE list ? For example : you take a part of the work ? We contact Rotary International and reproduce a fax of them ? We use "cherry picking" (as said Bridesmill, who seems to know the difference between sherry-picking and not-sherry-picking ? [JOKE])

I would remind you that Rotary is a coopted and closed club. His communication is made by himself and the way to verify amounts or facts is ... RELATIVELY difficult.

  • - what is/are (a) criteria to decide : "well, this list is now complete" ? [the amount, the fact that we find ONE member of the Democratic Party that made a conference, two, three, four.. whatever ?]
  • - can we publish this list on the wiki as it is not complete -I mean progressively and step by step getting bigger-, or HAVE we to wait that it is complete ?

(I bet that J. Smith will either NOT ANSWER either answer "well wait a complete list").

First of all, treat me civaly please.
Secondly, we would need to use the same (or similar) sources you used to create your list. What do you mean "sherry-picking?" I find it EXTREEMLY hard to have a conversation with you if you refuse to stay on topic.
Good point. Perhase we shouldn't have a list like that on wikipedia at all. Lists that might never be compleate shouldn't be on wikipedia. Very good point. I'm glad you agree with me. ---J.S (t|c) 20:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Prescott Bush

The section on Prescott Bush is completely irrelevant to the article. Those comments are about Prescott Bush and not about RI. They belong in the Prescott Bush article, not here. ---J.S (t|c) 01:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no section on Prescotte Bush here. You seem not to know him. His name is not "Prescotte" but "Prescott". Prescott Bush was a conservative politician and an active Rotarian at the times of WWII. We mean "conservative" as member of the Republican Party. Conservative as we just find ONE Rotarian politician who is "democrat" (Dianne Feinstein, who is not UNANIMOUSLY seen as a real Democrat within the Democratic Party. And a proven wikipedia fiddler... :-[)

A first problem for neutral Rotary is that we do not find active Rotarians who were ALSO active in the fight of rising Nazi regime "in the context" (as said Bridesmill). We have Prescott Bush, active Rotarian, and Paul Harris, who did NOT exactly fight nazi rising, but financed nazi party, planted friendhip tree, etc. A second problem for a neutral Rotary is that we do not find OTHER democrat of left politicians members of the Rotary than Dianne Feinstein. A third problem for a neutral Rotary is the honored-by-Rotary Honorary Rotarian, General-President Augusto Pinochet, who is not EXACTLY a member of Democrats and of a Democratic party in Chile. PierreLarcin2 04:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC). He is still member of the Rotary and has about 4.000 deads on the hands. But they were bandits, communists or terrorists [as he says... does it remember you something actually ??]

Again, I remind you to stay on topic.
What the heck does "does it remember you something actually??" mean and what does it have to do with Bush?
Other then correcting my spelling, please respond to my comments. ---J.S (t|c) 20:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
no time for feeding some conservative war on Rotary. Will answer after one month,

namely after Augustus, 19th 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PierreLarcin2 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Rotary partners

Republican conservative New York State Senator Alesi

http://www.senatoralesi.com/photo_gallery.asp http://www.senatoralesi.com/biography.asp

on Alesi's Internet Site " Senator Alesi conducts the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra during the 2005 Holiday Pops Gala hosted by the Rochester Rotary Club. Senator Alesi was named special guest conductor for his efforts in securing $100,000 in state funding for the Rotary Club. "

California State Senator Ashburn : republican [conservative] http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/18/multi.asp "Senator Ashburn Addresses Bakersfield East Rotary. Bakersfield East Rotary Luncheon Roy shares legislative update with Visalia Lions Club. Senator Ashburn speaks at Bakersfield East Rotary Luncheon. Senator Ashburn meets with members of Visalia Republican Women. "

http://www.rotary.org/newsroom/programs/060411_gibson.html Mel Gibson, who emitted homophobic, antisemistic, pro-theist and [conservative] "Republican" positions —Preceding unsigned comment added by PierreLarcin2 (talk • contribs)

  • What does the heading "Rotary partners" mean? AndyJones 12:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
how do you call the fact to give 1 million dollars to a program because it is ruled by the Rotary without being a rotarian donator ? How do you call the fact to use Rotary local contact to launch aid programs which are external to the Rotary ? How do you call for a politician to make a speech in the front of a Rotarian luncheon, without being a member ? The word is "partnership", no ? 84.100.98.2 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geographical areas???

I'm afraid I don't understand this edit at all. What is meant by a "geographical area"? Are there any rotary clubs which are NOT in a country? How would that be possible? Besides, surely it's possible to assert clubs belong to any number of geographical areas depending on how you define it (down as low as 5 if you count the continents as geographical areas and assume there's no Antarctica Rotary (don't know if there is), up has high as the tens of thousands if you count every town, village and suburb as a geographical area, then count the ones that have a rotary club). Can someone clarify what meaning was intended? AndyJones 09:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You react without studying Rotary. They regions are not "exactly" superposed to borders and national limits of States. This avoid them to receive the objection of nationalism that they had from opponents before World war II. For example, in Belgium and belgian State, they are two linguistic-geographical groups. Rotary has in Belgium several zones, and zones across the communities border are taking a small piece of the other community...So, they are clean. ..

Of course, "due to large autonomy", regional groups are rather virulent on linguistic and community domination locally. This is observable in Antwerp, where communities and Rotaries are rather "exclusive". Antwerp is dominated by extreme-right votes and political...sophistication to avoid a legal representation to avoid an official representation of that violence. Recently, a french-speaking [not flemish speaking as all Antwerp speaks flemish] black-skinned young boy was knifed to death by.. a racist flemish skin-head, member of extreme-right groups there. Note that local Rotary is not involved in antiracist Antwerp movement... I do not know if the Antwerp Rotary has only ONE black member...PierreLarcin2 14:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error on this page

Please note an error: "Guglielmo Marconi, Italian inventor" cant be an active member, unless he is Elvis Reencarnation. Anyone please correct that error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.111.245 (talk • contribs)

  • Above was added by an anon. I've moved the comment to the bottom of the page. Presumably anon is right about this?? Can someone who knows what the article should say make this correction? AndyJones 14:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Active members" renamed

I renamed "Active members" → "Historic members". Seeing as many of the members listed thereunder are long dead, it would be somewhat difficult for them to be "active" members. (e.g. Ásgeir Ásgeirsson (d. 1970), Neville Chamberlain (d. 1940), Richard Evelyn Byrd (d. 1957), Guglielmo Marconi (d. 1937), etc.) --Storkk 17:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I will remove that, sorry. Active and Honorary is a parallel with the

active/honorary membership. See above "Membership" chapter.

There is no Historic membership.

Indeed theses Active are dead. Indeed the purpose of the long list is to "flood" extreme-right [Bush etc] politicians with indeed dead active politicians like president of Iceland [who cares??] etc. This long list was made here by Rotarians. I agree to make a distinction between living and dead. This should be done indeed. PierreLarcin2 02:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rotarian scholarship

place here sources on these Rotary programs so we can discuss it ! Free wiki from Rotary propaganda !

As a perfect Rotarian researcher, you know very well that this paragraph is taken from [57]. So, it is your duty to revert it. CeeGee 16:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

no comment... the facts speaks from themselves. PierreLarcin
stop wiki fiddling, CeeGee This is wiki here, not a Rotarian conference onto Rotary.

We do not practice propaganda. Your so called facts are just copy of Rotarian sites. PierreLarcin 15:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


I removed what placed CeeGee

- because the actual text comes from the Rotary itself as explained by CeeGee - because IP 24.xxx (?) recently just edited Rotary International + Rotary Foundation and nothing else - because CeeGee is Rotarian - because Rotary is active on Internet to uplift their public image - because this actual text receive no confirmation from other sources than Rotary - because Rotary, for example is in conflict for recruitment with Lions and often compares to Lions - because Wiki is frequently used bu Rotary to smooth image. There are frequent conflicts on that page - because their behavior is caracterized as Wikipedia fiddling

thank you for your answer, PierreLarcin 15:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

PierreLarcin. Those wikipages are for information and not for propaganda. The added info is a fact. The comparison with other service clubs is your imagination CeeGee 16:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
well, I have under the eyes an American-French thesis on Rotary with such a comparison, plus french press articles with that emulation between Rotary and Lions. Plus your are CeeGee from the Rotary. May I know why you edit the Rotary page ? The love of science, isn't it ? Really ?

Of course you fiddle ! and you will be kicked out of wiki. You bet I spoke of arbitration as for a joke. You and Rotarians are in the error. As you are in error when you defend the most conservative and criminal politicians in the world : Bush and Pinochet. For freemasonry reasons and for money reasons. This can not continue. PierreLarcin 84.102.229.40 07:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Following moved from my talk page:
Questions of Rotary interest
Good evening. I noticed your recent changes on Rotary International Page.
I have three questions :
  • - may I know why you confirmed CeeGee changes and blanked mine ?
  • - I would like to know in which city you live [I live in Lille, France], if possible.
If you answer no, I would like to know why.
  • - I would like to know if you are close to a service club [for example through your wife], and if yes, to which one.
Thank you very much.
Looking forward to read from you.
User PierreLarcin 19:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • My answers are:
    • I think the other editors making the same changes as me have given adequate reasons. I'm not prepared to debate my edits with Pierre. A glance at any section of this extremely long talk page demonstrates that doing so is invariably met with accusations of bad faith and something called "wiki-fiddling".
    • This is none of your business.
    • This is none of your business. I have stated elswhere on this page that I am not pro-Rotary, and a review of my edits will bear out that my only involvement here, arising from an RfC, has been to temper the inappropriate editing done by Pierre. AndyJones 09:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 :: Okay AndyJones. I act therefore that

- you did not justify//explain why you blanked my edits,

when I was removing Rotarian CeeGee phrases copied from Rotary sites on Rotary.
This for me, is biasing and violating neutrality wiki policy.

- you did confirm CeeGee acts then...without explanation....violating wiki rules Have a good evening, PierreLarcin 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Fabrice.dalmeida@cmb.hu-berlin.de

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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/

[edit] 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

[edit] 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. [58]
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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; Mark Roseman, Hanna Schissler [2007]. Conflict, Catastrophe and Continuity: Essays on Modern German History. Germany: Berghahn Books, P 309. ISBN 1845452003. 

De Grazia, Victoria [2005]. Irresistible Empire: America's Advance Through Twentieth-century Europe. Harvard University Press, P 71. ISBN 0674016726. 

Hayes, Peter [2000]. Industry and Ideology: I. G. Farben in the Naxi Era. Cambridge University Press, P 103. ISBN 052178638X. 

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)