Talk:Rotary International/Archive 2

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 :

• http://www.rotaryfirst100.org/history/famous/

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)

Request for administrator involvement

• Rather reluctantly, I've posted this to the adminstrator's noticeboard: AndyJones 13:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think an admin needs to review the behaviour of User:PierreLarcin2 and his IPs in relation to the edit war on Rotary International, and consider a block. Incidentally, since I started reviewing this, I see the user I'm complaining about has put in an RfC and claims to intend to start an arbitration. If true, I'd suggest that any block should permit him to pursue those, even if (as I'd recommend) he cannot edit at Rotary International for a time. A review of his behaviour took me far longer than I'd expected, but can be summarised as follows: POV editing: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Illiterate editing: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Just plain weird editing: [11] [12] [13]. Advocating POV: [14] [15] [16] (especially the motherfucker comment). Failure to assume good faith: [17] [18] [19] [20]. Breaches of the no personal attacks policy and civility policy: [21] [22] [23] [24]. Accusations that editors who change his edits are Rotarians engaged in a conspiracy against criticisms of Rotary: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. Wikilawyering, and accusations of "wiki-fiddling", whatever that may be: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. Evidence User:PierreLarcin2 and 84.100.98... IPs are one and the same (about halfway down):[49]. Evidence User:PierreLarcin2 and 84.102.229... IPs are one and the same: [50]. Evidence of trying the patience of the community: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]. An odd piece of duplicity was the argument that these strange "how to use the links"-links were there to assist blind users, which led me in good faith and (in consultation with User:127) to initiate Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Accessibility for blind users] (now fallen out of archive). In fact, these edits, and a few around them, make clear the actual intention was to give prominence to "bad" Rotarians like Pinochet and Hubbard. On the whole, I think the guy needs a lengthy block: he's disruptive, he's uncivil, he angers and attacks people, he adds bullshit to wikipedia, and he just fundamentally doesn't get it: but it's a shame: he seems kinda genuine in his own beliefs. AndyJones 13:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

"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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• http://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/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)

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)

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)

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. 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. There have been some individual exceptins; as early as 1963 a Hindu Bengali, Nitish Chandra Laharry, served as Rotary International's first Asian president. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)