Talk:Rotary International/Archive 1

WP:WPChi
This article shoud'nt be in "ChicagoProject" :-) as Rotary International is a worldwide organization (confusion with local plant or local Rotary club) Pierre 12:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * RI is headquartered in Evanston, IL. I added Category:Evanston, Illinois to the article to document the propriety of this affiliation. Please contact me if you still want to remove the tag, but you must feel the category is malplaced as well. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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


 * para leer la crítica del Rotary en espanol http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_International
 * pour lire la critique Rotary en français http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_International
 * um die Rotary-Kritik zu lesen auf deutsch zu folgen http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_Club
 * följ var god för att läsa kritikern av roterande i svenskt http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary
 * over Rotary misdadigheden, van Pierre Larcin http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_International
 * over Rotary misdadigheden, van Pierre Larcin http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_International

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

______________________________________________________________________

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

______________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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


 * In a way, it should be shocking to have the example of a Rotarian member, managing a national clothes company, claiming for tax-reduction in his country, having foreign women workers assembling his clothes in a foreigb workshop with work conditions that would nationally be illegal, paying them for a minimum of life, 'a cup of rice', and going "by night" in the disco's of that foreign country, having sex for money with a young prostitute, without even knowing that he pays sex with a worker of his own workshop, a worker condemned to do prostitution to have simply a just better life. That's the market, no ? Everybody is free ? AND AM I SO FAR FROM THE TRUTH ?


 * Rotary, for example, pays the vaccination of anti-polio in Botswana, allowing Botswana to forget to pay vaccination of his own people, BUT giving Botswana the (free..) possibility to pay billions of dollar to buy Canadian and Swiss WEAPONS.


 * Pierre Larcin, Lille, France


 * Hi. Where is your information coming from?
 * As I understand it, Rotary membership is by invitation. Is there something wrong with this? Surely they can invite whoever they feel like, and they shouldn't have to justify themselves for it. After all, do you have to justify who you are friends with, or who you invite into your home.
 * As for all this rubbish about Rotarians exploiting the world... where on earth do you get your facts? Rotary is a big organisation, and it's totally expected that there'll be a few bad apples. The way you write you make it sound as though all of the Rotarians are evil exploitationists. I've met Rotarians I didn't trust, and didn't like (but most of them are very nice people... just like most nice people), but that's a far cry from branding Rotary because of these few people.


 * ANSWER TO User:FRADE: The information comes from the link I added myself, it was not in the previous version of Wiki onto Rotary (that was the Rotary propaganda, same on all sites : wikipedia, freeencyclopedia and RotaryInternational site) and also from the wiki on Pinochet, the wiki on Lindbergh. You speak of bad apples, but there is a constant, no ? By the way, you write like you never knew what crimes did HassanII of Morocco, RainierIII, etc. You knew that Prince Bernhard was involved in Lockheed weapons scandal ? In other groups ? It seems that you do not know what it implies to name as Honorary Rotarian. Read what CeeGee, the Rotarian, wrote : "People who have distinguished themselves by meritorious service in the furtherance of Rotary ideals may be elected to honorary membership of a Rotary club. Honorary membership is conferred only in exceptional cases" Naming Pinochet as Honorary Member is simply as naming Adolf Hitler Honorary President of the International Scout Movement. Did you read Wiki about Pinochet. Did you read Wiki about the Plan Condor ? Do you understand now the importance for Rotarians to come to Wiki and wrapp off the name of Pinochet from the list of Honorary Rotarians.


 * I agree of course for your subsections idea and trust any Wiki arbitration for that. I just hope I helped you to search, to study and cross-use Wiki articles in your work on human science subject, and I hope with modesty that you learned a bit from my indignation about Rotary. Here in Europe we accepted refugees from Pinochet exactions, and the only courageours judge who BEGAN the trial against Pinochet is a courageous spanish, Baltasar Garzon.


 * With my best regards, Pierre Larcin, Lille France, 15JUL2006 - 23:15


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

___________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pierre Larcin, pierre.larcin@ifrance.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Always remember Rotary's motto: "Service Above Self." Plus the Rotary 4-Way Test:
 * Is it the Truth?
 * Is it Fair to All Concerned?
 * Will it Build Good Will and Better Friendships?
 * Will it Be Beneficial to All Concerned?

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

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

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

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

Whereas in 2005-2006, in Iraq the Bush administration goes in its madness of appropriation until defending a design of the war which returns to private war (engagement of many private companies, -iow "mercenaries"- for 'private' security), can one admit that the State allows the Rotarians to exert
 * 1) the assistance toh education (private curses of studies)
 * 2) the assistance to handicapped (management of work centers)
 * 3) the development of international co-operation (private programs of assistance)

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

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

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

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

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


 * I find this article perfectly in line with a neutral point of view, and I see nothing worth disputing. I understand that much of it is directly taken from Rotary-published literature, but I find nothing wrong with that. I therefore recommend removing the npov tag. garybrimley 03:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Reiterating Garybrimley, I also find the article perfectl yin line with a neutral point of view, excepting the 'Famous Rotarians' A list of famous rotarians is fine, even the names listed are fine, but the description of the persons is inflamatory, partial, and tells nothing about those individuals with respect to Rotary. 68.188.221.105 02:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Fritz

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pierre.larcin@ifrance.com

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


 * I think we should keep it simple. I like the idea of dead/living lists, or even better might be past (ie dead or expelled) Rotarians and current Rotarians.


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

Irrelevant edit by User:PierreLarcin2
To User:PierreLarcin2: It seems that you are mistaking Wikipedia for a place for your own hatred against Rotary. Even though it may be possible that some people, who have been once elected honorary member to Rotary, have no clean slate, the right place is in his own biography and not the article Rotary. So, I will delete now once again the part you added on 23:43, February 12, 2006. This is to inform you that in case of your repeated action I will report you to a sysop. CeeGee 19:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry my dear CeeGee, I think you are now unveiled. the claim is already done by me against you, Rotarian, and in charge of Wikipedia helpdesk since some hours, they will gently inquiry, and due to the facts, I do not doubt about the issue.


 * It seems that you are aware, no, of my claim ? Turkey is a BIG friend for military in Eastern Europe, no ? Turkish government is so... violent. You remember the recent contests ? The sustain of war against Armenians, against Kurds, and now against Iraki people?


 * You catched, indeed : this place is not the place for a Rotarian to speak about Rotary. By the way, I have no hate about Rotary and I do not have to justify this calomny. If you have something to say, say it here and now.


 * It is exact that I know Rotarians who had bad behaviours, specially going to public schools to 'help' girls, if you see what I mean, but I am not personnally concerned. That is just Rotary, and I combat all the Rotary bad behaviors. Rotarian criminals do always the same : difficult to proof anything, behaviors just in the limits of the law, abuse of power, hijacking of law caracteristics, just like Pinochet did. So... Pinochet will die... who cares about his prison ? What he did speaks for him, and for his Rotarian friends, his American friends, his violent friends. He is condemned by his acts, just like Rotary if Rotary does bad actions...


 * So here is my conclusion : your calomny against me does not change anything to what Rotary is...


 * I hate what Rotary did and does (dialog with nazi parti at the Hitler times, see German Wiki on Rotary), not what Rotary is : sustain Georges Bush 'as Honorary Rotarian' a war against a nation without United Nations agreement (crime against peace following -ALL- U.N. General Assembly resolutions), while claiming that Rotary contributed to United Nations, is a least a paradox, or more simply : a lie...
 * I hate that Rotary still now promotes Charles Lindbergh as Honorary Rotarian, because Lindbergh was a proofed antisemist... and a support of the Nazi military expansion : this American pilot even tested the military nazi aircraft Messerchmitt BF-109 !!! Who killed so many Allied soldiers in the world !!! And you Rotary promote him as a Famous Rotarian !!!!


 * Another big error in your conservative Rotarian texts was to promote General Pinochet, without considering that, OUTSIDE CONSERVATIVE CIRCLES IN UNITED STATES AND OUTSIDE WESTERN EUROPE, Pinochet is simply a criminal who made laws to protect his own conservative actions : killing by ordering shooting of more than 113 opponents, participating in the Condor Plan. The rest of the world exist, and think. And Wiki is present just for that : register, archive, inform and allow to think. See Wiki for more information...


 * A last nail in your propaganda : George Bush gracied Rotarian who had led to bankrupt a retreaty fund for old pensioned people. More info in next wiki -subchapter- adding...


 * Rotary speaks itself by its own past about Rotary. Wiki will CERTAINLY find a way to publish that, some TRIVIA subsection, why not ? I do not care.. You can bet on that, CeeGee, and they can all bet in the same way, all the Rotarians trying to hide some parts of the facts...


 * It is symptomatic that you Rotarians pulled several same texts on Rotary sites, FreeEncyclopedia and Rotarian sites.


 * Your error, Rotarians, was to mention as Honorary Rotarians, and to FORGET Tom DeLay and Jesse Helms : pure conservative members of the House...


 * I will kindly ask to Wiki community a section here under Rotary_International for conference authors of Rotary : Wernher von Braun, ex-SS, and Ron Hubbard, in the old Rotarian Racist Rhodesia.


 * I will gently and constantly pull up a site to demonstrate that Rotary aid to Governments for health, education, diseases avoids these Government to pay money for these public mandatory actions, and to use this money to pay WEAPONS, under the control of Rotarian members of public institutions.


 * My dear : Rotary is what Rotary does, not what Rotary says about Rotary.


 * Pierre Larcin, Lille, France - best wiki salutations


 * By the way, do not speak about Dianne Feinstein as a Democrat. ALL politicians sustained by Rotary are ALL conservatives : she is not REALLY considered as a true democrat, you know. If you read Wiki, you can simply make that deduction.

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


 * Is a question of NPOV. pro-Rotarians cannot speak of Rotary with NPOv... PierreLarcin2 18:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And vice-versa Pierre. How can anti-Rotary people speak of Rotary with NPOV?


 * Sure. The main solution, described by Max Weber, is to announce your values and try (I said try) to build a balanced text. The annoucing of your values, accorded to Max Weber, allows the reader to decode your opinion and also the "balanced text", allowing him to "recode" the text

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


 * agree! If the contributors wish to keep their views intact on this Talk page, they should gather them into a concise form, sectionise them, and remove repetition.


 * Sure! why did you suppress Mentions of Tazmamart, Unit 731 and Condor Plan ? Any reason ? They speak of Rotarians actions ? PierreLarcin2 18:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to connect Rotary directly with the Condor Plan (and others), you should do it in a "history" or "contraversy" section with documented facts and references, not in a "members" section. A list of members should be simply a list of members. Why is there no mention of Rotary on the Operation Condor page?


 * Why? The reason is : when I came on this page, it was a Rotary propaganda. So I added the NPOV tag, and later the list of Rotarians. Anyway, anyone can fullfill the list with all (about 1.2 millions of) members of Rotary, the only politicians listed in Rotary are all conservative.
 * What is strange is that Rotarians HIDE Pinochet.


 * About the not-mention of Rotary in the Condor page, no-one can answer.Because, if Plan Condor was really close to the politics of USA in Latin America, this action is close to conservative political plans, and also because many persons in the US administration are conservative.
 * Anyway, since the years '60 and the "Phoenix plan" in Vietnam, there is a "credible denial" politic in the CIA, FBI, NSA services.


 * But if you take time to read Rotarian real literature (constitutions, acts, internal and mandatory monthly forms, advices for recruitment, ), and also (carefully,but it is a sign of something very bizarre) the HAMAS charte-constitution, you can certainly understand that there is a BIG database in Illinois (like in Vatican, my dear, because all prayers since centuries make reports) with a lot of information about one million of members across the world.
 * For a US governemental service, it is VERY interesting, of course. So maybe HAMAS reaction can be explained by covert actions against them. Maybe also for some (now rare) links (really existing) between Rotary and FreeMasonry. Make a difference at that point, please, between Anglo-Saxon 'regular' masonry, which is deist and conservative, and French masonry, which suppressed mentions of God in its constitution, and is in the country seen as "progressive", despite, FOR ME, they still protect people who exploits other people. So, that's probably a part of the sorrow who came on Chile in 1974 : some networks of conservative people who decide to suppress an election, and to kill some dozen of citizens dangerous for their interest.


 * About "no mention of Rotary in Condor Plan"Remember the times of Cold War. There were contact between business men of both world (businessmen of the free world), namely with directors and engineers of the soviet part of Europe. This was certainly spoken in some Rotary meetings, and these personal links are still the basis for re-foundation of Rotary Clubs NOW. In these days, was that type of information not interesting for some governemental services ? Specially close of the Department of State ?


 * By the way, the problem of Pinochet (sociologically) is not exactly 'only Plan Condor' (about 100.000 victims, anyway...). Did you noticed that Pinochet
 * - is tax-frauder to hide commissions placed in US banks
 * - had these commissions with weapons traffic : tanks and flight-fighters Chilean markets ?
 * So? Is Rotary involved in tax fraud? Is Rotary involved in weapons traffic? If no, then I repeat my arguement that this information should not be placed on this Rotary page, but elsewhere on the pages of the Pinochet.
 * Well, there is no sign of Rotary condemnation of weapon traffic.
 * They prefer to collect HUGE amounts of money and a HUGE literature on World peace and the Rotarian part in the UNESCO and even United Nations (48 Rotarians at the foundation !!). But a moral condamnation of international weapons, a simple petition
 * That's a bit of a leap of faith isn't it? Saying that because Rotary hasn't made any official condemnation of international weapons implies that Rotary, henceforth, must in fact support this industry.


 * Look to the bio of Robert White (implicated in the Condor Plan), see that he is "Fellow_Something" and to the bio of the US ambassador in Botswana. There is a speech of him on the Net. As you know, there was a scandal recently in the US, where the WOMAN-SPOUSE of an US ambassador was unveiled by White House as a member of the CIA.


 * You see the link not as I see the link. For me, the problem is in the conservative views of Rotary. The fact that they say "Rotary is politically neutral" in their propaganda is simply a lie placed (by pro-'s...) on Wiki, as the membership proofs : there is no progressive or leftist political leader in their membership. If you think to Rotarian recruitement, it is simply impossible. So... their POV on themselves is simply obvious (not neutral..) : certainly pro-God, conservative, and certainly no anti-human_exploitation. For the same reason, there is a distinction to do between pro-peace (as Rotary claims) and a real condemnation of weapons (which they can't do) (look to the past of Family Bush : Remington and guns factories).


 * What I find very strange is that, since I found about all same texts on all langage versions of Wikipedia about Rotary (some Rotarian propaganda), and after I placed Famous Rotarians and also some criticism


 * PierreLarcin2 07:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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


 * How were you thinking of reformatting the section? I think perhaps keep five or six of the most famous and noteworthy Rotarians, and then create a new Wikipedia page for "famous Rotarians and Honourary Rotarians". This way, we can create a "famous" list as big as we like, without wasting space in the main article. A separate page could also allow for a few notes to be written about the persons activities as a Rotarian, and/or the reasons the were made Honourary.


 * Creating a separate page should be a bit useless. I think to keep only the living "Famous Rotarians" to be shorter indeed and not annoy users with all Rotarians (there should be 1.2 millions members). This way we will keep your idea of the list and keep the interest.
 * We can also for example join a "see also" link, for example Apollo Mission for "Armstrong".
 * Above, I speak to create a section "Membership" to explain membership, then a section "Famous Rotarians" then maybe a link to another place, another page ? Maybe can you place there your list with all members ? PierreLarcin2 14:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My thinking is that this will work well if we keep the list very short (only 5 or 6 names). Otherwise, it will be way too much information for the average person to pay attention to. How about this
 * Membership section
 * - Membership subsection
 * * information about membership
 * * short list of famous members
 * * link to Wikipedia page of more famous members, and other links
 * - Honourary subsection
 * * information about becoming honourary
 * * short list of honourary members
 * * link to wikipedia page of more honourary members, and external links.
 * What do you think?


 * There is already a page with Rotary club members. I added, for example, Dianne Feinstein membership. Have a look at the end of the page. PierreLarcin2 19:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Honorary members should be placed upstairs, because they highlight the values. In any public meeting the honorary president, member, guest, is placed under the spotlights.
 * If they have Koffi Annan as honorary member, of course it is significant. Honorary members exprime, say, reveal the values sustained by the organisation.
 * Membership information should be placed upstairs. You can imagine that many pupils across the world study a bit the Rotary, as Rotary goes INTO schools, as it sustain students exchanges, so they certainly report to their classrooms about membership. So why divide the point ?
 * * A Rotary membership is 1/cooptation 2/ honorary
 * * B Famous members
 * * C Actions or whatsoever subsection which can be significant
 * You can have any order CBA/ACB/BAC... for subchapters, I think it is better to just enhance info and synthesis according to main points, in some structure.
 * Why a subsection for membership ?
 * In any encyclopedia, there is a description of the membership mode of the Rotary. It is famous for that. Keeping the membership upstairs also disconnect from the members itself (downstairs). As Rotarians usually say, that's not because Rotary elects Pinochet as Hon. Member, that Rotary is an active part of the Condor Plan...If you allow me that joke. So we can be at year 2100, Pinochet will be dead for sure, they can fullfill their honorary members row with any politician they choose, the real thing will be : a constant, or not, in the sort of politician they sustain. Of course you know that naming a politician as honorary is a kind of support.
 * I would like here to remark that Tom DeLay is an active Rotarian in his county...so for George Bush himself (sorry to shock, but naming GW Bush as honorary member is a support of the Rotary)
 * So... saying that Rotary is not political-oriented is rather bizarre...it is ashaming ?
 * No reason to hide it beneath and beneath the page (I mean in the basement of the house, in the cave, or in the cellar if you prefer). If it is OK for you, let's place the honorary members above in a section downstairs with Famous Rotarians. Who does not care has not to scroll and list the Famous Rotarians.
 * PierreLarcin2 18:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * sounds good to me. I think you're right. Honourary membership probably does reflect the type of organisation that Rotary is, since it is public support for people, actions and ideologies that they feel are in line with Rotary.
 * Can we perhaps set up a couple of categories so we can link biographies directly to Rotary? What should we call these categories? Rotary_(Honorary_Members) and Rotarians_(famous)?


 * Yes, I will setup this in a few days, it is rather complicated in xHTML for wiki (I need to use the sandbox to have something clean) and ask for your advice, if it is OK for you. For the moment I am translating the Tazmamart and all related names (Ali Bourequat, how schocking, being a French politic refugee...into USA, Hassan II authorities being involved in drugs traffic by DEA) thing into French Wiki, because of course, Marocco being an old colony, all this is NOT in the fr.wiki. Will come in a few days, maybe tomorrow. Salutations, PierreLarcin2 08:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello "Frade" I made some table samples for Rotary members and interesting links
 * Would you give me your advice ? They are on my UserPage discussion. Salutations.PierreLarcin2 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added some comments on your discussion page. I think that a nice "table", like the ones you've designed, would make this page much easier to read and to absorb the information. Lists are great things, but I think tables are generally easier to navigate for what we want to do here (ie names, fame, country, etc). The tables you've designed look really good, but we should change the colours to either be "Rotary" colours or change them so that they are a little softer.
 * Feel free to try it on my User:discussion page. You can maybe copy-paste a new Frade table and make your own tryouts. For the moment I am active on the French wiki for Marocco and "Years of Lead" aspects. I will come back in a few days. I am also very busy for the social movement here in France, as a worker union activist. You know maybe that we strike against social precarity caused by liberal politics.... supported by Rotary... ;-) I saw youre from Australia, no ? Did you know "Rogernomics" ? Feel free also to mail me, I am not some kind of communist oger ;-) PierreLarcin2 08:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

How can an active member be dead? --71.112.173.51 19:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * well there's no way to quit Rotary neither to dismiss so... Check Rotary covenants ! You're Rotarian forever !! 84.100.98.33 13:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * Good morning. I have restaured two times that vandalism and explained two times.
 * I am happy that you use now the disc. page as said in "History".
 * You said "If some people can't see links, how are they supposed to get to Wikipedia in the first place? Instructions removed.)" and I answered you : " Blind people use a max the caracter-reading system, wikipedia is not accessibility-compliant, or older people are not always equipped to see the links".
 * I notice that you corrected the social actions of Rotary and seem to know well the Rotary social life. Are you Rotarian ? I speak of vandalism because we had a lot of vandalism onto that page, because Rotarian did not like to enumerate some "Famous Rotarian". For example, Pinochet was removed from a so called Central America IP address.
 * Rotary-certified people tried also to flood "Bad" Rotarians in a full list of other members.


 * I have a few questions :
 * Can a disabled person learn by text-mode that she can read any bio ? GW.Bush, Armstrong ?
 * Is the problem linked to to have some name choosed as an example ?
 * Can Pinochet be a problem as an example ?
 * Do you prefer somebody else than Pinochet for an example of Famous Rotarian ?
 * I do not mind at all to place anyone. Who do you prefer ?


 * By the way at a time there was a distinction between Famous Active and Famous Honorary,
 * to show a symetry with the two types of membership. I have restored it.
 * Best regards,
 * PierreLarcin2 09:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am totally confused. As of the current time, I have not edited anything on the Rotary page. If you are referring to the comments on the edits, I'm afraid they are not my edits and they are not my comments. I'm just here asking about these odd directions. Personally, I think they're irrelevant. What other Wikipedia articles have such a explanation for how to use a link? I've never seen one, but I've seen many similar lists. My question is, "Why this article? Why Rotary?" Jjinfoothills 03:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well this is the only wiki I developed for the moment on en.wiki and most of European langages. You're right there is some list problem about the long list and also for the readibility or accessibility. I can't help on that, because this list is the result of a flooding technique for wikipedia fiddling, done after the work I did to add facts onto Rotary.

The real problem is that is a closed club, like freemasonry, and...not really transparent. The only way to add info is either to think on facts, either to accept info from Rotarians. I plan to change the presentation to make the list more readable for a non-blind. I do not want to cut anything, as it could be some censorship. By the way, I cure for blinds also, which could be upset by the length of the list. That"s already the case for non blinds, and the purpose of the flooding. This flooding, I repeat was done by people close to Rotary (User CeeGee for example). About the way to explore accessibility, I can't help more than that for the moment, I suppose wiki will evolve to comply to nex accessibility standards. PierreLarcin2 12:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is though, Wikipedia links, when rendered, are just standard HTML links. Look at the HTML source: the link appears as Ron Hubbard - they should appear to a screenreader exactly the same as any other link, because they are exactly the same as any other link on the rest of the Internet. Linking is a standard way of doing things on the entire Internet. Any screenreader should support this somehow. This is not done on any other article, by the way, so I don't see why we need it here. ...Scott5114 15:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a precision : blind people do not use screenreaders. They use sensitive bars.

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


 * I just ran across this article trying to find out what the Rotary Club was, and in the course of reading the article I found the link explanations. They bothered me, because we tend to leave meta-information like this out of articles; see Avoid self-references. So I removed them, not knowing there was an ongoing edit war over this.
 * This will most likely inadvertantly happen again, as most editors would see this, think whoa, that's not right, and remove it. I would advise talking about it somewhere like the Village Pump, as I'm not sure what to do with this now...Scott5114 03:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My humble addition to this discussion... If only to support Pierre Larcin's viewpoint which quite impressed me. He is correct in pointing out the good and the bad of Rotary International. That would be the only way of reaching an objective presentation of this rather mysterious organization. If it would not have a hidden agenda, the membership would not be closed to general public. I would dispute, though, the statement that Rotary only invites conservatives as this is not the case in my country. The fact that most of the members (globally) are liberal/conservative must be in some way explained by the invitation procedures. It is businessmen who wish to be involved in such organizations (clientelism anyone?) and it is their friends who will invite them that inevitably leading to perpetuation of liberal/conservative elite within such organizations.


 * Yes, your analysis is correct for me. The problem in Europe is that this alternative between conservative/liberals is not "seen", "perceived" as an alternative, but as two branches of the same conservatism. That's why here people speak of distinction between "governance" and "government". There is also some extreme kind of that conservatism, that we could call "governator" ;-). That's why I spoke of "conservatism", simply. We see in Europe some general movement to "let pass" "alternative" forms of social movement : "anti-GMO", "altermondialism", "populism-not of extreme-right", "white marches", "orange movements", "support to Chavez", etc. That's why -conscienceness- such a person as Michel Moore is so popular in Europe, as far as I think.
 * You're also right, I think, on the "sociologist" aspect of the Rotary : perpetuation of an elite. Some U.S. University professor made a book on that, I think, about Rotary, Skull and Bones, etc. Days of change seem to come. Who knows ? PierreLarcin2 19:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is silly. This section was meant for comments about the "explanation for how to use a link". I think, PierreLarcin2, that your opinion on Rotary is quite clear and places your decisions on this topic well outside wikipedia's NPOV pillar. Adding this useless explanation for how to use a link, does not seem to be based on information, but instead seems clearly based on a personal agenda. I also question if there is some sock puppetry going on here as "other" supportive comments go unsigned and are written with very similar poor grammar. I have yet to get involved in the "edit war" itself as I think this needs to be resolved here on the talk page. It looks to me, however, that the removal of the explanation has been by quite a few different individuals while the reversion has been by a single person. That in and of itself could be kinda questionable. I'd vote to open up an opinion poll on this issue. And if possible, I'd ask that everyone keep *this* section of the talk page to the topic of the "Explanation of how to use links" and find and/or create another section of this talk page to go on rants about Rotary. Jjinfoothills 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Let me just repeat: I haven't edited the Rotary entry at all. Not one bit. I've only been involved in this issue here on the talk page. Direct the edit war comments somewhere else, I haven't been editing. Jjinfoothills 03:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this battle has become quite involved and apparently somewhat heated. It has also been listed on Request For Comment, which is why I'm here. In my opinion, there are points being made about accessibility for the blind/disabled, but they're being made in the wrong place. A huge part of wiki is the inline internal links that allow readers to jump to other relevent information, so it shouldn't need to be explained; my response to the RfC is that the comments to click on the names to read their biographies should not be included. That said, if there are legitimate accessibility concerns, it needs to be addressed for the site as a whole because, as mentioned, internal links are everywhere. Consider bringing this issue to The Village Pump where it can be discussed more generally and by a larger group of people, and where a site wide solution can be implemented.


 * Also, just an FYI, some blind people do use audible screen readers, and some use sense bars. I'm sure there's a handful of other methods out there, as well.


 *  B. Mearns * , KSC 18:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a worldwide Rotary congress running on end June in Sweden/Denmark

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

Huh? This must be the only place on Wiki that tells people how to use links. Most of the internet, for that matter. Just isn't needed. And if your sight is so bad you can't read the mouseover, chances are you can't read the banal instructions either. Sense bars & readers don't need it either. Please stick to established WP style - if that is such a problem, please discuss it at the Pump, as obviously this affects more than just this one page/article.Bridesmill 04:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Came here from RFC. Without reading the huge amount of guff above, it is obvious that all articles must conform to the general style of Wikipedia, incuding the self-reference rule. The page is on my watchlist, and I will revert any restoration of "click on a link..."-type comments. AndyJones 21:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that my changes had come in the middle of an edit war. I did not intend to join, but seeing where this is going, I guess I will. Like the others above, I too will revert any attempt to reinsert the frivolous text. I understand the arguments for the text made above and they are noble. However, if you wish to make such amenities, please do so for all articles rather than just for a favorite few. Such inconsistancy in the encyclopedia will only serve to frustrate people more than do them good. --  127 . * . * . 1  21:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * well I cannot edit all articles. I concentrate on Rotary as they care of blinds (less than Lion's ;-) and because I am becoming blind myself. I need an help to maintain here. The main problem is the huge list. Such a number of members in the Rotary version does not help, they have 4 millions member you know, it was done to flood the bad boys (Pinochet, Prescott Bush) in a lot of names. I restore what the guy blanked again. Anyone may have the hability to study Rotary and sorting out was is an interesting member, or not. PierreLarcin May21th 2006


 * By all articles I meant you could make suggestions on the Village Pump and bring awareness to others. There may be people who have come across the same problems and found other solutions. I do not think that Wikipedia is very friendly towards the visually impaired. For example, the equations in most of the math articles are images, not text. This stems from limitations in the software, and there is a project to overcome this limitation. So I think if you bring up the fact that lists of links are hard to go through for the blind, I'm sure someone will at least start looking into the situation and try to find a solution. Since I am in an authoritarian mood, I will add this: if you do not bring it up, I will. (Insert evil and diabolic laugh here.) --  127 . * . * . 1  11:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry we do not find the Vilage pump. Could you do it for us ? Thank you. I suppose we can begin to have some tryout here. We noticed that CeeGee, Rotarian, came after you. PierreLarcin 84.100.98.189 19:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way this kind of problem is solved the way I did here, but on the French version of wiki and since weeks, or even monthes, without any contestation, specifically for blind people. I am not sure that such a structure is a problem for Wiki consistency, and I suspect heavily some Wikipedia fiddling by Rotarians. I suppose that the real problem is to have Pinochet in the example. Well, you can put Lindbergh if you want : he was antisemist

The fact is that his name cannot been seen in the huge list Rotarian CeeGee made. We noticed also he came again on the page after you, while he is a declared Rotarian PierreLarcin2 19:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Following comment moved from my talk page:
 * It seems you begin an edit war on the Rotary page. Would you justify please. There is an explanation page. Can you edit it ? as a blind such an huge list as enlarged by Rotarians is not usable. Were is the problem in placing some header ?
 * another question : are you member of the Rotary Club ? You seem to have the profile for.
 * Thank you PierreLarcin2 20:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My rationale is above. I've nothing to add. Amazed by the suggestion that I started an edit war which had an RfC before I knew about it. AndyJones 08:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that at least one user is having a problem with this article due to their sight. This is something that should be resolved. However, I do not see anything particularly different about this article in comparison with the rest of Wikipedia. Therefore the problem will affect all the articles. As such it would be better to step back from this article and stop changing it back and forth. As to ways forward perhaps changes to the media wiki software or a new skin would be the best resolution. That discussion would be better held at somewhere like the village pump. Perhaps PierreLarcin2 could outline the general problem on the village pump to get community support for a solution. -- Mark S  (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've raised this general subject here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Accessibility for blind users, and I'd invite all interested parties to carry their non-Rotary-related views on the subject to that discussion. AndyJones 20:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Radical criticisms
"in the past years" - a single decade 80 years ago hardly qualifies as that. This sentence also clais that the Rotarians used the Masons as 'cover'. Erm, that is just totally counter-intuitive. Next sentence makes no grammatical sense. Next sentence - Hmas; OK - So the Canada article should also be amended because bin Laden calls Canada a bunch of bums? In other words, not a germane criticism. Then the final sentence states that all of this is spurious becuase it is all based on the critic's not having a clue. Verdict - Please totally redo this if there is any validilty to any of this before re-inserting it.Bridesmill 22:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * this is totally fake. You should follow the 'famous Rotarians' link and read what Rotary says with freemasonic critic [linked to conflict between Catholic church and freemasons in years 1920]. And Hamas mention of Rotary in its charter is a fact. Even if this kind of critic is a fake or folkloric (made for a political purpose) it is a fact, but has to be relocated in its context for eventual study. I restored the text. PierreLarcin2 03:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * a good scholarship is not to blank the facts. It does not help neither schools, neither science, neither study, neither philosophy. PierreLarcin2 84.100.98.189 03:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, you should notice that Rotarians GO INTO SCHOOLS TO PRESENT THEMSELVES, their actions, their programs. Do you think they speak about ALL ASPECTS of their activity OR DO YOU THINK THAT ROTARY PRESENTS ITSELF WITH ONLY THE GOOD ASPECTS

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


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

Many critics in the past (originally emitted in the years 1920-1930) were focused on the so-called role of 'façade' given by the Rotary to freemasonry . There were mostly caused, according to the Rotarian literature itself, by a Londonian freemasonic lodge of Rotarians. In the same genre, the Palestinian group Hamas declares the Rotary to be its enemy in the Hamas charter among freemasonic and zionist organisations. These criticisms of the Rotary have to be handled carefully, as they are not based on any analysis of its composition, its actions, and its sociological or political role. Does it need any more explanation? If you want to put it back, fix it and/or respond to the critique, don't just play peurile revert games.Bridesmill 13:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Radical and folklorical criticisms in the past

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

sources :
 * http://www.rotaryhistoryfellowship.org/history/history/otherorganizations/freemasonry/lodge.htm

Internet proselytism criticisms Criticism be emitted to the activity of Rotarians onto Internet. For example, on Wikipedia and until 2006, all texts presenting Rotary were all the same, based on the following Rotarian general structure and presentation (text, image, chapter, Paul Harris picture) that subsists in the Indonesian version. See structure : http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_Club The only exception was the German wiki about Rotary, were it is notably stated that German Rotary Clubs excluded Jew members in the years 1933-1938, links to "regular" (theist) freemasonry, and the discussion between NSDAP and Rotary International authorities about compliancy to the Hitlerian regime. According to the general behaviour charter of Rotary International itself, when the texts were edited in a way which cannot be admitted to be from a Rotarian authorized source, the logos and Paul Harrris pictures were generally withdrawed from the wikis, and restored to comply to the "fair use" wiki politic of logos. Of course, with 4 millions members, -and developing even "virtual" Internet Rotary Clubs -, Rotarians can statistically become Wikipedians, but since the Dianne Feinstein wiki affair, the general wiki line is to develop an equilibrated editorial line. Dianne Feinstein is Honorary Member of the California Rotary-Club Links between service clubs and extreme-right organizations The german wikipedia mentions that german Rotary clubs, between 1934 and 1938, excluded jew members from Rotary clubs until 1938. As the NSDAP party saw international organisations as suspect, and Nazi Party declared incompatible both membership to Rotary and membership to NSDAP or official nazi functions. After four years of negotiations between the central headquarters in Chicago and the NSDAP party, club were closed and Charters withdrawed in 1938. Some clubs maintained an activity as "Friday Clubs". [RC Kiel-Freitagsgesellschaft]. Source :

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_Club#Zur_Zeit_des_Nationalsozialismus Some Famous Honorary Rotarians were close to the Ku-Klux-Klan, as Woodrow Wilson and the "Birth of a Nation", Harry Truman, when he began as a politician. This phenomenon can also be noticed for Lion's, with Senator Robert Byrd, who was member of the Ku Klux Klan. Another Famous Rotarian, Senator Jesse Helms, had nostalgic remembrances of segregation Sources : http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_Club#Zur_Zeit_des_Nationalsozialismus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#The_second_Klan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_national_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms#Controversies


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

If you have problems with wiki mentions, just say it on the discussion page, do not blank. Today, I will send a RfC on Wikipedia for Rotary wiki fiddling. It will be easy for arbitration members to see where the IP you use was coming from. If it came from Northern Europe, it will be shown what you are exactly... OK, go ! And use Wiki following the rules. I do have any "agenda", I just cross what Rotary did on wiki and what wiki says on Rotary members... Have a good reflexion, PierreLarcin2 10:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. No particular comment on the above for the moment. AndyJones 12:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, let's start breaking this down:
 * 1) "Internet proselytism criticisms", the heading, doesn't make sense to me at all, I'm afraid. I've looked up "proselytize", a word I've never previously used, and it means "to try to convert a person, esp. to one's religion". Even with that knowledge I cannot see what it is getting at, sorry. Is it a criticism of any organisation that it tries to attract members through the internet? Or am I missing something?
 * 2) The story in this passage seems to be that Rotary wrote a template for wikipedia "Rotary International" pages, and that Rotarians translated it and put it up on the various language wikipedias. That's possibly a WP:AUTO problem (and in passing I agree that it's important that the page doesn't become owned by Rotarians). However, I have trouble seeing it as a scandal worthy of discussion in main space unless it has an existence in the real world, for example if it has been commented on by outside media.
 * 3) As I've said before, copy containing sentences like "Criticism be emitted to the activity of Rotarians onto Internet" cannot be permitted onto the page, purely on grammatical grounds. Also, what on earth does "emitted" mean in this context? This can obviously be repaired by someone like me translating the whole lot into good English (I imagine that sentence means "Rotary has been criticised for its activities on the internet" or something similar). However, if the story itself cannot be shown to be notable and externally verifiable, is there any point in me doing that work?
 * 4) Conversely, it seems to me that (if verifiable) the claims of an historical connection between Rotary and the government of Nazi Germany - and indeed any other right-wing state - are appropriate material for this page. If so, they should be here in their own context, not in the context of criticisms of Rotary articles on Wikipedia.
 * 5) "Rotarians can statistically become Wikipedians." Wow, really?
 * 6) I am particularly confused by the reference to the Dianne Feinstein affair. What on earth is meant by that? Our article Dianne Feinstein doesn't mention anything that I can identify. Context is required, here. If this means anything at all, it needs to explain what it means. Otherwise, this material cannot stay.
 * 7) What the blippity-plop is "an equilibrated editorial line"? And whatever it turns out to be, presumably it should be in an article about Wikis, not an article about Rotary.
 * 8) Verifiability is a major problem with this post. I've started working through the links, but all of them (except one to Rotary's own site) are simply links to other language wikipedias. Firstly, I cannot understand them. Secondly, a wiki is not a verifiable source for anything. If there are external sources, ideally print sources, for any of this we need to know what they are. Failing that we cannot admit this onto the article.
 * 9) Turning next to Radical and folklorical criticisms in the past I have many of the same problems mentioned above. What on earth does this heading mean?
 * 10) What's "radical" about? Is Rotary criticised for being radical? Or is Rotary criticised by radicals? (And if so, in which of the many senses of the word radical?) Or are the criticisms themselves radical (i.e. extreme)? No idea.
 * 11) Folklorical? What's that about? Presumably derives from "folklore", which just makes me think of elves and pixies. No obvious connection with the subject of the paragraph, anyway.
 * 12) What does the paragraph itself mean? I've read the source page, which says that there was at least one lodge composed entirely of Rotarians. Fair enough. What criticism are we implying here, though? Are we in fact saying anything meaningful? The source doesn't support the idea that Rotary was ever a "facade" for freemasonry. Besides the similarities between the two organisations are pretty obvious.
 * 13) Who or what is the referent of "they" in "they were mostly caused"?
 * 14) Londonian?
 * 15) "These criticisms of the Rotary have to be handled carefully, as they are not based on any analysis of its composition, its actions, and its sociological or political role." Don't understand. Needs to be handled carefully? Handled carefully by whom? Why? In what sense? What happens if you don't handle them carefully? Do they explode?
 * 16) I'm getting very bored of the repeated accusations that Pierre's edits are being reverted as a result of censorship or a Rotarian conspiracy of some kind. I think Pierre is unaware how bizarre, and how badly expressed, his posts on this page appear: to be honest the quality of his English is too bad to make anything useful out of his edits. The reality is that there aren't Rotarians ganging up on you: just, in my case at least, a belief that this page should not be complete bollocks. I can't speak for other editors here, but I'm not a Rotarian, and I have no personal opinions on the substantive issues in the article.
 * 17) Finally, I'm not going to do this exercise again or debate these issues further. I'll gauge the consensus on this. I'm not sure if someone's put this on RfC, but if so that might be useful. If the concensus is that Pierre is broadly right and my criticisms are wrong I'll walk away from the page. If the consensus is that Pierre's edits are as bad as I consider them to be I'll simply revert all his future edits as (I suspect unintentional) vandalism (and 3RR be damned).

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

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


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

ARBITRATION REQUEST AGAINST ROTARIANS PLUS RfC PREPARED on the way now
Please stop harassment. You will fight in front of the respective colleges for RfC and for arbitration PierreLarcin2 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

next change : BridesMill : we bet ? ;-) 84.102.229.124 21:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, was me. And yes, as I've said above, I think an RfC on this page would be useful. AndyJones 21:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No BridesMill came just after you, and everyone of you are just stopping at two reverts. Superb team work. I think that the community will appreciate.

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


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

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

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


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

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

Subsection title should be changed
I think the section title "Criticisms against male preeminence in Rotary International" should be changed; I don't have any great ideas as to what, though.
 * Yes : try "Modern ways to transform a discrimination trial in an Internet asset for a public relations Club" :-)

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

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


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

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

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


 * I would remember you that

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

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


 * We will restore this paragraph. Your problem is that
 * 1/ We do not find a synonym for conservative. You may find conservatives even in the liberal Democrats. The real problem is to know what is your way, your personal way to make a distinction between left and right. Maybe should we use the word "pro-weapon" politician ?
 * 2/ Dianne Feinstein is not EXACTLY a friend of wikipedia. Did you know it ?
 * She tried to "enhance" her wiki directly from the Capitol. And I think that Rotary does the same... So my claim that we will give to Wikipedia
 * 3/ the problem is that Rotary is not, AROUND THE WORLD, sustaining any progressive politician. They did not even support Gandhi, did you know that. And I am not sure that the German Wiki community does allow wikipedia fiddling for Rotary, due to some racists support. I will come back with the Lindbergh sample, Honorary rotarian, and antisemist.
 * 4/ anyway all this will be cleared by the arbitration request we want to submit to Wikipedia. So let"s use the "bad" version for the moment ;-)
 * 84.102.229.124 01:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * PierreLarcin2 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I understood most of that, but it sounds like you want to use this site to express your personal anti-Rotary views that would probably best expressed on a "Why PierreLarcin2 Hates Rotary" website. And the latter option would be fine, that's your business, and I don't care about Rotary in the least, so go right ahead and make such a site. However, this is Wikipedia, and I do care that we keep it neutral and verifiable. Thus, removing my template from the racism paragraph without actually citing a source is offensive to Wikipedia policy; please see WP:Cite.


 * Further, you are correct (if I understand you) that the liberal/conservative distinction is a matter of opinion; thus, it does not belong here at all! You could say something like, "John Q. Example, writing in The Nation, notes that Rotary tends to support conservatives such as..." We should not ever say, "Rotary tends to support conservatives such as..." because Wikipedia has to stay neutral; after all, why give Dianne Feinstein (if she truly doesn't support this project) more ammunition against WP's accuracy? I hope you knew that neutrality was a policy; if not, please read WP:NPOV. (Gandhi, of course, being irrelevant in every way to this discussion.)


 * Finally, I'm glad someone will be arbitrating this issue, as it is clearly one where some individuals have some very strong views. That said, there is never any call to use a "bad version" as part of Wikipedia; the best, cited, neutral, verifiable version should always be presented, because most readers won't look in the history to see what "other" versions exist. The arbitrators, though, can, should, and probably will do that. Though I haven't been involved in this dispute (until now, I guess), I trust that they will make the right decision. In the meantime, I have to do what I think is the right decision and revert your last edit. --SuperNova |T|C| 06:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We understand here that you are pro-Rotary, which is perfectly your right. Where you make a mistake, is by blanking proven facts against-Rotary. Personnally, you may have remarked that we never blanked pro- information. First.

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

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

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

PierreLarcin2 08:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * We work here on an International movement Bridesmill. And a movement which defines itself as philanthropic. All facts show that is a public-relations club who supports only conservative actions. The proximity of extreme-right or racism, whose Rotary sustained notable members by its program of "Honorary Rotarians" shows it.
 * Plus what they DID about the Famous Rotarians... that they changed AFTER the wiki sourcing of the URL where all Famous Rotarians were, included Pinochet.
 * As you did : you moved Pinochet in the alphabetical list, they removed Pinochet from the URL and they placed a second page with only the Honorary Famous.


 * It was humor Bridesmill. You placed fact tag on our edits immediately, asking for sources but never sourced positive addings (the International Congress by Bruce?? speech on Polio these days) but always put on ourse, and you and Supernova (you never restaured what she illegally withdrawed) ever withdrawed what was not IMMEDIATELY sourced.


 * We know perfectly that all that fiddling is justified by this International Congress held in june 12-14 ? in Copenhagen. Of course Internet was a subject there, no doubt.
 * And of course, as Rotary goes to schools, as year ends, of course scholars need to read "soften" wiki on Rotary, isn't it ?


 * Now it is over Bridesmill. We just put a Wiki Request for Comments about all this, a few minutes ago. We spent more that 30 minutes today to find out what you Bridesmill and SuperNova blanked since one day. We have no time for that AND it is difficult for both of us to retrieve info, take care of what was added [we do not censure], and replace what you faded, truncated or changed, smoothed. We have plenty of source facts, questions, etc, and we hope that the community will help us to put light onto this.
 * The official claim for arbitration against Rotary wiki fiddling will be put in a few hours. Salutations, PierreLarcin2 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Our salutations also to you, SuperNova, who are probably a "RotaryStudentExchange" or a "Rotary ambassadorial" student. PierreLarcin2 20:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please leave my talk page alone. I am perfectly capable of reading it here. Seconldy, please answer the question. That fact tag was //not// placed immediately - but I do start too get irate when people change the words in a supposed quotation and still claim it is a quotation. Third; using humor to play with editors on wiki in mainspace is //not// on - are you telling me that you actually believe that 1921, RI, Belgium and France are somehow related? Fourthly - what the dickens are you talking about Copenhagen? Like I am operating under orders form RI or something? I told you, I have NOTHING to do with RI. I came here on an RfC, if you recall, instigated by your revert war in May.
 * Balance is the aim here - if an organization has 10% idiots, then a balanced article will list 9 decent folk and one idiot (assuming the level of idiocy and decency are the same). Balance in that case does //not// mean you have to have 5 decent folks and 5 idiots. Bridesmill 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I, for one, welcome an RfC, because it would hopefully mean that there would then be more than two reasonable people trying to prevent your inane and biased opinions from tainting Wikipedia. I second Bridesmill in asking that you refrain from copying huge pieces of this discussion to User Talk Pages; trust me, I check this page often enough as it is. As I said before, I have nothing to do with Rotary or any of their programs, and for you to assume that only Rotarians believe in citing sources, not making up quotes, and keeping your ridiculous, invented conspiracies out of Wikipedia only underscores how ignorant you are of how this place operates.


 * I could go on about your edits, but the facts in the History page and here (and now copied to two User_talks) speak for themselves. Please, please: STOP EDITING NOW. You only make yourself look more and more foolish, and you will be reverted until you respect what Wikipedia is about. I suggest you move on to somewhere more friendly to your idea of "the facts". --SuperNova |T|C| 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Bridesmill, we LOVED your last trick : modifying our RfC. You're...a genius, don't you think so ? We are not sure Arbitration will love that.

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

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