User:Tomoo Terada

NOTE of 29/07/2013, 11:43 Mexico City time:

The problem with online information is that can be changed and altered very quickly. As I wrote before, this Wikipedia user page didn´t appeared in the results under my name "Tomoo Terada". Now it does.

That doesn´t chage the fact of the abuse by the bullies.

NOTE of 25/07/2013:

I see [the Emiliano Zapata article talk page] was changed to erase the public attack against user posmodern2000 and me by the bullies. But you can read it, for instance, at the 21:18, 23 February 2008 edit made by one of the bullies, Maunus.

And I found this, my user page at English Wikipedia, don´t appear anymore in Google search results under "Tomoo Terada". So no more people will read about this case of abuse and defamation and "wikidnapping" of an article that continued during years by a bunch of cowards hiding behind pseudonyms. And abusing of their power as Wikipedia editors.

That´s the [accountability Wikipedia proclaims]?

Below my appeal to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia community as it was for more than two years:

A personal appeal from Tomoo Terada
To Mr. Jimmy Wales and the Wikipedia in English language community and Wikipedia community in general. And to people from all around the world that consults English Wikipedia as a more or less reliable source.

I am sending this message directly to Mr. Jimmy Wales mail because the main point is the lack of accountability of several English Wikipedia people hiding behind pseudonyms, and the bias that protect them. The help desk where Mr. Wales sent people complaining it will be, without doubts, full of people using pseudonyms, not accountable too, and even maybe related to the offenders. As the recent public personal appeals of Mr. Wales and a handful of wikipedians asking money to maintain Wikipedia free of charge prove, a real name or even just a face is needed to get public trust. This message will be posted in the systematic bias talk page,since many biases are exposed, and in the appointed talk page.

My name is Tomoo Terada, a Mexican-Japanese writer and journalist. I have a blog: teradatomoo.blogspot.com, so you can check I am the one that I am saying to be.

Sorry. What I have to say contradicts the indulgent optimism of Wikipedia ten years celebration. As millions of persons around the world, many times I have used Wikipedia as a good place to start a searching of information. Even if that information was not complete, or not completely reliable, most of the time Wikipedia gave me clues to begin a more profound search in other sources as books, journals, newspapers, blogs and databases.

But the problems surrounding the Emiliano Zapata article on English Wikipedia made me realize there’s a lack of ethics, accountability and respect to truth in that version of Wikipedia when the articles are “wikidnapped” by the vested contributors that Wikipedia pretend to condemn but in fact let those people act with impunity and hands free to practice bullying. In this case nobody has corrected the wrongdoings for more than three years, even when lies and abuses of those which user postmodern correctly described as bullies and cowards are blatant evident.

My personal experience with Wikipedia is one of disappointment and involves, to not name all: a) Witnessing harassment of an anonymous user using pseudonym by a mob of anonymous users using pseudonyms too, so the bullies could “win” the argument in a talk page, to be free of erasing a reference of a work of mine, put in the article by the first user. I did not see any help provided to the attacked one by Wikipedia structure in any moment; b) Experience me, a person with a real name, the surrealistic experience of being publicly played down and “accused” with no proofs of “may be linkspamming Wikipedia to try and give his theories more credibility” by unaccountable anonymous Wikipedians hiding behind pseudonyms; c) To see that  the “Wikipedia mob” is very touchy about the accuracy of translations done by others but in turn translate to one’s fancy opposite side sources, quotes and arguments without hesitation, so they easily could discredit the “nonsense” themselves created; d) And to add more surrealistic facts: the same source considered “nonsense” in Emiliano Zapata  article on Wikipedia in English has been part of the corresponding one in Wikipedia en Español for more than three years, with no problem at this moment (January 15, 2011, around 18:00 PM, Mexico City Time), the same amount of time the public “accusation” against me has been online even when someone using the same pseudonym of one the bullies of English Wikipedia registered as a member of Spanish Wikipedia.

Of course, would not be strange that, suddenly, after this commentary to be made public and after a long time of maintained “consensus” at Spanish Wikipedia the link to my work by chance begins to be under attack, with “consensus” broken and silent “guardian” wikipedians waking up from their hibernation.

Since in the main article page never there was some warning as “the neutrality of this article is disputed” a bias in English Wikipedia was revealed. At least some of the wikipedians in Wikipedia in English language do believe their version and language are intrinsically superior to the other versions in other languages, so it must be “defended” from outsiders, something do not deserve the other “inferior” versions of Wikipedia.

Being Emiliano Zapata a historical figure from a Spanish spoken country the message is clear to me: “We wikipedians of English Wikipedia we, the unaccountable enlighten ones, know the history of non English spoken countries even better than those savages themselves. Even if the article of a version of Wikipedia in the same language spoken by some non English spoken historical figure set the record straight on some aspect, we, at English Wikipedia, decided as the whim takes or no to include it or not in our kingdom”. Call it “EnglishWikipediacentrism”, “Wikimperialism” or simply patronizing Wikidiocy.

Wikipedia claims to be the free encyclopedia that “anyone can edit”. The difference of the original project, Nupedia, is the supposedly open source nature of the editing. No need to have work done by experts but confidence in the knowledge of contributors coming from all around the World instead. That is the theory. What I have experienced is the fact that in the reality of English Wikipedia the only credentials that really matters are those of being a wikipedian with barnstars, recognized by Wikipedia structure. If Jaron Lanier calls it "Digital Maoism” then user postmodern and I had a clash with the "Red Guard” of Wikipedia´s “Cultural Revolution”.

To start from the beginning: At the Emiliano Zapata article talk page, a group of anonymous wikipedians hiding behind nicknamed anonymity harassed another anonymous Wikipedia user, Posmodern2000, years ago, for citing a text of mine as a source for the article. The angry reaction was the result of the discussion that was opened where that user dares to expose the great ignorance of the group of wikipedians opposing him/her, pretending to be experts in Mexico’s history. That was the true crime that user committed.

So, since each posting by the mob revealed more and more clearly their profound ignorance on the subject of the article they supposedly were “protecting”, they found a way to “discredit” their opponent. Let in the air the suspicion of “I think `Posmodern2000´ IS Tomoo Terada”.

That was skillful. In fact a direct accusation was never stated since it needed to be substantiated with proofs. The “accusations” were dropped as “casually” remarks, so the “accusers” don´t even had to prove it. All what they needed was just leave the suspicion on the user that exposed their ignorance and me.

Anything user postmodern would say will turn against him/her because the only way for him/her to “prove” was not me it would necessarily have involved the need to resign anonymity, something the bullies clearly will do not.

And if, as I do now, me, Tomoo Terada, would dare to take part of the polemics, that will be used as a “confession of guilty”. And even a conflict of interest since the erased source was a work of mine. So, I had to remain silent even if the bullies added some character assassination (“small time journalist”, “Just a WAG”), done distorting facts about me. After thrashing me it would be easy for the bullies feel free to harass me even if I dare to reply. Being me at disadvantage as someone answering with a real name confronting people hiding behind pseudonyms, because the decision of facing them implied the risk of losing face. Something coward people hiding behind pseudonyms, to not be accountable, don´t risk.

But since user postmodern seems to vanish in the air (I don´t blame him/her, why return to a place full of bullies that do not respect the truth, and “win” polemics discrediting someone for being anonymous being anonymous themselves?), I am the one that must set the record straight.

But if postmodern have the chance to read this I ask him/her to be in contact again. And I want to thank the defense of my work.

For all those reasons I will not answer the “accusations” of this people, a group of despicable cowards hiding behind anonymity, “accusations” without any single real proof (“The writing style looks awful familiar, huh?”), to attack me, a person with a real name. To me, could not matter less the opinion of this kind of people.

Charles Chaplin was “accused” of being a Jew, a statement he never publicly denied since he believed to deny it could be seen as a way to accept the fact of being Jew as something bad or shameful. So I will not accept or deny the “accusation” of being postmodern2000 since that it would be not a shame and was not the real cause of the problem, but the anger of vested wikipedians against an outsider contributor, when publicly exposed to the World their ignorance.

And with a lot of blatant vanity pages, really suspicious links to some Media, business, blogs (too much examples in Wikipedia) to give them artificial relevancy, accusations of “linkspamming” or “self-promotion” are at least hypocritical.

I wrote about this situation in my blog, some time ago, for my Spanish spoken readers. My decision was then to not answer, as a sign of dignity.

Now I think I was wrong, and I definitely lost my doubts to fight back in Wikipedia after being subject to strange harassment similar to postmodern ´s, but in my case for political reasons. The political attack on me that I mention is a weird mixture of political chase and a “Fatal Attraction” situation, with an unidentified supposed “woman” I sleep with, years ago, sending me junk mail and spreading lies about me, mixed with some truth to make it credible. “She” hides behind a lot of pseudonyms. Supposedly, the reason for the attack is personal revenge, but the exposed reasons are really unbelievable for a so strong obsession on me. I had to mention this since it’s even possible “she” burst here.

The real reason for this harassment against me is the public accusation I did, about the presumed destruction of documents on the archives of important human rights violations of Mexico recent past of political repression, as the 1968 Tlatelolco massacre, theCorpus Christi massacre of 1971 by paramilitary group "Falcons", and the so called “dirty war” against guerilla during 70´s, to bring impunity to the perpetrators [1][2].

Sorry for the lack of modesty, but since I suffered character assassination during years in silence here; I must set the record straight now and let people know the reality about me.

If I am just a “small time journalist” (Maunus) I must be a very strange one since, for instance, I won a literary contest judged by late notable Serbian writer Milorad Pavic, considered someone so relevant that “deserved” Wikipedia articles in several languages.

Of course, all this information it is in Spanish, a language of inferior sort to English language, in the concept of the aforementioned group of wikipedian bullies that kidnapped the article on Zapata. A language that, as I said before, they “translate” to one’s fancy, with arguments distorted, so they later could respond to the “nonsense” themselves created.

I know I am not John Seigenthaler, a USA journalist with a long career, able to fight back Wikipedia wrongdoing with an article in USA Today, but the bunch of coward bullying Essjays deserve to be exposed.

Some few brief answers to misleading statements done by the bullies, to set the record straight quickly.

A)   “Womack has not been quoted elsewhere saying similar things” (Tubezone)    “I've read Terada's article and I'm quite unimpressed” (Rune Welsh)

The quote refers to John Womack, Jr., a tenured professor at Harvard University, now retired, a recognized expert on Emiliano Zapata and zapatismo history and author of the classic book on subject, “Zapata and the Mexican Revolution”. Well, John Womack was impressed enough with my work as to write a very kind praise and recommendation of it, which you can read here. So if I fail to impress some loser in Wikipedia hiding behind a pseudonym, sorry, but I really don´t care.

No doubt to hide behind a pseudonym to avoid being accountable have many advantages. But to be taken seriously by public figures and academicians as Womack is not one of those advantages. Someone as Womack would never answer any request of people hiding behind nicknames as “Tubezone”, “Rune Welsh”, “Maunus”, even “posmodern2000”.

I will not disclose my electronic correspondence with professor Womack to please a group of anonymous unaccountable coward bullies. Womack was not completely agreed with me, but recognized the seriousness of my investigation: “muy interesante y bastante valioso” (very interesting and quite a lot valuable). And that’s the correct translation.

B)    “See, here's another misleading statement. Womack specifically says Jauregui recommended Guajardo to Zapata”. (Unidentified, apparently Tubezone)

Poor Postmodern! Why lose the time with someone that not just an idiot but a liar? Wikipedia explicitly forbids “original research”. But in this case what we found is “original interpretation”.

As postmodern correctly wrote “Womack only wrote about him (Eusebio Jauregui) two times in the whole book”. And this is the quote of Womack referring to Jauregui´s recommendation in favor of Guajardo. To avoid copyright problems I must quote briefly, but you can read the book to get the entire context:

[By Monday, April 7, all was ready. The ammunition had arrived. González was back. And Zapata had received promises of other national defections and specified his battle orders against Jonacatepec, Tlaltizapán and Jojutla. To divert attention from Morelos, Zapatistas attacked Cholula, Puebla, that day. That night in Cuautla Guajardo made his last preparations and the next morning finally declared himself in rebellion against the government. As he left Cuautla, a captive Zapatista free on bond there, Eusebio Jáuregui, sent Zapata another recommendation in his favor.]

(p. 324)

No moral judgment is done by John Womack on Jauregui, and he never calls him a “traitor”. To call it that way is just a personal interpretation, an individual reading of Womack’s book, done by an editor of Wikipedia adding something the author do not state. Respectable as an opinion but an abuse to impose as a “truth”: “he (Jauregui) was widely credited with betraying Zapata to Guajardo”.

In fact I can advance Jáuregui was executed, according to the press of those days, because his recommendation was considered a sign of rebelliousness. But to know that and more interesting facts you must investigate at Hemeroteca Nacional de México, as I did. Of course, that’s “original research” but then Wikipedia must prohibit “original interpretation” to her editors too. To stop lazy pseudonymed “gringos” the self-delusion of believe they know Mexican history better than a Mexican writer with a real name, only for using Google.

C)

“Apparently Mr. Terada unsucessfully tried to get the UNAM magazine to publish his article, see: [3]. He also complains he's been "censured for years" in his response to this article: [4]. To me it seems the point of Mr. Terada's and/or "Posmodern2000"'s exercises were to show that "authorities" were manipulating historical accounts, rather than actually disproving that Zapata died at Chinameca”. (Tubezone)

Apparently the bully hiding behind the pseudonym “Tubezone” have very serious problems reading in Spanish.

[http://www.bibliotecas.tv/zapata/bibliografia/indices/tomoo_terada.html I did not tried “unsuccessfully” to get UNAM magazine to publish me. The director of that one, Ignacio Solares, asked me to send to them the text]. Anyone capable of reading in Spanish will get it.

[Me parece un tiempo más que razonable para que pueda saber cuándo publicaran el texto, que, le recuerdo, me fue solicitado por el Director de la revista, Mtro. Ignacio Solares, con mucho interés de su parte.]

I did not complain of been “censured for years”. What I complained to Ricardo Cayuela Gally, editor of Letras Libres, was the fact he and others censured me YEARS AGO in another magazine. To me it’s a very clearly different thing having been “censored for years” and been censored “years ago”. Talking about false translations…

Letras Libres is a Mexican culture magazine, directed by Enrique Krauze, not an “authority”. The mention about unidentified "authorities" manipulating historical accounts is a distortion done by the bullies, trying to discredit me as a conspirationist.

D)

“You still haven't answered why you feel it's so important to prove that Zapata didn't die in Chinameca. You don't like Zapata? Again, What's your point ???”. (Tubezone)

So, the value of historical investigation is decided by anonymous people hiding behind pseudonyms?

And those anonymous people feel free to accuse someone of like or dislike a historical figure because what they dislike is the freedom of mind of others?

Well, since I was praised by Womack and my work is part of the official bibliography used by Fundación Zapata, which have as president the great-grandson of Zapata, Edgar Castro Zapata, maybe “Tubezone” must demand to be the president of the Fundación instead of Edgar.

E)

“The account of the 600 soldiers does not come from Reyes Avilés: Reyes Avilés was not in Guajardo's army. Womack cites official reports to General Gonzalez, published in El Universal”.

The official reports to General González were sent by Jesús María Guajardo.

“Tubezone” wrote “There's little doubt Guajardo was a snake”.

How can the bully disqualify someone as a snake and consider him a reliable witness at the same time?

I registered as a wikipedian under my real name so nobody could steal my identity adding insult to injury.

So it’s now clear the bullies, supposed “guardians” of the article, were not real concerned fact checkers but pompous posers trying to cover up their ignorance.

Mr. Wales, Wikipedia is a great idea, but success implies the burden of more accountability. Happy ten years.

Regards.

Tomoo Terada (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Tomoo Terada