Welcome!
Hello, Hecht, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Slgr
@ndson (
page -
messages -
contribs)
17:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Barry Chamish is not a Nazi and neither is Jeff Rense. Go and read Shabtai Tzvi, Labour Zionism and the Holocaust, and stop protesting too much. -- Hereward77 ( talk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Rense is not a Holocaust denier, and is certainly no Nazi. The books sold on Rense.com cover Bible prophecy and the paranormal, not the likes of Irving, etc. From his website: "Neither Jeff Rense nor sightings.com necessarily adhere to, or endorse, any or all of the links, stories, articles, editorials, or products offered by sponsors found on this site, or broadcast on the Jeff Rense radio program. All of the materials and data offered on this site, and on the radio program, are for informational and educational purposes only." Although Rense is rather naive in carrying a few questionable articles on his site, [1] Pipes has no evidence for these claims, so I will have to point this out in the article. -- Hereward77 ( talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Is my objection to those sites. Nizkor might make it through - I have used it on occasion, although there has been some trenchant academic criticism of it, but its definitely a major force in refuting denialists' arguments - but Bogdanor is definitely not an option. "Left-wingers for another holocaust" is not an acceptable encyclopaedic external link. Relata refero ( talk) 10:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Nizkor: Thanks.
LWD: Disliking one of the authors listed hardly justifies removing the whole page. In any case, Michelle Malkin's item is one of two on Ramsey Clark; the other is by a journalist from The Nation writing on Salon.com! I don't see the words "North Vietnamese Land Reform Genocide Denial," only a section on "Land Reform Apologists" with articles by prominent authors on the subject.
Hecht ( talk) 14:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter what either of us thinks. The articles are by prominent authors and experts.
Hecht ( talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Which experts? Hecht ( talk) 15:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Glancing through the Vietnam land reform articles, they do claim to be about denials of bloodbaths. Hecht ( talk) 20:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Guy has already been told not to reinsert that statement without offering an independent source for the information. If you insert the material again I will have to consider blocking you for violating our policy on biographies of living people. Spartaz Humbug! 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Where's the ban on using court proceedings as a source? Can you explain? Please quote the relevant sentence(s). Thanks. Hecht ( talk) 20:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I followed the links to here: "When discussing legal texts, it is more reliable to quote from the text, appropriately qualified jurists or textbooks than from newspaper reporting." I.e. use the court judgment - not a second-hand source - which is what I'm doing! Hecht ( talk) 20:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time for a detailed explanation. Comments: (1) If the libel action is relevant to the entry, I don't understand how the outcome can be irrelevant. (2) Quoting a court judgment can't be libellous. (3) Neil Clark confirmed the outcome on his own blog. [7] (4) My concern is that mentioning the libel action, but not the outcome, leaves it an open question whether Oliver Kamm is a libeller. Doesn't that also raise WP:BLP issues? Hecht ( talk) 01:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Hecht, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Slgr
@ndson (
page -
messages -
contribs)
17:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Barry Chamish is not a Nazi and neither is Jeff Rense. Go and read Shabtai Tzvi, Labour Zionism and the Holocaust, and stop protesting too much. -- Hereward77 ( talk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Rense is not a Holocaust denier, and is certainly no Nazi. The books sold on Rense.com cover Bible prophecy and the paranormal, not the likes of Irving, etc. From his website: "Neither Jeff Rense nor sightings.com necessarily adhere to, or endorse, any or all of the links, stories, articles, editorials, or products offered by sponsors found on this site, or broadcast on the Jeff Rense radio program. All of the materials and data offered on this site, and on the radio program, are for informational and educational purposes only." Although Rense is rather naive in carrying a few questionable articles on his site, [1] Pipes has no evidence for these claims, so I will have to point this out in the article. -- Hereward77 ( talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Is my objection to those sites. Nizkor might make it through - I have used it on occasion, although there has been some trenchant academic criticism of it, but its definitely a major force in refuting denialists' arguments - but Bogdanor is definitely not an option. "Left-wingers for another holocaust" is not an acceptable encyclopaedic external link. Relata refero ( talk) 10:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Nizkor: Thanks.
LWD: Disliking one of the authors listed hardly justifies removing the whole page. In any case, Michelle Malkin's item is one of two on Ramsey Clark; the other is by a journalist from The Nation writing on Salon.com! I don't see the words "North Vietnamese Land Reform Genocide Denial," only a section on "Land Reform Apologists" with articles by prominent authors on the subject.
Hecht ( talk) 14:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter what either of us thinks. The articles are by prominent authors and experts.
Hecht ( talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Which experts? Hecht ( talk) 15:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Glancing through the Vietnam land reform articles, they do claim to be about denials of bloodbaths. Hecht ( talk) 20:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Guy has already been told not to reinsert that statement without offering an independent source for the information. If you insert the material again I will have to consider blocking you for violating our policy on biographies of living people. Spartaz Humbug! 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Where's the ban on using court proceedings as a source? Can you explain? Please quote the relevant sentence(s). Thanks. Hecht ( talk) 20:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I followed the links to here: "When discussing legal texts, it is more reliable to quote from the text, appropriately qualified jurists or textbooks than from newspaper reporting." I.e. use the court judgment - not a second-hand source - which is what I'm doing! Hecht ( talk) 20:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time for a detailed explanation. Comments: (1) If the libel action is relevant to the entry, I don't understand how the outcome can be irrelevant. (2) Quoting a court judgment can't be libellous. (3) Neil Clark confirmed the outcome on his own blog. [7] (4) My concern is that mentioning the libel action, but not the outcome, leaves it an open question whether Oliver Kamm is a libeller. Doesn't that also raise WP:BLP issues? Hecht ( talk) 01:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)