Zoney (zoney.ie(a)gmail.com) [050224 12:43]: It's a sustained defense. They see it as a sustained assault, however. - d.

I don't believe anybody has been arguing that we should. Indeed the contention that NPOV implies giving any advocacy group a platform seems to this editor like a misreading of NPOV.

This is a good example of our dilemma. Slimvirgin's friends says, "the BNP wished that most of his students were not there, and perhaps even wished they had not been born or that they would die" For Wikipedia purposes this information if true would be quite valuable. In our article on the BNP it says "The BNP denies [claims of racism] and states that many questionable characters have been expelled from the party; it publicly condemns both violence and racism." But those in the know are aware that they are lying and, in power, can be expected to revert to type. Likewise, should the Maoist rebels in Nepal come to power, those in the know expect a bloodbath, although many of us would be happy to be proved wrong and see a genuine people's democracy emerge. Certainly we can put no such information in the article without a big fuss. So it turns out that important information, indeed vital information regarding life and death issues, is verboten, should it offend. This reminds me of the article I once wrote, [[US invasion of Iraq]]. It certainly created a big fuss at the time, being written 9 months before the invasion. The fact is, it is possible to know and there is no prescience or magic to it. Information of such a nature is derived from long standing past behavior that has been repeated over and over and over. But to go back to the issue. In most political cases a neo-nazi or a Maoist or Marxist-Leninist will come on with a strong POV which they will express, both by adding material from their peculiar intellectual mileau and stongly opposing addition or retention of information from mainstream sources, especially information from those familiar with the workings of their particular faction. This was seen in the Herschelkrustovsky case with extreme opposition to the editing of Chip Berlet (Cberlet), who is thoroughly familiar with the twists and turns of Lyndon LaRouche. It comes down in terms of Wikipedia policy to [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] and the particular offense: Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or propaganda. To repeat, as suitably modified: Certain religions and ideologies systematically devalue most of humanity. Wikipedia policies are a sustained defense against that frame of mind. Fred