On 11/9/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
I think I was in error. This is a spill over from legal conventions that is probably inappropriate on Wikipedia
Fred
The evidence Fred ruled inadmissable
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitr...
i.e. a Summary of Dispute (and other evidence)
is now Official Wikipedia Policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#History
"Historical research involves the collection of original or "primary" documents (the job of libraries and archives), the close reading of the documents, and their interpretation in terms of larger historical issues. To be verifiable, research must be based on the primary documents. "
The ommitted evidence reads in part,
"There have been no sources or citations offered for altering the langauge and integrity of primary source documents, properly referenced, by adding "alleged to's", "claims of", and "supposedly's". Likewise there is no sourcing for efforts to edit existing text from properly sourced secondary materials, with much the same language and reasoning.
"It is no less than invalid research methods, attempting to impeach primary sources with unqualified secondary sources, or secondary sources with unqualified secondary sources, or both with original research to push POV. The distinct lack of, or absence, of sourcing for "sceptics", has lead to cries for "balance" and "NPOV". So numerous attempts have been made to invent "sources" out of thin air to achieve "NPOV". These unreferenced "sceptics" are usually refered to as "others", "sceptics" or "scholars", yet no one has brought forward another qualified source beyond the above mentioned four.
"None of the changes in text [plaintiff] questions can be properly referenced to these, or any other secondary source.
"Invalid research methods do not constitute NPOV."
http://www.godseye.com/stat/en/r/e/q/Wikipedia~Requests_for_mediation_Cberle... Thank you.
I hereby appeal for a limited rexamination of the case to modify existing remedies.
Nobs01