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
From: slimvirgin@gmail.com Reply-To: slimvirgin@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:57:33 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] When goals conflict: There is no "right" for everyoneto edit Wiki
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:51:50 -0500, El C el.ceeh@gmail.com wrote:
When one editor sees another not as human but as sub-human, intrinsically and irreversibly, such a dialogue, though it might find formal expression, is a caricature by any stretch.
El C has eloquently summed up why we ought not to allow neo-Nazis to use Wikipedia's NPOV policy to force us to offer them a platform. A friend of mine is the headmaster of a school in an area of London with a large number of black and Asian students. Some students invited the British National Party, a white supremacist/separatist party, to speak to their debating society. The headmaster - a tolerant man who has defended openness and free speech all his life - stepped in and banned the speaker, the only time he has interfered in the debating society's choice of guest. When accused of censorship, he replied that 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; and that therefore no meaningful dialogue or free exchange of ideas was possible because, as El C said, one side regarded the other as less than human. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l