Snowspinner writes:
I'm seriously concerned about a recent arbcom enforcement. A ban was ordered against [[User:C Colden]] as per the ruling in the case of Lyndon LaRouche.
....However, the ruling of the case, apparently, was a ruling against the insertion of "original research originating with the LaRouche movement" (Which seems to be an interchangable phrase with "the LaRouche point of view") into any article by any user.
This is a false charge. You are making this up. No one is claiming that an NPOV description of LaRouche's point of view is original research, or is forbidden. Your claim is nonsense.
The problem here is that many Larouche supporters violate Wikipedia editorial policy by shoving in their own original research, or pushing their own personal point-of-view as fact. Further, they systematically distort many Wikipedia articles by pushing the Larouche POV in places where it has no meaning or relevance. They are taking the POV of a fringe, cult-like convicted criminal, and falsely presenting it as a POV that is just as widely accepted as those of any mainstream political party.
One could do the same thing with any of a dozen other fringe self-styled political leaders who have been convicted of crimes. However, the views of a self-styled political messiah with little following does not deserve the grand attention and treatment that a handful of LaRouche supporters are giving it. Further, his views certainly must be presented in an NPOV way without any original research, which is not what his supporters do.
This seems to me to reflect a hard arbcom ruling that the LaRouche POV is not something that need be included under the Wikipedia NPOV policy.
Nonsense. This is a strawman argument against a position that no one has made.
As loathesome as I find the LaRouche movement to be, I am seriously troubled by the notion that the arbcom can and will make blanket rulings that certain perspectives are not part of NPOV.
Nonsense. You are arguing a strawman criticism that a number of LaRouche supporters have been doing here for some time. We aren't falling for it.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Dude. Someone who had never been the subject of an arbcom ruling was ordered banned by the arbcom for violation of a ruling in a case that happened before they started using Wikipedia.
This was in fact the arbcom declaring that LaRouche viewpoints are not to be introduced to articles and that doing so could get one banned.
If the ruling only applyed to Herchel and some other people, that would have been one thing. But the ruling was used BY THE ARBCOM to justify a ban on someone who was uninvolved in the dispute they had ruled on.
Worse, the LaRouche point of view was ordered out of an article on someone who was involved in the LaRouche movement. It's not as though this was something like the Frankfurt School, where I have argued against the inclusion of the LaRouche view on the grounds that it was not a relevant or significant viewpoint.
That was an overstepping of the arbcom's mandate. The validity of including a viewpoint in an article needs to be taken on a case by case basis. In certain cases (Such as the people involved in the original LaRouche ruling) it may b appropriate to curb specific people from editing to include specific viewpoints. But to ban a viewpoint from all articles and to create a rule that applies to users who have had no case brought against them and against future users of Wikipedia is not within the arbcom mandate.
And that is exactly what happened.
-Snowspinner
On Nov 27, 2004, at 3:56 PM, Robert wrote:
Snowspinner writes:
I'm seriously concerned about a recent arbcom enforcement. A ban was ordered against [[User:C Colden]] as per the ruling in the case of Lyndon LaRouche.
....However, the ruling of the case, apparently, was a ruling against the insertion of "original research originating with the LaRouche movement" (Which seems to be an interchangable phrase with "the LaRouche point of view") into any article by any user.
This is a false charge. You are making this up. No one is claiming that an NPOV description of LaRouche's point of view is original research, or is forbidden. Your claim is nonsense.
The problem here is that many Larouche supporters violate Wikipedia editorial policy by shoving in their own original research, or pushing their own personal point-of-view as fact. Further, they systematically distort many Wikipedia articles by pushing the Larouche POV in places where it has no meaning or relevance. They are taking the POV of a fringe, cult-like convicted criminal, and falsely presenting it as a POV that is just as widely accepted as those of any mainstream political party.
One could do the same thing with any of a dozen other fringe self-styled political leaders who have been convicted of crimes. However, the views of a self-styled political messiah with little following does not deserve the grand attention and treatment that a handful of LaRouche supporters are giving it. Further, his views certainly must be presented in an NPOV way without any original research, which is not what his supporters do.
This seems to me to reflect a hard arbcom ruling that the LaRouche POV is not something that need be included under the Wikipedia NPOV policy.
Nonsense. This is a strawman argument against a position that no one has made.
As loathesome as I find the LaRouche movement to be, I am seriously troubled by the notion that the arbcom can and will make blanket rulings that certain perspectives are not part of NPOV.
Nonsense. You are arguing a strawman criticism that a number of LaRouche supporters have been doing here for some time. We aren't falling for it.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l