Zero,
If a contributor's only source is a pirate radio station, then write an article about the station. Then link all mentions of the station with [[ and ]] brackets, like this:
* According to [[Pirates R Us]], the PLO leader smells of elderberries.
Anyone whose opinion or judgment you value will click on the link and read your accurate and neutral article on them:
'''Pirates R Us''' is a clandestinely operated radio station broadcasting from mall parking lots in Tel Aviv and north Jerusalem. It was banned by the Israeli government after a court found it in violation of Regulation 123-456. After losing on appeal, the group said, "What the heck" and turned "pirate".
Okay, the content above is, er, somewhat imaginary, but it's just an example of HOW TO DO IT. Now, please, go do it, and then let us know how it works out.
Ed Poor Resident Genius, Peacemaker, and all-around nice guy
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
If a contributor's only source is a pirate radio station, then write an article about the station. Then link all mentions of the station with [[ and ]] brackets, like this:
- According to [[Pirates R Us]], the PLO leader smells of elderberries.
I agree, but I would also note that you don't have to mention what everyone says on everything. However, the main criterion should not be objectivity (it's not our job to be media critic) but relevance. If it's a pirate radio station with a shady reputation but a large audience and large name-recognition, then what they say should be noted and attributed to them (and people can decide if they're just nuts). If it's some random guy nobody knows about, we of course don't have to say "but this guy said [blah blah]".
In this case from what I can tell it's somewhat borderline. It's a station with a small but hardcore following, but it seems well known in the general public because of the controversy surrounding it. So I'd lean towards reporting what they say (where reasonably relevant, as given the media coverage I think this case is) and just attributing it to them. If other people have questioned the veracity of the report, we can say that too.
-Mark
Including side-notes about every well-known controversial opinion can clutter up an article and detract from its usefulness. "The Earth is generally accepted to be a spheroid with average radius 6360 km. The [[flat-earthers]] think it is a flat plane, but debate whether it circular, square, or has edges at all. Some flat-earthers think that both sides of a flat earth are inhabited."
It might be appropriate to start a custom of having a section titled "Other Perspectives" or some such at the end of an article, before the references and see-alsos. The body of the article can then present accepted collective understanding of a subject, which most readers will expect to find in a respectable resource, while allowing space to note controversial or popular fringe view. References to that section could be made from the rest of the text.
[To this end, and for other reasons, it would be nice to auto-generate footnotes...]
For instance, one might write: [with autogenerated footnotes]
"Famous impossible constructions include trisecting the angle[[Footnote:#Other perspectives]] and squaring the circle."
==Other perspectives== There are a number of amateur mathematicians, known to others in the field as 'angle trisectors', who continue to work on constructions for trisecting an angle, disbelieving a long-standing (and three-page-long) proof that this is impossible. They are infamous for the persistence of their correspondence with any mathematician willing to review their constructions.
I don't think the small but hardcore following necessarily makes their views encyclopedic - consider the case of Lyndon LaRouche, which the arbcom has ruled ought not be mentioned in articles that do not directly pertain to LaRouche. So I would still lean towards this not being encyclopedic.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 22, 2004, at 3:20 PM, Delirium wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
If a contributor's only source is a pirate radio station, then write an article about the station. Then link all mentions of the station with [[ and ]] brackets, like this:
- According to [[Pirates R Us]], the PLO leader smells of
elderberries.
I agree, but I would also note that you don't have to mention what everyone says on everything. However, the main criterion should not be objectivity (it's not our job to be media critic) but relevance. If it's a pirate radio station with a shady reputation but a large audience and large name-recognition, then what they say should be noted and attributed to them (and people can decide if they're just nuts). If it's some random guy nobody knows about, we of course don't have to say "but this guy said [blah blah]".
In this case from what I can tell it's somewhat borderline. It's a station with a small but hardcore following, but it seems well known in the general public because of the controversy surrounding it. So I'd lean towards reporting what they say (where reasonably relevant, as given the media coverage I think this case is) and just attributing it to them. If other people have questioned the veracity of the report, we can say that too.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I don't think the small but hardcore following necessarily makes their views encyclopedic - consider the case of Lyndon LaRouche, which the arbcom has ruled ought not be mentioned in articles that do not directly pertain to LaRouche. So I would still lean towards this not being encyclopedic.
In this case, I don't think it's directly analogous. The views of the right-wing Israeli settlers are pretty relevant to the issue of Israeli-Palestinian relations...
-Mark
True, but that's a different argument than the pirate radio station. I mean, the warrant for inclusion, in that case, is not that it is said by a pirate radio station, but that it is a belief of right-wing Israeli settlers. And thus the information should be introduced in those terms, instead of in terms of a pirate radio station.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 22, 2004, at 6:49 PM, Delirium wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I don't think the small but hardcore following necessarily makes their views encyclopedic - consider the case of Lyndon LaRouche, which the arbcom has ruled ought not be mentioned in articles that do not directly pertain to LaRouche. So I would still lean towards this not being encyclopedic.
In this case, I don't think it's directly analogous. The views of the right-wing Israeli settlers are pretty relevant to the issue of Israeli-Palestinian relations...
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
My take on it right now is that lance6wins edits from what can be generally termed a partisan viewpoint. It is difficult to adequately characterize his viewpoint in simple terms, for example I don't think he is a settler, although he may be. Lance6win's perspective is similar to that of [[Daniel Pipes]], a relatively well know commentator. I think that perspective is significant and ought to be included in articles relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but ought to be identified either by reference to the perspective taken or the source of the material, in the case of the radio station its perspective is well known to Israelis but can be difficult to characterize to those unfamiliar with such nuances. At any rate identifying the perspective of material added to an article is the responsibility of the person who adds it. Simply taking that perspective and inserting it into the article as the truth is not acceptable; it needs to be attributed in some way which identifies it.
Fred
From: Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:11:46 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] pirate radio station as source (was: Zero0000 has blocked Lance6Wins)
True, but that's a different argument than the pirate radio station. I mean, the warrant for inclusion, in that case, is not that it is said by a pirate radio station, but that it is a belief of right-wing Israeli settlers. And thus the information should be introduced in those terms, instead of in terms of a pirate radio station.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 22, 2004, at 6:49 PM, Delirium wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I don't think the small but hardcore following necessarily makes their views encyclopedic - consider the case of Lyndon LaRouche, which the arbcom has ruled ought not be mentioned in articles that do not directly pertain to LaRouche. So I would still lean towards this not being encyclopedic.
In this case, I don't think it's directly analogous. The views of the right-wing Israeli settlers are pretty relevant to the issue of Israeli-Palestinian relations...
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Zero0000 conflates two distinct items: one is an illegal radio station Arutz-Sheva (aka A7, Arutz-7); the other is Israel National News (INN).
There is a long history of illegal radio stations in Israel, which includes Abie Natan and his Voice of Peace. Arutz-7 has been shutdown to the best of my knowledge. www.offshore-radio.de/israel/column01.htm or as provided by google: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:zy_f9jEdt2gJ:www.offshore-radio.de/isra.... its the first hit of a google search on "abi natan voice of peace".
INN is a different entity. http://Israelnn.com. Its views are quite clear, with no attempt to hide them or present itself as being uninvolved.
Zero0000 has claimed repeatedly that its news contains fabricated/imaginary material, yet has declined to provide examples.
News is often quite different depending upon the source. Basic facts are at times misreported. Please look at coverage by the BBC, NYT, HaAretz, AFP and INN:
On July 23, a teenage Arab was killed by gunfire in Beit Hanoun, a built up area in the Northern section of the Gaza Strip. The incident was reported in multiple news sources, including [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/23/international/middleeast/23CND-MIDE.html?h... (NYT)], [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3920181.stm (BBC)], [http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=66197 (INN)], [[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/455377.html (HaAretz)], [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1515&e=2&u=/afp/... (AFP)].
the circumstances reported vary greatly regarding: the killers, their activities at the time, the age of the child, etc.
Lance6Wins.
--- Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
True, but that's a different argument than the pirate radio station. I mean, the warrant for inclusion, in that case, is not that it is said by a pirate radio station, but that it is a belief of right-wing Israeli settlers. And thus the information should be introduced in those terms, instead of in terms of a pirate radio station.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 22, 2004, at 6:49 PM, Delirium wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I don't think the small but hardcore following
necessarily makes
their views encyclopedic - consider the case of
Lyndon LaRouche,
which the arbcom has ruled ought not be mentioned
in articles that do
not directly pertain to LaRouche. So I would
still lean towards this
not being encyclopedic.
In this case, I don't think it's directly
analogous. The views of the
right-wing Israeli settlers are pretty relevant to
the issue of
Israeli-Palestinian relations...
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I don't think the small but hardcore following necessarily makes their views encyclopedic - consider the case of Lyndon LaRouche, which the arbcom has ruled ought not be mentioned in articles that do not directly pertain to LaRouche. So I would still lean towards this not being encyclopedic.
Has the ArbCom actually ruled that LaRouche ought not to be mentioned in articles that do not directly pertain to LaRouche? Or is it more accurate to say that one particular user with a history of problems was instructed not to do that? It's an important distinction, because it is not for the ArbCom to make broad rulings on matters of content alone.
--Jimbo
The ruling was that original research developed by Lyndon LaRouche was not to be inserted into articles which did not concern Lyndon Larouch and his political activities.
Lyndon LaRouche has put forth a great many creative ideas regarding economic and political issues. His partisans, in our case User, Herschelkrustofsky, as a mean of promoting Lyndon LaRouche, inserted the ideas Lyndon LaRouche has developed into articles on which Lyndon Larouche had expressed ideas which were not significant form the point of view of the articles.
==Remedies
1) Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.
4) Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.
==Enforcement== 1) Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.
3) If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche.
Fred
From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 02:19:26 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] pirate radio station as source (was: Zero0000 has blocked Lance6Wins)
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I don't think the small but hardcore following necessarily makes their views encyclopedic - consider the case of Lyndon LaRouche, which the arbcom has ruled ought not be mentioned in articles that do not directly pertain to LaRouche. So I would still lean towards this not being encyclopedic.
Has the ArbCom actually ruled that LaRouche ought not to be mentioned in articles that do not directly pertain to LaRouche? Or is it more accurate to say that one particular user with a history of problems was instructed not to do that? It's an important distinction, because it is not for the ArbCom to make broad rulings on matters of content alone.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Somewhere in between - the ruling was that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." and that "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche."
So the ruling was not targeted at one specific user, but rather at the class of users who support LaRouche.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 23, 2004, at 4:19 AM, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I don't think the small but hardcore following necessarily makes their views encyclopedic - consider the case of Lyndon LaRouche, which the arbcom has ruled ought not be mentioned in articles that do not directly pertain to LaRouche. So I would still lean towards this not being encyclopedic.
Has the ArbCom actually ruled that LaRouche ought not to be mentioned in articles that do not directly pertain to LaRouche? Or is it more accurate to say that one particular user with a history of problems was instructed not to do that? It's an important distinction, because it is not for the ArbCom to make broad rulings on matters of content alone.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l