On Jan 7, 2005, at 5:49 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Dispute resolution with respect to POV pushers may
work if you focus
on What
Wikipedia is not, the clause about propaganda and advocacy. For
evidence you
need to show repeated removal of well referenced information which the
POV
pusher is trying to remove and repeated insertions of poorly or
unreferenced
information the POV pusher is trying to add
In articles of current interest, there are many poves who are not well
informed but have very strongly held opinions, and will fit this
profile. The other pove profile however, is that of a person advocating
the viewpoint of a particularly group or point of view. It may be the
orthodox academic view, or it can range all the way out into the far
fringes of fruit loopery. But one can be sure he's got documentation.
Lots of it. It's his holy book, and he can quote chapter and verse why
you aren't right, and he has websites that repeat, over and over again,
basic dogma. They compile references and create arguments for their
evangelists.