[WikiEN-l] RE: What posts are allowed

[libertarian]

--- On Mon 11/10, Poor, Edmund W < Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com > wrote:

> The Wikipedia websites are not for posting one's opinions. They are 
> for creating and displaying encyclopedia articles.

Exactly! This is my point! Either no one should be allowed to post
their opinion or everyone should be allowed to post their opinion.
You can't selectively have Communists post their opinions as facts.

> If Marxists, socialists, free market capitalists, Buddhists or Harry
> Potter fans have an opinion on something; and if ANYONE thinks this
> opinion is relevant to an article, then:

That is not what has been done. I have no objections to that. What
has happened is that Marxist allegations have been presented as FACT.

> In cases of hot controversy, it may be a good idea to discuss 
> proposed changes in the article's talk page first, like:

I ended up talking to myself. The arrogant gang bullied me and refused
to enter into a conversation with me. For the sake of decency they
should have done so. OTOH, they misused their sysop privileges
to lock the article. I suggest it be unlocked.

> In other words, don't just add your own opinion to an article. Try 
> to write about what really happened.

This is what I've been doing and asking for.

> If that's hard, because there are different versions of what 
> happened, then LABEL each version as coming from a particular 
> reporter or advocate:

Some points were proven to be false but they make the article, some
have been proven to be true.
There are different versions for some other portions. However, the 
strategy of these people is clear - if there is anything positive
about Hindus/India, they claim to have multiple versions. If there
is even some faint hint of something negative, it is an ASSERTION.

> * Hindus called the train incident "a typical and frighenting example of
Muslim terror"
> * Muslims said they were "just defending themselves against Hindu
aggression"

This is nonsense. They will have to provide proof of aggression.
Hindus are not aggressive people. When India was split into two,
guess which part ended up a theocracy? India is a democracy only
because Hindus are accomodative people.

> Try for balance and neutrality. I can help, if you want.

Sure, I'd love to get help. That is why I brought the issue to the
list. How do you plan on addressing my legitimate complaint that 
anything positive about India is obfuscated while anything negative 
is made as an ASSERTION?

-libertarian

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com