It is not that Lyndon LaRouche is not important or significant or that an article which concerns him or his political activities are not subject to the NPOV policy. The decision is based on experience with his supporters which involve insistance that the LaRouche perspective be included articles which relate to him only in peripheral ways. However, it is quite possible that [[User:C Colden]]'s edit warring on behalf of that perspective was engaged in without knowledge of the ruling and perhaps a warning would have been appropriate first.
"The three users are inserting claims into [[Lyndon LaRouche]] and [[Frederick Wills]], without third-party attribution, which are designed to enhance the image of Lyndon LaRouche, and have reverted deletion of the claims three times in the last 16 hours.
Frederick Wills was a former Guyana government official who later in life became a member of the [[Schiller Institute]], which is part of the LaRouche movement. In 1976, before there is evidence of his involvement with LaRouche, he apparently gave a speech to the U.N. advocating a third world debt moratorium. The above users are inserting that he gave this speech only after coming into contact with LaRouche, and that the speech was designed to promote LaRouche's proposal. They've provided no evidence to support this claim. Wills has died and therefore can't be asked what's true. This is an attempt to claim ownership on behalf of LaRouche of Wills' proposal on debt relief."
See [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Enough _is_enough]]
The problem is that LaRouche has over a long career taken a number of positions, a very great many of which have been noted by no one outside his movement or those who oppose him, but arguably could be included in a great many Wikipedia articles. His endorsement of third world debt relief is typical. He didn't propose it first, no one of significance noted his endorsement of it, but according to him, he is a noted statesman with respect to this issue. This particular article is somewhat ambiguous as Frederick Wills did eventually affiliate with LaRouche activities.
That said, the proper course of action for Caroline Colden is to appeal to Jimbo.
Fred
From: Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:57:58 -0600 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom Overstepping
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.
C Colden was not a Wikipedia user when the LaRouche ruling was made. He was not a party to that case. 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 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. 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.
-Snowspinner
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l