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.