| Revision as of 23:55, 10 December 2004 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:10, 15 December 2004 edit undoC Colden (talk | contribs)50 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
| Regarding NPOV and factual accuracy dispute tags, these must be accompanied by specific objections that are fixable. Otherwise, it is a misuse of the tag. | Regarding NPOV and factual accuracy dispute tags, these must be accompanied by specific objections that are fixable. Otherwise, it is a misuse of the tag. | ||
| ----- | ----- | ||
| ==NPOV objection== | |||
| I ran a search on GOOGLE news this morning for Jeremian Duggan, and came up with zero results. This confirms my suspicion that the story was simply a propaganda ploy by unscrupulous members of the British establishment, seeking to harm the reputation of the Schiller Institute by preying on the grief of the poor Duggan woman. I believe SlimVirgin wrote this story to make Misplaced Pages a soapbox for his Anti-LaRouche campaign, which goes against Misplaced Pages policy. A neutral article would contain more skepticism about the story, because their is no evidence at all of "mind-control." The poor boy attended a conference, like some thousands of others who have attended Schiller Institute conferences, without going insane. --] 14:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:10, 15 December 2004
Please post new messages at the bottom of the page
See also Talk:Jeremiah Duggan/archive1
References
I have added a Reference section and links to those references throughout the article, in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Cite sources, which states: "Cite sources (citation): provide references that help the reader to check the veracity of the article and to find more information.
"If you consult an external source while writing an article, citing it is basic intellectual honesty. More than that, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject—you won't be around forever to answer questions. (Also, this forces you to check your facts, and you might find that you don't know everything.) The main point is to help the reader—cite whatever you think will be most helpful.
"This applies when writing about opinions, as well—beware the temptation to write weasel phrases like, "Some people say..." Who said it, and where and when? (Remember that Misplaced Pages is not for your opinions or for original research.)
"This applies even when the information is currently undisputed — even if there's no dispute right now, someone might come along in five years and want to dispute, verify, or learn more about a topic . . .
"References should be collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading . . ." Slim 08:03, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
{{NPOV}}
I have put the dispute label because the article presents no evidence that the Schiller Institute played any role at all in Duggan's death; it only presents a politically motivated conspiracy theory. --Caroline 17:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You are a sockpuppet, as was shown by the banned list of users. This version of the article was written by Herschelkrustofsky and agreed by myself to resolve the NPOV dispute, at which point the tag was removed. The article does not have to present evidence, as you put it. No original research is permitted. The article quotes from a coroner's court. I am deleting the tag because you give no good reason for it, and offer no solution. Slim 18:06, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Your childish personal attacks do not do much to boost your credibility. --Caroline 16:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Slim, the matter of removing an NPOV tag is not at your discretion. It is an issue for the Misplaced Pages community at large. Also, you are out of line in accusing her of being a sockpuppet (didn't Weed ask you whether you were a sockpuppet for Adam? Did you give an answer?), and the ban was reversed, apparently by Jimbo. --20:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You, Weed Harper, C Colden and the notorious Usenet LaRouche activist Ralph Gibbons have all posted from within two ranges of IP addresses. I therefore believe that one or more of you are sockpuppets. I will not allow this tag suddenly to reappear. YOU wrote this version; we agreed it after a long dispute; and YOU removed the tag. The content has not changed since then. You and your sockpuppets are simply trying to waste my time, and I will not enter into any further discussions with you. Below is the Arb Comm ruling. Please stick to it. I will delete any claims you make that are not relevant or properly referenced using reputable sources. Regarding the photograph, please post the permission of the copyright holder, or don't use it. Slim 21:20, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee ruling:
1) Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Misplaced Pages article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.
2) Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon LaRouche directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.
3) Misplaced Pages 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.
4) 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.
Slim, get a grip
The portions of the ArbCom ruling which are relevant to this article, and the others where you have started new edit wars, including Dennis King and Schiller Institute, are the following: "the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles"; and "articles where they are highly relevant." These articles where you are on the edit warpath are indisputably articles where LaRouche is "closely related" and "highly relevant" (should it surprise you that anyone might come to the conclusion that you are an anti-LaRouche activist?), so the issue of "original research" has no bearing on these articles. Regarding the photograph, and I assume that you mean the one at Dennis King, I have patiently explained to you three times that I received permission from the copyright holder, which is EIR/Stuart K. Lewis, that I followed procedure when I uploaded it, and it is all right there at ], where anyone not suffering from hysterical blindness should be able to see it with no difficulty.
Now, regarding your new tactic of starting an edit war over the NPOV tag: you should read this very carefully. --H.K. 21:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You're just confirming what a waste of time it is to deal with you. YOU wrote this version. I agreed to it only as a compromise to get the dispute over, and to have the NPOV tag removed. So you wait a couple of weeks and put it back, even though the contents have not changed. What a joke you are. You're a LaRouche propagandist, pure and simple, and it is unacceptable that you are editing these articles. Read the NPOV notice carefully yourself. There must be specific grievances that can be fixed before an NPOV notice can be used. The claim that the article provides no evidence of Schiller Institute involvement is absurd. It quotes a court of law, where evidence was presented. What more do you and your sockpuppets want? I am now certain you are Ralph Gibbons. Slim 22:08, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Your accusation that I am Ralph Gibbons is 1) hogwash, and 2) a pretty desperate debating tactic. It ranks up there with accusing C Colden and Weed Harper of being the same person, because they both got the same welcome message from Sam Spade on their user talk pages. --H.K. 21:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages policy
Below are the principles and policies that all editors, including those editors who support Lyndon LaRouche, must adhere to, with no exceptions. No further discussion will be entered into about this by me, as enough has been said. Slim 23:55, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Copyrights (Images must be licensed directly from the copyright holder, who must waive the copyright so the image can be freely distributed by Misplaced Pages readers.)
Regarding novel narratives involving a new synthesis of information: "An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Misplaced Pages's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one," Jimbo Wales (WikiEN-l, Dec 6, 2004)
Regarding NPOV and factual accuracy dispute tags, these must be accompanied by specific objections that are fixable. Otherwise, it is a misuse of the tag.
NPOV objection
I ran a search on GOOGLE news this morning for Jeremian Duggan, and came up with zero results. This confirms my suspicion that the story was simply a propaganda ploy by unscrupulous members of the British establishment, seeking to harm the reputation of the Schiller Institute by preying on the grief of the poor Duggan woman. I believe SlimVirgin wrote this story to make Misplaced Pages a soapbox for his Anti-LaRouche campaign, which goes against Misplaced Pages policy. A neutral article would contain more skepticism about the story, because their is no evidence at all of "mind-control." The poor boy attended a conference, like some thousands of others who have attended Schiller Institute conferences, without going insane. --Caroline 14:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)