The Herschelkrustofsky ban revisited, SV and her posse at work Options

[Moulton]

Now in the late 1960s, there was a big change in American culture. I think it was manipulated, and you are free to dismiss that claim as a conspiracy theory.

Who do you believe manipulated it?

Malefactors of Great Stealth.

[Hell Freezes Over]

Don't forget homophobic!

Wow:

Revert: read the quote - it is an accurate summary of a vicious statement by a homophobic bigot

SV, you asked me for an edit by CBerlet that is as bad as HK's. I think this edit summary is much worse. It's a clear violation of BLP. I checked CBerlet's talk page for the days following that edit summary and saw nary a warning or block from you or anyone else who I assume were closely watching that article to make sure no pro-LaRouche editors touched it.

I haven't watched the LaRouche articles for a long time.

Yes, that edit summary was a BLP violation, though nowhere near as bad as creating WP articles in order to attack people, as Herschel did. But you might want to look at the LaRouche quote that Berlet was responding to. LaRouche is here talking about the need to take action against people with AIDS -- as I recall, he wanted to quarantine them:

"We have another purpose in fighting AIDS, for our fighting AIDS — for our inducing people to do what they should have done anyway without our speaking a word. Government agencies should have done this. There should be no issue! But government agencies didn't! That's the issue. Why didn't they? Because of a cultural paradigm shift. They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States. (I don't know why they're "gay", they're the most miserable creatures I ever saw! The so-called gay lobby, 8% of the population, the adult electorate; the drug users. There are 20 million cocaine sniffers in the United States, at least. Of course it does affect their mind; it affects the way they vote! ...

"Where did this nonsense come from? Oh, we don't want to offend the gays! Gays are sensitive to their civil rights; this will lead to discrimination against gays!

"They’re already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They’ll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they’re beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up—which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It’s a matter of children’s civil rights!" -- Lyndon LaRouche, Executive Intelligence Review, January 10, 1986. http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/context_quotes.html#gays

[the fieryangel]

Chip Berlet was someone who wrote for at least one real encyclopaedia. He was a published expert on the LaRouche movement and on right-wing extremist groups in general. He should not have been driven off Wikipedia just because a few people decided to use that website and this one to ridicule him. It's very sad that he was given no support here at all, even though you all claim to support expert editors and harassed BLP victims. Berlet was both.

Chip Berlet shouldn't have been anywhere near the LaRouche articles - certainly not adding himself as a source. Nor should Hersch for that matter.

Why shouldn't Berlet be editing them? He is a published expert, and the only reason he started editing them was because Hersch, an employee of the LaRouche movement, arrived to add nonsense to them, and created an insulting article on Berlet.

Are you saying that anyone with expertise has a conflict of interest? Berlet's work always was in that category, because he is a world expert on LaRouche.

Actually, I did come to this conclusion concerning Wikipedia and experts myself. An expert, especially a published expert, cannot adhere to Wikipedia policy in the current way that it is applied. An expert can't help but use primary sources, and to create original research even using published sources which are for laymen. It comes with the territory.

The only solution is to avoid editing on WP in any area in which you have expertise, since you're always going to be going against the rules. I would argue that someone like Chip Berlet should either limit their suggestions to talkpages, or not edit at all (the solution that I've finally come to, personally).

[CharlotteWebb]

All this talk of cocaine, gays, and baseball bats reminds me that Glenn Burke's bio is poorly sourced and could use some fixing up.

Oh wait, he's dead, disrega#@*%)(=%NO CARRIER

[the fieryangel]

Yes, that edit summary was a BLP violation, though nowhere near as bad as creating WP articles in order to attack people, as Herschel did. But you might want to look at the LaRouche quote that Berlet was responding to. LaRouche is here talking about the need to take action against people with AIDS -- as I recall, he wanted to quarantine them:
-- Lyndon LaRouche, Executive Intelligence Review, January 10, 1986. http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/context_quotes.html#gays

Leaving aside the moral aspects of making such a statement, let's talk about inclusion of this kind of material in an encyclopedia: Would Britannica include that sort of thing? Not in the way that WP does, I should think.

It all goes back to the core policy of NPOV: is adding this information "neutral"? I really can't see how it could be.

You know, if you people would just enforce your policies as they are written in a fair and level manner, then 99% of this type of stuff wouldn't happen in the first place.

[Jon Awbrey]

Actually, I did come to this conclusion concerning Wikipedia and experts myself. An expert, especially a published expert, cannot adhere to Wikipedia policy in the current way that it is applied. An expert can't help but use primary sources, and to create original research even using published sources which are for laymen. It comes with the territory.

The only solution is to avoid editing on WP in any area in which you have expertise, since you're always going to be going against the rules. I would argue that someone like Chip Berlet should either limit their suggestions to talkpages, or not edit at all (the solution that I've finally come to, personally).

Any attempt to reason on the basis of Wikipediot excuses for definitions and norms is bound to lead to despair.

They simply have no grasp of what terms like Conflict of Interest, Original Research, or Primary Source mean in the Real World.

Give it up — it's sheer and utter baby babble.

Jon Awbrey

[Hell Freezes Over]

Yes, that edit summary was a BLP violation, though nowhere near as bad as creating WP articles in order to attack people, as Herschel did. But you might want to look at the LaRouche quote that Berlet was responding to. LaRouche is here talking about the need to take action against people with AIDS -- as I recall, he wanted to quarantine them:
-- Lyndon LaRouche, Executive Intelligence Review, January 10, 1986. http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/context_quotes.html#gays

Leaving aside the moral aspects of making such a statement, let's talk about inclusion of this kind of material in an encyclopedia: Would Britannica include that sort of thing? Not in the way that WP does, I should think.

It all goes back to the core policy of NPOV: is adding this information "neutral"? I really can't see how it could be.

By neutral, all we mean is that we publish the views of all reliable published sources. The overwhelming majority of sources all over the western world, when writing about LaRouche, talk about allegations of cultism, homophobia, antisemitism, misogyny, his shift from extreme left to extreme right, his attempts to become president, his bizarre attacks on Britain, including that the Beatles were some kind of front for British intelligence, and that the Queen is the head of an international drug cartel. Then there are the claims by researchers who've investigated him, or former members, of their names being blackened, or their homes or pets being attacked.

Britannica doesn't have detailed articles on anything the way we do on WP, so comparing them doesn't help us to work out what's appropriate. If you're going to have a detailed article, it's impossible to leave this stuff out, because there's so much of it. Also, why would we *want* to leave it out? He did say those things, and he presumably stands by all or most of them.

This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over: Tue 14th April 2009, 9:01pm

[Heat]

Yes, that edit summary was a BLP violation, though nowhere near as bad as creating WP articles in order to attack people, as Herschel did. But you might want to look at the LaRouche quote that Berlet was responding to. LaRouche is here talking about the need to take action against people with AIDS -- as I recall, he wanted to quarantine them:
-- Lyndon LaRouche, Executive Intelligence Review, January 10, 1986. http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/context_quotes.html#gays

Leaving aside the moral aspects of making such a statement, let's talk about inclusion of this kind of material in an encyclopedia: Would Britannica include that sort of thing? Not in the way that WP does, I should think.

It all goes back to the core policy of NPOV: is adding this information "neutral"? I really can't see how it could be.

By neutral, all we mean is that we publish the views of all reliable published sources. The overwhelming majority of sources all over the western world, when writing about LaRouche, talk about allegations of cultism, homophobia, antisemitism, misogyny, his shift from extreme left to extreme right, his attempts to become president, his bizarre attacks on Britain, including that the Beetles were some kind of front for British intelligence, and that the Queen is the head of an international drug cartel. Then there are the claims by researchers who've investigated him, or former members, of their names being blackened, or their homes or pets being attacked.

Britannica doesn't have detailed articles on anything the way we do on WP, so comparing them doesn't help us to work out what's appropriate. If you're going to have a detailed article, it's impossible to leave this stuff out, because there's so much of it. Also, why would we *want* to leave it out? He did say those things, and he presumably stands by all or most of them.

The question is would Britannica allow someone who is involved in the story to write their article? No. They might use him as a source but they wouldn't ask him to contribute. Berlet can be used as a source for Larouche articles but he shouldn't be editing them. You haven't addressed this point despite the fact that it's been brought up several times but, again, cherry picking which questions you answer is part of how you operate.

And I think you mean the Beatles, the rock band not the Beetles, the insect. It's a take off of "beat".

This post has been edited by Heat: Tue 14th April 2009, 8:34pm

[Jon Awbrey]

the Beetles were some kind of front for British intelligence

Silly Bugger … they obviously worked for Khrushchev …

Ja Ja

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Now in the late 1960s, there was a big change in American culture. I think it was manipulated, and you are free to dismiss that claim as a conspiracy theory.

Who do you believe manipulated it?

We have a backlog of unanswered questions on this thread. Let's get to these first, after which I will be happy to answer your question:

You never addressed my question from yesterday, which is if you have a personal interest in making LaRouche look bad on Wikipedia? Here's why I ask:

- The LaRouche ArbCom case you were a party to found that you had committed personal attacks.
- You admit that you somehow know Herschel's name, living location, and place of work.
- You defend two rabidly (no, this word isn't an exaggeration, see the evidence others like Kato have presented in this thread) anti-LaRouche journalists' access to edit LaRouche articles while helping Jayjg and a few other admins ban all editors who appear even slightly pro-LaRouche
- You kept a secret page in your userspace that extensively documented suspected pro-LaRouche editors and sources related to the LaRouche articles.
- You often used to edit articles, frequently with Jayjg, about right-wing and anti-semitic topics, like New Anti-Semitism.
- Your editing almost, if not completely, always agreed with Jayjg's POV on those topics.
- Jayjg, as documented in a recent thread in his section in WR, is often quick and active at labeling BLP subjects as anti-semitic or anti-zionist, including, evidently, LaRouche
- You became irritated in a previous post in this thread, calling me a hypocrite, for asking why you never called-out Jayjg for POV-pushing or didn't advocate topic banning DKing and CBerlet

A good question, deserving of an answer. And don't forget mine:

Slimvirgin: Please address, in a non-evasive way, your relationship to the Sunsplash and Sweet Blue Water accounts.

[Heat]

Britannica doesn't have detailed articles on anything the way we do on WP

True, if you want to read up on Punky Brewster or want to view David Shankbone's porn collection Britannica's not the place to look.

[the fieryangel]

Yes, that edit summary was a BLP violation, though nowhere near as bad as creating WP articles in order to attack people, as Herschel did. But you might want to look at the LaRouche quote that Berlet was responding to. LaRouche is here talking about the need to take action against people with AIDS -- as I recall, he wanted to quarantine them:
-- Lyndon LaRouche, Executive Intelligence Review, January 10, 1986. http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/context_quotes.html#gays

Leaving aside the moral aspects of making such a statement, let's talk about inclusion of this kind of material in an encyclopedia: Would Britannica include that sort of thing? Not in the way that WP does, I should think.

It all goes back to the core policy of NPOV: is adding this information "neutral"? I really can't see how it could be.

By neutral, all we mean is that we publish the views of all reliable published sources. The overwhelming majority of sources all over the western world, when writing about LaRouche, talk about allegations of cultism, homophobia, antisemitism, misogyny, his shift from extreme left to extreme right, his attempts to become president, his bizarre attacks on Britain, including that the Beetles were some kind of front for British intelligence, and that the Queen is the head of an international drug cartel. Then there are the claims by researchers who've investigated him, or former members, of their names being blackened, or their homes or pets being attacked.

Britannica doesn't have detailed articles on anything the way we do on WP, so comparing them doesn't help us to work out what's appropriate. If you're going to have a detailed article, it's impossible to leave this stuff out, because there's so much of it. Also, why would we *want* to leave it out? He did say those things, and he presumably stands by all or most of them.

The question is would Britannica allow someone who is involved in the story to write their article? No. They might use him as a source but they wouldn't ask him to contribute. Berlet can be used as a source for Larouche articles but he shouldn't be editing them. You haven't addressed this point despite the fact that it's been brought up several times but, again, cherry picking which questions you answer is part of how you operate.

And I think you mean the Beatles, the rock band not the Beetles, the insect. It's a take off of "beat".

"NPOV" is supposed to include all positions, both pro and con, with adjustments made for "weight". This means effectively that you have to make room for all positions in any given article. If somebody finds a source which says "LaRouche is the best thing since sliced bread" and it fits the RS criteria, you have to give that fact room in the article. Verifiability, not facts, wasn't that it?

For this process to work, you have to have procedure which does not allow material to be removed because somebody doesn't like it. It should be that something which is sourced should be not removable and removing that should be the bannable offense, not the type of political jerry mongering that typically happens now.

If you had to include a source which was not your own work and the information sourced could not be removed, then you might have a chance of coming up with "balanced" articles.

There are all types of people in the World. I just wonder if it is the place of an encyclopedia to be making judgments about who is "homophobic" and who is "racist" etc. It seems to me that if you start allowing moral judgments like that, we get to the horrors of things like the old version of the Crystal Gail Mangum article. We don't want to go there again, do we?

[Sarcasticidealist]

"NPOV" is supposed to include all positions, both pro and con, with adjustments made for "weight". This means effectively that you have to make room for all positions in any given article. If somebody finds a source which says "LaRouche is the best thing since sliced bread" and it fits the RS criteria, you have to give that fact room in the article. Verifiability, not facts, wasn't that it?

That's not true; the requirement to adjust for weight is perfectly consistent with some reliably sourced opinions not being sufficiently widely held/covered to merit any mention at all in an article.

(Not trying to cast myself in the role of defender of Wikipedia's content policies, but you were misrepresenting that one.)

[the fieryangel]

"NPOV" is supposed to include all positions, both pro and con, with adjustments made for "weight". This means effectively that you have to make room for all positions in any given article. If somebody finds a source which says "LaRouche is the best thing since sliced bread" and it fits the RS criteria, you have to give that fact room in the article. Verifiability, not facts, wasn't that it?

That's not true; the requirement to adjust for weight is perfectly consistent with some reliably sourced opinions not being sufficiently widely held/covered to merit any mention at all in an article.

(Not trying to cast myself in the role of defender of Wikipedia's content policies, but you were misrepresenting that one.)

Here are the first two paragraphs of the NPOV policy as it currently stands :

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.
Policy shortcut:
WP:YESPOV

The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.

So, I believe that my description fits into the spirit of these two paragraphs. How this is applied in practice is another matter indeed...

[Hell Freezes Over]

The question is would Britannica allow someone who is involved in the story to write their article? No. They might use him as a source but they wouldn't ask him to contribute.

Britannica had (or used to have in 2007-8) its animal rights article written by a law professor who is openly and actively pro-animal rights.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Now in the late 1960s, there was a big change in American culture. I think it was manipulated, and you are free to dismiss that claim as a conspiracy theory.

Who do you believe manipulated it?

We have a backlog of unanswered questions on this thread. Let's get to these first, after which I will be happy to answer your question:

You never addressed my question from yesterday, which is if you have a personal interest in making LaRouche look bad on Wikipedia? Here's why I ask:

- The LaRouche ArbCom case you were a party to found that you had committed personal attacks.
- You admit that you somehow know Herschel's name, living location, and place of work.
- You defend two rabidly (no, this word isn't an exaggeration, see the evidence others like Kato have presented in this thread) anti-LaRouche journalists' access to edit LaRouche articles while helping Jayjg and a few other admins ban all editors who appear even slightly pro-LaRouche
- You kept a secret page in your userspace that extensively documented suspected pro-LaRouche editors and sources related to the LaRouche articles.
- You often used to edit articles, frequently with Jayjg, about right-wing and anti-semitic topics, like New Anti-Semitism.
- Your editing almost, if not completely, always agreed with Jayjg's POV on those topics.
- Jayjg, as documented in a recent thread in his section in WR, is often quick and active at labeling BLP subjects as anti-semitic or anti-zionist, including, evidently, LaRouche
- You became irritated in a previous post in this thread, calling me a hypocrite, for asking why you never called-out Jayjg for POV-pushing or didn't advocate topic banning DKing and CBerlet

A good question, deserving of an answer. And don't forget mine:

Slimvirgin: Please address, in a non-evasive way, your relationship to the Sunsplash and Sweet Blue Water accounts.

[Sarcasticidealist]

So, I believe that my description fits into the spirit of these two paragraphs. How this is applied in practice is another matter indeed...

From the "Undue weight" portion of that page:

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

The classic example is whether to include in the article about Elizabeth II the (documented in reliable sources) view that she's actually an extra-dimensional lizard person. Consensus (in the real sense of the word) is no.

[Hell Freezes Over]

"NPOV" is supposed to include all positions, both pro and con, with adjustments made for "weight". This means effectively that you have to make room for all positions in any given article. If somebody finds a source which says "LaRouche is the best thing since sliced bread" and it fits the RS criteria, you have to give that fact room in the article. Verifiability, not facts, wasn't that it?

Yes, exactly. We publish the views of all reliable sources (in accordance with UNDUE), plus in the case of a BLP his or her own views about him/herself, whether that would otherwise be a reliable source or not. That means that LaRouche's views about himself (and his movement's views about him) have to be included too.

For this process to work, you have to have procedure which does not allow material to be removed because somebody doesn't like it. It should be that something which is sourced should be not removable and removing that should be the bannable offense, not the type of political jerry mongering that typically happens now.

If you had to include a source which was not your own work and the information sourced could not be removed, then you might have a chance of coming up with "balanced" articles.

There are all types of people in the World. I just wonder if it is the place of an encyclopedia to be making judgments about who is "homophobic" and who is "racist" etc.

If that's what reliable sources are saying, we do include it. We can't say that, according to NPOV, we must include all reliable sources, but then add, "except for the ones that make what we feel are inappropriate judgments."

This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over: Tue 14th April 2009, 9:14pm

[GlassBeadGame]

"We have another purpose in fighting AIDS, for our fighting AIDS — for our inducing people to do what they should have done anyway without our speaking a word. Government agencies should have done this. There should be no issue! But government agencies didn't! That's the issue. Why didn't they? Because of a cultural paradigm shift. They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States. (I don't know why they're "gay", they're the most miserable creatures I ever saw! The so-called gay lobby, 8% of the population, the adult electorate; the drug users. There are 20 million cocaine sniffers in the United States, at least. Of course it does affect their mind; it affects the way they vote! ...

"Where did this nonsense come from? Oh, we don't want to offend the gays! Gays are sensitive to their civil rights; this will lead to discrimination against gays!

"They’re already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They’ll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they’re beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up—which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It’s a matter of children’s civil rights!" -- Lyndon LaRouche, Executive Intelligence Review, January 10, 1986. http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/context_quotes.html#gays

So this is the guy who you can't prevail over in honest discourse with resorting to "code talk?" He doesn't seem like he is holding back, now does he?

[the fieryangel]

So, I believe that my description fits into the spirit of these two paragraphs. How this is applied in practice is another matter indeed...

From the "Undue weight" portion of that page:

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

The classic example is whether to include in the article about Elizabeth II the (documented in reliable sources) view that she's actually an extra-dimensional lizard person. Consensus (in the real sense of the word) is no.

except in the article about the "Theory that Queen Elizabeth II is an extra-dimensional lizard person" article, in which that information would have to be presented, as well as the contradictory viewpoint.

I really fail to see how LaRouche publications and sources could be kept out of any article about LaRouche and his movement, if you follow this policy.

If that's what reliable sources are saying, we do include it. We can't say that, according to NPOV, we must include all reliable sources, but then add, "except for the ones that make what we feel are inappropriate judgments."

Then why do these problems occur? They do, and according to the policies themselves and the underlying idea of objectivism, they shouldn't.

Are you saying that it is an objective reality that, for example, women should be excluded from the List of major opera composers (or more correctly, confined to a ghetto) because nobody had any sources which were current and included information about women? And if you answer that this is supposedly an evolving process, just try to change one thing on that list and see what happens.