User:SlimVirgin/references

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is for a discussion regarding reputable references between SlimVirgin and Herschelkrustofsky.

(Also posted on Herschelkrustofky's Talk page)

[edit] Mediation

This is to let you know, as a matter of courtesy, that I have turned down your request for mediation. I feel it would do no good given the ArbCom ruling and other mediations that have already taken place. Having said that, I noted today that you feel Wikipedia is now an unpleasant place for you to edit in. I did not intend that. No matter what you think of me, I can assure you that I am not an anti-LaRouche activist. I simply care about accuracy. The only thing I would like is that reputable references be provided in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. I am therefore willing to discuss with you what might be regarded as a reputable reference if that would help to clear the issue up. It is doing neither of us any good to be in conflict. If we can agree on a standard for references (e.g. what kinds of claims need referencing and what kinds of publications tend to be acceptable to Wikipedia) that might go some way to clearing up the matter. In case you want to do this, I have created a separate page for it so we don't clutter up our Talk pages. It is at User:SlimVirgin/references. The only condition I place on doing this is that our discussion remain courteous. If it becomes discourteous, I will withdraw. Let me know what you think. Slim 07:27, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate the courteous tone of this message. When I first began editing Wikipedia, I thought that all the stuff about Wikiquette and so forth was a bit on the cornball side, but now that I am the veteran of numerous edit wars, I can see that it is very wise to discourage editors from waxing wroth.
Frankly, I don't think that these edit conflicts have much to do with the amount or type of references. They are POV battles, and I think you should admit it to yourself. I think that mediation would help -- oddly enough, every time I have tried to initiate it, the other party has refused (Adam, in the most recent case, has in effect refused, without saying so directly). However, in the one case where a mediator just showed up and volunteered his services, it worked like a charm (I refer here to Snowspinner). As you can see, there is still no love lost between AndyL and myself; he is certainly no dummy (despite all the typos) and he understands Wikipedia policy as well as the next fellow, but he has a deep and abiding hatred of LaRouche, something to do with bygone days when he and LaRouche were both on the Left, and as soon as that kicks in, his only interest in the rules is how to bend them to his advantage. You are no different, and I'm sure that in the eyes of my opponents, neither am I -- which is why I think mediation would help. If a genuinely neutral party can be found, that party tends to gain the trust of both sides of a conflict, and his pronouncements on sources, NPOV, and other policy issues will be more credible to all concerned. --H.K. 06:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. First, let me assure you that my only concern is reputable references. I have no POV that matters here. I'm sure there are things LaRouche has said that I would agree with, although I do disagree with most of it (but have no deep and abiding hatred or anything approaching it). My concern is only that, if another editor or a reader wants to verify a claim for themselves, it should be easy for them to do that, and that the reference must be a publication that is a reputable one. I ask for references in articles other than LaRouche-related ones.
Here's my position, which I feel is backed up by Wikipedia policy:
Wikipedia is not about truth. It is only about verifiability. The "no original research" rule means that, even if I personally witness something and I know it for a fact to be true, I can't edit that fact into an article, unless it has already been published somewhere reputable and appropriate. The reason for this is that Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a news outlet. We can't judge which claims are true and which false; we can't send editors out to deliver live news feeds. All we can do is say "Here's what the Washington Post says and here's what the New York Times says." Then let people do their own checking and make up their own minds.
I accept there's always going to be a problem with the word "reputable," but I still think we mostly know it when we see it; that we do have intuitions that will often be more or less accurate. The newspapers we ought to use will normally be newspapers available in public libraries in their area; the books will be by known publishing houses, academic or university presses; the journals will normally be peer-reviewed. They will tend to have some system of fact-checking in place, and will try to correct their mistakes. We can use corporate and political websites if we're reporting on a relevant partisan position. So we might use a Green Peace website on an environmental issue; a LaRouche website on a LaRouche-related issue etc. But we wouldn't use a Green Peace website as a source regarding the ethics of the war in Iraq; and similarly we shouldn't use a LaRouche website for that issue either. So that's roughly what I mean by "reputable" and "appropriate." This doesn't mean we can't publish minority views — we can and should — but the views can't be so much in the minority that barely anyone has heard of them, because then we're back into the "no original research" problem.
These issues raise the question of whether we're in fact just publishing popular opinion, and to some extent that is true, but not entirely so. I think Wikipedia does show a surprising breadth of coverage. But there has to be some sort of limit to that breadth, or Wikipedia ceases to be an encylopedia and becomes a series of personal weblogs.
That's basically my position. I'm not sure having a mediator would help with this, and they do take a very long time to be organized. Perhaps you could let me know what your response is to what I've written: what you agree and disagree with. Slim 07:51, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I may illustrate my point with an example from a recent, and essentially non-LaRouche-related episode in our edit conflicts. You strongly asserted, in the case of Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up, that the ADL "...is regarded as a reputable source." Yet upon your inspection of the text of the speech that LaRouche made at the Center, you found (I presume) that all the claims that the ADL made about that speech were false. This example highlights the reason that the ADL enjoys a very good reputation among supporters of the Likud, whereas the Zayed Center does not; conversely, readers of, say, Ha'aretz may regard the Zayed Center as a force for moderation in the Arab World, and see the ADL as a bunch of gangster Meshuggenahs who bully the Jewish communities around the world to suppress criticism of the Likudniks.

This is the reason for the NPOV policy, which according to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, is "absolute and non-negotiable". And the NPOV policy works by consensus; it tends to protect minority viewpoints; and it is very difficult to enforce by administrative edict. When I initiated the arbitration case with Adam, I naively thought that the ArbCom would make some kind of pronouncement about the objectivity or lack thereof in his editing. Instead, they concerned themselves primarily with his lack of courtesy (neither of us was especially happy with this ruling).

My experience thus far with Wikipedia is that when conflicts are resolved, they are resolved through compromise, and since the LaRouche issue, like the Israeli-Palestinian issue, may be deemed "highly controversial," tempers tend to run high, which is why I was struck with the success of Snowspinner's generous offer to mediate. Adam, on the other hand, was unhappy with it, but if you have read Adam's remarks on various talk pages, he really fundamentally opposes the NPOV policy. He wants some sort of aristocracy of editors, who have essentially been certified as having an "acceptable POV." I don't think his proposals are going to find a large following among Wikipedians.

So again, let me suggest to you that in areas where you have a particularly intense POV, it may color your judgement about what source is or is not "reputable." You may have difficulty compromising with an editor whose POV is markedly different from your own. This is where some sort of mediation may turn out to be surprisingly helpful. --H.K. 13:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I take your point about the intense POV perhaps coloring a person's judgment. But you must accept my word that I do not have a POV about this that is so intense my judgment about reputable publications is colored. I am using the same criteria for "reputable" and "appropriate" with the LaRouche articles that I do with every other article I edit. Regarding the ADL and the LaRouche speech, as I recall from the Zayed Center article, the ADL was not quoting from his speech (I'm writing this from memory), but were quoting remarks he had made at other times. If you're saying he has never made those remarks anywhere, that's a different issue, but it can easily be checked by contacting the ADL and asking them to produce their references. I am not clinging to the ADL as a source by any means. All I know is that they are widely regarded as reputable by other reputable sources.
What would you see as a reasonable compromise on references, bearing in mind that we have to abide by Wikipedia policy and particularly "no original research" which Jimbo Wales regards as central along with NPOV? He believes the two must be read together, because NPOV, read in isolation, could be taken to mean that Auntie Gertie's views on relativity must be given space as well as Einstein's. Slim 14:28, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
I just did a quick scout around, and while this isn't definitive, there is an indication that LaRouche did make those statements. The disputed section of the Zayed Center said: " . . . and Lyndon LaRouche, who spoke about his proposals for fresh-water infrastructure projects, and who, according to the ADL, has identified the " Zionist lobby," "Jewish gangsters," and " Christian Zionists " as forces that have sought to control U.S. policies towards Israel, and who have been "bought by money, the so-called Zionist money, and the mega crowd in New York ."
A website [1] that seems to support LaRouche gives what it says is a summary of a question-and-answer session LaRouche gave either after his talk. During this session, the website says, LaRouche said that there are "Christian Zionists who are more Israeli than the Israelis, they are bought by money so, they are called [sic] "Zionist money" the mega crowd in New York."
The writer says s/he took this information from the Zayed Center website. I'm not suggesting that this website I found is a reputable source, but it does fit with what the ADL says he said. Slim 15:05, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

I can't comment on the page you linked to. It appears to have been written by someone who has difficulties with the English language. I think the gist of it is probably correct, but in any event, it was not part of the speech which the ADL alleged it to be. My main point is that many of LaRouche's critics, including the ADL and Chip Berlet, have few inhibitions about playing fast and loose with the truth, when it suits their purposes.

I don't think we are going to find a formula for agreeing on sources; it will necessarily be worked out on a case-by-case basis. Editing Wikipedia is hard work, and bear in mind, there are always going to be more editors than just we two, who must ultimately become part of the consensus. I would suggest to you, and to myself, that an excess of POV-inspired zeal can lead to hasty decisions. A case in point would be your recent accusation (and it was, indeed, an accusation) that I was relying on "White Supremacist" sources for the Dennis King article, when the truth turned out to be quite a different matter. I imagine that you have had an opportunity to review this by now. If you won't accept mediation, allow me to suggest that you take a deep breath and count to 10, before you respond to something that pisses you off. --H.K. 16:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you may have missed my point about mediation and Wikipedia policy. Mediation has as its aim, as I understand it, the reaching of consensus via compromise. The problem here, though, is that all I am asking is that you cite reputable sources. If I were to compromise on that, I would be giving you "permission", as it were, not to cite reputable sources in some cases. But I don't have the authority to do that (nor would I want to), because it's Wikipedia policy.
Regarding the National Alliance magazine, I haven't yet checked out what you've said. But you wrote elsewhere that the author was IWP, not a neo-Nazi. My understanding is that IWP is a cult, or is regarded as a cult by many people. So it's still not a source Wikipedia should be relying upon. My point about Dennis King is that, if it's true that he used to earn a living as Caspar the Friendly Ghostwriter (and the various other claims), there is bound to be a reputable source for that information somewhere; it's just a question of finding it. And if there isn't a reputable source, then you have to ask yourself how the less reputable ones can possibly know that what they're saying is true, so why trust them? Again, it gets back to the "no original research" policy. We're not in a position to check what's true or not. All we can do is rely on publications with good reputations. If you can tell me what you would expect of mediation -- how, ideally, you would see it as proceeding, and specifically what you would see as its aim -- then I will consider it. But perhaps you could answer a more basic question for me first: Why won't you simply find reputable sources, because that would settle the matter between us? I would never revert an edit of yours, no matter how much I disliked its content, if you had sourced it properly. Slim 17:08, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
It would appear that Dennis King is a highly disreputable person, because no "establishment" publication seems to acknowledge his existence, other than to take note (approvingly) of the fact that he wrote an attack on LaRouche. Perhaps he is actually a sock puppet. But if we are back to discussing now whether the IWP, or rather, ex-IWP is a reputable source, what is your response to AndyL's defense of them? King was clearly a leftist, and the one place where you may find biographical info is from other leftists (who may be just as disreputable as he.) --H.K. 21:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Herschel, King not being mentioned a lot doesn't mean he's disreputable. It means nothing. And I don't think Andy ever did defend the IWP has a source. Anyway, II see the point of this discussion as trying to find a way to avoid talking about points of detail like that. Could we stick to the larger issue above, of reputable sourcing in general? Slim 21:49, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Slim, I was being a bit playful with the word "reputable." Of course, in my opinion, King is an utter scoundrel. I am a bit surprised that the establishment press, which found him useful for a while, have not bothered to attempt to build him up as a legitimate journalistic figure. I won't hold my breath while waiting for you to agree on this, however.
I have a proposal for you. If you would like to demonstrate your neutrality to me, why don't you pay a visit to these pages:

...and add your comments about the dispute? It is possible that Adam may listen to you. --HK 15:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Herschel, I set this page up so we can start to discuss the differences between us — not the details, but the substantive issue, which as I see it, is the matter of source material and reputable publications. I feel we should press on with that, as it's the only thing likely to result in a long-term settlement between us. I can't start editing Australian articles as I don't know the first thing about any of these people and would have no way of judging the claims.

I asked above what you feel the problem is with sourcing your material, because that alone would settle the matter between us. As I said above, I would never revert an edit of yours, no matter how much I disliked its content, if it was relevant to the article and you had sourced it properly. Could we discuss that issue? Slim 23:14, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/l/i/User%7ESlimVirgin_references_d7d1.html"