User talk:Tsunami Butler/sandbox

''Visitors: please do not edit this page. Leave comments on my talk page.''

The ArbCom decision
In the ArbCom case Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche, there was the following remedy:

1) Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

...and the related enforcement:

1) Wikipedia 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.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

This has subsequently been interpreted to mean that no publication affiliated with LaRouche may be used as a source at Wikipedia for anything other than quotes from LaRouche himself. (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche)

Jimbo's comment
Jimbo Wales commented later on this decision:


 * 1. The ArbCom deals with behavioral issues, and not directly with content issues.  When the behavioral issue is persistent bad POV editing, then of course there is an interface to the content issue. But it is the behavior which is the problem.


 * 2. The ArbCom can not and should not (and in my opinion has not ever) attempted to subject certain points of view to extra restrictions. There was some confusion about this in the case of LaRouche, but I think this was an unfortunate wording and misinterpretation.


 * In the LaRouche case, the problem is that publications produced by LaRouche and affiliated organizations are not suitable for routine citation as ordinary documents in the same way as other documents. This is not unique to LaRouche, of course, but is true of a wide variety of pov publications. The decision of how to handle this is complex and not easily (nor properly) subject to a hard and fast rule, but is rather a job for serious editors to undertake thoughtfully.

To my knowledge, no other publication has been subjected to a blanket ban. All are handled under WP:RS on a case-by-case basis.

My proposal
When I asked ArbCom members for clarification (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche) I felt that the answers I received from Fred Bauder and Thatcher131 were highly subjective, and the reasoning unclear.

I would like to propose the following: that the policy of a "blanket ban" on cites from LaRouche publications be repealed, and replaced with a warning that such cites are simply subject to the policies laid out in WP:RS. The Wikipedia policy is clear and ought to be sufficient to prevent abuses.

It is my contention that there will be instances where it is in fact appropriate to cite LaRouche publications, particularly Executive Intelligence Review, which has been in publication for over 30 years and has been called "one of the best private intelligence services in the world" by Norman Bailey, a former senior staffer of the National Security Council. There may be instances where analysis from EIR may be deemed to be OR, but there is a wealth of information, for example in interviews of prominent persons that regularly appear in EIR, that should not be considered OR.

Examples of problems created by the present interpretation
I would also like to point to examples of what I believe are the unintended absurdities produced by the policy stemming from the present interpretation of this ArbCom decision:

Retrieved from User talk:Will Beback, 1/13/07:

LaRouche link removed from Pushkin
I added that link; could you please explain why you removed it? Thanks in advance. Errabee 22:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks for the explanation. I was not familiar with that ArbCom ruling (before my time), and found this article to be helpful in establishing a background for Pushkin. Too bad it isn't allowed. Errabee 23:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

La Rouche and the Schiller Institute
Please read my input: Talk page Jose Rizal .KaElin 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Parvus and Lyndon LaRouche
Thanks for your patience with the Lyndon LaRouche material. Your last edit is perfect, fixing the nearby problem. (The Lyndon LaRouche texts is in fact quite interesting.) -- Petri Krohn 17:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Doubling the cube
Please do not remove 'larouche sources' as that link is not there for larouche (the conspiracy theorist), but for a 3D interactive java applet that shows elements of constructions in some ways more clear than other 2 'reputable' links with only plane illustrations and one fuzzy 3d picture.

I guess that for the same reason of being related to larouche, you want Fidelio Magazine removed, even though it doesn't bother you the existence of hundreds of other magazine articles that are written in the same manner and without citing any 3rd party source. Please consider that not everything related to larouche is necessarily bad. Lakinekaki 00:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

From Talk:José Rizal:

to Will Beback re: LaRouche
What is the logic behind the removal of the link to Schiller Institute ? Yes, it was founded by LaRouche's wife, but so what? The link to Rizal is Schiller's influence on his writings, not LaRouche's. The LaRouche controversy stems from his perceived anti-semitism, however, his bigotry is not found in either Schiller's or Rizal's writings. You deleted the link, yet not the link in the Wiki article Schiller Institute. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased and non-partisan. LaRouche may be anti-semitic, Marxist, ultra-conservative, etc., but the article linked to Rizal is none of those things. Let the reader decide. KaElin 23:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I left a note on your talk page too. The Schiller Institute is not a reliable source for anything except its own views, per decision of the ArbCom. One of the SI's biases is promoting the importance and influence of Schiller, a bias which is apparent in the cited article. Due to the efforts of yourself and other editors, there are many better sources for this fine article. -Will Beback · † · 00:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, am not aware of the ArbCom decision. Too bad that a fine writer like John Morris is associated with the cultist LaRouche, but it was Morris' article that made mention of Rizal's legacy on Gandhi, and Tagore.KaElin 03:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Consider also this edit by Will Beback (under another Username):

diff: WB deletes an extensive quote from Pope John Paul II, claiming that it is "LaRouche-sourced material." In the article (Deregulation) it was unsourced.