You may or may not know that there has in the past been big controversy surrounding our LaRouche articles. My advice would be that you be careful not to step over any lines in trying to advance your point of view, because we had a pro-LaRouche editor banned once before (I didn't agree with that decision at all, by the way, but that's what happened). Giving a LaRouche article top billing on articles which have nothing to do with LaRouche is the kind of thing that will get on people's nerves. Everyking 19:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi POR, restrictions have been imposed by the arbitration committee on editors who insert material favorable to the Lyndon LaRouche movement. I've listed the relevant rulings below. In addition to these rulings, all editors must edit in accordance with our core policies. The two most important of these are Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV).
NOR states that we have to source our edits to reputable or credible publications. This means you can't ask, as you did above, for a source showing that LaRouche is not a leading force in California politics; if you make the edit, you must provide the source. Furthermore, LaRouche publications have been determined not to be reputable or credible — material published by or originating with the LaRouche movement is regarded for Wikipedia's purposes as "original research" — except when being used, in limited circumstances, as primary-source material on the LaRouche organization itself in articles closely related to (that is, about) that organization.
The NPOV policy states that majority and significant-minority views are acceptable in Wikipedia. Views held by only a tiny minority are not acceptable. All or most of LaRouche's theories are regarded as tiny-minority views, including the view that he's an important economist. The insertion of any such claims may be deleted on sight by any editor.
Regarding the arbitration committee's rulings, the most important of these are:
From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, September 2004
From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Proposed decision, February 2005
You may or may not know that there has in the past been big controversy surrounding our LaRouche articles. My advice would be that you be careful not to step over any lines in trying to advance your point of view, because we had a pro-LaRouche editor banned once before (I didn't agree with that decision at all, by the way, but that's what happened). Giving a LaRouche article top billing on articles which have nothing to do with LaRouche is the kind of thing that will get on people's nerves. Everyking 19:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi POR, restrictions have been imposed by the arbitration committee on editors who insert material favorable to the Lyndon LaRouche movement. I've listed the relevant rulings below. In addition to these rulings, all editors must edit in accordance with our core policies. The two most important of these are Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV).
NOR states that we have to source our edits to reputable or credible publications. This means you can't ask, as you did above, for a source showing that LaRouche is not a leading force in California politics; if you make the edit, you must provide the source. Furthermore, LaRouche publications have been determined not to be reputable or credible — material published by or originating with the LaRouche movement is regarded for Wikipedia's purposes as "original research" — except when being used, in limited circumstances, as primary-source material on the LaRouche organization itself in articles closely related to (that is, about) that organization.
The NPOV policy states that majority and significant-minority views are acceptable in Wikipedia. Views held by only a tiny minority are not acceptable. All or most of LaRouche's theories are regarded as tiny-minority views, including the view that he's an important economist. The insertion of any such claims may be deleted on sight by any editor.
Regarding the arbitration committee's rulings, the most important of these are:
From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, September 2004
From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Proposed decision, February 2005