Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Jpgordon: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 25:
Would you revert an edit that sources a publication by a controversial organization like ihr.org even if it could be proven that the document cited was 100% accurate and/or endorsed as fully accurate by another, uncontroversial organization? If so, which other organizations would you consider to be in need of the same treatment? Would you deny, without further inquiry into the document's claims, arguments, or methodology, the possibility that any document or publication by such an organization could be possibly be accurate?[[User:Bdell555|Bdell555]] 07:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
*No, I won't provide such an example; that would imply pre-judgement should I become an arbitrator and should any such person be brought before the panel. At any rate, people shouldn't get blocked because of their views; actions are what matters. The obvious example is [[User:Amalekite]], whose associations were irrelevant -- but posting a list of Wikipedia Jews on a Nazi website could not be construed as anything less than intimidation. As far as ihr.org is concerned, that's easy; ihr.org is dedicated to the propagation and perpetuation of falsehood, and thus is not a valid encyclopedic source except as an example of such falsehood. Any organization dedicated solely to holocaust denial would be handicapped by the same antagonism toward reality, and would be similarly useless as a source. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 16:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
{{User:Jguk/ArbCom questions}}
| |||