[WikiEN-l] Appeal for limited review of

Fri Nov 17 23:01:19 UTC 2006

On 11/9/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:

> I think I was in error. This is a spill over from legal conventions
> that is probably inappropriate on Wikipedia
>
> Fred

The evidence Fred ruled inadmissable

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others&diff=29022871&oldid=28873757

i.e. a Summary of Dispute (and other evidence)

is now Official Wikipedia Policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#History

"Historical research involves the collection of original or "primary"
documents (the job of libraries and archives), the close reading of
the documents, and their interpretation in terms of larger historical
issues. To be verifiable, research must be based on the primary
documents. "

The ommitted evidence reads in part,

"There have been no sources or citations offered for altering the
langauge and integrity of primary source documents, properly
referenced, by adding "alleged to's", "claims of", and "supposedly's".
Likewise there is no sourcing for efforts to edit existing text from
properly sourced secondary materials, with much the same language and
reasoning.

"It is no less than invalid research methods, attempting to impeach
primary sources with unqualified secondary sources, or secondary
sources with unqualified secondary sources, or both with original
research to push POV. The distinct lack of, or absence, of sourcing
for "sceptics", has lead to cries for "balance" and "NPOV". So
numerous attempts have been made to invent "sources" out of thin air
to achieve "NPOV". These unreferenced "sceptics" are usually refered
to as "others", "sceptics" or "scholars", yet no one has brought
forward another qualified source beyond the above mentioned four.

"None of the changes in text [plaintiff] questions can be properly
referenced to these, or any other secondary source.

"Invalid research methods do not constitute NPOV."

http://www.godseye.com/stat/en/r/e/q/Wikipedia~Requests_for_mediation_Cberlet_and_Nobs01_Workshop_5bdb.html#Summary_by_Nobs01
Thank you.

I hereby appeal for a limited rexamination of the case to modify
existing remedies.

Nobs01