Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence/History

Re.

[...] the inclusion or exclusion of either a "criticism" section or a broader "reception" section, whether in the main article or in a separate page. This issue is not a pure content question, but one involving questions of the application of our core content policies, and so is one that is appropriate for our consideration.

Together with others, we tried to approach such questions at Wikipedia:Criticism. That page is an essay now. I discontinued my efforts to develop the page into a guideline after Jimbo had written things like

it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/045586.html]

and

> 5. Should we formulate a guideline regarding living persons and this
> kind of criticism in their biographies?

WP:LIVING is a decent start, although it needs some attention I think so that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy. ([http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/045578.html reply by Jimbo Wales])

> The guidelines are perhaps adequate, because this is partly a cultural
> issue. But it's been clear for a while that we have serious systemic and
> cultural issues on articles dealing with living people.

Indeed. ([http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/045579.html reply by Jimbo Wales])

on the mailing list (May 2006)

So, my questions to the arbitrators in this case would be something like,

1. Are we moving towards a (partial) content ruling in this case? I would say I won't object if that were the case, but it's better to be clear about it then to all participants in this case, I'd need to revise some of my evidence then too!
2. Discussing the "application of core content policy" in the current ArbCom case for the issues described by bainer would lead almost unavoidably via Wikipedia:Criticism, possibly also result in policy/guidance recommendations in the ruling. Again, no problem for me. But then we'd board Jossi's and my guidance-writing too (Jossi was quite active on related policy/guideline/essay-writing including Wikipedia:Criticism where I was very active too). I proposed a "scope" FOF here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop#Scope, deliberately intended to avoid boarding "writing of guidance" issues (Jossi's influence on guidance was also criticised by Cade Metz in the Register article). Again, no problem for me to go there nonetheless, but then I've got to be sure arbitrators really want that (seriously, my recommendation is currently: think twice, trice, and a few more times to consider whether it is worth it), and of course, could you clearly communicate about it then to all parties involved (for revision of evidence, etc)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)