User talk:MarkWalls724

National-Anarchism

I've reverted your recent edits to the National-Anarchism article, which has been free of edit warring by factions for months due to a compromise which produced the current version of the article. Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Therefore, I will revert any attempt by you or anyone else to “whitewash” the article by modifying or deleting critical content that is clearly sourced. --Loremaster (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that you are using censorship to provide a platform for promoting your own views. It is obvious that you have a negative opinion of the group whose page you are editing. Do you feel it is reasonable or responsible to allow yourself to edit the page of a group you have such disdain for? Would it not serve the community better to allow someone who is more neutral to the subject to provide information, rather than propaganda as you are attempting to do with your current edits? If you are interested in providing actual information it is available from both sides of this issue. I think if you listen with an open mind to many of the people involved in this community that you will find a wide array of thought on the subject which is not shown in your article - and this is very obviously your article. If your interest is actually in truth and not propaganda then you will be interested in further edits to this article to bring out that truth. If you are not interested in that then you are actually a censor attempting to create your own truth through innuendo and propaganda. I do not believe you for a moment that any of the core promoters of the NA movement have agreed that this is a reasonable edit. I have listened to them and read their material and it is obvious that you are not representing them with any kind of intellectual honesty. You should be ashamed of yourself for abusing the power that this community has entrusted you with.

MarkWalls724 (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem unaware of the fact that I was caught in a long edit war over the National-Anarchism article with anti-fascists who accused me of being a N-A sympathizer, I obviously find your accusations that I have anti-N-A bias hilarious. :) If you can't see and appreciate the effort I have made over many months to ensure that the National-Anarchist side is fairly presented (until I realized I went too far!), you are willfully blind. For example, I am the one who added in the Criticism section the Southgate quote where he defends National-Anarchists. That being said, my opinion of National-Anarchism, whether it be negative or positive, is irrelevant since the content of the article can only be based on what reliable sources (mainstream scholars and journalists) tell us. The fact that you would describe the erudite opinion of a scholar like as Graham Macklin as “propaganda” exposes not only your pro-N-A bias but your ignorance as to what actually constitutes appropriate information for an encyclopedic article. So stop wasting our time. --Loremaster (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)