The "foreign sources" controversy returns, the dynamic duo rides again Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

In a remarkable development, Will Beback and SlimVirgin have emerged from their undisclosed location from which they WP:OWN the Lyndon LaRouche articles without deigning to participate in talk page discussions. They are both making the same argument (surprise!) that non-American sources are incompetent (unless, of course, they're British.)

[EricBarbour]

Linky please.......

[Silver seren]

Ugh, I hate that argument. Nowadays, i'm of the opinion that foreign sources are more reliable than US sources, considering how incompetent US media has proven themselves in the past year.

And, yes, link please.

[Cla68]

Ugh, I hate that argument. Nowadays, i'm of the opinion that foreign sources are more reliable than US sources, considering how incompetent US media has proven themselves in the past year.

And, yes, link please.

Here, and I've been involved in the discussion.

It appears to me that SV and Will are afraid of LaRouche supporters using foreign sources to do an end-around the general prohibition on using materials from the LaRouche organization in the articles. They seem to be afraid of LaRouche's supporters trying to use the articles to promote LaRouche's platform.

I understand that outside observers like Chip Berlet say that what LaRouche actually stands for is different than what he publicly says he stands for. But what do we care? We're not supposed to take sides. If the LaRouche articles accurately reflect what the LaRouche movement claims it stands for, then includes any notable criticism, that seems fine to me.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Needless to say, both Will and Slim would be talking out of the other side of their collective ass if the subject of the BLP were someone they were not bent on defaming. Lar nails it here.

[EricBarbour]

Lar nails it here.

I wonder if he enjoys the feeling when Will and Hochman team up to attack him.....
this will end badly, I suspect. (Someday, when you least expect it.)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I understand that outside observers like Chip Berlet say that what LaRouche actually stands for is different than what he publicly says he stands for.

This is a time-honored propaganda techniquie known as Straw man. The objective is to suppress LaRouche's ideas, and an actual critique of his ideas might have the effect of calling attention to them. The last thing Berlet's sponsors want is a debate.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Here, and I've been involved in the discussion.

Do you really think that Angel's Flight is more incongenial than SV?

[Cla68]

Here, and I've been involved in the discussion.

Do you really think that Angel's Flight is more incongenial than SV?

I haven't seen SV acting that way lately, at least, not in that discussion.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Here, and I've been involved in the discussion.

Do you really think that Angel's Flight is more incongenial than SV?

I haven't seen SV acting that way lately, at least, not in that discussion.

She is a veteran of a thousand POV battles, and a master of the saccharine "Fuck you." She is employing several tactics at once here: a constant drumbeat of condescending and insulting remarks that are kept just below the "incivility" threshold; an editing offensive that, as usual, contains a high volume of POV edits mixed with so-called "tightening" and is intended to keep her opponents on edge; and the raising of all sorts of new issues on the talk page in order to change the subject away from the foreign language sources, because she has run out of arguments on that one.

[Cla68]

Here, and I've been involved in the discussion.

Do you really think that Angel's Flight is more incongenial than SV?

I haven't seen SV acting that way lately, at least, not in that discussion.

She is a veteran of a thousand POV battles, and a master of the saccharine "Fuck you." She is employing several tactics at once here: a constant drumbeat of condescending and insulting remarks that are kept just below the "incivility" threshold; an editing offensive that, as usual, contains a high volume of POV edits mixed with so-called "tightening" and is intended to keep her opponents on edge; and the raising of all sorts of new issues on the talk page in order to change the subject away from the foreign language sources, because she has run out of arguments on that one.

That may be, but I expect that any editors who disagree with her and want to be taken seriously should probably take the high road and not allow the dispute to give the appearance of a personal battle.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

One of the editors you denounced seems to have departed, but AF and SV seem to be meeting each other half way.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

One of the editors you denounced seems to have departed, but AF and SV seem to be meeting each other half way.

There's something peculiar going on here. As recently as 5 days ago both Slim and Will were spreading the rumor on ANI that Angel's Flight was my sock. Now, why just a rumor instead of a point-blank accusation? They could get away with it. And why the relatively cooperative attitude over the past days at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche? Although there is a new bone of contention there -- Slim and Will are saying that the transcript of a seminar at the Lebedev Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences cannot be used as a source because researchers from the LaRouche-affiliated Schiller Institute spoke at the seminar. The paper in question was about LaRouche's theories, but not written by a LaRouche-affiliated scientist. Slim and Will appear to be arguing that the Lebedev Institute is now controlled by LaRouche and must be excluded as a self-published source.

[Detective]

Slim and Will appear to be arguing that the Lebedev Institute is now controlled by LaRouche and must be excluded as a self-published source.

I have no idea if the Lebedev Institute has been taken over by HK. However, it may well be a self-published source. So are the proceedings of many learned societies, and so indeed are many newspapers. It does make you concerned about some of the rules for reliable sources when they are clearly self-contradictory like that.

Incidentally, if a reliable source quotes a self-published source with approval, does that validate the self-published source?

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Who is Crotalus horridus? He seems to be making a very neutral and reasonable intervention.

[Cla68]

Who is Crotalus horridus? He seems to be making a very neutral and reasonable intervention.

It seems almost any time other editors look in on the LaRouche article, they quickly recognize the absurdity of how the topic is being treated by Will and comment on it. They don't, however, stick around to ensure that it gets fixed, I'm sure for a variety of reasons.

[melloden]

Who is Crotalus horridus? He seems to be making a very neutral and reasonable intervention.

The rattlesnake? Oh, the user. He failed an RfA a year ago.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

There is an epic battle now at the Reliable Sources board over the Russian source.

[EricBarbour]

There is an epic battle now at the Reliable Sources board over the Russian source.

Gad. tl:dr indeed.

I see that noticeboard hasn't improved--still packed with awesome layers of stupid.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I see that noticeboard hasn't improved--still packed with awesome layers of stupid.

Jonathanwallace (T-C-L-K-R-D) looks to be an up-and-comer in the Asshole Olympics --

In general, I think a fear of being borderline libelous, expressed in WP:BLP, has mushroomed into a protectiveness of living people that can be quite un-encyclopedic. [1]