Cirt's Scientology Edits - March 2011 Options

[pietkuip]

Cirt got Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D) evaluated as a "good article". Despite the ridiculous references to reliable sources in Romania and Turkey...

[HRIP7]

Cirt got Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D) evaluated as a "good article". Despite the ridiculous references to reliable sources in Romania and Turkey...

The Romanian and Turkish sources don't bother me that much. But the article features an embedded self-published YouTube video by Saxton, which most likely makes controversial statements about living people.

Saxton's YouTube videos, 7 of them, all uploaded to Commons by you-know-who, are also cited extensively in the article. Not one of the "reliable sources" actually refers to these YouTube sources, as far as I can see.

At the same time, here Cirt is telling a user that they should not even list the title of a video Erhard produced, if there is no coverage of it in "independent and reliable secondary sources."

So, summarising, a self-published video by Saxton thrashing Scientology may not just be cited, but also embedded in Wikipedia. A video by Erhard, on the other hand, may not even have its existence mentioned.

Compare that to SlimVirgin's argument argument about self-published sources at LaRouche:

What we want to avoid is a self-published source being used as a source of any kind about living people ... we also don't want the article to be used as a platform for a subject's non-notable views.

Denmark comes to mind.

[pietkuip]

The article features an embedded self-published YouTube video by Saxton, which most likely makes controversial statements about living people.

Saxton's YouTube videos, 7 of them, all uploaded to Commons by you-know-who, are also cited extensively in the article. Not one of the "reliable sources" actually refers to these YouTube sources, as far as I can see.

Those videos were Cirt's reason for writing the article in the first place. Within a few hours after I hade made a deletion request on Commons.

Video (and audio) files are not inspected by anybody on Commons.

[rockyBarton]

I Cirt supposed to be doing this kind of thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=415979625.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Denmark comes to mind.

Denmark?

[pietkuip]

Denmark comes to mind.

Denmark?

That rotten country.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Cirt got Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D) evaluated as a "good article". Despite the ridiculous references to reliable sources in Romania and Turkey...

The Romanian and Turkish sources don't bother me that much. But the article features an embedded self-published YouTube video by Saxton, which most likely makes controversial statements about living people.

Saxton's YouTube videos, 7 of them, all uploaded to Commons by you-know-who, are also cited extensively in the article. Not one of the "reliable sources" actually refers to these YouTube sources, as far as I can see.

At the same time, here Cirt is telling a user that they should not even list the title of a video Erhard produced, if there is no coverage of it in "independent and reliable secondary sources."

So, summarising, a self-published video by Saxton thrashing Scientology may not just be cited, but also embedded in Wikipedia. A video by Erhard, on the other hand, may not even have its existence mentioned.

Compare that to SlimVirgin's argument argument about self-published sources at LaRouche:

What we want to avoid is a self-published source being used as a source of any kind about living people ... we also don't want the article to be used as a platform for a subject's non-notable views.

For any seasoned POV warrior, WP policies are like one-way valves that are intended to let your POV in, while keeping the other fellow's out. Will Beback, another loud crusader against self-published sources, is seen here coaching his meat-puppet on how to insert defamatory material from a SPS into a BLP. Bill has the presence of mind, after adding the material, to start a RSN discussion.