The Herschelkrustofsky ban revisited, SV and her posse at work Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Please note that Ms. Hell is using the Berlet website as a source of quotes from LaRouche. It's not a reliable source. Please note this discussion from when we were fighting over it 4 years ago.

[Sarcasticidealist]

except in the article about the "Theory that Queen Elizabeth II is an extra-dimensional lizard person" article, in which that information would have to be presented, as well as the contradictory viewpoint.

Well, it's covered in David Icke, actually. But yes, your understanding is correct.

[EricBarbour]

Please note that Ms. Hell is using the Berlet website as a source of quotes from LaRouche. It's not a reliable source. Please note this discussion from when we were fighting over it 4 years ago.

She's quite good at pushing your angry buttons, eh?

Why don't you just slam the control-panel lid on her hand?
Then you won't have to "explain" anything, to a creature
you cannot reason with.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I posted that for the benefit of my esteemed colleague GlassBeadGame. But point taken.

[GlassBeadGame]

Please note that Ms. Hell is using the Berlet website as a source of quotes from LaRouche. It's not a reliable source. Please note this discussion from when we were fighting over it 4 years ago.

I already noticed that H. I'm not in the business of defending LaRouche, except that I once posted around here how he hooked me up with a very nice young lady. I don't think we need to be concerned about whether LaRouche is good or evil. We need to more concerned about whether Mr. Berlet ought to be a source for anything. That "code talk" stuff is just the most disingenuous and intellectually dishonest thing imaginable. I will never get past that. It just says volumes and not about LaRouche.

I also want to add that H himself is kind, slow to anger and considerate of fair process and the concerns of others, even of those who disagree with him. Even when they will never know that he is sticking up for their rights.

[Moulton]

She's quite good at pushing your angry buttons, eh?

Why don't you just slam the control-panel lid on her hand? Then you won't have to "explain" anything, to a creature you cannot reason with.

I posted that for the benefit of my esteemed colleague GlassBeadGame. But point taken.

There's only one honorable way to settle this kind of dispute.

Song parodies at twenty paces.

[Hell Freezes Over]

I really fail to see how LaRouche publications and sources could be kept out of any article about LaRouche and his movement, if you follow this policy.

LaRouche publications aren't kept out of articles about LaRouche and his movement. The problem with Herschel was he was trying to use them as sources in other articles too.

Are you saying that it is an objective reality that, for example, women should be excluded from the List of major opera composers (or more correctly, confined to a ghetto) because nobody had any sources which were current and included information about women? And if you answer that this is supposedly an evolving process, just try to change one thing on that list and see what happens.

We can only include e.g. women in lists of opera composers if we have reason to believe that women composed operas. If we have reason to believe it, it must be because someone has written about it.

[Jon Awbrey]

Please note that Ms. Hell is using the Berlet website as a source of quotes from LaRouche. It's not a reliable source. Please note this discussion from when we were fighting over it 4 years ago.

I already noticed that H. I'm not in the business of defending LaRouche, except that I once posted around here how he hooked me up with a very nice young lady. I don't think we need to be concerned about whether LaRouche is good or evil. We need to more concerned about whether Mr. Berlet ought to be a source for anything. That "code talk" stuff is just the most disingenuous and intellectually dishonest thing imaginable. I will never get past that. It just says volumes and not about LaRouche.

I also want to add that H himself is kind, slow to anger and considerate of fair process and the concerns of others, even of those who disagree with him. Even when they will never know that he is sticking up for their rights.

I have no pig in this poke, politickwise, but I do observe that the technique of using controversial content to distract discussants from the more generally critical issues of process hardly ever fails to snow-blind some people.

Jon Awbrey

[Hell Freezes Over]

Please note that Ms. Hell is using the Berlet website as a source of quotes from LaRouche. It's not a reliable source. Please note this discussion from when we were fighting over it 4 years ago.

Are you saying that LaRouche did not say or write those things about gays being drug addicts, pederasts etc?

I'll quote myself from the link you provided. The only thing I was wrong about was that it wasn't three LaRouche supporters we were up against, but one pretending to be three:

"Weed, to answer your questions: (1) the section omitted (for reasons of space) from the first quote does not affect the meaning of the remaining bold section. LaRouche is saying, as I understand it, that violence against AIDS victims, whom he equates with gays, whom in turn he later equates with pederasts, is justifiable and understandable; and (2) regarding the second, LaRouche is identifying with the views expressed. He is saying they are justifiable and understandable. Had he wanted to condemn these acts, he would have done so clearly. He is very explicit with his condemnations when he wants to be. Cberlet hit the nail on the head when he talked about Herschel and Weed's attempts to stave off cognitive dissonance. This is where the irrationality of these discussions stems from, much of which, over the last seven months, have boiled down to three LaRouche supporters unwilling to face up to what LaRouche himself says and does." SlimVirgin 02:11, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over: Tue 14th April 2009, 9:54pm

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Please note that Ms. Hell is using the Berlet website as a source of quotes from LaRouche. It's not a reliable source. Please note this discussion from when we were fighting over it 4 years ago.

Are you saying that LaRouche did not say or write those things about gays being drug addicts, pederasts etc?

We have a backlog of unanswered questions on this thread. Let's get to these first, after which I will be happy to answer your question:

You never addressed my question from yesterday, which is if you have a personal interest in making LaRouche look bad on Wikipedia? Here's why I ask:

- The LaRouche ArbCom case you were a party to found that you had committed personal attacks.
- You admit that you somehow know Herschel's name, living location, and place of work.
- You defend two rabidly (no, this word isn't an exaggeration, see the evidence others like Kato have presented in this thread) anti-LaRouche journalists' access to edit LaRouche articles while helping Jayjg and a few other admins ban all editors who appear even slightly pro-LaRouche
- You kept a secret page in your userspace that extensively documented suspected pro-LaRouche editors and sources related to the LaRouche articles.
- You often used to edit articles, frequently with Jayjg, about right-wing and anti-semitic topics, like New Anti-Semitism.
- Your editing almost, if not completely, always agreed with Jayjg's POV on those topics.
- Jayjg, as documented in a recent thread in his section in WR, is often quick and active at labeling BLP subjects as anti-semitic or anti-zionist, including, evidently, LaRouche
- You became irritated in a previous post in this thread, calling me a hypocrite, for asking why you never called-out Jayjg for POV-pushing or didn't advocate topic banning DKing and CBerlet

A good question, deserving of an answer. And don't forget mine:

Slimvirgin: Please address, in a non-evasive way, your relationship to the Sunsplash and Sweet Blue Water accounts.

[the fieryangel]

Are you saying that it is an objective reality that, for example, women should be excluded from the List of major opera composers (or more correctly, confined to a ghetto) because nobody had any sources which were current and included information about women? And if you answer that this is supposedly an evolving process, just try to change one thing on that list and see what happens.

We can only include e.g. women in lists of opera composers if we have reason to believe that women composed operas. If we have reason to believe it, it must be because someone has written about it.

Well, people have written about it, but the information is excluded from the article because of WP:OWN issues.

Let's explore this further : Have a look at the article Poseur, which gives the idea that this expression is almost exclusively part of the vocabulary of pop music genres. Yes, there is a brief mention of the French origin of the expression and then a brief mention of Norman Mailer before several long segments about Punk, Metal, Hiphop and other musical genres. Wouldn't you call this giving "undue weight" to what is clearly a sub genre of the meaning of this word, rather than the principal meaning?

Isn't this article inherently misleading?

[Jon Awbrey]

So here comes Hell Freezes Over, acting like every other noob who comes to our shores from Wikiputia … preaching the Gospel of Jimbo … like we haven't already heard it till we could just barf —

[Hell Freezes Over]

Well, people have written about it, but the information is excluded from the article because of WP:OWN issues.

Well, that's a different issue. If there are good sources, the material should be in the article.

Let's explore this further : Have a look at the article Poseur, which gives the idea that this expression is almost exclusively part of the vocabulary of pop music genres. Yes, there is a brief mention of the French origin of the expression and then a brief mention of Norman Mailer before several long segments about Punk, Metal, Hiphop and other musical genres. Wouldn't you call this giving "undue weight" to what is clearly a sub genre of the meaning of this word, rather than the principal meaning?

Isn't this article inherently misleading?

I don't know enough to be able to answer, except to say that the non-music-genre use of the term is still about people adopting mannerisms not their own, so I wouldn't call it misleading exactly. Maybe you could add some of the non-music sources to the lead, just to make clear there are/were other groups who've used the term?

[the fieryangel]

I don't know enough to be able to answer, except to say that the non-music-genre use of the term is still about people adopting mannerisms not their own, so I wouldn't call it misleading exactly. Maybe you could add some of the non-music sources to the lead, just to make clear there are/were other groups who've used the term?

Actually, I can't edit on WP because I'm under a "community ban" (which I do respect). However, if I were to edit this article, I would start by cutting a good 90 % of it as BLP violations (debating whether people are "poseurs" or not, equating "poseur" with "fags", other statements which really have no business in an encyclopedia). I would then probably create a "disambiguation" page with the "mainstream" usage and the "pop music" specific genre usage.

By this time, since I'd probably be banned and/or hauled before Arbcom by the people who "own" this article, the question is probably moot.

I'll say it for you: this article is misleading. There is clearly an agenda behind it. That seems quite clear to me. Why is this allowed to remain like this?

[Jon Awbrey]

I'll say it for you: this article is misleading. There is clearly an agenda behind it. That seems quite clear to me. Why is this allowed to remain like this?

Why do you think?

Jon

[Cla68]

The main things I'm getting from this thread are:

1. Herschel, or whoever it was, shouldn't have started the biography on Chip Berlet. That was a real mistake. That biography should be deleted at the subject's request, and for other valid reasons.
2. Chip Berlet shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near the LaRouche articles. He's been in litigation with LaRouche for starters, has a massive conflict of interest, and openly talks about his quest to counter LaRouche whom he regularly compares to Hitler. It was inevitable that his presence would cause major problems.
3. The clique of admins and users who are openly anti-LaRouche, who rallied round to protect Berlet, showed blatant double standards; dragged a large area of Wikipedia through the mud - further discredited the place. They have shown they cannot be trusted any more than any of the other disruptive forces at the site.

We're starting to go off on a tangent about American cultural history. To get back to the subject at hand, Kato provides an excellent summary above of where we stand in this discussion so far. I'd say that the next step is, how can Wikipedia resolve this? Well, I suggest:

- Topic ban DKing and CBerlet (I know, I know, Berlet is "retired" from editing).
- Delete Berlet's BLP.
- Topic ban Jayjg, SV, and any of the other editors and admins who have pursued the "pro-LaRouche" editors using bad-faith tactics.

[Newyorkbrad]

except in the article about the "Theory that Queen Elizabeth II is an extra-dimensional lizard person" article, in which that information would have to be presented, as well as the contradictory viewpoint.

You mean [[Allegations of English lizardry]]?

[dtobias]

except in the article about the "Theory that Queen Elizabeth II is an extra-dimensional lizard person" article, in which that information would have to be presented, as well as the contradictory viewpoint.

You mean [[Allegations of English lizardry]]?

If the Queen is found to have attended Hogwarts School of Bitchcraft and Lizardry, that would settle the issue, wouldn't it?

[Hell Freezes Over]

We're starting to go off on a tangent about American cultural history. To get back to the subject at hand, Kato provides an excellent summary above of where we stand in this discussion so far. I'd say that the next step is, how can Wikipedia resolve this? Well, I suggest:

- Topic ban DKing and CBerlet (I know, I know, Berlet is "retired" from editing).
- Delete Berlet's BLP.
- Topic ban Jayjg, SV, and any of the other editors and admins who have pursued the "pro-LaRouche" editors using bad-faith tactics.

Cla, you do yourself no favours with this kind of extreme bias. You seem to reach decisions based entirely on whether you like the players or not. With Jossi, you deplore his editing of [[Prem Rawat]], given that he appears to have been employed by that organization, and you applaud the editors who opposed him. (And I agree with you. If he was employed by Prem Rawat, he should not have been editing there.)

But with LaRouche, you want the experts topic-banned, the editors who opposed the LaRouche edits topic-banned, but the LaRouchies themselves, including those apparently employed by LaRouche -- for them you mention no restrictions whatsoever!

Look at the edit histories of all the LaRouche articles, and the talk pages, before you comment further, please. The LaRouche editors were a menace. Bad editors, who appeared to have been completely brain-washed, and who could not find it within themselves to post, or watch anyone else post, a single non-adoring word about the leader.

[dtobias]

You seem to reach decisions based entirely on whether you like the players or not.

...and you don't?