|
Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines.
However, they are not hidden from automobile engines, including the newer, more "environmentally-friendly" electric and hybrid engines. Also, please note that this subforum is meant to be used for discussion of the actual biographical articles themselves; more generalized discussions of BLP policy should be posted in the General Discussion or Bureaucracy forums.
|
|
The "foreign sources" controversy returns, the dynamic duo rides again |
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 8th February 2011, 11:43pm) 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 |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 9th February 2011, 9:06pm) QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Thu 10th February 2011, 4:12am) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 9th February 2011, 12:17am) 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 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 10th February 2011, 2:51pm) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 9th February 2011, 9:06pm) QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Thu 10th February 2011, 4:12am) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 9th February 2011, 12:17am) 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:
|
|
|
|
Detective |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sat 12th February 2011, 11:52pm) 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?
|
|
|
|
melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Tue 15th February 2011, 5:48pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
BananaShowerMonkey |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined:
Member No.: 33,476
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 16th February 2011, 1:42pm) The stupid in that discussion is inane; they are arguing over sourcing regarding various predictions made by LaRouche? It's quite fairly transparent here that source reliability arguments are being used as proxies to exclude STUFFIDONTLIKE. The whole "exceptional claim" rule of theirs is just a hook for doing this sort of thing. (Then again, the "exceptional claim" notion is itself an outgrowth of Wikipedia's systemic preference for dogmatic Skepticism, which, of course, has nothing to do with being skeptical.)
Interesting. "Dogmatic Skepticism", a lovely paradox: to stubbornly put everything in doubt but stubbornness itself. This post has been edited by BananaShowerMonkey:
|
|
|
|
It's the blimp, Frank |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined:
Member No.: 82
|
And now Will Beback makes his move to get Angel's Flight indef-blocked. It looks like this exchange with Cla68 pushed him over the edge. This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:
|
|
|
|
It's the blimp, Frank |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined:
Member No.: 82
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 17th February 2011, 1:37am) This exchange is in some ways more interesting. It's a lot longer now, and includes this golden moment: QUOTE It's blindingly obvious who AF is and, even if it's an associate, it's still a group with a POV to push. That itch you have is, I think, more related to the offensive double standards. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Will's (albeit valid) point if he was even half as fast at identifying B&K socks as he is in identifying HK socks... and of course if he'd admit to and stop his own POV pushing efforts. Slim raised the issue of naked short selling, and I tend to agree. Except I don't think she'd agree with my view that the only difference I'm seeing is that HK doesn't have anything of the moral high-ground (such as it was) enjoyed by JB. Having said all that, no one really cares what an unimportant American fruitloop thinks. I mean, seriously? Why else do you think Will gets away with it, but gets pulled up when he tries it elsewhere?120.23.0.60 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what any of that means... Will Beback talk 04:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Gruntled |
|
Quite an unusual member
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 16,954
|
QUOTE It's blindingly obvious who AF is and, even if it's an associate, it's still a group with a POV to push. That itch you have is, I think, more related to the offensive double standards. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Will's (albeit valid) point if he was even half as fast at identifying B&K socks as he is in identifying HK socks... and of course if he'd admit to and stop his own POV pushing efforts. Slim raised the issue of naked short selling, and I tend to agree. Except I don't think she'd agree with my view that the only difference I'm seeing is that HK doesn't have anything of the moral high-ground (such as it was) enjoyed by JB. Having said all that, no one really cares what an unimportant American fruitloop thinks. I mean, seriously? Why else do you think Will gets away with it, but gets pulled up when he tries it elsewhere?120.23.0.60 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Same old, same old. Someone has vaguely the same views, interests and style as a banned user, ergo they are effectively the same user (even if they are physically someone different), ergo they must be blocked. I call that the Bauder rule, and it's been going on for years.
|
|
|
|
Silver seren |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined:
Member No.: 36,940
|
Here's the CU investigation on Angel's Flight. It was in your sockpuppet archive, Herschel. However, T. Canens as clerk closer just stated "This is being hashed out on ANI with the CU done privately. No need for a separate SPI." Since when is a private Checkuser done in a situation like this? I've only heard of private CU's done in very specific situations, where it was high profile and there were possible legal issues and things like that. But a private CU in a situation like this? Something's fishy here.
|
|
|
|
HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Wed 23rd February 2011, 7:01pm) Here's a good scene from the movie: Angels Flight provides a pretty damaging example of Dennis King intentionally misleading his readers here, but then the real hilariousity comes with WIll Beback's defense of King. Okay. So let me get this: this is King's website. King quotes LaRouche saying, QUOTE It is not necessary to wear brown shirts to be a fascist….It is not necessary to wear a swastika to be a fascist….It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist to be a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one! which in its original context is about LaRouche denouncing his political opponents as fascists ... King sticks it under an image of LaRouche and Hitler, which conveys the impression that LaRouche is giving a Hitler salute. And with another out-of-context quote following, taken from here. And Will says, QUOTE While King did quote a line without giving extensive context, that isn't necessarily an error. He didn't assign any specific meaning to it and readers can interpret it for themselves. It's not an example that proves the book unreliable. Now that is just excruciatingly vexatious dishonesty. This juxtaposition is meant to be interpreted in one way, and one way only, to anyone with two brain cells to rub together: "LaRouche is a fascist and wants you to be a fascist too." And that is a misleading use of a quote, nothing else. Any editor who, like Will, doesn't admit that, and is not prepared to take King with a grain of salt after that, does not deserve having the assumption of good faith extended to him. No? This post has been edited by HRIP7:
|
|
|
|
HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 28th February 2011, 2:11am) And now, because of this obviously non-neutral edit, Virginia Slim goes into a fury, sends that sekrit email to Georgewilliamherbert, and presto! Delia Peabody is permablocked. But, not before she has a chance to launch this ANI thread. FWIW, I don't see what's wrong with that edit. The source checks out.
|
|
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 27th February 2011, 7:33pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 28th February 2011, 2:11am) And now, because of this obviously non-neutral edit, Virginia Slim goes into a fury, sends that sekrit email to Georgewilliamherbert, and presto! Delia Peabody is permablocked. But, not before she has a chance to launch this ANI thread. FWIW, I don't see what's wrong with that edit. The source checks out. SV had carefully constructed a narrative, using cherry-picked sources, that indicated that the "intelligence gathering" was amateurish, "hateful," and generally nonsense. The contrasting views from the Washington Post "interrupted the flow."Meanwhile, Will Beback has commenced his victory dance over the banning of Delia.
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
Congrats, for the nth time we have seen SV and McWhiney do their incredibly predictable Dance of Crazy.
Sorry to say, I'm a bit weary of all this. Can't we just agree, yes SV and McW are nuts, yes they abuse process every time they can, and yes Larouche will continue to get a raw deal on en-wiki?
My apologies to Hersh. There are better, more lovely activities to engage in than showing-up the Wiki-Woompers as what they are. It's frightfully old news, and SV appears to be one of those utterly obsessive freaks who ordinarily make great businesspeople or military leaders---if they would just stop obsessing on insipid pointless things, like revenge (or Wikipedia). Apologies, just had to write it here.
This post has been edited by EricBarbour:
|
|
|
|
BananaShowerMonkey |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined:
Member No.: 33,476
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 28th February 2011, 10:48am) Congrats, for the nth time we have seen SV and McWhiney do their incredibly predictable Dance of Crazy.
Sorry to say, I'm a bit weary of all this. Can't we just agree, yes SV and McW are nuts, yes they abuse process every time they can, and yes Larouche will continue to get a raw deal on en-wiki?
My apologies to Hersh. There are better, more lovely activities to engage in than showing-up the Wiki-Woompers as what they are. It's frightfully old news, and SV appears to be one of those utterly obsessive freaks who ordinarily make great businesspeople or military leaders---if they would just stop obsessing on insipid pointless things, like revenge (or Wikipedia). Apologies, just had to write it here.
Greetings Eric and nice to meet you! As much as I'd love to concur, but: The last utterly revenge-obsessed freak, who incidentally turned military leader gave his country a raw deal when he had a face-off with another leader who gave his country a New Deal. It may be wise to keep more than one eye open (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
Well I took the liberty of contacting a retired American journalist I know to take a look at the wiki article and give me an opinion on it. We have different political outlooks but I trust him to give me a straight opinion when asked. QUOTE The Wikipedia entry contains vastly more information than I had ever heard about him. He still has a few acolytes who set up "information" tables in public places, where they accost people with insults in order to strike up conversations. I almost got into a fist fight with one that was parked outside of our local post office (a common location for them) just before the 2008 presidential election.
But I have no way to know how accurate the Wikipedia entry is. Considering the negative way most people view him (those of us old enough to remember who he is, from the days when he was in the news a lot -- 1980s, mostly), the tone of the Wiki seems mild. Among a younger generation, relatively few will even know who you're talking about, if you bring up his name.
The media lost interest in him decades ago. I wouldn't trust them to give unbiased reports, either, unless there was some reason to do extensive checks and analyses of his claims. But I don't recall seeing anything about him with any real reportorial depth. If I do see his name in a rare article headline, I skip over it.
Sorry I can't help you in measuring the bias in that article. LaRouche's great strength is in couching his assertions in ways that are very difficult to pick apart and evaluate. That's why he's so frustrating. But my own opinion of him is extremely negative, so I'm not a good one to judge.
|
|
|
|
Detective |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 28th February 2011, 2:11am) And now, because of this obviously non-neutral edit, Virginia Slim goes into a fury, sends that sekrit email to Georgewilliamherbert, and presto! Delia Peabody is permablocked. But, not before she has a chance to launch this ANI thread. This could be embarrassing for HK. People might start saying that he's impersonating females online, just because there happens to be a female who supports him! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)
|
|
|
|
Silver seren |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined:
Member No.: 36,940
|
QUOTE(Detective @ Mon 28th February 2011, 9:01pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 28th February 2011, 2:11am) And now, because of this obviously non-neutral edit, Virginia Slim goes into a fury, sends that sekrit email to Georgewilliamherbert, and presto! Delia Peabody is permablocked. But, not before she has a chance to launch this ANI thread. This could be embarrassing for HK. People might start saying that he's impersonating females online, just because there happens to be a female who supports him! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Well, since she seems to be someone in his office, HK should probably personally go and ask her to stop.
|
|
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 28th February 2011, 1:44pm) QUOTE(Detective @ Mon 28th February 2011, 9:01pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 28th February 2011, 2:11am) And now, because of this obviously non-neutral edit, Virginia Slim goes into a fury, sends that sekrit email to Georgewilliamherbert, and presto! Delia Peabody is permablocked. But, not before she has a chance to launch this ANI thread. This could be embarrassing for HK. People might start saying that he's impersonating females online, just because there happens to be a female who supports him! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Well, since she seems to be someone in his office, HK should probably personally go and ask her to stop. It's important to know that I don't work for American System Publications, and have not for some time. SV makes a number of other claims for which she has absolutely zero evidence. ASP is a not-for-profit and most people there are volunteers. It is also not a "tiny" organization. SV discovered long ago that if she applied the "be bold" principle to lying, most people will not challenge what she says.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
I don't know if the last two accounts that have been blocked as HK socks, Angel's Flight or Delia Peabody, were socks of his or not, although they were apparently socks of somebody. Even if they were, there are some questions that need to be answered about the way the blocks occurred:
- The two regular editors of that topic, SV and Will Beback, apparently have set up a hidden process for investigating and blocking other editors in that topic area who disagree with their approach to editing those articles. Their process includes having at least one checkuser who agrees to perform private checkusers for them and then shares the results privately with them.
- SV and Will Beback then, when asked, make selective decisions on who they will share this information with. Thus, it appears that they are acting as administrators as well as regular editors of this topic. From what I understand, this isn't supposed to be allowed anymore in Wikipedia.
- It appears that anyone who edits from that LaRouche organization's IP range is labeled as a "sock of HK", even though it appears that over 100 people "work" there (I know "work" is not necessarily what they do, but I can't think of a better word). As far as I know, the LaRouche organization has not been prohibited from editing Wikipedia.
- Any recent account editing the LaRouche topic, no matter how well they are following Wikipedia' rules, faces scrutiny through this backroom tribunal.
|
|
|
|
Text |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined:
Member No.: 15,107
|
|
|
|
|
Silver seren |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined:
Member No.: 36,940
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 28th February 2011, 11:22pm) QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 28th February 2011, 2:58pm) What exactly am I supposed to see from this? A WHOIS search leads me to the Road Runner HoldCo LLC, which is an internet service provider.
Check the location. I see. It leads to Florida.
|
|
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 28th February 2011, 3:03pm) It'll be interesting to see how they try to block me.
By the way, if you guys could get me reliable sources that say positive (or at least neutral) things about LaRouche, it would be greatly appreciated. I'm sure all of you are better at finding sources in this subject area than I am.
Some of the sources that SV and Will Beback use say positive (or at least neutral) things. However, SV and Will Beback exclude that which doesn't match up to their POV. You can read their preferred sources, and you can also go over the edit histories of Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D) and Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement (T-H-L-K-D) and look at the sources that have been deleted. SV and WB never leave edit summaries that say they are deleting a source -- it's always "tidying," "tightening," "improving flow," and so on, so it may be a tedious process. However, Will just made the rounds of these articles and deleted all the positive stuff that had been added by recent banned editors. You can't revert his deletions without facing charges of meatpuppetry, but you can look at the sources and draw your own conclusions. Here's an easy one. QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 28th February 2011, 3:00pm) I don't know if the last two accounts that have been blocked as HK socks, Angel's Flight or Delia Peabody, were socks of his or not, although they were apparently socks of somebody. Even if they were, there are some questions that need to be answered about the way the blocks occurred:
- The two regular editors of that topic, SV and Will Beback, apparently have set up a hidden process for investigating and blocking other editors in that topic area who disagree with their approach to editing those articles. Their process includes having at least one checkuser who agrees to perform private checkusers for them and then shares the results privately with them.
- SV and Will Beback then, when asked, make selective decisions on who they will share this information with. Thus, it appears that they are acting as administrators as well as regular editors of this topic. From what I understand, this isn't supposed to be allowed anymore in Wikipedia.
- It appears that anyone who edits from that LaRouche organization's IP range is labeled as a "sock of HK", even though it appears that over 100 people "work" there (I know "work" is not necessarily what they do, but I can't think of a better word). As far as I know, the LaRouche organization has not been prohibited from editing Wikipedia.
- Any recent account editing the LaRouche topic, no matter how well they are following Wikipedia' rules, faces scrutiny through this backroom tribunal.
If nothing else, they have article ownership down to a science.
|
|
|
|
Silver seren |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined:
Member No.: 36,940
|
|
|
|
|
It's the blimp, Frank |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined:
Member No.: 82
|
Could someone explain to me how this works? It says here that Delia Peabody was blocked for having "suspected sockpuppets." This is presumably on top of "Duck Test" POV bullshit. But if the checkuser simply indicates that she "may have had" sockpuppets of her own, but not that she was herself a sockpuppet of someone else, then hasn't it established a grand total of nothing? edit:Also, on that page Georgewilliamherbert says that Angel's flight is a "CU confirmed sockpuppet" of Hersch, but here it says differently. Am I missing something, or is GWH simply lying? This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |