|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |