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.

Lar nails it here.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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]

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.)

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.)

Will is doing his usual victory dance right now, which may be a tactical error. He's under a fair amount of scrutiny.

Another interesting detail: Beback planted the "sock of Hersch" flag here, but "Please refer to this Sockpuppet investigation for evidence" is a redlink.

Where is Will's checkuser evidence? As far as I know, Will isn't a checkuser, but he talks in that ANI thread as if he has all the information he needed. How did he get checkuser information without making a formal request?

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?

This exchange is in some ways more interesting.

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)

Where is Will's checkuser evidence?

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)

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

Now that is just excruciatingly vexatious dishonesty.

FWIW, I don't see what's wrong with that edit. The source checks out.