Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21 Usage of Vcrisi in the Hugo Chavez article

Request Information

Request made by: Flanker 15:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

... The Hugo Chavez talk page and article [1]

Who's involved?

...Sandy and myself Flanker

What's going on?

...The issue on what is allowed to be inserted into wikipedia, Sandy argues that Vcrisis should be allowed on the external links to provide balance, I argue that if balance is needed then a verifiable non-violent site can easily be found. The source has no room anywhere in wikipedia (aside from its own article) since it is a blog [2] [[3] violent and extremist [4] All violating WP:RS.

The issue is larger and more significant than Flanker's deletion of one External Link. Hugo Chávez, formerly a featured article, was tagged as POV, later nominated for FARC by an editor not active in editing the article, and still later reverted by other editors to the six-month old featured version, with no prior talk page discussion or consensus. The article was de-featured, and work began to restore and update the old article, and to remove the POV, while also attempting to correct the deficiencies mentioned in the FARC and to restore featured article criterion. A large part of restoring the article to featured status involves removing the POV, mentioned in the FARC, and involving an unbalanced presentation from a largely socialist point of view, supported with largely socialist references, and no counterbalance. There is *much* work to be done in order to remove tags, replace references to more balanced sources, shorten the article (currently over 100KB), and achieve balance and NPOV overall.

The External Link to Vcrisis.com was specifically included in the featured version, by the author who brought the article to featured status, in order to achieve balance. While we have important work to do towards improving the article, and considering that the largely socialist references and POV mentioned in the FARC have still not been fully corrected, Flanker wants to delete the only English-language, updated, comprehensive website which provides balance to the current POV in the article. His reasoning is that it is against WP:RS, but the website is not used as a source: it is listed as an External Link. WP:EL does indicate that blogs are not recommended as External Links, but Flanker fails to acknowledge that there is *no* comprehensive, up to date, English-language website which provides an anti-Chávez point of view, partly due to freedom of the press limitations in Venezuela (which Flanker also disavows, in spite of numerous reliable sources provided). Due to the freedom of the press limitations in Venezuela, this seems to be a classic example of when we should employ WP:IGNORE. It's also not clear to me that VCrisis is only a blog, but that's a side issue. WP:EL specifically discusses the need for balance in External Links, and since WP:NPOV is a pillar of Wiki, it seems more important to attain NPOV rather than to disallow a blog, which is only a recommendation of Wiki, subject to some exceptions. NPOV should never be an exception on Wiki.

Flanker puts futher limitations on what he won't accept in the article, making NPOVing difficult: he wants 1) no direct quotes from anyone other than Chávez, 2) no speeches from anyone other than from Chávez, 3) no direct quotes from reliable sources that contain wording unfavorable to Chávez, and 4) no External links to the only updated, comprehensive, English-language site providing balance. It is unclear if he really recognizes the need to NPOV the article. Sandy 15:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1-3 are incorrect, I no longer claim it if it is used against me, #4 I already gave a comprehensive, updated, english language site providing balance.Flanker 22:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaning to use them against you: only to point out that, seen together, it creates the appearance that you don't see the need to NPOV the article. Please don't feel it's personal, or one against the other, Flanker. Sandy 19:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?

...To break the deadlock on this issue

To get to work on the article, and let one External Link work itself out in the process, after we finish the important work and see if NPOV resolves itself. Although Flanker is a pleasant, knowledgeable, and hard-working editor, his efforts make it appear that he is resisting NPOVing the article. If the article can be NPOV'd, the presence or lack of one External Link will not have much significance.

Also, to suggest that Flanker not be so quick to suggest mediation over small items, when such a big task is ahead of us. Earlier, I reverted a series of his edits, as he was deleting previous references rather than updating them, and it was too time consuming to reconstruct the deleted references. I later went back through each one of his edits, and reconstructed those that did not involve deletions of references, but he also suggested mediation over the reverted reference deletions. Considering that we have done some good work together, I hope that mediation is not necessary each time we disagree, and patience can prevail. Sandy 16:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

... Work openly, you can reach me at my user talk page

Mediator response

Hello. I will be your mediator. First of all, before we get into anything else, what does Sandy think of this matter? Dev920 23:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Initial comment changed by Dev920 on 15:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summarized above, and in Flanker's copy of my comment from the Hugo Chávez talk page, below. Sandy 15:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy's claim verbatim: Section below inserted by Flanker, copied from talk page. Sandy 15:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have so much work ahead of us still: I regret that you don't consider that we have other ways of resolving this impasse over one External link, especially after weeks of working so hard together. I've offered to continue waiting (it's been almost two weeks) — to allow time for replacement of the preponderance of biased sources (as discussed in the FARC and agreed upon several times in the talk page[5]) — before tagging the article POV. I've offered alternative (albeit outdated) sites for balance [6]. I've asked you to look at policy and explain your interpretation of it, and I've asked you to suggest sites that would provide the required balance. NPOV should be our primary goal: I can't think of anything else I can offer to you as a way of compromising or achieving balance in the article, and none of the options seem acceptable to you. We cannot achieve NPOV through a preponderance of biased references [7], and censored Venezuelan media. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12][13][14] VCrisis is far from an ideal External link, but there are no ideal External links, partly because of the limitations on freedom of the press in Venezuela. Unless you can suggest or come up with something else, VCrisis is all we've got for balance. You want no direct quotes, no speeches other than from Chávez, and no External links to sites for balance. It seems that you are objecting to many possible sources of eliminating POV from the article. I hope we can reach a compromise, as we have so much work to do still. Saludos, Sandy 21:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response

I would recomend el universal (some articles are badly translated to english), they seem to be the equivalent of Venanalysis on the other side of the spectrum.Flanker 15:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for anti-government links I give you for the third time El Universal, free (no subscription), anti-government, verifiable, and yes in english[15].

Flanker does not recognize limitations on freedom of the press, affecting Venezuela's newspapers (e.g.; El Universal), in spite of numerous reliable sources provided (see above). Including El Universal as the only English-language External Link amounts to using a censored source. Sandy 15:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Universal is not censored in any way, could this article ever appear on a censored press?-> [16] All attacks on the Chavez government from the US government without ANY balance at all. The press is freer in Venezuela than in a lot of countries in Europe for example.Flanker 01:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flanker, that's a brilliant example of the press censorship that exists in Venezuela. The article says nothing that is not a direct quote from a U.S. official, so that no one in Venezuela can be imprisoned for saying the same things about Chavez. It shows exactly the problem of censorship that exists: we can't get anything in the Venezuelan press that Venezuelans say about Chavez, because it's disallowed by law. So, we get only quotes from the U.S. Sandy 01:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am speechless... [17]

"For the last 7 years, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has failed to deliver on his 1998 campaign promises to reduce poverty and corruption. In fact, both have increased while he has spent $500 billion building a dictatorship in Latin America’s first democracy, tricking many into believing he is a democrat working for the poor."

"Those of you who have been following my newspaper columns in El Universal, "

"Thank you,

Sincerely,

Michael Rowan

Caracas"Flanker 02:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might actually be even freer than in the US apperantly [18]Flanker 02:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Dev920 23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions

Ok, I've read through the talkpage, and there seems to be much talk about balance. You both want balance in the article, is that correct? I am not very well up on South American politics, so could you briefly explain, ignoring the types of sources at the moment, what it is that you are both trying to bring to the article, in terms of balance, and why you disagree? Dev920 23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believed the article was balanced initially, but upon further review I saw that it was not neutral on some areas mostly steming from accusations against Chavez that go unanswered in the article. The unbalance in quantiy of sources in the article is not as important to me as the prose itself and what the prose claims, however I did propose other anti-government, verifiable, non-blogs, non-extremist (well right now) and non-violent website that can balance VenAnalysis, which was deemed unacceptable by Sandy.Flanker 00:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VenAnalysis was not "deemed unacceptable by Sandy" :-) The FARC mentioned the preponderance of unacceptable, socialist references, including VenAnalysis. Prior to seeing the comments on the FARC, I knew VenAnalysis was one-sided, but I wasn't aware of how highly biased or socialist VenAnalysis was.

I'm not sure Flanker really understands the need to NPOV the article, or the extent of bias and imbalance present in the article (albeit beginning to improve now, at the cost of a now much too large article). Recently, he is directing his editing towards adding even more pro-Chávez content, to the extent of including a claim made by one anti-Bush writer, published in a paper which seemed to insinuate that he was a Navy insider at the time or working for the Navy during the events of April 11. Although pro-Chávez forces would like to believe these kinds of allegations, dubious claims introduced into the article demand a response, which further bloats the article size. [19] It was proposed that we use a Sandbox version for reviewing new content, so that these kinds of inclusions could be avoided, but it appears that won't happen.

I hope that he can be convinced to let this issue ride for a bit, and see if NPOV is attained by editing the article's content, in which case, the inclusion (or not) of VCrisis (which is not a high quality link) may resolve itself. The article needs to tell the whole story: pro-Chávez and anti-Chávez alike. Flanker is a well-intentioned and knowledgeable editor: I believe if he will stop resisting efforts to NPOV the article, we can achieve an excellent article, presenting all sides, more quickly. Sandy 15:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I don't view it as NPOV either as well now, there are a ton of accusations that go unanswered: Corruption, Crime, Human right violations. etc.Flanker 22:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, a question that has been asked by other users (in the archive as well as here) is why a personal blog, which would usually violate Wiki policy, needs to be added. What is contained in this blog that you like to convey in the article? Dev920 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The VCrisis link is resolved (see below), but to answer the general question, the goal was to achieve balance in external links. The article (until about a week ago) was highly unbalanced in one direction, and there was no one place a new reader could go to find English-language information to balance the POV in the article. Obviously, the best alternative is to remove the bias from the article, and achieve NPOV, in which case External Links become less relevant. Sandy 19:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

Discussion

Comment. I honestly believe that none of the two sources should be used (Vcrisis and Venezuelanalysis). In one way I agree with Flanker, in spite of my political inclination, I do think Vcrisis is an extremist opposition source. However, this doesn't defend Venezuelanalysis in any way. I too think that Venezuelanalysis is a biased source. As Sandy said in the talk page, it might not be so evident because they don't publicly claim it, but Venezuelanalysis could also be relying in personal opinions in the same way that Vcrisis does.

Also, I don't think the problem is related to the type of source here. Yes, Vcrisis is a blog, but here it's about the content. Venezuelanalysis links to sites such as Aporrea.org and Venezuelafoia.info. That could give you a sign of how extremist they may be too.

I recommend that you use neither of these sources and instead rely on the CNN, BBC, AP, Reuters, etc. I think enough information can be found from the mainstream media, and if there were a need to get more inside references, I suggest using sources from the list of newspapers in Venezuela instead of using online-only media.--Enano275 18:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in principle, with Enano. Which to me means that as soon as VenAnalysis is deleted from the article's references, we should also be able to delete VCrisis. Neither of them are ideal sources. As I've said repeatedly, once the article is NPOV'd, Vcrisis will take care of itself, and won't be needed. We've been waiting about a month now for the VenAnalysis statements to be re-referenced or deleted. For now, some counterbalance to the preponderance of leftist sources is needed. Sandy 19:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Enano. Neither Vcrisis or Venezuelanalysis should be used. Newspapers should be the preferred source. However, a note with regard to the use of Venezuelan newspapers and censorship: article 148 of the Venezuelan Criminal Code "quien ofendiere de palabra o por escrito, o de cualquier otra manera irrespetare al Presidente de la República o a quien está haciendo sus veces, será castigado con prisión de 6 a 30 meses, si la ofensa fuere grave, y con la mitad de ésta si la pena fuera leve. La pena se aumentará en una tercera parte, si la ofensa se hubiere hecho públicamente”. Quick translation: "whoever offends or irrespects the President will be punish with 6 to 30 months of prison. The punishment will be increased by a third if the offense was made public".(Caracas1830 00:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Just to add a further clarification: currently VCrisis is not used as a source (the mediation is over listing it as an External Link for balance), while VenAnalysis is used as a reference many times. Sandy 01:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venanalysis is a biased source but it is verifiable source even The Guardian links to it as such (scroll down) http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,1801387,00.html there is no policy that states biased verifiable sources are not allowed, however there are strict prohibitions against Blogs, violent and extremists sites, the individual has also made it quite evident that he does not tolerate wikipedia or the linking of his site: [20]

"Since the 'editors' of your pages keep deleting away comments that do not meet their political criteria, I demand for all the links pointing at my site to me removed immediately and permanently from your pages. Should you have a problem locating them do visit the pages about neo-fascist Hugo Chavez." Flanker 01:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flanker, I'm not surprised The Guardian would link to Veananlysis: they also reported the Wayne Madsen story. Can you please cite the Wiki policy that mentions a "strict prohibition against blogs" as an External Link? Sandy 01:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apperantly there is none from reading the WP:EL which I was originally unaware of however it being a blog is only one strike against it, it is also violent/extremist and may have problems with his litigious nature with re: to wikipedia->[21]Flanker 02:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what WP:EL says under generally avoid

• Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)
• Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.

What they say IMHO is that if the blog is up to the standard of real climate it could be included in EL (but not as references) but not sites that offer little and are generally violent and extremist. I think my alternative is quite adecuate.Flanker 02:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read both of your comments, and I don't believe the relatively subtle bias of Venanalysis can be compared to the extremist, hate-mongering, and violent propaganda of Vcrisis. After reading that Vcrisis is the creation of one random man named Aleksander Boyd Arregui who wishes to "pour melted silver" into the eyes of his subhuman political opponents (i.e. "the scum of this earth"), [22] I have come to the conclusion that it is nothing more than a tasteless personal website with no standards of quality, whatsoever. In another example of the website's vulgarity, Aleksander writes, "But see Chavez's Venezuela is not a sovereign nation but a satellite of the fucking Cuban dictator." Clearly this egregiousness deserves no promotion by an online encyclopedia dedicated to advancing human knowledge. -- WGee 19:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's some pretty nasty stuff (which I had never found, btw). Yes, we should delete it, if it has such content. (Good thing we can decide that, since our mediator hasn't shown up for a few days :-) At any rate, I hope we can still address the bigger issues, of generally accepting that there is a need to NPOV the article. Sandy 19:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not shown up for a few days because I am reading through eveyrthing you asked me to Sandy. I'm halfway through Archive 10 at the moment. And it seems to me that every time I read another paragraph about Hugo Chavez, another three have been written! But I am getting there. Dev920 19:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, Dev920: I was joking about how things tend to work themselves out over time, if left alone. Had I been aware of the content WGee uncovered, this never would have been an issue. Sandy 19:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If only all mediations could be like this. :DDev920 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to count any chickens before they hatch, though. :D Sandy 20:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, now this dispute over Vcrisi has happily resolved itself, is there any need of my services, or shall I go back to the cabal (knowing a hell of a lot more about Hugo Chavez), or is there anything else you want bring up in mediation? I don't think you guys actually need mediation to be honest - generally, you do work out your differences on the talkpagein a polite manner, from what I've read. Dev920 20:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thought: Chávez is accused of generating hate mongering that never previously existed in Venezuelan society, and my feeling is that the talk page generally reflects pre-Chávez Venezuelan norms of conduct. But, I defer to Flanker, as he requested the mediation. I get the sense that he is generally still uncomfortable with the direction the article is taking. Sandy 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that it was resolved as well although Sandy I did link to the infamous ghengis khan article multiple times ;) Vcrisis is very extreme and there are more believe me.Flanker 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the content WGee quoted above was in the same links you provided, I didn't read down far enough. Maybe you should have hit me over the head with the real vulgarities, as WGee did :-) I read only far enough into the articles to wonder if you were being overly sensitive. And, I'm trying to do a lot at once. Honestly, Flanker, you should have left the link as a negative testimony to the "opposition" LOL !! This has long been my criticism of anti-Chávez groups: they really think their silly marches are going to make a dent in Castro, and they don't really do a single, effective thing to help themselves or help the country. With all the combined English-speaking skills they have, they can't manage to put up a single decent website. (At least the militaresdemocraticos knew how to write, and presented a slick website, even if sensationalized and now outdated.) Sandy 20:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Case closed I think. Thank you all for such efforts to improve Wikipedia.Dev920 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wikipedia editors: you should have asked me!! A simple email asking whether I would like to be linked to Wikipedia would have been sufficient. In no way I am willing to form part of an encyclopedia that gets its knowledge from propaganda sources as Venezuelanalysis and apologists of criminal dictators as Flanker. By all mean please delete any and all references to my website. I'm not worthy, nor I am willing to take up, of any space in Wikipedia.

I told them that Boyd but they would not listen, good luck in your legally induced hiatus.Flanker 00:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I listened, but it's not his choice to make. I want to commend Boyd on shooting himself (and Venezuela) in the foot so grandly. And he has no finger to point at Wikipedia for its "propaganda sources" when he could have been a reliable source if his language and composition had maintained some decorum and decency. Thanks for the nimble hand, Boyd: I'm sure Carter, Castro and Chavez thank you for supporting their case. Sandy 00:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been meaning to ask you Sandy if it was the language itself that put you off? I frankly don't have much of a problem with vulgarity per se and more with meaning. Flanker 03:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, once I saw the language, what put me off was that it was just more of the same kind of abuse of power that led to Chávez. The arrogance. The "with power comes responsibility" issue. If you have one of the only comprehensive sources of English-language content that is anti-Chávez, it is your responsibility to use that power wisely, and not to abuse of it with sophomoric writing, lashing out in anger. It's just more of the same, as to why Venezuela got and deserved the end to its democracy. The fact that no one in Venezuela can put together an English-language, comprehensive source of information even though there are so many whose English so much better than my Spanish and who could so easily do it. After I saw the vulgarity, I realized he was just another example: part of the problem, not the solution. Chávez won't go away until the causes that led to him go away. Sandy 11:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, if the foul language used on some of Alek's articles is all it takes for you to discard his efforts, then I must say I'm dissapointed at you. I'll stick to VCrisis anytime over Wikipedia, a place where the resentfuls of the world can come freely and advertise a political, social and economical system that have not worked (and will not work) anywhere, i.e. socialism/communism, while at the same time they ignore the wrongdoings of their heroes, including Hugo Chávez. These apologists have been proven wrong time and again (see Eva Golinger and VIO), while Alek hasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.241.108 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 8 July 2006 UTC

User 201.46.241.106, I agree with you 100% that there is widespread and systemic bias in favor of Chávez throughout Wikipedia. I have been trying to balance the articles. My argument for including VCrisis -- against convention on Wikipedia -- was a strong one, until Boyd shot the only comprehensive English-language source in the foot with unprofessional content. So, as much as we may prefer to read reliable, balanced facts vs. propoganda, if the facts aren't presented in a way that can justify their inclusion in Wiki, Boyd becomes part of the problem with the unbalanced content in Wikipedia. As pointed out by Moises Naim, Castro has been far more effective than anyone supporting democracy, and Boyd is yet another example of that. Don't complain about Wikipedia: do something about it, by making content additions to balance the articles while adhering to Wiki policies and procedures. Sandy 13:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy not that it matters a lot, but in any case will you point out the unprofessional content? And whilst at it would you also provide the quote where I claim to be a professional? Alek Boyd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.28.165 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 8 July 2006

Anon, first, please start signing your entries, by including four tildes (~~~~) after your comment. Second, if you want to carry on a conversation with me, register an account, put your comments in the right place (User talk:SandyGeorgia/Chavez), or e-mail me. Third, I never said you were professional, and the unprofessional content is detailed on this page. I will not carry on a conversation with two different anon users on a mediation page. Take it to the right place. Sandy 13:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I profusely apologize for having disregarded Wiki-etiquette. In any case will the pundits of all things Venezuelan comenting on this page and passing judgement on other people be brave enough to provide Wikipedia readers with their academic credentials, real identities and background so that informed decisions as to their expertise in Venezuelan contemporary politics can be established? (Alekboyd 13:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Still on the discussion on using VCrisis as an external link or not, I want to comment on the allegedly "extremist" language used by Aleksander Boyd. The article to which user WGee points out as proof that Alek is an extremist is titled "I wish I was Genghis Khan". I read said article, and to me it's no more than an expression of his outrage vis-à-vis the immorality of venezuelan public officials. I have news for you: Aleksander cannnot be Genghis Khan, no matter how much he "wishes".

Furthermore, if foul and "extremist" language is all it takes to disregard people here, then why don't we all disregard everything Hugo Chavez says? Please take the time to visit this link from Sep. 13, 1998, a column on which current venezuelan vice-president Jose Vicente Rangel says Hugo Chávez stated, on a campaign visit to eastern Venezuela, that "there won't be a trace of adeca bad plague in Venezuela, because we will disappeare it along with copeyanos and convergentes" ("la mala plaga adeca no quedará rastro en Venezuela, ya que la vamos a desaparecer junto a copeyanos y convergentes"). Just to make myself even clearer, Hugo Chávez stated, more or less, that if he became president he would exterminate his political enemies. This statement is moderate, though, if compared with the statement on which he said he would "fry adecos' heads on hot oil". Alek's site, while a blog, is also a considerable archive of evidence-supported articles, way, waaay different from VAnalysis, which relies solely on their team of chavista-payroll opinions. I could point to many other examples of extremism from the Chavez camp, but since they are documented elsewhere, I won't. I'll leave you, though, with the name of most despicable way of extremism and political terrorism: The Maisanta List.User:Vascaino4 15:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You completely miss the point. Technically, blogs are not allowed as External links, per WP:EL. I was able to argue that the policy should be ignored because presenting balance in External Links was a more important principle of WP:NPOV. I needed to have a strong case for including a blog as an External Link. The vulgarities destroyed that case, showing the site to be a blog for personal rants rather than a source of accurate information. I suggest that those ranting about the bias in Wikipedia (a point on which we agree) should learn Wiki policies and procedures, in order to make well reasoned content additions and arguments. Sandy 15:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point, Sandy. VCrisis IS a source of accurate information, regardless of the language used by Aleksander. If you have failed to notice that, then I can't do anything about it. Anyway, it's Wiki's loss not to have VCrisis.com as an external resource. I don't pretend to further discuss this matter. Thanks for everything. (Vascaino4 15:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Once again, according to WP:EL and WP:RS, blogs are not sources. I was arguing for an exception. I agree it's Wiki's loss, but it's not Wiki's fault that the exception per WP:IGNORE could be disallowed because of the personal rants. Why not remove the rant? Sandy 15:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He cannot remove the rant, he is currently suing the Mayor of London for libel/slander because he called him a terrorist obviously tempering with the evidence would not make him look good, besides he still argues for violence and it is not his style to delete what he says.Flanker 15:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, Boyd. Well, since lawsuits are involved, I'm officially done with this conversation and these folks. Sandy 16:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]