On 10/18/05, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/18/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
It's the same problem
we had on the [[Lyndon LaRouche]] articles where we finally had to
declare that LaRouche sources were all well and good, but just didn't
count as sources for the purposes of verifiability.
Is is just me, or does it seem needlessly inflammatory to compare solid
editors - admins, no less - to the LaRouchies?
Ian
If the LaRouchies and the "solid editors" are both citing minor
sources published in an echo chamber as quality resources, then no, I
don't think it's needless.
-Snowspinner