On 10/18/05, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/18/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@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