Jump to content

Talk:Prussian Blue (duo)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Death of a Black Race

Has the non-existance of this "album" of theirs been confirmed? I don't think it really exists, and they deny ever making it. Since the rumour that they made it is spreading (it was on ABC news) should there be a footnote about the whole incident?

Exploitation

There should be some mention in the article that these are two children who are being exploited by their mother. Much of the hatred directed towards these girls should be redirected at their relatives, who have provided an environment in which they have been so thoroughly corrupted.

Nonsense. Wikipedia isn't the place for unsubstantiated allegations, no matter how plausible they seem. If you want to make this point, try blogging. Phiwum 11:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Phiwum, your response is absurd. Of course, they have been exploited. Do you really suppose that two children raised in an outlandishly racist environment "rediscovered" racism on their own?
See WP:NPOV. To say what you propose will likely violate this policy, as it is an opinionated statement with negative connotations. As an encyclopedia, we have to remain as neutral as possible, no matter what the subject matter is. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 21:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Buchanan-Hermit's response is the same as mine. Look, I'm not surprised that the duo offends you. They offend a lot of us, including me. I'm not surprised you think they're being exploited (or at least grossly mis-educated). Me too. The whole situation is a damned shame, honest it is.
But Wikipedia isn't the forum to discuss it this way (talk pages aside). Phiwum 19:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I remember that when Louis Theroux interviewed their mum he suggested that they were being exploited. One could point this out without giving any real opinion. (The Next Biggish Thing 19:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)).

Perhaps, but why would Theroux's opinion matter? Is he an expert on child exploitation? Or is this comment of his important for some reason? Seems to me that we would add this comment only so that we could include an allegation that the kids are being exploited. While that might make us feel better, it doesn't seem to improve the article. Phiwum 20:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I was only pointing it out as an option. Personally I would agree that since there has been no real high profile accusations of exploitation there is little reason to include the fact that some people believe that.(The Next Biggish Thing 18:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC))
"Much of the hatred directed towards these girls should be redirected at their relatives, who have provided an environment in which they have been so thoroughly corrupted.". Ofcourse putting something about this is against Wikipedia policies, like other users have said, but why do you hate them for hating others? For hating them, you are no better than them, especially since your only motive to hate them is because they hate others.
--The Mad Bomber (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Huh? You have some curious ideas about hatred and hypocrisy, but I guess that this isn't the appropriate forum to discuss them. Phiwum 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying, hating someone who hates others because they hate others makes you no better than them. I don't hate either party, if Prussian Blue wants to sing about their heritage or whatever, let them do it. The allies fought against the Nazis to keep freedom and democracy, which should be free to everyone, even Nazis.
--The Mad Bomber (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV means reporting published opinion; it doesn't mean refraining from stating the bleeding obvious just because it's negative! Neutral, not neutered. Are you sure there's no mention of exploitation of these girls anywhere in the media? I find that hard to believe. Theroux's line of questioning would be a start. --kingboyk 15:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust

Hipocrite, I don't mind if you want to put in a direct reference to 'Holocaust' denial. But, could be make it less strong? I'm having a hard time keeping this article free of vandalism, and really don't want an article about a band to turn into a debate about the holocaust. Isn't the Holocaust page a better place for that discussion? Also, Why do you keep deleting the sentence "However, most of the songs on the second album lack the racial and nationalist overtones and are about more mainstream subject matter, like boys, crushes, and dating."? That is factual. - A. 02:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually took a look at this and found that there's already a page about Holocaust denial. So maybe we could put something like "A demonstration of Holocaust denial." and link it back to that article. That would hopefully prevent us from having to do vandalism revision edits related to that subject and instead let more knowledgable people following that article do it. I think you're inviting problems though talking about the views of historians and scientists about that subject in this article about a band. - A. 04:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to speak for Hipocrite, but I don't think talking about the views of historians and scientists in this article is problematic at all. When the band makes claims about Zyklon B and such, they are engaging in pseudoscience. The relevant section of WP:NPOV on pseudoscience states: "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." When a band engages in pseudoscience, it must be treated as such on wikipedia, regardless of the fact that these people are musicians.
The case for this is especially strong on this page because this band is notable in large part because it is a Neo-Nazi band. --Pierremenard 16:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Consensus was reached on my version in late November. It was removed by a now-banned user and an admitted neo-nazi. "Inviting trouble" is not a reason to remove neutral, verifiable, sourced, accurate facts from the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying the subject should be avoided because it invites trouble. I'm just saying that the there are better places in wikipedia for that content. I think it's sufficient to just say it's Holocaust denial on this page and leave it at that with out the pseudo-science qualifiers which are already greatly detailed on the Holocaust denail page which would be linked to. - A. 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree firmly with Hipocrite and Pierre; Prussian Blue have made extremely controversial claims regarding the Holocaust. They have put themselves squarely in the path of public criticism; one can only assume they chose to. That public criticism must be reflected here in order to convey to the reader an encyclopedic, multifaceted understanding of the subject matter. Cheers, Kasreyn 00:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Compared to some of the heated debate here, this seems trivial. In the sentence "the number of diseased must have been far lower," is the word "diseased" a mistype/spellchecker error? I expected the word "deceased." I saw one version of that sentence where someone had changed it to "slain," but that seems pejorative. I couldn't change it since the article is (semi?) locked, but I was hoping that this is a simple something that someone would edit in. Zoltronzaf 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think some put "diseased" in on purpose. I'll change it to "deceased" then, and see what other users think about that change. Acalamari 19:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I've put in "those who were killed." Acalamari 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
How about "victims"? I think that's the most widely-used term to describe anyone who suffered from or was targeted by a criminal act. Or are we discussing solely those Holocaust victims who died? Kasreyn 23:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we're referring to the dead only. Acalamari 23:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate rebuttal of remark

"they also stated: "There is also the discussion of the lack of "Prussian Blue" coloring (Zyklon B residue) in the so-called gas chambers ... The absence of prussian blue deposits in the execution chambers, however, is to be expected, as it is not an endproduct of Zyklon-B under expected conditions. [2]"

- I don't know whether its technically POV or not, but it seems completely wrong in a midst of a very brief summary of these girls' opinions on matters which they don't hold themselves out as experts, to make a factual rebuttal.

Rebutting a statement might be proportionate in the context of a person who has/claims certain credentials (David Irving, say) or on a page about someone who is primarily famous for making certain claims (David Icke), but not in this context. A link to a page that does deal with the issue (Holocaust denial) would be appropriate, but a comment going behind the statement and dealing with the *accuracy* of the claim, is on this page, completely superfluous, and therefore looks to be pushing a point. It's not as if you can do justice to the Zyklon-B controversy in a *single sentence*, highly contrived as the whole Holocaust denial exercise may be.

I think this is a point of general application. All sorts of famous / slightly notable people make ridulous and/or offensive factual claims. In most cases it can't be right to provide *evidence* in rebuttal of (or indeed for) these claims on the page supposed to be about the person in question. For the 'controversy' will usually be (i) some ongoing slanging match, in which case there will be a seperate page providing a proper analysis of the debate (this is the case here), or else (ii) it will be an isolated mad claim: eg some dictator saying that gay people have a propensity to commit treason, in which case no rebuttal is going to add anything. Only in the rare case where someone makes a unique and vaguely credible sounding claim might a discussion as to its accuracy be helpful to a reader. --80.42.209.151 22:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC) (Dan)

I can see where you're going. This was somewhat jarring to me as well, though I can appreciate the reasons for it. I'll try to rewrite it slightly, let me know what you think. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Hm. The band, unlike most other famous people, is known primarily (if not exclusively) for their neo-nazi beliefs. As such, I believe that any tidbits of information, if relevant to their neo-nazi beliefs, should be considered important for inclusion in the article.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, nevertheless the format "X said this, they are wrong" is a somewhat unusual Wikipedia style. I'll try to reword it a bit. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Self-identification, white nationalist/white supremacist

The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) guideline says:

When naming an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations use[.]

That is, of course, just a guideline and it deals with article names at that so it doesn't strictly apply here. But I thought I'd throw this out and see what people think. As far as I can ascertain this Prussian Blue duo doesn't self-identify as "white supremacist" but they are associated with a group that self-identifies as "white nationalist". None of their statements quoted in the article, absurd though they are, establish that they believe in the superiority of the white race.

I just thought I'd throw this out to test the water. I don't feel strongly about this and if someone reverts then I won't revert back. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

controversial move to go on tour?

They appeared in an article in The Sun on October 28, 2005, commenting about the controversial move to go on tour the week of Rosa Parks' death.

I am really confused by this sentence. Were they scheduled to tour and controversy arose when they continued with these plans despite Parks's death four days prior? (In which case, that's silly, since it's not like they're going to have any respect whatsoever for Rosa Parks) Or did they spontaneously decide to tour after her death to.. I dunno, celebrate? Can someone clarify? -VJ 05:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked the link to The Sun and it doesn't mention Parks at all. What's up with this sentence? -Willmcw 07:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Meh, whatever - good call removing it. -VJ 21:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The link to the Prussian Blue Forum is dead.

http://www.officialprussianblue.net/forums/index.php

My guess is it came under attack by Trolls... T ConX 00:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The forum is back, I tried to add it back to the article, but an administrator reverted the change

as "commercial spam".

It may be called "official", but the lead entry in our external links list has a "forum" link, which goes to http://prussianbluefan.blogspot.com/ instead. Perhaps "officialprussianblue" wasn't as "official" as it purported. Since the blog is linked from the lead source we probably don't need to link to it as well. If "officialprussianblue" doesn't return shortly we should at least comment it out. -Willmcw 04:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The 70.171.51.39 edit was me, auto-logout dropped my uid. I find these types of articles are interesting to edit. I'm trying to get better at NPoV's. Sorry Willmcw and all - I didn't see the form link discussion before I deleted the link. Feel free to add it back in, anyone. - A. 20:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"under attack by Trolls" - ironic statement of the day --220.101.28.139 03:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it was parody? I'm pretty sure it was a legitimate interview. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm an idiot if I am. M.C. Brown Shoes 22:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure. It was also posted to the Anti-Prussian Blue blog (where I first saw it). There it was noted to be a parody in the comments section. No worries, Something Awful deliberately makes it hard to tell that their content is fictional. The main joke behind the comedy site is to see how many people they can get to take their posts as fact. If you really think about it, it has some holes. For example, with all the very violent and graphic death and rape threats the girls have been getting from people who oppose their views, the girl's mother probably would let them go "out for ice cream" and an interview with some random old guy that runs a weird website. - A. 23:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

White Supremacism

Before making a white supremacism allegation in the article, please provide hyperlink to a statement where the girl identify themselves as such on the talk page. Otherwise, this is really just rumor or personal POV. - A. 05:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wearing the Hitler smiley t-shirts, and dancing around the swastika for a performance in front of the camera is clearly white supremacist. --Gramaic | Talk 08:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Why not just say "neo-Nazi" then? I wonder if "white supremacist" adds any information for the reader. The t-shirts are already prominent and I suspect most people will think of "white nationalist" as being "what white supremacists call themselves" anyhow.
The fact of the matter is, no matter what someone self-identifies as, they can be wrong. I can walk around and tell people that I am from Mars, but the fact is I am not. Therefore, no matter how much I might "self claim" to be a Martian, it's not true. If they hold ideals in their songs that illustrate or promote what is generally accepted as white supremacist ideals and suppositions, then they are white supremacists, regardless of how much they may claim to the contrary (or not claim at all). It is quite possible for them to claim not to be, in order to defer some of the flack they receive from critics. You have to look at their motives, and why they call themselves what they call themselves. To simply assume that their motives for what they identify themselves as, are pure, is bloody naïve and also very ignorant. Chewbacca1010 08:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
And note the lead of Al-Qaeda. The first paragraph says "Al-Qaeda ... is the name given to an international Islamic fundamentalist campaign..." and the second one says "Many people regard Al-Qaeda to be a terrorist organization..." The idea seems to be that because they don't self-identify as terrorists we shouldn't categorically say that they are (or some such).
But as I said above I don't feel strongly about this and I'm not going to revert over it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
not everyone thinks al-qaeda is a terrorist group... -- Cannibalicious!

Again, I think "racist white nationalist" is a bit like "black African-American". If those people self-identified with some misleading or cryptic name ("dialectical neo-Catoism" or something) then I'd understand the need to clear things up for the average reader. But, honestly, "white nationalism"? That doesn't exactly evoke warm and fuzzy fealings, does it? It seems like a perfectly good descriptive name for the ideology in question - if they want to self-identify like that I say we let them. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What about white south africans in america? :p -- Cannibalicious!
I agree. "Racist" is redundant. I have no strong feelings on its inclusion since it's a self-identification. On this-ism vs. that-ism, I think it's important that wikipedia not identify people in ways that they do not self-identify. If someone isn't being honest, we can include it in a sourced context. For example, "The ADL and SPLC consider the group to be white supremacist." (They don't - ADL and SPLC never said that. But, it's a good hypothetical example.) I think this is particularly important when dealing with very negative labels like "White Nationalist" or "White Supremacist". I'm neither, and certainly wouldn't want to find myself labeled as either of the two in wikipedia. Also, there's clearly a difference between the two, with supremacist being much worse. - A. 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
If they self-identify as racists then calling them racists is fine. In any case I think I've basically said my piece here. I've corrected the Norse mythology references that originally attracted my attention and I know nothing about this duo so I'm taking the page of my watchlist for now. I wish you all good luck in trying to keep it factual and unvandalized. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"I think this is particularly important when dealing with very negative labels like "White Nationalist" or "White Supremacist". I'm neither, and certainly wouldn't want to find myself labeled as either of the two in wikipedia. Also, there's clearly a difference between the two, with supremacist being much worse."---Why is the view that the White race is the most advanced race, an immoral view, if the FACTS back it up?!

The problem is, the facts don't back it up. Eugenics has been so thoroughly discredited that the descendants of those who believed in it won't even admit that their ancestors believed in it, for shame. The vast majority of scientists, to my knowledge, are in agreement that white supremacy was never scientifically proven. The natural response of white supremacists, of course, has been to claim that there is some sort of vast conspiracy to cover up the facts. Extremist fringe groups always prefer to cling to delusions of persecution rather than face the truth.
Besides, how can physical facts prove moral superiority? Shaquille O'Neil is probably physically superior to me in most regards, but does this make him morally superior? If we had a scientific method for determining who was more moral than someone else, don't you think we'd be using it in every police department throughout the land? Patent nonsense. -Kasreyn 12:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Shaquille O'Neil is a reserve police officer, so to say he is devoid of morals would be incorrect.Jasontheperson 04:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Precisely my point: nothing can be determined about his morality if all you know about him is his ethnicity. Kasreyn 09:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I cut the sections on "Positive Response" and "Negative Response" due to the lack of support for various statements made.

Regarding statements made in the "Positive Response" section: I see absolutely no objective evidence that Prussian Blue has developed a "strong following" or has had any objectively measurable success. Those claims come entirely from their mother/manager, and the intent of this statement seems to me to be promotional. Wikipedia should be about verifable facts, not about promotion or publicity.

Regarding statements made in the "Negative Response" section: Though it is certainly true and verifiable that the group has received a great deal of criticism and condemnation, and that certain venues refuse to carry or promote their music, it is not accurate to call this "censorship". Censorship implies that the group is being silenced and that their rights are being violated-- which in fact they are not. Please bear in mind that music purveyors such as My Space, web hosts who provide server space or or organizations that provide space to publicize one's work *also* have certain first amendment rights-- which include the right to maintain terms of service agreements, as well as the right to delete the memberships of individuals who do not comply with those terms of service. Being banned from My Space is not an example of censorship. The opinion of the person who wrote this section may differ of course, but the claim is not legally accuarte, and is not appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia entry.

Finally, I see no reliable evidence that any serious threats have been made toward this group beyond the usual rudeness that one might expect. Its all he said she said. If there was an actual event reported by a reliable and impartial news agency it would be appropriate for inclusion, but such is not the case. Once again, this claim comes entirely from the group itself, and seems like a sensational attempt to get attention rather than a reliable reporting of fact. This sort of rumor-mongering does not belong in Wikipedia.

Death threats and rape threats where actually edited into the wikipedia article. That's hardly a rumor. Anti-racists are some of the most violent people I've ever had the misfortune to encounter on-line. That said, I don't think the content is important enough to me for me to do a reversion. Please sign your comments with four tildes. - A. 14:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Rumors, unsupported allegations, generalizations, and name-calling are not appropriate for this kind of article. How anyone can be "violent" online anyway? They can insult you, say nasty things, otr make you angry. None of this is actionable. A real credible threat has to have something else besides rudeness behind it. If you can reference a reliable news article that verifies that there has ever been a real credible threat to Prussian Blue, fine. All I see in these allegations are people not getting along and showing bad manners and poor restraint-- which is a very different thing. Please bear in mind that there are people out there who would consider some of Prussian Blue statements and their overt racism to be actionable hate crimes. I don't support that view myself, but you know what they say about people in glass houses. 38.2.108.125 15:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Please bear in mind that there are people out there who would consider some of Prussian Blue statements and their overt racism to be actionable hate crimes."---By their own logic, these people are then guilty of anti-White hate crimes, since the entire "anti-racist" FRAUD of a movement is nothing but hate against White people, due to its utter exclusion and lack of attention on non-White views.

This sounds like an extreme, hysterical, and illogical reaction, typical of the white separatist argument. Anti-racists are against racism, they are not "anti-white". Among other things you are assuming that there is one white point of view. The standard of what constitutes a "hate crime" is very high for a good reason. Please sign your posts with four tildas. 38.2.108.125 14:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Racial Themes in Second Album

OK, I've reworded the sentence for more clarity/information. As for citation, in my request I meant on the talk page , not in the article (not a custom to give links to reviews from the text, I believe). By the way, I think the percentage of songs with racial/white nationalist themes is 33% not 25% (3/9) [1]. --Pierremenard 04:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a violation of WP:NOR. Evaluating the content of their lyrics is beyond the scope of an editor. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
No evaluation is taking place. The above link is a review of the album which states, "There are three original songs on the CD that have a subtle nationalist tone." (the CD has 9 songs) --Pierremenard 04:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
However, describing the link you gave as "not-reputable" is within the scope of an editor. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Good point. Although the fact in question - what percentage of songs have neo-nazi overtones - is not one I would expect the neo-nazi site in question to either overestimate or underestimate, you are right that using a neo-nazi website as a source for anything is unacceptable. I've correspondingly reverted the article to cut out the sentence being discussed here. --Pierremenard
I asked you guys multiple times to go read the lyrics posted to the band's web site. Why won't you do that? One of the songs is an instrumental, how can that be racist? I'm going to take this page off my watchlist. I was intrested to see if the NPOV could be maintained and vandalism kept out of the article. After a month of trying, I'm convinced it can't. - A. 05:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Because as Hipocrite pointed out, evaluating lyrics is original research. You have asked us to do something which is outside the scope of an editor, which is why I did not do it. --Pierremenard 07:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope your comment - "I was intrested to see if the NPOV could be maintained and vandalism kept out of the article. After a month of trying, I'm convinced it can't" - did not refer to edits currently under discussion. Calling the contributions of other editors "vandalism" is a blatant violation of WP:AGF --Pierremenard 07:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that the edits are vandalism. But, I think you're voilating WP:AGF. What evidence have either of you presented that the statement is not fact? Since it's already in the article, and has been for a long time, I think the burden is upon you to disprove it. It seems to me personal perseptions of anti-racism are being used to structure the article in a way that makes the band looks bad. Who cares how the band looks? They're not that popular. Why not just let it be facts only? Of the four song lyrics that are posted to the band's website, none are racist and one is instrumental. 5/9, is that not a majority? - A. 09:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
WP:AGF does not prevent the deletion of edits that are not well sourced! In fact, WP:AGF plainly states, "Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do." --Pierremenard 18:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"Since it's already in the article, and has been for a long time, I think the burden is upon you to disprove it." This is exactly wrong. WP:CITE states: "any edit that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." --Pierremenard 18:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
As for reliability, WP:RS states: "editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly." This directly applies here: national vanguard is not being used as a primary source about its own beliefs/practicies, but rather for a review of a band's work. --Pierremenard 18:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"Of the four song lyrics that are posted to the band's website, none are racist..." This statement is original research on your part. As such, it cannot make its way into the article. --Pierremenard 18:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"Who cares how the band looks? ...Why not just let it be facts only?" I agree with this sentiment 100%. However, every bit of information in the article must be well sourced, and must in no way be original research. I've explained how the relevant edits on my part have attempted to follow wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Pierremenard 18:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Please think carefully before accusing anyone of "vandalism" if they make edits you don't happen to agree with. This could be seen as inflammatory. A., I think your intentions are good, but you ar completely off base on this point.


2005 Kern County Honor Choir

I cannot find a single reliable source that verifies that Lynx took part in the 2005 Kern County Honor Choir. I do not feel strongly enough about this point to delete the item, but should unverified/unverifiable information be included in the article, and/or can someone provide a source (other than the groups own mother/publicist) that verifies that this information is actually true? Otherwise it just comes across as "publicity". 38.2.108.125 13:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Can this item be removed as per WP:CITE "any edit that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor"? Unless someone can provide a reliable source for this item, I think it should be removed. It is not documented, and removing an item that is not documented should not be called vandalism. As a gesture of good faith, I won't remove until people have had a chance to respond, but if nobody can provide a reliable source, I will edit. 38.2.108.125 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking through the history, I note that this was added to the article by an anonymous editor (70.171.51.39), who justified it with "included info from bio on offical site." Therefore, no source other than the group itself is likely to be available for this assertion. Further, a google search finds nothing verifying this assertion.
WP:RS states that in some cases one may use a personal website as a source for information about the owner of that website: "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial" (emphasis mine),
Since the personal website is the sole source for this statement, it seems to me you are right in suggesting it ought to be removed, which I have done. I will re-insert if anyone comes up with another source. --Pierremenard 06:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
IIRC, in the interview they were in on ABC's "Primetime," the propgram said that they did perform in the Kern Country Fair, but I don't remember hearing that they won any type of awards. --Gramaic | Talk 08:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Right - the telegraph story (contains some details on that. But this choir thing is something completely different. --Pierremenard
I will add a few things to this: First, The Kern County Honor Choir is a choir for which one must audition; it is not however an "award" in any proper sense of the word, and taking part in it does not necessary constitute an unusual distinction. Its just a student activity, much like being in a school play. I have found no evidence that Lamb or Lynx sang with this choir, but in my opinion it does not belong in a Wikipedia article. This is Wikipedia after all, not a school yearbook. If this is the sort of thing that Wikipedia is going to include, well hey, I have a niece who was chosen to play a flying monkey in her school's performance of the Wizard of Oz, a very great honor. Don't get me started. Secondly, mentioning it in this context and fluffing it up as an "award" falsely implies that the "award" was conferred in recognition of or as validation of the girls' performances as Prussian Blue. Even if one of them did perform with the choir, for which we have no reliable source, this is highly unlikely to be true. The information is unverifiable, and irrelevant. 71.243.120.96 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Links?

I see no good reason why the anti-PB forum should be deleted. Its topical and provides balance. 71.243.120.96 22:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. Blogs are not reliable sources and all links do is serve to publicise them. Read WP:EL. --GraemeL (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I am fine with that as long as PB's "fan" forum is also not linked. A blog is a blog, a forum is a forum. But I have noticed that you have also deleted relevant pieces that criticize the group and provide the reader with a better understanding of what this group's ideas are. For example, the link to Lamb's call in the KERN radio station. For the sake of balance, and because this particular link is straight from the horse's mouth, I think this link should be restored. 38.2.108.125 13:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Deleting this link because of an "external program" needed strikes me as lame and not really in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Playing an MP3 only requires an MP3 player, which most people have. Any MP3 player works. You don't need to download a specific one. If the site required a specific program, I would agree, but this really is not the case here. Using this logic we would have to remove links to any website that uses shockwave or displays images. My opinion. 38.2.108.125 13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
If you read the link I supplied above, you will see that sites that require shockwave are not acceptable either. --GraemeL (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of linking to commercial site or to "my own webpage" on my talk page. That is NOT what I have done,a nd I feel that accusation is out of line. I think we have a legitimate disagreement. I also feel that the link to a talk program which Lamb Lynx made a call to discussing her thoughts about white separatism is highly relevant to this page. I have read the link above, and I do not believe that it says anything about forbidding links to MP3s. I would like to hear other opinions before I reinsert the link. 38.2.108.125 19:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not so Minor edit

I placed a pronunciation in the article only because I've seen and heard more that one pron/spelling. I've seen at least two articles spelling the name GEDDES. The official website does spell it as it appears in WP. Avsn 04:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)avsn

After consultation and clarification from an email sent to the contact on the official website: GAY-DE was modified to GAY-DEE.

Response to email: It's Dutch, Gay-dee, it means street. Prussian Blue www.nationalvanguard.org www.stormfront.org Email sent: > Is the girls family name pronounced GAY DEE or GEH DE? and for that matter is there an unwritten S (GEH DES or GAY DEEZ)on the end? I've seen more than one spelling and heard more than one pronunciation. please clairify.

All text included, linespacing edited only. Avsn 00:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I know IPA is a universal standard, but IPA doesn't always show up properly in all browsers. The plaintext pronunciation should be kept. I am not objecting to the IPA, I just think we need to keep clairity of information. Avsn 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dresden Gaede

I noticed that someone added that Lamb and Lynx have a little sister named Dresden, and that this was deleted as not being sourced. This actually is well-sourced, and not just on racist blog sites. The Guardian mentions it in a recent article http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,,1693062,00.html, and I am pretty sure that several other news sites have mentioned it. Its not the most important factoid, but since it is only a matter of time before April Gaede starts pushing her third well-indoctrinated daughter into the racist limelight, we might as well document it. I think the "Ideology" section, where other family members are mentioned, would be the appropriate context to mention the younger sister. 38.2.108.125 21:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that it's (somewhat) notable that we mention the fact that Dresden exists (mostly due to what her name says about her parents' beliefs), but I should point out it's very important not to make any unsupported claims about Dresden or how she's being raised. One short sentence should do. Kasreyn 09:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Even babies are not immune from the hate of the anti-racist fanatic.Overthrow 06:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any intention to do contructive work on this article, or is your only purpose here to continue making offensive comments such as that one? This is not a discussion forum, a soapbox, or a political debate. Kasreyn 09:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dresden's last name is actually Neufeldt, not Gaede. Her father's name is Mark, April's live-in boyfriend. BlondeVikingPrincess November 17, 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Dresden's last name is Harrington, not Neufeldt. Mark Harrington had taken the name Neufeldt as an alias because he is a public school teacher and does not want the parents of his students to know his Neo-Nazi political leanings.

Ancestory

Are they actually 'Prussian' or is this just a gimmick to gain credibility in the neo-Nazi underground?TurnerDrankHooch 00:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Part of the girls heritage is Prussian. Refer to the External Links, Grapevine interview. Avsn 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


The point has been made before that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a links farm. I have deleted the plethora of "fan" links which serve no informative purpose. They are promotional sites and not appropriate for Wikipedia. 38.2.108.125 15:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting these edits. If you have something to discuss, discuss it. 38.2.108.125 15:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This story is unusual and newsworthy enough that readers wishing to know more (or confirm it for themselves) would likely find these links helpful and encyclopedic. I don't view these as promotional links. Wyss 15:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
They are not encyclopedic, they are personal fan sites and blogs. Wikipedia has a policy against link farming in general-- it is not a web directory. Blogs in particular are not reliable sources and all links do is serve to publicise them. Please read WP:EL. 38.2.108.125 15:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
IMHO you are mistaken when you equate "link farming" with appropriately handled and relevant links, whatever their description. Wyss 16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


I think you are wrong, you are insistant that you delete them because they are "fan links". Well, only one is, the forum, blog are their own sites and the Dresden blog is their younger sisters blog - related, not fan sites - so, I have put them back, Although, I would accept an independent group of moderators opinions on this.
I feel your behaviour (namely this tit for tate reverting) is in very bad form and ignores Wikipedia's policies about not turning articles into web directories. Please read WP:EL. Blogs are not encyclopedic. They are PERSONAL sites. They don't belong here. I think we should leave them off (which would be more in keeping with Wikipedia's style) pending feedback from others. 38.2.108.125 13:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you're misinterpreting WP policy on that. So far as tit for tat and consensus goes, you seem to be the only one who keeps deleting them. Wyss 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Look you are clearly conducting a revert war here in complete violation of Wiki policy. Did you even read the policy on external links? Can you say anything else besides that you do not agree? READ THE POLICY. What part of "Wikipedia is not a web directory" is not clear? These are FAN links and PERSONAL links. They don't contribute anything substantial to the article-- they are merely promotion. 38.2.108.125 19:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Look at the page history. I'm not the only one who has been putting them back. If the consensus was for deleting them I wouldn't care but several editors think they're more than spam. Also please note that these bloggy sites are not being used as source material or citations for the article, which is what WP policy addresses. Wyss 19:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Added http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3519478:fid=11324/ to Ideology section. This is just one of many articles but it is in english and WP users who speak english can get to other related articles.Avsn 01:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Prussian Blue is not mentioned in that linked article. Also see below. Wyss 01:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the article had to mention Prussion Blue. I was trying to be helpful by giving a link to the controversial materiel. Guess it backfired Avsn 02:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The link was offered in the format of a citation supporting a claim that the girls said jp "did the right thing" by publishing the cartoons and moreover, you replaced (deleted) a request for a citation backing up the alleged quote. By doing this, you (unwittingly or otherwise) gave readers the impression that this (dubious) quote was verified and documented in a reliable source. Wyss 02:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote no longer in doubt, it never happened. Following is my exchange with the official contact via the Prussian Blue website:

We've never even seen the cartoon. You know wikipedia is a peer-edited blog, basically. Not a source of credible information.

Prussian Blue www.nationalvanguard.org www.stormfront.org


--- AVSN@aol.com wrote:

> This quote regarding Prussian Blue was in Wikipedia > for a short time. It > was removed as being unverifiable. > > "They praised the Danish publishing company Jyllands-Posten > over the Cartoon controversy stating they "did the right thing" > on February 1 2006." > > Is this true or a falsely attributed item? > > AVSN

(This it the bulk of the email, extrainia (adtext)removed.)

So this should settle the question. They never said anything apparently. Also note that I am not saying that WP is a blog, the answer from PB official contact is. Avsn 19:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

They're right in the sense that Wikipedia can be like a blog when editors don't stick to encyclopedic standards, btw. Thanks for contacting them, I was rather sure the quote was bogus the moment I saw it, for sundry reasons. Wyss 19:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

PB endorsement of cartoons not verified

Prussian Blue is not mentioned in the article cited in the text below, which I have placed here pending verification. Wyss 01:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed text:

They praised the Danish publishing company Jyllands-Posten over the Cartoon controversy, stating they "did the right thing" on February 1, 2006[2] .

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prussian_Blue_(duo)/Archive_3&oldid=1137102342"