Talk:Prussian Blue (American duo)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Stuff to add/remove when the article is no longer protected
2 Video Interview and News Story
3 Inclusion of the father's choice of cattle brand
4 Vandalism
5 STOP THE MADNESS!
6 Prussian Blue (United States)
7 Pictures
8 POV
9 Anti-Prussian Blue blog?

Stuff to add/remove when the article is no longer protected

Video Interview and News Story

This is a copy of the original ABC News magazine segment that drew these two girls into the national spotlight.

http://mfile.akamai.com/16688/wmv/abcondemand.download.akamai.com/16688/prem/051020ptl_hatemusic.wmv

Should this video be listed as an external link at the bottom of the article?

Inclusion of the father's choice of cattle brand

I take issue with this:

"(It should be noted that the girls' father feels it is a demonstration of the power of freedom of speech that he is allowed to use the swastika for his cattle brand.)"

I'm unclear as to why this is included; it is a demonstration of the power of freedom of speech, that's fairly obvious. He's not saying that's the reason why he registered it.

(above comment by User:64.209.125.2)

I agree, so I've gone ahead and removed it. It's not clear why it "should be noted", or what this is trying to say. --Delirium 03:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: it was later cleared up that the brand in question was that of the young ladies grandfather, not their father. Avsn 19:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I move that this page be erased! Nazis:screw you!

I share the sentiment that these stupid racists do not deserve much dignity but that's no reason to vandalize this article... Anyhow, the article should get some temporary protection to stop the vandalism. I may be missing something here but I do believe only admins can protect a page, so please admins, do. Michael Sappir 21:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This shouldn't be deleted or vandalized, the news about these folks needs to spread far and wide. The fact that racism is still alive and well in America isn't something that should be swept under the carpet. You can't fight something that you can't see. Wow, only in America 35.11.183.82 21:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the page needs protection. Plenty of experienced editors are watching it. Let's not confuse the truly sad appearance of parental exploitation and cluelessness on the girls' part with Wikipedias role as an encyclopedia. Keeping the article unlocked will permit the content to evolve and stabilize into NPoV. Wyss 21:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It needs protection because there is one anon IP consistantly reverting to their POV edits as well as other anon IP's defacing the page... no admin wants to spend all day reverting these jokers.--Isotope23 01:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If you go to http://www.officialprussianblue.net/forums/showthread.php?t=612 their supporters are making a point to keep their views on Wikipedia. I'm not a big fan of censorship...but I don't think they should be allowed to use Wikipedia for propoganda either. Couldn't an independent writer be found to create a "locked" entry for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.6.157 (talk • contribs)

Well, since this pretty much signs the death warrant for them, I guess there should be no further questions as to the intent of people who are directed here by the link posted in that thread? This, neo-nazi retards, is how Jewish media works. Hilarious. (Forgive my crude language, please. It was too funny to pass up.)
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 23:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

After browsing there forums, I came across a plot to edit the wikipedia article. http://www.officialprussianblue.net/forums/showthread.php?t=612 The Crazy Idiot 06:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems they have had to close down their message boards due to the ABC news story on them. The gist of the old message board post, was that they had a Wikipedia entry saved, which was favorable to their points of view. They asked their members to come to Wikipedia often to update their Wikipedia entry...so that the Jewish element didn't have control over their image. Their newest message board, is in fact someones blog...since ironically, their own site was vandalized by people that seemed to be upset about their racist message. http://prussianbluefan.blogspot.com/

STOP THE MADNESS!

I've referred it to 3rr. The vandal repeatedly blanked/removed supported content. Wyss 22:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

To User 170.215.171.13 - Please do not edit the record label, unless it is wrong. If it is wrong, please provide the right label. Also, you added "The ABC interview for PrimeTime was heavily edited in order to represent Prussian Blue's music as "hate." Their answers to the reporter's questions were seldom completely shown and were frequently taken out of context while wholly inappropriate images were paraded across the viewer's television screen", but on who's standards? Please add sources, as the info as it is seems biased. --Shadowolf 23:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Prussian Blue (United States)

The record company "Resistance Records" did have the right to sell a certain number of Prussian Blue's "Fragment of the Future" CDs. However, the authorized distributor of this CD and for all other Prussian Blue products is April Gaede. Resistance Records has no general franchise on Prussian Blue items for sale. Further, there is a certain distrust between Prussian Blue and Resistance Records; however, if you wish to know more about that you should contact April Gaede for information.

I am a moderator at the official Prussian Blue website. I have been a friend of Lynx and Lamb's mother for several years. Although I live in West Virginia and no longer have much personal contact with the Gaede family, I used to see them once in a while around Hillsboro.

There is something that makes me doubt your devotion to the truth. You have accepted a quote from Ted Shaw, president of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, regarding how Lynx and Lamb Gaede came by their beliefs. Ted Shaw has NO CONNECTION with Prussian Blue. Ted Shaw has NO KNOWLEDGE about Lynx and Lamb Gaede. And yet you have accepted his biased quote regarding these girls as if he were some sort of "expert."

Why?

When I changed the reference to Ted Shaw, I wrote something much more in line with what Mr. Shaw might be expected actually to know: "Some people, including Ted Shaw, president of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, believe that Lynx and Lamb have been "brainwashed" by their mother and grandfather..." I downplayed Shaw's authority on this subject BECAUSE HE HAS NONE. And yet you prefer the post in which he claims knowledge that he does not really have to my more honest account.

Why?

The article I found here at first contained a number of sexual obscenities directed at two teenage girls, plus unsubstantiated and fictitious allegations to the effect that they were whores and drug addicts. I have kept a copy of that entry for my personal records. Why was that description of Lynx and Lamb Gaede permitted on your website?

Jerry Abbott (comment by Jenab)

Because this website belongs to everybody on the Internet. Edits are not screened. That is not how Wikipedia works. People vandalized this article like they vandalize many others, and as a result the article has been temporarily protected, to avoid further vandalism. Wikipedia is not some evil organization looking for way to insult poor innocent young girls. Michael Sappir 01:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Or rather, racist young girls.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 01:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure any 13-year old can be described as a racist. Wyss 10:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to think for yourself to have an opinion, it's just more significant if your opinion is really yours and not just a family heirloom. Would you say that a 13-year-old of the Christian faith is not Christian? It's kinda the same thing. Hopefully in both cases the person will wise up as they grow up and form their own opinions. :) Michael Sappir 10:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Only for the sake of talking about it, truth be told, while I would respect it, I wouldn't accept a 13 year old's assertion of religious faith with any expectation that it had depth or lasting effect, especially if she were home schooled. With regards to racist beliefs and holocaust denial (public expression of the later being a crime which can bring time in prison here in Europe, by the way) my assumption is that when they're in their 20s they'll have vastly different views and while I don't pretend to know what those views will be, I wouldn't be surprised if it involved appearances on Larry King-type shows promoting a book about their abused childhoods or whatever. Wyss 10:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

First off, this is not "our" website. In case you are new to Wikipedia, this encyclopedic site is open for ANYBODY to edit, as you have so claimed to have already done so yourself. So in regards to the fictitious allegations - due to the extremely controversial nature of this duo, some people have vandalized this page out of anger of the band. It is not too uncommon for pages to be vandalized and they are usually done out of biased malice (whether due to their hate towards a specific political group, or some lip syncing singer like Ashlee Simpson). Wikipedia keeps an account of every edit done to every page, so no vandalization is ever permanent, because anybody can revert it back to what they deem is appropriate and unbiased. Vandalism is against Wikipedian rules, and any serious Wikipedian is strongly against it too, and will revert it back to what is appropriate.

In regards to Ted Shaw, if you feel it is biased and unnecessary information, then you can certainly bring it up here... Wikipedians will discuss if it is appropriate to keep. It may be that Ted Shaw is deemed appropriate of a person to quote, as a possibly-notable member of a civil rights activist group (I don't know him to well, as I’ve just seen his name for the first time, so I can't say) - a strong contrast of white nationalist activism. Please keep in mind - criticism is not biased information in Wikipedia, if provided from a legal or professional expert of a related subject in their field, or if expressed by a large number of people (for example, most people might agree that the latest Star Wars had quirks that a number of people will commonly agree upon). Even if what the general populace sees is in fact misunderstood, that view is deemed notable if it is largely expressed in the media. It might be wrong, but it is a popular assumption, and therefore, is deemed notable.

Due to ABC as a reliable source of information (whether you or I like it or not), Ted Shaw may be deemed notable to express an opinion, based solely on that ABC feels that he is appropriate to ask. However, to avoid the kind of bias that he may attribute as you point out, it may be a good idea to add in something alone the lines of "ABC asked Ted Shaw..." or similar, to the sentence. By this, people can judge for themselves what to accept, based on their views with ABC.

Still, the duo will not be without its criticisms, and if Ted Shaw speaks for the general population of what they feel, it may certainly be notable to keep. The article says that he adds that “the girls aren't expressing their own opinions, but ones they're being taught”, which is actually popular (and logical) assumption. If you feel there is a contrast to that view, then you are welcome to add it as a counterstatement, if it expresses another popular view.

For the label, your information can certainly be expressed. Their label is somewhat unclear and all that can be found on the Internet is a relationship to that with Resistance Records, which is, if not the bands label, is at least helping with distribution. So if Resistance is not their actual label in any sense, I think it is notable that they are one of the duo’s distributors, if not the only one. Shadowolf 01:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Abbott said > Ted Shaw does not know anyone in the Gaede family. He misdescribed the relationships within that family with falsehoods that he finds advantageous. Ted Shaw does not care whether his statement is true or false. He merely wishes it to be perceived as accurate.

In the same light, none of us knows anybody in the Gaede family. Nor do we personally know anybody who is, or related to, Bush, Schwarzeneggar, Paul McCartney, Steven Spielberg, Avril Lavigne, or Osama Bin Laden. But people will still praise or criticize their efforts, whether they are professional (Paul W.S. Anderson has a lot of fan backlash with citations that you’d wonder if they were credible), or amateur of their profession (Sean Penn going out to personally save people in New Orleans). Or Pat Tillman, for example, after he was killed in Iraq, received some criticism you would wonder if they were credible (liberal political cartoonist Ted Rall? a student, of all people, from the University of Massachusetts?).

Jerry Abbott further adds > You miss the point. It is clear that Ted Shaw had not merely given an opinionated criticism to ABC. The narrative following the quote shows that he made statements regarding the manner by which Lynx and Lamb came by their views, and the extent to which they have subjected them to examination. Ted Shaw is not in a position to know these things. His opinion of the girls' music as "garbage" is a reflection of his personal taste, and thus so much of what he said is valid criticism. But the part where he ignorantly assigns a low grade to the rigor of the girls' epistemology is invalid and should be excluded simply because Shaw does not really have the knowledge that he pretended to have.

Jerry Abbott adds > You are comparing apples with oranges. You have confused objective, informed opinions with politically motivated, uninformed opinions.

Jerry Abbott adds > When you criticize, say, a Steven Spielberg film, you first watched the film, and you formed an opinion of same having the advantage of that experience. If there were technical glitches, or deficiencies in the acting, or historical inaccuracies, you came by the knowledge of them in a valid way. By contrast, Ted Shaw issued an opinion about the relationships in the Gaede family while having no knowledge about those relationships. Your remarks ignore and neglect that difference the amount of experience (or the lack thereof) supporting the opinions in either case.

Jerry Abbott adds > Again, I say, the people in Wikipedia who enforce their version of the Prussian Blue article, with the inclusion of a quote by Ted Shaw that falsely appears to be objective and authoritative, have demonstrated that Wikipedia is a pseudo-fairplay website. The partisan comments regarding "racism," which essentially convey the "of course it's a bad thing" message, is another example of your attempts to make the "neutral point of view" seem to be where it is not.

First off, I should point out the Tim Shaw line has been removed and I have not seen it in the past couple of edit histories within, in fact, days, so my guess is that it has been deemed POV or unnecessary. For this paragraph that I'm placing here, I will just talk about the Tim Shaw-issue, in regards to what you've said above and below this paragraph:

Steven Spielberg and the likes were probably a poor example, and you bring up a good point against that. But going back to the Pat Tillman one, I believe its in the same boat. I guess the difference between the uninformed statements made against Pat Tillman and this one though, is the level of notability of the reaction they have taken within and outside the media.

Still, it should be strongly noted that what Tim Shaw said did express a popular public opinion of the duo (that they were "brainwashed" by their mother). The public also don't personally know the duo, but the impression itself could be notable enough that it could probably be noted within the article if someone wanted to put it in. To be fair though, I guess the difference between Shaw and the public stands within the "authoritive" position of who is making the quote, and this is more obvious for the reader to place his/her own standing. Still, when it comes to interacting with any media, the public opinion is the most important, afterall.

In anycase, again, the reference is gone. I should stress that I feel indifferent of the quote, and my arguments in "support" of its placement is based on my indifference of keeping it within the article or not. So, in short, I don't care much for it, nor did I really see anything too wrong with its placement personally. But it maybe that my own opinions of the duo "cloud" that judgement. Shadowolf 09:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Almost a year later, some critics have changed their opinion of him, based solely after revelations of his political thoughts. Still, although they might not have the “right” to say anything and their assumptions were actually ‘’false’’ in the first place (especially due to their obvious political standings), they have expressed it in a manner that has drawn notable controversy, or as an expression of general agreement by the public. But you see, this is why we cite sources in the first place – so that the reader can judge for him/her-self what to believe, based on their impression with ABC, NAACP, and/or Ted Shaw. Shadowolf 22:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Abbott said > ABC News knows that fully well. ABC News undermined its credibility in two ways: (1) ABC News treated Ted Shaw, who is not an authority on the relationships within the Gaede family, in a manner that conveys the false impression to the public that he is precisely this sort of authority, and (2) ABC News treated Ted Shaw's opinion on the relationships within the Gaede family as though it could be regarded as an assessment by an objective, disinterested source, whereas in truth Ted Shaw is neither objective nor disinterested in what the Gaede twins are doing. In fact, Ted Shaw should have been presumed to be hostile to the Gaedes because they are on opposite sides of a political struggle.

As I have stated earlier, “It may be that Ted Shaw is deemed appropriate of a person to quote, as a possibly-notable member of a civil rights activist group - a strong contrast of white nationalist activism.” As you say so yourself, Ted Shaw and the Gaedes are “on opposite sides of a political struggle.” Those who lean on civil rights side, may want a reference to lean on. Like in any other controversial political topics and groups (abortion, PETA, Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capital punishment, etc), you’re going to want to get both sides to formulate an educated opinion. If you want to, you are welcome to add in a counter-response to Ted Shaw’s own, if it comes from a notable source in the media (once the page is finally unprotected, of course).

everything is the media (books, newspaper, TV, the Internet, music, movies, etc), and that is the only thing you can source... simply because its a form of mass communication, and people are extremely reliant on it. Take it all away and you won't have much else, quite literally. Whether you like any of them or not, they are there to inform, however biased they may be. Like you say, there is nothing and no one in the world that is completely credible. There is no such thing as true "neutrality" of anything or anybody, although you can certainly come close. But simply put, everyone is going to unconsciously stick a little piece of their own opinion through implications within informative facts, and all it really takes is a tone of voice. But again, this is why we want to cite and link to sources - so people can make their own opinion of what to believe. People don't have to agree with any of it, but they should know what "options" are available to them to believe, however good or bad of a source they are. Shadowolf 09:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

As of now, I personally feel that Ted Shaw seems like an appropriate source of opinion, only because he is on the opposite side of the spectrum. However, I am not familiar at all with his position as the president of the Legal Defense Fund, and this is the only thing that gives me a sense of skeptism of his word. Shadowolf 22:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Abbott adds > That excuse would fly, Shadowolf, IF you had presented only Shaw's opinion that the girls' music and opinions are "garbage." That much of what Shaw said merely conveys, albeit vulgarly, his opinion that Prussian Blue's offerings are of little worth. But you did NOT stop there. You continued by repeating Ted Shaw's opinion that the girls are being brainwashed by their mother, for which opinion Ted Shaw had no supporting factual knowledge. To add that part of what Shaw said is unwarranted, since it is obviously an ignorant statement he uttered as an attempt to persuade others that April Gaede abusively exploits her children, when the fact is that she is facilitating her daughters' musical hobby.

(replied above, as I said I'll keep the issue of Shaw in its own paragraph) Shadowolf 09:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Abbott said > No one's credibility, certainly not that of a TV Network with political interests of its own, should be regarded as being some kind of natural law to which we may all refer with confidence in its immutability. ABC News's credibility rises or falls just as anyone else's does, and a news organization that resorts to tricks such as they did with Ted Shaw in relation to the Gaede family requires a downward revision in our estimate of the credibility of that news organization.

You’re right that a TV network’s word cannot be expected to be completely reliable, but again, that is why we cite our sources. The reader can judge for themselves what to believe. Due to change overtime with credibility, it is also why we should date our sources, which I notice has been failed to be pinned within this article. Hopefully, this change will be made when the article is unprotected. Shadowolf 22:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Abbott adds > Then perhaps you will also include quotes by Dr. David Duke and Edgar J. Steele? Dr. Duke is a noted politician. Mr. Steele is a noted attorney. I believe that Dr. William Pierce (a noted White nationalist leader and former physics professor) also had something to say about Lynx and Lamb while he was alive. Maybe you will consider quoting that in Wikipedia's article on Prussian Blue (American duo) as well?

Yes, if you wanted to include quotes by those people, you could, if they were appropriate to the article, with a fairly reliable source that can be traced (that's to say, a Geocities site for example, is not reliable...unless maybe its actually making a reliable citation of its own). If you have anything you could suggest and would like for review, you can certainly put it here. More or less though, I have a feeling it would express a strong opinion toward Lamb and Lynx, and might need a "counterbalance" of a quote, but this is just my prediction. Still, all kinds of additional information can always prove helpful to the article, especially with more options of articles and info to go through. Nonetheless, I personally, do have some worry that this could continue to complicate the neutral aspects of the article to some people here in the same way Tim Shaw has. But that's why it's good to look at the options and discuss what is appropriate to keep and what isn't for the article's sake. Shadowolf 09:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Also this portion was removed :

In 2003 Lamb Gaede of Prussian Blue (11 years old at the time) called the Inga Barks show on KERN News Talk 1410 MP3 of Callunder the name “Ellie Mae” to comment about the white pride flag. National Vanguard attacked KERN host Inga Barks' handling of the call while defending Lamb Gaede of Prussian Blue for using “Ellie Mae” (the name used over the air for privacy purposes) yet the National Vanguard article went on to reveal her real name.

Jerry Abbott adds > Some time in between the Inga Barks show and the publication of that National Vanguard issue, the Gaedes probably made a decision to dispense with that part of their private lives that public figures sacrifice in order to pursue public office or fame and fortune. The reason this is not an inconsistency, which whoever wrote that paragraph wishes it to be taken as, is the lapse in time (about two years) between the recording of the Inga Barks show and the publication of the National Vanguard magazine issue, in particular the decisions that were made during that time.

I’m not sure I quite understand what you’re trying to say with this portion… do you want to keep it in the article? It seems to me that the article is only stating “facts” of an event, and I honestly cannot formulate a siding opinion based on that. I don’t feel it is all to important, nor do I feel it is trivial…it may have been removed as someone felt it was unnecessary information, although that is a matter of debate. I personally don’t care if it stays or not, but others may have another opinion of this portion. Shadowolf 22:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Abbott adds > I'd appreciate it if you did not elevate ABC News to a pedestal of authority and political neutrality that it does not deserve to have. I'd approve if you did likewise with Ted Shaw and other ignorant people who express politically hostile opinions for which they have no knowledge. I'd like it if you would seek out quotes regarding Lynx and Lamb Gaede, first and foremost from the people who know them best, instead of seeking them primarily from those who have political reasons for wanting them to fail. When you include a quote by someone hostile to the girls, it would be appropriate for the adversity, and the basis for it, to be clearly identified. If you will do this, you will have my respect for being truly in compliance with your own espoused belief in the neutral point of view.

As for ABC, at its current standing, I don't seem to notice any elevation of authority, as it seems to be noted as just a source. I do agree ABC probably does not hold a politically neutral view on the duo (which is probably why they interviewed them in the first place, due to their controversial nature) and I've already expressed my beliefs on general media, but the Wiki article as it is does seem to pull out facts from the ABC source as best as it can to a neutral point. It may be that I just don't notice too much, simply based, again, on my own established beliefs that "cloud" my judgement. So, if there is any information in the article that was provided by ABC that you feel could be changed to be more neutral, do tell us. However, ABC can't be ignored as a source of information, because they are probably the main reason that bought the group to media attention in the first place, and most information was "first seen there", so to speak. If the "facts" they provided seem exaggerated in a negative light, then you can counter that with something more towards the duo's favor if you have a quote or so from a reliable source. Shadowolf 09:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Abbot you're lucky the only thing happening is the editing of a wikipedia article. If it was up to me every one of you sick fucks would have a bullet in your head.

Pictures

I feel there are too many photos in the article of this size. Two is enough for this size, I think...maybe three. I feel it's getting a little cluttered, and the two new pics of the group don't contribute as much informatively. The pic of the duo playing their instruments is good, I feel. The "Happy Hitler" shirts do express their beliefs, and clearly show what the duo looks like. The other two just show what they look like, and that's already been established in the "Happy Hitler" pic, but I think its OK to keep one of 'em anyway, probably (if it were me, I'd maybe keep the smaller one and move it up to where the bigger one is...the placement of the duo singing bothers me, because it pushes the lyrics at a uncomfortable reading level, so I'd move that to where the smaller one is at now). Shadowolf 09:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

POV

""According to an article from ABC News, the girls are homeschooled by their mother, April, an activist and writer for the National Vanguard. The article further discusses the twins' maternal grandfather, who wears a swastika belt buckle, uses the Nazi symbol on his truck and even registered it as a cattle brand. Though the family was originally located in Bakersfield, California the twins' mother has reportedly sold their home because she fears that non-Whites there may be a threat to her children.

During their ABC interview, the twins stated that 6 million Jews were not killed during the Holocaust because there were not that many Jews in existence. The two also said they believe Adolf Hitler was a good man with some great ideas, such as eugenic standards and incentives to improve the genetic quality of the German people, such as marriage loans to help qualified German families begin upon a firm financial basis. "It really breaks my heart to see those two girls spewing out that kind of garbage," said Ted Shaw, president of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund who added the girls aren't expressing their own opinions, but ones they're being taught.""

These last two paragraphs of "information" are the most POV things in the entire article. Why have they been allowed to remain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.232.247 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 25 October 2005

How are they POV?
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 00:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The transcript from ABC says:

   McFADDEN: And what's your opinion on Hitler?

   LAMB: I think that he had ... he wanted to preserve his base.

   McFADDEN: He had 6 million Jews executed.

   LAMB: I think that's an exaggeration.

   McFADDEN: You do.

   LAMB: Yes.

   LYNX: I hardly believe there are even that many Jews alive back then.

   McFADDEN: Is Hitler someone you admire or someone you don't admire? ... You think he was a great man?

   LYNX: Yeah, I think he did a lot -- he had a lot of good ideas.

End of transcript.

The article, as written is POV. Get rid of all except the factual information in the first paragraph.

Jerry Abbott adds > The reason ABC included this on Primetime was that it is inaccurate and, in fact, it is not what fully informed White nationalists say in regard to the Jewish population before and after World War 2. Lynx made a mistake by "winging it," or guessing about what the facts are without doing a thorough amount of relevant research. The question on which the "Holocaust" question depends is not the number of Jews in the world in 1940, but rather the DIFFERENCE in the combined Jewish populations of Europe and the Soviet Union before and after the war.

Jerry Abbott adds > That difference, say the Jews, is about six million. But the White nationalists claim that it is more like 300,000, and that most of those did not die in "gas chambers," but from disease (especially typhus) and from the circumstances of war generally, such as wartime massacres (similar to that carried out by US soldiers in Mei Lei, Vietnam) or collateral damage (similar to civilian deaths during the US bombing of Serbia).

Jerry Abbott again adds > Perhaps 100,000 Jews were killed by the Einsatzgruppen. The mission of the Einsatzgruppen was killing the communist political and military leaders in East Europe and the Soviet Union. The reason the Einsatzgruppen ended up killing so many Jews is that in many places Jews were the majority of the Communist leaders in the targeted areas. The USSR was established by Jewish designs, and it was a mostly Jewish-run country throughout its history, with Stalin being an abberation: a gentile who for a while beat the Jews at their own game. It is not surprising that the Jews would be represented among the Einsatzgruppen's victims in numbers disproportately high in relation to their fraction of the populations of Russia and East Europe, since the Jews had installed themselves into the leadership roles in about the same disproportionately high numbers. The idea that the Einsatzgruppen targeted Jews because of their religion is one of the many propagada lies to emerge from World War 2.

Jerry Abbott adds > The Jews produce endless streams of propaganda, both fiction (Schindler's List) and pseudofactual presentations (corrupted scholastic materials).

Jerry Abbott adds > The White nationalists show instances in which the Holocaust story has changed over time, instances of photographic fraud perpetrated by Jews, instances of testimony from Jews known to be inconsistent with (1) other testimony by that same Jew, (2) testimony by other persons regarding the same alleged body of facts, (3) physical evidence or verifiable facts, (4) the laws of nature.

Jerry Abbott adds > The very name of the Prussian Blue band is an obscure reference to an inconsistency between the Jewish Holocaust tale and the chemical reactivity of iron compounds native to red brick with hydrocyanic acid, which forms when hydrogen cyanide (the gas that the Jews claim the Nazis used to exterminate them) condenses on walls. Precisely this reaction took place within the bricks of the delousing facility at Auschwitz, though for reasons of its size nobody is claiming that this building was an extermination facility.

Neurotic_poet (preceding unsigned comment by 64.160.204.72 (talk · contribs) 19:33, 25 October 2005)

If only the first few paragraphs of this article existed I would nominate it for AfD (yes, I know it is already on AfD) because Prussian Blue is in no way notable for their music. If it wasn't for their ABC appearance, they would be one of the dozens of non-notable bands that don't meet WP:MUSIC and go to AfD every day. Those last 2 paragraphs are really all that justify this article's existance.--Isotope23 21:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The only thing that really strikes me as POV is the Ted Shaw quote. 142.162.204.177 01:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article as of now is not saying it supports Ted Shaw's statement, merely, this is what Ted Shaw said. That is not POV.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 01:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I too am curious as to how those two paragraphs are POV. I haven't seen the ABC interview, so am interested to know if the girls didn't really deny the holcaust, or praise Hitler for (apparently not) killing people. Though, in my opinion, I can see how the facts about the swastika brand and such might seem POV, seeing as they make the family look bad. Accursed facts! His brand must be a Jewish conspiracy! But seriously, If anyone has some links on what the girls actually said in this interview, I'd be interested.

Jerry Abbott said > The ABC Interview with Lynx & Lamb Gaede went on for quite some time, much longer than the total footage with the girls that was included in the Primetime show. The rest remains on file in ABC's archive folder on the Gaede family, available to be exploited at any time the Jews who run ABC see some advantage in doing so. The Gaedes violated a standard rule for protecting yourself from the Jewish media, namely: Never give them an interview unless you can simultaneously record everything that they do. That way, if they take you out of context, you can at least go on the internet and set the record straight. If they won't agree to simultaneous filming, then do not give them an interview.

Truth be told, whoever handles their public statements is no Joseph Goebbels. Anyone with a lick of marketing sense knows one doesn't go on a national television network and say the Holocaust didn't happen without expecting a big, docking negative reaction (never mind that the Holocaust did happen) and yeah, broadcast interviews are more often than no edited to shreds but the girls said what they said regardless and Holocaust denial is codswallop. Wyss 15:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Abbott adds > No, you are wrong. The Holocaust is largely a myth, especially insofar as it alleges that six million Jews (plus six million more gypsies, homosexuals, and others) passed through several buildings during three years of WW2 to be killed by hydrogen cyanide gas. When you visit most of these alleged extermination facilities, the first thing you notice is that they are not gas chambers - they aren't built correctly for use as gas chambers. However, if you say as much while you are on your tour of Auschwitz, you might be arrested by the German police for denying the Holocaust. When you think back over history with an ambition to discover whether truth or lies more often receives legal protection from denial or doubt, what is it that you learn? When you contemplate whether a number of people equal in size to the present population of the state of Florida was herded into a few scattered buildings and gassed to death, and thereafter cremated, especially when bullets and trenches can get the job done quicker and cheaper, then you understand why many people doubt the Holocaust tale from the moment they first hear it. Tremendous social pressure, and even the force of law, is required to achieve the necessary suspension of disbelief on the part of the public. And that's why the Jews have arranged for laws, in Europe and in Canada, which presumptively (and falsely) declare that the Holocaust is a historical fact and attach penalties to expressions of dissent.

I am tempted to simply say something along the lines of "please learn to properly sign comments and then drop dead, bastard" but I won't.

I don't suppose you've actually met any Holocaust survivors, eh? Well I happen to have met quite a few and talked with them, the fact thay my grandmother was one notwithstanding (she died of cancer long before I was born). I have seen the tattoos they wear as a permanent mark of their dehumanization and I have seen their rage and their tears at what they have suffered. Sure, you can always chalk stuff up to crazy conspiracies, but you can also wake up and realize that sometimes reality bites and in reality, the "Aryan master race" that I'm guessing you so adore is capable of just as much atrocity as I assume your dream world attributes to the "evil Jewish race", if not far more. True, conspiracy theories are not wrong by definition, but a remotely reasonable and well-informed person will realize that the kind of conspiracy posited by Holocaust-deniers is not likely, by a long shot.

As to German restrictions on Neo-Nazism and Holocaust-denial, there are several good reasons for this. First of all, the sentiment in today's Germany from what I have gathered is that Germany was a victim of Nazism along with those Hitler's regime actually had killed. It is considered a dark chapter in German history that people want nothing to do with. As a result, the German public is very anxious about anything that may indicate a return to that horrific period. Another thing which concerns me directly but is only a feeling of mine is that Germany wants to be as anti-Nazi as possible to be able to have normal relations with the rest of the world and Israel in particular. Many Israelis today are still very distrustful of Germany and half-expect the Nazis to resurface there and have another stab at that New World Order of theirs, and I am told this kind of thinking is found even in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe. I do not share that sentiment specifically because I have been to Germany and because I know how anti-Nazi the public and the government there are. Making absolutely sure Fascism does not take hold of Germany again is absolutely necessary to create and maintain peace and trust with other nations.

I really don't know why I bother to argue with people like you though... If you've come to the conclusions you display here you're obviously a very ignorant and incredibly paranoid individual. I simply felt some things had to be said here I guess.

Michael Sappir 19:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Abbott returns: And the partisan nature of those having the most control over the content of the Prussian Blue (American duo) article stands therewith revealed. An opinion about the nature of evidence is not evidence. A display of intense feeling regarding evidence is not evidence. Repeated references to alleged evidence is not evidence. An assertion that the weight of evidence is on your side is not evidence. No one who really understands neutrality is confused about the difference between evidence and what is not evidence.

Miborovsky returns: If Wikipedia is Jewmedia, why on earth are you here? You should know better than to mess with Jews on their home turf, right? *roll eyes*
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 23:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Prussian Blue blog?

Just wondering why it was removed.

I know on the official forums there is:

(QUOTE)

I changed it to a form more favorable to Prussian Blue and more in accordance with the facts. I got rid of all the obscenities. I deleted a gratuitous link to the anti-Prussian Blue Blog and replaced it with a link to the official Prussian Blue Blog. I also added links for this forum and to my Prussian Blue fan page. I added a link, also, to the music segment I made of PB's chorus from The Stranger.

)END(

Doesn't seem like the reason it was removed was exactly NPOV.

Jerry Abbott said > The reason the anti-Prussian Blue blog exists is partisan; it is run by people who are hostile to the politics of the Gaedes. The Official Prussian Blue Blog is a family project, which mostly concerns what the girls are doing, which song they are working on, when their next album will be released, and where the family went on vacation. The politics on the Official Prussian Blue Blog is at a low level. Compare that with the politics on the anti-Prussian Blue blog, which is much more intense, critical, and often false. Many of you hereabouts don't seem to know what "neutral" means. That might explain why, when I first arrived here, the Wikipedia article on Prussian Blue asserted that these two 13-year-old girls were whores who engaged in obscene acts in exchange for crack cocaine. I was the one who changed that. It certainly wasn't any of you.

And for the guys on the PB forums, no, Wikipedia is not a "Jewish media" site. Eztli 01:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC) (Woops, grammar error and missing an important N)

Jerry Abbott said > ABC News is a Jewish media organization. They are ideologically opposed and politically hostile to White nationalism. When you respect them as credibile authorities and accept their statements, therefore, at face value, you side with them. Wikipedia is, in other words, one of many pseudo-fairplay sites, of which the Jews operate many.

Well, this was fast turning into a neo-nazi advertisement campaign before it got "protected". Oh and I think Eztli meant NPOV instead of POV. :D
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 01:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever one thinks about special interest cabals in the US news media, ABC is considered a credible secondary source and is thus appropriate to cite. While some readers may decide this makes WP part of the cabal, experienced editors usually learn that WP readers are rather adept at picking out bias and spin, whatever the source. Wyss 14:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Abbott adds > ABC "is considered" by whom? Government frequently makes use of passive voice to evade responsibility for dubious decisions. For every nefarious act, some person or other bears blame for being the actor, but handy verbal tricks exist (of which passive voice is one) to make it seem otherwise. Whenever you hear a politician say "It was determined that..." you should immediately understand that the speaker does not want to identify the one who did the determining. So, to get back to the point, who exactly "considers" ABC to be a "credible secondary source"?

Jerry Abbott adds > We can assume, I think, that whoever determined ABC to be a credible source did so in contrast with anyone not quoted in the Prussian Blue article. The list of those not quoted, but who might have a relevant opinion about Prussian Blue that could be quoted, includes Dr. David Duke, April Gaede, Edgar J. Steele, me, Tom Metzger, Billy Roper, and anyone who understands why ABC wanted to do a Primetime show about Prussian Blue in the first place.

Jerry Abbott adds > It is no more appropriate for Ted Shaw's quote on Lynx and Lamb Gaede to be on Wikipedia's Prussian Blue article than it would be for a White nationalist leader to be consulted on the history and social value of the NAACP, unless it were made very clear that these are antagonists speaking about each other - regardless of any presumable popular familiarity with the issues involved. Encyclopedia articles frequently explain in pedantic detail that with which the public is familiar at the time of publication, partly because someday the article might be studied by historians of the future who are not familiar with those details.

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Prussian Blue (American duo)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Stuff to add/remove when the article is no longer protected

Video Interview and News Story

Inclusion of the father's choice of cattle brand

Vandalism

STOP THE MADNESS!

Prussian Blue (United States)

Pictures

POV

Anti-Prussian Blue blog?

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search