Talk:Prussian Blue (American duo)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Racist/Racialist

Changed the previous change back. See the second section of Racialism, [[1]] where racialism is defined as a social/political movement. This better describes the ideology PB espouses. Use of the term racist is more an attempt to bring negativity to the article. (Perhaps even a violation of the NPOV regs?)Avsn 01:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So I think it's quite clear that they are racist, and the negativity of their views is quite independent of what editors "bring to the article". Still, "self-proclaimed racist" should not be used unless it can be documented that they have self-applied the word "racist". The same holds for "self-proclaimed racialist", really; unless someone has a source in which they've self-applied that label, it should go, too. Someone else please check this out; I really don't feel like wading through that stuff.... --Trovatore 01:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It should be racist. Their mother, April, admitted to being racist. --Gramaic | Talk 02:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, not technically the same thing. April Gaede is not (technically) Prussian Blue. I think we have to be very careful in this sort of situation. I see you didn't put "self-proclaimed" back, so it's probably OK; it's hard to imagine a libel judge finding that they're not racist, or that anyone acted recklessly by saying they are. Still makes me a little uneasy though. --Trovatore 03:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


They're racist. However the term is almost always used with a highly negative connotation (to the point of describing illegal behaviour in some countries). To preserve NPoV, racialist helps since it describes a political view which clearly applies to their cultivated image and song lyrics, although I'm reluctant to wade into this two-way stew of hatred. Wyss 02:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Truth is not bound by "NPOV". If something is true, it is not POV, but simply is. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You are twice mistaken. Encyclopedic writing involves choosing language which conveys objectivity and minimizes distraction from content. Racist is an incendiary label (however well-fitting). Racialism is not a neologism, although the linked dicdef doesn't note any political distinction, only calling it a UK variant. I still prefer it because it's slightly less incendiary... only my opinion though. Wyss 03:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

One question: Are they racist? I believe you yourself said, "They're racist." If they're racist we need not use any other word to describe them. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
As I explained above, I disagree with your choice of words and I think your anger is showing in your edit, which is unencyclopedic. However, editing disagreements take on sundry levels of priority and severity or whatever and trust me, this one's low on both :) Wyss 03:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Given that I nominated this page for deletion nigh on 5 months ago, believe me when I say I don't give a damn about this article either. :) However, I disagree with your opinion that powderpuffing the diction somehow makes the article NPOV. If someone is racist, they are. To say that someone who is racist, is not racist, is not NPOV, it's lying. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, in my experience, when I hear the phrases "powderpuffing" or "whitewashing", my PoV/anger detector floats off the scale. White nationalist tells the tale. Wyss 03:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Back to my question: Are they racist? Yes or no. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand! But this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Please don't give the NN thugs an opportunity to say WP is biased and not an encyclopedia. Wyss 03:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes. So why exactly must we use "racialist" to describe 2 people who are racist? To appease white supremacists/nationalists/whatever you want to call them? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
No need to use either. White nationalist is NPoV and spot on. So far as appeasing goes they know they're racists and they're proud of it but some of them are also smart enough to recognize that the word racist is incendiary and exploit that by claiming victimhood. It's a trap. Same thing happens when you call a troll a troll. Wyss 03:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
So a troll should not be called a troll on Wikipedia? Maybe replace "troll" with "nice people who argue online"? Why should we reduce the level of factual accuracy to appease whoever doesn't like Wikipedia? If some people say Wikipedia is biased because we call racist people racist, let them say it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is factually accurate. An encyclopedia does not powderpuff. Perhaps we should self-censor everything related to the CCP to appease and beg them not to block Wikipedia? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The terms powderpuff and appease are classic symptoms of anger and PoV in any discussion of Nazism. Anger and PoV are reasonable, normal and sane responses here, however they are not encyclopedic. Wyss 04:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


More on racist/racialist

I'm inclied to agree with User:Wyss. Both racist and racialist are true. We could use either one of them without compromising the truthfulness of the encyclopedia. The question is which is more encyclopedic. As to that, racialist is a very precise description of their views, so I think it is to be preferred here.

I'm OK with the current version, though, which omits both of them. -- Pierremenard 09:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and have replaced "racialist". White nationalism is a political movement that does not completely overlap with the viewpoints the twins have expressed. Specifically, I feel white nationalism to be a euphemism designed to give neo-nazis a friendlier name to hide behind. Despite this I have left the term white nationalist in the article, but re-added racialist in order to give a more honest description of the ideology of the group.
On the same issue, I am curious whether anyone here would find it inappropriate to describe the group as Neo-Nazi. They wear Hitler shirts, they make remarks worshipful of Hitler in interviews, and they write songs defending major Nazi criminals. If that's not Neo-Nazi, I don't know what Neo-Nazi is. -Kasreyn 11:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like we agree on "racialist." But I do not agree on Neo-Nazi - because they do not identify as such, I think it would inappropriate to say they are such. We could say "Organization X considers the band to be Neo-Nazi." Their connections to the National Vanguard amply justify the "white nationalist" and "racialist" labels, as this is what the groups use to describe themselves. -- Pierremenard 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As it seems I started this whole line of debate, I'll say here 'sorry I even mentioned it.' This sort of back and forth was the prime reason I once asked that this article be protected or semi-protected. I do believe after reading the forums and the website that 'racialist' is a best fit and as close to NPOV as this contentious crowd is likely to get. That said, I just drop it. Avsn 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with racialist, which is less distracting/disruptive at least. I'd prefer not using either. As I said earlier, I think White nationalist tells the whole tale. The page doesn't need protecting, this is a valid editing discussion about a sensitive, emotion-provoking topic. Wyss 00:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC) (struggling with a bit of a yuck factor here...)

Fine, I give up. Half a year later, Hitler would be a racialist. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point, but don't think it applies. First, referring to AH as a "racialist" would be so non-standard (given all the biographical literature available on him) that it would likely vio WP policy. As it is, the Hitler article mentions his racial policies and racist idealogy, in those terms, but ever calls him a racist, since to do so is unencyclopedic for reasons I've mentioned above. Again, I don't think either word/personal label, racist or racialist, belongs in the intro of this article, though racialist is at least less disruptive. Wyss 00:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, those here who argue that Prussian Blue does not deserve the "euphemisms" of "White Nationalist" or "racialist," would have absolutely no problem using "racialist" and "Black Nationalist" in referrence to the Nation of Islam. Such is the blatant anti-White hypocrisy of our age.

I don't know what you're talking about. A quick glance at Nation of Islam shows that no such terms as "racialist" or "black nationalism" are being used there. Are you trying to make a joke or something? I'm confused. Kasreyn 02:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Added Name of second album

I made a minor edit naming their second album in a paragraph that mentioned the first album by name, and mentioned the second album but (weirdly) didn't name it. Freddie deBoer 01:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

White nationalist -> nationalist

Someone removed "white" from the description of "Eurofest", making it a "nationalist" festival rather than "white nationalist". I changed it back, with a rather ill-thought-out edit summary, but the point stands. These two girls have gone from being "racists" to "racialists" to "white nationalists" - surely it's going to far to just call them "nationalists"? As far as I can see, Eurofest was set up by the National Alliance, a "white nationalist" organisation. Alex Salmond is a white nationalist. These two, and the organisation behind them, are White supremacists. Camillus (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

See below. Wyss 02:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"White nationalists" is most appropriate, as there are certainly non-White nationalists. However, "White" should be capitalized, not lowercased, as the word identifies a specific race, like Black and Yellow, and is therefore not a common noun as it would be when refering to the color white.

Alex Salmond is a white nationalist who wants independence from another white people. He's not - as far as I know - a racist. --kingboyk 15:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Added citations

There are now four cited articles describing the twins as racist and/or white supremacist, so I have added the language that they have been "described as" such. This conforms to wikipedia policy in that it is reliably sourced and is not original research. If you want more sources, just spend five minutes Googling and I'm sure you'll find even more than I did. If using the term "racist" bothers you, reply here, don't blank. -Kasreyn 23:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My only objection to the words racist or even racialist was their use in the intro. I've no issue with these citations in the main text, where they appear in context as attributed to third parties and clearly not as a result of WP editorial PoV. Wyss 01:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.  :) -Kasreyn 02:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Second Paragraph claims uncited

The second paragraph is poorly written and makes it hard to tell that Wikipedia is not reporting the holocaust deniers' claims as fact. The word "alleged" is in there, but it gets lost in the verbiage. I suggest:

  • The name Prussian Blue is a reference to holocaust deniers, who claim that gas chambers were not used in the holocaust because the levels of Prussian Blue found in the walls of the gas chambers were allegedly not consistent with the use of Zyklon-B. [citation needed] The name is also intended as a reference to the girls' German heritage and their eye color.

How would this do? -Kasreyn 12:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of some talk page material

Removed some material that didn't contribute to the discussion of the article. Avsn 00:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Heritage mp3

Madbomber, I'm not sure about that mp3 you added under Ideology with the quote "proud of their heritage". Whoever that announcer was, she's a gem. Of course, it's not very hard to outmaneuver an 11-year-old in an argument. There's not much point in it, though, because the girl clearly had not come up with any of the things she was parroting. It was hilarious when she started pointing out how obvious it was that the girl was being prompted by her parent.

However, I noticed that the girl calling in identified herself as "Ellie Mae", 11 years old, and the announcer was definitely (this is based on her voice) a mature woman (late 20's or older) who extolled the virtues of multiculturalism. Clearly, neither of these people were one of the Gaede twins. The mp3 was very interesting, but I don't see how it's relevant to this article. I think it should be removed. Kasreyn 21:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be the host in the segment: Inga Barks Kasreyn 21:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Madbomber, I need a reply from you. I'm removing the link for now, and replacing it with a citation needed tag rather than removing the claim. Please get back to me with a new source, thanks! Kasreyn 13:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I think a week is enough time. I'm removing the claim since it is unsourced. Kasreyn 09:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


It seems that Lamb actually used the name Ellie Mae over the air for privacy purposes, as stated by the Gaede family themselves here --80.5.211.153 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

About Kipling

I read the passage "The debut single for their second album The Stranger is adapted from a poem by Rudyard Kipling who ostensibly supported the concept of white supremacy in many of his writings, most notably in The White Man's Burden."

While I am pretty sure Kipling(and many others at the time) believed white society to stand above that of other races, The White Man's Burden is not celebratory of this aspect at all, so this connection is a bit hazy. I mean, the poem is a critique and/or warning to the USA about nation building in South East Asia, in that they might be neither successful nor celebrated for their efforts there at the time. It is hardly similar to any kind of National Vanguard rhetoric. I chose to "milden" the passage for this very reason. Feel free to revert, though I think it deserves to be less condescending. /Gustav --193.11.220.45 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh. I have a lot of respect for Kipling as a poet - just like I enjoy the music of Wagner - but some of his poems I can hardly bear to read. TWMB is among them. I disagree with those who want to paint Kipling as some sort of rabid Nazi hatemonger, but white supremacy is overall not a bad description for his beliefs. Kasreyn 17:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Supression of terminology - "white supremacist"

What is the difference between "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" anyway? The former is a word designed by white racists to obfuscate the real ideology behind supremacism while the later is a word used to let common people easily understand the root problem. Is anyone ashamed to admit this? These girls wear "happy hitler" t-shirts, sing songs about a bloody holy war against non-whites and deny the holocaust. Worst of all, they are part of National Vangaurd's propaganda machine. Their visuals are a sickening portrayal of the assertaion that white is equal to good and non-white is equal to bad. These are hallmarks of white supremacism. It appears some moderators and editors are hell bent on suppressing the reality of supremacism by using words that are supposedly nicer (like "nationalist"). It would be in the best interest of everyone if the truth is not obfuscated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.233.163 (talk • contribs)

The point is that at Wikipedia we do not have a privileged frame of reference. Is "white nationalist" a BS term made up to give white supremacy a new name? In your opinion, yes. In my opinion, yes. But our opinions don't count. To others, there is a meaningful difference between the two. Wikipedia has to represent all viewpoints. We already have quite a few sources calling them racist and white nationalist. (And trust me, no matter what the bigots think, calling it "white nationalism" isn't helping their cause any. Everyone knows what it really means.) However, we have a dearth of sources willing to go so far as to call them "white supremacist", and they call themselves "white nationalist". That's why we use the term. An encyclopedia cannot include information that isn't reliably sourced, and at the moment, the claim of white supremacism is not. Best wishes, Kasreyn 02:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up, I was going to comment about that too. SZadeh 03:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Overthrow's use of {{dubious}} tag.

Overthrow, as I'm sure you're aware, use of the dubious tag requires your stating your reasons for disputing the claim on the article's talk page. Will you now please explain why the article's claim (that Prussian Blue's statements regarding the Holocaust have been disproven) is dubious? Cheers, Kasreyn 05:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, although you assume too much by stating "...as I'm sure you're aware". The linked website (source number 7) in question does not "disprove" the widely held belief that no jews were gassed with Zyklon B. Therefore Zyklon B extermination it is not a fact, despite how it is stated by the contributor, but a belief held by a small minority of folks who are absolutely dependent on the Holocaust stories being believed by the public. This is a very different story from the few brave non-White Nationalist chemists who have investigated the concentration camps and scientifically decided (much to their surprise) that there is no indication of any extermination program, no killer gas used on people, etc. So there you have it. --Overthrow 04:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there I don't have it. I've read the papers for myself and I believe otherwise. Do you have any specific, as in chapter and verse, objections? As in, quote precisely where the linked source fails in its attempt to disprove Prussian Blue's statements. Kasreyn 07:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is opinion and not fact that is stated, therefore it is disputable. I do have specific chapter and verse objections to that article: all of them, and I would have to quote precisely the entire article to show how it fails to disprove the findings of chemists (not just Prussian Blue as you imply). Feel free to be specific with chapter and verse and quote precisely where the articles succeeds in proving that Zyklon B was used to kill people.Overthrow 14:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, just for appetizers, how does the fact that Marciewicz found no detectable cyanide in the barracks, but did detect cyanide both in the Kremas and in the delousing chamber jibe with your contention that the Kremas were not used for cyanide gassing? Compare with the fact that Leuchter's Krema samples also registered detectable cyanide, and his negative control also did not. Most people would look at those two independent positive tests as confirmation that cyanide was used in the Kremas. Gzuckier 17:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Most people" is not everyone. Thus it is debatable, and your removal of my "disputable" tags is trolling and not an acceptable use of the edit function. You admit in your own writing that the statement after which I placed the "disputable" tag is an opinion and not fact, and yet you have removed my "disputed" tag, thus asserting that an opinion is fact when it is not (by all the established laws of logical reasoning and the very definition of words). What you and Kasreyn are engaged in is trolling, period, and you are simply censoring the fact that something is disputed in order to assert you personal politicals. You are going to continue inappropriately removing the "disputed" tags? So I'll actually have to figure out who is in charge of this board simply to prevent you from deceiving Wiki readers? Very well but I will also point out that the editor's statement on whether or not people were gassed with Zyklon B is out of place for an encyclopedia because it is a political opinion. Stating that the girls have a band called "Prussian Blue" is a fact. Stating that they do not believe the Holocaust is a fact. Stating that their viewpoint has been proven false is not fact but opinion and more fit for an opinion article than a database of information. Overthrow 19:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is well-established fact. Their claim that it is questionable that people were gassed using Zyklon Blue has been completely debunked. No reputable chemist would ever support Leuchter's claims. The link is an excellent place to start if you want to know more about how throughly this issue has been examined. I could provide more, but really I don't think it is relevant to this particular article. 38.2.108.125 19:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The widely accepted falsehood of Holocaust denial speaks to the character of the twins. Their Holocaust denial is among the most notable features of their character, being largely responsible for the attention they have received from the public. Therefore the notation of the overwhelming public consensus against Holocaust denial speaks to the character of the twins. It can be read by their detractors as ignorance or it can be read by their supporters as some sort of romantic noble stand or whatever Holocaust deniers tell themselves. The article in question at Holocaust-history.org is a scholarly, scientific argument about the presence or absence of a specific chemical in a specific place, which means that it should be possible to nail down precisely whether it is right or wrong. In this case, no, the article is not an "opinion", it is a claim of fact. It stands as source to a claim which is notable as it speaks to the character of Prussian Blue.
I also note that you latched onto Gzuckier's unimportant verbiage of "most people" and attempted to use it to avoid answering his rebuttal. So how about you answer his question rather than continuing to impugn his and my motives? If you really wish to "dispute" Green's paper, how about you do some "disputing" of its substantive points? If you continue to attempt to evade substantive discussion of the source you dispute, you will leave me no choice but to conclude your purpose here is disruption of the article. Cheers, Kasreyn 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, obviously "most people" is fact; there's one in every crowd.... anyway, I would advise not holding off having lunch while waiting for a rebuttal to my question, as promised. Gzuckier 22:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
And note that Kasreyn and I, each acting independently, as far as I know having never before met, spoken, emailed, or otherwise communicated, or edited the same article as far as I know, are now a conspiracy having acted in collusion, he having removed the disputable tag and I having asserted that sane people sorry, most people would accept independently replicated positive evidence as proof of something. Clearly, evidence of a well-oiled conspiracy that two people supposedly acting independently would both think somebody's a fruitcake. Well, I'm off to the cabal meeting, we're going to get more orders from the Elders tonight.Gzuckier 22:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
In the end, I edited that chunk so as to make it less POVinyerface anyway. That don't make me a traitor to the cabal, do it? Gzuckier 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Religion

I remember i visited this page before and it said that they had no religion. But seems to have disapeared. So what anyone know there religion (or lack off?) 218.101.64.241 10:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I recall reading that they believe in the old Norse gods, celebrate Yule instead of Christmas, etc. But it's also said that their mother and they are atheists. I'm not entirely sure which is correct.
They are most likely neo-pagans, or whatever, you were probably right with the former. Although they may be atheists. Both are pretty likely, though. Can we rule out Christian, and they certainly don't believe in Judaism. Aaрон Кинни (t) 07:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Washington or Montana?

Where do they live now? The KFSN-TV article about the custody battle references "[April's] new home in Montana," and in a later paragraph said "[The father] could have limited visits with the girls in Montana." But recent edits to this page by an obvious white nationalist claims they moved to "Bellingham Washington, the birthplace of their paternal grandmother, who has distanced herself from her son." Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.110.127 (talk • contribs) `

I can't provide any print or web citations, but their Mother is definitely living in or near the town of Kalispell, MT (she works as a dishwasher in Kalispell). I'd would assume that means the kids are there as well. Brent Shultz 21:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Birth (maiden) name

Apparently, Gaede is the birth (maiden) name of the girl's mother (April Gaede), for it's not the last name of any of her 3 former husbands. However, it is the last name of Lamb and Lynx.

Movie link

added IMDB link to satify citation needed tag: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373782/fullcredits this lists Lynx and Lamb as "creepy twin" and thier mom as "Mrs. Hobb".

Where did the article go?

I wanted to learn about this as I thought these girls were just a joke.

Fraternal or identical twins?

They are fraternal twins. They are not identical.


Semi-protected

I have semi-protected the page due to constant vandalism. Academic Challenger 06:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


It's been nearly 24 hours. I have removed semi-protection. Academic Challenger 03:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Initial image

The old initial image with smiling hitler has a negative conotation, and was probably put there create prejudice against the band. All wikipedia articles must be neutral, and thus we should use neutral images of bands as their main image. If not, then we should put negative images of all bands on wikipedia. Everyone has a negative image taken from them already, but this is no reason to use it to qualify that person. --Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho 18:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The girls themselves choose to wear these t-shirts, and are quite open about their admiration of Hitler. The picture gives a more accurate view of the girls music and politics, rather than the sanitised image proposed. From his user page, the above editor is quite open about his admiration of the girls - so allegations of bias are perhaps to be taken with a pinch of salt. Camillus (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

One could argue that these two are essentially the victims of abuse -- and, therefore, should not be pictured at all. Yakuman 22:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. They clearly are not reluctant to be in the spotlight, nor does the 'smiley hitler' photo strike me as being a 'candid' or paparazzi shot. In fact, it appears to be a cheap publicity shot of some sort, likely designed to promote their 'band' (and, by their choice of clothing, their social views as well). Comparing the use of this photo on wikipedia to the printing/posting of pictures of crime victims by news organizations, which is what you are doing by claiming they "should not be pictured at all", is absurd. Have you also requested that their record label stop printing their likenesses on the duo's album releases? -Grammaticus Repairo 17:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The image strikes me as completely fair and NPOV. It's a posed shot and it's the way they choose to represent themselves. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I submit that whether the twins are choosing their own course or being manipulated is irrelevant to the subject of the image. Kasreyn 00:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Fake news article

Apparently a fake news article was posted about them around the net - see http://officialprussianblue.net/showthread.php?p=23214 - be prepared for additions about this fake event from editors believing it to be a genuine report. exolon 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Stunning

Reading most articles here, one gets the impression that it was a piece of Wikipedia Dogma that every article have a "controversey" section. And yet, when the subject of 13 year old racist pop singers is brought under discussion...perish the thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.170.198 (talk • contribs) .

Well... but I wouldn't say it is a "positive" article about this scary family. I think it is a good article. When I first saw it, especially that unbelievable photo with the t-shirts, well I guess "unbelievable" is the right word because I was sure this was a big hoax. Only after Googling a bit did I gradually come to the sickening conclusion that this probably is not a hoax. As for "controversy," it is there in many places in the article, so a "Controversy" section would be the whole article. 6SJ7 19:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we try not to have Criticism sections. The criticism should be interspersed throughout the entire article. This is a good example of an article written from a neutral point of view. 141.155.59.32 22:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent conflict with Aaarrrggh

Aaarrrggh has twice added the connection between the color Prussian blue and the Zyklon-B to the intro and twice removed Bubblegum pop from the info box (once replacing it with Hate, which isn't a musical genre). I have reverted these changes twice. Here is my reasoning.

  • The Zyklon-B allegations are discussed in the body and are not relevant to the text Note: My edit comment justified the revert because the Zyklon-B comments that Aaarrrggh added weren't cited. But I found that there are cited discussions in the text and so my reasoning has changed.
  • As far as I can tell, Aaarrrggh wants to remove Bubblegum pop on the grounds that white nationalist (or neo-Nazi, if you prefer) groups can't count as bubblegum pop. This just seems obviously POV and unprincipled.
  • Nonetheless, the judgment that the group actually is bubblegum pop (or folk, for that matter) seems like WP:OR. I googled for a reliable source that the first album is in these genres, but it's hard to find any reviews outside of blogs. How can we justify classifying this group without a citation?

Just my thoughts on the recent edits. Phiwum 02:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have a source for the bubblegum pop genre? If not, I think it's best not to insist on it, especially considering the subject matter. Maybe there should be a new genre, Nazi pop? ;) Szygny 19:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
As long as the text of the article says they're bubblegum pop, so should the textbox. I agree that we should treat the text's claim skeptically. Perhaps we should remove all of the genre information from the article, pending a citation. I won't do that, however, without some consensus. (And I surely wouldn't invent a new genre. That would be pretty blatant OR.)
But none of this has anything to do with Aaarrrggh's reason to remove the genre, which was, "I've removed the bubblegum pop reference. These are Nazi's, not 'pop artists'." I don't recall anything in the Bubblegum pop article that states Nazis don't count. Phiwum 20:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And I don't recall anything in the WP rules that says we can't link to photos in articles, so stop with the rude reverts. It's amazing how quick people here are to revert every little change. Christ. Szygny 20:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You added the photo because you dislike Gaede and the picture is unflattering. That is clearly an edit motivated by POV. There is no other reason to link to the photo of the mother in an article about the girls' band and therefore the link is inappropriate. Phiwum 21:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions here and she's a public figure. You're removing because you obviously don't like anything that would show this band in a bad light. That's sick. Szygny 21:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Szygny, please read WP:CIVIL. That photo is quite irrelevant to the article and should not be included. That conclusion is not based on any kind of support or opposition to the band itself. — Matt Crypto 21:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, you are editing in bad faith. And you are also utterly mistaken in guessing my motivations. This is an encyclopedia article. You want to show irrelevant, unflattering material for no reason other than to denigrate the subjects. This is utterly inappropriate.
I will not revert since I don't want to violate the 3RR. But I'm sure that other editors will agree on this point: the link to a photo (of unknown copyright status) should be removed. In contrast, the photo of the girls with smiley Hitler faces is also unflattering (at least to most people), but it is justifiable because of its source and subject.
It's not that we should avoid unflattering material. But we can't add unflattering material just because we want the subjects to look bad. There has to be a reason for it (and if the image is relevant, it should be included in the article and not linked). Phiwum 21:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to say, I agree with Szygny. If I could break it down according to my understanding, and others could tell if/why they disagree. The first question is, how relevant are the twins' mother to their story? Since she basically created them, I would say very. The next question is, should we include a picture of her? Again yes, but I'm not sure about copyright on the linked photo. Therefore, a link to the photo, rather than uploading the image, seems totally justified. If people feel like there's a better photo in the public domain to upload into this article, please do it. As for unflattering, I don't think the picture makes her look substantially worse than she ordinarily does, AFAICT. IronDuke 22:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Name one other article that links to a photo of a related person. In any case, Szygny's reason for adding the photo was explicitly to discredit the mother. That is a biased edit. I wouldn't say that including a photo of April Gaede is necessarily bad, if it's done for a neutral reason. But linking to a photo is unnecessary and distracting and purposely choosing a photo that the editor thinks is unattractive is POV. Phiwum 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying. However, Szygny's motives are completely irelevant. He is either right, or he is wrong. That's all that concerns me. He could be a bleeding-heart liberal, a rock-ribbed Republican, a Black Panther, a Klansmen: none of it matters as far as his edits go, only the quality of thos edits. As I say, if someone can find a good pic that we can use and uplaod it, I'll be happy, however it makes her look. IronDuke 02:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I ask again: is there any other article that uses an external link to present an irrelevant photo? Especially of a family member of the subject? I really can't see why you defend this edit.Phiwum 02:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the photo is relevant, she's the driving force behind the duo. Thus, my defense. IronDuke 02:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


i've seen their lyrics, and they sure as hell don't represent "bubblegum" music. --128.205.139.135 02:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have any source that explicitly defines "bubblegum pop" in terms of lyrics rather than music, please give it. Otherwise, I don't see how their lyrics are inconsistent with the bubblegum pop label. (Note: I still don't know of any source calling them bubblegum pop, so I am not opposed to removing the label on grounds that it is OR.) Phiwum 11:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Here's the link to the photo of April Gaede that Phiwum keeps removing: [2]. Szygny 21:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding band name content

I added a new section and moved the content regarding the band's name into it. I had the "nod to their German heritage and bright blue eyes" line to add, and I felt that way too much was being herded into the Ideology section.

I also toned down the Holocaust stuff a bit. First, I changed "the poison the Nazis employed to kill millions of Jews and others in concentration camps during World War II" to simply "the poison the Nazis employed for the Holocaust." Second, I eliminated "it is also a reference to the claims made by many Holocaust deniers (generally regarded as misguided by historians, chemists, and others) that..." to "it is also a reference to the (highly disputed) claims made by many Holocaust deniers that..." while preserving the link to holocaust-history.org.

I'm worried about my edits being seen as Holocaust-denying POV. The Holocaust isn't the subject of this article, nor is Holocaust denial. My edits are only for the purpose of streamlining.

The middle names of Lynx and Lamb

In the Prussian Blue forum, underneath the thread "Do Lynx and Lamb have middle names?", Lynx has already stated what her middle name is and what her sister's is. Lynx's middle name is Vaughan, after singer Stevie Ray Vaughan and Lamb's is Lennon after John Lennon.

April Gaede also gave her reasons for giving her daughters the names:

“ We chose those names because of the musical meaning, not so much as a politicial message as I was not a WN (White Nationalist) at the time but racially aware. I knew Lennon was a race mixer and a commie but I liked his music and I thought that it was important that he used his music to send a message to the world, little did I know how prophetic that would be.

Vaughan seemed to be a real dynamic person and a great guitarist.

 ”

BlondeVikingPrincess

–ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)