Talk:Thierry Meyssan: Difference between revisions
Jalusbrian (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
The article mentions that Meyssan has been "alledgedly declared persona non-grata" in the US. While I understand that the alledgedly makes it clear that it is not a "fact," i believe a citation to be needed because the source of the allegation is an important piece of information in and of itself. Meyssan himself is a conspiracy theorist who apparently is now in hiding believing that the US is paying France to kill him or something along these lines... If he is the source of the allegation that he is persona non-grata in the US, that has vastly different implications than if the source is say an anonymous source from the US governement. (maybe a State Department official not authorized to speak with the press) The first would imply that it is part of his conspiracy theory and that his status as persona non-grata would be related to say, an alleged governement coverup. While the second would imply that the US government simply is not enchanted with foreigners who accuse it of mass murder, terrorism etc which would be somewhat understandable.[[User:PrometheeFeu|PrometheeFeu]] ([[User talk:PrometheeFeu|talk]]) 23:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC) |
The article mentions that Meyssan has been "alledgedly declared persona non-grata" in the US. While I understand that the alledgedly makes it clear that it is not a "fact," i believe a citation to be needed because the source of the allegation is an important piece of information in and of itself. Meyssan himself is a conspiracy theorist who apparently is now in hiding believing that the US is paying France to kill him or something along these lines... If he is the source of the allegation that he is persona non-grata in the US, that has vastly different implications than if the source is say an anonymous source from the US governement. (maybe a State Department official not authorized to speak with the press) The first would imply that it is part of his conspiracy theory and that his status as persona non-grata would be related to say, an alleged governement coverup. While the second would imply that the US government simply is not enchanted with foreigners who accuse it of mass murder, terrorism etc which would be somewhat understandable.[[User:PrometheeFeu|PrometheeFeu]] ([[User talk:PrometheeFeu|talk]]) 23:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
: its ironic that you ask for a citation on one issue, while making an uncited unsubstantiated claim about him benig in hiding from assassins! [[User:Jalusbrian|Jalusbrian]] ([[User talk:Jalusbrian|talk]]) 23:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I don't know who the biggest loser is-- this guy, or the fools who believe him. He's as big an idiot as Le Pen and the fools on the far right. |
I don't know who the biggest loser is-- this guy, or the fools who believe him. He's as big an idiot as Le Pen and the fools on the far right. |
Revision as of 23:19, 14 September 2010
France Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Biography Unassessed | |||||||
|
Journalism Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Person non-grata in the US
The article mentions that Meyssan has been "alledgedly declared persona non-grata" in the US. While I understand that the alledgedly makes it clear that it is not a "fact," i believe a citation to be needed because the source of the allegation is an important piece of information in and of itself. Meyssan himself is a conspiracy theorist who apparently is now in hiding believing that the US is paying France to kill him or something along these lines... If he is the source of the allegation that he is persona non-grata in the US, that has vastly different implications than if the source is say an anonymous source from the US governement. (maybe a State Department official not authorized to speak with the press) The first would imply that it is part of his conspiracy theory and that his status as persona non-grata would be related to say, an alleged governement coverup. While the second would imply that the US government simply is not enchanted with foreigners who accuse it of mass murder, terrorism etc which would be somewhat understandable.PrometheeFeu (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- its ironic that you ask for a citation on one issue, while making an uncited unsubstantiated claim about him benig in hiding from assassins! Jalusbrian (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know who the biggest loser is-- this guy, or the fools who believe him. He's as big an idiot as Le Pen and the fools on the far right.