Revision as of 21:00, 5 March 2010 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits +← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:01, 5 March 2010 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
:No, please, you make a good point, and if you prefer sentence-level refs, it's fine. It's just that personally I prefer not to see lots of little numbers, and I often combine multiple refs for that reason between one set of ref tags. But it's just personal preference. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 01:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | :No, please, you make a good point, and if you prefer sentence-level refs, it's fine. It's just that personally I prefer not to see lots of little numbers, and I often combine multiple refs for that reason between one set of ref tags. But it's just personal preference. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 01:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
::: <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
==Tidying== | ==Tidying== | ||
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Death of Jeremiah Duggan</noinclude> | <noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Death of Jeremiah Duggan}}</noinclude> |
Revision as of 21:01, 5 March 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Death of Jeremiah Duggan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 March 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 October 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Baroness Sarah Ludford, Member of the European Parliament: "MEP urges investigation of Jeremiah Duggan's death" |
Citations needed
I believe we need sources for the following content:
The British inquest heard from a psychiatrist that Duggan had no history of mental illness. His mother told the court she believed he had been the victim of a recruiting technique used within the LaRouche movement known as "ego stripping," in which recruits are made to doubt all their basic beliefs. A psychiatrist testified that a severe stress reaction can be caused by a rapid change in a person's belief system.
I can't find it in the sources indicated. The sources probably got displaced somewhere along the line. --JN466 22:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Lorscheid mentions that the LaRouche group uses psychological terror measures, and gives examples. He raises the possibility that Duggan was psychologically destabilised. However, he does not mention ego stripping. --JN466 08:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on the sources. I accept that the Witt article, which has the Duggan case as its main focus, arguably justifies a description of the White deprogramming here. However, I can't find anything covering the sentence "His mother told the court she believed he had been the victim of a recruiting technique used within the LaRouche movement known as "ego stripping," in which recruits are made to doubt all their basic beliefs" in Witt. --JN466 00:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The Tylden report, which we cite at length (linked to a webarchive snapshot of justiceforjeremiah.com), appears to be a primary source. The only google match for "Jeremiah Duggan" Tylden is this WP article: . Is there any secondary source that quotes this report? --JN466 00:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's a report that was presented to the court. We're allowed to use primary sources, particularly when they've been mentioned by secondary sources. Newspapers have talked about a psychiatric report. They just didn't publish her name. We can remove the name if you want to, though I don't see it as an issue given that she wrote a report for a public inquest. SlimVirgin 01:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've taken out the sentence as to what the mother told the court, pending a source. I have had a look for newspapers mentioning a psychiatrist's presentation to the British inquest. I cannot find one; the nearest there is is this Times report http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article455431.ece which states, without giving a source, that Jeremiah "had never been treated for depression or any psychiatric illness, and had never been heard to express suicidal thoughts". There is also Lorscheid suggesting that Duggan was "psychologically destabilised by the LaRouche cult", which is a useful statement we could use.
- Do you recall a specific source commenting on the psychiatrist's presentation to the court? I don't mind us using her name, but a third-party source commenting on the psychiatrist's presentation would help IMO. --JN466 22:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Original Research
The following items are a violation of WP:SYNTH:
- Erica's father was a German Jew, most of whose relatives died during The Holocaust, and who himself fled to England to escape it. This is unsourced, and has no relationship to the subject. SlimVirgin has included it in an effort to bolster the case she is making.
- In December 1973, The New York Times obtained a tape recording of an "ego-stripping session" of a British activist who LaRouche believed had been brainwashed to kill him. LaRouche was present during the session. On the tape, there are sounds of weeping and vomiting, and someone says "raise the voltage," though LaRouche said later this referred to bright lights, not an electric shock. The activist is heard complaining about a terrible pain in his arm, and LaRouche can be heard saying, "That's not real. That's in the program." This one has a source, but it certainly doesn't mention Jeremiah Duggan. Again, SYNTH. --Tisiphone redux (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that we need a source linking the White session, which is well attested, to the Duggan case. --JN466 08:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- As for Mrs Duggan's father, I wouldn't know whether it was SlimVirgin who added this info, but it is sourceable: . I'll add a ref. --JN466 11:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, that Erica Duggan's father escaped Germany and most of his family died there was sourced already, via the ref at the end of the paragraph: Witt in the Washington Post mentions it, as does the Times article linked above. --JN466 11:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I propose that to avoid this sort of thing in future, we agree to use sentence-level, rather than paragraph-level, referencing in this article. Otherwise, whenever we insert a sentence from another source in the middle of a paragraph, the beginning of the paragraph gets separated from its correct reference. --JN466 13:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Re: ego-stripping and Chris White. The Washington Post writes about it in the context of Duggan, so it's not a violation of SYN.
- Re: references. Jayen, the Witt ref was at the end of the paragraph, and there was nothing in between. I don't think it's necessary to have sentence-level sourcing when there's no interruption, unless the point is a very contentious one. SlimVirgin 17:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but Slim, this topic is one of the most contentious we have. --JN466 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Re: references. Jayen, the Witt ref was at the end of the paragraph, and there was nothing in between. I don't think it's necessary to have sentence-level sourcing when there's no interruption, unless the point is a very contentious one. SlimVirgin 17:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- There are lots of points within the article that aren't contentious, though. That his grandfather was a Holocaust survivor isn't contentious, nor is that Duggan attended the Tavistock and that LaRouche regards it as a brainwashing centre, but you repeated the refs for those though they were already there. It's not a big deal, but personally I'd prefer to confine sentence-level referencing to the contentious points, or to paras with multiple refs. SlimVirgin 19:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
<— Okay. If you'll allow me, I'll explain what I mean.
Assume there is a para with five sentences sourced to ref X. Each sentence is signified by an Xxx:
- Xxx. Xxx. Xxx. Xxx. Xxx.<ref X>
Now I come along and insert a sentence sourced to Y:- Xxx. Xxx. Yyy.<ref Y> Xxx. Xxx. Xxx.<ref X>
You see? Now I need to access ref X to check if the first two sentences came from ref X as well. If I am unable to access ref X (because I haven't got JSTOR, or the book has no preview in google books, etc.), then I can't verify if I should add ref X after the first two sentences. These two sentences will now look effectively unsourced. Or worse, a new editor may think they come from ref Y. If they check Y, and can't find it there, they may delete the info as unsourced. None of that can happen in a para that looks like this:- Xxx.<ref X> Xxx.<ref X> Xxx.<ref X> Xxx.<ref X> Xxx.<ref X>
After adding a new sentence, it'll be- Xxx.<ref X> Xxx.<ref X> Yyy.<ref Y> Xxx.<ref X> Xxx.<ref X> Xxx.<ref X>
Everything is still clearly sourced, easily verifiable for readers and other editors, and I don't have to look up another source to check what to do with the first two sentences. The downside is, it looks messier.
In my experience, single-ref-per-para articles (and editors) get confused after a while. That is by the by; I'll respect your wish henceforth. --JN466 00:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, please, you make a good point, and if you prefer sentence-level refs, it's fine. It's just that personally I prefer not to see lots of little numbers, and I often combine multiple refs for that reason between one set of ref tags. But it's just personal preference. SlimVirgin 01:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Tidying
Toolbox |
---|