Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 14:23, 28 November 2004 (Reply to Fred). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Herschelkrustofsky has added to the section on Jeremiah Duggan that Baroness Symons has "hired a pro bono lawyer" to help the Duggan family. How can the minister have hired a pro bono lawyer? A lawyer who works pro bono is one working for the public good and not charging anyone. So in what sense was he "hired" by the minster?

I'm curious to know why you worded it that way, because that is the exact phrase that was used by the Lyndon LaRouche Executive Intelligence Review. Quoting the EIR without saying it's coming from them may make the article less NPOV. user:SlimVirgin

Incidentally, it is generally best to cite all sources, on both sides of a controversy, in an article. See Misplaced Pages:Cite your sources. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, my edit said "appointed a pro bono lawyer", which is not quite as incongruous as "hired," but I have changed it to "arranged for a pro bono lawyer." My information did come from EIR, just as your information came presumably from the Post and/or the Independent. I linked all three sources at the bottom of the article. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But how do you know that Baroness Symons appointed or arranged a lawyer for the family, and how do you know he is working pro bono? The LaRouche publication Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) does say this, but they don't quote anyone, and it's extremely unlikely that either the family or the lawyer would speak about their financial arrangements to EIR. So I feel we should get rid of pro bono, and the minister arranging it, unless we can refer to a source who is in a position to know. User:SlimVirgin 00:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, and I hope that you approve of my edit to change it. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, please note my proposal at Talk:Helga Zepp-LaRouche, that since you have written an entire article on the Duggan case, the material in the schiller Institute article should be merged with that article, keeping a brief reference in the Schiller Institute article with a link to the Duggan article. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the pro bono part. I do agree with your edit.

My problem with the Schiller Institute article is that, if we remove most of the Duggan material, we are left with an article about an apparently innocent-sounding organization that loves music. Yet critics of the Schiller Institute, and there are many, see it as a fascist front organization for the LaRouche organization in Europe. Not to make prominent reference to these views is, in my view, dishonest. Therefore, I feel that a fairly lengthy section on the Duggan allegations in the Schiller article is justified. I agree that on the Zepp-LaRouche page there is probably no need for more than a few sentences on Duggan, but on the Schiller page, I would say it is currently their #1 political problem, and if it isn't, it ought to be. Perhaps we can reduce the Duggan section without emasculating it entirely? user:SlimVirgin 04:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reason for the template box on each of the LaRouche-related articles is to indicate that the article that you are reading is, in effect, a sub-page of a really long article. I think it is appropriate to have a slightly redundant mention that the Insitute is connected to LaRouche who is controversial, has enemies, and is accused of everything under the sun, and a link to your Duggan article. --Herschelkrustofsky 16:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, could you explain why you don't want the Duggan material prominently on the Schiller Institute page? Imagine if your local supermarket were accused in a coroner's court of having poisoned a customer with its meat produce. The supermarket denies it, describing the allegation as "laughable.". Nonetheless, lawyers for the victim are trying to persuade police to investigate further, and the police have confirmed they are considering doing so. Along comes a journalist to write an article about the supermarket. He writes a long, glowing piece, mentioning the alleged death-by-poisoning of its customer and the possible police investigation only in passing. If you were to read this glowing piece, would you not wonder why the journalist tried to down-play the death? Would it not make you wonder about the journalist's objectivity?

I will reduce the Duggan material in the Schiller article as you requested as a compromise between us, but I will make it more than a passing reference. I hope this is an acceptable compromise for you. User:SlimVirgin 21:20, 15 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

The idea that the Schiller Institute is responsible for the death of Duggan is laughable. He was not an activist in the Institute, he just showed up at a conference. If he had been more involved, S.I. members might have recognized that he had a problem and told him to get help. You might as well blame the restaurant he had breakfast at. This is flimsiest pretext for an attack on LaRouche that I have yet seen. --C Colden 15:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

C Colden, I am reverting to the previous version as you have deleted information that is directly relevant to any discussion of the Schiller Institute and its membership. How do you know so much about Duggan that has not been published? Are you involved with the LaRouche organization? ] 18:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, SlimVirgin, the information that C Colden is citing is in the articles you cite. Duggan apparently attended the conference within a week of meeting a LYM organizer outside the Sorbonne. I don't see a big problem with her edit -- it mentions the Duggan case, which I think is sufficient, and I am merging whatever is presently in the Schiller Institute article, but not in the Duggan article, with the latter article. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, I believe you are wrong. The claims inserted by C Colden in this and the Jeremiah Duggan article were taken from Executive Intelligence Review, which is a LaRouche publication. user:SlimVirgin 21:27, 15 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

Herschel and C Colden, I have reduced the Jeremiah Duggan section from my original eight paragraphs to three paragraphs as a compromise. user:SlimVirgin 21:52, 15 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

It looks all right for now. We should continue to discuss and edit it, in hopes of reaching a point where we can remove the NPOV dispute tag. Believe me, it gave many people a sense of great accomplishment to remove all the NPOV dispute tags from the LaRouche articles one month ago. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, I believe that you inadvertantly deleted Colden's edit about the translations and so forth. I am restoring it. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, yes, that was inadvertent. Thank you for restoring it. user:SlimVirgin 22:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

neutrality tag

Is there any reason that the neutrality dispute tag should stay up? It looks like the editing disputes have been resolved. Weed Harper 21:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The editing disputes are resolved only in the sense that no one can be bothered to argue about it, I suspect. My own view is that it's bizarre that most of this article talks about the Institute's drama, poetry and music activities, when its main main (as I understand it) is to promote LaRouche's political views. Why would you prefer to remove the tag? Slim 22:18, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

You might want to take some time to familiarize yourself with the Institute by visiting its website. You have been editing this article with a particular agenda. Also, the neutrality tag indicates that something in the article is disputed. What in particular do you think is incorrect with respect to the article as it presently stands? --01:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven't been editing this article with an agenda, unless you call a desire that it be accurate and fair an agenda. This evening, I found on Usenet an example of a self-confessed LaRouche activist arguing with another poster over a LaRouche issue. The LaRouche activist then supplied a link to a Misplaced Pages LaRouche-related page as "evidence" that what he was arguing was correct. But the page he referred to had been edited by LaRouche activists/advocates. Finding this has strengthened my view that people connected to Lyndon LaRouche should not be editing articles that relate to him in any way. I feel there should be a NPOV dispute tag on all these articles, at the very least.

I have looked at the Institute's website. It looks to me like an organization set up to promote the views of Lyndon LaRouche, not a cultural organization. If you can refer me to material that would show me to be wrong, I'd appreciate it. I can't find any on their website.

Regarding what I dispute in the article, I dispute the entire tone of it, and the ordering of information, so that the Institute's main aims appear to be musical and cultural, a claim that you say is true, but have not backed up in any way.

Also, can you refer me to Misplaced Pages articles you have edited that have nothing to do with LaRouche, and into which you inserted material that had nothing to do with LaRouche? I've asked you this before but you must have missed the request. Slim 02:38, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

The Schiller Institute definately promotes LaRouche's views, but primarily his views on music and culture -- which is that music and culture are a moral force in society, and therefore political, which is also what Friedrich Schiller argued. You can easily look at my history of edits by going to my user page and clicking User Contributions. In the past week or so I have been preoccupied with the controversies on this page and your Duggan article, but you can look at the previous period by clicking here. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Herschel, but I was hoping you'd tell me which articles you've edited that have nothing to do with LaRouche and into which you have not inserted any LaRouche-related material. I don't have time to go through the list myself. Slim 18:36, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

List Objections

Slim, please list your objections to the current version of this article, so we can edit it and return it to undisputed status. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My objection is the entire tone of the article, which implies that the main aims of the Schiller Institute are cultural and artistic, whereas the main aim in my view is to promote the political views of Lyndon LaRouche. If you want to maintain that the Institute is largely a cultural or artistic body, please cite third-party references to back up that assertion. I feel that, in order to follow the Arbitration Committee's ruling, you should back up every assertion you make about LaRouche with third-party attribution (that means non-LaRouche and also not someone parroting a LaRouche view) -- unless it's a quote from LaRouche or EIR in an article where they're responding to an allegation, as in the Jeremiah Du:ggan article where, of course, it's appropriate that they be given a chance to defend themselves. If you can't find third-party attribution for the cultural/artistic tag, then I feel the article should be rewritten to reflect the extent to which some organizations believe the Schiller Institute represents what many see as a cult, with quotes from those organizations. It is a question of balance and NPOV. Slim 17:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

1. I think that the disputed label should remain in place as long as the Jeremiah Duggan material remains in the article. It is inappropriate, a scurrilous and propagandistic attack, and is only there because SlimVirgin is an anti-LaRouche activist who is looking for opportunities to insert anti-LaRouche propaganda into Misplaced Pages articles. He hints at his real motives sometimes on talk pages; apparently he believes that he is defending the British Royal Family against accusations of misconduct in the death of Princess Diana. These accusations have come from LaRouche, and other sources as well. He ought to be honest and put whatever arguments he may have in an article on Princess Diana. --Caroline 01:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, why do you think Slim is an "anti-LaRouche activist", and exactly where does he hint that his "real" motives are "defending the British Royal Family against accusations of misconduct in the death of Princess Diana"? Jayjg 06:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Frederick Wills: from Fred Bauer

Slim, please look closely at the decision, especially the part at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#Removal_of_original_work, which reads, "1) Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Misplaced Pages article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." This article is a closely related article. While there was a proposed remedy which read, "2) User Herschelkrustofsky is prohibited from editing the article Lyndon LaRouche and closely related articles as well as their talk pages," this remedy failed for lack of support. Read together as they relate to this article, material from LaRouche sites may be cited by LaRouche activists who may edit the article. Obviously the views of critics and nominally objective observers such as the Washington Post may also be included. Fred Bauder 12:49, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Reply to Fred

Fred, the three users were banned for inserting material into Frederick Wills, not Schiller Institute (This is the Schiller Institute Talk page :-) ) They claim that Frederick Wills is a "closely related" article and that therefore they should be allowed to insert LaRouche propaganda. But (1) They've produced no evidence that it's closely related, except for the LaRouche propaganda they've already inserted; that is, they've produced no independent evidence that shows Frederick Wills had a relationship with LaRouche that started before 1976, and that Wills took his ideas about debt reform from LaRouche, as they claim he did. Secondly (2), the Arb Committee did not rule that supporters of LaRouche were allowed to insert unverifiable material into LaRouche articles; only that they are allowed to edit them. They still have to be able to verify what they say.

The underlying principle at stake here is that LaRouche supporters should have to be able to attribute their claims to a reputable third-party source, like all other Misplaced Pages editors have to do when challenged. The person challenging the material should not have to show that it is wrong. My question to you and the Arb Comm is: where does the burden of proof lie when an editor challenges the veracity of an article?

Bear in mind that Frederick Wills is just one of a large number of articles these users are inserting LaRouche propaganda into. If it were only this one, it wouldn't matter. Slim 13:10, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, I found the following on Misplaced Pages sources at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability. The users in question should be required to stick to this, in my view:

Quote begins:

"Dubious sources

"For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources.

"Sometimes a particular statement can only be verified at a place of dubious reliability, such as a weblog or a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, then just remove it - don't waste words on statements of limited interest and dubious truth. However, if you must keep it, then attribute it to the source in question. For example: According to the weblog Simply Relative , the average American has 3.8 cousins and 7.4 nephews and nieces.

"This is similar to how we try to achieve a neutral point of view." Quote ends.