Talk:Kenneth Kronberg

message: I don't know why, but I can't make a wiki link to Fidelio magazine, which re-directs to the right section of "Schiller Institute." When I put it in the article, it shows up red. Someone had made links to the opera, wrong location. --MaplePorter 06:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: Not only did the LaRouche org hound this man to his death, now they are trying to keep off this page the barest mention of his family's memorial website. The website is not being cited as an authority; it is only being cited as to the fact of its own existence. This is within Wikipedia guidelines.--Dking 20:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most emphatically not "his family's memorial website" -- it is a propaganda site run by his cousin, acting as a meatpuppet for Dennis King. --NathanDW 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there's proof of that charge we should keep the website just as we include the websites of individuals. It is just as relevant as the memorial page by L. LaRouche.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an external like, it's not a problem. However, a quick glance at the web page does confirm the relationship to Dennis King. --Don't lose that number 14:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I see to connect them is a link to King's website. There's also a link to LaRouche's website. What's the point?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kronberg family website

message: WP:BLP applies to living persons. Which living person is at issue in this BLP dispute?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lyndon LaRouche. The term "LaRouche movement" is Eponymous; it is pretty much impossible to refer to it without referring to that living person.--MaplePorter 21:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what are we saying about Lyndon LaRouche in this article? Can you quote the offending passage?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that Maple is arguing against criticism-- the BLP policy does not prohibit criticism. It does, however, require careful attention to sources, for claims that could be defamatory. --Marvin Diode 13:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that it clearly implies that LaRouche did it, that he did it on purpose, that he intended the consequence. There would be no reason to include the allegations about the morning briefing, etc., unless for the purposes of insinuation. --Marvin Diode 00:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that implication. The article does not say that LaRouche wrote the memo, or that he intended one of his followers to kill himself. We mention that there is a memorial on a LaRouche website, indicating that he was well-regarded. Further, while the LaRouche movement has apparently commented on the coverge of Kronberg's death, I haven't seen that they've disputed the existence or contents of the "morning briefing". In sum, I don't think this article violates either the letter otr the spirit of WP:BLP.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you may be aware, Dennis King has announced with great fanfare that he has written an article on his personal website that claims that LaRouche personally induced Kronberg to commit suicide. It looks to me like the Benton material, even in a toned-down version, is being included here to support King's claim. --MaplePorter 06:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read King's piece, and I don't see a link to it either. It'd probably be considered a reliable source, but I don't see anyone proposing to use it as one. Unless it includes a plan to subvert this article I don't think it's a concern for us here. Incidentally, I did read that another journalist is working on an article about Kronberg, which doubtless will also mention the Benton material. I hope there won't be claims that we're improperly supporting his work too. We can include all significant viewpoints while remaining neutral.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The suggestion that the Benton material is included to support Dennis King's claim is ludicrous. The Benton citation has been there for months--the article was written in April. Dennis King's new article, "Lyndon LaRouche and the Art of Induced Suicide," has just been posted on his website in the last few days. So the inclusion of Benton can hardly be attributed to a desire to "support" King. In addition, I agree with Will Beback that the King piece might reasonably be used as a reliable source, and perhaps should be considered. If not a reliable source, it is certainly a significant piece of writing, and hence newsworthy. LaRouche himself considered it newsworthy, inasmuch as he issued a press release on the article ("Is Dennis King Contemplating Suicide?"), to be found on the LaRouche PAC website. Perhaps the most even-handed approach would be to note the publication of King's piece and LaRouche's riposte, without endorsing either point of view. Hexham 11:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the suggestion is not so ludicrous. This Wikipedia article was actually written on May 9 by User:Tonalvalue -- that day was that user's first and only sign of Wikipedia activity . The original version included cites to both the Benton article, and to Dennis King's website. --MaplePorter 13:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've edited the article to remove the allegation of a link between LaRouche and the suicide. What BLP issues are outstanding, if any?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Benton never wrote that the document "suggested that Baby Boomers within LaRouche's ranks commit suicide." I have removed that as OR. Benton is too clever to say that, although he clearly wishes to imply it. Benton also asserts that the briefing is a "paraphrase of LaRouche," in case there are still any doubts about the BLP policy bearing on this issue. --MaplePorter 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't say that the briefing is a  "paraphrase of LaRouche," so if that's it then we can remove the BLP banner.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why were the reference to Dennis King's article on induced suicide, AND the reference to LaRouche's response, removed? Instead of trying to avoid offending everyone all the time, perhaps we should report on facts. King's article is a fact, LaRouche's response is a fact, and neither is cited for the truth of the matter. They are news developments in a newsworthy topic. Please explain the removal. Thank you. Hexham 19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were deleted because they were unsourced. Please see the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, WP:RS, and the somewhat more restrictive policy on sources for biographies of living persons, WP:BLP. Dennis King's website is not a suitable source (except for his own biographical article) because it is self-published. If and when the controversy between King and LaRouche about the death of LaRouche's colleague hits the mainstream news media, it will be suitable for inclusion. --Marvin Diode 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how it matters who wrote the first draft of this article. It's been substantially revised since then.  We don't say that the suicide and the memo are connected, we say that Benton has reported on a memo issued just before the suicide. I think that it's unreasonable to charge a BLP violation when no living person is involved.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Benton says that the message in the "briefing" was a "paraphrase of LaRouche," who is a living person. Seriously, Will, do you really believe that this story about the briefing has any other purpose than to defame LaRouche? This is what the BLP policy is all about -- prevent the inclusion of items from dubious and obscure sources that are intended to harm the reputation of a living person. This is a textbook case. --Marvin Diode 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article never says "the briefing was a paraphrase of LaRouche." That's an absurd standard anyway - followers are obviously going to parrot their leader's thinking. But commenting on the statements of unnamed followers is not the same as commenting on the statements of LaRouche. Since you appear unwilling to accept any compromise, I think the next best course is to get a policy clarification to determine whether criticisms of eponymous organizations can be violations of BLP.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the morning just hours prior to the Kronberg suicide on April 11, a daily internal document, the “morning briefing” circulated among members of the LaRouche entities, lashed out, in a paraphrase of LaRouche, at what it called the failures of the “baby boom” generation, including among the entities’ own members, and singled out “the print shop” as “among the worst.” --Marvin Diode 22:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, our article doesn't say that. Anyway, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Eponymous organizations.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is an article by a newspaper owner self-published?.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I note that the only response on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard was unfavorable to using Benton as a source. I can't find the archive of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Eponymous organizations, but I recall that the response there was similar. --Marvin Diode 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I just reviewed the article and found nothing that was sourced to EIR. Could you point out what you are referring to? --Marvin Diode 00:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article I'm referring to is Nancy Spannaus's obituary of Kronberg. Although on the Kronberg page it is sourced to the LaRouche PAC website (which itself is certainly self-published and certainly self-serving), it originally appeared in EIR magazine, of which Spannaus is an editor. Hexham 10:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at WP:SELFPUB. Kronberg was a member of the LaRouche movement, so under Wikipedia policy a self-published source from that movement is acceptable in an article about him. However, in an article about an opponent of the LaRouche movement such as Dick Cheney, material sourced to LaRouche publications would be excluded. --Marvin Diode 14:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Who are these "individuals"? Is there a published source for the "raft of memos?" It's important to understand that Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for the promotion of speculative, esoteric theories. See WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:BLP. --Marvin Diode 14:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP dispute 

message: There are many comments and opinions attributed to Ken Kronberg by Avi Klein in the Washington Monthly. Since Ken is no longer here to set the record straight, it is important that these comments be attributed to Klein's article, rather than just reported as fact. That is why I formatted the Wikipedia article to centralize attributions of this sort (from reading Klein's article, it looks like the source for these comments is Molly, although it is generally not specified.) --Masai warrior 20:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more appropriate to organize biographies chronologically. The Washington Monthly is a reliable source and shouldn't receive special attribution, or have material sourced to it segregated from the rest of the article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's very disruptive when editors re-organize articles when there isn't a consensus. If it continutes we'll have to protect the page. I suggest that we discuss the matter here and find a consensus instead.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's disruptive, and I consider it disruptive when you do it. There is a great deal of material that is dubious and may violate WP:LIBEL. One solution would simply be to remove the material, but I don't imagine that you are going to agree to that. In lieu of that, I propose that we list it under "allegations" (I yield to the superior version by the IP editor, "allegations by critics," since it is obviously not all from the Washington Monthly (only the published part is from the WM. The rest is from the websites of King and Berlet.) Also, please stop re-inserting unpublished material supposedly written by Papert -- you should apply the same standard that you insist upon at the Jeremiah Duggan article. --Masai warrior 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one who started the reorgainzition so you're the one who needs to justify it. What specific information is defamatory and improperly sourced? Are you arguing that Washington Monthly is an unreliable source? If it's reliable then it should be treated normally, if it's unreliable then it should be deleted. It should not be segregated and treated like a pariah.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: I agree with the "coatrack" message. I strongly suspect that Chip Berlet, Dennis King, Avi Klein and their cohorts had great hostility for Ken Kronberg so long as he was alive, and now they cry crocodile tears because they see an opportunity to get their viewpoint out. --Niels Gade 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for a small amount of background on the LaRouche movement, I don't see how this article is really about a different topic. Specifically, which parts aren't directly related to the subject?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The supposed biography of Kronberg is an excuse to push a conspiracy theory about his death. --Masai warrior 23:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a conspiracy theory is alleged. The article appears to lay out a story in which a failed business man is pushed to suicide by a lack of support from his community. No one disputes that version of events.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know it was "lack of support from his community"? He left no suicide note. For all we know, he was pushed to suicide by a wife who was undermining his life's work by supporting George Bush. In a matter like this, it is disrectful to the deceased to speculate about his motives, but the real issue here is that the usual gang, King, Berlet, etc., have ghoulishly seized upon Kronberg's death to push their agenda. That's why this is a coatrack article. --Masai warrior 13:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In any event, discussion of a person's death, conspiracy theory or not, hardly constitutes a shift of topic away from the person. Gzuckier 16:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like it says at WP:COAT: A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject.  The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats".' --Niels Gade 21:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We only know what we read in reliable sources. The Washington Monthly is a reliable source, and so are King and Berlet. Even the LaRouche sources don't seem to dispute the published assertions. Nobody in the reliable sources has asserted that his wife drove him to suicide, and saying so without proper sources, even on a talk page, would certainly violate BLP. It isn't speculation to report what's written in sources, such as the lack of payments to the company from the LaRouche movement.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coatrack

message: Is this person notable?  Don't get me wroong I applaud any anti-cult efforts, I was a great wikifriend of User:Smee, but half those efforts got deleted.  The Observer article in the refs doesn't mention Kronberg at all that I can see, it's about that young man that died- Jeremiah.  A person doesn't usually have an article just for dying or being in a cult.  Jeremy may be notable enough for an article, Kronberg probably isn't.Merkinsmum 12:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article survived a request for deletion when it first appeared. Of course, that could have been for any number of reasons. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject was a leading member of the LaRouche movement. He headed their largest business and co-founded one of their main publications. Folks often do become notable for their deaths. See Steven Parent, notable only for being a victoim of the Manson Family, or :Category:American murder victims, which undoubtedly has many entries for people who become famous after, and because of, their deaths. This subject has had a long article written about him by a 3rd-party so the threshold of notability is achieved.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I beleive the Observer article is used as a source for background on the LaRouche movement.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: notability

message: I see that there has been a debate between THF and other editors about what sort of tag describes this article's problem. As I see it, the problem is that it is dominated by the opinions of Molly Kronberg. I read the debate about COATRACK. I agree that the article was probably not created because Ken Kronberg would have had an article were he alive, but the article creation was an excuse to put forward Molly's theory about his death. Since the bulk of the article comes from the Avi Klein/Molly Kronberg account in the Washington Monthly, I am putting on a template message that it relies too much on one source. Keinehexen (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything sourced to Molly Kronberg.  Everything is sourced to third parties.  I see eighteen cites to the Washington Post, the Falls-Church News-Press, The Connection, and The New York Times, and sixteen cites to the Washington Monthly, which, let us face it, is the longest third-party account of Kronberg's life.  I have repeatedly asked for links to other reliable sources to include, and no one has provided any.  THF (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to point out that the "Onesource" tag does not mean literally "one source" -- it can mean that the article "relies largely on one source." Also, Keinehexen did not claim that the article was "sourced to Molly Kronberg." The claim was that the Washington Monthly article was a vehicle for her theory. Looking at the Wikipedia article, approximately two thirds of the article is devoted to this theory, i.e. "Allegations by LaRouche critics," and almost all of that comes from one source, the Washington Monthly. However, upon reflection, I think that the correct tag is COATRACK. Also, I think that THF is using an improper definition of NPOV. An article does not fail NPOV only in cases where reliable sources are excluded; it also fails where a minority viewpoint, such as Molly's, is given undue weight. At WP:UNDUE it states "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." This article names no prominent adherents for the theory that takes up two thirds of the article. Therefore, to achieve NPOV, that section should be reduced in proportion to its notability. Alternatively, we might want to open another AfD discussion, because I doubt that this article would have been created were it not for Ms. Kronberg's desire to promote her theory. The major source cited, the Washington Post, provides nothing beyond an obituary. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this isn't "Molly's viewpoint." It's the viewpoint of the only major story to be written about the life of Mr. Kronberg published in a reliable source, and I see no evidence that the journalist is somehow not credible.  As such, it's is not the "minority viewpoint," but it is the only reliably sourced viewpoint.  (For the sixth time, I repeat my request: what reliably sourced information is missing?)  It's unavoidable that an article about someone as marginally notable as Kronberg is going to rely on the only source that has lengthy coverage. Your problem is with the lenient standard of WP:N that permits an article to be created on the basis of one large story and several trivial mentions.  I would personally !vote weak delete if the AfD were brought, but I warn you it is unlikely to succeed, as the subject has only gotten more notable since the previous discussion. THF (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. You're making a pretty persuasive argument here for the "Onesource" tag. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The onesource tag, which reads, "Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations of additional sources" is not appropriate in an article when no one on the talk page has identified an "additional source."  But I'll repeat my unanswered request for that additional reliable source for the seventh time. Either answer the question, or drop the WP:STICK. THF (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Onesource tag asks others to provide additional sources. I don't know of any, and I don't find any by googling, but that doesn't mean that no sources exist. Failing additional sources, I think that an AfD may be an option. It says at WP:NOBJ that "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." Since no significant press coverage has appeared since the one-shot Washington Monthly article, notability is in question here. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Make the nomination, find the source, or quit repeating yourself, please. THF (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It is worth noting that Hexham knew about the Avi Klein article no later than May 16, 2007, six months before it was published. Keinehexen (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So?  Lead times for free-lance journalism of that size are often many months: the author takes time to research it, time to write it, and then the publication process takes months.  Of course [she] knew that a reporter asked to interview her about this five months before it was printed. THF (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the correct tag? 

message: I've struck through edits posted by socks of banned user:Herschelkrustofsky. Obviously, postings from him have dominated this talk page. New accounts that post here are going to receive extra scrutiny because this is obviously a magnet for that user.    Will Beback  talk   20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sock puppet theater

message: I count 35 links to the Legal Times blog from Wikipedia articles. As the blog of a mainstream news source, I believe it meets the standards of WP:V.   Will Beback  talk   00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SPS says that blogs are "largely not acceptable." I'm not arguing for the removal of reference to Mollie's suit. I do think, however, that we should leave the "citation needed" tag there until a better source is found. The blog post contains material that has been disputed in earlier discussions here. --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's deemed an unacceptable source then many articles will be affected, so you should take it to WP:RSN so that editors interested in other affected articles can join the discussion. What's the disputed content?   Will Beback  talk   06:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It isn't a personal weblog; if you read the policy, it deals with these kinds of blogs in a footnote,  and they're fine as sources -- particularly if you're not challenging the material it's supporting. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the footnote clarifies things. Since the author of the blog post is named, I have no further objection. It should probably be attributed in the article, though. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libel suit 

message: The edit from yesterday says the Molly Kronberg case was withdrawn. This is unsourced and no reason is provided.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.164.190 (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case withdrawn 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kenneth Kronberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207224450/http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1473&Itemid=35 to http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1473&Itemid=35
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified