Talk:Death of Jeremiah Duggan/Archive 1

message: There are a lot of unresolved POV issues in this article, particularly concerning opinions attributed to the LaRouche organization. I changed the sentence opening what is now the "mind control" section, because it was misleading. Those of you who are editing with an anti-LaRouche POV should be scrupulous about providing a direct quote when characterizing the views of the LaRouche organization. Slim, would you also be so kind as to provide a direct quote from Mrs. Duggan, in the section where she is characterizing Dr. Tennenbaum's remarks? --16:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes vs. characterizations

message: Herschel, I have reverted to the edit where you altered the timeline. Everything after that has made the article worse in my view, and confusing to follow. It is standard practise when recounting a story like this to say )1) here are the allegations and (2) here is the response. Please don't move the LaRouche response any higher or chop it up. I don't like the different sections because it alters the flow. The article is not so long as to require sections. I feel the article as you edited it began to read like an EIR piece to be honest.
:I disagree  -- the article is now at such a length that it reads like an indictment of LaRouche, with LaRouche's rejection of the whole business tacked on as an afterthought. It should be made abundantly clear, early in the article, that the LaRouche organization considers the whole business to be ridiculous, and why.--Herschelkrustofsky 01:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen that speech. I question its legitimacy, since it comes from Chip Berlet. It is clear from the quote, however, that if LaRouche actually said that, he is attacking the practice of brainwashing, and Berlet, who is a thoroughly dishonest person, is attempting, by eliminating the context, to insinuate that LaRouche is pro-brainwashing. Why would the quote be inappropriate if it is about Tavistock? All parties seem to agree that Tavistock is part of the equation. My suggestion would be to eliminate the quote altogether unless the context can be established. --Herschelkrustofsky 01:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: :To WeedHarper and Herschel, I don't know which one of you is writing because the above isn't signed.
::It is now. Sorry about that. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: My reply

message: :::I have no problem with you adding LaRouche's views at the end of the article where all the LaRouche denials are, so long as his views are fully attributed, as in "LaRouche organization members believe x, y and z, as stated in EIR plus date" but not if those views are being advocated by you. Also note: I'm not advocating the Duggan family position. I'm repeating what was said in a British coroner's court, and what was published in four reputable newspapers: the Washington Post, the London Times, the Guardian and the Independent. Slim 22:50, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
:::::Slim, it would be a bit silly of you to claim that you have no axe to grind here. After all, your exchanges with Adam Carr are on public display on the various talk pages. --Herschelkrustofsky 07:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that mean?Slim 09:52, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Herschel, is it really intellectually honest for you to suggest that you and Weed Harper in particular don't have a particular agenda - and no, it's not intellectual honesty, NPOV or the greater good of Wikipedia - its' to protect the interests of a particular ideological agenda. Your habit of casting dispersions on the motivations of others does not obscure your own motivations and agenda. AndyL 17:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: LaRouche rebuttal