Talk:Schiller Institute

message: Does anyone have a source for the statement that Amelia Baynton Robinson was the third founder?  I've checked the Schiller biography of her and its tribute to her, but neither of them says this: just that she was an early board member.  If someone has a source, could they post it here please, or in the article?  Many thanks, Slim 14:21, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
:If no one can produce a reference to back up this claim, I'll be deleting it today or tomorrow. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 23:17, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
::Rather than just deleting the one factoid, I recommend an overall rewrite of the lead paragraph. By whom it was founded should be the secondary item. The first sentence should characterize the Institute. -Willmcw 23:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Founding members

message: :As the Boynton Robinson claim remains unsourced, I've removed it. I also reduced the Duggan material to one para, as the LaRouche editors felt it was too long. Will, if you want to rewrite the intro or any other part of the article, I have no problem with that. SlimVirgin 01:19, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
::Good, 'cause I jumped in and redid the opening paragraph. The first sentence now says what the Schiller is, and the subsequent sentences gives the who, where, and when on the founding. Since the Duggan case has an article of its own, that paragraph should be kept short here. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I had to make the Duggan paragraph a little longer to clarify the EIR news article, which essentially calls Mrs Duggan a patsy of the "City of London financial oligarchy". He goes well beyond a simple denial. I tried to keep it short. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Founding member claim removed

message: I see that another editor removed a quotation because it was ascribed to Paul Schmitz, whom the editor said is not at the Schiller Institute. I am wondering how an editor can tell who is associated with the Institute, in order to avoid similar mistakes? Is there a listing somewhere? Cheers, -Willmcw 15:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't received any response to the above query. I'll put the quote back in unless WeedHopper replies with some supporting info. -Willmcw 22:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Schmitz

message: Herschel and Weed, I'm reposting this here from the Zepp LaRouche Talk pages as no one seems to be monitoring it. 
===Holocaust denial quote?===
I found this:
::Whereas nobody in the USA has the slightest illusions concerning the power which the Zionist lobby exerts especially upon the current administration, in Germany only very few political personalities in the know are aware of the influence of a more secretly operating undercover zionist lobby, yet not the German public in general. And therefore we must take the hypocritical bogus Holocaust-spoof as an occasion to get rid of these foreign agents." Helga Zepp-LaRouche, "Der zionistische Holocaust heute" (The Zionist Holocaust today), Neue Solidarität, January 25, 1979.
::In German: Während in den USA niemand auch nur die geringsten Illusionen über die Macht der zionistischen Lobby über vor allem die gegenwärtige Administration hegt, ist der Einfluß einer verdeckter operierenden zionistischen Lobby in der Bundesrepublik bisher nur wenigen eingeweihten politischen Persönlichkeiten bekannt, nicht aber der breiten Bevölkerung. Und deshalb müssen wir den scheinheiligen Holocaust-Schwindel zum Anlaß nehmen, um diese ausländischen Agenten auffliegen zu lassen.
:This should probably go into the article, unless anyone objects. I'll leave it on the page for a day or so in case there are other opinions. SlimVirgin 07:15, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Also, I have a question about the photo of Zepp-LaRouche that was on this page, where she is standing next to the eastern terminal of the Eurasian Land Bridge. Could Herschel or Weed explain this to me, as I thought the Eurasian Land Bridge didn't exist? SlimVirgin 20:22, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
:Both of these issues have come up before. The "Holocaust spoof" quote refers to some of the "docudramas" that came out in that period, and Zepp-LaRouche is objecting to them on the grounds that they misuse the Holocaust to promote other, more contemporary agendas. Slim, I would suggest you that try reading her writings, or those of her husband, in the original context, instead of cruising all the anti-LaRouche websites looking for material. It is the latter practice which makes you appear to be an anti-LaRouche activist.
:Regarding the Land-Bridge, it is a vast project which is partially realized, and subsumes other, smaller projects. The Chinese government invited Zepp-LaRouche to come and speak on the subject several times, and I suspect that the English inscription on the monument is a gesture of respect for her. They also refer to her as the "Silk Road Lady" in the Chinese press. However, due to the vehement objections of AndyL, none of this appears in Wikipedia, because there are no English-language web citations outside of LaRouche publications. --HK 20:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer the Helga Zepp LaRouche page. As you probably know, the Schiller Institute published a book in both German and English (Das Hitler-Buch/The Hitler Book) which described Hitler as a catastrophic disaster for Germany, and named the Versaille treaty as one of the elements which brought him to power. It appears to me, Slim, that you have no real interest in Zepp-LaRouche's actual opinions or ideas, other than to find scraps of quotes which you can adapt to argue the theories that you brought with you to Wikipedia. --HK 22:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zepp-LaRouche

message: I found this:
::Whereas nobody in the USA has the slightest illusions concerning the power which the Zionist lobby exerts especially upon the current administration, in Germany only very few political personalities in the know are aware of the influence of a more secretly operating undercover zionist lobby, yet not the German public in general. And therefore we must take the hypocritical bogus Holocaust-spoof as an occasion to get rid of these foreign agents." Helga Zepp-LaRouche, "Der zionistische Holocaust heute" (The Zionist Holocaust today), Neue Solidarität, January 25, 1979.
::In German: Während in den USA niemand auch nur die geringsten Illusionen über die Macht der zionistischen Lobby über vor allem die gegenwärtige Administration hegt, ist der Einfluß einer verdeckter operierenden zionistischen Lobby in der Bundesrepublik bisher nur wenigen eingeweihten politischen Persönlichkeiten bekannt, nicht aber der breiten Bevölkerung. Und deshalb müssen wir den scheinheiligen Holocaust-Schwindel zum Anlaß nehmen, um diese ausländischen Agenten auffliegen zu lassen.
:This should probably go into the article, unless anyone objects. I'll leave it on the page for a day or so in case there are other opinions. SlimVirgin 07:15, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Also, I have a question about the photo of Zepp-LaRouche that was on this page, where she is standing next to the eastern terminal of the Eurasian Land Bridge. Could Herschel or Weed explain this to me, as I thought the Eurasian Land Bridge didn't exist? SlimVirgin 20:22, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
:Both of these issues have come up before. The "Holocaust spoof" quote refers to some of the "docudramas" that came out in that period, and Zepp-LaRouche is objecting to them on the grounds that they misuse the Holocaust to promote other, more contemporary agendas. Slim, I would suggest you that try reading her writings, or those of her husband, in the original context, instead of cruising all the anti-LaRouche websites looking for material. It is the latter practice which makes you appear to be an anti-LaRouche activist.
:Regarding the Land-Bridge, it is a vast project which is partially realized, and subsumes other, smaller projects. The Chinese government invited Zepp-LaRouche to come and speak on the subject several times, and I suspect that the English inscription on the monument is a gesture of respect for her. They also refer to her as the "Silk Road Lady" in the Chinese press. However, due to the vehement objections of AndyL, none of this appears in Wikipedia, because there are no English-language web citations outside of LaRouche publications. --HK 20:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer the Helga Zepp LaRouche page. As you probably know, the Schiller Institute published a book in both German and English (Das Hitler-Buch/The Hitler Book) which described Hitler as a catastrophic disaster for Germany, and named the Versaille treaty as one of the elements which brought him to power. It appears to me, Slim, that you have no real interest in Zepp-LaRouche's actual opinions or ideas, other than to find scraps of quotes which you can adapt to argue the theories that you brought with you to Wikipedia. --HK 22:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust denial quote?

message: Schiller-Institute should not be confused withe renowned institute with a similar name.--Tresckow 04:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will not be confused. The renowned Schiller Institute is active in many fields that the Goethe Insitute is not, and also Schiller & Goethe are not easily confused as words.--82.34.85.78 23:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Goethe-Institut]] 

message: ;Looking at this article, it seems like an attack article. There are many editing tricks that cause me to reach this conclusion. One example is that quotes which are accusations against the Institute are placed in boxes to highlight them, whereas quotes from the Institute are not. The ratio of accusations to non-controversial information is low. --Terrawatt 07:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I hear an objection, I am going to attempt a re-write of this article. --Terrawatt 07:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is the result of lengthy discussions among many editors. You've only identified one formatting problem. It'd be better if you can identify what needs fixing and fix that rather than re-writing the whole article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  I disagree. There not accusations against the Institute, just various attempts to figure out what they really are. Unless you find other neutral descriptions I like to keep them highlighted. Carewolf 08:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article not neutral

message: Someone asked me to look at how to NPOV this article.  It is ok at the beginning, but as people seem to have said above, gives undue weight to the young man's death considering no-one was ever convicted of any crime, and that there is a whole article about it.  This death and the questions around it should be mentioned, and a link to the main article, but that should be all here as they've not been found fully liable for it. Merkinsmum 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think that most of the LaRouche-related articles on Wikipedia should be deleted because they are mostly full of fringe theories and testiments of followers paying homage to a convicted felon and crackpot. I am serious about this. In a real encyclopedia, LaRouche might get a paragraph, half of which would be criticism.--Cberlet (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Polly. Merkinsmum 13:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reduce the text does not mean it is OK to sanitize content to mask the actual details involving the Schiller Institute. The deletions were POV and made it appear that Duggan was just strolling by a meeting. I have cut the text down using NPOV as a guide. There seems to be an unwritten policy that every article related to LaRouche has to be crammed with dubious self-serving puffery and have serious critical content deleted. Why is that?--Cberlet (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: undue weight

message: ;Will, you reverted an edit by an IP, claiming that it is a banned user. I looked up the IP number and it belongs to SoCal Free Net, a free nationwide dialup service. This could be anyone, so your claim that it is a banned user doesn't hold water. Secondly, your edit is misleading, because it creates the impression that the Danish Schiller Institute opposes all "efforts to combat climate change," which is not justified by the source. You also eliminated from the original edit by "Djf wiki" the assertion that "climate changes to date were due to unspecified solar effects," which is in fact true to the source, and more accurate than what you posted with the memo "rewite closer to source." Please be more careful. I have restored the edit you reverted, because it looks to me like a well-reasoned and well-sourced edit. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish Schiller Institute, global warming 

message: Lyndon Larouche is an American Nationalist and he is right to defend America´s interest if necessary excluding Europe from his ideas which include just China, India, the U.S. and Russia....Germany is out in this idea.
But Helga is European and should defend the Continental idea, and that means the E.U., India, Russia and China. 
Because the first idea and the second one are a contradiction. Lyndon is an American member of Congress so he defends American interest. But Helga should defend German and European interest. Europe is NOT in the Pacific Ocean. Just look a map of the World.--88.24.242.195 (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, we're only here to discus improvements to the article, so rants like this are off-topic. Second, Lyndon LaRouche is not a member of Congress. While he may be pro-America, he also has a deep appreciation for German culture. Lastly, I haven't heard many of Helga Zepp-LaRouche's speeches, but I'm not aware of any that are particularly pro-American.   Will Beback  talk   03:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helga against Europe 

message: I'd say that "cult" is not the most appropriate word to describe groups that do impose an strong discipline to its members, and use personality destruction techniques to keep them in, even if they show a will of considering to leave. For example Spanish Gypsies, that in many cases endorse the Evangelical beliefs, do use the word "Cult" to refer to their religious meetings and ceremonies, so at least in this case "Cult" may have a pejorative connotation absolutely not supported by the real facts. The good old word "sect" is much more convenient to speak about movements that do harm the minds of those entering it, and also limit their members' freedom, specially the possibility of leaving the organization. My personal experience is that the people linked to the Fusion Energy Foundation, the Executive Intelligence Review, and its cognate organization "Worker's party", do employ techniques that limit the freedom of those they meet and try to impose a condition of dependence from the organization's group of heads, even with people with nearly nil connections to them. I don't know if they're a sect, but some of their behaviors are close in appearance to those some attribute to destructive sects.--Jgrosay (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult

message: There are multiple issues on which outside input would be helpful. In particular,
1. Is a YouTube video of an undated news program a suitable source? Does it present a copyvio problem?
2. The video contains allegations against the institute, including a claim that a student's lecture notes at a S.I. conference indicate antisemitic tendencies on the part of the institute, and a commentator who says that at a hypothetical S.I. meeting, one should expect "over time" to hear "an echo of the old classic antisemitic conspiracy theories" which would "not be obvious at first." How much weight should be given to these allegations? Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of weight should be given the comments by Chip Berlet, one of the three top experts on LaRouche and the Schiller Institute. An appropriate amount of weight should be given the comments by a student at the conference, and any other comments made in the documentary. The fact that the documentary may be viewed on Youtube is a convenience for the reader, not evidence that it should be thrown aside. It aired on Newsnight which is a mainstream news channel on BBC. The usual sort of gravity given to BBC sources should be given to this documentary. The copyvio issue is separate from the question of how much weight to give to the documentary. Whether the documentary is hosted online or not available at all does not change how reliable it is. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have some sort of authoritative source for your "one of three top experts" assertion, or is that your personal view? Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Wiesenthal Center made a statement about the death of Jeremiah Duggan which included the sentence, "Trawling the Internet, appealing to the media, lobbying governments, she [Erica Duggan] has joined Dennis King and Chip Berlet as the trio of world experts on LaRouchiteism." Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I believe those three individuals are outspoken anti-Larouche activists.  Doesn't Dennis King operate an anti-Larouche website? Cla68 (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Chip Berlet and Dennis King have both written books about LaRouche and his various organizations. Both Berlet and King have written newspaper articles, and have appeared on TV shows discussing LaRouche. King and Berlet are arguably considered the top two LaRouche experts by the Wiesenthal Center; these two are said by Wiesenthal to be joined by Erica Duggan to make the top three. Duggan did no research before her son died in 2003, whereas King and Berlet were researching LaRouchites more than a decade earlier. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer to the question is "yes."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.191.211 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: When I asked for an "authoritative source", I was thinking of what is described at WP:SOURCE, something peer-reviewed, fact-checked, etc. What you are presenting is political activists praising other political activists. According to the article Chip Berlet, the man has no academic credentials and is regarded by some as an extremist in his own right. Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are now using Wikipedia as a source, while criticizing others for not following the SOURCE guideline?? Chip Berlet's writing about the Schiller Institute has appeared as a chapter in a book edited by academics: Fascism: Post-war fascisms, by Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, Taylor & Francis, 2004, . This is volume 5 of the textbook series "Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science". Obviously Feldman and Griffin think Berlet is authoritative, or they would have not put his writing into their textbook. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the link to that chapter. It hardly mentions the Schiller Institute and does not accuse the institute of antisemitism. And it's quite a display of conspiracy-mongering in its own right. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Where's the Beef? What we have here are allegations based on the most tenuous evidence, made against one group of political activists by another group of political activists. As such, I believe the WEIGHT given to this material should be minimal. If the allegations came from an objective, neutral source, I would give them more weight, and if they were supported by some sort of published statements from the Schiller Institute that could in any way be construed as antisemitic, more still. Particularly since the allegations seem based on the connection to one individual, LaRouche, WP:BLP applies: the article should be written conservatively with the highest quality sources, and the burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material. Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, BLP does not apply, as the Schiller Institute is far too large for WP:BLPGROUP to come into play. Nobody is singled out for the antisemitism accusation—it's the whole group. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

text: That's true. There are three Youtube links on the article page: "Jeremiah Duggan's death and Lyndon LaRouche - BBC - part 1", "Jeremiah Duggan's death and Lyndon LaRouche - BBC - part 2", and "Jeremiah Duggan's death and Lyndon LaRouche - BBC - part 3". These are currently grouped into reference #32. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be a question of if these videos should be linked via youtube. As pointed out above any copyvio issue is seperate from the reliable nature of this as a source. It should be given the same respect as BBC sources are generally given. Per wp:rs Definition of published,   It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

text: You have edit-warred in the past, especially this removal of 35kb of cited text, for the sole purpose of taking any hint of antisemitism out of LaRouche-related articles. It's nice to have you back on duty. Binksternet (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Binksternet, based on your own history, it might be best if you hold off from accusing other editors of being edit warriors. I'd suggest that you stick to content issues. IMO, a real encyclopedia does not give prominent weight to "hints" of antisemitism, only the real thing. Joe Bodacious (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry but I don't see how the "I don't like it" argument gets any better when you use it Waalkes. Chip Berlet is the commentator you are talking about. He's an investigative journalist and photojournalist activist specializing in the study of right-wing movements in the US. He even explains the pattern clearly. It's interesting your claim of fringe is about him calling this group fringe. The article does not claim this group is anti-semetic. These claims are attributed directly to the source. This is a notable POV and from a reliable source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you have read the first sentence of the article at Chip Berlet, but if you read the rest of the article, the you will find that the lead is not supported by the body. The only actual journalist job that Berlet has had was at High Times, which is not exactly a mainstream publication. If he is a journalist at all, it is as an Advocacy Journalist. His own website describes him as a "free-lance writer," which is probably the accurate way of putting it. He has been interviewed in mainstream publications, but then, so has Lyndon LaRouche. Waalkes (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes I read wikipedia article. I even quoted it. The problem here though is that all you have really read. There's his decades of work with PRA... I'm sorry I'm not doing that. He has a long body of work. His work meets wikipedia standards of peer review. He also isn't the only the questionable source used.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: PRA is an advocacy group, not an academic organization. The problem I see here is that this is essentially a clash of two opposing political tendencies, both of whom might want to exploit Wikipedia in order to influence public opinion. See WP:NOTADVOCATE. Joe Bodacious (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that Wiesenthal says Berlet is one of two top experts on the Schiller Institute. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and PRA is not affiliated with Newsnight. Newsnight being the source. BBC newsnight. I'm interested in hearing how BBC newsnight is trying to influence wiki. PRA is hardly the extent of Bertlets work. His  award nominated hightimes article that is being spoken down about was written 3 years prior to joining PRA. That's not only publication that he wrote about in that time period. There's also his work with the mother of that Duggan kid. Wiesenthal does rate him on expertise regarding this. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned the other time the Wiesenthal Center was brought up, you have one group of political activists endorsing another. This does nothing to establish Berlet as a reliable source, in fact, it underscores the problematic nature of using him as a source (per WP:NOTADVOCATE.) With respect to Newsnight, the Berlet material is an interview, and Wikipedia considers interviews to be primary sources, which should also be avoided. In an interview, there is no fact checking or any of the other features that characterize a WP:RS. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Simon Wiesenthal Center is a respected research group, frequently cited in scholarly works about hate and antisemitism. If anybody knows who are the two or three top experts on the Schiller Institute, it is the Wiesenthal Center. The Wiesenthal Center is acknowledged as critically important in the 1995 ABC-CLIO book Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution. The Wiesenthal Center is listed as an important resource along with the ADL and SPLC in 2004's Antisemitism: A Reference Handbook, another ABC-CLIO offering. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

text: The issue is how much weight. At times like this I ask myself, What would an encyclopedia do? I don't think an encyclopedia would devote much space to enabling one activist to accuse another activist of secretly harboring bad thoughts, which can only be detected by fringey types who can hear "echoes" and coded messages. As I said above, we can mention it, but I think the weight should be minimal. Also, perhaps one of you should address the issue of an interview being a primary source. Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Since your argument is rotating you should really consider point out the wikipedia policy and an argument based off of it that a person should be given less weight on the basis of activism. This is a significant viewpoint and published by reliable sources. You were claiming BLP Group policy violation in the edit notes. You open an RFC on the basis of the reliability of the source while also getting it struck as copyvio issue if people didn't agree. Which any copyvio issue would only give us a basis to remove the links for you tube and just cite it directly to newsnight and the episode in question. Now you are are bringing up weight.. An argument that seems to be a recycled argument ripped from Chip Bertlet's wiki page from John George and Laird Wilcox. So with all do respect I have to ask you to get to the point. Right now your argument very much seems to be "I don't like it." to that I would offer the useless argument "I don't care." It has the same value as "I don't like it." So again please point out the relevent wikipedia policy and an argument based of it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Scroll up about 4 inches, you'll see the links. Please note the two-part question -- the second part asks how much weight should be given to allegations of this sort. Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't take the hint, you should go insert that in your RFC up top. The RFC would still be malformed but your question could be presented with an answer. Are you familiar with the concept of TL;DR?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

text: The major thing to note about this RFC is that it is an attempt to disqualify this source. The source isn't youtube. It is "Samuels, Tim. "Jeremiah Duggan's death and Lyndon LaRouche," Newsnight, 12 February 2004". As far as youtube, you are right. The said links should be removed. This does not however disqualify said source. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the source is not "Samuels, Tim." The portion that is actually being used is an interview with Chip Berlet, which is considered a primary source (see WP:PRIMARY.) If the source were Samuels, Tim, there would presumably be fact-checking. Not so with interviews. Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your logic is somewhat sound all the question that left would be why you consider it a primary source and not a secondary source as it has alot in common with secondary sources. However while I see a valid reason to change the citation I don't see no reason to disqualify the source or remove the source material with your new argument.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:PRIMARY#cite_note-3. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Though it's a popular belief, posting a blue link doesn't actually equal an argument. Since I'm not a mind reader I'm left with the exact same reason I posed before. It can't be simply because it's an interview. Depending on context an interview can be considered a primary source. So in what context do you feel that this is a primary source. I feel the need to repeat, This argument does not however disqualify said source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Chip Berlet is an expert, not a random interview subject. His statements carry the weight of his research and analysis. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Berlet's views are not analyzed—they are presented verbatim—so this is a primary source. Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I bold certain comments that I make so that they really stand out to you? I feel the need to repeat, This argument does not however disqualify said source.  Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, SJP, you shouldn't, because you're usually a few steps behind the action. I was merely quoting Binksternet's comments here for ironic effect. Joe Bodacious (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

text: * Article title in English is "Death on the Streets".
There must be other, similar sources available, ones that call the Schiller Institute antisemitic. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on "Allegations of antisemitism" section 

message: Re: . 
Huh? This appears to be some bad faithed "I'm gonna slap as many tags on this section that I IDONTLIKE to make it look sketchy" strategy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You also complain below about my adding the "speculation" tag, because I object to the idea that an encyclopedia ought to provide Chip Berlet with a platform to say that he "hears non-obvious echoes of antisemitic conspiracy theories." You are complaining about my adding a tag, after adding three tags yourself.Joe Bodacious (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This was one of my original points when I filed the RfC, which seems dead in the water at this point. In my opinion, it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia to publish innuendo. I'm sure that's in WP:NOT somewhere. Now, since you have added three tags to the article without explanation, and I know that you disapprove of people adding tags without explanation, perhaps you could explain those three. I would hate to think that you were employing a "I'm gonna slap as many tags on this section that I IDONTLIKE to make it look sketchy" strategy.Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because my tags make sense and are justified by policy. The lede actually DOES NOT summarize the article, for example. Your tag does not make sense and is just your way of expressing your WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

text: It's probably time to take this to ANI. You have policy shopping, advocacy, and a user making bad faith edits on another page due to a conversation here. And so much more can just be said.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Speculation" tag 

message: For the benefit of other participants in this discussion, and especially since bringing Joe's actions on this article to AN/I has been brought up by  above, let me make you aware that Joe decided to get pre-emptive and filed an AN/I report first here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  AN/I 

message: Talking here seems to have failed. This slow motion editor war doesn't seem to be working. It would probably be advisable to see some form of dispute resolution.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful to have input from some uninvolved editors, but the RfC only attracted one, who made a brief comment and then left. What I would propose is that we first reach some agreement on what constitutes an acceptable source. I see that in other articles, VM is arguing against the use of opinion pieces. I think it would be appropriate to exclude them here as well, along with self-published sources. I am also thinking of opening a discussion at the BLP noticeboard. I'm not convinced that BLP shouldn't be a factor here. If you want to accuse people of antisemitism etc., exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing exceptional about the label of antisemitism attached to LaRouche the man, and LaRouche the belief system. So many sources declare it that Wikipedia does not need to attribute the fact. It's more difficult to find sources saying Schiller Institute is antisemitic, because the usual statement in sources is that antisemitism permeates all LaRouche organizations. Far fewer make a separate statement about the Schiller Institute. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please for the love of god take it to BLPN. That is why it is there.  The RFC attracted 1 that stayed. Me. The RFC wasn't very well written. Launch another one if you want. Take care in writing it. What is needed at this point is a mediator. We don't need an agreement on what constitutes a reliable source. There's already policy there for that. If you want to go over each source and give a policy based argument why it's bad then by all means do. A policy argument. Not what another editor did in some other article somewhere else. Why should opinion pieces be excluded here? What policy? Further which sources are you calling opinion pieces? Which are the Self published sources you are cursing about and why should they be exclude by policy? If you don't want to do that here take it to the reliable sources noticeboard after your done with the BLP board. I don't want to accuse people of anti-semitism and as of the last time I really checked this article doesn't. Some of the sources do and those views are attributed to those sources. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now locked until the 31st. To state the obvious this content dispute needs to move forward in some manner of dispute resolution. This lock is basically a discretionary sanction. The next step is probably blocks if this doesn't work.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: Those editors involved in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Schiller Institute I do ask you to consider making no further changes in relation to what this dispute is over.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was protected until June 1st. In the mean time the request for mediation was filed. As soon as protection expired Waalkes jumped in and reverted to his preferred version, initiating this last round of edit warring. This is just trying to have your cake and eat it too. The article should be restored to the version that was protected, then we should commence with the mediation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree. However I'm not sure that will happen. However I don't think it would be much to ask everyone going forward to just take a step back. The page has been blocked and next step I think is blocks if we fall back into a pattern disruptive editing. That could be avoided is all I'm saying. Respectfully it is only a request.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  We've all agreed to mediation. This micro edit war is double dealing. It has to stop while we are waiting for a mediator. Can we come to some kind of agreement to hold us over until mediation?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial changes should be avoided. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Schiller Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070328173027/http://www.jp.dk:80/indland/artikel:aid=4308762/ to http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=4308762/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Schiller Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070926220749/http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/print/seite_3/642655.html to http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/print/seite_3/642655.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Schiller Institute. 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/20080313011614/http://www.main-rheiner.de/region/objekt.php3?artikel_id=2793524 to http://www.main-rheiner.de/region/objekt.php3?artikel_id=2793524
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Schiller Institute. 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/20060905062858/http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/html/inquest.html to http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/html/inquest.html
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) 17:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified