Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/medcab06-07

message: Policies here on Wikipedia are complex. After reviewing them, the following was determined
#The NPOV policy allows Dking to edit, provided that the content he adds is properly referenced per WP:ATT.
#"COI and NOR allow, but generally discourage Dking from citing sources of his creation."
#Inappropriate unsourced contributions will be removed.
Approve
It looks reasonable to me if the final line is minorly changed to "Inappropriate unsourced material will be removed."  Statement's that require footnotes should have footnotes, but every line doesn't have to be a footnote extravaganza.  I don't think anyone has been complaining about lack of footnotes from dking.  As I understand it, Tsunami Butler's complaint is that there are too many. -- Mgunn 09:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Solution to 1,5 (Take 2)

message: WP:UNDUE: From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
:* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
:* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
:* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
WP:FRINGE: "The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia."
Theories by Dking or Cberlet that I believe conflict with these guidelines include:
*The theory that criticism of Great Britain or of Venice is a form of anti-Semitism
*The theory that support for NASA, or fraternization with NASA scientists, German or otherwise, represents support for fascism
*The assertion that LaRouche has a plot for "conquering the world," that "centers on eliminating a Jewish banking oligarchy."
I do not object to these theories being briefly referenced under "Criticism," but the article should not become an essay or soapbox for these views.
WP:LIVING#Biased_or_malicious_content: "Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article."
WP:COI#Citing_oneself: "Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest.  When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether or not your citation is an appropriate one, and defer to the community's opinion."
Dking and Cberlet have inserted inappropriate large amounts of self-cited work. Since, in my view, there can be no doubt that both of them are "pushing an agenda," citing their own essays cannot be seen as citing "reliable third party sources." Will Beback has claimed that for their to be conflict of interest, Dking or Cberlet would have to be making money off of Wikipedia, but in fact, that's not what WP:COI actually says. What Dking and Cberlet are doing is promoting themselves.
WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing: "...remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is dickish."  Whenever an edit by Dking or Cberlet is disputed, those two, along with Will Beback and Mgunn, immediate commence referring to the disputing editor as a "LaRouche supporter." This is not only a form of McCarthyism, but it also is a clear case of "attributing motives." Will Beback went one step further, insinuating that dissenting editors were being paid by LaRouche (diff.) See also Dking's comment below. 
WP:RS:"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:	
* surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known;
* surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media;
* reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
* claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. 
Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.
:The claim of Dennis King and Chip Berlet that LaRouche is a closet fascist is covered by all of the above, particularly in that it is "against an interest [he] had previously defended," i.e. LaRouche campaigns loudly against fascism. This is also a claim that "seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial," and a "surprisingly or apparently important calim that is not widely known." King certainly claims that there is a conspiracy to silence him. Virtually all of the edits of Dking (other than strictly factual biographical material) and Cberlet are intended to "spin" the article to lend credence to this claim.
(To be continued) --Tsunami Butler 15:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific Wikipedia policies which, I contend, have been violated at this article

message: :::By this line of reasoning, Tsunami, [I am referring to your comments in the WP:FRINGE paragraph above], the edits of you and your colleagues should be deleted from this article, since your view of LaRouche as a great genius and world savior without an anti-Semitic bone in his body (and whose federal felony conviction was a plot against an innocent man orchestrated by evil "oligarchs") is a crank view held by a very very small minority. I am not advocating deleting your viewpoint, merely pointing out the logical consequences of your argument.--Dking 23:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsunami Butler wants me to stop referring to her as a "LaRouche supporter," calling the phrase "McCarthyism." Does she DENY she's a supporter of LaRouche? Who else but a LaRouche supporter would characterize the LaRouche movement's vociferous support for Nazi war criminal Arthur Rudolph (which involved describing the prosecutors of Rudolph and other war criminals as KGB agents, subhumans and followers of the anti-Christ) as innocent support for "NASA scientists" (or, as Tsunami or one of her comrades wrote earlier, support for "scientific research")? And I note that one of Tsunami's fellow LaRouche fans deleted the paragraph referring to their leader's support for Nazi war criminals from the article prior to its being blocked from further editing. If anyone tries to restore it when the article is unblocked, will the "LaRouchians who are not LaRouchians" start yet another edit war?--Dking 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Dking

message: Personal attacks do not advance the purposes of the project. In the course of article content disputes, they are sometimes used by tendentious editors as a diversionary tactic (see also Poisoning the well.) The fact of the matter, Dking, is that your edits have frequently violated Wikipedia policy in ways that are so egregious that any good-faith editor could not help but notice them, without having any particular opionion with regard to LaRouche. This appears to be the case with User:Pascal.Tesson, which is why I found your conduct toward him so reprehensible.
With regard to Arthur Rudolph, perhaps you would care to cite your sources. I found this commentary by a LaRouche movement writer by googling: "The most outrageous case was that against Dr. Arthur Rudolph. While he declared his innocence, he agreed to be deported. Once in Germany, an investigation ensued into the war-crimes charges. He was found by German authorities to be innocent of all charges. But the effect of this scheme was that the German-American scientists, who had been the backbone of America's space and defense programs, were terrified and demoralized." The Wikipedia article Arthur Rudolph seems to confirm this version of the story. So your characterization of Rudolph as a "Nazi war criminal" seems to me to be irresponsible and a violation of WP:LIVING. This sort of conduct on your part harms the project. --Tsunami Butler 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: response

message: User name "Geo." invited people to this page, presumably to serve as mediator. But the two mediation proposals so far have been unsigned, and at Geo.'s own page it is announced that he/she has taken a break from Wikipedia. So would the persons proposing solutions to the points of contention please identify themselves?--Dking 22:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though unsigned, the page history  shows that Geo.pl made the edits. -Will Beback · † · 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I am back from break. Geo. Talk to me 02:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions on proposed solutions

message: I briefly edited the article and left a few comments on the talk page in mid-February. I would be very reluctant to do so again, because I was immediately followed to my main articles of interest by User:172 and User:Will Beback, and harassed by them. They began reverting my edits and/or claiming that they were LaRouche-inspired. I believe that this is a tactic of intimidation to scare away any editors that might try to challenge their domination of the Lyndon LaRouche article. --HonourableSchoolboy 15:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone say what the status of this is, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on point #8

message: How many times do these policies have to be revisited? Just look at the box above on "Mediation, arbitration, and requests for clarification." As long as Dennis King and I follow the appropriate Wiki guidelines, as published authors concerning Mr. LaRouche, we can carefully cite our own work, especially when LaRouche supporters systematically remove cites to our work, which in some cases was originally posted by other editors. As for credentials, I do not have a degree, but my writing has appeared in major newspapers, been presented at academic conferences, and has been published in scholarly journals and academic press books. I am on the editorial board of a scholarly journal that deals with fascism and totalitarianism. This entire case is superfluous and a gigantic waste of time.--Cberlet 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I'm concerned that it was ever started. The policies are clear, and the ArbCom decisions are clear, so what more is there to mediate? Could the mediator, if there is one, identify himself, please, and say what the status of this case is, and what the issues are? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just waiting for Citizendium.  -- Mgunn 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the issue of Berlet's credentials, I describe him as the "dean of LaRouche watchers" in my book on LaRouche published by a reputable publisher. That should be worth at least as much as Lyndon's purchased "Academician" title from the Moscow Ecological Institute.--Dking 19:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, the two of you held an election, and you elected him Dean? --HonourableSchoolboy 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, the recognition of Berlet's expertise in this subject matter comes from the many mainstream publications that have published his work, the many appearances he has made on national TV, the many legitimate organizations that have invited him to give presentations, and the many scholars and journalists who have cited his work.  My use of the term "dean of Larouche watchers" also reflects the fact that Berlet has covered the LaRouche beat continuously for over 30 years, beginning before I did and continuing during the 1990s when I was pretty much silent on the topic. Hence I would say he has fully earned an informal honorific (in contrast to LaRouche's formal "Academician" title, which is a joke to anyone outside LaRouche's entourage).--Dking 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware that LaRouche had any title, and it's irrelevant. The article is about LaRouche. He's automatically notable. In my opinion there has to be some standard of notability that determines how much of the article space is devoted to the claims of critics. --HonourableSchoolboy 00:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please stop making personal attacks, and read the relevant ArbCom cases carefully (all of them). This case is closed, by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the ArbCom decisons thoroughly. They are very specific. I see no endorsement of PRA as a source. I see nothing unreasonable in asking you to explain, with specific citations, your claims about the Arbcom decisions. --Tsunami Butler 13:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on entire case

message: I believe that the whole point of this proceeding is that Dennis King and Chip Berlet do not follow the appropriate Wiki guidelines. Also, I have seen statements by SlimVirgin that the ArbCom decisions say that PRA is a valid source. I see nothing in those decisions that could be construed as saying that. I'm sure that in some instances it would be perfectly valid, and in other instances not, depending especially on the guidelines in BLP. It is also clear from the ArbCom decisions that "promotion of LaRouche" means sticking superfluous references to him all over the place -- not asking that articles about him follow BLP. This is another example of SlimVirgin trying to bend these decisions to her own purposes. --HonourableSchoolboy 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop making personal attacks, and read the relevant ArbCom cases carefully (all of them). This case is closed, by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the ArbCom decisons thoroughly. They are very specific. I see no endorsement of PRA as a source. I see nothing unreasonable in asking you to explain, with specific citations, your claims about the Arbcom decisions. --Tsunami Butler 13:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response