Talk:Death of Jeremiah Duggan/Archive 2

I have put the dispute label because the article presents no evidence that the Schiller Institute played any role at all in Duggan's death; it only presents a politically motivated conspiracy theory. --Caroline 17:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You are a sockpuppet, as was shown by the banned list of users. This version of the article was written by Herschelkrustofsky and agreed by myself to resolve the NPOV dispute, at which point the tag was removed. The article does not have to present evidence, as you put it. No original research is permitted. The article quotes from a coroner's court. I am deleting the tag because you give no good reason for it, and offer no solution. Slim 18:06, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Your childish personal attacks do not do much to boost your credibility. --Caroline 16:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Slim, the matter of removing an NPOV tag is not at your discretion. It is an issue for the Wikipedia community at large. Also, you are out of line in accusing her of being a sockpuppet (didn't Weed ask you whether you were a sockpuppet for Adam? Did you give an answer?), and the ban was reversed, apparently by Jimbo. --20:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You, Weed Harper, C Colden and the notorious Usenet LaRouche activist Ralph Gibbons have all posted from within two ranges of IP addresses. I therefore believe that one or more of you are sockpuppets. I will not allow this tag suddenly to reappear. YOU wrote this version; we agreed it after a long dispute; and YOU removed the tag. The content has not changed since then. You and your sockpuppets are simply trying to waste my time, and I will not enter into any further discussions with you. Below is the Arb Comm ruling. Please stick to it. I will delete any claims you make that are not relevant or properly referenced using reputable sources. Regarding the photograph, please post the permission of the copyright holder, or don't use it. Slim 21:20, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling:

1) Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

2) Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon LaRouche directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.

3) Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.

4) If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche.

Slim, get a grip
The portions of the ArbCom ruling which are relevant to this article, and the others where you have started new edit wars, including Dennis King and Schiller Institute, are the following: "the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles"; and "articles where they are highly relevant." These articles where you are on the edit warpath are indisputably articles where LaRouche is "closely related" and "highly relevant" (should it surprise you that anyone might come to the conclusion that you are an anti-LaRouche activist?), so the issue of "original research" has no bearing on these articles. Regarding the photograph, and I assume that you mean the one at Dennis King, I have patiently explained to you three times that I received permission from the copyright holder, which is EIR/Stuart K. Lewis, that I followed procedure when I uploaded it, and it is all right there at, where anyone not suffering from hysterical blindness should be able to see it with no difficulty.

Now, regarding your new tactic of starting an edit war over the NPOV tag: you should read this very carefully. --H.K. 21:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You're just confirming what a waste of time it is to deal with you. YOU wrote this version. I agreed to it only as a compromise to get the dispute over, and to have the NPOV tag removed. So you wait a couple of weeks and put it back, even though the contents have not changed. What a joke you are. You're a LaRouche propagandist, pure and simple, and it is unacceptable that you are editing these articles. Read the NPOV notice carefully yourself. There must be specific grievances that can be fixed before an NPOV notice can be used. The claim that the article provides no evidence of Schiller Institute involvement is absurd. It quotes a court of law, where evidence was presented. What more do you and your sockpuppets want? I am now certain you are Ralph Gibbons. Slim 22:08, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Your accusation that I am Ralph Gibbons is 1) hogwash, and 2) a pretty desperate debating tactic. It ranks up there with accusing C Colden and Weed Harper of being the same person, because they both got the same welcome message from Sam Spade on their user talk pages. --H.K. 21:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-

Wikipedia policy
Below are the principles and policies that all editors, including those editors who support Lyndon LaRouche, must adhere to, with no exceptions. No further discussion will be entered into about this by me, as enough has been said. Slim 23:55, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Verifiability


 * Cite sources


 * Neutral point of view


 * No original research


 * Copyrights (Images must be licensed directly from the copyright holder, who must waive the copyright so the image can be freely distributed by Wikipedia readers.)

Regarding novel narratives involving a new synthesis of information: "An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one," Jimbo Wales (WikiEN-l, Dec 6, 2004)

Regarding NPOV and factual accuracy dispute tags, these must be accompanied by specific objections that are fixable. Otherwise, it is a misuse of the tag. -

NPOV objection
I ran a search on GOOGLE news this morning for Jeremian Duggan, and came up with zero results. This confirms my suspicion that the story was simply a propaganda ploy by unscrupulous members of the British establishment, seeking to harm the reputation of the Schiller Institute by preying on the grief of the poor Duggan woman. I believe SlimVirgin wrote this story to make Wikipedia a soapbox for his Anti-LaRouche campaign, which goes against Wikipedia policy. A neutral article would contain more skepticism about the story, because their is no evidence at all of "mind-control." The poor boy attended a conference, like some thousands of others who have attended Schiller Institute conferences, without going insane. --Caroline 14:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You are wrong on several counts as usual. First, his name is Jeremiah, not Jeremian, which could account for why you found nothing. Second, there have been several news articles on the story as you well know. Why are you trying to pretend there haven't been? Third, the Wikipedia article only repeated what was said in the British coroner's court and reported by reputable newspapers i.e. Times, Guardian, Independent and Washington Post. No reputable newspaper (and not even a disreputable one) has published any criticism of the Duggan affair. The only one that has is the LaRouche publication, which is quoted. Wikipedia is not allowed to do original research. We cannot invent our own skepticism. Fourth, many young people who have attended Schiller Institute and LaRouche Youth Movement meetings have spoken of the disturbing effect these have. You should start reading some of these accounts. You complain about the provision of references, yet clearly don't read them. Fifth, to have a legitimate NPOV objection, you must make concrete suggestions regarding how the article could be fixed according to Wikipedia policy.

You are a LaRouche recruit yourself and your sole function in Wikipedia is to cause trouble around articles that mention LaRouche negatively. You are a toxic troll. Slim 20:07, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

reorganization
I have reorganized this article, which was pretty ragged, to group the known facts together. As it was before, virtually everything about the man's death was repeated twice, esp. his phone call to his mother, his meeting with the LaRouche newspaper-man in Paris, et cetera. Also, I have eliminated many external links where we already have internal ones. DanKeshet 01:37, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Dan, thanks for your edit. I think you've improved the article a lot. I've changed a couple of very small points for flow. For example, you mentioned that Duggan told his mother that the Institute was very extreme before you'd said what the Institute was. Also, the conference was organized by the Institute, but the cadre school by LYM. I also re-inserted the biographical bit about LaRouche and the 15-year sentence, because otherwise someone reading this article alone might not know anything about him. Regarding the references and external links, I just noticed you removed some, so I'm going to put them back. Some of these references were included after much discussion: for example, supporters of LaRouche wanted the Disinfopedia article on the Tavistock, and that was agreed to. But otherwise I've left your edit as it is. Thanks for doing it. Slim 02:49, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Dan, I've just gone back and put back the references and external links you removed. I also noticed you'd removed the paragraph with the quote about the Beatles being shaped according to Tavistock specifications. Again, these were sections already agreed with previous editors. Part of the LaRouche claim is that the Tavistock is a long-term mind-control organization, so that quote speaks to that. Best, Slim 03:02, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * To the editor who keeps putting on the NPOV tag. This can only be done if you list objections that can be addressed. The only objection I have read so far is that the article does not prove that the Schiller Institute was involved in the death. Wikipedia does not do original research and cannot "prove" such a thing. All Wikipedia can do is use reputable references. The references in this case are the summing up of a British coroner's court as reported in The Times, The Guardian, The Independent and The Washington Post. The only published rebuttal by the LaRouche organization is also quoted from and referenced. Wikipedia cannot do more than that. If you keep on putting the NPOV tag on without addressing fixable problems, I will keep on removing it. If you have a fixable problem, post it. If you feel the article should not exist, post it at Votes for Deletion. But do not misuse the NPOV tag. Slim 04:16, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Slim,

Thanks for your kind words regarding my edits. The reason I removed the external links--especially the inline ones, but also the links at the bottom, was because it is usually wikipedia policy to link externally where we don't have internal links. They are distracting and break up the flow of the article. The link to the Schiller Institute here is unnecessary, because we already have an article on it with it's own external link. Where the links were in fact references, I have left them, but many of them were not references, just misplaced external links.

DanKeshet 20:01, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I'll take a look at what you've done, but the thing with this page is that it went through a lot of negotiation, the links too. Because the LaRouche organization is being accused of something, they should be allowed to have links that they feel adds to their defence. Therefore, some links that may not seem to be necessary ought to be left in. I'm writing this, though, before I've looked at what you've done, but if I revert or change anything, that'll be the likely reason. Wikipedia policy is to have a References section listing the articles, books or websites that were used by the authors while creating the article, and there should also be an inline reference. I agree with you that extra inline links (e.g. to Schiller Institute etc) are probably unnecessary if they're not references but I think most of them are, except perhaps the first two. Anyway, thanks again for your attention to the page. Best, Slim 20:43, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean: the sections had duplicated themselves. Must have been an editing glitch. Thanks for deleting it. Slim 20:56, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Alright, I've removed those first two, non-specific inline links. I would like to also remove the two non-specific external links to Schiller Institute and LYM.  You say that "[b]ecause the LaRouche organization is being accused of something, they should be allowed to have links that they feel adds to their defence".  In fact, they have several, and the non-specific links to their organizations neither 'add to their defence' nor inform readers more about Jeremiah Duggan than the internal links to those organizations do.


 * More generally, I understand that this page was the subject of an edit war and a carefully established consensus, but I still want to edit it more, because I feel that we can do better. Specifically, I think that the section headlines (esp. "Mrs. Duggan's allegations") are inappropriate; I think the sentence in the lead paragraph: "The circumstances of his death are controversial" needs to be changed to describe the 'controversy' and not merely assert that it exists.  Also, I don't think it's right to only credit Jewish organizations when saying that the LaRouche organizations have been accused of being anti-Semitic and fascist.  Those allegations have come from many places.  Are these also the result of compromises? Should I tread carefully there, too? DanKeshet 22:31, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Dan, it's a difficult situation. There are a couple of editors who support LaRouche and at least one of them feels the article shouldn't exist at all. The other felt it was too POV and so he wrote a version, and I wrote a version, then we compared versions, reached a compromise, and then he wrote up more-or-less the article you see on the page. I think part of the choppiness came from trying to meld the two versions together. I agree with most of your suggestions, but the others may not (and probably will not). Having said that, this page does not belong to any group of editors, so if you want to make changes, you are free to do so; just be ready to justify any reorganization and to provide references for anything new you insert, because you may be challenged. Regarding the inline links to their organizations, I don't think they put those in; I believe that was me, so feel free to remove them. The specific external links they wanted were the ones about the Tavistock. . . I can't remember the others. I'll go and take a look. Slim 03:35, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a look. Feel free to remove any inline links that are not references, because I think many and perhaps all of these were my edits, and I don't mind. Regarding links in the References section, these should probably all stay, and the External links section should probably all stay too, but in External links I believe the LaRouche supporters particularly wanted Beyond Psychoanalysis by Lyn Marcus (Lyndon LaRouche), 1973 and Disinfopedia article on the Tavistock Clinic. In the References section, they particularly wanted Full proceedings of the Schiller Institute Conference which Jeremiah attended, [http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/site_packages/3125symons.html The Bizarre Case of Baroness Symons. The LaRouche response to the Duggan case] and The Tavistock Grin from LaRouche's Campaigner magazine, 1968.

Regarding your question about Jewish or non-Jewish organizations alleging LaRouche groups are fascist and anti-Semitic, no, we didn't use only Jewish sources as a compromise. In fact, I believe the other editors would probably prefer that, for example, the Anti-Defamation League not be used as a source, as they feel the ADL is biased against LaRouche. So if you can find a more neutral source, they might agree to that. But I can't speak for them. Slim 03:52, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to rekindle the controversy, but I feel that the last edit by DanKeshet was more in accord with NPOV policy than the subsequent changes by SlimVirgin. Dan's version is more encyclopediac, presenting information in a neutral way, whereas Slim's changes seem intended to bolster the accusations and inflame the reader's opinion against LaRouche. I have not edited it (other than to correct a spelling error) for fear of re-starting an edit war, when I have some hope of ending the related edit war at Schiller Institute. However, I would like to go on record as preferring Dan's version. --HK 07:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Herschel, by all means say what you don't like about the copy edit. I felt some of the flow had been lost and there was some awkward phrasing. I tried very hard not to increase POV/decrease NPOV, so please let me know which bits you feel inflame the reader's opinion. I also thought you'd like it that I reduced the photo. Slim 08:03, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, for example, Dan didn't feel it necessary to include in the first sentence of the "Background" section that Jeremiah "was Jewish", nor did he include the attacks by the ADL in the first paragraph of that section. He first presented the undisputed facts of the case, and then included the allegations by the ADL, which is a controversial organization. The fact that Jeremiah was Jewish is undisputed, but to emphasize it in the first sentence looks like you are building a case for the ADL's views, and putting the ADL's views up front makes the article appear to be more of a propaganda piece than an encyclopedia article. I have no opinion whatsoever about the size of the photo. --HK 22:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Government officials at the conference
Weed, could you provide a reference for your edit that "The 82-year-old perennial American presidential candidate was himself a speaker at the two-day conference, along with economists and government officials from a broad spectrum of nations including Poland, Russia, China, India, South Korea and Nigeria."

I couldn't see any reference in the link you provided to "government officials from a broad spectrum of nations." My apologies if it's there and I missed it. Slim 01:53, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I just checked the link at the end of that sentence, and it works fine. All the info is there. Weed Harper 14:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Weed, I checked the information. I can't see any reference to "government officials from a broad spectrum of nations." Who were they? Slim 19:00, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Some are government officials (or former government officials), some are economists, some are both: Prof. Dr. Vladimir S. Myasnikov (Institute for the Far East, Russian Academy of Sciences), Dr. Bi Jiyao (Academy of Macro-Economic Research, State Development Planning Commission, China), Chandrajit Yadav, (Former Union Minister, India), Ambassador Kim Song-woo (Secretary General, East Asian Common Space Secretariat, Seoul, Korea), Dr. Ahn Byung-min (Director of the Department of Rail Transportation Research of the Korea Transport Institute), Markku Heiskanen (Nordic Instititute of Asian Studies), Dr. Zbigniew Kwiczak (Former Minister at the Polish Embassy in Moscow). Weed Harper 06:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Weed, I'm sorry to be a pain about this, but the burden of proof for edits is on the editor, not on anyone who asks about it. Which of the above, exactly, were government officials at the time of the conference? Slim 20:38, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * You are being something of a pain. Do you nit-pick like this on non-LaRouche articles? Because I guarantee that the formulation of my sentence would be perfectly acceptable anywhere else. But to avoid more conflict, I will now remove it, and replace it with simply a list of the speakers with their respective titles. Weed Harper 22:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do this with non-Larouche articles and I don't regard it as nit-picking. It's Wikipedia policy that you must be able to verify your edits. If you say or imply of a conference that a number of government officials attended, you're giving the conference a certain weight that it would otherwise not have. Therefore, you have to be certain that what you're saying is true. The problem with using LaRouche publications as sources is that they tend to give certain impressions that, when checked, turn out not to be accurate. There is no need in this article for a list of everyone who attended the conference. Simply state which ones, if any, were government officials. Slim 23:11, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Slim, would you care to cite an example of an "impression" you got from a LaRouche publication that turned out not to be accurate? --HK 06:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Slim, I don't think one needs to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. I should think that you may assume that the ones with formal titles, like "Ambassador," are current government officials. But I'd like to point out that Weed's edit said "along with economists and government officials from a broad spectrum of nations", and I'm not certain why you seem so bent on identifying which name belongs to which category. --HK 22:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well then Weed will have no trouble doing it. Assumptions aren't enough. The article now sounds as though a number of government officials attended that conference, which I very much doubt, so it needs to be clarified or removed. Please let's have some precision in edits, with references that back them up. Slim 22:38, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Jeremiah to Duggan
I noticed that in other articles about deaths, even of young people, the surname is used, so I've changed Jeremiah to Duggan throughout. I did a very light copy edit while I was there, but there was no significant content change. SlimVirgin 02:42, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)