Talk:Death of Jeremiah Duggan/Archive 1

Tennenbaum/Tavistock=

user:Weed Harper, please say in the edit box what you have changed, as otherwise it makes it impossible to keep track. I disagree with your addition of the strange article on the Tavistock. If you read the article, you wil see that it is full of nonsense, even just small things like Freud being given a mansion in London. That alone shows that the writer has no specialist knowledge of Freud. If you are a LaRouche supporter, I hope you will abide by the arbitration decision that LaRouche supporters are not allowed to engage in LaRouche-related advocacy. I also see you deleted the reference to Dr. Tannenbaum. Please say why. user:SlimVirgin 14 Nov 2004, 01:25 (UTC)

user:Weed Harper I checked the information on Tennenbaum. Duggan's mother has told reporters that Tennenbaum said this to her during a meeting she had with him. I have therefore restored it making clear that she is the source.

You added that the Tavistock ran the Psychiatric Division of the British Army during WWII. This is a LaRouche claim. I will check again to see whether it is authentically part of the Tavistock's history. If it is, I will delete that it's a LaRouche claim. user:SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin, the EIR article cites a source: The Shaping of Psychiatry by War, by Dr. John Rawlings Rees. I have modified Colden's edit to reflect this.

Herschel, please don't insert anything from the EIR without full attribution. It is a LaRouche publication. Wikipedia must not be used for LaRouche advocacy. This issue may have to be referred for arbitration. You are inserting material that is simply made up. The conference, for example, was NOT organized to oppose the Iraq war and was not about the Iraq War. I don't have time to argue each and every pro-LaRouche point. Therefore, I feel we should refer to the arbitration committee that made the decision about LaRouche-related material the last time. I have reverted to the previous version -- but I will insert any material from the other versions if it is in the form of a defence against the allegations from a LaRouche spokesperson, or a relevant fact that can be sourced to a reputable publication. user:SlimVirgin

I think that this article is largely propaganda. Duggan was not a member, nor an activist in the LaRouche movement. He just showed up at a conference. You might as well blame the restaurant where he had breakfast. It seems pretty clear to me that Ms. Duggan is being manipulated by people who are indifferent to her personal tragedy. --C Colden 16:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am going to revert to the previous version because you have inserted LaRouche propaganda into this article. (1) You cannot possibly have personal knowledge of when the mother started her investigation. She says it was 18 months ago; I would say it started when she flew to Wiesbaden after her son's death to speak to senior Schiller Institute managers, which was over 18 months ago; (2) You also cannot have personal knowledge of whether the mother's inquiries began only after she was encouraged by Baroness Symons. This is the Executive Intelligence Review position. The EIR is a LaRouche publication. Don't insert its material into Wikipedia's articles without attribution; (3) Why did you delete that Duggan had personally heard LaRouche give an address? (4) What difference does it make that Duggan wasn't a LaRouche activist? He bought a LaRouche newspaper and was persuaded to attend a LaRouche conference in another country with a group of LaRouche activists. A week later, he phoned his mother in a state of panic, sounding terrified. Forty-five minutes later, he died in odd circumstances. After his death, police found a Schiller Institute manager to be in possession of Duggan's passport. What is the difference to this chain of events that this was, or was not, Duggan's first involvement with the LaRouche organization? Please note the Wikipedia arbitration ruling that LaRouche supporters are not to use Wikipedia for LaRouche advocacy. user:SlimVirgin 20:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have gone over C Colden's edits and attributed them properly. Do the press accounts that you are using suggest that LaRouche's speech somehow damaged Duggan psychologically? If not, you need to establish how it is relevant to the article. Also, SlimVirgin, please cite some sources for this paragraph:

The LaRouche organization is regarded by many as an extremist, anti-Semitic cult. Erica Duggan has told reporters that, when German police broke the news of her son's death, they said: "Go nowhere near these people. They are dangerous." (See political views of Lyndon LaRouche.) A Scotland Yard report describes the LaRouche organization as "a political cult with sinister and dangerous connections."

Since it looks like this is going to be a somewhat contentious editing job, I would like to request that all participants edit items individually, with appropriate edit summary memos, rather than resorting to wholesale reversion. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, I also don't like the idea of wholesale reversion either, but it is not acceptable for LaRouche propaganda to be allowed to insert itself into this article, for obvious reasons. The source for the paragraph above (what the German police said and the Scotland Yard report) is the coroner's inquest. I will make that clear. I think we should refer this for arbitration/mediation, rather than continually reverting, if the dispute continues. The arbitration committee has ruled that Wikipedia must not be used for LaRouche advocacy, and that ruling must be adhered to. Please do not insert any material from the LaRouche Executive Intelligence Review unless it is directly relevant and fully attributed. Also, if you do make any such additions, ADD the material: do not delete something else and replace it. Finally, why are the discussion pages of C Colden and Weed Harper identical? Are they the same person? user:SlimVirgin 22:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia NPOV policy: it is the foundation for settling disputes. Both sides of a controversy must be presented in an article, with proper attribution. If you feel we need mediation, I would suggest contacting Snowspinner, who successfully mediated the last round of LaRouche-related edit conflicts. Meanwhile, I went to the trouble of painstakingly attributing each item from EIR, and I would ask that you do me the courtesy of responding to individual edits, rather than reverting extensive work at one stroke. I will do you the same courtesy, and it will make this much more pleasant. Herschel

To user:Weed Harper, I have lost track of what your various changes are, because you don't list them in the edit summary. Herschel, I AM familiar with the NPOV policy. That is why I feel LaRouche claims should not be inserted here without full attribution and only if they are directly relevant. For example, how does Weed Harper (or the EIR) know that the mother started her investigation in July 2003? How do they know she had a "change of heart?" This is pure propaganda. SHE says she started her investigation when her son died. SHE is the only person who can know this, and is therefore the only primary source for the claim. I am referring this issue to an arbitrator. Slim

All versions of the story reflect the fact that Mrs. Duggan met with Schiller Institute personnel after her son's death. The assessment of those persons, that her attitude was different then than later, is therefore relevant. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note: I removed the quote from the German newspaper article only because it was such poor English and made no sense. Does anyone have the original German, so we could do a proper translation? Then I'd be happy to have it back in. Slim

To user:Weed Harper: When a sentence says eg. "The court heard that the police relied on statements from the Schiller Institute that turned out not to be true," you can't change that to "are now said to be untrue." That is not what the court heard. The court heard that the statements turned out not to be true. That is what is on the record; and that court record, as reported by the Guardian, Times and Independent, is the source of the Wikipedia entry. When the record is updated e.g. by the German police re-opening their investigation and obtaining new information, or by them deciding not to re-open their investigation; or by the LaRouche organization or the family or the lawyers making more statements, then the Wikipedia entry can be updated. But we cannot change what has been said to reflect our own views. user:SlimVirgin 00:51, 15 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I am not aware of any charge by the LaRouche publications that the Tavistock Institute is working for the CIA or British Intelligence. If you insert that characterization again, please provide a source. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) Also, please be a bit more careful in characterizing the LaRouche Organization's views -- they do not assert that Tavistock "ran" the psychiatric division, they say that, according to Tavistock's director, their staff was absorbed into the psychiatric division during the war. You are entitled to have a POV that is hostile to LaRouche, but then it becomes incumbent upon you not to let your POV lead you into sloppy editing. --Herschelkrustofsky 16:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, this is becoming insane. I was not the one who added the relationship between the Tavistock and the British Army's psychiatric division (and I still don't see the relevance of it). It was one of the other apparent LaRouche supporters who inserted that allegation, either Weed Harper or C Colden.

Also Herschel, regarding your change to the Helga Zepp-LaRouche page, here's why I deleted it. You wrote that the family wants a second German police investigation because the first investigation exonerated the Schiller Institute. But it didn't. There was no first investigation, except to measure tire marks on the road, because the police thought they were dealing with a straightforward traffic accident. It appears that they didn't know about the LaRouche link. I therefore changed your addition to the family is pressing for a "proper" police investigation. Please don't add material indicating that the Schiller Institute has been cleared when no such thing has happened.

Could I ask you please not to make any more additions or deletions about the details of the Jeremiah Duggan case until you have read the inquest transcripts and to make sure you fully attribute all your additions? I will do the same. If we both do that, it should go some way to resolving our differences. Slim 21:17, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Adding this page to the "LaRouche Template

I reject AndyL's edit, adding this page to the template of "LaRouche-related persons and organizations." I think it is a highly dubious proposition to assert that Jeremiah Duggan has anything whatsoever to do with Lyndon LaRouche. He was not a member, an activist, nor did he have any sort of ongoing relationship -- he was a casual attendee at a conference, at which there were several hundred other attendees, none of which went crazy. Therefore I will not accept the argument that his story is an integral part of the history of the LaRouche movement, any more than I would accept the argument that the gal who says she was raped by Bill Clinton is essential to the story of his presidency -- although the rape charge is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Clinton. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, I disagree. Jeremiah Duggan was a new recruit of the LaRouche Youth Movement, a movement started in 1999 by Lyndon LaRouche, of which he has stated he has tremendous hopes. The allegation made in the British coroner's court is that Jeremiah Duggan may have died as a direct or indirect result of mind-control techniques designed to persuade him to commit himself to the organization. These techniques were espoused by Lyndon LaRouche in his work Beyond Psychoanalysis, which he wrote under the Lyn Marcus pseudonym. Mrs. Duggan has sold her home, cashed in her life savings, has the support of the British government and has hired a well-known Berlin lawyer to find out exactly what happened. Therefore, it seems likely that this issue is not going to go away, and will become part of the LaRouche movement's history -- possibly an important part. Slim 06:53, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I've just found the bad translation of the German newspaper article you inserted. You took it word for word from the LaRouche publication, Executive Intelligence Review, but without attribution. I understood we had agreed that wouldn't happen. Slim 07:10, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Duggan was a member of the LaRouche movement or whether or not the LaRouche movement considers him "one of them". It is whether or not the article should be considered part of the series on LaRouche and his movement. Given that the contents of the article are entireliy related to the LaRouche movement I cannot see how anyone can argue that it doesn't belong in the series. The test is this, if you remove the LaRouche related material would there still be a viable article?AndyL 13:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your "test" cuts both ways, Andy -- if LaRouche's political opponents, in this case Baroness Symons, had not seen in the Duggan family's private tragedy a cynical opportunity to smear LaRouche, would there be an article? If there were a Baroness Symons template, it might be appropriate to include this article. As it stands, I have put up the NPOV dispute tag until this issue of the template is resolved -- not because of SlimVirgin's article, but because of the template, which is there for the sole purpose of implying that this is a story about LaRouche, which it is not. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If there were a Baroness Symons template than the Duggan article would be listed in it *and* the LaRouche template. Anyway, calling a template POV is somewhat absurd. I'm sorry but this is not a promotional service for the LaRouche movement, articles are included in the template if they are largely to do about the LaRouche movement whether or not they are complimentary. Unless you contend that the Duggan case (which is what this article is actually about) has nothing to do with the LaRouche movement your objection is absurd. AndyL 15:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, this IS a story about LaRouche. If Jeremiah Duggan had died on that road after spending six days with his family, his death would not be something Wikipedia would want to record. What happened during and subsequent to those six days has become a matter of legitimate public interest only because he spent that time with the Schiller Institute and the LaRouche Youth Movement (LYM), and because LaRouche has talked about how LYM is recruiting more young people than ever before.

I'm going to revert to AndyL's previous edit because a user with just an IP address has added a long section in the middle of the article quoting from some of LaRouche's written work. I feel it's a bit long to have sitting in the middle of the article and although parts of it are attributed, it's not clear in other parts whether the writer is quoting LaRouche or not, so I'd like time to rewrite it a bit. Slim 20:23, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

See: Template talk:LaRouche AndyL 22:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofky, if I were you I wouldn't mind about having it in the template because the evidence that Larouche or one of his institutions is involved seems flimsy to me and this could be shown in the article. Andries 02:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reversion

SlimVirgin, please avoid wholesale reversion. You deleted not only the IP address edit, but also two edits I had made, and if it was your intention to delete them, you need to provide a justification. First, I restored a sentence which you wrote, but which for unknown reasons was subsequently deleted: "This was Jeremiah's first involvement with the organization." I think that this sentence is essential to balance the POV. Secondly, the external link to Disinfopedia, originally added by Weed Harper, was modified, probably by you, to say that the Disinfopedia article reflects the views of the LaRouche organization. This is incorrect. LaRouche has no connection to either Disinfopedia or to John Coleman, the person quoted in the article. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, I was the one who deleted the sentence about this being Duggan's first contact with the organization, because the narrative makes that clear already: that he bought a newspaper in the street and was then invited to the conference. I'm not sure what the purpose is of laboring the point or how it balances the POV. You and I were editing at the same time, which is why there was a confusion there. I didn't only revert. I then edited, as you will see from the history if you look at it now, with explanations.

As you say the Disinfopedia link on the Tavistock has nothing to do with LaRouche's views, I've deleted it.

I've rewritten the psychoanalysis contribution from the IP address user, made it shorter and placed it differently to retain the article's flow. I wrote on the Talk page that I was going to do this: see my comment above.

Also, I take issue with your assertion that Baroness Symons is the driving force behind this. That is a LaRouche claim only. It's probably the case that Erica Duggan approached her local MP, and the MP contacted the minister responsible for Consular Affairs, who is Baroness Symons. I don't know the exact sequence of events. The LaRouche organization doesn't know either. There's no evidence that anyone other than Erica Duggan has been the driving force, notwithstanding the LaRouche claim that she's being pressurized by the "transatlantic networks." Slim 22:09, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't put the Disinfopedia link in because I thought it was about LaRouche; I put it in, because it provides some information about the Tavistock Institute. Wikipedia at present has no article on Tavistock. I will try to write one when I have time. Weed Harper 01:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only problem with the Disinfopedia link, Weed, is that it's full of mistakes. I haven't read it through but at first glance e.g. "Freud was given a mansion in London" is not true. Lots of other mistakes like that, and no attribution for the claims. It's an odd article for an encyclopaedia to link to. I thought it was okay as an illustration of LaRouche's views on the Tavistock, but if it's not even that, arguably it has no place here. Perhaps you could find a LaRouche article on the Tavistock instead? By the way, I edited the quote you added about the Beatles and got rid of "no musical talent" because people on either side of the LaRouche divide would agree with that (not me, I hasten to add). Can you provide a reference for the quote? Slim 02:01, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the name of the article since it is not a biographical piece on Duggan but deals only with his demise and the controversy surrounding itAndyL 04:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quotes vs. characterizations

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)

Recent changes

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)

I suggest we consider having this article protected and then discuss our differences on this page. Regarding your claim that the brainwashing quote is LaRouche speaking about the Tavistock, if that is true, the quote should not be in the article. However, Political Research Associates seem to say that this is a quote from LaRouche talking about his own ideas on brainwashing. Can you show me where it says he is speaking about the Tavistock or other opponents? Or do you have a link to the whole speech so we can look at the context? Slim 21:10, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

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)

H, you asked for a quote from Mrs. Duggan about her meeting with Tennenbaum. None of the publications that have interviewed her have provided a direct quote about this, that I've been able to find. That's why I wrote that she was speaking to the Independent, then people can read the article for themselves. But if I do find a direct quote, I will add it. Slim 21:18, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Herschel and WeedHarper, I have requested page protection until our differences are resolved, either between ourselves or with the help of a mediator. Slim 22:30, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Page protected

This page is now temporarily protected until we resolve our differences. Herschel and WeedHarper, may I suggest you make a list of your objections -- including requests for direct quotes or further research -- and I will respond to them one by one. Slim 23:01, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

To address one of the issues, I found a reference to the brainwashing speech on a website quoting the Dennis King book on LaRouche. It's not exactly the same speech but is very similar. It appears to be LaRouche describing what he believes the CIA does to people. This was from the so-called Manchurian Candidate episode when LaRouche believed the CIA was trying to kill him. Therefore, I propose we delete that quotation entirely, as this article is not about brainwashing in general, or about the CIA, but about mind-control techniques used or endorsed by LaRouche. Slim 23:21, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Our differences

Herschel, you've addressed issues above that I had already addressed. May I suggest we write below this line from now on to avoid confusion? Regarding the brainwashing quote, we are all agreed it should be deleted. (But no, all parties are not agreed that the Tavistock is part of the equation. But that doesn't matter for our purposes here.)

I agree that we should have one sentence close to the beginning that says the LaRouche organization strongly refutes the Duggan family's version of events. But no more than that, otherwise the entire narrative becomes disjointed and hard to follow. The LaRouche denials have more impact if they are together, even if it's at the end. It means they get the last word. The defence team always get the last word. If you can agree that it be one sentence near the beginning, then we're agreed on that issue too. My sentence suggestion is -- At the end of the third paragraph, where it says: "This was Jeremiah's first involvement with the organization." After that we should add the sentence: "The Lyndon LaRouche organization strongly refutes allegations by Jeremiah's family that his attendance at the conference and cadre school were in any way connected to his death." Are you agreed? What else is there, in your view?

I have two questions for you: (1) Can you refer me to Wikipedia articles you have edited that have nothing to do with LaRouche, and into which you have inserted material that has nothing to do with LaRouche; and (2) Do you also write (here or anywhere else) using the name Ralph Gibbons? Slim 02:54, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Slim, are you actually Adam Carr? Weed Harper 17:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will list my differences below. You can see some of my other edits listed here. I don't use the name Ralph Gibbons. I have seen many posts by that person on USENET and he is clearly a LaRouche supporter.

List of differences

• Given the length of the article, there should be an intro where the undisputed facts of the case are briefly reported, and then "opening statements", where the basic points of each side of the dispute are summarized.

• Weed Harper added this link, which was subsequently deleted: Full proceedings of the Schiller Institute Conference which Jeremiah attended ~ I think that this should definately be included, and in fact, a summary of the proceedings and speakers at the conference should appear in the article. Since the basis of the allegations appears to be that the conference drove Jeremiah insane, the reader should know precisely what happened at the conference.

• There should be no attempt to suppress discussion of the Tavistock Institute. Since Mrs. Duggan is alleging that someone has practiced mind control on her late son, and she also admits to having taken him to the Tavistock clinic, the issue of Tavistock is certainly relevant. There are many, many accusations, not only from LaRouche, that Tavistock practices mind control, and in fact pioneered the practice.

• Quotes from LaRouche articles from the 1970s on psychoanalysis must be presented in context, and not recklessly mischaracterized. Beware of lifting material from Chip Berlet -- the guy is a shameless propagandist. Herschelkrustofsky 20:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to raise a point too. Is there any evidence at all that Mrs Duggan blamed the Schiller Institute before Elizabeth Symons came on the scene? If there is no evidence, it is fair to ask whether Symons manipulated the whole campaign. Weed Harper 15:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Weed, there are several articles outlining how Symons came to be involved. I'll try to find a link for one of them. My understanding is that, shortly after her son's death, Mrs. Duggan contacted her local MP for help, and retained a lawyer in England who is known for taking on human rights/miscarriage of justice cases. Mrs. Duggan set about gathering information about the LaRouche organization from public sources. She also contacted the British Board of Deputies, which is the organization in Britain that seeks to protect the interests of the Jewish community here. The Chairman agreed to write her a letter of support. The aim was to get the German police to investigate properly. Her MP sent this letter to Baroness Symons because she is the minister for consular affairs (meaning she is the first point of contact in the British govt if a British citizen has a problem in another country) to ask for her help in persuading Germany to do this. Baroness Symons agreed to a meeting. My understanding is that she told Mrs. Duggan that the British government could not ask the Germans to investigate because that would be interfering in another nation's sovereignity. However, Symons agreed that the British government would supply, if it was needed, a lawyer familiar with dealing with international issues to help negotiate with any German lawyer Mrs. Duggan hired. Mrs. Duggan therefore sold her home and cashed in her life savings in order to hire a German lawyer, and that is where things stand, so far as is known. Slim 20:40, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

I also forgot to say: Shouldn't it be you and Herschel who find evidence (i.e. something demonstrable) that Baroness Symon manipulated the campaign, rather than me being required to find evidence that she didn't? Slim 23:51, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

My reply

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)

Conference agenda/mind control

(1) Why would the stated agenda of the conference be relevant to the point where we reference the entire proceedings. I have no objection to providing the link. But it's what happened that wasn't on the agenda that's relevant. I agree to the link being included, but not a summary of proceedings or list of speakers.

What took place at the conference is in fact the central issue of the controversy. You, advocating Mrs. Duggan's viewpoint, are arguing that Duggan was brainwashed by the conference. Therefore, a discussion of the conference is essential. Why would you desire to exclude it? --Herschelkrustofsky 20:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What took place officially at the conference is not the issue. It is what may have taken place unofficially that is the issue. Also, there is no allegation that Duggan was brainwashed by the conference. There is an allegation that members of the Schiller Institute and/or the LaRouche Youth Movement may have used mind-control techniques on Duggan in an effort to have him join the movement; and that these techniques were used on him during the period he was in attendance at the conference and the subsequent "cadre school" that took place in a youth hostel in Wiesbaden. The article makes this clear, I believe. Another issue is that a Schiller Institute manager had taken possession of his passport. If this was done before his death, it implies the Schiller Institute may have been attempting to restrict his movements. This is one of the issues the Duggan family want the German police to clarify. These are the issues. Not what was on the conference agenda. Slim 22:50, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that any allegations of mind control, coming from whatever source, would appear to be highly speculative. I see no concrete evidence at all. I am familiar with how the LYM recruits -- they talk a lot about Carl Friedrich Gauss and Johann Sebastian Bach. They are interested in people who like to wrestle with ideas. There are a lot of wild accusations and insinuations being hurled at the Schiller Institute and LYM here, and they should be balanced with something verifiable about what it was that Jeremiah was actually involved in. --Herschelkrustofsky 07:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Several former LaRouche members have come forward saying the LaRouche group uses aggressive recruiting techniques. The problem is that you don't know what Jeremiah was actually involved in. Publishing the conference agenda isn't going to make any difference to that. No one who wasn't there knows. That's why the family want the police to investigate. Slim 09:52, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Tavistock

(2) The Tavistock is completely irrelevant. Mr and Mrs. Duggan were divorcing and took their son to see a counsellor when he was seven years old to make sure they did it in the best way for his sake. You're showing a lack of understanding as to what the Tavistock is. There are therapists in London who are registered with the Tavistock. Any therapist worth his shirt wants to be registered because it is highly respected. To be registered means that, if you phone the Tavistock Clinic, and ask for therapy, they will refer you to their list of registered therapists. You contact that person. They are allowed to rent a room inside the Tavistock for the therapy. They might do that or they might not. Maybe you'll see them at their home instead. So to say: "I had therapy at the Tavistock" doesn't always mean a lot.

Re: mind control. Show me someone who isn't LaRouche-related, who isn't a nutcase and who is educated who believes the Tavistock mind-control claims.

Here again, we are touching on the essential issues of NPOV. You say that it's absurd to accuse Tavistock of being involved in mind control. I say that it's absurd to accuse LaRouche of mind control. You say Tavistock's critics are quacks. I say LaRouche's critics are quacks. There is only one way to resolve this that is consistent with Wikipedia policy, and that is to ensure that all points of view, with appropriate rebuttals, are included. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, you're trying to use the NPOV policy to introduce POV. The Tavistock issue is a straw man argument. (i) The first person to mention the Tavistock was the Schiller Institute to the German police and Jeffrey Steinberg of the Lyndon LaRouche organization in an EIR article. They want to make an issue out of the fact that Duggan had counselling there WHEN HE WAS SEVEN YEARS OLD; (ii) The mother responded to this saying she fears the LaRouche people in Wiesbaden were more aggressive than usual with Duggan because he was Jewish and because he told them about his counselling at the Tavistock. This is another issue she wants the German police to examine; (iii) While it is therefore justified to mention the Tavistock in the article as well as the LaRouche view that it's involved in mind control and Mrs. Duggan's fears about that -- and the article already covers those three issues -- it's not justified to go off on a tangent about the exact details of the LaRouche view on the Tavistock, unless you want to provide a link to that, which I have no problem. Slim 22:50, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Again, the issue of mind control here is highly speculative, since no real evidence of mind control has been produced. However, if there was mind control involved in Duggan's death, you certainly cannot rule out events that took place in childhood; in fact, if you look at the recent best-seller Bush on the Couch, the author emphasizes that most serious psychological disorders have their roots in childhood. The NPOV policy does not mean "no point of view", by the way -- it means neutral point of view, which in a controversial article generally winds up meaning balanced point of view. In my opinion, the allegations being made by Mrs. Duggan and those advising her are a wild fantasy, but the NPOV policy states that they cannot be excluded on that basis; they can only be rebutted. --Herschelkrustofsky 07:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the allegations can be rebutted. But they have to be rebutted by the LaRouche organization and then those rebuttals can be reported by Wikipedia. If they were to address the issue instead of claiming it's a "hoax" or trying to involve the so-called trans-atlantic networks, we might know more. There are only two formal reports. The first is the German police report, as reported in the Daily Telegraph. They did no autopsy; took no signed witness statements; and the notes they have from their conversations with Schiller Institute people contradict each other. The second formal report is the coroner's report. That documents allegations, not just from the Duggans, but from Scotland Yard too, that the LaRouche group is dangerous. The coroner would not record a verdict of suicide. You may not like this, but the job of Wikipedia is to report the facts as officially recorded.Slim 09:52, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Quoting LaRouche in context without repeating propaganda

(3) I agree that quotes from LaRouche should be shown in context, but not to the point where we are repeating his propaganda.

I don't see a problem on this. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good, then that's agreed. Slim 09:52, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Structure of the article

(4) I disagree that either of you should be allowed to restructure the article, because you'll do it to confuse the issue and chop up the narrative. The article has to be readable or there's no point in having it here.

The outline that I proposed should be perfectly readable. I had no problem with the structure of the article as it originally appeared, but as it grew to a greater length, I think my request is entirely reasonable. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't agree to a LaRouche activist/advocate creating a new structure for this article. You imposed a structure on the Schiller Institute and Helga Zepp-LaRouche articles and they read like propaganda pieces. Slim 22:50, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

No one "imposed a structure" on those articles; the structure of the articles, like other aspects of editing, was the result of consensus. If you look at the edit history of the Schiller Institute article, which I wrote originally, it bears no resemblence to the article that I first wrote. I'm not that happy with the article as it presently stands, and neither are you. C'est la vie. --Herschelkrustofsky 07:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The point is: do you agree or not that you will not change the structure of the story? Slim 09:52, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche rebuttal

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)

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)

Herschel's non-LaRouche contributions

Herschel, I ask you once again: can you please direct me to articles you have edited that have nothing to do with LaRouche and into which you have inserted material that has nothing to do with LaRouche? Slim 09:52, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Slim, earlier on this page I provided you with a link so that you could survey my various contributions. I will now open that link myself, and post the list here, minus any edits that have to do with LaRouche, and also eliminating multiple edits of the same articles:

• • 02:16, 14 Nov 2004 (hist) William Spence
  • 22:12, 13 Nov 2004 (hist) H.C. Coombs
  • 21:50, 13 Nov 2004 (hist) Reserve Bank of Australia (See also)
  • 21:41, 13 Nov 2004 (hist) Central bank (clarify)
  • 23:42, 12 Nov 2004 (hist) Falklands War (Background - the POV here needs to be balanced; both governments were criticized, whether justly or not)
  • 23:13, 12 Nov 2004 (hist) Henry Carey (economist) (external link) (top)
  • 23:06, 12 Nov 2004 (hist) Regulation (Regulation as a process -infrastructure)
  • 22:56, 12 Nov 2004 (hist) American System (economics) (Philosophical basis of the American System) (top)
  • 22:51, 12 Nov 2004 (hist) m Classical music (Emotional content)
  • 16:12, 12 Nov 2004 (hist) Agape (Plato) (top)
  • 15:40, 12 Nov 2004 (hist) California electricity crisis (supply context) (top)
  • 15:28, 12 Nov 2004 (hist) m List of composers of African descent (External links)
  • 15:43, 11 Nov 2004 (hist) m Peronism (add accents to Perón) (top)
  • 06:06, 11 Nov 2004 (hist) Economy of Argentina (I have removed a section that was heavily POV. There is certainly no general consensus on the best way to resolve Argentina's problems, and they are far from resolved)
  • 21:54, 10 Nov 2004 (hist) Hall Johnson

This is taken from a 4 day period, before I became preoccupied with addressing your edits.

Now, Slim, I would request that you not annoy me further with such questions. They are offensive, because it is obvious that you have climbed aboard Adam Carr's hobby-horse, that my only function at Wikipedia is to defend the LaRouche movement against the propaganda assaults of Adam and his collaborators. I spend more time on that than I should have to, to the detriment of my other editing activities. Likewise, you should stop insinuating that I am Ralph Gibbons, or that Weed Harper is Caroline Colder. You are an articulate person who should have no difficulty in arguing your POV, without having to resort to personal attacks on other editors. --21:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. You've included articles to which you added LaRouche material e.g. American system (economics).

I didn't intend my question to be offensive. I asked because it goes to the heart of our dispute, which is whether you're a genuine Wikipedian editor who just happens sometimes to agree with Lyndon LaRouche, or whether you're here as a LaRouche activist/advocate and nothing or little else. If it's the latter, you shouldn't be doing it. I haven't climbed aboard anyone's hobby horse. I make no secret of the fact that I don't agree with LaRouche advocacy in Wikipedia, and I feel the Arbitration Committee should put a stop to it. Here's an example of why I feel LaRouche isn't someone who can be viewed as a credible source. Slim 22:13, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Our remaining differences: please post in chronological order

I would like to raise a point too. Is there any evidence at all that Mrs Duggan blamed the Schiller Institute before Elizabeth Symons came on the scene? If there is no evidence, it is fair to ask whether Symons manipulated the whole campaign. Weed Harper 15:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Weed, there are several articles outlining how Symons came to be involved. I'll try to find a link for one of them. My understanding is that, shortly after her son's death, Mrs. Duggan contacted her local MP for help, and retained a lawyer in England who is known for taking on human rights/miscarriage of justice cases. Mrs. Duggan set about gathering information about the LaRouche organization from public sources. She also contacted the British Board of Deputies, which is the organization in Britain that seeks to protect the interests of the Jewish community here. The Chairman agreed to write her a letter of support. The aim was to get the German police to investigate properly. Her MP sent this letter to Baroness Symons because she is the minister for consular affairs (meaning she is the first point of contact in the British govt if a British citizen has a problem in another country) to ask for her help in persuading Germany to do this. Baroness Symons agreed to a meeting. My understanding is that she told Mrs. Duggan that the British government could not ask the Germans to investigate because that would be interfering in another nation's sovereignity. However, Symons agreed that the British government would supply, if it was needed, a lawyer familiar with dealing with international issues to help negotiate with any German lawyer Mrs. Duggan hired. Mrs. Duggan therefore sold her home and cashed in her life savings in order to hire a German lawyer, and that is where things stand, so far as is known. Slim 20:40, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

I also forgot to say: Shouldn't it be you and Herschel who find evidence (i.e. something demonstrable) that Baroness Symon manipulated the campaign, rather than me being required to find evidence that she didn't? Slim 23:51, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Herschel and Weed, can I ask again whether you agree or not that neither of you will change the structure of the article? I'd like to know whether we can tick that off our list of differences. Slim 22:35, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Comparison suggestion

Maybe the best way to enable an outsider to help with this disagreement would be for each side to draft their version of the article, with references, maybe footnotes. It could be done on user talk subpages and linked to from here. Then outsiders could compare. Maurreen 03:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for comment

Herschel and Weed, I've put out a Request for Comment on this article. Maurreen suggested we create new subpages for our preferred versions. I've created a new page here and I thought both sides could put their preferred version on this page for users to compare. I don't know whether the page will get too long with two versions of the article on it. Alternatively, each editor could create a new subpage of their own, and we could each put our versions on these pages, as Maurreen suggested. Let me know which you prefer. Slim 10:24, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

I have created my proposed draft of the article here. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was pleasantly surprised to discover that the two draft versions are remarkably similar, indicating that both were written in the spirit of compromise. I would, however, like to note my objection to the following characterization in Slim's version:

"Lyndon LaRouche wrote extensively during the 1970s on how psychoanalytic techniques might be used to alter the bourgeois consciousness of working class people to induce them to join a revolutionary movement like his own."

This is an inaccurate and somewhat self-serving characterization. LaRouche was writing on pschoanalysis in response to ideas presented by Lawrence Kubie on "neurotic blocks to creativity". LaRouche found Kubie's work useful with regard to the challenges of political organizing. As I noted on Talk:Death of Jeremiah Duggan, rather than characterize LaRouche's views, it is best to use a direct quote, at which point POV is no longer an issue. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You claim the minister had previously "clashed swords" with the LaRouchians over the Iraq war. While I have no doubt that the minister and the LaRouche movement have different views what evidence do you have that she was even aware of the group's existence, let alone "crossed swords" with them. Had she made any comments about the LaRouche movements position on the war? If not then the claim of "crossing swords" is specious self-aggrandizing. AndyL 18:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Andy, the "crossed swords" sentence was written by me, as a compromise, in an effort to characterize the LaRouche position. I used that vague phrase because I'm not sure what the LaRouche people are trying to say. I know of no evidence that Baroness Symons had heard of the LaRouche organization before being approached with information by Mrs. Duggan about Jeremiah. Symons had not, to my knowledge, ever commented on LaRouche. But LaRouche seems to believe that Symons is part of the "Blair-Cheney trans-Atlantic network," as I believe he calls it, and that she's out to get LaRouche. According to Private Eye, a satirical magazine in London, Baroness Symons awarded Cheney's company Halliburton a $500 million contract to transport British tanks across the Iraq desert. That made her a LaRouche enemy. If anyone wants to rewrite the "crossed swords" sentence so it's more accurate, I have no objection. (By the way, Herschel, would you mind providing a citation for the Symons-Halliburton claim that you added to the Symons Wikipedia entry? If it's only Private Eye that has published this, her entry should perhaps say so, as they are not very reliable.) Slim 22:44, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Andy, you're right; the "crossed swords" sentence should be changed to make the LaRouche view of Symons more explicit. I'll try to formulate it more accurately in one sentence in my draft version. Here is the link to the LaRouche view of Symons in the unlikely event that you want to know more. Slim 00:12, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, I've read your draft, and while there are small points I don't agree with, I can live with most of with it, including the different structure. It's very similar to what is up there, so thank you for the compromise. Two changes I would like: I would prefer "death" to "suicide" in the first sentence, because to call it suicide begs the question. There was no German inquest or formal ruling of suicide. The police just assumed that because no third party was present. Second: the LaRouche template should be there, because this is clearly an article about the Lyndon LaRouche organization. I also have a couple of tiny copy-editing issues, but they're not anything that would change meaning or flow. So if you can agree to those two changes, our dispute is over, so long as Weed Harper is agreed too. Slim 22:44, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Fine with me -- I was going to say that in the LaRouche quote about Beatles, the reference to Tavistock should not be removed. I see that it is still there in Herschel's version. I hope that Slim is OK with that. Weed Harper 02:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind so long as it was part of the original quote. So far as I know, the original said: ""The Beatles had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division (Tavistock) specifications, and promoted in Britain by agencies which are controlled by British intelligence."

In my preferred version, I changed the paragraph containing the Symons/crossed swords sentence, in response to Andy's point. It now reads: "Steinberg also writes that, just after her son's death, Mrs. Duggan met with representatives of the Schiller Institute -- one of whom Erica Duggan says was Ortrun Cramer -- for several hours in what Steinberg describes as a "sympathetic" meeting. He alleges that Mrs. Duggan's attitude toward the Schiller Institute changed only after British minister Baroness Elizabeth Symons intervened in the affair. According to Steinberg, Baroness Symons is a member of the "trans-Atlantic" network that is out to get LaRouche because of his opposition to what LaRouche calls the Blair-Cheney war in Iraq.

Is that all right with you both? Slim 02:20, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Slim, note that in my draft version, the section characterizing LaRouche's writings on psychoanalysis is changed to Lyndon LaRouche wrote extensively during the 1970s on how psychoanalytic techniques might be used to address "neurotic blocks to creativity." Also note that the quote on the Beatles is preserved intact (re: Weed's objection), Tavistock is wikified, and the external links are restored. I have put the template back; I object to it, but I will pursue my objection through other channels and will not edit it out of the Duggan article. In addition, I have added your new Symons sentence, and changed the word "suicide" to "death" in the first sentence (the word "suicide" was originally yours, BTW). Please let me know if this settles all unresolved details. If so, I propose that you ask for unprotection, and use the now re-edited version at Death of Jeremiah Duggan/draft, and we can all get back to work on other matters. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've gone through Death of Jeremiah Duggan/draft and have copy-edited, but without changing meaning. I added a new section called "LaRouche organization rebuttal." I moved the template higher as it was somewhat buried. I also removed square brackets from the LaRouche quote on psychoanalysis as square brackets mean the words were added by someone else (the words were "in some cases"). Also note that the word "suicide" in the intro was not mine.

I'll ask the administrator to remove the page protection. I'm glad we've resolved the dispute. Slim 20:41, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the new version, Herschel. I'd like to suggest that Weed Harper, Herschel and myself refrain from editing this page without prior discussion -- unless it's a minor copy-edit to improve the writing, fix a link or similar.

Do not make a special section for rebuttal. Rebuttals should be integrated in the article. See wikipedia:words to avoid#Bad_Form Andries 21:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Although that subhead was Slim's idea, I am inclined to agree with it, since this is not an article about a political controversy (at least not ostensibly), but rather, an article about allegations that a crime has been committed. Of course, since the main article is now unprotected, you have the option of editing to improve it. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would normally agree with you Andries, and thanks for providing the link. The Wikipedia advice is to try to "fold" the competing issues into the narrative; ideally, I agree, but we just couldn't manage it with this article. Slim 22:23, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Article name

Pardon me for intruding if this dispute is still in progress, but I just happened upon this article while cruising the random page express and I don't understand why this article is under this name instead of being at Jeremiah Duggan. Even though the article is, indeed, primarily about Duggan's death and the circumstances surrounding it, there's no main Jeremiah Duggan article; Jeremiah Duggan just redirects here. I normally see highly-specific article names like this only for articles that were subsections of a main article that became too large to keep all in one page. Bryan 07:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article is not a biographical article on Duggan but is focussed entirely on Duggan's death and the controversy surrounding it, hence the name. AndyL 15:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Bryan on this one. The hostages killed in Iraq, for instance: their entries are Kenneth Bigley, Eugene Armstrong, and so on, not "death of . . ." Slim 00:26, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm flexible on this. Are there other precedents in the case of notable deaths or murders?AndyL 07:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Murder victims I see virtually all the articles are names of victims, the one exception is The Vera Page Case. I guess the precedent then is to name the article after the murder/suicide victim rather than after "the case". AndyL 07:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I now notice another "this is a little odd" feature about article naming; if you look in Category:Suicides, every article in there is titled with just the person's name (and possibly disambig information in parentheses) except for this "Death of" article. And in the case of the Vera Page Case, the same issue arises with the birth/death categories (and "Case" should have a lower-case C, but that's an entirely separate issue :). The Vera Page Case wasn't born in 1921, Vera Page was. I'm not really dogmatic about these sorts of things, it's just that my sense of aesthetics gives me the urge to make these sorts of things consistent in format if I can - hence my care to make sure I'm not stepping on anyones' toes here, where issues of more weighty debate are being discussed. :) Bryan 07:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The other issue I felt mattered, and this is not an encylopedic issue, is how his parents will feel when they stumble on this article, and it is named, not after the person, but after his last act. Slim 08:22, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Would they feel any better stumbling across an article named Jeremiah Duggan that deals only with their son's death and not his life? Anyway, given the prevailing mood in this discussion and the fact that there seems to be only one other example of an article about an individual death which is named after the "case" rather than the individual concerned I'm fine changing the name of the article back. The reason I changed it in the first place was to address Herschel's criticism that the article did not belong in the LaRouche template as Duggan himself was not a member of the LaRouche organization. I thought changing the name would address that criticism since it is the question of Duggan's death rather than Duggan himself that is associated with the LaRouche movement. AndyL 15:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's why I didn't say anything at the time, Andy. The claim that the piece doesn't belong in the template is anyway invalid, because Duggan was either recruited as a member, or was in the process of being recruited; and anyway, the template says it's about the LaRouche organization and "related people," and Duggan is certainly that. Thanks for changing it. Slim 00:54, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)