Talk:Schiller Institute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mediation, arbitration,
requests for clarification, and
other discussions about the
LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement,
AN/I, 2005-8
Arbitration 2006
Arbitration 2005
Arbitration 2004
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Mediation 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Template talk
Categories
This box:

Let's try a different tack[edit]

SlimVirgin and I have agreed to let a third party, DanKeshet, act as a sort of ombudsman and take a crack at editing this article so that we can get it unprotected and undisputed. Will other editors please weigh in on this, as a precondition for unprotection -- speak now, or hold your peace for the time being. --H.K. 07:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't object. Weed Harper 14:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC);

Since it seems SlimVirgin and Herschelkrustofsky both are trying to get the page unprotected, I went ahead with unprotection. It would be appreciated, however, if people can avoid significant edits to give DanKeshet's efforts a try. Otherwise, protection may be necessary again. --Michael Snow 21:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to give it a try; we'll see if it works. I have read the talk page archive, the history of the article, and some of the linked articles to understand the dispute. I want to make it clear that I do not intend to be a mediator or an arbitrator. What I hope to do is simply be an editor whose motives people trust, so that if I make an edit you don't like, we can discuss the pros and cons without questioning intent. DanKeshet 06:48, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, Dan. Slim 07:00, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Founding members[edit]

Does anyone have a source for the statement that Amelia Baynton Robinson was the third founder? I've checked the Schiller biography of her and its tribute to her, but neither of them says this: just that she was an early board member. If someone has a source, could they post it here please, or in the article? Many thanks, Slim 14:21, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

If no one can produce a reference to back up this claim, I'll be deleting it today or tomorrow. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 23:17, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Rather than just deleting the one factoid, I recommend an overall rewrite of the lead paragraph. By whom it was founded should be the secondary item. The first sentence should characterize the Institute. -Willmcw 23:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing requires a rewrite. It currently reads as though music and poetry are its main preoccupation, whereas it's a highly politicized organization that promotes the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche. However, I haven't wanted to even start a rewrite because it may spark another edit war. It's also hard to know where to find reliable sources, but there are Schiller sites that do make a lot of its activities clearer than this page does. SlimVirgin 23:38, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Founding member claim removed[edit]

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

Looks fine to me, Will. SlimVirgin 01:56, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Wir brauchen eine Bewegung[edit]

Will, if Zepp-LaRouche's comment on the need for the Schiller is a translation from the German, would you mind cutting and pasting the original German here, as the translation sounds odd. I looked for it in the link you provided but couldn't find it. Thanks, SlimVirgin 00:26, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Original German posted. It's there on the link. I'm sure Babelfish and me mangled it real good! Cheers, -Willmcw 00:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Founder Helga Zepp LaRouche explained the need for the Schiller Institute:

""Wir brauchen eine Bewegung, die Deutschland endlich aus der Kontrolle der Kräfte von Versailles und Jalta befreit, die uns schon ein ganzes Jahrhundert lang von einer Kastastrophe in die andere stürzt."[1]

I think this is correct: "We need a movement that can finally free Germany from the control of the Versailles and Jalta treaties, which have already tossed us from one catastrophe to another for a whole century." Herschel also speaks German, I believe, so he can be asked to confirm my translation. "Stürzten" is not quite "to toss", but that's more or less what she means, though I'm confused about the tense she has used. SlimVirgin 00:56, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've left the German in the text as this is an important quote, showing that the Schiller Institute is not about music and poetry. Well done for finding it. SlimVirgin 01:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Good for you! I wish I spoke German. Thanks for doing that chore. The original I saw was hard to read with in computer translation. It's from a German "anti-rightwing" site of some kind. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

relationship between LaRouche and the Schiller Institute[edit]

I added this new section because I was dissatisfied with our use of the word "associated" in the first sentence. This is an attempt at clarifying what exactly that association is. DanKeshet 08:08, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

My role here[edit]

I feel a little bewildered by my role here. I enjoy contributing to articles, especially when I have a chance to track down references and try to make things NPOV. But there is virtually nothing for me to do here, because this is such a narrow topic. How can I research the Schiller Institute, when I can find very few books or articles about it? I have added most of the LaRouche-related articles to my watchlist and I will continue to contribute and try to get rid of the vicious habit of personal attacks I've seen on these talk pages, but I don't know what else I can do. DanKeshet 08:08, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Dan, don't feel you have to edit these pages if you don't want to. If you do, it would be helpful to have someone to make judgments about whether things are properly referenced. There isn't much information easily available about the Schiller as such, because it's just an arm of the LaRouche movement, and organizes some of its conferences for it. Here is a report Chip Berlet wrote at the request of Jeremiah Duggan's mother. The LaRouche editors will say it is biased. I don't think it refers specifically to the Schiller, but that's because there's no way of separating the activities of one part of the movement from the other. If you speak German, I'm about to attempt a translation of a document about another political party run by Zepp-LaRouche, so you're welcome to help with that if you want to. SlimVirgin 08:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Paul Schmitz[edit]

I see that another editor removed a quotation because it was ascribed to Paul Schmitz, whom the editor said is not at the Schiller Institute. I am wondering how an editor can tell who is associated with the Institute, in order to avoid similar mistakes? Is there a listing somewhere? Cheers, -Willmcw 15:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I haven't received any response to the above query. I'll put the quote back in unless WeedHopper replies with some supporting info. -Willmcw 22:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zepp-LaRouche[edit]

Herschel and Weed, I'm reposting this here from the Zepp LaRouche Talk pages as no one seems to be monitoring it.

Holocaust denial quote?[edit]

I found this:

Whereas nobody in the USA has the slightest illusions concerning the power which the Zionist lobby exerts especially upon the current administration, in Germany only very few political personalities in the know are aware of the influence of a more secretly operating undercover zionist lobby, yet not the German public in general. And therefore we must take the hypocritical bogus Holocaust-spoof as an occasion to get rid of these foreign agents." Helga Zepp-LaRouche, "Der zionistische Holocaust heute" (The Zionist Holocaust today), Neue Solidarität, January 25, 1979.
In German: Während in den USA niemand auch nur die geringsten Illusionen über die Macht der zionistischen Lobby über vor allem die gegenwärtige Administration hegt, ist der Einfluß einer verdeckter operierenden zionistischen Lobby in der Bundesrepublik bisher nur wenigen eingeweihten politischen Persönlichkeiten bekannt, nicht aber der breiten Bevölkerung. Und deshalb müssen wir den scheinheiligen Holocaust-Schwindel zum Anlaß nehmen, um diese ausländischen Agenten auffliegen zu lassen.
This should probably go into the article, unless anyone objects. I'll leave it on the page for a day or so in case there are other opinions. SlimVirgin 07:15, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I have a question about the photo of Zepp-LaRouche that was on this page, where she is standing next to the eastern terminal of the Eurasian Land Bridge. Could Herschel or Weed explain this to me, as I thought the Eurasian Land Bridge didn't exist? SlimVirgin 20:22, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Both of these issues have come up before. The "Holocaust spoof" quote refers to some of the "docudramas" that came out in that period, and Zepp-LaRouche is objecting to them on the grounds that they misuse the Holocaust to promote other, more contemporary agendas. Slim, I would suggest you that try reading her writings, or those of her husband, in the original context, instead of cruising all the anti-LaRouche websites looking for material. It is the latter practice which makes you appear to be an anti-LaRouche activist.
Regarding the Land-Bridge, it is a vast project which is partially realized, and subsumes other, smaller projects. The Chinese government invited Zepp-LaRouche to come and speak on the subject several times, and I suspect that the English inscription on the monument is a gesture of respect for her. They also refer to her as the "Silk Road Lady" in the Chinese press. However, due to the vehement objections of AndyL, none of this appears in Wikipedia, because there are no English-language web citations outside of LaRouche publications. --HK 20:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you have any Chinese citations, especially in relation to that photograph and the Eastern Terminal thing, we could almost certainly find someone in Wikipedia to translate it. Regarding the Holocaust quote, there was a television movie at that time showing in Germany about the Holocaust, but that doesn't weaken the force of the quote. She is saying that there is a secret, undercover Zionist lobby in Germany, which the public is unaware of, and most politicians are also unaware of. "We must use this Holocaust spoof" (possibly the movie, as you say) to "get rid of these foreign agents." What worries me about this, is that this is precisely the kind of thing Hilter said before the war; the quote from her about the need for the Schiller Institute also worried me for the same reason (Germany has to finally rid itself of the forces of Versailles and Yalta, which have made us stagger from one disaster to another for a whole century). We are not being honest if we leave this material out of the articles about her and the Schiller Institute.

Please say on which page you would prefer to discuss this so we don't have to cross-post. SlimVirgin 21:16, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer the Helga Zepp LaRouche page. As you probably know, the Schiller Institute published a book in both German and English (Das Hitler-Buch/The Hitler Book) which described Hitler as a catastrophic disaster for Germany, and named the Versaille treaty as one of the elements which brought him to power. It appears to me, Slim, that you have no real interest in Zepp-LaRouche's actual opinions or ideas, other than to find scraps of quotes which you can adapt to argue the theories that you brought with you to Wikipedia. --HK 22:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chip or Will, would you regard this [2] as a credible source? I would like to quote from him in the Schiller Institute article. He's apparently an American writer/journalist living in Germany, and set up this website to give an alternative journalistic view. However, I don't know whether that means it's basically just a blog by an unknown writer. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin 01:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Fidelio Magazine[edit]

I am against merging as all magazines have their own pages. Lakinekaki 18:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for all magazines to have their own pages, and there is no reason why this article cannot be included in that category. The topic is too short to warrant its own article, and would fit quite well as a subsection in this article. -Amatulic 18:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Magazine category should have all magazines in it. If you put Fidelio as a subsection here, than you cannot put category American magazines, as it would not make sense, and therefore this magazine could not be found from the list of magazines within wikipedia. If you want to eliminate Fidelio because of length of article, go thru the whole list and you'll see there are a lot of shorter articles there. Lakinekaki 18:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Fidelio is too minor a publication to deserve an article of its own. There are no 3rd party sources in the article, an inicator of minimal notability. There are several related publications that don't call for separate articles either, such as EIR. -Will Beback · † · 19:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party sources.Lakinekaki 19:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I see no appropriate 3rd party sources on that google link. On the first page of search results, I see a blog, an Amazon advertisement about the magazine web site, a Hungarian music web site having nothing to do with this subject, various web sites associated with the Schiller Institute, some personal pages and student essays that reference articles in the magazine, and some discussion forums. None of these are appropriate as references. Will Beback is correct that this is magazine is non-notable, as are other related publications such as EIR which, I note, already redirects to a larger article on LaRouche. -Amatulic 19:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

specifically American Academy of Arts and Sciences quotes it here.
I find it interesting that this magazine' entry is going thru the scrutiny that most other magazines are not going thru.Lakinekaki 19:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indianapolis Symphony quotes it here.Lakinekaki 19:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
intute's quote here.Lakinekaki 19:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fathers for life's quote. Lakinekaki 20:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on finding those citations. However, an article's lead paragraph should explain what makes the subject notable, and mentioning that it got cited in an AAAS bulletin and a few other publications doesn't sound convincing - especially if those citations are for minor points, as in the AAAS bulletin for example.
Your question concerning the scrutiny of this article and not others, deserves an answer. I'm reminded of a story, in which a police officer pulls over a motorist for speeding. The motorist complains, "The other cars are speeding too, so why single me out?" The officer drawls, "Ever been fishing?" Confused, the motorist answers "Yes." The officer replies, "Ever catch all the fish?"
The point is, there are many inappropriate articles on Wikipedia. Far more articles exist than active editors. You have to take them one at a time, as you find them. I was originally going to propose the Fidelio Magazine article for deletion, but felt it would fit better as a merge. -Amatulic 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an alternative to merging would be nominating for AfD. -Will Beback · † · 20:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the links that Lakinekaki has provided, none of them are about the magazine iself. -Will Beback · † · 20:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I gave references that I found on google. As far as the comprehensiveness of information is concerned, google sais it will need about 300 years more to collect all the information. I also excluded in my search links that mention larouche. If the search is expanded, there are many more links.Lakinekaki 20:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find any that actually talk about the magazine? -Will Beback · † · 20:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This university's online library links to it [3]. Couldn't find anything that gives review of the magazine, but found dozens of quotes to articles from Fidelio Magazine. Lakinekaki 20:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if there aren't any reliable sources for the article then the best thing would be to just merge it in here. -Will Beback · † · 21:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that the last link is a reliable source: This section of the Andy Holt Virtual Library English Language and Literatures Periodical Collection contains nearly 150 links to journals, many called "reviews", which publish examples of several literary genres, or criticism, without a focus on any one particular methodology. In some, patrons will find social and political commentary. A considerable number of periodicals in this part of the collection are affiliated or associated with a geographic area or an institution. All the sites provide tables of contents for current and some back issues, article abstracts or full text, so that patrons may glean bibliographic information, determine the way a topic has been treated or read an article in a journal which might not otherwise be available locally.
Although this review is not specific to Fidelio, it is general review of magazines in the list. Lakinekaki 21:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a review, that's merely a neutral description of the links, as is appropriate for a library catalog. I fail to see how this establishes notability of the magazine. Lakinekaki clearly wants Fidelio to be notable, but I'm just not seeing anything. No reviews, no circulation data that indicates it's widely read. It's a minor publication. If notability cannot be established, the logical course is to put it to a vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Such a vote is likely to result in a consensus to merge anyway, which is why I skipped that step and proposed a merge. -Amatulic 21:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, go ahead and merge to this article. But be consistent then, and go thru the all magazines as about third of articles there are shorter than Fidelio article, and also show no reference to 3rd party sources. There, you can take them one at a time, and improve the quality of Wikipedia by deleting non-notable ones. Lakinekaki 21:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I generally don't go around hunting for such things; I just address problems as I come across them. I happened to come across this one, proposed a merge, and moved on, not expecting a long debate to ensue. In the coming weeks I'll have a look at the American magazines category though (and you can help too). Also, I will hold off merging for now, to give more than just us three editors a chance to comment or improve the article first. -Amatulic 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Lakinekaki 21:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A week has passed and no improvements have been made to Fidelio Magazine. I propse that the merger be completed. We can add material and then split it out again when the time comes. -Will Beback · † · 10:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, give folks some time to get back from their holidays! I for one started Wiki-editing again only yesterday, after taking a week off. Let's give it another week, there's no hurry. -Amatulic 18:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I was just following up the previous discussion. There's no rush. -Will Beback · † · 18:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added 3rd party source. Lakinekaki 03:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge. I would hope that the function of Wikipedia is first and foremost to be helpful to the reader. If someone looks up Fidelio Magazine and gets shunted off to Schiller Institute, it is likely to be confusing and will tend to frustrate that person's quest for info. Same goes for EIR. Considering the fact that Wikipedia has a zillion articles about Pokemon characters and their powers, it's no skin off our nose to provide a handy reference on a relatively obscure magazine (or in the case of EIR, not so obscure.) --MaplePorter 15:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC);[reply]
Redirect links are standard practice for subjects that don't warrant their own article. As explained above, the alternative to merging is to propose it for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. It would likely get deleted on grounds of non-notability (see Wikipedia:Notability guideline, and the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Wouldn't merging be preferable? -Amatulic 18:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is now complete. I removed a section recently added about the content of a current issue, leaving in the text and references about the magazine itself. -Amatulic 01:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goethe-Institut[edit]

Schiller-Institute should not be confused withe renowned institute with a similar name.--Tresckow 04:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will not be confused. The renowned Schiller Institute is active in many fields that the Goethe Insitute is not, and also Schiller & Goethe are not easily confused as words.--82.34.85.78 23:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

This article has been transformed by SlimVirgin into an attack article. To regain some semblance of neutrality, the criticism should be consolidated into a section called "criticism," rather than being spread throughout, and should be reduced in size to a degree appropriate to its notability. A link to the Jeremiah Duggan article might be appropriate if a cite can be found alleging that the Institute was in some way responsible for his death, but reproducing substantial chunks of that article in this one is inappropriate. --Tsunami Butler 15:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC);[reply]
:I created a criticism section without reducing the amount of criticism. This should be discussed further, as the criticism is mainly chunks of the Jeremiah Duggan article imported into this one. How much is appropriate? --Don't lose that number 14:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, please explain your opposition to having a Criticism section. This is standar format for Wikipedia articles. --NathanDW 15:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC);[reply]

It isn't standard format, Nathan. A separate criticism section should be avoided if possible. Jimbo has written: " ... it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." It's also in the guidelines somewhere, though I have no idea where. Also, the lead must include mention of that criticism. WP:LEAD says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any" (emphasis added). We should perhaps mention Jeremiah Duggan in the lead too, as this is currently the Schiller Institute's most notable controversy. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::It's not that notable. Also, I looked at some examples of articles that you have edited from a "friendly" standpoint, such as Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates, and what do I find but a criticism section. I think you should apply the same methods to articles on people you oppose, as to people you like. That's NPOV. --Don't lose that number 14:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC);[reply]
The answer is to remove the criticism section from there, not add one here. As for the lead, what are the Schiller Institute's most notable controversies, so we can add them? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::It also appears to me that the Jeremiah Duggan story is promoted heavily in this article, way out of proportion to its notability. As has been said elsewhere, there is no reliable source that specifically alleges that the Schiller Institute caused Duggan's death, so the references to this story should be scaled back to maybe a couple of sentences and a link to the article. --Don't lose that number 07:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC);[reply]
Every single reliable source that has written about this has stated or implied that there may be a link of some kind between the Schiller Institute's conference, the LaRouche cadre school, and his death. It was in this context that the London Metropolitan Police called the Schiller Institute a "cult with sinister and dangerous connections". The coroner at Duggan's inquest issued a so-called "narrative verdict," which is very unusual, rejecting a suicide verdict, and saying that Duggan died in a state of terror. The coroner asked: "What was he scared of, indeed terrified of? Was he scared of what might happen to him?" Various governmental and quasi-governmental groups, and MPs, have asked the German government to reopen the investigation and to interview members of the Schiller Institute.
Regarding the lead, can those who seem to be knowledgeable about the Schiller Institute say what it's most notable controversies are, so we can add them to the lead, per WP:LEAD? Duggan is clearly one. Are there others? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::::"...stated or implied that there may be a link of some kind?" That is not what I would consider a solid case for notability. It looks more like the kind of "dancing around libel" that Wikipedia ought to avoid. --Don't lose that number 06:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC);[reply]
Why don't you read the sources then you can see for yourself? All we do is repeat what they say. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::::::We can also not repeat what they say, when it is inappropriate gossip or innuendo. A direct accusation would be notable; a whispering campaign is not. --Don't lose that number 14:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC);[reply]
I think you've misunderstood the content policies on sourcing, which you can read at WP:V and WP:NOR (there's a summary of them at WP:ATT). We report what reliable sources say, and that's all we do. If they're reporting what you regard as whispering campaigns, then you'll feel the same way about our articles, because all we do is republish their material. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::::::::The reason they call us "editors" is that we also make mature, responsible judgments about what is notable and what is not. If we don't, we should. This is the reason, as I understand it, for the policy called WP:NOT --Don't lose that number 01:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC);[reply]

"Experiments on humans with computers"[edit]

I'm looking at this edit and I'm wondering whether it has anything at all to do with the Schiller Institute. --Marvin Diode 02:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be appropriate for the "Jeremiah Duggan" article, but I see no relevance for this one. --NathanDW 17:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing it as non-notable for this article. Also, some of the Duggan stuff is sourced to "Justice to Jeremiah," which probably should go as it is a self-published site. --MaplePorter 06:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin put this comment in her edit summary as she reverted: "the conference was organized by the Schiller Institute; it was the Schiller Institute that police called a sinister cult; it is the Schiller Institute that the Germans are being lobbied to investigate."

I could see having a quote from the police calling the Schiller Institute a sinister cult, but I don't see the relevance of the quote from Duggan's sister. Her quote just makes Duggan sound like a disturbed individual. Do you have it from a verifiable source that the Schiller Institute made him disturbed? --Marvin Diode 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the source? The point is that the business with Duggan is being compared to other ex-members who say bizarre techniques are used. Please read something about this issue (something other than LaRouche publications) before commenting or editing. It's all quite clearly laid out by the sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::The source that you cite is a video on YouTube. If someone is making that comparison, that source should be named and cited, in the Wikipedia article. Such an accusation should not be made by implication, which is what we presently have with the edit as you have done it. --NathanDW 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC);[reply]
I use a dial-up connection, and cannot view the YouTube video. If there is a transcript available online, it would make a far better source. But judging from the quote that SlimVirgin has inserted -- and I'm not questioning the quote -- there is no mention of the Schiller Institute, just a girl talking about her boyfriend who is in a weird state. I think that, without a verifiable quote linking this to the SI, including this is Original Research. From Wikipedia:No original research: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
I'm wondering why you can't watch a video on a dial-up connection. Anyway, it's a BBC documentary about Duggan's death and it includes coverage of the cult/psycho session allegations against the Schiller Institute. The material you want to remove is mentioned in that context, so it's not OR. Please don't keep removing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::::::My computer will play 2 seconds of the video at a time, with 5-10 second gaps for loading. It's too cumbersome. I thought that Wikipedia discouraged the use of YouTube as a source. --MaplePorter 21:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC);[reply]
YouTube isn't the source. The BBC is. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:::::Could you please provide the context? As it stands, it looks like OR. --NathanDW 18:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC);[reply]
I said above what the context is. BBC documentary about Duggan's death; former Schiller Institute member is interviewed; she talks about "psycho sessions" during which people started acting funny; she talks about how her family hardly recognized her personality or something like that; then Duggan's girlfriend account of his phone calls is discussed. Why don't you watch it? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:::Also, I would like SlimVirgin to please respond on the talk page rather than in edit summaries. Is the "Justice for Jeremiah" site an acceptable source for Wikipedia, being self-published? --MaplePorter 14:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC);[reply]
Can you say what it's used for? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:::::It is being used as a source for purported quotes from the British inquest. Surely the inquest was covered by Reliable Sources? --MaplePorter 13:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC);[reply]

Article not neutral[edit]

Looking at this article, it seems like an attack article. There are many editing tricks that cause me to reach this conclusion. One example is that quotes which are accusations against the Institute are placed in boxes to highlight them, whereas quotes from the Institute are not. The ratio of accusations to non-controversial information is low. --Terrawatt 07:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I hear an objection, I am going to attempt a re-write of this article. --Terrawatt 07:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC);[reply]
This article is the result of lengthy discussions among many editors. You've only identified one formatting problem. It'd be better if you can identify what needs fixing and fix that rather than re-writing the whole article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There not accusations against the Institute, just various attempts to figure out what they really are. Unless you find other neutral descriptions I like to keep them highlighted. Carewolf 08:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:::Because of the Institute's connection to LaRouche, I suspect that neutral descriptions are few and far between. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC);/[reply]

Death of Kenneth Kronberg Section[edit]

I think that the materials about Kronberg's suicide that you keep removing (the PRA interview and the WM article) relate directly to the Schiller Institute and should be included in the article. If you think what is included is poorly written or too long, let's fix that, but I definetely think it should stay.

But, User:Marvin_Diode, before we get into this, I would appreciate it if you apologize for calling me a "sock puppet". [4] A checkuser was done and showed that I am not a sockpuppet. [5] Please remember to Assume Good Faith. --Hardindr (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:I apologize for calling you a "sock puppet." I am aware now that a checkuser was done. However, I disagree that the very long section that you added belongs in the article. Two reasons: first, because there is already an article devoted to Kronberg, and the proper procedure is to link to that article, as has been done. Secondly, because although Kronberg did edit the magazine of the Schiller Institute, to have so much of the article on SI devoted to his story is a violation of WP:UNDUE. The SI article needs more information about the activities and ideas of the SI itself. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC);[reply]
Including more information on the SI is definetely a good idea, but I think the Molly Kronberg information should be in there. Kronberg was an important member of the LaRouche organization, and his suicide is a major development in the history of the SI. I can understand if you think it is too long or badly written, but can we work together to make it shorter and more concise?
While I accept your apology for calling me a sock puppet, I do not appreciate you calling me a SPA [6]. Can you Assume Good Faith, please? --Hardindr (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:::The appropriate way to handle the Kronberg material is summarize his position in the SI, say he committed suicide, and provide the "main article" link, all of which are covered by the present version. I did not call you an SPA. I said, on another talk page, that I had noticed that there were new SPAs editing with the King/Berlet/Beback POV (other editors had complained that there were new SPAs editing with a pro-LaRouche POV.) I didn't mention any names. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC);[reply]

undue weight[edit]

Someone asked me to look at how to NPOV this article. It is ok at the beginning, but as people seem to have said above, gives undue weight to the young man's death considering no-one was ever convicted of any crime, and that there is a whole article about it. This death and the questions around it should be mentioned, and a link to the main article, but that should be all here as they've not been found fully liable for it. Merkinsmum 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:There seems to be an unwritten policy that every article related to LaRouche has to have an obligatory litany of charges from King and Berlet etc. As Merkinsmum points out, the Jeremiah Duggan case is just barely relevant to the Schiller Institute. He attended a conference that they sponsored. He wasn't a member of the institute or in any other way substantially involved. So I do think there is an undue weight issue here. The article is being used as a vehicle for the King/Berlet stuff. Maybe, if this stuff must be featured so at Wikipedia, there should be a special article devoted to it, rather than having it dominate every one of the articles where LaRouche is mentioned. --Terrawatt (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC);[reply]
And I think that most of the LaRouche-related articles on Wikipedia should be deleted because they are mostly full of fringe theories and testiments of followers paying homage to a convicted felon and crackpot. I am serious about this. In a real encyclopedia, LaRouche might get a paragraph, half of which would be criticism.--Cberlet (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::I am going to reduce the Duggan material as suggested by Merkinsmum, leaving the main article link. --Polly Hedra (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC);[reply]
Thanks Polly. Merkinsmum 13:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce the text does not mean it is OK to sanitize content to mask the actual details involving the Schiller Institute. The deletions were POV and made it appear that Duggan was just strolling by a meeting. I have cut the text down using NPOV as a guide. There seems to be an unwritten policy that every article related to LaRouche has to be crammed with dubious self-serving puffery and have serious critical content deleted. Why is that?--Cberlet (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Schiller Institute, global warming[edit]

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

Postings by socks of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback  talk  02:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Helga against Europe[edit]

Lyndon Larouche is an American Nationalist and he is right to defend America´s interest if necessary excluding Europe from his ideas which include just China, India, the U.S. and Russia....Germany is out in this idea.

But Helga is European and should defend the Continental idea, and that means the E.U., India, Russia and China.

Because the first idea and the second one are a contradiction. Lyndon is an American member of Congress so he defends American interest. But Helga should defend German and European interest. Europe is NOT in the Pacific Ocean. Just look a map of the World.--88.24.242.195 (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, we're only here to discus improvements to the article, so rants like this are off-topic. Second, Lyndon LaRouche is not a member of Congress. While he may be pro-America, he also has a deep appreciation for German culture. Lastly, I haven't heard many of Helga Zepp-LaRouche's speeches, but I'm not aware of any that are particularly pro-American.   Will Beback  talk  03:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cult[edit]

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

"Allegations of antisemitism"?[edit]

The allegations section is based on two sources: the lecture notes of a student who attended a conference, and Chip Berlet saying that you would hear "echoes" of antisemitism if you attended one of their meetings, but "it would not be obvious at first." Does this rise to the level of something that ought to be included in an encyclopedia article? If the institute is antisemitic, there must be some of their own published material that would demonstrate this. If not, it comes off as slander. 99.27.104.103 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources saying the Schiller Institute is antisemitic. The two you mentioned can be easily augmented, but they appear to suffice.
I disagree with your implication that antisemitism should be removed as unimportant. I think it is foundational. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind providing a few links to those sources so we can have a look at them? It would be especially helpful if you can provide links to some Schiller Institute material that expresses antisemitism (to support your claim that it is "foundational".) Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will only use WP:SECONDARY sources, not primary ones. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that you put them in the article. The question has been raised about the sources which are presently cited in this article, which seem to present little in the way of hard evidence to support a charge of antisemitism. A source that can present evidence in the form of a sourced quote, along the lines of WP:BLPSOURCES, would be more persuasive. Given the seriousness of the charge, I think that the sourcing needs to be rock solid. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources for Schiller antisemitism[edit]

  • In 1986, Jewish Currents, volume 40, number 1, page 4, carried the information that "At least seven right-wing racist groups operating in the Midwest have been identified by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. They are: Posse Comitatus, Aryan Nations, Iowa Society for Educated Citizens, Populist Party, National Agricultral Press Association, LaRouche's Schiller Institute and Liberty Lobby." In this context, "right-wing racist" refers to anti-Jewish racism, aka antisemitism. The article described how the Schiller Institute coordinated antisemitic attack pieces with the Liberty Lobby.
  • Chip Berlet coauthored a piece with Matthew N. Lyons titled "New Faces for White Nationalism: Reframing Supremacist Narratives", which appeared as a chapter in the book Fascism: Post-war fascisms, edited by Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman. The text is drawn from Berlet/Lyons' 2000 book Right-wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. Berlet and Lyons say that "LaRouchites generally operated under front groups such as Food for Peace and the Schiller Institute". They say that the LaRouche people put out antisemitic attacks on President Jimmy Carter in concert with the Liberty Lobby, and that this type of antisemitic activism was "relatively explicit" in the 1970s. They say that "gradually the LaRouchites developed increasingly sophisticated ways to invoke antisemitic themes while still maintaining deniability."
Have you actually read the article? It seems likely to be this one on Berlet's website[7], which contains the sentences you quote, in addition to this one: In 1976 LaRouche’s original electoral arm, the U.S. Labor Party (USLP), published a conspiracist attack on President Jimmy Carter, claiming he was a tool of secret international elites. The Liberty Lobby criticized the report for failing to mention the role of Jewish bankers, and that "soon LaRouche publications picked up the theme," without explaining what is meant by that. I suspect that this is also the source for your first cite. Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You suspect in error. I cited a chapter of a book, and it was the chapter I read, not a website. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote the part that accuses the Schiller Institute of being antisemitic. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had already, ending with "gradually the LaRouchites developed increasingly sophisticated ways to invoke antisemitic themes while still maintaining deniability." The chapter describes the arc over time of how the Schiller Institute was overtly antisemitic at first, then gradually less overt but without actually changing their antisemitic stance. They have changed from overt antisemitism to coded antisemitism such as criticism of "bad" Jews such as the Rothschilds. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please take care not to misrepresent these sources. The chapter in question does not "describe the arc over time of how the Schiller Institute was overtly antisemitic at first, then gradually less overt but without actually changing their antisemitic stance." In fact, it doesn't even mention the Schiller Institute, only "LaRouchites." Note that the allegations being made against "LaRouchites" are from the 1970s; the Schiller Institute was founded in 1984. I should add that the theorizing in this book strikes me as being just as fringe-y as any conspiracy theory I have seen from LaRouche. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this pair of posts you say 1)that the chapter does not mention the Schiller Institute at all, and 2) that the Schiller Institute is mentioned in the chapter, but not very much. Are you sure about what you are reading? Your assertion that the chapter speaks only about the 1970s is demonstrably wrong, since it contains these words: "In 1989, LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for mail fraud conspiracy, based on illegal and manipulative funding practices, as well as tax evasion... LaRouche continued his leadership role in various organizations such as the National Caucus of Labor Committee and the Schiller Institute while in prison..." Binksternet (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, allow me to re-phrase: the section that makes allegations of anti-Semitism does not mention the Schiller Institute, and the time frame for the accusations pre-dates the founding of the Institute. In the rest of the article, mention of the Schiller Institute is minimal, and not relevant to the discussion here. Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professor Matthew Feldman formerly of the University of Northampton wrote the following essay in 2008 for the Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team: "Lyndon Larouche, neo-fascism, coded anti-Semitism, and the Jeremiah Duggan Case". Feldman, an expert on fascism who also edited the above book, says that the Schiller Institute is significantly implicated in the "global dissemination of neo-fascist propaganda and Holocaust revisionism." Feldman writes that "the Schiller Institute in Wiesbaden is directly responsible for disseminating this reformulated fascist doctrine. The very act of challenging the anti-Semitism and conspiricism inherent in this programme clearly helped to bring about Mr Duggan’s death."
Self-published web site, spam-blacklisted at Wikipedia[8] Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The journal American Jewish Year published an analysis of the Duggan death case in 2005. They wrote that the Schiller Institute "came under scrutiny" after Duggan died, and that "witnesses reported that when speakers at the conference began blaming the Iraq war on Jews, Duggan announced he was Jewish."
"Came under scrutiny" is not the same as a direct allegation. Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are secondary sources. A damning primary source is the Simon Wiesenthal Centre Statement in Support of Westminster Call for New Investigation into Death of Jeremiah Duggan. This statement describes the Schiller Institute's many and varied anti-Jewish efforts. In searching for the above sources, I found traces of other publications which I would have to go find in a library. There are plenty of sources saying the Schiller Institute is antisemitic. Binksternet (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing evidence, only allegations and insinuations. What are "antisemitic values"? I had done a little searching of my own last night, and I came across the Feldman piece that you cite. Some of those arguments are genuinely bizarre -- accusing an opponent of being a latter-day Nazi is "trivializing" Nazism, which in turn makes one an antisemite? If that is the case, then the US State Department, which has lately been comparing Vladimir Putin to Hitler, is antisemitic. I also think that people who claim to find coded messages in the writings of their opponents should be avoided as sources -- that reasoning is on a par with conspiracy theories. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Is there any hard evidence that the Schiller Institute, the subject of this article, has ever published antisemitic material? Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be supplying you with "hard evidence"—I'm not here to argue the case. Instead, I will follow Wikipedia guidelines with regard to WP:Reliable sources. If you don't like the Feldman piece or the other sources, your distaste is a personal matter. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Some of the sources on your list are self-published. I'll see what I can with the remainder of the list. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Binksternet, I see that you have reverted back to the previous text. It's a good thing that you are "not here to argue the case." Let me point out several problems with your revert. First, Wikipedia has a general policy of not linking to YouTube, as it has been considered a copyvio problem.[9][10] Secondly, allowing Mr. Berlet so much space in which to propound his rather implausible theory is a WP:WEIGHT problem, and if you disagree, I would be happy to launch an RfC. Likewise, the claim that a troubled student's notes from a conference presentation are evidence of antisemitism is a bit of a stretch, and therefore another WP:WEIGHT issue. Let me know whether you think a RfCs are in order. I think the OP's concerns are legit here. Note that there are BLP issues at play here, and the BLP policy requires us to use high quality sources for contentious material. It also says that if you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chip Berlet is known worldwide as an expert on LaRouche and the various LaRouche orgs including Schiller. It would be quite difficult to give him too much space here for his theories. His critical voice is a necessary part of this article. Berlet is not alone, either: Berlet's writings on LaRouche have appeared in a book edited by Matthew Feldman and Roger Griffin, who give Berlet's work another layer of authority.
Please do not attempt to reduce the reliability of the documentary about Duggan by noting that it can be seen on Youtube. That fact is only a convenience for the reader, not a damning accusation. The piece aired on Newsnight, so it has as much reliability as any other such carefully prepared news piece. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on "Allegations of antisemitism" section[edit]

See comments in the white box. Formerip (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The RfC was in two parts.

1. Is a YouTube video of an undated news program a suitable source? Does it present a copyvio problem?

There appears to be consensus that the videos do present a copyvio problem and so links to YouTube should not be used (this is pretty clear in terms of policy in any case). There is no consensus on whether they are a suitable source, because an insufficient number of editors have commented on this in the RfC. My view is that they fail WP:V because no public location where an editor can view them has been provided (discounting YouTube as impermissible). However, no editor expressed this view in the RfC and I'm not going to supervote. So, the answer to the first question is to go back to the last stable version, meaning the material should be included, but without the YouTube links. If any editor is unhappy with this state of affairs, the answer is to start a new discussion focusing on the reliability/verifiability of the Newsnight/YouTube source.

2. ... How much weight should be given to these allegations [of anti-Semitism]?

There is no clear winner in terms of numbers of editors here, and it is not possible to quantify how much weight should be given to particular allegations, because responses have not been framed in that way. However, based on the relative strengths of the arguments, there is a general consensus that allegations of anti-Semitism should be retained, and some reasonable concern has been expressed that the current coverage of the allegations may be too much. Arguments that material should be excluded because the authors are partisan are insufficient on their own, per WP:YESPOV. On the other hand, a good case has been made that the material is noteworthy and credible, based on the authority of Newsnight and its interviewees, and on the existence of collateral sourcing. So, this close favours the retention of the material, without prejudice to further discussion which might see it trimmed. I do think there is consensus against eradicating it.

Formerip (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


There are multiple issues on which outside input would be helpful. In particular,

1. Is a YouTube video of an undated news program a suitable source? Does it present a copyvio problem?

2. The video contains allegations against the institute, including a claim that a student's lecture notes at a S.I. conference indicate antisemitic tendencies on the part of the institute, and a commentator who says that at a hypothetical S.I. meeting, one should expect "over time" to hear "an echo of the old classic antisemitic conspiracy theories" which would "not be obvious at first." How much weight should be given to these allegations? Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of weight should be given the comments by Chip Berlet, one of the three top experts on LaRouche and the Schiller Institute. An appropriate amount of weight should be given the comments by a student at the conference, and any other comments made in the documentary. The fact that the documentary may be viewed on Youtube is a convenience for the reader, not evidence that it should be thrown aside. It aired on Newsnight which is a mainstream news channel on BBC. The usual sort of gravity given to BBC sources should be given to this documentary. The copyvio issue is separate from the question of how much weight to give to the documentary. Whether the documentary is hosted online or not available at all does not change how reliable it is. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some sort of authoritative source for your "one of three top experts" assertion, or is that your personal view? Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Wiesenthal Center made a statement about the death of Jeremiah Duggan which included the sentence, "Trawling the Internet, appealing to the media, lobbying governments, she [Erica Duggan] has joined Dennis King and Chip Berlet as the trio of world experts on LaRouchiteism." Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe those three individuals are outspoken anti-Larouche activists. Doesn't Dennis King operate an anti-Larouche website? Cla68 (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chip Berlet and Dennis King have both written books about LaRouche and his various organizations. Both Berlet and King have written newspaper articles, and have appeared on TV shows discussing LaRouche. King and Berlet are arguably considered the top two LaRouche experts by the Wiesenthal Center; these two are said by Wiesenthal to be joined by Erica Duggan to make the top three. Duggan did no research before her son died in 2003, whereas King and Berlet were researching LaRouchites more than a decade earlier. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the question is "yes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.191.211 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked for an "authoritative source", I was thinking of what is described at WP:SOURCE, something peer-reviewed, fact-checked, etc. What you are presenting is political activists praising other political activists. According to the article Chip Berlet, the man has no academic credentials and is regarded by some as an extremist in his own right. Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you are now using Wikipedia as a source, while criticizing others for not following the SOURCE guideline?? Chip Berlet's writing about the Schiller Institute has appeared as a chapter in a book edited by academics: Fascism: Post-war fascisms, by Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, Taylor & Francis, 2004, ISBN 9780415290203. This is volume 5 of the textbook series "Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science". Obviously Feldman and Griffin think Berlet is authoritative, or they would have not put his writing into their textbook. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link to that chapter. It hardly mentions the Schiller Institute and does not accuse the institute of antisemitism. And it's quite a display of conspiracy-mongering in its own right. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the Beef? What we have here are allegations based on the most tenuous evidence, made against one group of political activists by another group of political activists. As such, I believe the WEIGHT given to this material should be minimal. If the allegations came from an objective, neutral source, I would give them more weight, and if they were supported by some sort of published statements from the Schiller Institute that could in any way be construed as antisemitic, more still. Particularly since the allegations seem based on the connection to one individual, LaRouche, WP:BLP applies: the article should be written conservatively with the highest quality sources, and the burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material. Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, BLP does not apply, as the Schiller Institute is far too large for WP:BLPGROUP to come into play. Nobody is singled out for the antisemitism accusation—it's the whole group. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you have not provided a link to this video it would be hard to answer some of your question.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: the charge of anti-semitism is a serious one. It is inappropriate for an encyclopedia to provide a platform for political partisans who say their opponents "seem" anti-semitic, without providing substantial evidence. Commentators who claim to "read between the lines" and find evidence of "coded" anti-semitism should be dismissed as purveyors of fringe theories. I also don't think that a TV news commentary is an adequate source for charges of this sort. News media are frequently used for propaganda or politically partisan purposes. Newspapers and TV news may be excellent sources in some situations, but for this one I would say no. Waalkes (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have edit-warred in the past, especially this removal of 35kb of cited text, for the sole purpose of taking any hint of antisemitism out of LaRouche-related articles. It's nice to have you back on duty. Binksternet (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet, based on your own history, it might be best if you hold off from accusing other editors of being edit warriors. I'd suggest that you stick to content issues. IMO, a real encyclopedia does not give prominent weight to "hints" of antisemitism, only the real thing. Joe Bodacious (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't see how the "I don't like it" argument gets any better when you use it Waalkes. Chip Berlet is the commentator you are talking about. He's an investigative journalist and photojournalist activist specializing in the study of right-wing movements in the US. He even explains the pattern clearly. It's interesting your claim of fringe is about him calling this group fringe. The article does not claim this group is anti-semetic. These claims are attributed directly to the source. This is a notable POV and from a reliable source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have read the first sentence of the article at Chip Berlet, but if you read the rest of the article, the you will find that the lead is not supported by the body. The only actual journalist job that Berlet has had was at High Times, which is not exactly a mainstream publication. If he is a journalist at all, it is as an Advocacy Journalist. His own website describes him as a "free-lance writer," which is probably the accurate way of putting it. He has been interviewed in mainstream publications, but then, so has Lyndon LaRouche. Waalkes (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes I read wikipedia article. I even quoted it. The problem here though is that all you have really read. There's his decades of work with PRA... I'm sorry I'm not doing that. He has a long body of work. His work meets wikipedia standards of peer review. He also isn't the only the questionable source used.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PRA is an advocacy group, not an academic organization. The problem I see here is that this is essentially a clash of two opposing political tendencies, both of whom might want to exploit Wikipedia in order to influence public opinion. See WP:NOTADVOCATE. Joe Bodacious (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Wiesenthal says Berlet is one of two top experts on the Schiller Institute. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and PRA is not affiliated with Newsnight. Newsnight being the source. BBC newsnight. I'm interested in hearing how BBC newsnight is trying to influence wiki. PRA is hardly the extent of Bertlets work. His award nominated hightimes article that is being spoken down about was written 3 years prior to joining PRA. That's not only publication that he wrote about in that time period. There's also his work with the mother of that Duggan kid. Wiesenthal does rate him on expertise regarding this. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned the other time the Wiesenthal Center was brought up, you have one group of political activists endorsing another. This does nothing to establish Berlet as a reliable source, in fact, it underscores the problematic nature of using him as a source (per WP:NOTADVOCATE.) With respect to Newsnight, the Berlet material is an interview, and Wikipedia considers interviews to be primary sources, which should also be avoided. In an interview, there is no fact checking or any of the other features that characterize a WP:RS. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Simon Wiesenthal Center is a respected research group, frequently cited in scholarly works about hate and antisemitism. If anybody knows who are the two or three top experts on the Schiller Institute, it is the Wiesenthal Center. The Wiesenthal Center is acknowledged as critically important in the 1995 ABC-CLIO book Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution. The Wiesenthal Center is listed as an important resource along with the ADL and SPLC in 2004's Antisemitism: A Reference Handbook, another ABC-CLIO offering. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well have just said I don't like it Joe. If you want to call out policy read it first. wp:soapbox An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. There is no claim on the part of wikipedia in this article that this group is anyisemtic. It is objective froma npov.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No Comment: Another malformed RfC (sigh) Had the filing party supplied a link to the YT vid in question I and others might have been able to give an opinion on whether or not it is a reliable source for content on XYZ. However, in its absence I have no comment.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll up about 4 inches, you'll see the links. Please note the two-part question -- the second part asks how much weight should be given to allegations of this sort. Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't take the hint, you should go insert that in your RFC up top. The RFC would still be malformed but your question could be presented with an answer. Are you familiar with the concept of TL;DR?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw a discussion of this talk page dispute off-site, on Wikipediocracy. On the two questions:
    1. Linking to the YouTube videos is a clear violation of WP:YT. While there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the videos, they were clearly not uploaded by the copyright holder, and there is no reason to assume they were uploaded with the BBC's permission. Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT editors should say that they viewed the programme on YouTube, but the links here and elsewhere are a clear violation of both WP:LINKVIO policy and the external links guideline. (A good model to follow is how these links were cited here: [11].)
    2. The present three sections 5.1 Allegations of antisemitism, 5.2 Cult allegations, 5.2.1 Death of Jeremiah Duggan use 13 references that are all about the same event, plus one 1985 source (Minz) that doesn't support the material it supposedly verifies, and a book written apparently by an ex-member in the section of cult allegations (not a great source, but okay I guess, given the relative scarcity of first-class sources). To me, reading the article, it feels a little like an attempt to recycle the same controversy again and again, each time focusing on a different angle of the story (Duggan's death itself, the antisemitism charge, the cult charge). I'd consolidate this material in one or two subsections so it's transparent to the reader how this coverage, including the published allegations of antisemitism related to the Schiller Institute, arose. The Duggan case does deserve weight, as it was widely covered, but I wouldn't make three subsections about ostensibly different things out of it. Andreas JN466 14:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The major thing to note about this RFC is that it is an attempt to disqualify this source. The source isn't youtube. It is "Samuels, Tim. "Jeremiah Duggan's death and Lyndon LaRouche," Newsnight, 12 February 2004". As far as youtube, you are right. The said links should be removed. This does not however disqualify said source. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the source is not "Samuels, Tim." The portion that is actually being used is an interview with Chip Berlet, which is considered a primary source (see WP:PRIMARY.) If the source were Samuels, Tim, there would presumably be fact-checking. Not so with interviews. Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is somewhat sound all the question that left would be why you consider it a primary source and not a secondary source as it has alot in common with secondary sources. However while I see a valid reason to change the citation I don't see no reason to disqualify the source or remove the source material with your new argument.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:PRIMARY#cite_note-3. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though it's a popular belief, posting a blue link doesn't actually equal an argument. Since I'm not a mind reader I'm left with the exact same reason I posed before. It can't be simply because it's an interview. Depending on context an interview can be considered a primary source. So in what context do you feel that this is a primary source. I feel the need to repeat, This argument does not however disqualify said source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chip Berlet is an expert, not a random interview subject. His statements carry the weight of his research and analysis. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Berlet's views are not analyzed—they are presented verbatim—so this is a primary source. Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should I bold certain comments that I make so that they really stand out to you? I feel the need to repeat, This argument does not however disqualify said source. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, SJP, you shouldn't, because you're usually a few steps behind the action. I was merely quoting Binksternet's comments here for ironic effect. Joe Bodacious (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One can not be a few steps behind when the other is struggling to catch up. BBC is not a blacklisted source. Your examiner.com source is. What you fail to understand that source offers so little relevent information in that article you mention for Binksternet's (and me for that matter) to offer any effort to get it removed from the blacklist.It is very likely you can get the same information from a reliable source. And again I'm not absolutely sold that Chip Bertlet's comments should be considered a primary source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that I added another reference to allegations of antisemitism, in the following form.

  • The German newspaper Berliner Zeitung categorizes the Schiller Institute as antisemitic.

  • "Tod auf der Straße". Berliner Zeitung (in German). Berlineonline.de. October 23, 2008. Archived from the original on October 29, 2008. Retrieved May 13, 2014. Article title in English is "Death on the Streets".

There must be other, similar sources available, ones that call the Schiller Institute antisemitic. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Three repetitive sections on Jeremiah Duggan, all with same sources?[edit]

I see that someone else has already commented on this. I took a longer look at this article and discovered that three of the "criticism" sub-sections all cover the same material (using the same sources), which is the Jeremiah Duggan affair, which has its own article, Death of Jeremiah Duggan. Wikipedia policy is to avoid unnecessary duplication of material that has its own article. I have provided a summary and the Main Article link. I also left Chip Berlet's fringe theory interview intact, since we appear to be nowhere near a consensus on the RfC. But it is clearly unnecessary and against policy to devote three large sections to material which already has its own article. Waalkes (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it. Duggan is mentioned at the beginning of the "Allegations of antisemitism" section, because some of the relevant material was obtained by BBC during that investigation. So relevant though mentioning him is not crucial. Then he's mentioned again only in the "Death of Jeremiah Duggan" section, which is of course as it should be. After that the only mention of Duggan is in the refs.
I also don't think it's right to remove other relevant material under the pretense of removing (non-existent) redundancies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point here -- take a look at what JN466 wrote in the previous section, it is eBerxplained quite clearly. The point is that the sources for all three sections are actually the same articles about the Duggan case. I would not have spotted that by simply reading the sections. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but then I don't see why using the same source in three different sections is a problem. So what? It's not a justification for removal. It's even less of a justification for claiming something's redundant when it's not. And it's even less^2 of a justification for claiming something is redundant and then removing other info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what Andreas is suggesting above is consolidating some info, not blanking it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy is? Which policy is that? If it clearly is policy then you could clearly link to that policy. You've not actually made a case that it is a fringe theory. Fringe theory? You've only suggested it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, you're very difficult to please. You complain when someone provides a policy link, and then you complain when they don't. But here's a relevant policy link, just in case: Wikipedia:Summary style. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:SS specifically are you referring to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for tightening prose, for trimming redundancy where it makes sense, but this change by Waalkes had far too many serious things wrong with it, based as it was on the removal of critical information. The first thing that pops out is the header "Jeremiah Duggan affair" which belittles the incident and is not as neutral as Death of Jeremiah Duggan. The next thing is that the Scotland Yard letter is removed, though it is extremely relevant. After that, the Berliner Zeitung newspaper assessment is removed, despite its being relevant and easily verified. After that, we see that Chip Berlet is diminished in stature as a "long-time LaRouche critic" rather than as a political researcher of right-wing groups. (Berlet should be introduced as a top expert on the Schiller Institute.) Then we see that Waalkes has removed almost everything about the Schiller Institute being called a cult, especially the very negative German view, leaving in its place that a British inquest rejected the label. This sort of ham-handed attempt to remove criticism cannot be allowed here. Waalkes deserves a WP:TROUT for such transparent POV. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hard to please at all. I am not a mind reader is what it is. I don't care if you provide a policy link but if you provide a policy link you should also explain what about that policy you think applies. And if you start talking policy you need to link that policy. If you talk policy and don't link it then not everyone will be able to verify what you are saying. If you link policy but don't provide an argument based off it then people really just won't know what the hell you are talking about.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I would also like to point out WP:CON. You are making changes that have been discussed but not agreed upon. Actually changes that have been spoken out against. Consensus thru editing is out in these situations. Consensus thru discussion is necessary. The RFC is actually a form of consensus building. This very much amounts to disruptive editing. So please stop. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, allow me suggest then that someone propose a compromise version. The problems with the one to which Marek has twice reverted are the following: we have source material from several media sources about a specific event, which is being recycled into three supposedly separate sections, giving it excessive weight. It also seems a bit duplicitous, like an effort to milk a limited amount of hostile coverage to get every last drop of negativity into the article. And, this material has its own article, so it's not necessary to replicate all of it here. A brief summary with a "main article" link ought to be sufficient, as it normally is in other Wikipedia articles. In addition, there are unresolved issues from the RfC, in particular, how much weight to give insinuations of antisemitism which are not supported by any evidence of antisemitic activity. I will refrain from reverting as I await some sort of constructive response to these points. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we don't do any of that until you come up with a policy basis for doing any of that.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was certainly a helpful contribution toward "consensus building." Joe Bodacious (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's asking that you actually give a policy-based reason rather than just throw out links to some policy as if it was relevant. It might be, it might be not, but either way, you have to explain how it applies. Neither you nor Waalkes has done that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a group of sources about a specific incident and triple-citing them by disguising them as three different topics gives them excessive weight (relevant policy: WP:WEIGHT). If this particular incident is so important in the history of the institute that it requires very extensive coverage, then WP:SS applies (relevant section: A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own.) And looking at the separate article which already exists, Death of Jeremiah Duggan, I see that the allegations of wrong-doing against the institute were dismissed by the relevant authorities, so the insistence that major weight be given to the incident is puzzling. Joe Bodacious (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Major wieght isn't being given to one incident. Allegation's of culthood and antisemtism are seperate situations. In this case the evidence may tie to the death of Mr Duggan however these allegations aren't new to the schiller institute or the LaRouche movement as a whole. 1985 Jim Mintz Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/main.htm . Mentions both the antisemitism and culthood. There are the sources above. You want it to have more sources then go add more sources. You don't like how it reads then wp:bold Be Bold! If at any moment your edits white wash this article they will likely be reversed. As far as your summary of style argument, a fuller treatment of the subtopic has an article of it's own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. Which here it does. The death of Mr Duggan notability ties directly to the Schiller institute. That's not alot of weight given to the Death of Mr Duggan. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat one more time what's already been said. There's absolutely no policy or guideline on Wikipedia which says the same source cannot be used more than once. That would be simply ridiculous. So stop trying to invent imaginary reasons to force your way through.

Second, these reverts, made with false edit summaries that "no material was removed" are just sneaky ways of trying to remove the "Allegations of antisemitism" section, despite the fact that there is an ongoing RfC right above. It's trying to ram through a particular POV through dishonest means, rather than waiting for the discussion above to conclude. It's disruptive and bad faithed.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I must disagree on every point. No one is claiming that you can't use a source more than once, but then, you already know that. Jayen466 was the first to point out that "it feels a little like an attempt to recycle the same controversy again and again, each time focusing on a different angle of the story (Duggan's death itself, the antisemitism charge, the cult charge). I'd consolidate this material in one or two subsections so it's transparent to the reader how this coverage, including the published allegations of antisemitism related to the Schiller Institute, arose." I think that is absolutely correct, and that's exactly what I did. Your non-good-faith-assuming characterization of my edit as "sneaky" and "dishonest" is completely off the mark. Apparently you are complaining that part of an introductory sentence to one paragraph was removed, because it became redundant -- you would have otherwise had a duplicate sentence in the same paragraph. This is beyond nit-picking. No source material was touched in any way, although I think it ought to be touched, because it is receiving undue weight. You also complain below about my adding the "speculation" tag, because I object to the idea that an encyclopedia ought to provide Chip Berlet with a platform to say that he "hears non-obvious echoes of antisemitic conspiracy theories." You are complaining about my adding a tag, after adding three tags yourself. You have added nothing productive to the discussion here, which ought to be about reaching some sort of consensus, rather than a knee-jerk effort to block any change whatsoever. Joe Bodacious (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to remove the "allegations of antisemitism" section heading and hiding that behind a different edit. If you dont like that characterization, then stop doing it. It's still being discussed in the rfc above after all. And the discussion about whether this is 3 different issues is ongoing and as other editors have pointed out you, nor anyone else has given a valid policy reason here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer to title that section "allegations of antisemitism," I don't object to that. But the "main article" link should still go to the Jeremiah Duggan article, because every source cited in the disputed section is a news article on Jeremiah Duggan. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And a few sections above this one there are a number of sources unrelated to Mr Duggan for that. There are other sources availible as well. Some of the information that was availible in your argument only had a casual relationship to Mr Duggan. And now that you can't offer a policy basis for the changes you are pushing you have again changed your stance. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So apparently you do recognize that you were removing sourced material. Please make proposals on talk first about how to combine the sections if you really to think that would be useful. Personally I do think that there is a need for seperate sections on "Allegations of antisemitism" (the status of which should be determined by the ongoing RfC above) and a different one on Jeremy Duggan. Who cares if they use some common sources? That objection has no basis in Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Apparently I recognize that I was removing sourced material"? I recognize no such thing. The only changes I made were formatting changes. You objected to a choice of headline. I said I didn't mind changing it. So instead, using a misleading edit summary, you reverted the whole thing. Please, I must request that you edit with a few more scruples. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Editing with no scruples" = trying to hide a major change, which is subject to an ongoing RfC, by claiming that nothing was removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should not emphasize the British inquest over the very negative German appreciation of the Schiller Institute. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marek, every time you revert, you come up with a new fake edit summary to disguise what you are doing. And you also try to imply that your changes are backed by a consensus on the talk page, which is definitely NOT the case. Binksternet, you want to use German sources. Do you read German? Can you provide a neutral and competent translation? Waalkes (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, my edit summaries have always been the same - the changes are sneaky way to try and remove the heading "Allegations of antisemitism" despite the fact that there is an RfC on the subject right above this one.
If the purpose of that edit is only "reorganization" as you say, then freakin' quit removing the section heading. Simple.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I told you that I had no objection to using your preferred section heading. Instead of changing the heading, you made a blanket revert. So now I have changed it for you. Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and you also removed the "Cult allegations" heading and sneaked in your {{speculation}} tag, which is completely unjustified and ridiculous. It would help matters if you actually tried to pretend you're editing in good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I consolidated all the related material into one section. Therefore, there is only one headline. You didn't like the headline, so I changed it to the one you said you wanted. Now you are complaining that it's not a different one. You are also persistently violating WP:ASPERSIONS. Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the problem is that there was no support for consolidating it. Right now the section is mish-mashed together. It's like a run-on sentence within a run-on sentence. The consolidation seems to have been done just so that those "headlines" could be removed.
For example, where the section now says "The institute was also alleged by the Metropolitan Police a...", the section begins to cover a completely different aspect of the topic. The first two paras are about the student. The rest of it is about anti-semitism and it being cult. And these two additional issues are also mixed up. First we have a sentence about it being a cult. Then an unrelated quote about anti-semitism. Then LaRouche's quote about anti-semitism. Then another sentence and quote about it being a cult. Then another sentence about anti-semitism. Then it finishes off with a sentence about the student again.
Even putting aside the POV pushing involved in these changes, you've simply made a mess of things in terms of organization and readability. Yes? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And please explain, below, that spurious "speculation" tag you keep trying to sneak in there. That section's been sitting there for a couple days, long enough for you to explain yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I responded yesterday in this thread, but I will be happy to copy my response into the new thread you created. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Speculation" tag[edit]

Re: [12].

Huh? This appears to be some bad faithed "I'm gonna slap as many tags on this section that I IDONTLIKE to make it look sketchy" strategy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You also complain below about my adding the "speculation" tag, because I object to the idea that an encyclopedia ought to provide Chip Berlet with a platform to say that he "hears non-obvious echoes of antisemitic conspiracy theories." You are complaining about my adding a tag, after adding three tags yourself.Joe Bodacious (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of my original points when I filed the RfC, which seems dead in the water at this point. In my opinion, it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia to publish innuendo. I'm sure that's in WP:NOT somewhere. Now, since you have added three tags to the article without explanation, and I know that you disapprove of people adding tags without explanation, perhaps you could explain those three. I would hate to think that you were employing a "I'm gonna slap as many tags on this section that I IDONTLIKE to make it look sketchy" strategy.Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because my tags make sense and are justified by policy. The lede actually DOES NOT summarize the article, for example. Your tag does not make sense and is just your way of expressing your WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably time to take this to ANI. You have policy shopping, advocacy, and a user making bad faith edits on another page due to a conversation here. And so much more can just be said.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it appears you admit that you were adding in a controversial {{speculation}} tag under the cover of edits which claimed that the changes being made were non-controversial.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using sources that don't mention the article subject[edit]

Binksternet, back on May 3 you insisted that it was all right to use low-quality sources because BLPGROUP doesn't apply. Presumably you mean that this article is only about the Schiller Institute, not LaRouche. Yet for some reason I see that you have added new criticism from sources that don't mention the Schiller Institute, only LaRouche. So, which is it? If it's about LaRouche, then BLP mostly certain does apply and the low-quality sources must go. Until this is resolved, I'm removing your sources about political parties in Australia, etc. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, as a courtesy to other editors who are trying to figure out what you are doing, could you refrain from mixing together blanket reverts, unexplained deletions, and the addition of new material, all in one edit? Please perform one operation at a time, with a clear and accurate edit summary. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you accidently forgot to remove Larouche's non-Svhiller institute condemnation of antisemitism. I removed it for you.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, you failed to mention that the supposedly "low-quality source" was the BBC Newsnight documentary from 2004. It is not at all "low quality", no matter how you personally feel. In the BBC documentary was a section where Chip Berlet made expert observations about the Schiller Institute. Remember, Berlet is one of the top two or three experts on the Schiller Institute, per Wiesenthal. So much for "low quality" and the notional problem of BLP! (BLP is not concerned with expert opinions leveled against a living person, nor is it concerned with negative evaluations of a large group.)
What you are complaining about is a few sentences I have added to counterbalance the primary-source assertion by LaRouche that he is not antisemitic. Hey, what do you know, that source does not mention the Schiller Institute in any fashion. Instead, it tries to show LaRouche as having a hatred for antisemitism, though it also shows his antisemitism, making it a confusing job for interpretation. Suffice to say that Helen Gilbert is right—that LaRouche's contradictory pronouncements make very little sense, allowing the new recruit to draw whatever he or she wants from them. Binksternet (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know that's confusing... To many joes. I have to say it's hilarious that you added that to counter balance the LaRouche comments, He removed your comments because they had nothing to do with Schiller but left those comments that had nothing to do with Schiller. What of Bertlet was removed?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

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

Dispute resolution[edit]

Talking here seems to have failed. This slow motion editor war doesn't seem to be working. It would probably be advisable to see some form of dispute resolution.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Controversial changes should be avoided.[edit]

Those editors involved in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Schiller Institute I do ask you to consider making no further changes in relation to what this dispute is over.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was protected until June 1st. In the mean time the request for mediation was filed. As soon as protection expired Waalkes jumped in and reverted to his preferred version, initiating this last round of edit warring. This is just trying to have your cake and eat it too. The article should be restored to the version that was protected, then we should commence with the mediation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. However I'm not sure that will happen. However I don't think it would be much to ask everyone going forward to just take a step back. The page has been blocked and next step I think is blocks if we fall back into a pattern disruptive editing. That could be avoided is all I'm saying. Respectfully it is only a request.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Waalkes, Binksternet, Joe Bodacious, and Volunteer Marek: We've all agreed to mediation. This micro edit war is double dealing. It has to stop while we are waiting for a mediator. Can we come to some kind of agreement to hold us over until mediation?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newsnight[edit]

@FormerIP:Mentions a few things above in closing the RFC that points that I don't feel should be ignored.

"There is no consensus on whether they are a suitable source, because an insufficient number of editors have commented on this in the RfC. My view is that they fail WP:V because no public location where an editor can view them has been provided (discounting YouTube as impermissible)." You can see his full comments above in the RFC section.

I bring up this solely because it was a very good point and I think it should be addressed.

BBC under it's charter has to archive certain material. http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/contents/archives.shtml here's the policy. Newsnight falls with in that policy. The big issue that feel highlighted here relates to accessibility. There is no requirement that sources be eaily accessible. WP:PAYWALL makes that clear. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally not bothered about this source being used, regardless of whether it really satisfies WP:V. However, WP:V should be seen as a practical consideration, not as an arbitrary technical requirement. There is no requirement that sources be easily accessible (you may have to pay to access them, or travel to Berlin, or learn Latin), but they do need to be at least accessible. Probably, the BBC do have a tape of the episode of Newsnight in question, but that is not enough if there is no reliable way for an editor to gain access to it.
It may be that the relevant content from the Newsnight broadcast has been cited in another reliable source, or maybe a university library somewhere has a copy of the broadcast. Either of those things would resolve the issue. Formerip (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While the BBC does have very stringent policies regarding their archives, I'm not sure this doesn't constitute a trip to Berlin or a fee. Contacting BBC for research access doesn't seem much different than contacting a university.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. What's the name of the person who I contact? Formerip (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not aware, it seems your question would be similar to asking which Berlin Library you should go to read the only copy of a certain book. If no effort is made to try to access this source that same logic can be used elsewhere. In the event you can't verify a source you should at least undertake some effort to insure that someone else can't verify the source before you remove the source. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To identify the Berlin library, I would use the WorldCat database. The point being I would be able to work out that it is possible for me to access the book (even if it might be costly and time-consuming to do so). I don't think there is always a possibility of accessing BBC TV programmes (although many will be on line or be available in various libraries and archives around the world). Making an assumption that I probably could if I tried hard enough doesn't satisfy WP:V, IMO. Although I doubt it applies in this case, original copies of many BBC broadcasts no longer even exist. Formerip (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point though. You don't know if you don't serach. You'd use worldcat for a library search seems. But then someone that didn't know about worldcat wouldn't. In the case of a hard to find source some effort should be put in to finding it before it's removed.
However with that said, on a related note, with said youtube video a editor can reliable confirm it's authenticity. While there is a copyvio issue with linking I don't think there is other than that.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Schiller Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Schiller Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Schiller Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Schiller Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Schiller_Institute&oldid=1204698982"