Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology is nearly as bad as its coverage of LaRouche. In both cases Wikipedia takes a very non-neutral, hostile line toward the topic. The guardians of the respective topics use their considerable political influence within the site to squash anyone who attempts to move the articles away from the house point of view on these issues, on the assumption that anyone who does so is a member of the organization question. I have no doubt that well-meaning "innocents" attempting to establish something more closely resembling neutrality on these topics have been chased off or even banned for their efforts.

I'm no fan of either Scientology or of LaRouche, but I would be embarrassed by the state of these articles were I a Wikipedian. They are not remotely neutral, and never will be, not as long as people like David Gerard and SlimVirgin have their respective ways.

I'd like to know that too! I just did a search and didn't find it anywhere in the database, so I assume she's mistaken about that somewhat.

As for who he works for, that's just how the Larouche Organization is - a single person could probably be said to "work for" any one of a dozen or more entities, or "arms" or whatever you want to call them. I can't imagine anyone gets rich by doing it...

The real problem with WP's coverage of Larouche is that it's overdone, seemingly in the name of gamesmanship. Because Larouche has written so much stuff that's critical of so many things, nearly all of it practically incomprehensible to the average American, it's easy for someone like Berlet or King to cherry-pick something he's written, say "this is what Larouche believes," and then claim that other people who believe something similar are therefore "Larouchies." That's a simplification of what actually happens, but it's essentially how it works. The result is that Larouche has been used as a stalking horse, and demonized way out of proportion to his actual effectiveness or influence as a political figure. (The recent silliness over the posters of Barack Obama with an Adolf-mustache painted over him are indicative of the level of seriousness with which he should be taken, at least politically.)

That doesn't mean "we" support Larouche or even make an exception for him. It might look that way at times, though, because Wikipedia's coverage of him is so disproportionate to his impact, and we presumably reflect that.

What Wikipedia should do is drastically cut back on the amount of material they're carrying about the Larouche organization, but Wikipedia almost never cuts back on anything they deem "significant," even if there are extremely good reasons for doing so and few, if any, good reasons for not doing so.

To that extent it's about like saying Cheetham was an expert on Nostradamus or Weberman to Dylan, etc.

Then you'll have Joe Six-Pack on the street, or distinguished musicians such as, I dunno… Al Stewart or Darius Rucker… who despite the understanding that their commentary is for amusement purposes only and that they have no idea what any of the shit means, will to most audiences come off seeming a lot more intelligent about it.

If I didn't know better (and have a rhyming dictionary at my fingertips) I'd ask whether anyone knows any good songs written about Mr. LaRouche.

Some sort of duet with Irma La Douche might be just the ticket.

Hit It, Moustro!

Ja Ja

Naw, we gave up the song parody business ages ago.

Point of Grammar —

That would be the passive-aggressive voice.

Or maybe the passive-digressive voice.

Jon

There are numerous responses now, including a long diatribe by Beback. The most clear-sighted response comes from someone using the nic Apoc2400, who says

No, I don't think any one point of view can be described as the NPOV. All we have to do is follow the rules. An article should report all points of view that are given in credible, verifiable sources, and not give excessive weight to fringe minority views.

Fer crissake, we have to explain this to every Wikipidiot newbie who comes along. You CANNOT follow the rules!!! The rules are self-contradictory, and when they aren't they are honoured more in the breach than the observance. Wikipedia wouldn't know a "reliable source" if one bit their collective ass. Wikipedia calls everything from Op-Ed pieces in partisan newsletters to the PETA website a "reliable source". Wikipedia doesn't weight The New York Times any differently that your college newspaper. And no one on Wikipedia can identify a "fringe view" except as a view that the dominant administrators disagree with. For example, SlimVirgin's excessive and partisan coverage of "Animal Rights" is, by any normal measure, a fringe topic, just as poorly accepted by the general public as Scientology and Lyndon LaRouche, yet it is relentlessly protected.

Get a grip. NPOV is a joke. An encyclopedia should strive for what might be called "academic distance". Wikipedia never will, and will always remain an occasional embarrassment and frequent menace.

I don't think anyone here, including me has ever said that pro-LaRouche editors are "right". In fact, I think in this very thread in an earlier post I stated that BOTH sides are POV-pushing. HK was POV-pushing. But, guess what, SV, so are you, as well as Dking, and (previously) CBerlet. So, you are no better than HK, and, in that sense you also deserve a topic ban from the LaRouche articles. You have no higher moral ground here. In fact, just the opposite. Didn't you say somewhere that you studied ethics in college? If so, what happened?

As far as Dking goes, what you have just said is basically no kind of real corrective action has been taken on him at all, even though he recently conducted a personal attack on LaRouche on the article's talk page and admitted that he has never had any intention of trying to be neutral in his editing about LaRouche. Again, two standards are obviously being applied here. Why? If there aren't two standards being applied here, does that mean if I now go ask GWH or the ArbCom for a topic ban of DKing, that you'll back me up?

Wikipedia has no rules; it has combatants. Wikipedia has no way to decide what "credible, verifiable source" is (although it turns out that "reliable source" means "source we agree with"). The only fringe minority views that Wikipedia doesn't give undue weight to are those that are in absolute contradiction to its house point of view; otherwise they're invariably allowed to proliferate unchecked, like mushrooms.

In my experience, the NPOV, for most Wikipedians, equates to "That which I know to be true". They're willing to compromise on things they don't care about, but on the points that they know are true no compromise will be considered, not even a little bit.

Why, Yes, Yoo Doo.

Why?

Because it's one of the Rules of WR that you especially have encysted on.

Be gnomic — change the rules …

Fat, er, Slim Chance …

Ja Ja

Animal rights is certainly a minority viewpoint, but I wouldn't call it fringe. I'm also unconvinced by the claims that the LaRouche articles are severely slanted against him. Could someone point to specific examples? I have long favored letting LaRouchites have a voice with regard to those articles; I've been saying that for five years. And I think it's wrong for the ArbCom to outlaw a specific POV. But at the same time, I can't see that the content is really all that bad.

You're right, those articles are not nearly as bad as they once were, or as they likely will be in the future. A couple of editors, Leatherstocking in particular, took the trouble to familiarize themselves thoroughly with Wikipedia policies and were able to hold Slim 'n' Will at bay (mainly Will -- Slim was not much involved over the past year, until she suddenly returned in a POV-pushing frenzy during August of this year, when this thread was started.) The present version of the article, to be sure, has some ridiculous crap in it, such as the "coded messages" theories of King (now laundered through other authors such as Lerman and some new guy named Goldwag.) No reputable encyclopedia would take that seriously. Now that Leatherstocking has been neutralized, I anticipate an increase in that sort of thing, plus a more systematic purge of all Russian and other non-Anglo sources because, after all, what could they possibly know?

That's one of the reasons that I don't give WillBeBack as hard of a time, because he is more reasonable about collaboration than SV or the other pro or anti LaRouche editors. To get a feeling for how the articles could be rather than how they actually are, you can read the talk page histories. You'll see how the many attempts to shift the focus of the articles to read a little less negatively and more balanced get shot down.

The main LaRouche article reads a lot like an investigative journalism expose' of LaRouche, and I think that's partly the result of using Berlet and King's books which apparently treat LaRouche that way. If Berlet, King, and SV join the pro-LaRouche editors in exile from the LaRouche articles, then I think that any neutral editors will have chance at smoothing and polishing those articles so that they're a more appropriately encyclopedic, as Somey has pointed out.

Actually, to correct Sr. Awbrey, it's Will Beback who has the passive-aggressive approach, in contrast to SV's hard-cop, lyin' and bullyin' approach. You can see him at work in the recent mediation cabal discussions, which I just went over after reading Everyking's comment.

Will has done something to LaRouche movement (T-H-L-K-D) which poses some interesting questions about the limits of the BLP and NPOV policies. He apparently spent a week or two of his life going over every US media article that has ever appeared on LaRouche, looking for allegations of misconduct in the form of harassment of political opponents, which he then compiled at User:Will Beback/scratchpad. Then he added the complete catalog of allegations to [[LaRouche movement]]. Leatherstocking raised the question of whether it was a violation of WP:NOTSCANDAL to list every allegation, rather than to summarize the allegations and focus on the proven misconduct. He demanded to know how many of the allegations had been proven in court. Will could not provide one example of a conviction, and very few instances where an arrest was even made. From the evidence Will assembled, there were more arrests and convictions of LaRouche's opponents. However, the article now reads like a giant police blotter, comprised entirely of mudslinging. So, perhaps Everyking would like to take a look at it.

There is a gradual transition now from "possibly" to "definitely," with no perceptible change in the evidence presented. At ANI, there is this exchange:

From there we go to Jgordon, who in refusing Leatherstocking's "unblock" request, tells him point-blank, "you're a sock." And Will Beback, after the traditional moment of private ecstacy over a fallen opponent, has begun his elaborate scalp-taking ritual of spending hours striking out comments by Leatherstocking on talk pages and posting triumphant notices that he is a sock (example.)

Oh? All this time I thought the choice of username was a straightforward acknowledgement to that effect.

Leather stockings are more durable than cotton but hard on the feet, plus they offend animal-rights folks.

Word to the wise, if you don't want people to think you're a sock don't use the word "stocking" in your username.

There is a general principle that if an account behaves in exactly the same way as a banned user, it may be presumed to be that banned user whether the person actually tapping the keys is the same person or not.

No doubt many here would object to that rule - and it may sometimes be harsh. But Wikipedia is not a court of criminal law. We don't say that socking must be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. Nor do we say that it is better for 100 socks to go unblocked than to block one innocent user wrongly. Is Wikipedia Review any different?

Having said that, I would doubt that Leatherstocking is HK. They aren't that identical.

In this regard, I am proud to say that the Review is completely different. Because so many of us have had similar bad experiences with WP, we take enormous pains not to block anyone on skimpy or circumstantial evidence.

I don't understand why Herschel et al go through all of this. I think Cla68 is exactly right that the material sounds like an exposé, at least from my most recent glance at the Jeremiah Duggan article. For one thing, how can you have a lead that so strongly suggests an involved murder plot, without even saying what the accusation is? This should be right at the front: some people have alleged murder, or that he was killed in a panic due to harassment and abuse by the LaRouche organization. Instead you read through the article wondering what they're even getting at, with additional clues laid on as you go. Then you have the summary of the LaRouche organization: a set of groups "which promote the view that LaRouche is a figure of international political importance." Seriously? It sounds ludicrous, even if in some sense it is true. I mean, say the group promotes LaRouche and his views if you want, or even just say they promote LaRouche, but the way this is written is downright tongue-in-cheek.

I don't even mean to criticize the article. The question is, with such obvious problems, why would you spend all this time fighting with socks and so on that only serve to insult the intelligence of people who might help? Once you're reduced to this, how is any of it more than a ridiculous game? All this snarky BS, pardon me, from accounts like "Leatherstocking," only serves to maintain this circus where so few outsiders want to get involved.

I might clarify that the problem with these articles doesn't seem to be that they're too "anti-Larouche," it's that they're written in a tabloid style. LaRouche is, from what I can tell, spoken of extremely negatively and dismissively by mainstream sources. I don't know of anyone who openly gives his views any credence whatsoever, to put it nicely. So maybe my problem is that I don't get why anyone would put any breath into supporting this guy in the first place (that's separate from thinking the article should be disinterested, although I think a disinterested article would reflect worse on LaRouche).

Obviously one explanation is that Herschel et al enjoy making a game out of Wikipedia, and that all of this is simply in pursuit of that goal. I'd counter that even that is a bit undermined when it's done by promoting such a weird organization.

LaRouche evidently isn't outright dismissed in Russian and Communist Chinese sources, which is apparently a headache for the guardians of those articles. Anyway, I could imagine someone objecting to the tabloid style of the LaRouche article on the talk page, especially since it's a BLP. From what I've observed, however, the anti-LaRouche regulars at those articles will not give those objections much heed. Again, I can imagine someone looking at the LaRouche (or Scientology) articles and thinking, "Wow, someone sure did a number on these guys. Is this what Wikipedia really is, a forum to discredit people and organizations that some people dislike?"

I agree with you that the subject probably really isn't worth fighting over. If you check the traffic numbers, the LaRouche articles don't get that many hits. The whole thing, however, is damaging to Wikipedia's credibility, if we care about that.

Well, not any more. I have been examining SV's grand purge of "inappropriate sources." Among the "inappropriate" are the Lebedev Physical Institute (T-H-L-K-D), Stanislav Menshikov (T-H-L-K-D), Asharq Al-Awsat (T-H-L-K-D) (ooh! sounds Arabic,) China Youth Daily (T-H-L-K-D), and the National Journal (T-H-L-K-D)(wtf?.) The question is, are these not Reliable Sourcesâ„¢, or are they simply just not as "appropriate" as, say, Chip Berlet (T-H-L-K-D)?

The question is, what can be done about it? I don't think Will BeBack made too many friends among the Chinese editors with his dismissal of Chinese sources, judging by this comment. If someone wishes to dispute SV's removal of Chinese sources at the reliable sources noticeboard, and leaves a message at the WP:China talk page asking for interested editors to comment, I suspect that she'll be put through the wringer. I can't do it, however, because I've been asked not to enter into disputes with her.

Well, just reading the LaRouche bio, there are two paragraphs about dead people which don't belong there: Jeremiah Duggan and Kenneth Kronberg.

According to the respective bios of these people and the newspaper articles, Duggan, an English student aged 22, ran into a German highway in the dark small hours of the morning, was struck by a car, then got up and ran down the side of the road for a kilometer or so, before again verging into traffic and being hit by several more. The drivers of the cars report these actions.

As for Kronberg, a 58 year-old printer, he jumped off a bridge into traffic near Stirling, VA. Witnesses reported it as an apparent suicide and it was so-ruled. As for the Duggan case, he was apparently terrified of something-or-other (his actions speak for themselves, if he did what the reports say), but it is impossible to say of what he was terrified, or with what degree of rationality.

What do these deaths have in common? Why, the respective families blame LaRouche for them! Although these families have not, in each case, been able to convince either criminal courts that there was a crime, or civil counts that there was any liability from any third party (let alone LaRouche personally). What we do have, instead, is newspapers reporting accusations from the families, that are then synthesized (yes, this is the correct word) and written down by editors on Wikipedia. In other words, our "reliable sources" are (at best) reliably reporting hearsay and conspiracy theorizing, which is then edited into an inappropriate place (a BLP) of a pariah-figure, in our favorite encyclopedia of defamation. Nice. All helped along by people we know:



Ah, Chip Berlet. Hmmm. And they "raised a question." That's notable. Such stuff might arguably have been inserted into a WP article about the LaRouche movement but even there, without any legal decissions of criminality or liability, it's pretty much conspiracy-theorizing. Pretty marginally encyclopedic, in other words. But how the *&^% does it belong in the biography of a living man, when no criminal charges have been brought, and no civil trial has even begun (let alone reached a finding)??

The farther you go into the details, BTW, the more murky they get. The papers report Duggan's girlfiend said he called her the night of his death to say that "the government" was experimenting on people with electric shocks and "magnetic waves" and that he thought he himself (Duggan) might have a device implanted in him. To me, that sounds like a raving paranoid, and the "government" reference is not exactly damning of LaRouche. But all I have to go on is the papers. And the news accounts are all Wikipedia has to go on also, although you won't find the above story, synthesized exactly as I have done it. WP prefers to synthesize it another way-- you can't get away from SOME synthesis.

If you read the news accounts, you will find that Duggan's mother thinks he was beaten to death by the LaRouchites and his body thrown into traffic to make it look like an accident. This, due to the lack of blood, hair, and fibers on cars which Duggan's mother thinks should be there, and ignoring completely the testimony of the four drivers who actually hit the man-- saw him running along for quite a ways (getting along fairly spritely for a corpse), and saw the fear on his face. Wikipedia, however, will not tell you the details of the mother's theory, possibly because it sounds too gonzo. The WP account more or less has Duggan persecuted in the LaRouche movement because he was Jewish, and his WP-reported death ends up looking like something out of Marathon Man, except he doesn't make it. Think of LaRouche as played by Laurence Olivier, in the role of Nazi dentist.

Much the same innuendo happens with Kronberg, BTW. As I read it, Kronberg's paper-and-ink printshop had been doing LaRouche pamphets long into the home laser-printer age. This is sort of like making buggy-whips for a nut. In the end, LaRouche and his evil minions decided they didn't need buggy-whips and cut faithful follower Kronberg off. Perhaps, at the end, they owed him money; how should I know? Does it matter? If they did, the man had better legal avenues to recover it than jumping off a bridge into traffic.

The wife, like Duggan's mother, does not blame herself or even the dead man. No, she needs a witch. And she has one. There is a LaRouche publication which is connected to LaRouche, which mentions Baby Boomers, suicide, and The Print Shop (taken to refer specifically to Kronberg's) in the same paragraph. So there you are. Is it not clear who killed Kronberg? Yes! LaRouche. And should we not mention this in LaRouche's bio? Sure. Why not?

Look, readers of WR know how little I regard LaRouche. In all the time I'm encountered his ideas I've only found one I agree with (having to do with DDT and mosquitos) and this one isn't even original with LaRouche. Almost to a one, I judge the man's ideas are out of contact with reality.

However, I can still recognize a smear-job on a WP BLP when I see one, even for somebody like LaRouche.

They had been removed for some months, but SV restored them in August during her marathon session, upwards of 200 edits.

That was not originally the case. The Duggan family did not originally blame LaRouche, but they were contacted by some of LaRouche's opponents and persuaded that LaRouche was at fault.

A few other connections of note:
*Will Beback has had off-Wiki dealings with Molly Kronberg. If you take a look at this image, you see that the author is listed as "Created on behalf of Marielle Kronberg, uploaded on her behalf." But if you dig just a little deeper and look at the file history, this creating and uploading was done by WB.
*Based on geolocation (from some edits made she made when not logged in,) Exceptional Well-Honed Linguistic Analytic Skills™, and the editor's habit of adding OR which could only come from personal experience, it is likely that Hexham (T-C-L-K-R-D) is Molly Kronberg.
*Dennis King's website has an article entitled SHOCKER: LaRouche and the art of inducing suicide! This provides yet another example of King's journalistic flair, and helps explain why SV is shying away from him now in favor of surrogate slanderers like Antony Lerman (although WB still defends King to the bitter end as the consummate Reliable Sourceâ„¢.)

There's also the LaRouche side of the story: as far as is known, Ken Kronberg was still committed to LaRouche's ideas and policies, but his wife had, shall we say, gone over to the dark side, by contributing $1,501 to the re-election of George W. Bush. It has also become clear that she cut a deal with the prosecution during the LaRouche trials of the late '80s and perjured herself in return for a slap on the wrist. Ken presumably found out about this, and it was probably far more difficult to accept than mere financial woes.

Well, beating the idea of jumping off a highway bridge into traffic (barely), there's always the idea of divorce. In this case, presumably on grounds of contributing to the political campaign of the wrong nutcase.

You know, Herschel, just once, for the sake of pure novelty, surprise, and the refreshment of unexpected integrity shining gold like the first rays of dawn through a bedroom window, I want to hear the wife of a suicide declare:

"Well, I'm pretty sure he killed himself mostly to get away from me, as I am usually such a bitch...."

But I don't expect to live long enough to ever hear of that happening.

Well, as they say, one picture is worth a thousand words.

But to get back on topic, Wikipedia should not be in the business of retailing conspiracy theories about the motives for suicides for which the deceased left no explanatory note. One might argue that newspapers should not be in that business, either, but why own a newspaper if you can't use it to attack people you don't like? And as Will Beback will indefatigably insist, if it's in a newspaper, it belongs in Wikipedia.


And, no one can do it who lives in California, because as Georgewilliamherbert and Will Beback have jointly proclaimed, anyone who disagrees with Slim 'n' Will will be presumed to be my sock if they edit from California.

I did once personally hear the girlfriend of a suicide say something along those lines. Anyway, judging from past comments, GWH does read Wikipedia Review. So, GWH, are you going to topic ban SV from the LaRouche articles for anti-LaRouche POV pushing, including removing adequately-sourced content, violations of BLP for tying LaRouched to unsolved or unexplained deaths, and advocating the banning of alleged pro-LaRouche editors while refusing to propose the same for clearly anti-LaRouche editors like Berlet or King?

I've noticed that when a LaRouche-related controversy comes up at ANI or other talk pages, it's like blood in the water and attracts all the hard-core Cabal types like JzG, David Gerard, Tom Harrison, JoshuaZ, ad nauseum.

Ritual sacrifice of a symbolic Wiki-Beast is one of the ways that Wiki-Cult members exhibit Solidarity with DaBody.

Jon

Rhetorical question? If not, the answer is "no."

Silly.

Interestingly, SlimVirgin doesn't mind foreign language articles in foreign language newspapers in the least, if they they can be used to support her own anti-LaRouche campaign. For example: Degen, Wolfgang, Nur die Legende hat ein langes Leben, Wiesbadener Kurier, April 19, 2007. Read it and weep, meine Damen und Herren.

Your point is correct, but you chose the wrong example to illustrate it. The Kurier cite was added by one of Slim's antagonists, long since banned, of course, and is an article debunking the Duggan tale ("Only the myth has a long life.") Slim was, however, ecstatic when she found the Berliner Zeitung article called "Tod auf der Strasse" ("Death on the street.") Slim doesn't link to the original, however -- she links to an anonymous translation (her own?) on a self-published website, demonstrating, as you point out, that she's not at all fussy about the rules when it comes to her own POV-pushing.

Incidentally, Will Beback, who avoided any LaRouche-related editing during the days following the ban of Leatherstocking, has decided that the coast is now clear and has embarked on a big edit binge.

Looks like LaRouche is in for a royal wiki-screwing. I hope any authors on any future books about Wikipedia are taking notice.

Holy BADSITES, Batman!

ZOMG! Foreign language sources!

You all are disturbing WIll Beback's scholarly endeavors!

Erm, yes, but what's your point, Will? Are we going to use them or not? Or just when the translation at hand supports your own POV?

Well, this is interesting. Crotalus horridus (T-C-L-K-R-D) is now on the scene, objecting to the two "suicide sections." I'll wager that he or she reads the Review. I also recognize the name; CH must have some seniority by now at WP. At any rate, it has put Slim 'n' Will in a bit of a dither, and Slim comes out with this gem, in explaining why it is necessary to include conspiracy theories in the article:

I like this:

"Greetings. Sockpuppets are not welcome on this topic. Could you tell us what your main account is please"

Uh right, great idea, pick a fight with a bunch of power-crazed wikipedia admins, yep, using your main account is a real good idea......

Ah! We are to understand that WP's good editors would long ago have connected LaRouche himself to these deaths well enough to have the connection to the deaths properly appear in his BLP. If not for the damned socks! It would have been like connecting a mob boss to two "supposed" suicides, which weren't. And all done as original research by WP, since obviously the courts have been unable to do it so far.

Say, Slims--- when you guys get done nailing down LaRouche's personal responsiblity for the death of these two people, and after you've written it up as research on WP, in his BLP, perhaps you could forward it on to the proper authorities?

As an example of how a really well-written "coherent" WP BLP can be a help to society, and all.

Milton

Well, it's getting closer, because Jayen466 has now added this. SV must be in a homicidal mood just now.

get away from your computer - fast !!

Never let it be said that Slim is too proud to remove material cited to the press when it is insufficiently damaging to the reputation of living persons.

My, goodness. Heresy. Jayen466 is probably getting checked with the rubber glove for sockitude, just now. Well, hang in there.

"Sparticus sum!"

"Miltonius Ronius sum!"

"Shankbonius sum! (Ecce homo)."

Hang in there Jayen. Don't forget to use the various noticeboards like BLP and reliable sources if you need backup.

Jayen clearly has WB's number:

All kinds of interesting people are showing up now at the LaRouche articles, including LaRouche planet (T-C-L-K-R-D) , whom I believe to be a sock of Dennis King. I notice that next to his edits in article history, a little notice shows up that says "(Tag: possible conflict of interest)". I've never seen that one before. Is it because he is linking to a website called "LaRouche planet"?

Got it in one. Clicking through the link, there is a table containing:

coi-spam
Tag: possible conflict of interest (edit)
The user added an external link containing his or her username.
Tagged by filter 149. (edit)
6,792 changes

Jayen has begun editing Death of Jeremiah Duggan (T-H-L-K-D), sending SV into a paroxysm of activity, much of it falling within the purview of WP:SYNTH.