Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

The "old" SlimVirgin is back.

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=311423005&oldid=311422751 Was it good for you?

Posted by: Cedric

This was at least 110% predictable. As I have said before, lovers of intrigue rarely if ever fall out of love with it. They nearly always revert back to type, even though they occasionally lie low or switch tactics. Remember the "new" Richard Nixon?

Posted by: Shalom

"Some tidying" can mean anything. Cla68's arbitration evidence did include some misleading edit summaries, but when you add content, the content you add should speak for itself. Meanwhile, you seem unable to give up on the whole LaRouche cluster bomb. To be brutally honest, without Wikipedia I would never have heard of the fool, and I don't especially care.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Word. I first heard of him by reading an old arbcom case.

Oh yeah Hersch http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25735&view=findpost&p=189487: I am in fact an American citizen (yes sir, so far...)

Posted by: Krimpet

Lyndon LaRouche seems to be one of those topics grossly over-covered as a result of edit warring; loads of kooks use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their cult or fringe movement of choice, then their critics come and double the size of the article with their criticism, often with people citing their own works and sneaking in a little self-promotion in the process. The Scientology articles are the same way, as are other fringe topics, I'm sure.

Posted by: MBisanz

The 15 most edited article talk pages are:

1. Talk:Main_Page 86775
2. Talk:Barack_Obama 30115
3. Talk:Sarah_Palin 23755
4. Talk:Global_warming 21823
5. Talk:George_W._Bush 21117
6. Talk:Intelligent_design 20672
7. Talk:Gaza_War 18572
8. Talk:Jesus 17841
9. Talk:Anarchism 17323
10. Talk:September_11_attacks 16194
11. Talk:Prem_Rawat 15946
12. Talk:Evolution 15219
13. Talk:Muhammad 14962
14. Talk:Homeopathy 14313
15. Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo 13985

I'm not that surprised about the main page, or Obama, Bush, Jesus, and Muhammad, but I am very surprised to see Prem Rawat (as opposed to Religion, Christianity, or Hinduism) and Homeopathy (as opposed to Health, Medicine, or Science) on the list.

Posted by: MBisanz

It is probably also worth noting that the talk page for LaRouche is infrequently viewed at http://stats.grok.se/en/200907/Talk%3ALyndon_LaRouche and http://stats.grok.se/en/200908/Talk%3ALyndon_LaRouche compared to http://stats.grok.se/en/200908/User%20talk%3AMBisanz for my talk page. The talk page has only http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=311556496&oldid=2265940, which isn't even enough to make the most edited talk page list. All of which seems on par for an article 3,071 hits a day (not even in the top 3,000 for http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest/wikipedia/en/3000.htm

Posted by: written by he who wrote it

Be fair: She did add some material to the lead (details available), so the edit summary was deceptive, but she wasn't sneaking in accusations of fascism: the text was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&oldid=311415853.

Posted by: Cla68

It won't work to list a series of interviews of LaRouche with Russian or Chinese TV or newspaper journalists, who seem to give him more credibility than the media in the west. You (in the general sense) need to tie those reports into the topics that are more relevant to a general, "encyclopedic" overview of LaRouche's life and politics. If that is done, then it will be harder for anyone to justify removing the information.

Posted by: Casliber

Some unusual topics get quite a going over - for instance, a bunch of birds named Conures or Parakeets - Conure is more specific but is an avicultural name..and the pet trade has been responsible for decline....waht's in a name?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sun_Parakeet

Posted by: Casliber

Also the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liopleurodon - should the appearance of a Liopleurodon in the youtube vid Charlie the unicorn be mentioned...rather involved and lengthy argument

Posted by: everyking

I disagree--the upside to edit warring is traditionally that you get vastly expanded and improved content. The two sides beat each other black and blue, but as the beatings in part take the form of research, sourcing, and expansion, the ultimate result can be very positive. If not for all the LaRouche edit warring, articles related to LaRouche would no doubt be rather few and rather pitiful.

Posted by: Shalom

See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference. I'm not espousing that perspective, but I can see why someone might think so. It's more congruous to expect proportional coverage in a centralized model, but Wikipedia's decentralized model leads to growth in odd topics. This is plain to see, writ small, in the collection of Good Articles and Featured Content.

Posted by: dtobias

Such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears.

Posted by: Shalom

Yes, someone wrote on the web that the Britney Spears article was (at that time) twice as long as the article on Brittany, a region of north west France.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

No, she was sneaking in the (non-notable) guy; his accusations of fascism come later in the article.

Posted by: Moulton

Some enterprising entrepreneur (hello Greg) should start a company in Brittany to manufacture and sell reproductions of medieval armaments. The company, of course, would be named Brittany Spears.

Posted by: Lar

mod +1 funny

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Only 127 for my talk page. Makes me feel so ronery.

Anyway that's just the main biography article. I don't suppose you could get a total figure for all articles/talk-pages related to LaRouche and the LaRouche "movement"?


Yeah it's almost as if we need to actively recruit a bunch of boring, normal people to work on those articles.

Posted by: thekohser

I was already taking out a "doing business as" name registration in Nantes, but we were planning to grow and sell asparagus, not pole weapons.

Speaking of which, do the Wikipedians who http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2005asparagus.PNG go to some sort of clinic or school for Unhelpful Cartography, or something?

Posted by: thekohser

Now, http://www.wikipediareview.com/Image:Asparagus_production_2007.png is how I'd do an asparagus map... if I were more committed to the Wikimedia "free culture" cause.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Yes, that's an admirable suggestion, except that they would just become shark-bait for Will Beback and SlimVirgin. Just ask Everyking.

Posted by: EricBarbour

I must agree. And must also point out, it won't happen, with crazies like SV and Beback running loose.

Yeah! How dare they not talk more http://www.tiffany.org/!!

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Leatherstocking is indignantly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SlimVirgin_reported_by_User:Leatherstocking_.28Result:_no_forum_shopping.29 her big Anschluss, not realizing that Wikipedia policies simply don't apply to her.

Posted by: Cla68

Leatherstocking should just make a request for clarification from the ArbCom as to whether any of the previous LaRouche case remedies apply to SV's edits and then ask for a topic ban if the ArbCom agrees that they do. Otherwise, all Leatherstocking is doing is irritating Wikipedia's admin corps by complaining about it in so many different forums.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

It's now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Leatherstocking_at_Lyndon_LaRouche I think that Leatherstocking honestly had no idea who SlimVirgin is, and the extent to which she is a law unto herself. LS was holding his own pretty well against Will Beback, but now he has entered the Octagon of Death with SlimVirgin, and I don't think he's going to be the one who comes out alive.

Posted by: gomi

Part and parcel of he bankrupcy of Wikipedia is that no one -- especially the (nominally) rational cognoscenti of NewYorkBrad and Lar -- will stand up and saySlimVirgin and Will Beback should not be editing these articles. If there is any faith whatsoever in anyone can edit, it should be that non-cabal editors can sort out wacky POVs like those at Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). It hardly seems constructive to the "encyclopedia" to let these warriors have their way, any more than the pro-LaRouche types.

Posted by: Cla68

Ahem, Lar did http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=312301227&oldid=312301211, which SV apparently appreciated http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALar&diff=312317001&oldid=312279620.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

My, my, that's quite a tantrum, considering the ultra-diplomatic wording of Lar's post. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=26494&view=findpost&p=192915 made a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=312151947&oldid=312151560 but since his account had zero MMORPG standing, his comment was ignored.

Posted by: Cedric

Nah, not really. Remember that Linda never forgets and never forgives. The mere fact that Lar commented at all is considered grievously offensive in the Slimmiverse.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

And, we have Slim http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&diff=312103598&oldid=312091660 on Cirt (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Is Cirt a cabal member, or just a major brown-noser?

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

I think it's interesting that Georgewiliamherbert seems to have broken ranks at the ANI, and is defending Leatherstocking against the SlimVirgin/Will Beback grand inquisitors.

Posted by: gomi

The exchange was funny enough I think it should be preserved:

Leatherstocking defends himself, closing with:
to which Lar simply replies:
Slim's shrill response on Lar's talk page is:

Lar decides not to take it lying down:


I wish I could see Slim while reading it!

Posted by: Cedric

Hee hee! Seriously though, this caused me to realize something. Since Lar himself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEdeans&diff=107607005&oldid=106507869, it seems reasonable that he makes a poor subject for Linda's style of intimidation (far more BFO than Lar, it would seem). It would appear that Stroynaya has chosen to twist the tail of the wrong cat. Again.

Posted by: Achromatic

Emphasis mine. This, ladies and gentleman, would be Slim laying the groundwork for a future "harassment" charge against Lar.

Posted by: Cla68

He's not necessarily defending Leatherstocking. I think he's indirectly telling SV that she has no case and that she should probably back off.

Along those same lines, Will Beback needs to realize that trying to tar and feather someone with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=312538101&oldid=312537683 the "wrong" POV may be a counterproductive strategy. I guess he didn't notice that hardly anyone continued to respond in that ANI thread once it became apparent that SV's case wasn't airtight, to say the least.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

It has certainly worked for him in the past. However, the moment may come without warning where the "community" ceases to be amused by it.

Posted by: Cla68

I thought that it was ok to use primary sources for BLPs as long as it was compliant with other policies such as "undue weight"? I hope any arbitrators reading this will take Leatherstocking's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FLyndon_LaRouche_2 seriously, because I think SV and Will Beback aren't acting in completely good faith here. In fact, in my opinion they appear to be bullying Leatherstocking.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Why do you suppose SV said that she was "writing this as an editor, not as an admin"? There had to be some legalistic ulterior motive for using that formulation.

Posted by: Cla68

Because she is involved as an editor in the article(s). If she were acting as an admin it would look like she was using her admin status to try to intimidate an editor with which she was involved in a content dispute.

Posted by: MBisanz

It is a quite commons wording that I have used before and that I have seen NYB and Coren use in the past. More of a "I declare I am following [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]" statement than anything else.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

She's clearly a bit more careful than Will Beback in that regard. I see, however, that she is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert&diff=prev&oldid=313093446 in some sort of action against Leatherstocking. I am not really certain as to how honest or dishonest Georgewilliam is; his reaction to this solicitation from SV will certainly clarify matters.

It also strikes me as odd that she would be claiming that a legal document, authored by Weberman himself, constitutes a BLP problem in an article about Weberman. Is she claiming that an association with Dennis King is harmful to Weberman's reputation? I don't think that either King or Weberman makes any secret of the relationship. Here's the allegedly defamatory edit:

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

If Leatherstocking hasn't been banned by next year, I'm going to put him up as a nominee for the Cojones de latón award.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Soon to be renamed the essen mein ledersocken award.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

I think you're right, because Will Beback http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&diff=313261390&oldid=313248241 about having it as a request for clarification. Is this because a request for clarification must be heard by actual arbs, and not summarily dismissed by one of Will's admin cronies?

Posted by: everyking

It seems like a reasonable request to me--they clearly don't get along and their interactions aren't productive, so simply ignoring each other seems like a good solution. Why must everything be interpreted as some kind of Machiavellian plot?

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Please bear in mind that we are dealing with SlimVirgin here. If you, Everyking, said something like that, it would be entirely genuine, innocent, and reasonable.

Posted by: Achromatic

Sure it seems like that. Seems perfectly reasonable. And then she has used that concept, in the past, on multiple occasions, to go to ANI/AC and scream "harassment, look, I told him to leave me alone and yet he didn't immediately stop questioning my actions onsite!".

In fact, I'm quite sure she probably even used the same exact phrase in cases that later went on to be "SV 'Harassed'!" cases.

Posted by: MBisanz

I saw my first ever LaRouchie today in real life. Coming back from the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, I saw the guy below riding the coattails of the anti-Obama rally on the mall, granted he was several blocks away from the rally and even the protesters from the rally weren't talking to him, but I suppose if you have absolutely nothing to do on a Saturday, standing on a corner handing invoking Godwin's law is doing something. I did immediately assume he was HK, as 99% of people who agree with LaRouche are HK, but I didn't feel like stopping to chat since I was hungry and wanted some tomato soup.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

From the rear view, I can't really tell if he's me or not. But I suspect not -- the hair isn't grey enough.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Perhaps it's just me, but "I'm going to approach the ArbCom for relief," if said in just the right way, sounds vaguely suggestive. Are you up for this job, CHL?

There's much about SV that could be fixed with a nice permanent topic ban from about 10 areas, much as was done to the Scientology editors. It's a shame that when she got de-sysoped for 6 months, Arbcom didn't think of doing that.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification&diff=313376574&oldid=313261390;

Perhaps the arbcom could take this under advisement, and apply to its source.

Posted by: Cla68

You could have bought one of those hot dogs from the vendor trucks and talked to him while munching on it. I wonder if he has designs to take over Wikipedia's LaRouche articles? Oh no!

Posted by: MBisanz

Apparently you have never had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cos%C3%AC_%28restaurant%29 tomato basil soup (below from random website) or you would not say such heretical things. Off with his head!

Posted by: Lar

So you can't rule it out based on "I woud never stand around next to signage connecting Obama and Hitler, handing out flyers" then?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

By saying that she is "writing as an editor, not an admin" she is, at the same time, claiming to be eschewing administrative authority while at the same time flaunting it. Very clever, that.

Posted by: Cla68

Leatherstocking, in a couple of days, should go ahead and make a request on the ArbCom Enforcement board, based on what I'm reading http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification&diff=314094011&oldid=313477581.

Posted by: Malleus

That picture demonstrates quite well the problem that many Europeans have with American food, the sheer quantity of it. If I order soup I expect soup, unaccompanied by a bucket of salad and a loaf.

Posted by: tarantino

That combination is called a soup and salad and is often eaten in the middle of the day as a complete meal. It can be fairly healthy and low calorie, if there's not too much dressing on the salad, or fat and salt in the soup.

Posted by: MBisanz

I should note that is a random pic from google, when I order it, I order it without salad. About 400 calories for the soup and 200 for the bread, and I usually eat that as a lunch or dinner on its own, with a lighter alternate meal of say a chicken breast and a salad without dressing or a granola bar.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

Last time I ate in Europe the food was crap and the portions the same as at home.

Posted by: Milton Roe

That must have sucked, having no way to doggy bag them.

Oh wait--- you just feed your dog directly, under the table.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

It looks like the arbcom is passing the buck. Hey, who wants to have to argue with SV? it just never ends! SV and horde are famous for tag-team wrestling events in these smaller venues, the ones the arbvom is trying to pass the buck to.

Posted by: Cla68

I think what Coren is saying that it's fine to apply the Larouche #2 case decision to this situation, but let the Arb Enforcement (AE) forum admins handle it. The regular AE admins, like Sandstein, appear to be trying their best to make fair and appropriate decisions on the complaints brought to their attention, so I'm interested in seeing how this dispute between SV, Will Beback, and Leatherstocking goes in that forum. Notice that no uninvolved editors have commented on the clarification motion even though I'm sure that many have the page on their watchlist.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

It looks like the arbs are addressing themselves exclusively to points raised by SV, and ignoring the specific questions from Leatherstocking.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

Concur

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Leatherstocking already went to AE and was told that there was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=311617389#Result_concerning_SlimVirgin. Then, on top of that, he got in trouble for forum shopping, so it seems possible that going back to AE might not be a good move.

Posted by: MBisanz

96 to be exact.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

How does the procedure work? For example, we now have 3 arbs who seem to be saying, "Not our problem." How many arbs does it take to shuttle if off to some other venue?

Now, interestingly, there are several arbs and clerks who are probably reading this thread. Can you make any candid assessment of what is going on? Do you intend to comment at the clarification page? Is it a potential hornets' nest that you won't touch with a 10 foot pole?

Posted by: Heat

How can you tell how many editors have watchlisted a page?

BTW, is misspelling "mess" as "meth" supposed to be some sort of crack about rural Alberta?

Posted by: The Joy

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

Don't you read http://durova.blogspot.com/2009/09/lurk-o-meter.html ?!?

Posted by: Cla68

Leatherstocking needs to point out clearly that the only reason he/she is taking it back to AE is because the Arbs said to do so. He/she then needs to lay out her/his complaint with a list of concise, bullet-style statements that list each perceived violation with diffs.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

It's a reference to an earlier discussion about whether SV could sustain an editing binge lasting several uninterrupted days without performance-enhancing drugs.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

And I'm sure you meant "prolonging" rather than "enhancing".

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Carcharoth has added http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&oldid=314888577#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion They seem to be of the "can't we all get along" variety. Thus far it seems that each arb, in his own way, is energetically skirting the issue. I am waiting to see what NYBrad and Cool Hand Luke have to say, unless they plan to abstain.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I would say that Leatherstocking (T-C-L-K-R-D) initially fit that description, but at this point he has become so annoyed at Will Beback and Virginia Slim that he is, if not a pro-LaRouche editor, at least an anti-anti-LaRouche editor.

Meanwhile, there is an interesting newcomer: Jayen466 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who seems scrupulously neutral and willing to wade through the complicated issues at the LaRouche articles. I think he is really starting to piss Will off, but he is totally civil and can't be accused of taking a side. Is Jayen466 on anyone's rader screen hereabouts?

Posted by: MBisanz

Name rings a bell, don't remember why.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Maybe you figured it sounds much like User:Jayron32.

Posted by: tarantino

Jayen is a follower of Shree Rajneesh and likely an employee of OSHO International. You may remember him for his dogged support of Jossi. Jayen and Jossi have played very similar roles on WP in relation to their Guru's articles, except Jayen draws less attention to himself and seems more reasonable.

Posted by: MBisanz

Ahh, now I remember, he was involved somehow in the Prem Rawat 2 arbitration case, that is where I saw the name.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

It seems likely that he's had run-ins with Will Beback at the Prem business. Perhaps he has had it up to here with Will's tactics, and figuring that turnabout is fair play, wikistalked Will to the LaRouche article.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests#November_8.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

I'm really surprised that Leatherstocking hasn't been banned and/or hung in effigy. He is now arguing for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremiah_Duggan_(2nd_nomination) SlimVirgin will defend that article like a mother Grizzly defending her cub.

Posted by: Appleby

Just because SlimVirgin owns an article doesn't mean it should be deleted. I'd certainly heard of Duggan independent of Wikipedia.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Yes, I believe you have mentioned that using your various earlier accounts here at the Review.

Posted by: standixon

Yes, the number of posts, the 'interest' in FT2 and the user name that was the civil servant's surname in "Yes Minister" does arouse suspicion doesn't it? Reminds me of the Hercules' myths. Cut off one head of the Hydra and more grow!

Posted by: Achromatic

Uh oh. No-one told me we were http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremiah_Duggan_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=318482209&oldid=318479569 discussing this subject:

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Will Slim 'n' Will play the BADSITES card? Will this spill over into Leatherstocking's other AfD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_Kronberg_(2nd_nomination) Slim 'n' Will are already out in force for that one. News at 11.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Hail, hail, the cabal's all here, as Tom Harrison and JoshuaZ make an appearance. Also at this one:

JoshuaZ in particular thinks the way to win points is to trash Leatherstocking.

Posted by: Cla68

Some editors that I respect, like Everyking have voted to keep it, and I generally agree with them. That doesn't resolve the fact that some serious POV-pushing has been going on in the LaRouche articles for quite some time, from both "sides", and it's important that one side in particular no longer gets a free pass at doing that. I pointed out in the article that Dennis King http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan&diff=prev&oldid=318395621 (that's me accidentally editing without logging-in) and another editor responded by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan&action=historysubmit&diff=318577325&oldid=318575517. If those citations check out, then that's fine.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Speaking of LaRouche, how long before Keith Olbermann's epithet of "Larouchebags" (from last night's Special Comment) finds its way into Wikipedia?

Posted by: Cla68

I assume that something about it will be added to the "LaRouche in popular culture" section in his article soon. Google appears to http://www.google.co.jp/search?hl=ja&source=hp&q=larouchebags&lr=&aq=f&oq= the term as established in popular usage. I suspect that the LaRouche supporter's use of the Obama "Joker" posters isn't winning them too many friends.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Will Beback is waiting for the term to appear in a Reliable Sourceâ„¢ before he commences writing the article.

LaRouche had nothing to do with the "Joker" poster. LaRouche's contribution to the debate is the http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/SoI48hWqQCI/AAAAAAAADEg/776f_tDg-b8/s400/3797043566_8269257835.jpg poster. Bill Maher now says that Obama is not the same as Hitler, because when Hitler tried to get the Olympics, he succeeded.

Posted by: The Joy

Could Leatherstocking be allowed to continue editing as a "token" LaRouchie so Slim, Beback and friends do not appear so merciless?

Given what's happened with 172/Cognition, could it be possible Leatherstocking is a "bad hand" account?

I take a neutral stance on the LaRouche wiki-battles, but its obvious that nothing positive about LaRouche, even when backed by Reliable Sources, can go unchallenged by SV and friends. LaRouche may, from many people's perspective, be considered "crazy," but he deserves a neutral, just-the-facts BLP article per Wikipedia's own policies.

Can that happen? Will it happen? Unlikely.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

After some initial comments by uninvolved editors such as Achromatic, Edison and Tony Fox, someone must have sent up the Bat Signal, because the AfD proceedings have become a straight ideological litmus test, with threats coming from JoshuaZ and Vyvyan Ade Basterd (T-C-L-K-R-D) (who is this guy?) against anyone who is insufficiently anti-LaRouche.

Posted by: Cla68

I'm waiting to see what happens when LaRouche editors start using more Chinese and Russian sources, which appear to give LaRouche's ideas and projects more credibility than the western media. I think it will be fairly hilarious, actually. I think JoshuaZ and some of the others probably read this thread here in WR and responded accordingly.

Yes, LaRouche and any other topic in Wikipedia deserve a fair and neutral treatment. It's disappointing to see so many long-time editors openly flaunting this ideal.

Posted by: Random832

And you don't realize that this is a "contribution to the debate" in the same way that a dog makes a 'contribution' to a sidewalk?

Even accepting the rather thin premise that there is a valid comparison to be made, the posters don't actually explain the basis for comparison, they just make you look crazy.

And I have no idea how you can say with a straight face that this doesn't mean LaRouche is responsible for the other "democrats = nazis" stuff. He started the meme.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I'm not sure what other "democrats = nazis" stuff you mean. I've been a Democratic Party activist since the 60s, and I cherish the idea that the Democratic Party should be the voice of the poor and oppressed. So when I see Barney Frank slavishly working to protect the biggest Wall Street gangsters in US history from any sort of scrutiny, or Nancy Pelosi proposing a regressive VAT tax and holding megabucks "let them eat cake" fundraising soirees for her billionaire patrons, I feel betrayed. I think they're a bunch of Republican moles, and LaRouche is the http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12016

Posted by: Achromatic

Will Beback has made the observation that "closing admins should consider the validity of certain !votes", and particularly references a !voter (and we'll make the presumption here that he was only really looking at 'Delete' voters) who, from chronology, appears like it can only be me.

Apparently, such factors that Will encourages the closing admin to consider are my "rare" participation in Wikipedia (my apologies, I didn't realize my fulltime day job in Healthcare IT Management, and my training and working as an EMT in my community interfered so much with my involvement in WP, and I could only get 614 edits in over 3 1/2 years), and the fact that I recently voted in Dennis King's AfD (never mind contributions to the subjects of emergency medicine, technology, pop culture, Australia, Scotland, photographic contributions, and many others) means that I may have been susceptible to canvassing, or maybe even meatpuppeting!

Posted by: Random832

The swastika vandalism that Kato keeps bringing up and that you keep saying LaRouche had nothing to do with.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

There does seem to be a bias against editors who, unlike Will Beback and SlimVirgin, are unable to devote 16-18 hours a day to playing the Wikipedia game.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

You want my opinion on that? Blaming LaRouche for that is juvenile, Chip Berlet-style innuendo-slinging, the last resort of persons too chicken to debate LaRouche on his opinions, so they must set up some other fellow's opinion as a straw man and debate the straw man.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Now the Duggan article is (presto!) called "Death of Jeremiah Duggan".
Thank you, Mr. Mcwhiney!

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Yes, because that's so much better.

Why not change it to Alleged "death" of Jeremiah Duggan to be even more idiotic?

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

I see that the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&curid=22747419&diff=319109587&oldid=319109192 has been shelved without any comment from NewYorkBrad or CoolHandLuke. C'mon, guys, I know you're reading this; were you afraid to say anything because you might be attacked, for being guilty of association with the Wikipedia Review?

Posted by: Achromatic

Closed as Keep by Juliancolton...

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

...however, the controversy has spilled over into yet another page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:LaRouche_movement.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

SlimVirgin is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Lead.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Not that Slim would ever refactor a page (and Leatherstocking did explain in that diff - perhaps that tactic bemused Slim who would never ever explain herself).

Posted by: Milton Roe

And that's just the kind of work an uninvolved neutral admin-editor is willing to do. And the COI tag-- well, she hates to use it, but really has no choice.

You see, people who really like LaRouche are messing this article up bigtime, vs. the other side which really has no particular opinion at all, and is only trying to get the "mainstream" view of the world about LaRouche fairly represented. Yes, they are.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I think that Slim 'n' Will are pursuing a tactic of psychological warfare here, doing senselessly annoying things in hopes of provoking Leatherstocking as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:9STEPS Take a look at the Beback/Leatherstocking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-08-06/LaRouche_movement, and you'll see Will doing his patented "I don't understand what you're saying - could you please restate it as an entirely different idea?" routine to deflect any discussion of his skullduggery.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Leatherstocking makes an effort to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=321492184&oldid=321445828 but I think he's wasting his breath, because the only other editors that participate on that page are SV, WB, and -- wait for it -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Speculation_vs._Argument

What was that someone was saying about COI?

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Could someone who undertstands the Arbcom explain to me what happened with the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&curid=22747419&diff=319109587&oldid=319109192 ? Leatherstocking's questions were never answered, and eventually the request just went away. Is this normal arbcom behavior?

Posted by: Achromatic

Ummm, do you really need an answer to this? If so, the answer is "Yes, yes it is. Awkward questions are to be pointedly ignored."

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

SV is now engaged in a systematic purge of all Russian and Chinese sources at Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D)].

Posted by: Milton Roe

Well, how can she verify them if she can't read them.

Hopefully it will take her a long time to discover the math articles.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Leatherstocking is providing raggedy translations via Google Translate. However, you don't need no stinkin' translations to know that the POV is incorrect.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

And, Leatherstocking was just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2&curid=1430577&diff=322420261&oldid=289362892 by Georgewilliamherbert. Oddly enough, GWH is not claiming that he is me. It appears to be case of living on the West Coast in a very similar way.

Posted by: Lar

Isn't it "editing from a LaRouche organization controlled IP" ???? That's the allegation being made.

Posted by: Cla68

If there was any chance of LaRouche getting a fair shake on Wikipedia, I'd say that's now up in smoke. I normally would not be sympathetic to a LaRouche employee, if true, being blocked from editing LaRouche topics on Wikipedia, but SV and WillBeBack are not, in my opinion, making an honest effort to treat the LaRouche articles in a neutral manner.

I think the only reason they haven't been taken to task about it is because no one active in Wikipedia's administration cares enough about it do anything. The thing is, Wikipedia's credibility is judged by how it treats all topics, including LaRouche. So, if the LaRouche articles are being used to discredit the guy, especially by two long-time administrators, then it helps make Wikipedia look even more bush league.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Yes, I believe that is one of the allegations, but I looked in vain for anything in the ArbCom decision that prohibits that. Basically, GWH is interpreting the ArbCom decision to be ban on what may be construed as a pro-LaRouche POV.

And it turns out that the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert&diff=322303673&oldid=322281255 She accuses Leatherstocking of "making or restoring material that Herschelkrustofsky favored."

Posted by: Cla68

Good grief, now I understand why Will and SV suddenly put me at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACla68&action=historysubmit&diff=322084332&oldid=321645672 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWill_Beback&action=historysubmit&diff=322088182&oldid=322086706 a couple of days ago, it's because they were planning to make their move on Leatherstocking and didn't want me getting in the way. Well, in that post SV promised to do something about DKing, so when is she going to ask GWH to ban that account also?

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

I'm surprised Leatherstocking lasted as long as he did. He should have known that he was swimming in piranha-infested waters. The only really surprising thing is the gullibility of User:Atama.

"Any account that appears to be a single-purpose account, or anyone with a close real-life connection to the LaRouche movement, whether in favor or in opposition (or whose edits suggest such a connection), may be banned by any uninvolved administrator from editing articles about the movement." Slim and Beback should be first in line for banning.

Posted by: Achromatic

Apparently, GWH's claim is that the LaRouche organization uses a residential Roadrunner cable connection??

Posted by: Milton Roe

Natty Bumppo would have recognized them all long ago by their spoor, and seen it coming far off!

Tough luck, Hawkeye.

Posted by: Cla68

Well, the next time DKing edits a LaRouche topic, in article or talk page space, I'm going to ask GWH to block him under that ArbCom ruling you quote above. It seems fairly clear to me, since the guy has written a book about LaRouche that is extremely critical, links to his personal anti-LaRouche website on his userpage, and in recent edits to the talk page of the main LaRouche article has made it clear that he is unashamedly non-neutral when it comes to LaRouche. I expect SV and WillBeBack to back me up when I make the request.

Posted by: tarantino

It's a business account.

From http://www.robtex.com/ip/64.183.125.210.html#whois

network:Organization;I:AMERICAN-SYSTEM-PUB

American System Publications is mentioned in http://www.fec.gov/audits/2000/p00-01-06.pdf as a vendor that entered into a contractual agreement with LaRouche's Committee for a New Bretton Woods.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Wups. Guess it is a COI account. And you know how Slim and GWH are sworn to prevent any and all COI editing on WP.

Umm, I thought the approved remedy was to run such things though arbcom and topic-ban the malefactors, as with the Scientology and CAMERA cases. Simply banniating the editor for good is way out of proportion. For one thing, WP doesn't always do that for CLEAR vandals. And they certainly don't do it for any and all people who show evidence of COI.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

Cla, you were strongly supportive of efforts to defend the Prem Rawat articles from cultist editing, but you take the opposite view on the LaRouche articles. Perhaps you could explain what the difference is.

The fact is that Leatherstocking repeatedly said he had no connection with the LaRouche movement, and had only "vaguely heard of them" when he joined WP, but was yesterday found to have been editing all along from an IP address assigned to a company that's owned by the movement. Some examples here of his claim not to be involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALeatherstocking&action=historysubmit&diff=322506709&oldid=322476322

Will and I want to produce accurate, well-written articles about LaRouche, but there's barely been a day since 2004 when the articles weren't under attack from member(s) of the LaRouche movement. The problem with these editors, assuming it's more than one person, is that they appear incapable of thinking independently about LaRouche. No matter the issue, no matter how terrible the sources they have to fall back on, they uniformly edit in a way that they think makes LaRouche look good. They remove material about the movement's violence that's sourced to The New York Times, but add material about how an associate of LaRouche's once said he was a wonderful economist, according to a Russian-language newspaper that no one can read. No one should be defending that kind of editing.

As for King, he has also been asked not to edit these articles anymore.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

There is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Leatherstocking_indefinitely_blocked now. So far, not much of a victory dance -- Will 'n' Slim are being cautious, and GWH was careful not to name the anonymous tipster.

Posted by: Cla68

Well, for one thing, why have you and Will been so eager to ban pro-LaRouche editors, but so reluctant to ban Chip Berlet and Dennis King, who are just as entrenched in their POV as the pro-LaRouche editors? If you and Will really were trying to produce "fair" articles, how did you overlook what those two editors were doing? I give Chip and Dennis credit for being open about their POV and agenda, but they apparently could be open about it because they feared no sanction for doing so.

The ArbCom ruling appears to allow editors to be banned if they are associated with LaRouche. Thus, someone like Leatherstocking would have no choice but to lie about their affiliation. To do otherwise would have meant an instant ban. Now, if these bans were being handed out fairly, to both sides, then there wouldn't be a problem. But, that's not the case, is it?

By the way, how was Dennis King notified that he shouldn't edit the LaRouche topics anymore? I checked his http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dking&action=history, expecting to see a comment from you under my comment, but I don't see anything. From what I've been taught and have seen, formal corrective action is really only enforceable if it is written and documented, such as by a post on an editor's user talk page.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

You didn't really answer the question. Why are you strongly opposed to cultist editing on Prem Rawat, but not strongly opposed to it on the LaRouche articles?

The LaRouche accounts have been banned because they're believed to be controlled by one person, Herschelkrustofksy, who is a staff member of this website. I don't know whether Leatherstocking was also HK. I do know that his IP address was owned by American System Publications, the LaRouche company in Los Angeles that HK said he worked for, under the name he gave for himself, which has been discussed here before. I won't repeat the name in case he'd prefer it wasn't posted, and I'm not even sure it really is him, but that person does work for American System Publications in Los Angeles. So if HK didn't operate the Leatherstocking account himself, he surely knows who did.

As for King and Berlet, both are published experts on LaRouche. This website normally deplores when published experts are run off Wikipedia, yet here you are supporting it. A lot of your strongly entrenched positions seem to be overturned when it comes to LaRouche, presumably in part because a LaRouche movement member runs this site, and in part because it's a way of taking a dig at me. But I hope you'll do your best to stand back and look at the situation clearly, ignoring who you like and don't like.

Berlet hasn't edited [[Lyndon LaRouche]] since 2007, and is barely used as a source, if at all. In three years, he only made 192 edits to it, and I doubt many have survived. King has edited it more recently, but his edits aren't sticking, and he's been asked by e-mail more than once to stop editing it, in his own interests as much as for any other reason. He is also barely used as a source in the article. It's disgraceful that two experts on LaRouche, people the high-quality mainstream media use as sources, have been so discouraged or prevented from editing those articles, assisted by personal attacks posted against them here by the movement -- including BLP attack pages created by Herschelkrustofksy -- but that's Wikipedia for you.

In total, the accounts known to be associated with LaRouche have made around 1200 edits to the article, more than anyone else. If you want to complain about inappropriate editing, please address your complaints in the first instance to the man who controlled all or most of these accounts, Herschelkrustofsky.

Posted by: Lar

SlimVirgin: I think that "you didn't really answer the question" was for rhetorical effect, wasn't it?

You have a list of unanswered questions here going back months... it's as long as my arm. Did you plan to go back and start answering some of the far more important questions you've been asked, now that you've returned here? Or just take pot shots and hope that people forget all the unanswered ones?

Posted by: taiwopanfob

That's not exactly right, is it?

Your very own Arbcom has said that any pro-LaRouche editors can be shot on sight. Which is basically what happened to Leatherstocking and anyone else stupid enough to edit the articles in a positive light to LaRouche.

In the interests of fairness and neutrality -- core political goals of this enterprise -- why can't the anti-LaRouche ones? You, BeBack, DKing, and Berlet are clearly in this category. Indeed, reading the Arbcom ruling, one gets the very strong impression the entire project is now anti-LaRouche.

No doubt there are good reasons for this.

It would just be far, far, more honest on your part -- personally and collectively -- to simply admit the now built-in bias against the man and his followers. The existence and implications of the Arbcom decision against pro-LaRouche editors should be in-your-face on the talk page for the benefit of any editor foolish enough to try, but far more importantly, this same information should be provided to readers in order they better assess the neutrality and accuracy of the article(s).

Posted by: Cla68

I wasn't opposed to cultists in general editing Rawat if they did so neutrally, but a few them, mainly Jossi, didn't. Same thing with LaRouche. When you give the numbers of edits supposedly made by Berlet and King, are you counting the edits they made to the talk pages? If not, then you're being disingenuous. The talk pages are where collaboration happens. If someone is attacking the article's subject and other editors on the talk pages, which Berlet and King did, then that inhibits or prevents effective collaboration from happening. You know this. Or you should know it.

If editors make neutral edits to both the article and talk page, then there isn't a problem. One of Hersh's alleged socks, Marvin (or Martin?) Diode, as far as I'm aware, was very careful to make neutral edits. He was blocked anyway. At the same time, however, King and Berlet continued on their merry way disparaging LaRouche in Wikipedia and you did nothing about it. Why? I think I know why, judging from some of the diffs I saw of edits of yours that were presented as evidence in the original LaRouche Arbcom cases. So are we to believe that even though you were evidently anti-LaRouche then, you aren't now?

You didn't answer my question. Where is it documented in Wikipedia that DKing is now voluntarily topic-banned from the LaRouche articles? Will this be annotated on the LaRouche arbcom enforcement page, just below the new entry on Leatherstocking's block? If I go add a note about it there, will you support me?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Oh, how lame. I think you'll find, m'dear, that sympathy for LaRouche on Wikipedia Review starts and ends with HK. There is no "party line" here in favor of LaRouche, no matter how much you want to believe there is.

That said, I don't think you'll find much objection here at WR to the notion that ideological zealots posing as experts should be run off Wikipedia at the first opportunity.

Posted by: Lar

I sort of expected you to talk about House POV here. It's a very good explanation for what's being asked, isn't it?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Oh, it's very obvious that Wikipedia's house point of view incorporates a very strong antipathy toward LaRouche. This is so frankly obvious that I don't know of a way to say it that isn't insulting to the reader; it's sorta like going up to someone and saying, "You did know that the sky is blue, didn't you?"

I would say that the way this is being handled on Wikipedia makes a mockery of "the neutral point of view" except that it's my considered belief that there is no such thing as "the neutral point of view", and it's impossible to make a mockery of something which does not exist. I suppose you can mock those who persist in believing in things that don't exist, but that's generally considered rude.

Posted by: Random832

This sentence lacks an actor - believed by whom?



There's another one.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

the weasel knows
what weevil grows
in the ♥s of men …

— but that's just men …

Ja Ja

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I've never said anything like that.


Neither King nor Berlet are "experts" in any conventional sense. They are propagandists and conspiracy theorists of the sort that Wikipedia should be extremely cautious about using as sources.


Well, that's a load of crap. You manage to disguise the degree to which King is used as a source, by "laundering" King's conspiracy theories through Antony Lerman, a British academic who simply wrote a synopsis of King's book which was then published in an anthology.


You presume incorrectly. My political views here have about as much influence as they do at [[WP:ANI]]. However, your second presumption may be more correct. People here may be inclined to be skeptical of what you say, because your tactics at WP are so consistently odious.


That's a brilliant idea, and there is of course no chance in Hell that it will be implemented. Anyone want to start a pool about how long it will take Slim 'n' Will to remove the neutrality dispute tag from Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D), now that they have taken Leatherstocking's scalp?

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

The real name that has been posted for you on this site, and the name that was embedded into a file you posted on Wikipedia -- that person works for American System Publications, a LaRouche outfit, in Los Angeles. Leatherstocking's IP address resolves to American System Publications in Los Angeles. Perhaps you could address that point.



They are very precisely experts in the "conventional sense." They've been studying LaRouche for decades. They've been published by conventional publishing houses and encyclopedias. When the BBC wants to know about LaRouche, they interview Berlet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpSx8K0U21A&mode=related&search=

Berlet and King know about the violence, the threats, the insane beliefs, the defamation of critics, and the extensive propaganda published by outfits such as .... American System Publications. That's why you detest them, it's why you and your socks have spent years on Wikipedia undermining them, and it's why you created their BLPs to attack them, and used this website for the same purpose.

And you succeeded. Berlet was too disgusted to continue. King has agreed not to edit those pages anymore.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

What do you mean "same thing with LaRouche"? None of the LaRouche accounts has ever edited in a disinterested fashion. They wouldn't be allowed to! Perhaps HK can tell us what would happen to a LaRouchie who started editing neutrally about LaRouche on Wikipedia.



There is no topic ban. A couple of people emailed him, myself included (though in my case it was quite some time ago), and told him it wasn't a good idea for him to edit those articles. So far as I know, he has agreed not to, so the issue is dealt with. If he edits them again, we can look at posting on AN/I or AE, though it would have to be a topic ban on anyone with real-life involvement with LaRouche (for or against), not just King. It would clearly be absurd to topic ban the only published expert, but allow the LaRouche movement accounts to continue.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

You seem to prefer the passive voice. Who posted a real name for me on this site?


My guess is that he would be banned by Georgewilliamherbert, at your request.

You wish to insinuate that the LaRouche organization cares what Wikipedia writes about it. As far as I can tell, it does not, at least not enough to do anything about it. They did publish http://www.larouchepac.com/node/5215 in a mass-distribution pamphlet, but that's it, to my knowledge.

The definition that you and Will use for "LaRouche movement accounts" is simply anyone who contests your edits. I've seen it more than once -- it often takes only one or two contested edits at a LaRouche article, from a new editor, and the accusations begin. You have consistently used this as a tactic in POV-pushing. With the exception of myself, a professed LaRouchian, and Leatherstocking, if the allegations you make are correct, I don't know of any editor who was banned due to your machinations who was provably a "LaRouche movement account."

Posted by: Achromatic

I do stand corrected, humbly I didn't continue scrolling on my whois lookup. Saw RoadRunner - after you mentioned this then saw RR Commercial and then American System.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

He might be at least on the edge of making this claim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=322418366&diff=prev

♫♪ E-I-E-I-O ♫♪

Posted by: Heat

It appears we have a situation where people are utilizing tunnel vision because of their feelings about SlimVirgin. I don't see why anyone here should view the arugments around Larouche articles any differently than arguments around Scientology related articles, Prem Rewat or the Unification Church. In all these cases (and others) there will be a tendency for the organization itself or its most ardent supporters to edit aggressively in order to protect their organization or leader from criticism and, as much as possible, promote the entities own world view or at least its view on itself. Small, highly committed organizations such as these are actually far more likely to engage in aggressive editing campaigns than large companies that feel less threatened.

It would be more productive if WRers disregarded personalities in this sort of matter and tried to think how they would view the same situation if it were Scientology vs User:X.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

What's your take on editing by the Animal Rights cultists?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

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.

Posted by: Somey

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.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

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.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

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

Hit It, Moustro!

Ja Ja

Posted by: Moulton

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

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Point of Grammar —

That would be the passive-aggressive voice.

Or maybe the passive-digressive voice.

Jon

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

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

Posted by: Happy drinker

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.

Posted by: gomi

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.

Posted by: Cla68

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?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

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.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

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

Posted by: everyking

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.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

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?

Posted by: Cla68

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.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-08-06/LaRouche_movement 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSCANDAL#SCANDAL 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.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leatherstocking&diff=322601187&oldid=322599456 tells him point-blank, "you're a sock." And Will Beback, after the traditional http://specialedandme.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/highlander.jpg 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=322678458.)

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

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.

Posted by: Heat

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.

Posted by: Happy drinker

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.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

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.

Posted by: Mackan

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.

Posted by: Cla68

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.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Well, not any more. I have been examining SV's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=322268146&oldid=322255630 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)?

Posted by: Cla68

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A60th_anniversary_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&action=historysubmit&diff=316135602&oldid=316135215. 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.

Posted by: Milton Roe

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.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kenneth_and_Marielle_Kronberg.jpg, 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kenneth_and_Marielle_Kronberg.jpg#filehistory, 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.
*http://www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org/ 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„¢.)

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

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.

Posted by: Milton Roe

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.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Well, as they say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kenneth_and_Marielle_Kronberg.jpg.

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#Leatherstocking_indefinitely_blocked anyone who disagrees with Slim 'n' Will will be presumed to be my sock if they edit from California.

Posted by: Cla68

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?

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

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.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

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

Jon

Posted by: Milton Roe

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.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

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 http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/content/media/berlinerzeitung_040407_engl.htm, 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.

Posted by: Cla68

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

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Deleted_portions_of_this_article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan#Improper_use_of_a_foreign_language_source Foreign language sources!

You all are disturbing WIll Beback's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LaRouche_movement#Names_for_members!

Posted by: Milton Roe

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?

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

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:

Posted by: wikieyeay

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......

Posted by: Milton Roe

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

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Well, it's getting closer, because Jayen466 has now added http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan&diff=323805747&oldid=320835074 SV must be in a homicidal mood just now.

Posted by: Mariner

get away from your computer - fast !!

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Never let it be said that Slim is too proud to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan&diff=next&oldid=323805747 when it is insufficiently damaging to the reputation of living persons.

Posted by: Milton Roe

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)."

Posted by: Cla68

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

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Jayen clearly has WB's number:

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Larouche_planet, 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"?

Posted by: Random832

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

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

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.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Does that crazy woman really think that calling her POV-diddling http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan&diff=323938723&oldid=323933427 will cover up what she's doing? She must truly believe that she owns WP.

Posted by: Happy drinker

SlimVirgin is as entitled as anyone else, including Jayen, to edit. I disagree with her about many things, and have told her so more than once. If what she says is not well supported by reliable, verifiable sources then by all means revert her. If she removes material that is well supported by reliable, verifiable sources then by all means revert her. However, if she edits within the letter and spirit of the rules, the outcome can only be beneficial.

Posted by: Cla68

I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeorgewilliamherbert&action=historysubmit&diff=323992302&oldid=323984808 it to GWH. By the way, Jayen and SV appear to be collaborating effectively on the Duggan article. If could be that SV is trying to adjust the Duggan article to justify including mention of it in the LaRouche BLP. Is so, she has a ways to go.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

...After which you can expect a visit from Georgewilliamherbert, so you might as well begin packing your things.

Posted by: Cla68

Happy drinker, why don't you go try that and see what happens? Of course, you don't have it quite right, you're supposed to, in addition to reverting, say "see talk" in the edit summary. Then, you actually need to immediately start a discussion about it on the talk page. Some editors will revert with a "see talk" message in the edit summary, and then won't bother doing any "talking" about it on the talk page. I'm sure you agree that that isn't a very nice way of doing things.

Posted by: Milton Roe

You first, Nimrod.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

SV is biding her time. When the moment is right, the stiletto will come out.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Here's a clue —

Beware of shoe.

Ja Ja

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Did you mean: http://http://www.google.com/search?q=%22icky+homo%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

Posted by: Milton Roe

What a mess this article is:



Ref 20 (Mintz) is a to an article in a newspaper from 1985, and it's used as cite for testimony by a psychologist in the Duggan case about "ego stripping." Duggan was 5 years old in 1985, and the article doesn't mention ego stripping. While it may be read to suggest something about stress reactions in response to belief changes, it's relevant to the sentence it's used as a cite for, only if the psychologist mentioned THIS article in his testimony. Otherwise, it's WP:SYN by the WP article's author, trying to provide a 1985 news article reference which is vaguely about the same thing.

Sigh.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

They are arguing about that point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan#Original_Research Slim is using the argument that "the Times bone's connected to the... Post bone," etc.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Yeah, in her own mind. And it's an interesting connection, too, if Slim were writing an original essay on the subject.

The model for the death of Jeremiah Duggan is getting to be more and more like the Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories article, except without the moon landing article. Why not just call it the Jeremiah Duggan conspiracy theories article and be done with it? Like the JFK assassination, you know there IS an official view of this matter. Should it not have its own article?

The real problem is that there are any number of conspiracy theories about how Duggan died, and they don't even agree with each other, much less the forensic evidence. There are people who think the LaRouchies beat the crap out of Duggan, despite his mother getting a phone call 45 mintutes before he was dead on the highway, in which he fails to mention anybody doing anything to HIM. Nor does depositing Duggan on the highway fit with the drivers of the cars who hit him, saying he ran in front of them. Are they all in on the conspiracy also?

As with conspiracy theories everywhere (including the moon landing and the JFK crowd of other gunman), the conspiracy people, if not required to put down their own theories, are accorded the privileged position of sitting on the sidelines and simply sniping, piecemeal, at the "official" theory. Without having to lay out any complete alternative hypotheses. An article like this one is the perfect venue which allows that. It's the "official version" plus a bunch of people taking potshots at it, without having to play the game fairly.

Look, Neil Armstrong's suit doesn't cast the right shadow! Okay, put that fact in the Apollo Space Program Wiki.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

The other great thing about the Duggan saga is that SV has spammed it all over the LaRouche series of articles, including Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D), Schiller Institute (T-H-L-K-D), LaRouche movement (T-H-L-K-D), and Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement‎ (T-H-L-K-D). Meanwhile, she and Will engaged in an edit war to remove a section on the campaign platforms of LaRouche's presidential campaigns from [[Lyndon LaRouche]], arguing that the information was already in Views of Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D) and we don't want the same information appearing in multiple articles.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Well, since she began and wrote a lot of the article on Duggan in Nov., 2004, she naturally wants to see it all over.

Here, for example, is her version of a non-biased article, written entirely by her except for some formatting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan&action=historysubmit&diff=7448338&oldid=7417000

Don't forget to put in details of LaRouche's prison sentence! She added them. That should go right here in the article on Duggan. For obvious reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan&action=historysubmit&diff=7441959&oldid=7441765

You see, she's a non-involved, unbiased editor. Not like YOU, Herschel. You groupie, you. YOU can't be trusted with this stuff. But Slim has no opinion on LaRouche. She just being encyclopedic. As you see above.

Posted by: Happy drinker

I've done it. No doubt you'll want full details so you can tell Mr Kohs who I am and where I live, but I'll just say that SlimVirgin is clever enough to know when she isn't going to win and she backs down with aplomb. She thanks everyone effusively for assisting her.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

There is no conspiracy theory, except in the sense that the family's fears about what happened to their son are based (in part) on having read LaRouche's conspiracy theories about Brits, Jews, and the Tavistock Institute. The issue is simple. An apparently stable, happy, young British Jew, who was in love, had lots of friends, enjoyed his studies, had plans for the future, and had no history of mental illness, suddenly appears to have committed suicide after making bizarre early-morning phone calls to his mother and girlfriend, during which he sounded incoherent and frightened. This took place while he was attending a training school for members of a political cult that is widely regarded as antisemitic and dangerous. The German police conducted no autopsy, took no signed witness statements, and burned his clothes without an investigation. They declared it a suicide according to their legal definition of that term, which the prosecutor explains in the article.

One of the things this cult is known for is its so-called "psycho sessions" with members, during which they try to destroy the member's personality structure. The theory is that it's easier to insert new ideas into minds that are undergoing some kind of psychotic breakdown. See the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46883-2004Oct20.html that mentions these sessions and http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1061FF93F5C11728DDDA10894D8415B898BF1D3&scp=1&sq=One%20Man%20Leads%20U.S.%20Labor%20Party%20on%20His%20Erratic%20Path&st=cse written by a reporter who heard a tape recording of one of them (payment required). Another thing the cult is known for is its distrust of three things Duggan represented: Brits (regarded as the epitome of evil), Jews, and people who've been involved with the Tavistock Institute in London. Duggan had received family therapy at the related Tavistock Clinic when he was seven and his parents were divorcing. He didn't realize the implications of sharing this information with the activists. LaRouche believes the Tavistock is a brainwashing center, and that Brits have been brainwashed to kill him.

It was a British man accused of having been brainwashed to kill LaRouche who was put through the "psycho session" the New York Times writes about above. In 1999, LaRouche said the http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1999/2632_brit_death_threat.html One of the LaRouche recruiters in Wiesbaden where Duggan died (this recruiter is based in one of the California LaRouche offices were HK works) told LaRouche activists after Duggan's death that http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/archiv/.bin/dump.fcgi/2007/0404/seite3/0001/index.html.

I experienced the LaRouche focus on Brits and Jews myself when I started editing those articles. They believed I was British and Jewish, and Herschelkrustofksy's socks started posting on WP that I was editing to protect the British royal family. He continued this on the early Wikipedia Review forum, where he became part of an unholy alliance with Poetlister, BlissyU2 and Daniel Brandt in accusing me of being a British agent provocateur or intelligence agent, with many months of discussion about whether I was Jewish and what it all meant. This is what the LaRouche activists do. They blacken people who criticize LaRouche, invariably deciding they're "agents" of some evil higher power. Now HK, a LaRouche employee for 30 years, is a staff member of this site, and is allowed to continue doing it with impunity.

Don't believe a word he says about any of this. Jeremiah Duggan died in odd circumstances during a LaRouche training course, and his British/Jewish/Tavistock profile may or may not have been relevant to his death. His family, and at least 96 British MPs from all the major parties, want to know what happened to him during the six days he was with the LaRouche activists before he died. It's a perfectly reasonable enquiry.

Posted by: Somey

Is that really surprising, though, considering your rather obvious feelings towards the subject(s) in question? I doubt anyone would say you've been losing the war, so to speak.


But is is an appropriate subject for a supposedly "neutral" encyclopedia? It doesn't look that way to me, and I'm much more inclined to agree with you on the not-so-nice intentions of the LaRouche organization than you might think.

The word "temperance" doesn't always apply to the consumption of alcohol, you know!

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

The point is that there wasn't simply opposition or criticism. HK set out to destroy me, focusing on (as he believed) my being British or Jewish, with claims about me being an agent of some kind. This is what they always do. It's never "We disagree," or "have you considered this argument." It's always, "SlimVirgin was spotted in 1972 at a dinner party attended by a former chief rabbi of Israel who, interestingly, was a student of the wife of a psychiatrist who trained at the Tavistock Institute, and who once had as a patient the next-door neighbour of a man whose dog became the head of MI6. THEREFORE ..."



I really don't see why not. It has been the subject of multiple court hearings in two countries, and long articles or extended news segments by high-quality newspapers in several countries, including the BBC's Newsnight. I think a reader who looked it up on WP would be surprised not to find an article.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Thank god for that.


Citation needed

Posted by: gomi

Let's see, Slim. HK wants to destroy you for his LaRouchie reasons, and I want to destroy you for ... I forget now, but you've said it. And Lar wants to destroy you, and how many others want to destroy you? Dozens? Hundreds? And each for their own specific reasons.

Ask yourself, what is the common denominator here? Perhaps it is that your version of "adding criticism" to some articles and "tidying" the criticism out of other articles that you like is (correctly) perceived by editor after editor after editor as being the most pernicious, virulent disinformation present in the so-called encyclopedia. And your never-ending cries of personal persecution, calculated so skillfully for each audience, ring hollow in that context.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

I have never said that Lar wanted to "destroy" me. But a series of banned editors -- HK, Poetlister, BlissyU2, Daniel Brandt, Igor Alexander (User:Amalekite), then you -- most certainly did, each for your own reasons (you, because it was me who blocked you). As I said, an unholy alliance.

Regardless of that, the fact remains that you have as a staff member -- with access to all the IP addresses of people who post here -- a long-time employee of a very unpleasant, far-right cult that specializes in propaganda, who is using this site not only to attack editors who've edited about LaRouche in ways that displease him, but also to try to persuade other editors to join in the editing on his side. It doesn't exactly enhance your reputation, and you know full well that the only reason you support it is because I'm one of his targets, and one of yours too.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I want to destroy you too and I've never been banned.

Posted by: gomi

How about that! The very same words apply to your association with Wikipedia! Who'd a thunk it! (Though I suppose that your access to IP information was momentarily disrupted with Jayjg was defrocked.)

I think you've proven my point, though: the "people who want SlimVirgin removed from Wikipedia" club would need a stadium to hold a meeting. That's not Hersch's fault, it's yours. And as far as Hersch's politics, I disagree with them, but that doesn't mean he's wrong in thinking that you're a menace. I contain multitudes.

Posted by: Cla68

Of course it makes sense that anyone who edits Wikipedia as a pasttime or hobby woud want to do so in topic areas that interest them. It appears, SV, that you have a particular interest, besides animal rights, with Israel and anti-Semitism. The problem is that you appear to be too emotionally involved to edit those topics, especially the latter, with much objectivity.

Like I said before, I give Dennis King and Chip Berlet some credit for being open and honest about why they edit LaRouche in Wikipedia. Both are very clear, and give no pretense, that they think LaRouche and his ideas are dangerous and need to be discredited, including in Wikipedia. In contrast, however, to them you try to pretend that you don't have an anti-LaRouche agenda.

Another example: people spent a lot of time over several years trying to rein-in Jayjg's POV pushing in Israel-related topics. The ArbCom finally stepped in and sanctioned him which appears to have been effective in finally ending the problems that he was causing, at least for now. The problem is, as far as I can see, you never tried to get him to stop it even though you all worked together on many articles. In fact, you often defended him and in many cases helped him push a pro-Israel POV. Were you the one that originally changed the Martin Luther article to make it sound like Luther was the inspiration for the Nazi movement?

The same thing is happening here with LaRouche. You're POV pushing while trying to pretend that you're not. You can't completely blame HK for this situation. Most of us here readily agree with you that HK was POV-pushing for LaRouche in Wikipedia. Most of us also agree that you are POV-pushing in that topic area also. Can you hear what we are saying?

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

Perhaps you could respond to my post above about the Duggan article. NPOV on Wikipedia means we try to represent the majority and significant-minority positions as published by reliable sources. Given that, where is the POV pushing on the Duggan article? If you read the article and the sources carefully, you'll find it's entirely representative of them. If you were to do the same with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche, you'd find that the article is a great deal softer on LaRouche than the sources are, which it ought not to be. The lead, for example, is absurdly pro-LaRouche, but for one third of a sentence at the end, a violation of WP:LEAD.

It's easy to criticize. It's a lot harder to read the source material. It takes ages and it's dull, but if you don't do it, you're not in a position to offer an informed comment. If you do read it, you'll see that the balance of the LaRouche articles still swings too far in LaRouche's favor.

Posted by: Achromatic

Last bit first - one simple example - what does LaRouche's jailing on conspiracy charges 21 years ago have to do with his. organization's. alleged. involvement. in the tragic death of a young man?

"the majority and significant-minority position"? That Duggan's death was tragic? Pretty undisputed. That his mother refuses to believe that it could be anything other than LaRouche's fault? Undisputed. That she has refused to accept the coronial and other verdicts from several courts of inquiry? Undisputed.

Instead, you state that "this has been the subject of multiple court cases" - leaving out the context that in each and every court case the outcome has NOT implicated LaRouche or his organization, and that most, if not all of those court cases were not opened independently by a judiciary or prosecutorial motion, but rather as the direct result of the lobbying by Duggan's mother and relatives. I think a phrase that could be used, as WPers may be familiar with, is "forum shopping".

That an MP might ask questions on behalf of a mother, a constituent in an obviously traumatic and tragic circumstance is not at all uncommon, but not inherently notable. The concern is that much of this notability is self referential. References to it are mentioned in other LaRouche articles, and then those articles are used as evidence of the "need" to have an article devoted to this.

A mother fixated on a theory for her son's untimely death is not inherently notable, nor is the fact that sufficient people indulged such a theory until it was dismissed in numerous venues throughout Europe, with numerous different perspectives on the situation (be the legal, forensic, psychiatric or otherwise).

Instead, WP has a FIVE AND A HALF THOUSAND WORD ESSAY, all but which a single paragraph of EIGHTY SIX words postulates on the theory that LaRouche and/or his organization were involved in the death, despite none of many tribunals ever having reached that conclusion, or ever even suggesting any partial liability. That's before we get into the leading, subtle position taken in those few paragraphs discussing the German police's involvement, and how they "very quickly ruled a suicide, conducted no autopsy and destroyed his clothes".

To claim that this article is without problems, or accurately reflects a NPOV, "majority or significant-minority position" is really, entirely lacking in credulity.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I'm going to abandon my usual terse posting style, and veer dangerously into tldr territory, so that I can address a number of comments specifically to SV. She will then proceed to evade them.

Spoken like the archetypical paranoid conspiracy theorist. Slim, the truth here is remarkably simple: you have edited Wikipedia with a supercilious tone and dishonest tactics, and you have pissed off more people than you can shake a stick at. End of story, no conspiracy required to explain the phenomenon.

The fact of the matter is, Slim, that you have done very little actual research on this topic. You have simply immersed yourself in the Chip Berlet/Dennis King conspiracy theories, and I for one believe that you are too clever to actually believe them, but instead you simply retail them for tactical purposes. (I sometimes wonder whether Berlet and King believe those theories themselves, although my brief interaction with Berlet during my time at WP convinced me that he is a semi-literate dunderhead.) There is far more extensive, and honest, coverage of LaRouche in other parts of the world, so you and Will are simply adopting a tactic of a sort of nervous, feigned xenophobia with respect to those sources.

I am very well-informed about the LaRouche organization, and with an insider's perspective, although in a way that is probably quite unlike what you imagine it to be. LaRouche is notable and controversial for one reason only, which is his economic theories. Those theories are the basis for all the attacks on him, although the attacks never address the theories directly, and always use the Straw man (T-H-L-K-D) tactic. Quite simply, LaRouche is the only contemporary economist to present a fully developed alternative to the presently hegemonic model of globalization, "free trade" and untrammeled speculation (ironically, the one member of the Review who has a totally legitimate basis for disagreement with LaRouche is Milton Roe, who has been quite restrained in his criticism.) LaRouche's message, in a nutshell, has been consistent since the 60s: if we phase out productive activity in industry and agriculture, and replace it with financial speculation, we will get a series of bubbles, which will collapse, and the promoters of the bubble economy will then demand draconian cuts in the living standards of the populace, insisting that the fictitious value of the financial paper must take precedence -- welcome to 2009.

Now, the model which LaRouche opposes, which became dominant across the political spectrum in the U.S. after the death of FDR, is British: not in some stupid ethnic sense, but in the sense that there is a clearly defined British school of thought that encompasses both political economy and philosophy. It includes monetarism, Keynesianism, Malthusianism, "Laissez-faire," geopolitics, and utilitarianism. In the post-WWII U.S., both political parties embraced the dismantling of the entire edifice of regulation that was crafted during the FDR period. Both parties facilitated the de-industrialization of the economy and the shift to a "service" (read "speculator's") economy. There was a time when both parties would have rejected these developments. Instead, both parties marched in lock-step down the path which lead to the present collapse, and LaRouche was the voice in the wilderness warning about the consequences. He constantly referred to those periods of our history during which we rejected the British ideology (including, obviously enough, the American Revolution, which was in fact fought over ideas, not some sort of parochial, pragmatic concerns.) He became a problem for the faction which was promoting this shift.

So, they didn't want to debate him, because that would only draw attention to ideas that they wanted to exclude altogether from the public consciousness. So, they went with the straw man approach. Ironically, this is what got me interested. Long before Berlet and King began producing their slanders, there was a little pamphlet that was circulated nationwide on campuses around 1975. It was called "NCLC: Brownshirts of the 70s," published anonymously, and written in such a transparently propagandistic style that it piqued my curiosity. What sort of organization was this, that we were warned never to listen to its ideas, but instead advised to simply physically attack its activists at every opportunity? King and Berlet are marginally more sophisticated than that, but the same tactics are employed. Attention WP admins: only you can read John Train Salon (T-H-L-K-D), which was deleted, not redirected, and I believe at Slim's instigation (the talk page is of historical interest because it contains Slim's opening attack on Daniel Brandt.)

I can't seem to address this very succinctly. If LaRouche were what Slim claims he is, he never would have received this much hostile attention. If he were a Sun Myung Moon-like cult leader, he would probably control a mainstream media empire comparable to Moon's, and be wooed by establishment figures. If he were a financial fraudster, he might have spent one year at Club Fed and wound up teaching at UCLA like Michael Milken. If he were a right-wing conspiracy monger, he would be largely ignored like the John Birch Society. The truth is that he is targeted here for the same economic theories that are increasingly http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12175 in Russia and China. And I suspect that Slim has some inkling that this is the case.

Posted by: gomi

Ooh, I'll have to go look at that with my new secret admin account!

Posted by: Mackan

How much attention does he get, really? The only thing I'd heard of him pre-Wikipedia was joking about the people with the loudspeakers on the street corner.

The guy could be a genius for all I know. The problem is I've not yet seen the case for why I or anyone should read his material. That nobody independent seems to give them any credence is one strike against them; that they think they're going to have an impact by shouting on the street corner is another. That the whole thing is focused around a movement is probably the third.

Here's my question: if someone is eighty years old and still looking for their first credible supporter, why should anyone other than perhaps an investigator spend their time looking into it?

Posted by: Cedric

Well, that seems to me to be the $64,000 question, in that the answer would prove more interesting than anything we could learn about LaRouche. I believe others have already pointed this out, but it bears repeating: LaRouche is a character completely on the fringe, even back in the days when he was better known. He has no real influence to speak of in US or international policy-making. I had not heard or read a word about LaRouche or any of his organizations for some fifteen years before reading about the existence of a LaRouche editing war here on the pages of WR. He is a teeny blast from the past.

Posted by: Cla68

Well, LaRouche apparently is given more credibility in Russia and People's China than in the US, but you wouldn't know that by the articles in Wikipedia, since the Russian and Chinese citations are apparently being removed with extreme prejudice by SV and Will. The Chinese even built a statue of LaRouche.

Anyway, Achromatic made some good points about what's wrong with the Duggan article. Moreover, SV, you didn't address why the Duggan article is referenced in so many of the LaRouche articles. You have worked with BLP issues and have been a staunch defender of protecting most BLP subjects, yet you continue to push connecting this unexplained death with LaRouche, a BLP subject. Why the double standard?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

It's the kind of question that I found myself asking when I worked in corners of Wikiputia that the mainscream conchesnest of the median Wikipediots would have considered far too obscure and off the radar sensor array to trouble their Tribbled brains with.

The lesson is that every jot and twaddle in Wikiputia is a virtual test case for the ability of Controll to dictate content and procedure. In many cases, it does not even matter which way the wind blows on a random day, so long as Controll feels that it could control the direction if it so chose.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Er, that part about the statue is news to me. But a http://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD+%D0%9B%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%83%D1%88&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a turns up 94,500 hits, and a http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS351US351&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%E6%9E%97%E7%99%BB%C2%B7%E6%8B%89%E9%AD%AF%E4%BB%80 turns up 146,000. It is these sorts of paradoxes that originally got me interested in LaRouche. How does "a character completely on the fringe" generate that sort of attention in the rest of the world? The assumption that is almost universally shared by Wikipedians is that the US Press is an infallible source of complete and honest information. I gave up that idea sometime in the 1970s.


SV is not big on addressing these sorts of things.

Posted by: Heat

That's odd. This is the first time I've ever heard of anyone imply that FDR and the New Deal were anti-Keynesian as opposed to the views of, say, John Kenneth Galbraith - one of the foremost Keynesians of the 20th century and one of the economists who helped implement the New Deal - who viewed it as a classic example of Keynesian. It's also the first time I've seen anyone refer to Keynesianism and laissez-faire as if they were complementary rather than polar opposites.

And you say LaRouche is an expert on economics? If he doesn't know the difference between Keynesianism and laissez-faire or that the New Deal was an example of Keynesianism par excellence then, to be quite frank, he's not much of an economist.



Apparently I have an admin account as well - at least according to one of the neo-Nazis editing on Wikipedia. I wish someone would tell me what it is and the password.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

I know that Slim doesn't answer questions, but the one I would love to see answered is how she became so personally involved in the LaRouche issue. We know about her unfriendly relations with Pierre Salinger, who apparently was friendly with LaRouche. But "the friend of my enemy is also my enemy" doesn't seem to be a sufficient explanation.

Posted by: Random832

You're new here (and to wikipedia), aren't you?

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

I've never studied economics, so I can't respond intelligently to your post in that regard. As others have said, I'm unclear how Keynes and laissez-faire can be equated, but presumably you'll explain what you mean. As for the general point, I recall Dennis Healey talking in similar terms when he was no longer Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Western reliance on the service economy would inevitably lead to the fall of the banking system, so it's not clear that LaRouche has been a lone voice.

There are other ideas of LaRouche's, some of his philosophical ideas, that I've found interesting. I have a book around here somewhere that talks about them, and I remember when I first read it being surprised because it made some sense. But in focusing on LaRouche's ideas about economics or philosophy, you avoid the reason people are concerned about him. I found http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11750 the other day, just as an example:

"The LaRouche Show featured the explosive expose by historian Anton Chaitkin on the direct role of the British monarchy in promoting Nazi genocide as "health care," both in the 1930s under Hitler, in the 1990s under Blair in Britain and now, under Obama. Chaitkin went through the dirty role of Prince Edward in setting up the King's Trust, and how Prince Charles is continuing in his footsteps today. He said the most explosive story coming out in this is the role of Simon Stevens, a trustee of the King's Fund, who ran the euthanasia policy under Blair, which now is responsible for 1 out of every six deaths today in the UK ..."

So basically the King's Fund, set up in London in 1897 to fund hospitals for the poor, the ideology of which evolved into the National Health Service -- which provides health care free at the point of need -- was set up *in order to kill people*. This is entirely typical of the kind of material you find in LaRouche publications, and it's this material that's the reason for the criticism, not his economic ideas. No claim is so absurd or extreme that LaRouche won't embrace it, no allegation about other people, living or dead, so offensive that he won't publish it. You may be right that he's a genius economist, but that won't be his legacy. The above is his legacy, combined with the people who make up the LaRouche movement, with workers living together, paid almost nothing, allowed almost no free time, singled out for horrible treatment if they disagree with something, and scared to leave. Can you focus on those claims a little? Are they entirely untrue?

Posted by: Random832

It's ridiculous of course, but is it really so different from Palin's claim about "death panels"?

There's a health care thread somewhere over there I think.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

It has been connected to him by a London coroner, The Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the BBC, The Independent, The Observer, and The Daily Telegraph, among others, in extended articles or segments, multiple times over several years. That's why it's in Wikipedia articles about him.

Posted by: Happy drinker

Russia and China isn't quite the same as the rest of the world, though it's a big slice. (It's fair to conclude that he's not regarded as extremely right-wing in Russia and China.) So far as I can tell, he's virtually unknown in Britain and, if people have heard of him, he's a joke who accuses the Queen of drug-smuggling or something. Still, he's as entitled to be treated with NPOV as any other person or subject.

Posted by: gomi

Advice to all concerned: do not rise to this bait. For most of you, the "Ignore" button functions well. Use it.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11722. Your typically self-serving description omits the fact that it provides health care free at the point of need, provided that you are young and have no unusually expensive health conditions. In my brief description of "isms" that fall within the British ideology, I mentioned Malthusianism, but neglected to add its corollaries, euthanasia and eugenics. All of these ideological features have their distinguished and highly credentialed defenders, of course, just as they did in the early 20th Century and especially in the 1930s. They fall within the domain of utilitarianism, a doctrine for which I believe you have a bit of soft spot.


From my experience, they are. But can I really be trusted? After all, I also volunteered for Eugene McCarthy (T-H-L-K-D), and it is said that his volunteers "slept on floors and ate doughnuts and coffee and peanut butter." [http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/campaign68/c1.html]

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Usually the men just brew the coffee in boiling water and drink it, Sir.

Ja Ja

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

This is completely false. You've obviously never been to the UK, or more to the point, you've never been sick in the UK. The National Health Service provides free health care at the point of need to anyone. It's true that there are certain treatments they might not be willing to pay for (very expensive new medications, for example), but that's an entirely separate issue that applies to young and old alike.

Seriously, where do you get your information from? You linked to http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11722 about "British fascist healthcare reform," but it's insane: "The Royal Family and panicky City of London financiers began implementing, in 2008, a new program to kill elderly and other sick people, precisely repeating the opening phase of Hitler's 1939 T-4 euthanasia program." Then stuff about the King Edward's Hospital Fund for London being the "Royal Family's planning center for the reform of health care, in accord with the Empire's innovation of the time, eugenics or race-purification theory."

Do you read anything other than LaRouche? Do you have a source other than LaRouche who says these things? What is it with LaRouche and the British royal family?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Brilliant, HunterKiller, you have cleverly cornered the witless into admitting that she is now, or has been living in the UK in a similar way.

Ja Ja

Posted by: Milton Roe

That’s a conspiracy theory. The family is fully into the idea that their son was beaten to death after undergoing at attempt at brainwashing by LaRouchites. This, in the face of all evidence. The fact that the LaRouchites have their own nutty conspiracy theories excuses none of it. It’s perfectly possible, and I think most probably, that the Duggans AND the LaRouchites are out of contact with reality.



Yes, but do go on. The officials on both sides of the channel were rather lazy about the matter. The Brits did conduct an autopsy, but not a careful one, and according to the family, they (the Duggans) had no way to contact the autopsy pathologist, who later (supposedly) claimed he had no idea of the circumstances of the death. Which seems odd, as the family does say they were told by the coroner the next Monday that the death was a result of Duggan’s being hit by a car (a more than strange conclusion if the autopsy report did not come to this conclusion or anything like it, and in fact found evidence consistent with criminal homicide). However, we have none of these documents, but only second-hand accounts of them. Perhaps the coroner knew the circumstances but the autopsy pathologist didn’t. If so, not a very good system. Perhaps nobody talked to anybody else, even on the UK side, until much later. We are left with the impression from the family that the pathologist found evidence of violent homicide (death by blunt instrument blows) and the coroner ignored this report. However, again, we do not have the report, so cannot judge even this. The idea that some hired-expert decided on the basis of photos that the damage to the German autos could not have been caused by a pedestrian is especially bizarre. What then is the theory of what damaged these cars? After 6 years, nobody has contacted the drivers??

If Duggan had been American, a concerned family would have paid for second private autopsy, and would have had Duggan exhumed for it, if concern with the first one didn’t come to light until after he’d been buried. And they’d have spent their detective money running down the drivers of the cars involved (one of which is actually named in on one article I read) instead of the 20 LaRouchites they actually focused on interviewing. It’s as though the family was looking for the story they wanted to hear. One cannot look at photos and decide that there’s an absence of fiber, hair and tissue evidence! At one point they decide that since Duggan had been clipped by a BMW, knocking off the side mirror, he should have been killed. It’s a coverup if he wasn’t! They decide that he’d been run over so he should have tire marks on him. Why says? They decide since Duggan is still wearing his shoes that he probably wasn’t hit by cars. Who says? (TV’s Mythbusters actually did a whole segment on how hard it is to knock somebody out of their shoes, and the results are rather astonishing). So, again, all we have is theorizing with no good evidence. A new autopsy is needed if the only evidence we now have left, is the body. Witnesses and drivers need to be primarily interviewed.

Is the idea of a second inquest, a good one? Sure. I’m glad to see there will be one. The situation is really rather reminiscent of the JFK murder, where there is an inadequate and quick autopsy without communication, and many questions after-the-fact. Except in this case, no Warren Commission. Yet. Instead, we have official conclusions based on evidence we haven’t seen, and family detective work. Almost none of this is suitable for an encyclopedia, except perhaps to note the claims in different articles, and reference where the claims are made (some newspaper says the family says some LaRouchie told THEM that the cult gave Duggan a hard time psychologically. No smoking gun, nothing physical, no connection to LaRouche himself , and basically it’s all worthless.)

If a panicked Duggan ran 3 miles and then into a highway, that would be an accidental homicide. If he’d been abused physically before that, it might be murder, but the facts we have don’t support it clearly. What we have doesn’t fit any scenario. If the pathologist thought he was autopsying a murder victim it would have/should have been a much different autopsy (X-rays, bagged hands, the works). If he found evidence for murder in a body which wasn’t tagged as such, he had a duty to raise holy hell and see that it was transferred to forensics. He didn’t. Either the family is crazy or this man is an idiot. How am I to judge which? How are YOU? With nothing but hearsay evidence, how is Wikipedia going to weigh in? What we have, sounds like a divorce trial.


Ah, yes, the old “destroy the ego and personality structure” routine. I hear it can be done in less than 6 days, with Canadians, who are unusually weakminded and believe whatever you tell them. But can you really count on this time for Brits? And if you’re going to brainwash in the classic Korean way, why pick an ordinary youth hostel? Wouldn’t you want a dungeon, some bamboo splinters, and perhaps something to produce electric shocks? And what WERE the horrific methods which were used on the mind of Duggan? Apparently, his personality structure was broken down by making him listen to a LaRouche public speech and take notes. Then, the day before his death, he had to hand out LaRouche pamphlets in “nearby Frankfurt” (according to the Washington Post it’s “nearby,” though it’s actually 500 km away from Wiesbaden). Then, that afternoon, perhaps 12 hours before his death, THEY TOOK HIM TO AN ART MUSEUM. One can only imagine it was the museum of modern art in Frankfurt, and they exposed him to Andy Warhol paintings in order to melt his brain. He was terrified.

Rule #1 of breaking down somebody’s ego and personality structure, however, especially on the economy 1-week plan in Der Youth Hostel along with 50 other people from a larger conference, is not to let them have a telephone on which to call their mum, their girlfriend, the newspapers, the police, etc. Duggan repeatedly did this (subtract one point for LaRouche), talking to his girlfriend a day and a half before his death, then again an hour or two before he died, and finally his mum 35-45 minutes before his death. He had every opportunity to call police. He had every opportunity to tell mother or girlfriend if he was being abused. He didn’t do any of this. He says nonsense things. He says infantile things (he wants his mommy; he wants to go back to Paris but has no money; now there’s a problem). He’s out of cigarettes but he has a lighter! His “limbs” hurt. He thinks he has a device implanted in him. He thinks the “government” is experimenting on people with computers and magnets (not that LaRouche is experimenting on HIM with electricity, though the WP article tries very hard to imply this).

His mother makes much of his last two calls cutting out after a short time. If sometime was pulling the plug on them, why were there TWO? Can’t the plug-puller get it right? Perhaps he was using a public phone and not putting in any money? Perhaps he was using a cell phone and it was nearly dead? These things have happened to me, but it wasn’t LaRouche (I don’t think). Why they happened to Duggan is not clear. But WP doesn’t hesitate to leave us with a feeling of dread, anyway.

And right in the middle of this, augmenting the idea that Duggan is being put through the third degree (though there is no evidence for it) is the account of somebody else being put though a “psycho session” 30 years before in late 1973. The Washington Post uses this, and WP repeats it, both conflating the two scenes. The problem is that there’s not that much to tie one to the other, except possibly Dennis King (whose book has much more one this, and which is used as background by the Post artice—this is all very incestuous, as both King and you are using it for WP, but using only the Post as reference).

Here’s what the Post “No Joke” article (April Witt), referenced above and in WP, says:



This is all excerpted from King, though Witt and the Post don’t give him credit, except indirectly (we’re to believe that Witt is quoting directly from the Times; no doubt you too, Slim). Apparently we are offered this in Wikipedia because White complains of pain in an arm on the tape, and Duggan complains of pain in his limbs. Aha! And there’s the deprivation of sleep (and cigarettes!), and everything (but the trip to the art museum, and playing Beethoven at high volume). Except Duggan doesn’t ever complain of being deprogrammed, debrainwashed, or deprived. And while White was supposedly “de-brainwashed” in 1973, he doesn’t die or even suffer ill health. He’s was a longtime LaRouchite who, some concluded, faked being brainwashed by the CIA in order to cover up for poor performance in organizing the LaRouche London branch. Hard to say. In a word, he’s sounds as nutty as his de-brainwashers, and may well have been playing along with them. Dennis King, the anti-LaRouche writer who has been asked to step away from all these articles on WP, writes about White in his book Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. King thinks White doesn’t believe he was ever tortured and brainwashed to be a mole assassin by the CIA, and he concludes that eventually LaRouche doesn’t either.

http://lyndonlarouche.org/fascism4.htm

King says later in chapter 18 that “LaRouche's 1974 Christopher White brainwashing hoax was inspired in large part by Condon's The Manchurian Candidate and the movie version of Len Deighton's The Ipcress File.” So there’s a problem. If Christopher White is a hoax, a LaRouchite helping to fake his own de-brainwashing after a non-existent brainwashing by the CIA, does LaRouche actually believe the brainwashing was real? Or not? In later years LaRouche stops referring to the White affair. But now, who is going to revive it, 30 years later? If LaRouche was to use any deprivation technique on Duggan, where would he get the time to do it? He’s got just 45 minutes maximum to do something to Duggan before his last phone call and the time he steps into traffic. What in the world does the White tape have to do with ANY of this? We never find out.

I agree it’s a reasonable enquiry. The problem is: nobody seems to be reasonable about it. The authorities haven’t been reasonable, the family is not reasonable, and WP has not been reasonable about reporting the state of it. The LaRouchies aren’t reasonable, HK isn’t reasonable, King isn’t reasonable, and you’re not reasonable. You should all back away from this article and this situation, and let the investigation finish. Come back in 10 years.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

But Original Syn Is So Much Fun!

Ja Ja

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Well, there's the http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100008455/the-liverpool-care-pathway-may-be-the-slippery-slope-to-backdoor-euthanasia/ which was first to cover the Liverpool Care Pathway. But we digress. You obviously had an intense personal involvement in the LaRouche issue long before this controversy came up.


Well, not exactly, because the idea of pinning the blame on LaRouche did not originate with the Duggan family. They were approached by a number of LaRouche opponents, who helpfully suggested it.


Here I must object. I can state with confidence that they would never do that.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

My understanding is that the family has been advised by its legal team that none of the documents can be made public in any detail, because to do so might prejudice future, which they are apparently still hoping for, so bits and pieces have dribbled out here and there, allowing the LaRouche movement to dismiss it all as disjointed conspiracism.



I think there was a feeling to begin with that the authorities could be trusted to get to the bottom of it. British people tend to be less aggressive on their own behalf. There's more of a sense that the state will step in to take responsibility for things like this. The realization that that wasn't going to happen appears to have dawned slowly. I think there was also a lack of money.



Members who have left the movement all say they are kept with little money, little sleep, no privacy, very little leisure time, they're expected to read a lot of LaRouche material leaving them no time to read anything else, they're made to doubt all their beliefs, they're expected to sever relationships with family and friends, they're asked to confide very personal issues in group settings, which are then used to ridicule them (young men are publicly accused of wanting to sleep with their mothers, that kind of thing). In Duggan's case, he seems to have believed that they were watching him closely. He wanted to go for cigarettes, for example, but the LaRouche flatmate had to go with him, which is when he ran away. That he left the house was then reported to a Schiller Institute manager. But why would it need to be reported to her that someone had left the house? It was none of her business at that point if he wanted to leave to buy cigarettes, or for any other reason.

Would all this be enough to induce a psychotic reaction in just a week? Who knows. That's one of the questions the family has.

The bottom line is that any decent organization would have done its best to answer the family's questions about what happened during the conference and "cadre school." Instead, the Schiller Institute manager, appearing to have known he had died, told the mother -- who was calling frantically to ask where her son was -- about how they were just a news agency and couldn't take responsibility for individuals, but didn't mention what had happened. And one of the others hung up on her. The movement then told the police the boy was ill because he had had therapy when he was seven, when his mum and dad were splitting up. This is silly and offensive behaviour, which obviously makes the family question what went on even more.

The bottom line is that if this had happened to one of your family members, you'd be asking exactly the same questions. Maybe you'd have gone about it differently, more aggressively, with more success. But the questions would be the same.



I don't know where you're getting this from. It had nothing to do with King. The activists who put Chris White through the "psycho session" sent a tape of it to the New York Times, which reported it (the vomiting, the weeping, the voice saying "raise the voltage," LaRouche barking out instructions). They also reported that another activist was held prisoner in her own home because the movement believed she'd been brainwashed to kill LaRouche. She had to be rescued by the police in the end, after throwing a piece of paper out of her window asking for help, but she refused to press charges. It's a pity the New York Times articles are pay only.



No, it isn't. It's King who took it from the New York Times. You're getting very mixed up. I also wonder why you're so disrespectful toward the family. It's legitimate to disagree with them, but the jokes seem a little inappropriate.

Posted by: Milton Roe

I know, I know. LaRouche likes Beethoven, Schiller.... I can guess that when he debrainwashes people it's with the end of the 9th symphony.

So he'd never approve of any modern German "degenerate art." Let the Nazis be your guide, here.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

The only place this has been suggested is in LaRouche publications. Why do you rely on these so much, when surely you can see how much nonsense they publish? You seem to be confirming what the ex-members have said, namely that members are expected to rely on LaRouche for the entirety of their reading material and education.

The Duggans were appalled by the stories coming out of Wiesbaden from day one, for reasons that would be obvious to any reasonable human being. It is so typical LaRouche that they would need to be "approached" (without specifying what was said) by "LaRouche opponents" (no names as usual). What LaRouche has said is that it was the British government that suggested to the Duggans that they ought to focus on LaRouche. So the Duggans were coasting along, grief-stricken but basically satisfied with the explanation given by the Schiller Institute, and had to be prodded by mischief-making British ministers before they thought to start asking questions. Is that really what you believe?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

And for those of us who couldn't care less about LaRouchoids — got that one, Will? — even if we tried real, real hard, it is nonetheless abundantly obvious that anyone but a Hyper-Elite Ediotrix like SlimVirgin would have been topic-banned, if not site-banned altogether, for the e-gregious brand of OR-SYN-POV pushing and propagandizing for her pet causes that we see her day-by-day getting away with for years on end.

Oh, we know, you just gotta violate all your own rules in order to save the Wiki-Village from the evil LaRouchistas, even if you have to napalm every damn wiki-peasant in the village.

So let this go out to all you Wikipediot Adminds, Burrocraps, and Sewarts —

Everybody knows what Phreaking Hypocrites you really are.

Ja Ja Ja

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Well said, Jon.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

Milton, if you'd like to hear the family's perspective, they addressed a meeting in Berlin last year held to discuss LaRouche. You can hear the father, Hugo Duggan, speak about it here -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8GYqQ2zMik&feature=related (the audio is poor for the first few seconds; it picks up around 0:48 mins) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-1drt74wJ0&feature=related. And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD3zCcBKUU8&feature=related is Simon Hughes, leader of the British Liberal Democrats, discussing the need for a proper investigation.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Perhaps not, but somebody bolting out that way at the sound of the doorbell might well be reported to a house manager, out of simple concern. Look at it this way: if Duggan had fled into the night at a dead run at 5 AM in obvious paranoia at the sound of a buzzer, after not sleeping all night, and the person with him had shrugged and then NOT reported it when he didn't come back (we don't really know when it was reported) then you'd be criticizing the place for THAT. He did leave his luggage behind and evidently just disappear in panic. This is not cause for concern? Especially in somebody who had shown somewhat psychotic behavior? Suppose he couldn't string two thoughts together by that time, as his girlfriend reported. You just say: "none of my business"? Can't have this both ways.

The flatmate doesn't say why he goes with Duggan down the stairs. Perhaps to see he doesn't fall down them in the dark, or perhaps he'd noted that Duggan wasn't thinking straight, also. Who knows? If it was to make sure he didn't leave the building, it was hardly successful. This is no way to run a detenton camp, for sure.

Do I doubt that the LaRouchies have used the techniques of the usual cult to get member acceptance? Not really. A lot of these techniques are used in basic training in the military, particularly in special forces where people are subjected to verbal abuse, extreme physical stress, sleep deprivation, and so on. But so long as you can walk away, it's presumed you're there because you want to be. However, somehow I don't see all this done on Jeremiah Duggan in a couple of days in Wiesbaden. Three days do not a Navy SEAL make.

In any case, kidnapping chages for adults only stick if you can get somebody to press charges. Would you have it any other way?

They probably do. And the answer is: that depends. Some people take stress better than others. Many 22 year-olds would say: "You guys blame Jews for all the problems of the world. Boy are you a bunch of assholes." And leave. Total time: enough to grab luggage. Perhaps Duggan was still in the phase of his life where he had to get permission from somebody to do anything. Who knows? If so, the family should know it better than I. To me, the whole thing sounds very odd.

Again, though, all this is second hand from the mother. I wouldn't be suprised to find out that the manager woman didn't know exactly when Duggan had been under psych treatment-- just that he had. Do you really think the LaRouchies thought he'd been brainwashed at age 7? No, clearly this was a misunderstanding no matter which way you look at it. Some of it may have been language and some cultural: the guy who reportedly hung up on the mother, at another time handed the phone over to the manager. To me, that speaks of not being secure enough in a foreign language to handle a severe problem. Put yourself in their shoes-- you have a mother on the telephone speaking to you in Russian (pick your favorite language you don't know too well) and ask yourself if you're going to take on the job of telling her that her child is dead, as she obviously doesn't know it, yet. You ready to take that on? Now what is the Russian/German/English word for "tod..."?

Okay, suppose you DO speak fair English, but in your world, this sort of thing is the job of the police and is not for you to do. Have you never dealt with Germans? "It's not my responsibility; talk to the proper authorities" is very often a second-nature response. As is the paternalism you find when you finally GET the authorities. One either believes that the Wiesbaden police are all under the control of LaRouche, or else (a somewhat more tenable hypothesis) that they're just frigging typical Germans. You know?

I know where it's originally from. The problem is that it's King who strings all these stories together just so, and Witt has a copy of King, and she uses them in the same order. Why should I pay for the TIMES? I can read it in all in King, and so can Witt. Example: here's the story of the woman who threw the note out the window, from King.



Yes, I know it originally appeared in the Times. Much on LaRouche in Witt does NOT appear in the Times, but does appear in King.



Indeed, but you're not the family unless there's something you haven't told us. Not only are they not here on WR, but if they even read Wikipedia, there is still the problem that it was never meant to be an obituary or memorial site. Or an advocacy site. The family already has a web page for that.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

Simon Hughes addresses this point in the link I posted above. The belief is that Jeremiah felt (rightly or wrongly) that he could not get away, or could not do so easily. It's one of the issues the family and the British MPs want to see investigated, including whether he had free access to his own passport, which the Schiller Institute handed to police the next day. He also had no money left for the fare back to Paris. That was his own fault, but it would have added to his sense of being trapped.



A psychiatrist told the inquest that the contradictions between his own belief system and what the LaRouche people were telling him set up a process of extreme cognitive dissonance, leading to a stress reaction. http://web.archive.org/web/20051215063715/www.justiceforjeremiah.com/psychiatrists_rprt.html: "This has occurred in many other people who have described to me their state after they had been subjected to similar pressures by other political and religious groups seeking recruits. ... He had become confused, failed to sleep for a whole night and became acutely alarmed by the sound of a front door bell and covered 5 kilometres along a motorway in about 35 minutes. At the end of this experience he would have been physiologically and psychologically completely confused and disorientated. Had he not been fatally injured by the accident and instead gone to hospital it might have been possible to discover whether he had developed an acute psychosis. The three other cult members I have seen who survived similar situations, two on motorways and one on a railway line, were not found to be psychotic when subsequently admitted to hospital."



I accept that point, but when an issue has received this amount of international coverage in high-quality media, it would be odd not to have a Wikipedia article on it. LaRouche is not some borderline notable person. He's a politician who has tried eight times, no matter how fruitlessly, to become president of the United States, and who has received millions of dollars in federal matching funds, even though he's never received more than 80,000 votes (as I recall). When multiple mainstream news articles link him to an issue repeatedly over a number of years, there is no reason at all not to cover what they say in WP.

Posted by: Heat

Any real encyclopedia would not have an entry on LaRouche unless it were a reference book on cults or extremist groups.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Posted by: Achromatic

Hey... hands up who here is surprised that with nearly a dozen replies, SV hasn't a single word to say on any of my answers to her question "POV? What POV? Only NPOV here, Sir!"

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

∂Virgince ain't here to participate in the Review process …

∂Virgince is only here to suck you all into the Wikipediot whorlpool …

The only thing wut's surprising is how many quasi-Wikipediots still get sucked into that …

Ja Ja

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

It's six of one, half a dozen of the other. A member of LaRouche's security staff approached Howard Blum of the Times, posing as a would-be defector from the organization (which, I hear, can be a very lucrative proposition. Will Beback should ask Molly Kronberg what the going rate is.) The LaRouche people knew that Blum had been assigned to write a slander. So, Blum thought he was picking the LaRouche guy's brains, when it was Blum's brain that was being picked, and the conversation was preserved for posterity on a concealed tape recorder. The LaRouche organization went public with the tape, forcing the Times to put their story on ice, and instead it was farmed out to King, who published it in a Manhattan freebie paper called Our Town. This was King's big break. After the story appeared in Our Town, it was recycled in the Times. Of course, Dennis King recounts this tale with a slightly http://lyndonlarouche.org/fascism23.htm.




Don't rush her. She still has backlog of questions to answer from http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=23773&view=findpost&p=167623 including about her relationship to the Sweet Blue Water (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Sunsplash (T-C-L-K-R-D) accounts.

And here's an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Herschelkrustofsky&diff=prev&oldid=164796497 for irony aficionados.

Posted by: Happy drinker

Simon Hughes is not, never has been, and I bet never will be, leader of the British Liberal Democrats.



Somebody nominate the article for AfD please!

Posted by: The Wales Hunter

I don't know. Even a homosexual who used homophobia to get elected could lead a minor fringe party in the UK!

Posted by: Happy drinker

The Liberal Democrats aren't exactly a minor fringe party in the UK. You must be confusing them with where the Labour party wil be if they don't dump Brown pronto.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

I've heard that they sit in front of computers and edit articles for days on end, sometimes going without sleep entirely, for no pay at all.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Yes, but they let SlimVirgin out when she wants. I think she scratches at the door.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

It has nothing to do with King or Howard Blum, who didn't publish his New York Times piece about the movement until 1979. I'm thinking of a New York Times story five years earlier by Paul Montgomery, http://%5bhttp://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E17FB385F107A93C2AB178AD85F408785F9&scp=1&sq=How%20a%20Radical-Left%20Group%20Moved%20Toward%20Savagery&st=cse, January 20, 1974. He writes about how LaRouche member Alice Weitzman was held hostage in her own apartment by LaRouchies who believed she'd been "programmed" to kill LaRouche, because she'd expressed skepticism about some of his ideas. She threw a piece of paper out of her window to alert a passer-by who called the police. They arrested six of the people who had held her, but she wouldn't press charges.

The same story describes the "deprogramming" by LaRouche of a member, Konstantin George, during which LaRouche discovered that an assassination plot against him had been "implanted" into George's mind. It also describes the "ego-stripping" of Chris White, a 26-year-old Brit who had married LaRouche's ex-girlfriend. It was LaRouche himself who recorded the session, and confirmed its authenticity. The Times writes that there are sounds of weeping and vomiting on the tapes, and White says he is being deprived of sleep, food and cigarettes. Someone can be heard saying "raise the voltage," which LaRouche later said referred to bright lights, not electricity. LaRouche said a physican, a LaRouche member called Gene Inch, was in attendance. LaRouche described White as "being reduced to an eight-cycle infinite loop with look-up table, with homosexual bestiality."

Two questions spring to mind. First, why would anyone doubt that an organization that has done this might have done something odd to Jeremiah Duggan, especially when one recruiter said afterwards that Duggan had been a danger to the movement. And secondly, HK, you joined the movement round about the time this was going on in the mid-70s. What would prompt you to want to get involved in this?

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

In 1974, I had never heard of LaRouche. I have no knowledge of the events described in the account you mention, but I would assume that anything penned by either component of the Blum/Montgomery duo would be malicious in intent. It was issued during the same period as the COINTELPRO activities alluded to in the FOIA document (the one that you recently deleted from [[Lyndon LaRouche]], discreetly and without explanation, see below) and was almost certainly coordinated with those activities. I have never observed or heard of any such "deprogramming" in the LaRouche movement, and I live in Southern California, where the LaRouche Youth Movement was born. I have met literally hundreds of young people who drifted in and out of the movement. They like to stay up all night talking about astronomy and singing Bach motets. That's certainly not in the mainstream, I'll grant you that.

Now, how about you, SV? What got you so intensely and personally interested in LaRouche?

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

Why would you assume articles published by The New York Times would be malicious in intent?

As for the document you reproduce, I have no recollection of removing that from the article. If you have a diff showing I did, it was almost certainly a temporary thing as part of a copy edit, and it was restored. You seem to be making a lot of it, but it doesn't say much. It's declassified, and says simply that the American Communist Party was trying to get rid of LaRouche as head of the NCLC, and the FBI was interested in helping them. But you forget that the tape recording of the "ego-stripping" session of Chris White was made by LaRouche, and he confirmed its authenticity to The New York Times, so you can't pin this at the door of anyone but LaRouche himself. He not only did it, he saw nothing wrong with it. Let both of those facts tell you something.

You didn't say why you got involved.



I have no personal interest, nor an intense one. I'd heard of LaRouche before I joined WP, and was looking around for an article to write when I read about Duggan in a British newspaper, so I created it. I was shocked to be swooped on by you and two of your socks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Weed_Harper and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/C_Colden), and by your use of LaRouche publications to make claims about the Tavistock etc. That got me looking at the LaRouche articles, where I saw the same thing: Homey and Adam Carr struggling to contain your edits. And so I got involved. My interest lies in WP using good sources, not in LaRouche per se.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I said that I assumed articles written by Paul Montgomery and Howard Blum were malicious in intent. And, I assume that because of what was revealed in the undercover tape-recording incident, described above. Incidentally, LaRouche http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1998/lhl_hippo_tale.html#fn2 that this was related to COINTELPRO.

My, that's certainly easy to believe.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Actually, I did say earlier that an important factor was that my curiosity was piqued by the transparently heavy-handed propaganda campaign against him. I was involved in the anti-war movement, but found it intellectually shallow. LaRouche, on the other hand, I found almost excessively intellectual and a turgid writer to boot, and I would most likely have dismissed him were it not for the fact that the propaganda firepower being aimed at him seemed way out of proportion to what I assumed to be his relative importance. As I investigated further, I found that I liked his campaign for the develoment of the Third World, when the rest of the New Left seemed self-involved and indifferent to the fate of larger humanity. Eventually, over a period of years, I became acquainted with his other ideas, and I liked them, too.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

Please say why.




It ought to be. I've made over 83,000 edits to WP. Of these, 480 to the Duggan article and talk; 468 to Lyndon LaRouche and talk; 254 to Views of Lyndon LaRouche and talk; 139 to Schiller Institute and talk; and very small numbers of edits to some of the others. That's around 81,600 edits that aren't about LaRouche.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Well that's a bit more than most people can honestly say.

Posted by: gomi

It is actually interesting to http://wikidashboard.parc.com/wiki/User:SlimVirgin#. Of course, the 81k edit count is vastly inflated by her editing style - dozens of edits a few seconds apart. But here are selections from her top 20:

• Marshalsea - 1058 (1.7%) -- OK, what's that about? But a creditable article, not obviously controversial, though vastly beyond "encyclopedic" detail and length, but that's Wikipedia;
• New antisemitism - 1001 (1.6%) and Talk:New antisemitism - 888 (1.5%) -- Highly controversial, and representing a clear POV. A lightening-rod article;
• People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - 816 (1.3%); Animal rights - 814 (1.3%); Animal testing - 597 (1.0%); Talk:Animal testing - 521 (0.9%); Animal Liberation Front - 475 (0.8%) -- Slim's clearest and most evident POV, resulting in a highly slanted set of articles, largely representing the views of PETA and similar. Would be controversial except Slim has run off all opposition in these articles, her clearest examples of WP:OWNership;
• Rudolf Vrba - 747 (1.2%); Night (book) - 475 (0.8%) -- Another well-written and largely uncontroversial pair of articles, though completely WP:OWNed by Slim;
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - 871 (1.4%); Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit_warring - 478 (0.8%) -- Slim's relentless politicking against other editors;
• Wikipedia talk:No original research - 731 (1.2%) Wikipedia talk:Verifiability - 680 (1.1%); Wikipedia talk:Attribution - 512 (0.8%) - More relentless politicking, in this case to twist the citation rules to Slim's desires;
• 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla - 730 (1.2%) - A recent interest. Expiation for sins commited in support of Jayjg?
• The Holocaust - 704 (1.2%) -- Shouldn't be controversial, but the world is full of idiots;
• Shooting of Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah - 654 (1.1%); Talk:Shooting of Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah - 439 (0.7%) -- Another highly controversial article. Slim has participated in the POV slanting of this article, though inexplicably she seems to have very slightly backed off in the last few weeks;
• Death of Michael Jackson - 481 (0.8%) -- Another huh? article. Whatever.

Take whatever meaning you want from this, but one point is that with "480 to the Duggan article and talk; 468 to Lyndon LaRouche and talk; 254 to Views of Lyndon LaRouche and talk; 139 to Schiller Institute and talk", that section, collectively, is right up there are the top of Slim's list of "interests".

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

You're mixing up article edit counts, with article+talk counts. Here are my top mainspace edits. The two articles HK sees me as "intensely" interested in are numbers 16 (LaRouche) and 20 (Duggan).

# 1058 - Marshalsea
# 1032 - New antisemitism
# 899 - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
# 893 - Animal rights
# 747 - Rudolf Vrba
# 741 - Animal testing
# 730 - 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla
# 723 - The Holocaust
# 654 - Shooting of Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah
# 574 - Animal Liberation Front
# 517 - Night (book)
# 481 - Death of Michael Jackson
# 457 - Wilhelm Reich
# 424 - Martin Luther
# 395 - Death of Ian Tomlinson
# 395 - Lyndon LaRouche
# 394 - Abu Nidal
# 380 - David Icke
# 331 - Bombing of Dresden in World War II
# 317 - Death of Jeremiah Duggan
# 303 - Brown Dog affair

I don't know what you mean about me participating "in the POV slanting" of al-Durrah, but having backed off in the last few weeks. I've edited it more in the last few weeks than I ever did before. And although I do sometimes make lots of minor edits (mostly when I'm doing section editing to fix formatting), I also make a lot of single edits that contain substantial amounts of text.

Posted by: gomi

I am not mixing anything up. Your Talk: space edits are, if anything, more significant that your "mainspace" edits, as they often consist of your cajoling of other editors, misrepresentations of Wikipedia policies, and threats against opponents. A flippin' tapestry of manipulation, it is.

Posted by: EricBarbour

You guys keep making that mistake, and trying to reason with her.

Wasting your time.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

The complete top 100 if anyone cares.

That is, it took so long to load I'll put it here so I don't have to load it again. Brion [edit: whoever has replaced Brion] will probably be happier too.

1. 1058 - Marshalsea (T-H-L-K-D)
2. 1032 - New antisemitism (T-H-L-K-D)
3. 899 - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (T-H-L-K-D)
4. 893 - Animal rights (T-H-L-K-D)
5. 747 - Rudolf Vrba (T-H-L-K-D)
6. 741 - Animal testing (T-H-L-K-D)
7. 730 - 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla (T-H-L-K-D)
8. 723 - The Holocaust (T-H-L-K-D)
9. 654 - Shooting of Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah (T-H-L-K-D)
10. 574 - Animal Liberation Front (T-H-L-K-D)
11. 517 - Night (book) (T-H-L-K-D)
12. 481 - Death of Michael Jackson (T-H-L-K-D)
13. 457 - Wilhelm Reich (T-H-L-K-D)
14. 424 - Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D)
15. 395 - Death of Ian Tomlinson (T-H-L-K-D)
16. 395 - Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D)
17. 394 - Abu Nidal (T-H-L-K-D)
18. 380 - David Icke (T-H-L-K-D)
19. 331 - Bombing of Dresden in World War II (T-H-L-K-D)
20. 317 - Death of Jeremiah Duggan (T-H-L-K-D)
21. 303 - Brown Dog affair (T-H-L-K-D)
22. 299 - Joel Brand (T-H-L-K-D)
23. 258 - Pan Am Flight 103 (T-H-L-K-D)
24. 255 - Deir Yassin massacre (T-H-L-K-D)
25. 243 - Factory farming (T-H-L-K-D)
26. 241 - Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (T-H-L-K-D)
27. 239 - Bernard Williams (T-H-L-K-D)
28. 217 - Rat Park (T-H-L-K-D)
29. 203 - Israel and the apartheid analogy (T-H-L-K-D)
30. 198 - Islamophobia (T-H-L-K-D)
31. 190 - Rachel Corrie (T-H-L-K-D)
32. 156 - Hamas (T-H-L-K-D)
33. 152 - John Mark Karr (T-H-L-K-D)
34. 147 - Barry Horne (T-H-L-K-D)
35. 133 - On the Jews and their Lies (T-H-L-K-D)
36. 128 - Gillian McKeith (T-H-L-K-D)
37. 121 - Hizb ut-Tahrir (T-H-L-K-D)
38. 117 - Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt (T-H-L-K-D)
39. 114 - Germaine Greer (T-H-L-K-D)
40. 113 - Stanley Green (T-H-L-K-D)
41. 113 - Pro-Test (T-H-L-K-D)
42. 111 - Steven Emerson (T-H-L-K-D)
43. 111 - Silver Spring monkeys (T-H-L-K-D)
44. 110 - Veganism (T-H-L-K-D)
45. 107 - Ingrid Newkirk (T-H-L-K-D)
46. 106 - Zoo (T-H-L-K-D)
47. 106 - Human (T-H-L-K-D)
48. 105 - Antisemitism (T-H-L-K-D)
49. 105 - Rudolf Kastner (T-H-L-K-D)
50. 100 - Rod Coronado (T-H-L-K-D)
51. 99 - Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (T-H-L-K-D)
52. 99 - Michael Jackson (T-H-L-K-D)
53. 97 - List of British Jews (T-H-L-K-D)
54. 96 - Bill White (neo-Nazi) (T-H-L-K-D)
55. 92 - Animal testing on non-human primates (T-H-L-K-D)
56. 92 - Gill Langley (T-H-L-K-D)
57. 90 - Parenthetical referencing (T-H-L-K-D)
58. 89 - Daniel Pipes (T-H-L-K-D)
59. 87 - Munich massacre (T-H-L-K-D)
60. 87 - David Irving (T-H-L-K-D)
61. 86 - Animal liberation movement (T-H-L-K-D)
62. 86 - Chip Berlet (T-H-L-K-D)
63. 86 - Lauren Slater (T-H-L-K-D)
64. 81 - Views of Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D)
65. 80 - Alan Dershowitz (T-H-L-K-D)
66. 79 - Ernest Gellner (T-H-L-K-D)
67. 78 - Schiller Institute (T-H-L-K-D)
68. 77 - Pit of despair (T-H-L-K-D)
69. 76 - Seattle Jewish Federation shooting (T-H-L-K-D)
70. 75 - On the Jews and Their Lies (T-H-L-K-D)
71. 75 - Pallywood (T-H-L-K-D)
72. 74 - Britches (monkey) (T-H-L-K-D)
73. 74 - Taliban (T-H-L-K-D)
74. 74 - Huntingdon Life Sciences (T-H-L-K-D)
75. 73 - Nick Cohen (T-H-L-K-D)
76. 72 - Covance (T-H-L-K-D)
77. 67 - Center for Consumer Freedom (T-H-L-K-D)
78. 65 - Cambridge University primates (T-H-L-K-D)
79. 64 - Perverted-Justice (T-H-L-K-D)
80. 63 - Draize test (T-H-L-K-D)
81. 63 - Danny Casolaro (T-H-L-K-D)
82. 62 - List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus (T-H-L-K-D)
83. 62 - Michael Jackson memorial service (T-H-L-K-D)
84. 60 - Books published per country per year (T-H-L-K-D)
85. 58 - Cambridge Apostles (T-H-L-K-D)
86. 58 - T. S. Eliot (T-H-L-K-D)
87. 58 - Anti-globalization and antisemitism (T-H-L-K-D)
88. 55 - SPEAK campaign (T-H-L-K-D)
89. 54 - Shehzad Tanweer (T-H-L-K-D)
90. 54 - Vivisection (T-H-L-K-D)
91. 53 - Jack Sarfatti (T-H-L-K-D)
92. 53 - Steven Best (T-H-L-K-D)
93. 52 - Lod (T-H-L-K-D)
94. 50 - Robin Webb (T-H-L-K-D)
95. 50 - Heather Mills (T-H-L-K-D)
96. 47 - Keith Mann (T-H-L-K-D)
97. 46 - Vincent Cannistraro (T-H-L-K-D)
98. 46 - Machsom Watch (T-H-L-K-D)
99. 45 - Ian Stevenson (T-H-L-K-D)
100. 44 - Alf (name) (T-H-L-K-D)

On the other hand new items may appear at any given time. I don't recognize half of them but I couldn't help but notice the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T._S._Eliot&limit=100&action=history&offset=20091108055219 she has taken in T. S. Eliot (so she must be alright).

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

I'm glad you like good sources. I like good sources, too. Could you explain in a very specific way what makes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN#Assorted_items_removed_from_Lyndon_LaRouche not good, other than the obviously wrong POV?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

→ Slim Cherry Pickens

Ja Ja

Posted by: Milton Roe

Trying to get your love to give you a cherry without a stone? Always worth a try...
And then you find you're a chicken, without a bone....

You know, that song is a lot more obscene than I thought.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Let she who is without SYN stash the first cone.

Ja Ja

Posted by: Cla68

SV, you're an experienced editor when it comes to reliable sources, and, from what I understand, speak more than one language. Why didn't you join in that thread and tell Will that he was wrong? Why didn't you threaten Will with a block for rejecting reliable sources from other countries? Why aren't you being fair and following Wikipedia's policies, which you helped write, when it comes to the LaRouche articles?

Separate question...GWH, when are you going to tell the ArbCom that you are topic banning SV and Will BeBack from the LaRouche articles?

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Er, point of information: those sources were rejected by Slim, not Will (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=322268146&oldid=322255630.)

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Perhaps Slim's crowning achievement at WP was in conniving to have WP:V trump all other policies, in particular WP:SOAP. Wikipedia became the apotheosis of the popular press, and abandoned any pretext of being a real encyclopedia.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Except that WP:V is suspended if the source is from the wrong country or POV.

Posted by: The Adversary

An I certainly also wanted to see the power you/Jayjg and all your sycophants had on wp destroyed. And I have never been banned. *And* I´m female.

Jeez, ms. Hell, I can´t believe that you still have this attitude

Can´t you get into you head that it was your actions that created all this hostility? The fact that we all watched how rules against socking, "outing", against whatever, did not apply to your "friends", but only to those you did not agree with?

I do think things are changing, albeit, slowly. And even you have changed, a bit, at least the double-standard is not as blatantly obvious as it was. I was genuinely, truly stunned when you reported http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24258. But lets take a look at that story: you got to know this was a blocked editor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive40#Tundrabuggy

Now, how come, that a blocked user did this? Was it because she wanted to "commit wiki-cide?" Hardly.
Or was it perhaps because she felt it so safe to tell you, indirectly, that she was blocked, ´cause SV had a reputation of never, ever, initiating/supporting any sanction against those who shared her POV?
Now, who on earth could have given her that impression, ms. Hell? Hmmm?
Do you think it was HK, Gomi, Daniel Brandt, Lar, me(?) ??....Or was it perhaps (shock!).....yourself?

If you want to change your reputation; then only you can do so. And I wish you the best of luck. Honestly.
(But it will take more than 6 months work to "undo" 5 years of relentless POV-pushing.)

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Now, here's an interesting development: the LaRouche article now links to a BLP of LaRouche on the Arabic Wikipedia (yes, Virginia, there is one.) The Arabic article is written with a pro-LaRouche POV, to roughly the same extent that the English-language one is written with an anti-LaRouche POV. So, will Slim 'n' Will attempt to muscle in on that one and take it over? There may be language difficulties. Here is the http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25D9%2584%25D9%258A%25D9%2586%25D8%25AF%25D9%2588%25D9%2586_%25D9%2584%25D8%25A7%25D8%25B1%25D9%2588%25D8%25B4&sl=ar&tl=en of the Arabic article.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

There has been a new development in this case, followed by a new POV editing-orgy by Slim. On February 23, the German Constitutional Court finally put the Duggan case to rest. 5 days later, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan&diff=346893673&oldid=345350668 appeared at Jeremiah Duggan (T-H-L-K-D), which Slim created when she first arrived at WP and has continued to be jealously WP:OWNed by her as her personal WP:SOAPbox to the present day. The article had been written, over the past view years, from the standpoint that the activity of Slim and her admirers would cause the Constitutional Court to overturn the police conclusion that Duggan's death was a suicide. The new setback has provoked, so far, 57 edits by Slim over the past view days, with all her trademark moves, including the "tidying" edit summary when she slips something really POV in there, and the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan&diff=348050863&oldid=348041559 of any editor who gets in the way.