Hi,
Actually, you are looking at the wrong block of text.
Here is the text inserted by the LaRouche supporters (as modified
slightly by other editors to make it clear these are unverified claims:
===
He claims to have pioneered such ideas as the International Development
Bank, the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] or "Star Wars," and the
so-called Eurasian Land-Bridge. It also claimed that he was used by the
[[Ronald Reagan|Reagan]] administration as a "back-channel" for
negotiations with the [[Soviet Union]].
According to a speech made by LaRouche science advisor Paul
Gallagher[http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3110sdi_timeline.html],
LaRouche and his representatives met with Reagan administration Energy
Secretary [[Donald Hodel]], Interior Secretary [[James Watt]], Science
Adviser Dr. [[George Keyworth]], and State Department official [[Richard
Morris]] in early [[1981]]. Gallagher also claims that later that year
Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche met with [[CIA]] Deputy Director [[Bobby
Ray Inman]], and cites the following remarks, made in early [[1993]] at
the National Press Club by former head of German Military Intelligence,
Gen. Paul-Albert Scherer:
:"In the Spring of 1982 here in the Soviet Embassy there were very
important secret talks that were held.... The question was: Did the
United States and the Soviet Union wish jointly to develop an
anti-ballistic missile defense that would have made nuclear war
impossible? Then, in August, you had this very sharp Soviet rejection of
the entire idea.... I have discussed this thoroughly with the developer,
the originator of this idea, who is the scientific-technological
strategic expert, Lyndon LaRouche. The [Soviet] rejection came in
August, and at that point the American President Reagan decided to push
this entire thing out into the public eye, so he made his speech of
March 1983."
:::<small>Press Conference at the National Press Club, Washington, DC.,
May 6, 1992; video of Scherer's remarks was broadcast on the "LaRouche
Connection" cable TV program throughout the
U.S.[http://www.larouchepub.com/tv/tlc_programs_1991-1995.html]</small>
===
Here is the text I inserted to provide balance:
===
In his book, Dennis King identifies Scherer as a long-time LaRouche
supporter.<!--See index to King's book-->
According to an article by Chip Berlet: "New Right military specialist,
retired General Daniel O. Graham, says LaRouche followers have
significantly hampered his work. Graham, Director of Project High
Frontier which supports and helped develop President Reagan's Strategic
Defense Initiative plan for anti-missile defense, says the LaRouche
groups have 'caused a lot of problems by adopting our issue in an effort
to sieze credit for the idea.' 'They also mounted a furious attack on me
personally,' says Graham. 'Even today I get mail asking if I'm in league
with LaRouche,' he adds
wearily."[http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/nclc3.html]
[Later pro-Larouche addition here]
There is no independent verification outside of LaRouche group media,
however, of the claim that LaRouche originated or played a major role in
the development of "Star Wars" missile defense.
===
Then the LaRouchites added this [Later pro-Larouche addition]:
===
LaRouche countered, "President Reagan's initial version of SDI was
consistent with what I had introduced into U.S.-Soviet back-channel
discussions over the period beginning February 1982. However,
immediately thereafter, the mice went to work. Daniel Graham, the
leading opponent of SDI up to that time, now proclaimed himself the
virtual author of the policy, and was used, thereafter, to remove all of
the crucial elements from the original
policy."[http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2000/2750_teller.html]
===
And on and on and on.
What is happening is that the pro-LaRouche editors insert an
ever-increasing amount of pro-LaRouche text from LaRouchite
publications, forcing additional text to be added for balance, then more
from the pro-LaRouche editors. On the discussion page (especially on
Talk: Political Views of Lyndon LaRouche) you can see that HK especially
protests every single insertion of material critical of LaRouche. Claims
(falsely) that quotes are invented, then says they are cooked or
misrepresented, then demands context, then demand actual image files.
Then, if the critical sentence remains, HK and other pro-LaRouche
editors adds another unverified quote from a LaRouche publication.
When the article gets too big, a subsection is spawned, and another
LaRouche-linked page starts to grow like a virus.
In a serious encyclopedia like Wikipedia, LaRouche would get one small
page that represented the majority view of reality, offered a disclaimer
that LaRouche disagrees and claims vast conspiracies against him, and
then linked to several fo the LaRouceh web pages.
Wikipedia has become a propaganda arm of the LaRouche network because
the pro-LaRouche editors are manipulating the system.
Cberlet
>> Tony Sidaway replied:
>>
>> You mean [[wikipedia:cite sources]] says this? Where does it say that
>> sources should be reputable?
>
There are three policies you should read carefully: No Original Sources;
Cite Sources; and Verifiability.
I do not think any one of these uses the word reputable. I do not want to
get into an argument about semantics though -- I don't see any reason to
take everything so literally. If you read these three policies carefully,
there is a clear understanding that sources vary in quality, and a clear
expectation that the sources should be of high quality. One of these
policies provides as an example peer-reviewed journal articles. This is
only an example, but I think it is an example of what I meant by "reputable."
It is true that there is debate over what constitutes a
reputable/non-dubious/authoritative source, and we will never agree on a
single standard. But I think we do all agree that we need to discriminate
between authoritative, non-authoritative but useful, and unacceptable sources.
And yes, as Slim pointed out, this is generally in reference to secondary
and not primary sources.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
Regarding Slim's problem w/LaRouche, and building on Steve
Rubenstein's comments about the lack of a mechanism to deal with
violations of content guidelines, perhaps we should have a new
category of special editors in addition to admins and bureaucrats and
arbitrators. We could promote certain editors to "Expert" if they
have recognized expertise in a certain topic area, so that they could
arbitrate content disputes.
>Wikipedia can be considered an exercise in participatory democracy engaged
>in the task of creating an encyclopedia. Its purpose is not to refine and
>perfect particatory demococracy, but wiki software is premised on wide and
>more or less equal participation by the publics.
>
>One may change that premise, but one should know that is what you are
>discussing doing.
>
>Fred
Very well-said, Fred. I am among many who believe that the participatory
element is essential to Wikipedia. I don't mean to be dismissive of Robert
Dodier's opinionl, but if he thinks (his view of) encyclopedic quality
should trump the open editing policy, then I suggest he consider applying
for a job at Encyclopedia Britannica.
As you all know I advocate a committee that can mediate especially
contentious and long-lasting disputes over content, which I admit means
creating a little more bureaucracy and control. But I believe very
strongly that if this were ever instituted, it should only be a matter of
last resort and a means of resolving a dispute -- and should never be given
daily or more lasting control over any page.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
Without commenting directly on any of the flashpoints of frustration
currently under discussion, I think it's worth expressing what I believe
"neutral point of view" means to the overall content of an article. For
an article on a contentious subject to be NPOV, it must be an article
everyone can _live with_, *not* an article everyone is happy with.
There are some people who will never be happy with an article precisely
because it is not presented from their point of view.
--Michael Snow
There's been a little bit of debate on [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]]
recently with the proposals to move [[Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints]] to [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints]] (which isn't on the page anymore; discussion archived at
[[Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]) and [[The George
Washington University]] to [[George Washington University]], which you
can still vote for. I just wanted to point this out to people not
aware.
I would also like to peddle my point of view now. I nominated the
changed for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and GWU was
listed after it was cited as precedent in that case. I believe we
should call things by their name whenever that's feasible; if that's
an organization, by the legal name; if it's something else, by it's
most common name. In both instances, "The" is included in the common
and legal name. The Church released a style guide a few years back
which specifically advised media that the "The" was to be included, at
least in the first reference. The George Washington University has
been similarly vigilant about its moniker. Largely an outgrowth of
these efforts, both seem to include the "The" in the majority of uses
by reputable publications. [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]] also
agrees with all of this, as it states that the definite article should
be used "in titles of works [and] official names".
kthx
--
Jeff "cookiecaper" Cook
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cookiecaper
:)
I'm not sure where I should make this suggestion to grab the most
attention, so I shall make it here.
I hereby propose that instead of using the heading "See also" at the
end of articles, we use the title "Related articles". The latter
sounds much more encyclopaedic, clearly indicates the purpose of the
section, and should encourage only relevant links at the end of
articles.
"See also" is quite blunt, rather ineloquent and instructional in my
opinion. Do people have thoughts on this? I'm aware of how
wide-ranging this would be, but I would see the (somewhat) temporary
dual-usage of both section titles as a small enough disruption.
Zoney
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
I blocked Everyking for 24 hours because he had made 4 reverts to the [[Pieces of Me]] article in 24 hours. But since he is an admin, he continues to edit. Is there something we can do about this?
RickK
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
Hi,
This type of glib response is not helpful. This is a serious issue. The
reverts, deletions, and additions take place constantly. People get
tired out.
-Cberlet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 3:00 PM
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Subject: RE: Original Research versus Point of View,was Re:
> [WikiEN-l] The3RR policy sho
>
>
> Chip Berlet said:
> >
> > What is happening is that the pro-LaRouche editors insert an
> > ever-increasing amount of pro-LaRouche text from LaRouchite
> > publications,
>
> So what? It's transparent rubbish.
>
>
> > forcing additional text to be added for balance,
>
> Bilge. Let them quote their own sources forever. The minute
> they pretend an external source endorses this nonsense,
> politely correct the edit. You could manage this group of
> pages with one eye shut.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>