Talk:Dennis King

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Dennis King, has edited Wikipedia as
Dking (talk · contribs)

Contents

[edit] Misrepresentation of WaPo article

The Post article says that "King declined to comment on the record about the alleged harassment, but he pointed to sworn statements that he has submitted in federal court cases." The claim in SlimVirgin's edit that "The Washington Post reports that King has submitted affidavits in court reporting harassment from the LaRouche movement" is false -- no such claim appears in the article. It says that King received anonymous threats. The Post also states that "Steinberg denied that the group harassed King but said King has urged people to harass LaRouche." By omitting these important features of the article, and re-writing the section in such a way as to suggest that the LaRouche organization was actually responsible for criminal acts against King, the present version by SlimVirgin is problematic from the standpoint of both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, so I am restoring the more careful previous edit by John Broughton. --MaplePorter 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the WaPo article but here's an excerpt from the Chicago Tribune:
  • A dangerous game at that. In the 10 years King spent researching LaRouche and his cronies, he suffered extreme personal harassment at their hands. "It started in 1979, when I first published stories about him," recalls King. "They went after me nonstop through 1984. I'd say there were at least 1,000 hangup phone calls. Sometimes they would tell me they were going to beat my brains out with a baseball bat. They called up my girlfriend and told her she could find me in the basement refrigeration unit. They followed me around the streets. Someone smashed up the offices of Our Town, the paper in which I first published the LaRouche stories, then poured acid over the wreckage. Nobody else had a motive to do that. They found out where my father, a man in his 80s, lived and went after him with poison pen letters and threatening phone calls. They passed out leaflets in my apartment building accusing me of all sorts of sexual and political misdeeds. LaRouche even bought time on a local Manhattan radio station, and every half hour his voice would come on and warn everyone that Dennis King, a free-lance journalist living in Manhattan, was a drug pusher. Some of it was comic opera, but some was very nerve-wracking. Why did I continue (to look into LaRouche's dealings)? It just kept building. I was compelled to know what made this brilliant, tragic man work. The one thing I want to make clear is that I bear no personal ill will toward Lyndon LaRouche. I think he is a tragic case - not because I feel sorry for him, but because I feel sorry that he was unable to use his talents for the good. Here is a man with a magnificent intellect. He could have been a brilliant statesman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist. He could have done a lot of good for America. He could have had all the recognition he wanted legitimately. And instead he was warped somewhere in childhood and ended up giving American neo-Nazis a full-blown ideology." "LAROUCHE'S LEGACY" Mary Gillespie. Chicago Sun - Times. Chicago, Ill.: Jun 11, 1989. pg. 41
We should include King's assertion that he has been harassed by the LaRouche movement in response to his reporting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I placed in the article a truly amazing statement that LaRouche just made on his PAC's website about the suicide and funeral of Dennis King. The statement can fairly be regarded as a threat and whether or not that is the case, it certainly calls into question LaRouche's denial, through his aide Jeffrey Steinberg, that I had ever been harassed by the LaRouche organization. Since LaRouche made this statement in response (by his own admission) to an article on my website, I placed a link to my web article because otherwise people would be puzzled about why LaRouche should suddenly be talking about my funeral. Under these circumstances I think providing a link to a web article referenced by LaRouche falls within Wiki guidelines.--Dking 22:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I restored the material from the Washington Post that Maple Porter took out. He was wrong in saying there is no reference to the affidavits in the WaPo article. Here is what Minz wrote: "King declined to comment on the record about the alleged harassment, but he pointed to sworn statements that he has submitted in federal court cases." Minz then cited from the affidavits.--00:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Maple Porter restored a quote that I declined to speak on the record in a 1985 interview. But the interview was in 1984; the investigative series by John Minz appeared in 1985. When I was interviewed in 1984, I declined to speak on the record because the litigation with LaRouche was ongoing in the federal court case LaRouche vs. NBC. I recall that I was no longer a defendant when Minz spoke with me, but there had been much litigation subsequent to my being dismissed as a defendant, with LaRouche attempting to take my deposition--and there was some reason to believe he might try to call me as a hostile witness at the trial (a libel case against NBC and the Anti-Defamation League which LaRouche lost). Thus I had a sound reason not to speak on the record at that point, and Maple Porter is merely restoring his phrasing to suggest questionable behavior where there was none.--Dking 19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest etc.

I see in the history that the conflict notice was deleted due to no talk page discussion. I think it should be there, because it appears that one third to one half of the article has been written by the subject, mainly to express the subject's views.

I also think there should be some mention of King's relationship to the Yippies. My edit where I note that King is on the board of the Yippie! Museum Press was reverted, because someone said the source was not good enough. Perhaps someone knows of a better source. I found a source [1] which is a court document, where Yippie leader A.J. Weberman says that he runs King's website. --Leatherstocking 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The last header at the top of this page announces that the subject has edited the article. Unless there are specific issues you think need to be addressed about editing the article, the main article tag isn't necessary. Regarding the court papers, they may explain why the subject's website is down. However we can't use court papers as sources because they are primary sources that may contain inaccurate or hard to interpret assertions. Merely hiring someone as a webmaster does not, in and of itself, imply a larger connection. However the subject's participation on a museum board should be included, if verifiable. I'm surprised that a reliable source can't be found. I'll check myself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I looked around on Google and the only source I could find was the one you've already got, http://home.nyc.rr.com/dylanology/dictionary.htm. It appears to be a self-published site, and therefore doesn't qualify as a reliable source for 3rd-parties. If the subject mentioned it on his own blog we could use that as a source for the subject's bio, but that's the only time we can use self-published material. I'm surprised the museum doesn't have a website. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
King acknowledges Weberman in his book, but that isn't much to use as a source. He has also had a long-time association with Yippie leader Dana Beal. --Leatherstocking 20:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If we can find reliable sources for this information we can include it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The book is a fine source for this article, but I don't see where it describes any connection between Weberman and King. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It is my understanding that the Yippie Museum, a new not-for-profit organization in New York, does not yet have a formal board of trustees, and given the anarchistic and irreverent character of the Yippie movement I doubt they are overly concerned about this. If I ever end up on such a board I will let everyone know. As to my web page, I run it myself.--Dking 04:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears my info was out of date and there is a Yippie Museum board of directors of sorts. According to the web site of the museum's cafe [2], the board includes LaRouche's long-time agitational targets Dana Beal and Aron Kay, plus AJ Weberman, Dave Peal, Bill Propp of WBAI, and Paul DiRienzo. I note that Leatherstocking is also busily editing the Wiki biographies on Dana and AJ. Hey, if he wants to stir up another hornet's nest against his leader Lyndon LaRouche that's fine with me.--Dking 23:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So, Dennis, your defense is to call me a LaRouchie? Nice try. Why not just say I'm a Communist Fellow Traveler and be done with it? But seriously, you and some of your buddies like A.J. Weberman seem to have confused Wikipedia with MySpace. --Leatherstocking 15:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"By their fruits ye shall know them." Let's please stick to discussing the article, not each other. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please see Lyndon LaRouche page

Please, let's not start edit wars on multiple pages. This matter is being discussed in detail over at the Lyndon LaRouche page. It is just going to create a mess if folks start to edit the King page while we are discussing how to summarize King's views about LaRouche and criticisms of King's views about LaRouche over at the Lyndon LaRouche page. Please join us there.--Cberlet (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have little interest in editing the LaRouche page, and even less interest in getting drawn into the perpetual debates on that talk page. The criticism that I added to this article comes from solid reliable sources, and should be judged on its own merits with respect to this article, which currently has zero criticism. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, then I have little patience for antisemitism, POV, and undue weight, etc. The outcome of the addition to this page of only negative criticism of King that dismisses the issue of LaRouche's well-known antisemitism has more than whiff of antisemitism. I made the criticism more balanced, and will seek to expand the discussion. It really is distressing to see attacks on King based on a larger campaign by several Wikipeida editors to minimize the issue of contemporary antisemitism, especially the "notorious" antisemitism of LaRouche which is well documented. Let's not pretned that this is not happening, and let's not pretend that this is unrelated to the current debate on the Lyndon LaRouche page. This type of gaming of Wikipedia should be exposed and confronted.--Cberlet (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It is objectionable enough that you whitewash solidly-sourced criticism, but to go on to call me an Antisemite for quoting Daniel Pipes and the New York Times is downright disgusting. These offensive personal attacks must cease. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack to notice that the specific quotes you picked, Leatherstocking, and they way they were presented, made it appear that King was an idiot to portray LaRouche as an antisemite. LaRouche is a notorious antisemite. Dsimissing or denying the antisemitism of a major antisemite such as LaRouche is a form of antisemitism. This is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact. Furthermore, this attempt to smear King by misrepresenting the fact that both the New York Times and Pipes have mentioned the antisemitism of LaRouche, violates BLP. I am reverting your edits based ona violation of BLP for making a fasle suggestion about King, the New York Times, and Pipes. If you want to take object to this, please follow standard Wikipedia procedures.--Cberlet (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Leatherstocking, you have been focussing on negative biographical information about me and also about people who you claim are close associates of mine, including journalistic sources. You profess to know things about my relationship to this person or that person for which there is no citable documentation, and that basically emanate--let's be frank--from LaRouche's notoriously unreliable security files and articles based thereon in various LaRouche publications. This effort is like what your colleagues in the LaRouche security staff did in the early 1980s--going not just after me but after people they regarded as my friends, sources, relatives and co-workers to create a supposed "controlled aversive environment." Let's call it what it is, when applied to Wikipedia--a form of stalking.
Unlike you, Leatherstocking, I am out in the open editing in my own name. So is Berlet. So are other Wikipedia critics of LaRouche (past and present) such as Will and, before him, Adam Carr. Why is it that LaRouche's supporters always hide behind covert user names? I would really like to know who you are--to see if you are one of about 15 longtime LaRouche followers who are convicted felons because of loan fraud directed at the elderly (including a certain individual who wrote on James Fenimore Cooper for LaRouche's publications from behind bars). Perhaps you are NOT this particular individual or one of his fellow jailbirds. But if you are really PROUD of your association with LaRouche, why are you hiding in the shadows? Confront me and your other targets openly, as a person of honor, rather than in the cowardly fashion of LaRouche's security staff. In other words, edit under your real name!--Dking (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
In response to your accusations, the reality is very simple. It takes no specialized knowledge to know that you pal around with the Yippies, because every one of their web sites plugs your book, plus I found the page mentioned above where it says you are on the board of their museum. (Of course, one can never totally rule out the possibility that I am secretly a member of LaRouche's elite ninja battalions, and therefore have unrestricted access to all transmissions from the chip that was placed in your head the night you were abducted and probed by LaRouche's Martian allies.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
All this nonsense about anti-Semitism is a smokescreen. The criticism of King has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, it has to do with the fact that he is a conspiracy theorist (or as George and Wilcox put it, "conspiracy-monger,") and the two of you are trying to avoid confronting that basic fact by introducing irrelevancies and making personal attacks. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The content does appear to be reliably sourced. Terrawatt, please be careful and remember to assume good faith. Dennis, please be WP:CIVIL and don't make personal attacks. You've been here long enough to do know not do that. Now, while the content is well-sourced there may be a due weight issue. I'm going to take a more detailed look and see if it should be lessened or rephrased. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Did Laird really call me a conspiracy-monger? I seem to recall that the largest portion of his and Mr. George's chapter on LaRouche was a gleeful description, taken largely from my book, of a rather elaborate real-life conspiracy--the conspiracy by which Frankhouser (the Pennsylvania Klan Grand Dragon) and several of his friends persuaded LaRouche to give them a lot of money through a variety of confidence tricks. As to LaRouche's involvement in conspiracies of his own, there was the 1983 conspiracy to set up the GAL death squads in Spain (more than 25 people were murdered--although not directly by LaRouche's minions); the conspiracy to support the death-squad government in Guatemala, also in the early 1980s; the conspiracy to conduct smear campaigns against cocaine caudillo Manuel Noriega's opponents in the middle and late 1980s (and the conspiracy to deliver the cash from Noriega to LaRouche by way of the Panamanian embassy's military attache in Washington); the conspiracy to encourage Chiapas, Mexico, paramilitary goons to murder indigenous tribal farmers and Catholic priests in the mid-1990s; the conspiracy to support the unsuccessful 1989 military coup by fascist Col. Seineldin in Argentina; the conspiracy to swindle tens of millions of dollars out of U.S. senior citizens circa 1983-1988 (LaRouche was even sentenced to prison for conspiracy re the loan frauds); and the conspiracy (2003-2007) to cover up the truth about the death of Jeremiah Duggan. As to LaRouche's use of code language, this is not a conspiracy at all in either the dictionary or the legal sense of the term; it is merely the use of deceptive rhetoric. I might add that the deception has never been very effective, since LaRouche mixes in so much open hatred and bile against Jews and gays that decoding often isn't even necessary.--Dking (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, according to the cited reference he said that you go" to considerable lengths to paint LaRouche as a neo-Nazi, even engaging in a little conspiracy-mongering" which isn't the same at all as calling you a "conspiracy-monger"(although it isn't exactly flattering). In any event, a reminder that BLP does apply to LaRouche as well should be in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, one further point- this page since it is about Dennis King, should focus more on King's views than on LaRouche. In that regard what should be here isn't going to be the same as what should be on the main page about LaRouche. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
But if the intitial insertion of text about this issue is so slanted and POV as to misrepresent the overwhelming acceptance of King's claims about LaRouche's coded antisemitism, then the only cure is to delete it back to a sentence with links to the LaRouche articles, or expand the explanatory material that sets the record straight with an appropriate amount of text to balance the narrowly constructed insetion of criticisms that push a marginal POV. Recall that my first edit was just to cut the material back to a sentence, with a promise to add some references to the contrary--and majority--POV among scholars and other reputable published sources. And one further point...looking at the larger picture...this whole episode violates an arbcom ruling on inserting pro-LaRouche material across Wikipedia, especially in ways that attack critics of LaRouche who have entry pages here on Wikipedia. The failure to enforce this has created many problems, and wasted hundreds of hours of editing time.--Cberlet (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Chip, I'm going to have to disagree somewhat in this case. Dennis is notable precisely because of his criticism of LaRouche and the LaRouchians responses, so to some limited extent their POV is relevant here, (the main point of that ArbCom ruling was as far as I can tell to prevent the LaRouchians from pushing their POV on unrelated articles like Zionism where they deserve no mention per undue weight, or to articles about certain people marginally related to LaRouche such as yourself where your notability is only partially connected to dealing with LaRouche). In any event, the section as it currentlt stands doesn't quote any LaRouches but rather Daniel Pipes and a few other people who have very non-LaRouche POVs and are notable in their own right. For now, we are ok on this article. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The article is now balanced and NPOV, but the net effect has been to make the bulk of the entry about LaRouche, rather than King. This process of accretion has resulted in thousands of words about LaRouche that unbalance all of Wikipedia. The process is always the same.--Cberlet (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, in this case the words focus on problems with LaRouche so I don't see the issue in this case. As I said, King is notable primarily because of his interaction with LaRouche. If there are any articles you think have too much about LaRouche feel free to point them out. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In the real world, King is more notable for his book on investigative techniques. On the Internet, slavish fanatic synchophants of LaRouche have created a false reality, which for some reason, Wikipedia has allowed to flourish in our encyclopedia. Compare the number of words and articles on Wikipedia devoted to Sir Issac Newton compared to the number of words and articles devoted to LaRouche and his cult followers.--Cberlet (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you or King provide citations for that? If we have verifiable information in that context we should use that. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The documentation is found by looking at the number of editions and reprints both books have gone through.--Cberlet (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is, do we have reliable sources that talk about King in those contexts? I mean certainly we can mention how many editions each book has gone through. But do we for example have reviews of them or sources that talk about how they are major books in their areas? That's what would be really helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In response to Leatherstocking's latest posting above: As I stated on this discussion page last month, I am not a member of the Yippie Museum board. This is not because I disapprove of the museum but simply because I happen not to be a member. A page you googled may have me on a list but that does not make the list accurate. However, to get to the main point: Your remark about Ninjas and brain chips obscures the fact that you are unwilling to reveal your identity. Although it is your right to do so, it is also my right--given that your role as a sock puppet has chiefly been to target biographical pages of myself and of people that you believe are associates of mine--to request that you reveal your true identity. We have a situation where LaRouche's critics mostly edit under their own names, while LaRouche's supporters almost entirely edit under pseudonyms. This speaks volumes about the true nature of the LaRouche movement.--Dking (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's stay on topic please. This is the talk page for improving the Dennis King article not for airing myriad grievances about LaRouche and his friends. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two changes

I removed the description of my book on the LaRouche movement as the "only" biography of LaRouche. The EIR staff wrote a biography in 1982. Neither book was really a biography in the full sense of that word. I focussed on the LaRouche-led political movement and on its (and LaRouche's) ideas and program, while the EIR book focussed mostly on LaRouche's ideas and his various grandiose schemes. Best to just remove the phrase and state I wrote a book with such and such a title. As to the term "Stalinist" placed in front of the name of the Progressive Labor Party, I removed that because it is unsourced, because it's a term with multiple meanings and because it is obvious from the group's name that it is leftwing. Readers can click to the Wikipedia article on the PLP which in turn has a link to the PLP website, and thus can judge for themselves which label is best for this idiosyncratic brand of leftwing extremism--from which, I might add, several individuals emerged to join LaRouche's enterprise, including Tony Papert, the top LaRouche aide who last year wrote the "suicide memo" on the same day that Ken Kronberg killed himself, according to published reports--Dking (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that Cberlet is now editing Dking's talk page posts[3]. But I would like to see a citation for such a "published report." It certainly doesn't say that in the Washington Monthly, or even in Nicholas Benton's paper. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no particular reason to add to a minor note about article improvements a totally gratutitous mention of wrongdoing by a completely different person. Having checked the references at Ken Kronberg I find the most that can be supported is that Papert wrote the memo on the same day, noting also that Kronberg is reported to have been distraut for several days previously. Please remember that BLP applies to all spaces and the original formulation of the comment was in direct violation. Thatcher 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
After receiving this warning, Dking went on to commit a comparable direct violation here. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)