Talk:Friedwardt Winterberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Friedwardt Winterberg, has edited Wikipedia as
134.197.23.91 (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Friedwardt Winterberg, has edited Wikipedia as
134.197.11.61 (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Changes

I had to undo the changes below by 69.22.98.146 (talk · contribs) as there was no external citation listed for them. See WP:CITE and WP:V. Provide a citation, and we can restore them. Everything else in the article is meticulously documented.

  • "participation in a purely scientific nuclear fusion counsel originally established by Lyndon LaRouche" -- never heard of this "nuclear fusion counsel", and the name itself gets no Google hits, and from what I can tell there is no "purely scientific" anything established by LaRouche.
  • "Although Dr.Winterberg participated in a purely scientific nuclear fusion counsel that was originally sanctioned by the La Rouche Society, he was never a member of their political organisation." -- I don't have any evidence either way on the membership. Citation?
  • "Dr.Winterberg was never a member of LaRouche's political organisation, the LaRouche Society." -- ditto
  • "Many felt that Rudolph, who had designed the Saturn V rocket that took Neil Armstrong to the Moon, had been unfairly treated by the US Government." -- need evidence that it was a wider campaign than the FEF

Again, happy to insert whatever can be verified (the "International Academy of Astronautics" is easy to verify, so it stays, though I have moved it to the section relating to his scientific work).--Fastfission 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I must inform you that the allegations in King's book on page 79 (chapter 10) have no source. All the sources for this chapter are listed on pages 384, 385. None of these sources contains the allegations. Dr. F. Winterberg (winterbe@physics.unr.edu).

[edit] Misleading Article needs Complete Rewriting

Dr.Winterberg was only a participant in purely scientific endeavors of LaRouche, and never politically. -- LaRouche was organizing scientists to promote Fusion energy, Winterberg's specialty -- that is all Winterberg had to do with LaRouche, it was purely scientific -- this is why your article is very very misleading. -- The Intro needs be totally rewritten. Licorne 13:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I wrote the article based on what material exists in the secondary literature. See WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Everything is meticulously cited, and nothing additional beyond what is in the secondary literature has been added. If you have additional secondary literature, feel free to provide it. --Fastfission 16:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please be clear, Dr.Winterberg was never a member of the LaRouche Society. Your article makes it sound like as if he were. Licorne 13:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a published source that says he was never a member? If not, how do you know? WP:NOR. --Alvestrand 13:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I was curious and emailed Dr.Winterberg at the University of Nevada, please you do the same if you don't believe me. Do you want me to post his email address here ? Licorne 13:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem with me - proper reference is "private correspondence", I think. --Alvestrand 13:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
OK Great, do please then leave it, how I added it to the article that he was never a member of the LaRouche Society. Thanks. Licorne 14:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche right in the Intro ?

Is it really necessary to put LaRouche in the introduction ? ? Like it's a major thing in his life or something ? ? Why not take it out of there. -- Also, calling Mr.Bjerknes a self-published amateur historian, isn't there a more polite way to phrase that please ? -- Licorne 01:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have documentation that Bjerknes is a professional historian, please offer it. The fact that he's self-published seems to be well-documented. --Alvestrand 07:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
There are nicer ways to phrase things, how about researcher or writer or author or historian, these words are commonly used in similar situations. --Licorne 23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is LaRouche in the INTRO ? -- It is not a major part of his life, it is distorting, and misleading. -- The only so called connection was scientific. --Licorne 00:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todorov?

For what facts in the article are Todorov's and Logunov's books references? --Alvestrand 22:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

They are commentary on the Winterberg vs Corry papers. That's why I put them next to Corry, many will want to see them. Licorne 23:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference for post-cold-war discoveries?

An edit [1] has inserted this claim in the article:

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Winterberg and the FEF were proven correct when they were finally able to obtain documents from the former East German files which proved that the OSI, despite their earlier denials, had indeed collaborated with the communist government of East Germany in the Rudolph investigation.

However, this is unsourced. Does anyone have a reference, or should it be deleted? --Alvestrand 22:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Dr.Winterberg would be glad to supply you with photocopies of the East German documents, his email is winterbe@physics.unr.edu Licorne 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
So what you're saying is, that you don't have a documented source for this? --Fastfission 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Revert it back, I have seen the documents myself. -- Did you contact Dr.Winterberg ? -- He can send them to you if you just ask. Why didn't you ask him ?
Licorne 03:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission are you afraid of Dr.Winterberg ? He doesn't bite. Just request of him the information, rather than reverting it all. He is just an email away. What are you afraid of ? Licorne 04:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Fastfission here is a document from East German archives verifying that they had been in contact with OSI via US Embassy regarding Arthur Rudolph case. http://www.geocities.com/East_German_Document

Now please revert that section back, thank you.

Licorne 05:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the documentation, Licorne. But I can't verify your claim based on a scan that's so bad, it's even impossible to read what's on the page. (The cover letter, page 2, is readable, but doesn't say much, except that the copy should only be used for the personal "beilange" (defense?) of Arthur Rudolph). So under WP:NOR, I'm afraid you still haven't shown sources. --Alvestrand 06:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

LOOK AT THE second box it is now enlarged. I added a second enlargement view. Licorne 06:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If that isn't enough just tell me and I will add even more documents, I have the whole portfolio. Don't erase it. Licorne 06:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne, do you understand what WP:NOR means?
Your geocities website hasn't changed yet - the first doc is still unreadable - so you'll probably have to press "export" or something. Thanks for confirming that these documents are published by you and nobody else. --Alvestrand 06:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The first box is just to show the header, the second box shows the text closely, why did you revert it ? Put it back. Licorne 07:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT original research, you can confirm it all with a simple email to Winterberg, why have you not done this ? ? ? Winterberg possesses the same documents which I posted. Contact him by email please, if you want a source go right to him he has it too. Licorne 07:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

REVERT IT BACK. You have no excuses not to. Licorne 07:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne, documenting Winterberg claiming this is as much a violation of WP:NOR as having you post them on a website. And all the second JPEG shows is a 1992 letter from one "Fruth" to someone named "Rieger" that some 1983 correspondence is being passed - nothing about the content of those copies. Even if it wasn't original research, it wouldn't prove anything. --Alvestrand 07:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Look closely the content is Arthur Rudolph, the text confirms US prosecutors' correspondance on this case with East German government. I just added to it an attached letter from US government to East German government, the document 433.

You may easily contact Winterberg on this. The text is precise with official stamps. Email Winterberg if you need to, winterbe@physics.unr.edu Licorne 12:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Write it up. Submit it to a journal with review procedures. Get it published. THEN it may be possible to refer to it on wikipedia without violating WP:NOR. --Alvestrand 13:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
These are copies of reproducible documents sent by the official German government BundesArchiv, received by Dr. Winterberg, did you contact him yet ? Why not? I thought personal correspondance is considered acceptable by Wikipedia so email him, he is at winterbe@physics.unr.edu --Licorne 14:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Licorne 14:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What you are doing where you say "proved that the OSI ... had collaborated" is, in the words of WP:NOR, a "new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"".

If you manage to get such a thing reviewed and published as a "reputable source" outside of Wikipedia, Wikipedia can refer to it. But your interpretation of the documents you've shown cover pages for is not in itself a "reputable source".

I don't expect you to agree to WP:NOR. I'm just leaving this comment to make it 100% clear to those who come by and look at the talk page later that you're consciously and deliberately violating it, and that's why your changes will get reverted. --Alvestrand 14:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The letter from US Embassy clearly establishes that the OSI was in contact with East German government through the US Embassy in Berlin. It is in official record, photostatic copies I provided from Winterberg, did you email him yet ? WHY NOT ? ? -Personal correspondance is considered acceptable by Wikipedia. Licorne 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


I was wrong at a previous crossroads. WP:V clearly doesn't permit private correspondence as a basis for assertions on Wikipedia. --Alvestrand 07:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If those East German documents were to be found on a site somewhere could we then link to them from Dr.Winterberg's page ? -- What do you require ? -- Licorne 00:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis King

Dennis King was a member of the communist Progressive Labor Party, click on his name to see. Licorne 23:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • What's your point? --Fastfission 23:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact of value and interest in evaluating who had crticized Winterberg, the book is from a communist POV, important to note this. Licorne 23:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The book isn't "Communist" in the slightest. It's anti-LaRouche POV, which I happily noted, but it's also the best-known book about LaRouche. The book does not, by the way, criticize Winterberg at all. It describes his participation, roles, and viewpoints, but does not criticize. --Fastfission 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Rudolph section, that's not King criticizing Winterberg ? -- Licorne

  • Well, if you mean "report on strange things that Winterberg supposedly did" by criticize, then okay. But in any case, the book is not "Communist" in the slightest, and every reference from King that looks speculative is well attributed as "according to King" or something along those lines. --Fastfission 00:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It's right there on wikipedia that he is communist, WHY does it bother you to say it here ? -- Please explain, are you paranoid about communists or something ? Why not say it ? Why hide it ? --Licorne 00:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It isn't a "Communist" book in the slightest. And criteria for being labeled a "Communist" usually required having written something espousing Communist thought or being an active member of the Communist Party (being a member of an affiliate group only counts you as a "Communist" if you are talking with Senator McCarthy). The book has nothing to do at all with Communism. It's simply the wrong way to describe the book and the author, simple as that. --Fastfission 00:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
(anti-Semitic language from Licorne removed)

[edit] GPS?

I don't know much about Winterberg. But I think the section on GPS is rather misleading. GPS is not "an application of General Relativity". General Relativity is a complication that needs to be taken account to synchronize clocks and satellites, but the idea of using different run times of signals for triangulation is fairly basic, and not relativistic at all. Also, as far as I can tell, Winterberg only suggested to put atomic clocks into orbit to verify (or falsify) the predictions of General Relativity, i.e. to perform a purely scientific experiment. There was no suggestion to build a practical navigation system. This connection is very tenous.

Finally, the link provided only has Heisenbergs letter, which is a friendly acknowledgment of the artice, and some unrelated dicussion about the connection of GR to quantum physics (literally "Theory of elemental particles" — Heisenberg believed that gravity, and hence GR, were negligible for quantum physics). Friedbergs original article is not there.--Stephan Schulz 18:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The general relativistic corrections are essential to the ability of the GPS system to function at all. At the same time Winterberg's idea is a crucial fundamental test of general relativity, which worked. Also yes Winterberg's article in German is there following Heisenberg's letter.

—This unsigned comment is by 67.78.143.226 (talk • contribs) .

You're right about the article. Sorry, I overlooked the later pages of the PDF (the new Safari version inlines PDFs, and extra pages are not immediately obvious). I stand by the rest of my comment. Rocketry is also "essential" for GPS, as is the invention of paper or basic analysis. Yet, we don't mention GPS on Isaac Newton. Nothing remotely like GPS is mentioned in the article. --Stephan Schulz 20:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Herr Schulz, Please read up some on GPS, you will see Winterberg's crucial calculation is directly used in GPS to calculate position accurately, the same calculation, the same equations in gravitational redshift. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 17.255.240.78 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-15 00:40:22 (UTC)

Also Herr Schulz, you are wrong concerning the letter with attached letter from the BundesArchiv, which makes it pefectly clear the OSI contacted the communist government through the US embassy in Berlin, you obviously are not taking a moment to read the letter. Please do it carefully. Danke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.78.143.226 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-14 20:29:23 (UTC)

Herr Schulz, they are not cover letters at all, they are crucial exerpts. Please read them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.78.143.226 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-14 20:34:47 (UTC)

If you want to be formal, it's Dr. Schulz, please. Stephan is fine as well. The first of the images is unreadable. The second one seems to be a readable blow-up of the core part of the first. It's a cover letter for a copy of "Note No. 433". The last one seems to be an except of this note. The part that is there is a request by the US embassy for information about Rudolph, nothing more. This does not support any conspiracy theory.--Stephan Schulz 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't expect any answer from 67.78.143.226. It's a known Licorne sock puppet, so it's been blocked. You're right of course, but Licorne will never admit that, I think. --Alvestrand 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I knew the first. The style is unmistakable. Thanks for letting me know about the second.--Stephan Schulz 22:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dr Schultz, the letter which shows the OSI corresponded with the East Germans very much interests those who have followed the Rudolph case, because it embarrasses the US government which always denies working with the communists on Rudolph's case. You should not delete it because it embarrasses the US government which is good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 17.255.240.78 (talk • contribs) at 00:25:29 2006-03-15 (UTC)

[edit] Documents Now Complete

Thank you Stephen Schulz for your recent emails, the OSI Documents are now professionally done and complete, I will insert them using the phraseology you suggested, thank you. http://www.geocities.com/osi_documents

I have indeed received email from both Prof. Winterberg (who is a very charming person!) and from a Dean Mamas that I don't know otherwise. I've also checked the posted documents. They appear genuine, and I'd accept them as such. What they do show is that:
  • Prof. Winterberg has requested, but not received a certain "Note 433" from the US department of Justice.
  • The (Office of the) Attorney General of the GDR confirms that the GDR had passed on information about Rudolf through diplomatic channels, but in a fairly public manner that was commented on in the press at the time.
  • The (post-unification) German Federal Archive has send a copy of the ominous "Note 433" from the old GDR archives to Rudolf's attorney in Germany (who, apparently, has passed it on to Winterberg).
  • The note is a request for information about Rudolf's role as the director of the "Mittelwerke", a Nazi rocket factory, and in particular about his influence on the use of "slave labour" there.
Given this information, I think the following would be a fair statement: "In 1992, Winterberg received documents showing that in 1983 the OSI had requested information about Rudolf's role as a director of the German "Mittelwerke" rocket factory from 1943 to 1945 from the GDR, which passed on the results of their investigation. The case was public enough that Western German newpapers commented on this cooperation."
In my opinion, anything more would be speculation. --Stephan Schulz 22:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. And for the record, I am reverting Licorne's posts simply as a matter of policy at this point. He is not welcome to post here anymore on account of his vitriolic anti-Semitism, and though he sometimes scrambles around the blocks temporarily, he will soon run out of ability and patience, especially if he is not given further opportunity to provoke a response. --Fastfission 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll put it in. --Stephan Schulz 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Q: I see that the current geocities documents seem to indicate that the US embassy in Germany asked a question of the DDR government in 1983. I'd like to see references showing:

  • that the DDR government replied
  • that the West German newspapers picked it up (newspaper name, date)

before saying that this happened. Call me paranoid.... also, the page is not entirely consistent with the Arthur Rudolph page (this page says he "designed" the Saturn 5 rocket; his own page says that he was director of the program). Illustrates the need to say things in one place, and source them..... --Alvestrand 02:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a glaring inconsistency - that is probably just a matter of perception. If we can make it more precise, fine. As to your other questions: The first part of "Document _B.pdf" is the reply of the Attorney General of the GDR to a request made by Winterberg. In that, the Attorney General acknowledges the original reply (to "the United States via diplomatic channels") and points to three newspapers, including the "Frankfurter Rundschau", a well-known liberal (US sense) German newspaper, discussing the case. Date of puplication for all articles is given. I don't particularly trust the GDR, but I think they are competent enought not to lie about something that is that easily verified for any journalist.--Stephan Schulz 08:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I did not read this carefully enough. As I read it, I see two West German papers, and one newspaper published in New York mentioned - all in 1983-1984. So something was mentioned around the time the original reply was sent, based on something related to the case. The other thing I remembered that I don't have a reference for is that OSI claimed that it had not communicated with the DDR government about the case. To my mind, not doing so would have been criminally negligent. But - "cooperation" and "communication" are different things, so in theory, they could have been communicating while truthfully denying that they were cooperating..... if such a denial exists.

I may be growing too skeptical - Licorne's games with evidence in the Einstein/Hilbert case have led me to doubt his interpretation of just about every word he says. --Alvestrand 11:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of debate now redacted

It seems that not only has Winterberg beaten Max Planck Institute into removing the toned-down response to his attacks on Cory et al from the institute website [2], he's gone to the Wayback Machine and gotten the old copies of the original response removed (all dated versions of the URL now return a redirect to [3]).

So much for a scientist's respect for the integrity of the historical record. --Alvestrand 05:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis King again

Former political affiliation of LaRouche biographer King in the PLP, a group he left over 15 years before writing LaRouche book, is irrelevant to bio of Winterberg in which information from King's book is only mentioned briefly. Also, the Winterberg bio falsely suggests that King was a member of PLP when he wrote the book on LaRouche. The link to bio of King will provide the reader with background on King, including his former affiliation with PLP.--28 Sept. 2006

I agree that King's PLP background is not especially at issue here. What is at issue is the fact that his book is a collection of outlandish fantasies. Example:
"This effort was symbolized by a photograph of a four-pronged object, glowing with light, that appeared from time to time in Fusion and New Solidarity. Its shape was reminiscent of the swastika. A caption in a 1978 issue of Fusion said it was a plasmoid created at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the 19508, when a scientist supposedly collided four plasma beams to "form a rotating plasma structure whose dynamics are governed by a 'balancing' offerees." [4]"
We also learn that photos of spiral galaxies remind King of swastikas. Apparently he reacts to photos of physical phenomena like a Rorschach test. It tells us nothing about LaRouche or his associates, and much about Dennis King. --172.193.208.43 14:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Rudolph

"Rudolph was later acquitted of all charges and his German citizenship was restored."

As I understand the events, this statement is not correct. According to An American in Exile: The Story of Arthur Rudolph by Thomas Franklin, the Hamburg prosecutor found no evidence to go forward with any prosecution, thus Rudolph was not actually aquitted. As best I can tell he was never actually charged by either government. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"negotiated to have him leave the country and stripped of his U.S. citizenship."

As I understand it, the OSI never actually had the authority to revoke anyone's citizenship. If they found that an individual had aquired citizenship under false pretenses they could turn it over to immigration. Rudolph gave up his US citizenship voluntarily under an agreement where he also stated that he did not contest the charges. Thus, "stripped" is not a good description of the actions involved. The text of the agreement is published in American in Exile. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Rudolph's record as a potential Nazi war criminal at Peenemünde"

The accusations were for actions at the Mittelwerk, a very different place. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Werner Heisenberg's letter not published by a creditable source

I'm not sure if anyone else noticed, but the letter in question is published at a geocities account whose only purpose is to publish the letter. While I'm not personally doubting the letter is real, there is not much to stop anyone from manufacturing such a letter and posting it as a source. The older page text indicates it was original a curiosity not a source; perhaps it could be moved to the external links section. - Davandron | Talk 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

- Dear colleague, what letter about you ask? http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/heizenberg-e.htm ?

Karim Khaidarov, Bourabai Research, Kazakhstan http://bourabai.narod.ru/ http://bourabai.georisk.kz/

[edit] Documents

The "documents" linked under Rudolph controversy: [5]

[edit] Document A

This is a response to Winterberg on a Freedom of Information request from the Department of Justice. Winterberg asked the DOJ about diplomatic note 433 sent by the OSI to the East German police; the DOJ said they did not have it. He also asked for a list of OSI employees and they declined to answer on privacy grounds.

[edit] Document B

This document is in German. This is a response from the East German Prosecutor General to Winterberg It states that:

  • Rudolph was the director of the Mittelwerk
  • The US sent a diplomatic note (contents not noted)
  • There were related news articles in a Duesseldorf newspaper and a New York newspaper on 4 January 1985.
  • Neal Sher (of the OSI) has a newspaper from the West Germany newspaper Frankfurt Rundschau from 22 October 1984, "a copy is attached"
  • Page 2 are referrals to archives in Potsdam and Berlin

[edit] Document C

Again in German.

  • Page 1 is to an attorney in Hamburg (probably Harald Duhn, the attorney general of Hamburg); dated 4 March 1992 from the prosecutor general of the GDR. It is a response to a letter from 3 January 1992. It references a phone call on 27 February 1992. The response is for a request of diplomatic note 433 from the US Embassy, sent on 27 July 1983. It is signed on behalf of "Fruth".
  • Page 2 is a copy of note 433 (in English). It is a request from the US Embassy to the East German Ministry of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the OSI. It then has a synopsis of Rudolph during his time at the Mittelwerk. It then asks the East Germans for any archives on Rudolph, and notes that Professor Walter Bartel of the Humboldt University in Berlin may be of help. There is no signature.

[edit] Document D

This appears to be the next pages of document C. The OSI is specifically requesting document linksin Rudolph and :

  • The use of slave labor
  • Sabotage reports
  • Working and living conditions of the prisoners
  • The labor supply office
  • The significance of initials in a book by Bartel

It is stamped by the embassy, but not signed

[edit] Conclusion

The US asked East Germany for information on 27 July 1983. The East German prosecutor general sent a copy to the attorney general of Hamburg 4 March 1992. The OSI can't find the note. There is no copy of any response to the request. Newspaper reports related to this request were published on 4 January 1985. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] personal communication

a personal communication from Dr. Winterberg via email, he was never a member of any Larouche organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.75.132 (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems from this edit that Winterberg is editing the article himself again. --Alvestrand 14:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche picture inappropriate

Lyndon LaRouche never played any major role in Dr. Winterberg's career or life, it is inappropriate to display his picture here. A picture of Nobel prize winner Werner Heisenberg with Dr. Winterberg would be much more appropriate. Dr. Winterberg had discussed Fusion with LaRouche as he has done with many others and still continues to do so today. But a photo of LaRouche is just a smear and is entirely inappropriate here. 67.78.143.227 19:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was a Winterberg edit, but the IP's WHOIS is in Virginia, not Nevada, and the traceroute says "Tampa". It's clear from earlier edits that mr. Winterberg doesn't like the picture, and doesn't like being associated with LaRouche. Under WP:BLP rules, if he feels smeared, we should have very good reasons for including it, methinks. --Alvestrand 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like much sourced info besides the photo was removed, so much that some material is without context. BLP calls for removal of unsourced or poorly sourced info, not everything that might upset the subject. While we may trim the number of mentions, or their length, to delete all mention of the subject's scientific engagement with LaRouche seems to be a case of re-writing history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
On further investigation, this IP seems to belong to permanently banned User:Licorne. I've blocked the IP and rolled back the edit - banned users shouldn't edit. --Alvestrand 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The changes have been re-added, this time by User:134.197.11.61 - on this IP's talk page, he claims to be Winterberg, so previous reasoning applies. I'm not rolling this one back. --Alvestrand 15:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I've restored some sourced text, but left the photo out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Winterberg was never a member of LaRouche's organisations

This Wikipedia article is trying to smear Dr.Winterberg by trying to associate him with LaRouche. - Winterberg was never a member of LaRouche' organisations and had only scientific contact with LaRouche who was interested in Fusion research. Jimmy Wales should call Dr.Winterberg at his office and clear this up (winterbe@physics.unr.edu). Dr.Winterberg certainly wants it posted here, it needs be in the article: he was never a member of LaRouche's organisations as Wikipedia is unfairly implying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.213.96 (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But the article never says that he was a member of LaRouche's organization. The fact that there was contact is well documented by sources, but nobody has written that he was a member, and I don't see it as an implication of what's written there. The unsourced addition is trying to deny a claim that isn't made. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The implication is there. It is wrong and unfair. Contact Winterberg: winterbe@physics.unr.edu 72.186.213.96 (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Can someone with access to the King book state that "King does not claim that Winterberg was ever a member of LaRouche's organization"? That should be a statement for which it's easy to refer to reliable sources, and may go far towards meeting Wikipedia's requirements under both WP:BLP and WP:RS. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
King's book is now online. Unfortunately the index isn't. Google finds this passage: [6]
  • But LaRouche's followers in the early 1980s went far beyond anything in The Intercom Conspiracy when they started publishing hot tips on how to make H-bombs and death rays in league with Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg, a character as odd as anyone in an Ambler novel. Besides his political activities as a nemesis of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, Winterberg is also a brilliant research physicist. According to Edward Teller, he has "perhaps not received the attention he deserves" for his work on fusion. For the LaRouchians, he is a unique commodity--his value resides in what he lacks. What Winterberg lacks is a Q clearance. He therefore cannot be accused of leaking classified information. As a physicist, he can always say he rediscovered the information on his own in his Nevada desert laboratory. In fact, he does indeed figure out the principles of secret weapons on his own. It is his hobby, just as other people breed hamsters. Winterberg sincerely believes that it is ridiculous to classify such matters, for the essence of science is the free flow of information. In 1981 LaRouche's Fusion magazine published Winterberg's diagrams of various devices, such as a "Nuclear X-Ray Laser Weapon Using Thermonuclear Explosives." Later that year, the FEF published his Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices, a how-to manual on H-bombs, with the neutron bomb thrown in as a bonus.
  • Of course, the LaRouchians had been hinting at such knowledge ever since they set up the FEF in 1974. Predictably, they strove to develop ties with governments desirous of becoming the next nuclear power: India, Iraq, South Africa, Argentina, Taiwan, and Libya. Government nuclear experts in at least two of these countries (India and Argentina) have met with FEF representatives, and the foundation and EIR have arranged speaking tours for Dr. Winterberg. In the wake of the how-to manual, EIR seminars in Washington and European capitals were well attended by appropriately obscure diplomatic clerks from various Third World embassies, with Mossad agents discreetly blending into the background.
According to this, it looks more like the LaRouche movement were "following" Winterberg rather than the other way around. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I just found this, from a different chapter: [7]
  • For Dr. Winston Bostick and Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg, physicists on the outer fringes of Star Wars, this common interest involved more than SDI. ...
  • Winterberg was a fusion specialist with the University of Nevada's Desert Research Institute. He volunteered ideas on beam weapons to the Air Force in the late 1970s, and later speculated on the subject for LaRouchian publications. In 1980 he described LaRouche as having the "most scientifically founded" program of any candidate for the U.S. presidency. The FEF published his Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices (1981) and also sent him on overseas speaking tours.
Again, this does not describe Winterberg as a follower. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Correct, he was never a member. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The unforunate problem here is that we have no source that says, "he was never a member". We can't prove a negative. I'm not sure how we can address this best. Has Winterberg ever publicly stated that he was not a member? If so then we can use that statement as a source for saying something like "FW has stated he was never a member". Absent a source, all we can do is describe the relationship as King has done, and try to avoid any implication that Winterberg was a member. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Where do you want him to say it ? He then will. Tell me where. Do you want his email, it is winterbe@physics.unr.edu He will say it for you, just say where you want it, he will do it. 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.213.96 (talk)
Does the Winterburg have a blog, or can he get a letter published in an archived newsletter? One of those could easily be used to provide a verifiable source for his statements. Any other details or perspective that he can add would enrich this article and the record of his life.
On reviewing the article I saw only one phrase that seemed to imply an actual collaboration. In that case I changed "involved in" to "published by". Aside from the promotional lecture tour and the quoted compliment of LaRouche's platform, there's no indication of a close involvement, so that text may have given more of an implicaiton of Winterberg's being a follower. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
He has his University of Nevada professorship page, he would post what you need there, so ask him, he is at : winterbe@physics.unr.edu 72.186.213.96 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Professor pages aren't ideal because they seem to disappear, but it'd be verifiable while it's there. Winterberg can put whatever remarks about himself and his page and we can use those to make summaries of his statements. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to ask him to do so, but if you want to notify him that his page can be used as a source for his own views than there's nothing wrong with that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
(Refactor) Since we can't find a source saying he was a political follower of LaRouche and we can't find a source saying he wasn't a political follower of LaRouche, perhaps it's best to say nothing at all about that aspect of it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dennis King is not a reliable source for this or any other topic. It's like using the John Birch Society (which does publish!) as a source for the claim that Dwight Eisenhower was a commie. --Leatherstocking (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

King is the best 3rd party source for LaRouche, and his is the only biography of LaRouche published by a major publishing house. It was well-reviewed by many major newspapers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
King seems to have some fanbois here at Wikipedia, but no self-respecting encyclopedia would use him as a source. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
What 3rd-party source would a "self-respecting encyclopedia" for LaRouche's life story? Anyway, unless there's a specific problem with the King reporting in this matter, I see no reason to discount his book as a source for this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
While Winterberg may have never been a follower of LaRouche, or a member of the movement, he apparently has maintained a cordial relationship. In 2003 he gave an interview to 21st Century, the successor to Fusion.[8] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fusion Activism

Outerspace weapons do not belong in this section. Also, to say the FEF is a Larouche organisation is like calling the Washington Times a Moonie paper, it is inappropriate. Also, King is not a reliable source that Larouche funded Winterberg's speaking tours, which he did not. University of Nevada pays for his conferences.66.194.98.181 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A) Do you have a source for the funding of the speaking tour? B) The Washington Times is identified, where appropriate, as belonging to Rev. Moon's organization. The FEF was a part of the LaRouche movement. There's nothing inappropriate about mentioning that connection. C) If material is in the wrong section the appropriate action is to tmove it, not to delete it. I am going to restore the sourced material you deleted. If there are sources for other material then feel free to add that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winterberg never attended the Krafft Ehricke memorial conference

Here is one unsourced inaccuracy: Winterberg never attended that Krafft Ehricke memorial conference in Berlin as it is claimed. So that section about LaRouche's efforts has nothing to do with Dr.Winterberg's article and should therefore be removed. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche's personal efforts and actions do not belong here

LaRouche's personal efforts and actions have nothing to do with this article about Friedwardt Winterberg. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)