Talk:Jeremiah Duggan

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]
Citation
This page was cited by Baroness Sarah Ludford, Member of the European Parliament: "MEP urges investigation of Jeremiah Duggan's death"

Please post new messages at the bottom of the page

See also

Contents

[edit] Redacted letter

We have a source that is a link to a file on a Schiller Institute page that purports to a be an internal Metropolitan Police communication.[1] But the document is so thoroughly redacted that we don't really know who it is to or from. While intersting, I don't know that we can treat it as a reliable source for third parties. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I erred in restoring that cite by itself, because by itself it will baffle the reader. There is another cite lower in the article that explains what the document is and how it was obtained. I have paired the two cites now in both locations. --Marvin Diode 21:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how that changes the basic fact that we are using the Schiller Institute as a source for assertions about 3rd parties. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The basic fact is that we are using a primary source. The LaRouche PAC cite explains how it was obtained. --Marvin Diode 07:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Two arms of the same organization might not be the best corroboration. I'm not surprised that the LPAC site confirms what the SI and WLYM sites say. Have they ever disagreed? Since the LaRouche organization is known for spreading false information about opponents, and since there is no independent source, I propose we remove this source and the material supported by it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The photostat of the letter obtained by Freedom of Information is neither produced by the LaRouche group, nor is it about their opponents. --Marvin Diode 21:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
We have no way of knowing who produced it because we don't have a reliable source for it yet. From what I've read on LaRouche sites, the Duggan matter is viewed as an attempt to discredit LaRouche or to distract from his message. Until we can find a reliable source for this I'm removing it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FOIA source

The disputed material is the following:

However, in September, 2007, the LaRouche Political Action Committee announced that pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request, the British Foreign Office had released the July 14, 2003 Metropolitan Police report, in which it says that the Metropolitan Police found that the incident was “fully investigated” by the German police and that all witnesses had been interviewed. This finding by the Metropolitan police had heretofore not been made public.[2],[3]

The only source for this material is a LaRouche movement website. They are not reliable sources. If a reliable source for this material can be found then I don't object to its inclusion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.(Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche) This article is included on the "LaRouche template," and I see that some have argued that it is a case of WP:COATRACK, in other words, the main purpose of the article is to attack LaRouche. Therefore, it seems to me that under the arbcom ruling, material cited to LaRouche websites should be included, particularly when used to rebut attacks on the LaRouche organization. --Marvin Diode 00:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you believe that Duggan belongs on the template? Do you believe that LaRouce sources are reliable? Do you believe that the Duggan matter is an attack on the LaRouche organization? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
No opinions on the above. The questions don't seem to address the issue at hand. --Marvin Diode 14:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
They have a direct bearing on this matter. You say that, simply because Duggan is included on the template, LaRouche sources about him are accurate. LaRouche sources are not generally considered reliable. You further assert that the Duggan death is an attack on the LaRouche organization. These three assertions frame the debate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't say the things that you claim I say. I say that according to the arbcom, material from LaRouche-affiliated sources may be used on Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles, and the fact that this article is on the LaRouche template suggests to me that it is a closely related article. Read that sentence twice if necessary. Now, then, I also say, and I'll quote myself from the post above, that "I see that some have argued that it is a case of WP:COATRACK, in other words, the main purpose of the article is to attack LaRouche. Therefore, it seems to me that under the arbcom ruling, material cited to LaRouche websites should be included, particularly when used to rebut attacks on the LaRouche organization." --Marvin Diode 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"... material cited to LaRouche websites should be included, particularly when used to rebut attacks on the LaRouche organization." Where are the attacks on the LaRouche organization? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The basic premise of the article is that LaRouche organization in some way caused Duggan's death. The source document that is being disputed here bears directly on that issue. --Marvin Diode 21:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
So you do believe that the Duggan matter is an attack on the LaRouche organization. Do you beleive that the LaRouche organization websites are reliable sources? Do you believe that anonymous emails should be used as sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is going anywhere. I would prefer to get some input from third parties. In the meantime, you will note that I haven't reverted your deletions. --Marvin Diode 02:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] outside comment

I see no reason to think that LaRouche organization websites are going to be useful beyond the narrow situation where they might comment on the views of the LaRouche organization. I suggest the material be removed until it can be better sourced. Eiler7 17:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case, the LaRouche website is used to provide an explanation of how the Freedom of Information document was obtained. --Marvin Diode 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
And another LaRouche website hosts the letter. In other words, LaRouche websites are the sole source for this assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Other than the primary source it self, the FOI document, which what we are actually supposed to be discussing. --Marvin Diode 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
But the only place we can find this anonymous email is a LaRouche site, which is not a reliable source. Even if the site were trustworthy, an anonymous email makes a lousy source. If this were legitimate then I'd expect that one of the several British papers covering the story would have mentioned it. The trouble with using primary sources is that they are hard to interpret and may not cover all aspects. For example, what other documents would this FOIA request have generated? What has the Metropolitan Police Dept. said or done since that email was written? Does the email reflect the official view of the department or just one person? There are too many variables for us to use this anonymous email as a source for this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, with the context of this source completely unclear, it would be inappropriate to base any contentious content in the article on it. Doubly so given where this material originated, and thus the obvious doubts to its veracity. --arkalochori |talk| 05:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the comments above. Remove the link to the letter, unless there is evidence from neutral, reliable sources (i.e. not LaRouche websites) of its existence and relevance to this case. Terraxos 23:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coatrack

An editor just added the {{coatrack}} template to this article, albeit without presenting any reasoning on the talk page. It is hardly a "coatrack," the article discusses the young man and the circumstances surrounding his unfortunate death. The material is supported with citations from the international media coverage of the events in Wiesbaden. It covers little besides the Duggan affair. --arkalochori |talk| 06:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I put my reasoning in the edit summary. The article is about this LaRouche conspiracy and LaRouch stuff and rarely about the subject. If it was renamed "Jeremiah Duggan - LaRouche conspiracy connection" (bad title I know just an example) then it would not be a coatrack. William Ortiz 06:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a brief section summarizing the background of the Schiller Institute, but I don't think the article is here just to hold it. The incident iteself has generated negative coverage and so the article will naturally include it. The article does include all views so I think it is consistent with NPOV. Obviously, the suWill Beback]] ·:· 06:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It's about his life, death, and the theories that followed his death. Would a more agreeable title be the Death of Jeremiah Duggan? Are the accusations really in the realm of conspiracy? The Times Online and the Washington Post seem to disagree. The material from some of the more strident critics has been limited to the section describing the LaRouche movement, this is the only place where one's possible concern about LaRouche hysteria and conspiracies could originate in my view. The issue here is that the article isn't a Trojan Horse used to sneak in criticism of the movement, its well-cited material strictly covering the controversial circumstances of Jeremiah's final days. --arkalochori |talk| 06:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've seen this done. Madeleine McCann redirects to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. William Ortiz 06:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"Death of Jeremiah Duggan" sounds good to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added the template. Clearly, the authors of this article wrote it as a showcase for criticism of LaRouche. Jeremiah Duggan would not otherwise be considered notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The notability of the subject is due to the numerous articles written about his death. The only part of this article which isn't directly related to Duggan is the 200-word summary about the LaRouche movement. What changes do you propose to the article to clear it of being a "coatrack"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose what would make the most sense is to convert the article to a redirect to LaRouche movement, and have a much shorter version of it there. Duggan himself is not notable -- the press attention was due to an opportunity to scandalize LaRouche. But LaRouche himself wasn't really involved, so "LaRouche movement" seems the logical choice. --Niels Gade (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand your view, but there's no reliable source that says the only reason the subject became notable was to scandalize a 3rd party. I don't see a resaon to merge, as this is a substantial an well-sourced article in its own right. I don't see any answer to the question about which specific parts make this article a "coatrack'. Without that info the tag should be removed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The specific parts are the Berlet-cruft, located principally in the "LaRouche movement" section and in the external links. This is gratuitous material unrelated to Duggan. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what "Berlet-cruft" is, but I'll warn you about remaining civil towards other users. I'll look over the "Movement" section and remove unrelated material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I made no reference to any editor, so I don't see why you are raising questions of civility. I am talking about the unecessary quotes from Chip Berlet, Dennis King, and their associates. --Niels Gade (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals

First, I suggest that changes to the article be discussed here before implementation, given the controversial topic. Second, I would leave the coatrack tag intact until consensus has been reached. Finally, here are my proposed changes:

  • Remove the "LaRouche movement" section, leaving only a link to LaRouche movement, and keep also both the allegation of anti-Semitism, and the statement by LaRouche opposing anti-Semitism. These can be incorporated later in the article where the issue comes up.
  • Remove the external links that do not relate directly to Duggan. It looks like a bit of a "link farm" for LaRouche critics, and makes the coatrack allegation plausible.

--Marvin Diode (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't what's meant by COATRACK. All the associations in this article have been made by multiple reliable sources. I'll take a look at EL though, in case there are irrelevant links there, but bear in mind that they only have to be related, not actually about the subject. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed some external links, a couple of unnecessary refs, and tightened the writing a little, [4] taking it to around 1,500 words, not counting footnotes and external links, which I think is reasonable. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that SlimVirgin's edits were generally helpful, although her comments about COATRACK made no sense to me. I still think that the "LaRouche movement" section should be scrapped altogether, and those portions which are relevant to Duggan absorbed into the main body of the article. I also came across this, which seems to be applicable, from WP:ONEEVENT: The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The ONEEVENT provision is for living people, intended to avoid people becoming the subject of a BLP just because of one issue that they were tangentially involved in. That doesn't apply here, in part because it's not a BLP, but also because Duggan's death, and what he did leading up to it, has been the focus of the stories.
The reason for the section on the movement is simply to tell people who they are; otherwise portions of the rest of the article would make less sense. We can try to cut it down even further if you like, but I thought it important to retain LaRouche's and the movement's perspective, and that necessarily lengthens it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of forensic findings on Duggan's death

News reports discuss the "'defence wounds' to Duggan's forearms and hands, which usually suggest someone trying to protect himself.", the "head injuries... consistent with being beaten... 'exclude any possibility that the injuries to his head occurred because a motor vehicle ran over the body'". They note that "Duggan survived long enough to swallow large amounts of blood indicates he took a long time to die, which would not be the case after a high-speed collision."

Why don't we? It's not like there's any lack of denials from LaRouche that he's a anti-semite with a violent organisation, or denials from German investigators that a organisation with a native-born German head that has infiltrated their country might have killed Jeremiah Duggan. John Nevard (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Jeremiah Duggan/archive3#A concern. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I did. We went from a small section on independent forensic assessments of Duggan's death, and a large chunk of LaRouchian conspiracism, to a small section of LaRouchian conspiracism. Certainly it's a good thing that there's no implication of culpability for individual LaRouche associates in the death, but a significant viewpoint has been hidden. John Nevard (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia just deleted their article on Duggan altogether. --Niels Gade (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how that fact has any bearing on the point made by John Nevard. I'm sure the German Wikipedia has articles about things that the English Wikipedia doesnt have. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
My point was that the story is a non-notable, malicious conspiracy theory. I suspect that our German counterparts came to that conclusion after debating it. It would be proper for us to do the same. --Niels Gade (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Until that time is there any reason we don't include the materil Nevard has cited? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is. I provided a link a few posts back, and it seems no one has actually read the linked material (Talk:Jeremiah Duggan/archive3#A concern.) SlimVirgin, the editor who originally authored this article and certainly no friend of Lyndon LaRouche, had second thoughts about the very material that John Nevard is proposing, after she herself had initially added it to the article. I encourage you to read her comments in full, but her conclusion is that "I'm worried about us publishing an article containing serious allegations the evidence for which is hard to understand. I'm surprised the newspapers wrote the stories the way they did." She goes on to say that the self-contradictory nature of the alleged evidence poses a BLP problem, and I agree. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
They came to the conclusion that Duggan was not notable because of a lack of independent sources on google. As we have a large array of proper news sources, this is entirely irrelevant. Interestingly, our well-researched and occasionally neutral articles have been cited as reasons to keep developing articles on the LaRouche organisation in other language versions. Wouldn't it be convenient if ours disappeared? John Nevard (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish

Chip, I'm wondering about this edit. [5] His family has always stressed this, because they feel he was targeted as a result of it, at least in part. The article does make clear further down that he's Jewish, where it says he stood up during the conference and declared it, but I felt we should make it clear earlier on, given its alleged relevance. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jermiah was raised Jewish, but it is not equivalent to say that the father is from a country and the mother is from a religion/ethnic group.
It is like saying someone's father is Austrian and his mother is Catholic. It is a big no no--Cberlet (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right that it could be phrased differently, but I still think it would be better to have his ethnicity in the early life section, given its relevance. I'm willing to leave it out if you really think that's best, but my preference is to have it in. SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
We can only summarize the info we have. According to Duggan's mother's statement here, she is Jewish and her husband was born in Ireland. She doesn't say where she was born, or what religion her husband follows (except that he isn't Jewish). If that's what we know that's what we should say. I'm sure we can find way of conveying it that doesn't make the two equivalent. Perhaps:
  • Duggan was born in London, the son of Hugo, who has was born in Ireland, and Erica, is Jewish and who followed Jewish traditions on raising her son.
That's not quite it either... ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think SlimVirgin had it right when she referred to the "alleged relevance." I also think that Cberlet had it right when he objected to a formulation that emphasized the religious orientation of the mother, while omitting that of the father -- it is a compination of undue weight and WP:SYNTH, because it would be an attempt to slant the article in a way so as to promote a theory that Duggan was a victim of anti-semitism, without providing a reliable source. I propose that you leave the article as is, unless you have a quote from the mother that explicitly says "I think my son was targetted by antisemitism," and then it would have to be properly sourced (not from a self-published site like Justice for Jeremiah.") It seems highly speculative and therefore the sourcing requirements must be stringent. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

By whom is Justice for Jeremiah self-published? Anyway there are other sources that describe Duggan as Jewish. The ethnic and religious heritage are important to any biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added the text I drafted above. Further improvements are welcome. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)