Talk:Schiller Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Let's try a different tack

SlimVirgin and I have agreed to let a third party, DanKeshet, act as a sort of ombudsman and take a crack at editing this article so that we can get it unprotected and undisputed. Will other editors please weigh in on this, as a precondition for unprotection -- speak now, or hold your peace for the time being. --H.K. 07:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't object. Weed Harper 14:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since it seems SlimVirgin and Herschelkrustofsky both are trying to get the page unprotected, I went ahead with unprotection. It would be appreciated, however, if people can avoid significant edits to give DanKeshet's efforts a try. Otherwise, protection may be necessary again. --Michael Snow 21:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to give it a try; we'll see if it works. I have read the talk page archive, the history of the article, and some of the linked articles to understand the dispute. I want to make it clear that I do not intend to be a mediator or an arbitrator. What I hope to do is simply be an editor whose motives people trust, so that if I make an edit you don't like, we can discuss the pros and cons without questioning intent. DanKeshet 06:48, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, Dan. Slim 07:00, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Founding members

Does anyone have a source for the statement that Amelia Baynton Robinson was the third founder? I've checked the Schiller biography of her and its tribute to her, but neither of them says this: just that she was an early board member. If someone has a source, could they post it here please, or in the article? Many thanks, Slim 14:21, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

If no one can produce a reference to back up this claim, I'll be deleting it today or tomorrow. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 23:17, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Rather than just deleting the one factoid, I recommend an overall rewrite of the lead paragraph. By whom it was founded should be the secondary item. The first sentence should characterize the Institute. -Willmcw 23:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing requires a rewrite. It currently reads as though music and poetry are its main preoccupation, whereas it's a highly politicized organization that promotes the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche. However, I haven't wanted to even start a rewrite because it may spark another edit war. It's also hard to know where to find reliable sources, but there are Schiller sites that do make a lot of its activities clearer than this page does. SlimVirgin 23:38, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Founding member claim removed

As the Boynton Robinson claim remains unsourced, I've removed it. I also reduced the Duggan material to one para, as the LaRouche editors felt it was too long. Will, if you want to rewrite the intro or any other part of the article, I have no problem with that. SlimVirgin 01:19, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Good, 'cause I jumped in and redid the opening paragraph. The first sentence now says what the Schiller is, and the subsequent sentences gives the who, where, and when on the founding. Since the Duggan case has an article of its own, that paragraph should be kept short here. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I had to make the Duggan paragraph a little longer to clarify the EIR news article, which essentially calls Mrs Duggan a patsy of the "City of London financial oligarchy". He goes well beyond a simple denial. I tried to keep it short. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, Will. SlimVirgin 01:56, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wir brauchen eine Bewegung

Will, if Zepp-LaRouche's comment on the need for the Schiller is a translation from the German, would you mind cutting and pasting the original German here, as the translation sounds odd. I looked for it in the link you provided but couldn't find it. Thanks, SlimVirgin 00:26, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Original German posted. It's there on the link. I'm sure Babelfish and me mangled it real good! Cheers, -Willmcw 00:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Founder Helga Zepp LaRouche explained the need for the Schiller Institute:

""Wir brauchen eine Bewegung, die Deutschland endlich aus der Kontrolle der Kräfte von Versailles und Jalta befreit, die uns schon ein ganzes Jahrhundert lang von einer Kastastrophe in die andere stürzt."[1]

I think this is correct: "We need a movement that can finally free Germany from the control of the Versailles and Jalta treaties, which have already tossed us from one catastrophe to another for a whole century." Herschel also speaks German, I believe, so he can be asked to confirm my translation. "Stürzten" is not quite "to toss", but that's more or less what she means, though I'm confused about the tense she has used. SlimVirgin 00:56, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've left the German in the text as this is an important quote, showing that the Schiller Institute is not about music and poetry. Well done for finding it. SlimVirgin 01:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Good for you! I wish I spoke German. Thanks for doing that chore. The original I saw was hard to read with in computer translation. It's from a German "anti-rightwing" site of some kind. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] relationship between LaRouche and the Schiller Institute

I added this new section because I was dissatisfied with our use of the word "associated" in the first sentence. This is an attempt at clarifying what exactly that association is. DanKeshet 08:08, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My role here

I feel a little bewildered by my role here. I enjoy contributing to articles, especially when I have a chance to track down references and try to make things NPOV. But there is virtually nothing for me to do here, because this is such a narrow topic. How can I research the Schiller Institute, when I can find very few books or articles about it? I have added most of the LaRouche-related articles to my watchlist and I will continue to contribute and try to get rid of the vicious habit of personal attacks I've seen on these talk pages, but I don't know what else I can do. DanKeshet 08:08, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Dan, don't feel you have to edit these pages if you don't want to. If you do, it would be helpful to have someone to make judgments about whether things are properly referenced. There isn't much information easily available about the Schiller as such, because it's just an arm of the LaRouche movement, and organizes some of its conferences for it. Here is a report Chip Berlet wrote at the request of Jeremiah Duggan's mother. The LaRouche editors will say it is biased. I don't think it refers specifically to the Schiller, but that's because there's no way of separating the activities of one part of the movement from the other. If you speak German, I'm about to attempt a translation of a document about another political party run by Zepp-LaRouche, so you're welcome to help with that if you want to. SlimVirgin 08:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Schmitz

I see that another editor removed a quotation because it was ascribed to Paul Schmitz, whom the editor said is not at the Schiller Institute. I am wondering how an editor can tell who is associated with the Institute, in order to avoid similar mistakes? Is there a listing somewhere? Cheers, -Willmcw 15:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I haven't received any response to the above query. I'll put the quote back in unless WeedHopper replies with some supporting info. -Willmcw 22:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zepp-LaRouche

Herschel and Weed, I'm reposting this here from the Zepp LaRouche Talk pages as no one seems to be monitoring it.

[edit] Holocaust denial quote?

I found this:

Whereas nobody in the USA has the slightest illusions concerning the power which the Zionist lobby exerts especially upon the current administration, in Germany only very few political personalities in the know are aware of the influence of a more secretly operating undercover zionist lobby, yet not the German public in general. And therefore we must take the hypocritical bogus Holocaust-spoof as an occasion to get rid of these foreign agents." Helga Zepp-LaRouche, "Der zionistische Holocaust heute" (The Zionist Holocaust today), Neue Solidarität, January 25, 1979.
In German: Während in den USA niemand auch nur die geringsten Illusionen über die Macht der zionistischen Lobby über vor allem die gegenwärtige Administration hegt, ist der Einfluß einer verdeckter operierenden zionistischen Lobby in der Bundesrepublik bisher nur wenigen eingeweihten politischen Persönlichkeiten bekannt, nicht aber der breiten Bevölkerung. Und deshalb müssen wir den scheinheiligen Holocaust-Schwindel zum Anlaß nehmen, um diese ausländischen Agenten auffliegen zu lassen.
This should probably go into the article, unless anyone objects. I'll leave it on the page for a day or so in case there are other opinions. SlimVirgin 07:15, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I have a question about the photo of Zepp-LaRouche that was on this page, where she is standing next to the eastern terminal of the Eurasian Land Bridge. Could Herschel or Weed explain this to me, as I thought the Eurasian Land Bridge didn't exist? SlimVirgin 20:22, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Both of these issues have come up before. The "Holocaust spoof" quote refers to some of the "docudramas" that came out in that period, and Zepp-LaRouche is objecting to them on the grounds that they misuse the Holocaust to promote other, more contemporary agendas. Slim, I would suggest you that try reading her writings, or those of her husband, in the original context, instead of cruising all the anti-LaRouche websites looking for material. It is the latter practice which makes you appear to be an anti-LaRouche activist.
Regarding the Land-Bridge, it is a vast project which is partially realized, and subsumes other, smaller projects. The Chinese government invited Zepp-LaRouche to come and speak on the subject several times, and I suspect that the English inscription on the monument is a gesture of respect for her. They also refer to her as the "Silk Road Lady" in the Chinese press. However, due to the vehement objections of AndyL, none of this appears in Wikipedia, because there are no English-language web citations outside of LaRouche publications. --HK 20:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you have any Chinese citations, especially in relation to that photograph and the Eastern Terminal thing, we could almost certainly find someone in Wikipedia to translate it. Regarding the Holocaust quote, there was a television movie at that time showing in Germany about the Holocaust, but that doesn't weaken the force of the quote. She is saying that there is a secret, undercover Zionist lobby in Germany, which the public is unaware of, and most politicians are also unaware of. "We must use this Holocaust spoof" (possibly the movie, as you say) to "get rid of these foreign agents." What worries me about this, is that this is precisely the kind of thing Hilter said before the war; the quote from her about the need for the Schiller Institute also worried me for the same reason (Germany has to finally rid itself of the forces of Versailles and Yalta, which have made us stagger from one disaster to another for a whole century). We are not being honest if we leave this material out of the articles about her and the Schiller Institute.

Please say on which page you would prefer to discuss this so we don't have to cross-post. SlimVirgin 21:16, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer the Helga Zepp LaRouche page. As you probably know, the Schiller Institute published a book in both German and English (Das Hitler-Buch/The Hitler Book) which described Hitler as a catastrophic disaster for Germany, and named the Versaille treaty as one of the elements which brought him to power. It appears to me, Slim, that you have no real interest in Zepp-LaRouche's actual opinions or ideas, other than to find scraps of quotes which you can adapt to argue the theories that you brought with you to Wikipedia. --HK 22:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chip or Will, would you regard this [2] as a credible source? I would like to quote from him in the Schiller Institute article. He's apparently an American writer/journalist living in Germany, and set up this website to give an alternative journalistic view. However, I don't know whether that means it's basically just a blog by an unknown writer. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin 01:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fidelio Magazine

I am against merging as all magazines have their own pages. Lakinekaki 18:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement for all magazines to have their own pages, and there is no reason why this article cannot be included in that category. The topic is too short to warrant its own article, and would fit quite well as a subsection in this article. -Amatulic 18:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Magazine category should have all magazines in it. If you put Fidelio as a subsection here, than you cannot put category American magazines, as it would not make sense, and therefore this magazine could not be found from the list of magazines within wikipedia. If you want to eliminate Fidelio because of length of article, go thru the whole list and you'll see there are a lot of shorter articles there. Lakinekaki 18:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Fidelio is too minor a publication to deserve an article of its own. There are no 3rd party sources in the article, an inicator of minimal notability. There are several related publications that don't call for separate articles either, such as EIR. -Will Beback · † · 19:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

3rd party sources.Lakinekaki 19:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge. I see no appropriate 3rd party sources on that google link. On the first page of search results, I see a blog, an Amazon advertisement about the magazine web site, a Hungarian music web site having nothing to do with this subject, various web sites associated with the Schiller Institute, some personal pages and student essays that reference articles in the magazine, and some discussion forums. None of these are appropriate as references. Will Beback is correct that this is magazine is non-notable, as are other related publications such as EIR which, I note, already redirects to a larger article on LaRouche. -Amatulic 19:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

specifically American Academy of Arts and Sciences quotes it here.
I find it interesting that this magazine' entry is going thru the scrutiny that most other magazines are not going thru.Lakinekaki 19:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Indianapolis Symphony quotes it here.Lakinekaki 19:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
intute's quote here.Lakinekaki 19:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
fathers for life's quote. Lakinekaki 20:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Good job on finding those citations. However, an article's lead paragraph should explain what makes the subject notable, and mentioning that it got cited in an AAAS bulletin and a few other publications doesn't sound convincing - especially if those citations are for minor points, as in the AAAS bulletin for example.
Your question concerning the scrutiny of this article and not others, deserves an answer. I'm reminded of a story, in which a police officer pulls over a motorist for speeding. The motorist complains, "The other cars are speeding too, so why single me out?" The officer drawls, "Ever been fishing?" Confused, the motorist answers "Yes." The officer replies, "Ever catch all the fish?"
The point is, there are many inappropriate articles on Wikipedia. Far more articles exist than active editors. You have to take them one at a time, as you find them. I was originally going to propose the Fidelio Magazine article for deletion, but felt it would fit better as a merge. -Amatulic 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that an alternative to merging would be nominating for AfD. -Will Beback · † · 20:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the links that Lakinekaki has provided, none of them are about the magazine iself. -Will Beback · † · 20:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I gave references that I found on google. As far as the comprehensiveness of information is concerned, google sais it will need about 300 years more to collect all the information. I also excluded in my search links that mention larouche. If the search is expanded, there are many more links.Lakinekaki 20:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you find any that actually talk about the magazine? -Will Beback · † · 20:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This university's online library links to it [3]. Couldn't find anything that gives review of the magazine, but found dozens of quotes to articles from Fidelio Magazine. Lakinekaki 20:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
So if there aren't any reliable sources for the article then the best thing would be to just merge it in here. -Will Beback · † · 21:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I actually think that the last link is a reliable source: This section of the Andy Holt Virtual Library English Language and Literatures Periodical Collection contains nearly 150 links to journals, many called "reviews", which publish examples of several literary genres, or criticism, without a focus on any one particular methodology. In some, patrons will find social and political commentary. A considerable number of periodicals in this part of the collection are affiliated or associated with a geographic area or an institution. All the sites provide tables of contents for current and some back issues, article abstracts or full text, so that patrons may glean bibliographic information, determine the way a topic has been treated or read an article in a journal which might not otherwise be available locally.
Although this review is not specific to Fidelio, it is general review of magazines in the list. Lakinekaki 21:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That isn't a review, that's merely a neutral description of the links, as is appropriate for a library catalog. I fail to see how this establishes notability of the magazine. Lakinekaki clearly wants Fidelio to be notable, but I'm just not seeing anything. No reviews, no circulation data that indicates it's widely read. It's a minor publication. If notability cannot be established, the logical course is to put it to a vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Such a vote is likely to result in a consensus to merge anyway, which is why I skipped that step and proposed a merge. -Amatulic 21:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Well then, go ahead and merge to this article. But be consistent then, and go thru the all magazines as about third of articles there are shorter than Fidelio article, and also show no reference to 3rd party sources. There, you can take them one at a time, and improve the quality of Wikipedia by deleting non-notable ones. Lakinekaki 21:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I generally don't go around hunting for such things; I just address problems as I come across them. I happened to come across this one, proposed a merge, and moved on, not expecting a long debate to ensue. In the coming weeks I'll have a look at the American magazines category though (and you can help too). Also, I will hold off merging for now, to give more than just us three editors a chance to comment or improve the article first. -Amatulic 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Lakinekaki 21:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A week has passed and no improvements have been made to Fidelio Magazine. I propse that the merger be completed. We can add material and then split it out again when the time comes. -Will Beback · † · 10:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, give folks some time to get back from their holidays! I for one started Wiki-editing again only yesterday, after taking a week off. Let's give it another week, there's no hurry. -Amatulic 18:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I was just following up the previous discussion. There's no rush. -Will Beback · † · 18:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I added 3rd party source. Lakinekaki 03:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge. I would hope that the function of Wikipedia is first and foremost to be helpful to the reader. If someone looks up Fidelio Magazine and gets shunted off to Schiller Institute, it is likely to be confusing and will tend to frustrate that person's quest for info. Same goes for EIR. Considering the fact that Wikipedia has a zillion articles about Pokemon characters and their powers, it's no skin off our nose to provide a handy reference on a relatively obscure magazine (or in the case of EIR, not so obscure.) --MaplePorter 15:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect links are standard practice for subjects that don't warrant their own article. As explained above, the alternative to merging is to propose it for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. It would likely get deleted on grounds of non-notability (see Wikipedia:Notability guideline, and the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Wouldn't merging be preferable? -Amatulic 18:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge is now complete. I removed a section recently added about the content of a current issue, leaving in the text and references about the magazine itself. -Amatulic 01:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goethe-Institut

Schiller-Institute should not be confused withe renowned institute with a similar name.--Tresckow 04:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It will not be confused. The renowned Schiller Institute is active in many fields that the Goethe Insitute is not, and also Schiller & Goethe are not easily confused as words.--82.34.85.78 23:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This article has been transformed by SlimVirgin into an attack article. To regain some semblance of neutrality, the criticism should be consolidated into a section called "criticism," rather than being spread throughout, and should be reduced in size to a degree appropriate to its notability. A link to the Jeremiah Duggan article might be appropriate if a cite can be found alleging that the Institute was in some way responsible for his death, but reproducing substantial chunks of that article in this one is inappropriate. --Tsunami Butler 15:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I created a criticism section without reducing the amount of criticism. This should be discussed further, as the criticism is mainly chunks of the Jeremiah Duggan article imported into this one. How much is appropriate? --Don't lose that number 14:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please explain your opposition to having a Criticism section. This is standar format for Wikipedia articles. --NathanDW 15:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't standard format, Nathan. A separate criticism section should be avoided if possible. Jimbo has written: " ... it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." It's also in the guidelines somewhere, though I have no idea where. Also, the lead must include mention of that criticism. WP:LEAD says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any" (emphasis added). We should perhaps mention Jeremiah Duggan in the lead too, as this is currently the Schiller Institute's most notable controversy. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not that notable. Also, I looked at some examples of articles that you have edited from a "friendly" standpoint, such as Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates, and what do I find but a criticism section. I think you should apply the same methods to articles on people you oppose, as to people you like. That's NPOV. --Don't lose that number 14:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The answer is to remove the criticism section from there, not add one here. As for the lead, what are the Schiller Institute's most notable controversies, so we can add them? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It also appears to me that the Jeremiah Duggan story is promoted heavily in this article, way out of proportion to its notability. As has been said elsewhere, there is no reliable source that specifically alleges that the Schiller Institute caused Duggan's death, so the references to this story should be scaled back to maybe a couple of sentences and a link to the article. --Don't lose that number 07:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Every single reliable source that has written about this has stated or implied that there may be a link of some kind between the Schiller Institute's conference, the LaRouche cadre school, and his death. It was in this context that the London Metropolitan Police called the Schiller Institute a "cult with sinister and dangerous connections". The coroner at Duggan's inquest issued a so-called "narrative verdict," which is very unusual, rejecting a suicide verdict, and saying that Duggan died in a state of terror. The coroner asked: "What was he scared of, indeed terrified of? Was he scared of what might happen to him?" Various governmental and quasi-governmental groups, and MPs, have asked the German government to reopen the investigation and to interview members of the Schiller Institute.
Regarding the lead, can those who seem to be knowledgeable about the Schiller Institute say what it's most notable controversies are, so we can add them to the lead, per WP:LEAD? Duggan is clearly one. Are there others? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
"...stated or implied that there may be a link of some kind?" That is not what I would consider a solid case for notability. It looks more like the kind of "dancing around libel" that Wikipedia ought to avoid. --Don't lose that number 06:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you read the sources then you can see for yourself? All we do is repeat what they say. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
We can also not repeat what they say, when it is inappropriate gossip or innuendo. A direct accusation would be notable; a whispering campaign is not. --Don't lose that number 14:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood the content policies on sourcing, which you can read at WP:V and WP:NOR (there's a summary of them at WP:ATT). We report what reliable sources say, and that's all we do. If they're reporting what you regard as whispering campaigns, then you'll feel the same way about our articles, because all we do is republish their material. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason they call us "editors" is that we also make mature, responsible judgments about what is notable and what is not. If we don't, we should. This is the reason, as I understand it, for the policy called WP:NOT --Don't lose that number 01:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Experiments on humans with computers"

I'm looking at this edit and I'm wondering whether it has anything at all to do with the Schiller Institute. --Marvin Diode 02:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be appropriate for the "Jeremiah Duggan" article, but I see no relevance for this one. --NathanDW 17:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing it as non-notable for this article. Also, some of the Duggan stuff is sourced to "Justice to Jeremiah," which probably should go as it is a self-published site. --MaplePorter 06:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin put this comment in her edit summary as she reverted: "the conference was organized by the Schiller Institute; it was the Schiller Institute that police called a sinister cult; it is the Schiller Institute that the Germans are being lobbied to investigate."

I could see having a quote from the police calling the Schiller Institute a sinister cult, but I don't see the relevance of the quote from Duggan's sister. Her quote just makes Duggan sound like a disturbed individual. Do you have it from a verifiable source that the Schiller Institute made him disturbed? --Marvin Diode 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the source? The point is that the business with Duggan is being compared to other ex-members who say bizarre techniques are used. Please read something about this issue (something other than LaRouche publications) before commenting or editing. It's all quite clearly laid out by the sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The source that you cite is a video on YouTube. If someone is making that comparison, that source should be named and cited, in the Wikipedia article. Such an accusation should not be made by implication, which is what we presently have with the edit as you have done it. --NathanDW 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I use a dial-up connection, and cannot view the YouTube video. If there is a transcript available online, it would make a far better source. But judging from the quote that SlimVirgin has inserted -- and I'm not questioning the quote -- there is no mention of the Schiller Institute, just a girl talking about her boyfriend who is in a weird state. I think that, without a verifiable quote linking this to the SI, including this is Original Research. From Wikipedia:No original research: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
I'm wondering why you can't watch a video on a dial-up connection. Anyway, it's a BBC documentary about Duggan's death and it includes coverage of the cult/psycho session allegations against the Schiller Institute. The material you want to remove is mentioned in that context, so it's not OR. Please don't keep removing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
My computer will play 2 seconds of the video at a time, with 5-10 second gaps for loading. It's too cumbersome. I thought that Wikipedia discouraged the use of YouTube as a source. --MaplePorter 21:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
YouTube isn't the source. The BBC is. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please provide the context? As it stands, it looks like OR. --NathanDW 18:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I said above what the context is. BBC documentary about Duggan's death; former Schiller Institute member is interviewed; she talks about "psycho sessions" during which people started acting funny; she talks about how her family hardly recognized her personality or something like that; then Duggan's girlfriend account of his phone calls is discussed. Why don't you watch it? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I would like SlimVirgin to please respond on the talk page rather than in edit summaries. Is the "Justice for Jeremiah" site an acceptable source for Wikipedia, being self-published? --MaplePorter 14:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you say what it's used for? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It is being used as a source for purported quotes from the British inquest. Surely the inquest was covered by Reliable Sources? --MaplePorter 13:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article not neutral

Looking at this article, it seems like an attack article. There are many editing tricks that cause me to reach this conclusion. One example is that quotes which are accusations against the Institute are placed in boxes to highlight them, whereas quotes from the Institute are not. The ratio of accusations to non-controversial information is low. --Terrawatt 07:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless I hear an objection, I am going to attempt a re-write of this article. --Terrawatt 07:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is the result of lengthy discussions among many editors. You've only identified one formatting problem. It'd be better if you can identify what needs fixing and fix that rather than re-writing the whole article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. There not accusations against the Institute, just various attempts to figure out what they really are. Unless you find other neutral descriptions I like to keep them highlighted. Carewolf 08:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Because of the Institute's connection to LaRouche, I suspect that neutral descriptions are few and far between. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Kenneth Kronberg Section

I think that the materials about Kronberg's suicide that you keep removing (the PRA interview and the WM article) relate directly to the Schiller Institute and should be included in the article. If you think what is included is poorly written or too long, let's fix that, but I definetely think it should stay.

But, User:Marvin_Diode, before we get into this, I would appreciate it if you apologize for calling me a "sock puppet". [4] A checkuser was done and showed that I am not a sockpuppet. [5] Please remember to Assume Good Faith. --Hardindr (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for calling you a "sock puppet." I am aware now that a checkuser was done. However, I disagree that the very long section that you added belongs in the article. Two reasons: first, because there is already an article devoted to Kronberg, and the proper procedure is to link to that article, as has been done. Secondly, because although Kronberg did edit the magazine of the Schiller Institute, to have so much of the article on SI devoted to his story is a violation of WP:UNDUE. The SI article needs more information about the activities and ideas of the SI itself. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Including more information on the SI is definetely a good idea, but I think the Molly Kronberg information should be in there. Kronberg was an important member of the LaRouche organization, and his suicide is a major development in the history of the SI. I can understand if you think it is too long or badly written, but can we work together to make it shorter and more concise?
While I accept your apology for calling me a sock puppet, I do not appreciate you calling me a SPA [6]. Can you Assume Good Faith, please? --Hardindr (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The appropriate way to handle the Kronberg material is summarize his position in the SI, say he committed suicide, and provide the "main article" link, all of which are covered by the present version. I did not call you an SPA. I said, on another talk page, that I had noticed that there were new SPAs editing with the King/Berlet/Beback POV (other editors had complained that there were new SPAs editing with a pro-LaRouche POV.) I didn't mention any names. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] undue weight

Someone asked me to look at how to NPOV this article. It is ok at the beginning, but as people seem to have said above, gives undue weight to the young man's death considering no-one was ever convicted of any crime, and that there is a whole article about it. This death and the questions around it should be mentioned, and a link to the main article, but that should be all here as they've not been found fully liable for it. Merkinsmum 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an unwritten policy that every article related to LaRouche has to have an obligatory litany of charges from King and Berlet etc. As Merkinsmum points out, the Jeremiah Duggan case is just barely relevant to the Schiller Institute. He attended a conference that they sponsored. He wasn't a member of the institute or in any other way substantially involved. So I do think there is an undue weight issue here. The article is being used as a vehicle for the King/Berlet stuff. Maybe, if this stuff must be featured so at Wikipedia, there should be a special article devoted to it, rather than having it dominate every one of the articles where LaRouche is mentioned. --Terrawatt (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And I think that most of the LaRouche-related articles on Wikipedia should be deleted because they are mostly full of fringe theories and testiments of followers paying homage to a convicted felon and crackpot. I am serious about this. In a real encyclopedia, LaRouche might get a paragraph, half of which would be criticism.--Cberlet (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I am going to reduce the Duggan material as suggested by Merkinsmum, leaving the main article link. --Polly Hedra (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Polly. Merkinsmum 13:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Reduce the text does not mean it is OK to sanitize content to mask the actual details involving the Schiller Institute. The deletions were POV and made it appear that Duggan was just strolling by a meeting. I have cut the text down using NPOV as a guide. There seems to be an unwritten policy that every article related to LaRouche has to be crammed with dubious self-serving puffery and have serious critical content deleted. Why is that?--Cberlet (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)