Talk:Schiller Institute/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User:Herschelkrustofsky has added to the section on Jeremiah Duggan that Baroness Symons has "hired a pro bono lawyer" to help the Duggan family. How can the minister have hired a pro bono lawyer? A lawyer who works pro bono is one working for the public good and not charging anyone. So in what sense was he "hired" by the minster?

I'm curious to know why you worded it that way, because that is the exact phrase that was used by the Lyndon LaRouche Executive Intelligence Review. Quoting the EIR without saying it's coming from them may make the article less NPOV. user:SlimVirgin

Incidentally, it is generally best to cite all sources, on both sides of a controversy, in an article. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, my edit said "appointed a pro bono lawyer", which is not quite as incongruous as "hired," but I have changed it to "arranged for a pro bono lawyer." My information did come from EIR, just as your information came presumably from the Post and/or the Independent. I linked all three sources at the bottom of the article. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But how do you know that Baroness Symons appointed or arranged a lawyer for the family, and how do you know he is working pro bono? The LaRouche publication Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) does say this, but they don't quote anyone, and it's extremely unlikely that either the family or the lawyer would speak about their financial arrangements to EIR. So I feel we should get rid of pro bono, and the minister arranging it, unless we can refer to a source who is in a position to know. User:SlimVirgin 00:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have no problem with that, and I hope that you approve of my edit to change it. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
However, please note my proposal at Talk:Helga Zepp-LaRouche, that since you have written an entire article on the Duggan case, the material in the schiller Institute article should be merged with that article, keeping a brief reference in the Schiller Institute article with a link to the Duggan article. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for changing the pro bono part. I do agree with your edit.
My problem with the Schiller Institute article is that, if we remove most of the Duggan material, we are left with an article about an apparently innocent-sounding organization that loves music. Yet critics of the Schiller Institute, and there are many, see it as a fascist front organization for the LaRouche organization in Europe. Not to make prominent reference to these views is, in my view, dishonest. Therefore, I feel that a fairly lengthy section on the Duggan allegations in the Schiller article is justified. I agree that on the Zepp-LaRouche page there is probably no need for more than a few sentences on Duggan, but on the Schiller page, I would say it is currently their #1 political problem, and if it isn't, it ought to be. Perhaps we can reduce the Duggan section without emasculating it entirely? user:SlimVirgin 04:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The reason for the template box on each of the LaRouche-related articles is to indicate that the article that you are reading is, in effect, a sub-page of a really long article. I think it is appropriate to have a slightly redundant mention that the Insitute is connected to LaRouche who is controversial, has enemies, and is accused of everything under the sun, and a link to your Duggan article. --Herschelkrustofsky 16:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Herschel, could you explain why you don't want the Duggan material prominently on the Schiller Institute page? Imagine if your local supermarket were accused in a coroner's court of having poisoned a customer with its meat produce. The supermarket denies it, describing the allegation as "laughable.". Nonetheless, lawyers for the victim are trying to persuade police to investigate further, and the police have confirmed they are considering doing so. Along comes a journalist to write an article about the supermarket. He writes a long, glowing piece, mentioning the alleged death-by-poisoning of its customer and the possible police investigation only in passing. If you were to read this glowing piece, would you not wonder why the journalist tried to down-play the death? Would it not make you wonder about the journalist's objectivity?
I will reduce the Duggan material in the Schiller article as you requested as a compromise between us, but I will make it more than a passing reference. I hope this is an acceptable compromise for you. User:SlimVirgin 21:20, 15 Nov, 2004 (UTC)
The idea that the Schiller Institute is responsible for the death of Duggan is laughable. He was not an activist in the Institute, he just showed up at a conference. If he had been more involved, S.I. members might have recognized that he had a problem and told him to get help. You might as well blame the restaurant he had breakfast at. This is flimsiest pretext for an attack on LaRouche that I have yet seen. --C Colden 15:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
C Colden, I am reverting to the previous version as you have deleted information that is directly relevant to any discussion of the Schiller Institute and its membership. How do you know so much about Duggan that has not been published? Are you involved with the LaRouche organization? [user:SlimVirgin]] 18:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, SlimVirgin, the information that C Colden is citing is in the articles you cite. Duggan apparently attended the conference within a week of meeting a LYM organizer outside the Sorbonne. I don't see a big problem with her edit -- it mentions the Duggan case, which I think is sufficient, and I am merging whatever is presently in the Schiller Institute article, but not in the Duggan article, with the latter article. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Herschel, I believe you are wrong. The claims inserted by C Colden in this and the Jeremiah Duggan article were taken from Executive Intelligence Review, which is a LaRouche publication. user:SlimVirgin 21:27, 15 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

Herschel and C Colden, I have reduced the Jeremiah Duggan section from my original eight paragraphs to three paragraphs as a compromise. user:SlimVirgin 21:52, 15 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

It looks all right for now. We should continue to discuss and edit it, in hopes of reaching a point where we can remove the NPOV dispute tag. Believe me, it gave many people a sense of great accomplishment to remove all the NPOV dispute tags from the LaRouche articles one month ago. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, I believe that you inadvertantly deleted Colden's edit about the translations and so forth. I am restoring it. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, yes, that was inadvertent. Thank you for restoring it. user:SlimVirgin 22:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

neutrality tag

Is there any reason that the neutrality dispute tag should stay up? It looks like the editing disputes have been resolved. Weed Harper 21:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The editing disputes are resolved only in the sense that no one can be bothered to argue about it, I suspect. My own view is that it's bizarre that most of this article talks about the Institute's drama, poetry and music activities, when its main main (as I understand it) is to promote LaRouche's political views. Why would you prefer to remove the tag? Slim 22:18, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

You might want to take some time to familiarize yourself with the Institute by visiting its website. You have been editing this article with a particular agenda. Also, the neutrality tag indicates that something in the article is disputed. What in particular do you think is incorrect with respect to the article as it presently stands? --01:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven't been editing this article with an agenda, unless you call a desire that it be accurate and fair an agenda. This evening, I found on Usenet an example of a self-confessed LaRouche activist arguing with another poster over a LaRouche issue. The LaRouche activist then supplied a link to a Wikipedia LaRouche-related page as "evidence" that what he was arguing was correct. But the page he referred to had been edited by LaRouche activists/advocates. Finding this has strengthened my view that people connected to Lyndon LaRouche should not be editing articles that relate to him in any way. I feel there should be a NPOV dispute tag on all these articles, at the very least.
I have looked at the Institute's website. It looks to me like an organization set up to promote the views of Lyndon LaRouche, not a cultural organization. If you can refer me to material that would show me to be wrong, I'd appreciate it. I can't find any on their website.
Regarding what I dispute in the article, I dispute the entire tone of it, and the ordering of information, so that the Institute's main aims appear to be musical and cultural, a claim that you say is true, but have not backed up in any way.
Also, can you refer me to Wikipedia articles you have edited that have nothing to do with LaRouche, and into which you inserted material that had nothing to do with LaRouche? I've asked you this before but you must have missed the request. Slim 02:38, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
The Schiller Institute definately promotes LaRouche's views, but primarily his views on music and culture -- which is that music and culture are a moral force in society, and therefore political, which is also what Friedrich Schiller argued. You can easily look at my history of edits by going to my user page and clicking User Contributions. In the past week or so I have been preoccupied with the controversies on this page and your Duggan article, but you can look at the previous period by clicking here. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, Herschel, but I was hoping you'd tell me which articles you've edited that have nothing to do with LaRouche and into which you have not inserted any LaRouche-related material. I don't have time to go through the list myself. Slim 18:36, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

List Objections

Slim, please list your objections to the current version of this article, so we can edit it and return it to undisputed status. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


My objection is the entire tone of the article, which implies that the main aims of the Schiller Institute are cultural and artistic, whereas the main aim in my view is to promote the political views of Lyndon LaRouche. If you want to maintain that the Institute is largely a cultural or artistic body, please cite third-party references to back up that assertion. I feel that, in order to follow the Arbitration Committee's ruling, you should back up every assertion you make about LaRouche with third-party attribution (that means non-LaRouche and also not someone parroting a LaRouche view) -- unless it's a quote from LaRouche or EIR in an article where they're responding to an allegation, as in the Jeremiah Du:ggan article where, of course, it's appropriate that they be given a chance to defend themselves. If you can't find third-party attribution for the cultural/artistic tag, then I feel the article should be rewritten to reflect the extent to which some organizations believe the Schiller Institute represents what many see as a cult, with quotes from those organizations. It is a question of balance and NPOV. Slim 17:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

1. I think that the disputed label should remain in place as long as the Jeremiah Duggan material remains in the article. It is inappropriate, a scurrilous and propagandistic attack, and is only there because SlimVirgin is an anti-LaRouche activist who is looking for opportunities to insert anti-LaRouche propaganda into Wikipedia articles. He hints at his real motives sometimes on talk pages; apparently he believes that he is defending the British Royal Family against accusations of misconduct in the death of Princess Diana. These accusations have come from LaRouche, and other sources as well. He ought to be honest and put whatever arguments he may have in an article on Princess Diana. --Caroline 01:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche ("SlimVirgin's latest contribution"). --Herschelkrustofsky 12:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Frederick Wills: from Fred Bauer

Slim, please look closely at the decision, especially the part at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#Removal_of_original_work, which reads, "1) 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." This article is a closely related article. While there was a proposed remedy which read, "2) User Herschelkrustofsky is prohibited from editing the article Lyndon LaRouche and closely related articles as well as their talk pages," this remedy failed for lack of support. Read together as they relate to this article, material from LaRouche sites may be cited by LaRouche activists who may edit the article. Obviously the views of critics and nominally objective observers such as the Washington Post may also be included. Fred Bauder 12:49, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Reply to Fred

Fred, the three users were banned for inserting material into Frederick Wills, not Schiller Institute (This is the Schiller Institute Talk page :-) ) They claim that Frederick Wills is a "closely related" article and that therefore they should be allowed to insert LaRouche propaganda. But (1) They've produced no evidence that it's closely related, except for the LaRouche propaganda they've already inserted; that is, they've produced no independent evidence that shows Frederick Wills had a relationship with LaRouche that started before 1976, and that Wills took his ideas about debt reform from LaRouche, as they claim he did. Secondly (2), the Arb Committee did not rule that supporters of LaRouche were allowed to insert unverifiable material into LaRouche articles; only that they are allowed to edit them. They still have to be able to verify what they say.
The underlying principle at stake here is that LaRouche supporters should have to be able to attribute their claims to a reputable third-party source, like all other Wikipedia editors have to do when challenged. The person challenging the material should not have to show that it is wrong. My question to you and the Arb Comm is: where does the burden of proof lie when an editor challenges the veracity of an article?
Bear in mind that Frederick Wills is just one of a large number of articles these users are inserting LaRouche propaganda into. Slim 13:10, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Dubious sources

From Wikipedia: "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources.

"Sometimes a particular statement can only be verified at a place of dubious reliability, such as a weblog or a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, then just remove it - don't waste words on statements of limited interest and dubious truth. However, if you must keep it, then attribute it to the source in question. For example: According to the weblog Simply Relative , the average American has 3.8 cousins and 7.4 nephews and nieces.

"This is similar to how we try to achieve a neutral point of view."

Factual Accuracy Dispute Tag

Slim, you appear to have added a second dispute tag, the factual accuracy tag. When using this tag, it is de rigeur for you to specify which facts you are disputing. Please do so with alacrity, as much time has passed since you put up the first tag, and you have yet to make specific suggestions. --Herschelkrustofsky 16:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dispute the factual accuracy of the new "political activity" category you just created (couldn't leave the article alone, could you?) on two grounds: (1) You have supplied no references for your claims: please provide complete references for this new section and the other sections you created; and (2) I dispute that this is the entirety of the Institute's political activity i.e. I believe it paints a false picture. Regarding the neutrality tag, as I've said before, I dispute the entire tone and structure of the article. I see it as a promotion of the Institute, not as an encyclopedia entry. Finally, note, as I've also said before, I'm not going to get into another series of discussions with you about this or anything else. Slim

Slim, if you are unwilling to discuss your edits, don't edit. And certainly don't put on the dispute tag if you aren't willing to work toward consensus (I suppose that goes for Caroline Colden as well, who evidently wants to keep the neutrality dispute tag on.)

You are difficult to please, Slim. I thought that you had earlier objected to the article being weighted toward culture and not politics. The footnote I supplied to the S.I. conference archives is certainly adequate documentation for what has been discussed at the conferences. And I am going to take out some of your excessive footnotes on the death of Jeremiah Duggan, because they belong (and I should think this were obvious) on the article about Jeremiah Duggan. This is an article about the Schiller Institute. You seem to have a quarrel with the Schiller Institute, but you seem reluctant to spell out what it is. Remember that this is an encyclopedia article, and not a soapbox for the dissemination of propaganda. --Herschelkrustofsky 01:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you remove references, I will revert. These articles need MORE references, not fewer, as there are hardly any in there. I do think there should be more politics, but written from a NPOV. Slim 01:47, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I have reduced the amount of space devoted to Jeremiah Duggan in this article. There is, after all, an extensive article on Jeremiah Duggan. Frankly, to give people a balanced perspective on the Schiller Institute, there ought to be greater emphasis on Amelia Boynton Robinson, who is in my view the soul of the organization, but I'm going to leave it as it is for now. I doubt that either Slim or Caroline will be satisfied, but in my judgement, the article is now relatively balanced. -- 01:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

References

I have added a "References" section. Please add your references to this section, in the order they first appear in the article. If all claims are clearly referenced, there will be fewer disputes and it will be easier for the reader to follow and to judge the veracity of the claims. Any additional reading material that is not directly referenced in the text should be cited under "Other external links" if it's online, or "Other reading" if it isn't. Slim 00:48, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Page protection

Following a request by user:Herschelkrustofsky, this page is protected from further editing, with differences to be resolved on the Talk page. Herschel, I don't understand why you started editing this page again after the last dispute, as it had been stable since C Colden's edit on November 18. If you are determined to add a "political activity" category, it should be fully referenced; must be written from a NPOV; and must attempt to be more comprehensive. That is, it must say something about the political activity of the Institute from the point of view (a) of the Institute and (b) of its critics, both written from a NPOV, and with links to the references. Even from the Institute's own point of view (based on what I recall from their website), their political activity involves more than holding conferences.

The only section I wrote is the Jeremiah Duggan one and so I added references for that section only. Please don't reduce this section any further. It was longer than this previously; you wanted it much shorter, and it was reduced to its current length several weeks ago as a compromise. I haven't changed the content; only added links to references that I had no time to add earlier. You're welcome to do the same in the sections you've written; and I hope you do. Accurate references shouldn't be removed as they aid the reader. The more claims that are accurately referenced (so long as the reference is reputable, or is a primary source e.g. like the Schiller Institute website is a primary source regarding the titles of Schiller Institute conferences), then the more encyclopedic the article becomes.

Once the political activity section is more comprehensive and referenced, the factual accuracy tag can be removed so far as I'm concerned. Alternatively, if you don't want to make it more comprehensive, perhaps you could change the name from "political activity" to "conferences," which would make it factually accurate. Regarding the neutrality tag, C Colden and I agree, for different reasons, that it should stay.

Finally, I have no problem with you adding info on Amelia Boynton Robinson if she really was the soul of the organization, so long as everything you add is fully referenced. Also note: I have no quarrel whatsoever with the Schiller Institute. All I want is for the article to be encyclopedic, and not a propaganda piece in the Institute's favor written by its supporters. Slim 04:23, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Slim, a page is not "stable" so long as it bears the dispute tags. A dispute tag indicates unresolved problems with the article. Caroline made the only specific complaint, that she apparently thinks the Duggan business is a fraud and irrelevant to an understanding of the Schiller Institute. My sense of the matter is that, despite your protestations of innocence, you are looking for some way to make this article into a vehicle for your anti-LaRouche activism. The amount of space devoted to the Duggan affair -- particularly with the six(!) external links you have devoted to it -- has made this article into just a re-hash of your article on Duggan. It's like an encyclopedia article, ostensibly on Bill Clinton, where the bulk of the article is devoted to Paula Jones. As far as the political activity of the Schiller Institute is concerned, its political activity consists primarily of holding conferences, and running a website. If you found reference on the S.I. website to other forms of activity, add it. If you found some legitimate criticism of the Institute's political activity that you want to add to the article, add it. But I suspect that your agenda is better served by muddying the waters than by trying to present a real encyclopedia article. --05:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not entering another series of pointless discussions with you. Please assume good faith. You were the one who asked for page protection. In response to your request, I've laid out (above) my specific objections to the article in terms of its factual accuracy; and I've suggested specific ways those objections could be dealt with. It's up to you whether you want to say here how you intend to proceed. If you feel there's too large a percentage of space devoted to Duggan, then suggest how you will expand the political activity section to include more about the Institute's politics, observing NPOV. Adding, not deleting, is the best way to proceed (within limits, of course). Add more of your own references, then the Duggan references will not stand out. I have no agenda apart from wanting this to be factual, thorough and properly referenced. The page was stable before. We had agreed to disagree, and the neutrality tag was left up as a sign of that. You are the one who has re-opened the can of worms. You are the one with the (self-confessed) agenda. I have no interest in Lyndon LaRouche. You will notice that I haven't inserted Duggan material into the Lyndon LaRouche pages - but it does belong on the Schiller Institute page because that's the organization facing the allegations, which were made in a court of law, not in some scandal sheet. The bulk of the article is not about Duggan: don't exaggerate. Stop making personal attacks and insinuations and please stick to Wikpedia policy on NPOV, "assume good faith," "no personal attacks," and providing references for claims. Slim 05:45, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
When this page is unprotected, I will add documented material about the Schiller Institute, so that it looks like an article about the Schiller Institute and not "Jeremiah Duggan II." --Caroline 15:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was fowarded this link Wikipedia:Cite sources by an administrator who feels that the Schiller Institute article needs proper references. I hope you will follow it. Slim 07:27, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Comments on versions

Hi, just responding to the entry on RfC.

All of the information on Jeremiah Duggan needs to be kept inside its own article and linked out, IMO. It can be summarized, more or less, but anything verging on detail should be kept separate. Likewise, the references should probably be moved to the other article. "A spokesperson for the Lyndon LaRouche organization has strongly denied the Institute played a role in Duggan's death" should be kept only if a source can be found and cited. I like the section having more wikilinks as well, but the "state of terror" thing should be removed in favor of just keeping the cite.

Basically I think the best lies somewhere in between. Good luck on getting this resolved. Reene✎ 07:34, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Why? I disagree. The action is against the Schiller Institute, right? Then it should be retained in this article. I agree with the "A spokesperson for the Lyndon LaRouche organization has strongly denied the Institute played a role in Duggan's death" bit. Find a reference for this please people. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Reene and Ta bu Shi da yu, the reference is directly after the sentence, citation #8, an article from a LaRouche publication. I will quote the strong denial from that article to make it clearer. Slim 11:33, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

There is noting really major between the two versions, besides chunks of information added/removed and the date of the inquest on the death of Duggan ("November 6, 2003" in SlimVirgin's version, and "October 2004" in that of Herschelkrustofsky). For reference. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 01:25, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

Below are the principles and policies that all editors, including those editors who support Lyndon LaRouche, must adhere to, with no exceptions. No further discussion will be entered into about this by me, as enough has been said. Slim 23:57, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Copyrights (Images must be licensed directly from the copyright holder, who must waive the copyright so the image can be freely distributed by Wikipedia readers.)

Regarding novel narratives involving a new synthesis of information: "An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one," Jimbo Wales (WikiEN-l, Dec 6, 2004)

Regarding NPOV and factual accuracy dispute tags, these must be accompanied by specific objections that are fixable. Otherwise, it is a misuse of the tag.

Latest edit

Don't insert claims unless they are referenced to reputable publications. If it's a claim made by the Institute about itself, that can be used, but if it's a claim that is too self-serving, it should be followed by the view of others, also properly referenced. If you use a reference, include it in the References section. If you refer to a published book (by the Schiller Institute or anyone), give the title, and then the title, date of pub, publisher and ISBN number under References. If you can't find those, it means it wasn't published, in which case delete the reference. Let's do this properly: according to the rules of scholarship and Wikipedia policy. Slim 01:23, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

I wrote what I thought was a generous compromise article, after reading the Comments on Versions. SlimVirgin has responded with a new edit which I can only consider vandalism. He is attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for his anti-LaRouche campaign. By the way, the documentation on Marie-Madeleine Fourcade is found on the page I listed as source -- it is a photograph of her on the dais at the conference. --Caroline 14:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you can source that Wills and Fourcade were there, by all means put it in. All I ask is that material be properly sourced. You are insane if you call my edit vandalism, and I mean that very sincerely and in the literal sense. I added just one sentence in the intro: that its critics regard the Institute as a political cult. In fact, that is more than fair, because it is so regarded by most people, not just its critics. I also moved your "history" to the end and recalled it "conferences" because it wasn't the history of the Institute, or anywhere near it. Stop your propaganda efforts or I will go back to the ArbCom and will formally request that they kick you out of Wikipedia or ask you to stop editing LaRouche articles, which would amount to the same thing because that's all you ever do. You shouldn't have anything to do with Wikipedia. Have you noticed that ALL your edits cause trouble? You are a poisonous troll. Slim 19:29, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
When you post a personal attack like that, it pretty much destroys your claim to be a neutral editor on articles about the Schiller Institute. Also, the decision to include the Schiller Institute in the Wikipedia category of "cults" was not made by a third party "critic" -- it was made by you, SlimVirgin, and it reveals your true POV. --Caroline 17:14, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Below are the principles and policies that all editors — including those editors, like yourself, who support or work for Lyndon LaRouche — must adhere to, with no exceptions.

Regarding novel narratives involving a new synthesis of information: "An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one," Jimbo Wales (WikiEN-l, Dec 6, 2004)