Preamble

When can we get this started? I don't think Marek is going to sign on. Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

location

Will this take place on this talk page or the main page?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Bodacious, Serialjoepsycho, Waalkes, Binksternet, and Volunteer Marek: My apologies for the delay. It has taken awhile to line up a mediator. I believe that we've got one and I've sent him an email to see if he can begin. The mediation will take place on this page. Thank you for your patience. Sunray (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator notes

I'm making the following notes below to help me keep track of my research on the content issue described above, and also to provide a set of handy links to other similar article content and discussions. Please do feel free to add anything that's missing to the lists below — in fact, I'd positively encourage it. --Tristessa (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your outline covers most of the article complaints.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for including COATRACK -- that one hadn't occurred to me, but it's appropriate. Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated by: --Tristessa (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skeleton outline of dispute

Schiller Institute — main article for this RfM and principal current locus of dispute re. anti-semitism allegations

Things to look into: WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPGROUP, WP:COATRACK, Wikipedia:PROFRINGE

Related articles with similar issues (WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V)

LaRouche movement
Lyndon LaRouche
Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement - some duplication of content with the above, similar loci of dispute

Related mediation cases

Last structured mediation was by the Mediation Cabal in 2006: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-26 LaRouche_intro
Discussion re Mediation Cabal case here: Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/medcab06-07
We've never seen this dispute yet at the Mediation Committee so far.

Comment: I wonder why. It looks as though MedCab should probably have sent it here at the time. (Correction, the mediator, Ideogram (talk · contribs), actually did suggest it be sent here.) --Tristessa (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related arbitration cases

At least 14 (!) ArbCom requests including enforcement, clarifications and RfArbs
Cases

Less contentious isses

I do wonder there are less contentious issues that we could settle or politely discuss while waiting for the mediator?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not optimistic about it, without outside input. We could take it to the BLP, NPOB or Fringe Theories noticeboard. However, I just checked Tristessa's contribution history, and after two weeks of inactivity, there is a new edit for today, so maybe this mediation will now begin to move. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry for the delay; please see below to get things underway. --Tristessa (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Initial discussion

Well, hello there, all of you! I am so sorry that it has taken me so long to help you with the dispute that you've been experiencing. This is for a number of reasons, not least that there was considerable research to be done in this case, and that I have also had off-Wikipedia commitments that have limited my availability. I am so sorry about the delay, but I do believe that I can help.

Introduction

I need not remind the participants here that the LaRouche-related articles have been a minefield of editing issues, marred by disputes relating to source reliability and point of view. In this regard, the article series mirrors many of the usual patterns encountered when writing about movements (of various shapes and sizes) that have ideological contention in their basis, whether rightly or wrongly (which is, I'd like to point out, both in the eye of the beholder and immaterial as far as writing an encyclopaedia article is concerned). I'd like you all to know that what you've experienced is by no means unusual — and it's OK to ask for help on such an article dispute as this, because that's what we're here for at the Mediation Committee. Nobody is wrong, or bad, for having a dispute on what should be included; it's just a problem that we have to, and will, solve.

Therefore, if everyone could be so kind as to take a position of intellectual detachment from the issues at question and look only at what needs to be done to produce an article suitable for encyclopaedic presentation of the facts, we will be well on our way to producing article content acceptable to all parties.

Further to my research on this case, I have made the decision that it was fruitless to consider merely the present dispute at hand as though it were in a vacuum. I felt that, having read through the discussions and issues that editors have raised with each other regarding the LaRouche topics, the issues experienced are highly interdependent between separate articles. This is complicated by the fact that the text across the LaRouche articles is also, in and of itself, interdependent. Shall we, then, start this mediation with the perspective that we can all understand that each editor may have a separate point of view on how Lyndon LaRouche's life, work, supporters and detractors are to be viewed in the public sphere, that is neither "right" or "wrong" but merely different from their view of the subject? May I invite you all to reflect upon the fact that our primary and overarching duty is towards producing a well-researched, high-quality series of articles on Wikipedia that present the most accurate WP:NPOV perspective to the external observer? In other words, can we agree that on Wikipedia — separately and independently of our lives and opinions — that we aim to be read, rather than to write?

With that in mind, let us proceed to the issues at hand.

Antisemitism: to be or not to be?

The core of the present dispute regarding Schiller Institute relates to the claim regarding antisemitic tendencies, that may or may not exist, in Lyndon LaRouche's public statements and political perspective; and, more specifically, whether the Institute has engaged in behaviours further to such a perspective. The trouble that we have with this claim is that it is virtually impossible to determine this factually in either direction. There have been certain sources in the articles, referenced inline with article content, that have claimed that Lyndon LaRouche has engaged in "coded antisemitism" (with various wording). This sort of thing always poses an interesting problem on Wikipedia, because a judgement has to be made as to whether there is sufficient weight in the source for such an opinion to be stated as a referenced fact (e.g. in "Wikipedia's voice" with the reference) versus the fact being stated that there is an opinion regarding the perspective. But, in the case of the LaRouche articles, determining that no antisemitism exists would essentially require proving a negative through a reliable source, or else having a reliable source that stated that such encoded antisemitism did not exist (which logically is impossible). Equally, presenting a case that antisemitism does exist would somehow require finding a reliable source that categorically identified some of LaRouche's opinions as being unequivocally antisemitic, an equally unlikely and impossible state of affairs. Trying to extrapolate this to the Schiller Institute makes it even more impossible to ascribe such tendencies without definitive statements.

This is the general pattern that has pervaded across disputed claims on this article's topic. So, is there academic consensus for a standpoint of describing Lyndon LaRouche as having made antisemitic statements? And, if so, are there sources to support the Schiller Institute also engaging in such a perspective?

Please read this extract from Wikipedia's reliable source policy, WP:RS#Uses_by_other_sources, and consider its impact:

How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.

What appears to be the issue in the LaRouche articles is that this claim (amongst many others) falls into the same trap in supporting and opposing sources of being essentially opinions on his statements that are unreferenced in themselves towards concrete academic research. Therefore, we may well — if deemed to be notable for inclusion — state that a prominent person has stated an opinion in a certain direction, but we certainly cannot use such sources to conclude any outcome on a factual basis.

Undue weight?

This, then, brings us neatly to the question of what precisely is meant by "undue weight" on Wikipedia, as defined in WP:UNDUE. The section is as follows, in Wikipedia:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight, as referenced by the shortcut:

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well. [..] Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Perhaps on this basis, we can get to the substance of the issue, which is:

Q1: Is the perspective under dispute, that particular statements by Lyndon LaRouche are antisemitic, prevalent in reliable sources?

Q2: Can we say that any of the circumstances surrounding the Schiller Institute provide reliable sources regarding the Institute's alleged antisemitism, as far as Wikipedia's content standards are concerned?

From a perspective of solving this dispute, the latter is much more important.

Narrowing the dispute

I would like to draw the attention of the mediation parties to the fact that there seems to be a conflation between LaRouche's personal statements and opinions and the Schiller Institute itself. Though the Institute may well be affiliated to other organisations, and be dedicated towards the LaRouche movement, the allegations of antisemitism must be germane to the specific subject under consideration. In the case of this editorial dispute, that subject is the Schiller Institute, not the general issues over LaRouchian ideology. There does seem to be a certain issue in this area, as described by the essay WP:COATRACK, which I would advise all participants to read.

Moving forward

Further to the above, I have a simple — and (hopefully) non-controversial — question to ask all parties to this mediation, which I hope will go some way to finding out what we need to do about this dispute. The question is as follows:

From your perspective, and bearing in mind the policies mentioned above, what about the current Schiller Institute article does not align with Wikipedia policy on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view?

The next step

I look forward to hearing from you, and please do not hesitate to ask any questions (or make any comments) that you have further to the above. --Tristessa (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Response by Serialjoepsycho

Honestly I don't have a position on Schiller Institute or LaRouche. Before the RFC was posted on my talk page I had heard of neither. Trying remove the source on the basis that a youtube video was also linked made me suspicious. Two issues lumped together that I feel are separate. Upon review it came to mind that this article was a political minefield. I felt the two Pro-LaRouche editors did not give a clear and valid reason for removal of content as I looked further. That is very important here I feel for both sides. If there is any contention to any content pro-removal or pro-addition that it be clear direct and policy based.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Serialjoepsycho. May I summarise your perspective in stating that it was merely that you felt the YouTube source referenced did not conform to WP:RS for the claims made? If so, can I ask you specifically which claims were attributed to the YouTube video? --Tristessa (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The actual source didn't pose an issue. Linking the youtube video presented a copyvio issue which has been taken care of.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the users here are the only ones involved in the dispute Joe mentions below I have to insist they remain separate.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My position simple: I don't actually have one. I don't think Joe offered a strong enough position for removal. I felt the article was spiraling forward into chaos and the best option would be to seek dispute resolution. The RFC over all felt fruitless. Better to come here than have some good faith editors banned.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind, Tristessa, could you explain what it is you do here? I question if some editors here feel as if you are a judge here. I don't see being at all productive if anyone is under the mistaken presumption that you are anyone other than a neutral editor reaching across the aisles to help find a compromise between the editors involved here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am User:Tristessa de St Ange, a member of the Wikipedia Mediation Committee and the mediator assigned to you for this mediation case. I have nearly ten years' experience in Wikipedia mediation, and have never edited the LaRouche articles nor have any position whatsoever on the LaRouche debate. My role is to assist all of you, in a neutral and unbiased manner, to be able to collaborate productively on producing a high-quality article. I am most assuredly not here to judge anyone, or anyone's point of view. I trust this clarifies the matter. --Tristessa (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Bodacious: With all due respect The Forsov situation is a separate situation. It involves some editors not involved here. I don't honestly think it's a good idea to drag them into this dispute.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tristessa, thank you for your time. I had a couple of other issues I was going to mention but honestly I don't really have high hopes here of this working. So I'm going to bow out. Y'all can continue without me.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Joe Bodacious

I'm not sure what sort of formatting you prefer. I'm answering here, but if you wish to move my comments to another section, that's fine. There is a section now at Talk:Schiller Institute#Newsnight where an uninvolved editor expresses his view that the material sourced to the Chip Berlet interview on BBC fails WP:V. I agree, but there is a bigger issue to discuss here. Chip Berlet's theories of "coded" antisemitism and "echoes" of antisemitism (which boils down to his Guilt by association technique, which has been criticized in reliable sources) are, to my mind, examples of fringe theories, and should be given minimal weight for that reason. One seemingly intractable issue between myself and Binksternet is that Binksternet insists that Berlet and some of his co-thinkers should be regarded as the definitive experts on LaRouche. My view is that Berlet, who is a college drop-out, has no scientific credentials of the sort that Wikipedia looks for in an expert source, and has simply been promoted by LaRouche's political opponents for the purposes of containing LaRouche's political influence. As Alexander Cockburn put it, Berlet has "made a career out of anathematizing LaRouche."[1] I think that Wikipedia would want to avoid providing a platform for warring political factions to snipe at one another (WP:SOAP.)

I as well have gone back and looked at some of the old LaRouche-article disputes. Both Berlet and Dennis King had Wikipedia user accounts, and were constantly involved in content disputes where they were citing themselves. I think someone must have discouraged them from doing this, somewhere along the line. They both rely on arguments which could reasonably be described as conspiracy theorizing (example: Dennis King claims that certain photos of barred spiral galaxies and of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory plasmoid experiments which appeared in LaRouche's New Solidarity newspaper and Fusion magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika" and of the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest." This is something I found in an old version of Lyndon LaRouche.) In addition to the question of WP:WEIGHT for theories which, as the moderator points out, can neither be proven nor disproven, I think that the BLP aspect cannot be overlooked. When there is an element of doubt about whether something belongs in Wikipedia, and it is also damaging to living persons, then under BLP we err on the side of caution.

One additional issue I would like to raise: since the moderator as observed that all these LaRouche-related disputes are interrelated, I would like to propose that the issue being discussed at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Andrei_Fursov_quote_at_Lyndon_LaRouche be incorporated into this mediation. Thanks. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: Fine, we needn't worry about Fursov here. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Waalkes

The criticism section is dominated by the claim that LaRouche used mind control to cause two different people to commit suicide for no particular reason, a fringe theory that is right up there with the UFOs and lizard people. The anti-LaRouche editors claim that they have a right to do this sort of thing at Schiller Institute because it is technically not a BLP -- I'm not buying it. Also, there is something I would like to add to the mediator's summary of the dispute, which is that anti-LaRouche editors have removed sourced material from the article about the Schiller Institute's cultural activities, classical music concerts, etc, apparently because they feel it is a distraction from the POV slant that they want. This needs to be discussed here. Waalkes (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet:: thanks for introducing me to the Wikipediocracy web site. It was very helpful for me to learn about WP:9STEPS, which seems to be the name of the game here. Waalkes (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. Binksternet's participation has been bad faith from the beginning. Waalkes (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Binksternet

Tristessa, thank you for researching the matter, and especially for your penetrating analysis. I did not know you before this mediation; I have gained respect for you upon reading your carefully methodical statement about the problems and a way to find solutions.

Your first question is "what needs to be done to produce an article suitable for encyclopaedic presentation of the facts", and my answer is that the battlefield conditions in the topic area must be stopped, decisively. For a decade now, pro-LaRouche and anti-LaRouche editors have turned to various LaRouche topics to try and slant the presentation their way. Today, the fallout from that is that the anti-LaRouche editors such as Dennis King and Chip Berlet have stepped away, but the pro-LaRouche editors remain at battle stations, and anybody completely neutral like you or me who comes along by chance is fiercely grilled and prevented from making positive changes. "What needs to be done" is to remove pro-LaRouche editors from the topic so that some neutral people can study the published materials and summarize the issues. This will never happen with the pro-LaRouche editors at their stations, because a truly neutral process will inevitably show LaRouche in a bad light. The man himself acknowledges that he is controversial, but his defenders on Wikipedia will not yield any point without a big fight.

Our friend Waalkes brings his battleground attitude to this ideally conflict-free mediation discussion, painting neutral editors such as me and Serialjoepsycho as "anti-LaRouche", and saying that we are insisting that the old man used mind control to force young Duggan to his death. Such hyperbole! The comment shows Waalkes unready to yield an inch, as he draws the hypothetical line-in-the-sand much farther forward than it ever was previously, such that if he has to give ground he will not lose his original place.

Our friend Joe Bodacious reaches all the way back to swastikas in December 2006 to fuel his argument here, even though nothing about the current dispute touches upon the connection Dennis King drew between the Nazi swastika and LaRouche's photo of spiral galaxies. King wrote that bit in his 1989 book Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, Chapter 10, which is cited a lot in the media, in books, and in scholarly works. Funny though, the bit about swastikas was added to the LaRouche biography back in December 2006 by pro-LaRouche sockpuppet MaplePorter, a sock of an intolerable disruptor, the banned editor Herschelkrustofsky. I think Herschelkrustofsky brought that bit into the article as a judo tactic, reversing the attack on LaRouche by showing King to have a silly thesis. It was first mentioned on the talk page by another Herschelkrustofsky sock: ManEatingDonut. A glimpse of the strategy set in motion by Herschelkrustofsky was shown in December 2006 when the Herschelkrustofsky sock Tsunami Butler complained at BLPN that Tim Wohlforth, Dennis King and Chip Berlet are "minor critics... [who] "make insinuations" including that LaRouche's image of a spiral galaxy was really a swastika. In January 2007, this same sock said that too many links in the article were cited to Dennis King, and "provide[d] a soapbox for some of King's more exotic notions"[2]—though another of his socks had placed at least one of those notions. In early 2007, the swastika bit was repeatedly removed and argued against by Dennis King who thought the way it was presented made a mockery of the connection he had mentioned in his book. He was, however, unsuccessful. Herschelkrustofsky's addition about the swastika stayed in the article for years. In August 2007, another sock of Herschelkrustofsky—Marvin Diode—defended having the swastika bit in the article,[3] and he defended it again in November 2007.[4] This same sockpuppet brought Chip Berlet to the edit warring noticeboard in November 2007, with the swastika as the reverted text. Yet another Herschelkrustofsky sock—Niels Gade—proposed new text for the article, supposedly a compromise to solve an ongoing dispute, and his draft text includes the swastika thing. In August 2011 at Wikipedia Review, Herschelkrustofsky highlighted the swastika bit as an example showing King to be a poor source. So it's no wonder that my initial reaction to the comment by Joe Bodacious, bringing up this completely irrelevant issue from years ago, is to suspect that Joe Bodacious is a sleeper sock of Herschelkrustofsky, an avowed pro-LaRouche disruptor who is in any case keeping close tabs on this issue even today. Search Wikipedia for yourself; just about nobody else ever wanted the swastika bit in the article, only Herschelkrustofsky's socks, so he could diminish King with it.

Joe Bodacious is correct that the issue of Berlet and King is an "intractable" one. Joe Bodacious takes the position of earlier pro-LaRouche editors in trying to tar Berlet and King, despite their writing being cited many times without comment, a point you reminded us about with regard to RS. As well, the Weisenthal Center considers Berlet and King two of the top three experts on LaRouche.[5] And Berlet's writing about LaRouche, co-authored with Matthew N. Lyons, was approved by respected academics Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman in the scholarly book Fascism: Post-war fascisms. LaRouche and his supporters have written quite a lot about Berlet and King over the years in a continual attempt to impeach them as sources. Mainstream observers are far kinder, and most of them accept the analysis of King and Berlet as true on its face.

If I were to rewrite the topics about LaRouche and his various movements, including the Schiller Institute, I would rely mainly upon what I found in books published by respected imprints. I would write the bad and the good about LaRouche, respecting the balance I found in the sources. I would definitely use the Berlet/Lyons chapter, and I would use King for early analysis, pre-1990. As well, I would use the other scholars and respected authors who have written about LaRouche. I would also use the mainstream media wherever appropriate. I would attribute any published opinions per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This could only be accomplished if Joe Bodacious and Waalkes were removed from the topic. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update

After seeing Joe Bodacious pull out the bit about swastikas I realized that he was a sockpuppet of Herschelkrustofsky. I filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Herschelkrustofsky and Joe Bodacious was blocked as a sock on behavioral evidence. Without his disruption, I think the LaRouche topics can become less of a battleground, easier to establish consensus. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Waalkes: Here you assert that my participation in this mediation was "bad faith from the beginning." Actually, I participated here in good faith, starting with my agreement to abide by the mediation results. The moment that the Joe Bodacious sockpuppet of Herschelkrustofsky wrote about swastikas for the first time was the moment I became extremely suspicious, having seen nothing about swastikas in the past year's worth of arguments. The swastika bit made me think that Joe Bodacious was a sockpuppet of a long-term disruptor, bringing up an old argument, which turned out to be the case. The fact that I discovered a sockpuppet, and filed a case on him, does not make me a bad person. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chairperson's closing proposal

@Serialjoepsycho, Binksternet, Waalkes, and Volunteer Marek: Based on the length of time since the last edits here, it would appear that this mediation may be ready to be closed as either resolved or stale. I have unsuccessfully attempted to contact the mediator, Tristessa de St Ange, through MedCom channels and would therefore propose to close this unless there is an good reason to keep it open. Unless I obtain a consensus to keep this open, I am going to close it after 13:00 UTC on Friday, 10 October 2014. For the Mediation Committee. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (current Chairperson) (Joe Bodacious not pinged since indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet since July 23.)[reply]

This is over.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When one of the participants was blocked as a sockpuppet of a long-term disruptor this mediation was derailed. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take much to get one of your opponents blocked as a sockpuppet here at Wikipedia. That's one popular approach to dispute resolution. Waalkes (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as failed or moot. For the Mediation Committee. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]