Talk:Dennis King/Archive 1

Edit summary

In an edit summary, User:Herschelkrustofsky asked, "Does Berlet claim not to have written this with King?" The answer is "yes," as Berlet edited the article himself. BCorr|Брайен 18:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sources

I read this article for the first time today. Could the authors supply references for some of the claims? For example, is there a reference for the Caspar the ghostwriter claim?

Also, this paragraph: "Like his colleague Chip Berlet, King has a history of writing articles claiming Lyndon LaRouche has an hidden right-wing agenda that involves fascism and anti-Semitism. King and others have claimed that LaRouche uses an elaborate code in all his public utterances, and that LaRouche often means exactly the opposite of what he appears to be saying" seems very biased.

Are there references to back up the elaborate-code allegation? And the hidden-right-wing agenda claim? Without references, these claims should probably be removed or rewritten. Slim 01:15, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I removed some of the more contentious claims; dewifikied the book titles (not done); added that the Stern Fund was another contributer; and have created a References section. The version that was up and the previous version by the anonymous contributer were both heavily biased. Opponents and supporters of King should probably refrain from editing this article, and let it be edited by people who have no vested interest. Any additions made from now on must be properly referenced in the text, and the references must also be included in the References section. Use only reputable references, and bear in mind the Wikipedia rule that, the more contentious the claim, the more reputable the reference must be. See Wikipedia:Cite sources for guidelines. Slim 01:45, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

That category of editors "with no vested interest" would have to exclude you, Slim, as you are looking, as usual, for fora in which to conduct your anti-LaRouche activism. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, you CLAIM I have a vested interest because you disagree with me. I have no vested interest whatsoever. I have removed your "hidden code" claim because it is not properly referenced. You need a quote and, if possible, a page number. I believe I know what you're referring to (I vaguely recall a hidden-code claim) but it wasn't as you are writing it. Please try to be as accurate as possible, and fully reference ALL your claims from now on. If everyone sticks to the Wikipedia references rule, disputes will be drastically reduced. I feel you should stay away from this article, as you have elsewhere made your contempt for this person very obvious. As you said elsewhere, "facts are the order of the day," so please provide only properly referenced material from now on. Slim 02:36, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Have also removed the photograph from this site, as the ownership and permission are unclear. If any author wants to reinsert this, please post proof of ownership and permission here for other editors to verify, as I know there is a general concern in Wikipedia about copyright on photographs. Slim 05:00, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Finally, I have removed that he was a member of the progressive Labor Party for 10 years, beause I can't find it anywhere (apart from LaRouche) and the article didn't even say WHICH ten years. I'm not saying it's wrong; just that I can't find it. Come on folks: it's absurd to have such badly researched material in Wikipedia. References, please! Slim 07:10, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Research standards

Herschelkrustofsky, I am frankly sick and tired of your poor research standards and lack of scholarly approach. You toss in claims with no regard for veracity, references or good writing. When challenged, you resort to personal insults and wholescale reversions. From now on, you MUST provide reputable references for your claims, or I will delete them. As for that photograph, clicking on it only gives me information you have typed in. Please provide some evidence of who owns this photograph and that Wikipedia has that person's permission to use it; otherwise don't use it. Slim 08:22, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

The "hidden code" claim is a central thesis throughout King's book. If you want to become a proper Anti-LaRouche activist, that book is a must-read. Also note that Chip Berlet, in his edits of the article about himself, confirms that he also holds this view, that you must "decode" LaRouche. My personal opinion, since this is a talk page, is that these guys cannot find any real quotes to support their theories, and so they must postulate "hidden meanings."

There would be no article about King were it not for his role as a critic of LaRouche, and therefore this is an article where LaRouche is "highly relevant" as are the views of his organization respecting King. And last but not least, Slim, you can get the particulars on any Wikipedia photo by double-clicking on the photo itself. I personally obtained permission from the photographer to have this photo appear in Wikipedia. I suggest that you take a deep breath and slow down before editing further; your anti-LaRouche activism has overheated your judgement. --Herschelkrustofsky 08:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't patronize me, Krusty. I suggest that we concentrate on the article and that you concentrate on sharpening your research skills. There are 616 Google references to journalist Dennis King; 447 of them do not contain the word LaRouche, according to Google. Of the ones that do, many of them stem from LaRouche publications. Therefore, it is not true that his sole or main significance is LaRouche-related. How on earth do you know that there would be no article about King were it not for his role as a critic of LaRouche? Finally, DO NOT call me an anti-LaRouche activist one more time. You are being highly abusive, painting me with the same brush you apply to yourself. I am a pro-accuracy activist, an alien concept to you, I know. As for the photo, Wikipedia cannot use it without evidence that the owner has given permission. If you have that permission, please post it, together with the name of the copyright holder. Slim 08:36, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Slim, you can get the notice of permission, along with the name of copyright holder (EIRNS/Stuart K Lewis) by double-clicking on the photo itself. Forgive me for entertaining the thought that you might be an anti-LaRouche activist, although perhaps you might consider how your edit history could lead the casual observer to that misunderstanding. Has your quest for accuracy lead you to challenge the bona fides of photographs in any non-LaRouche-related articles?

BTW, how did you first become interested in Dennis King? I might make the suggestion that you provide a section for this article on those achievements that make him a noteworthy person, other than his anti-LaRouche activism. That would certainly put one controversy to rest. --Herschelkrustofsky 11:40, 7 Dec 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 00:01, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Verifiability

• Wikipedia:Cite sources

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

• Wikipedia:No original research

• 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.

---

Reputable publications

Krusty, I despair of your research methods. The IWP is regarded as a cult. I'm not going to argue with you about this. There's an anti-cult organization set up to help people leave the IWP. In addition, the National Alliance is a white supremacist organization. I hope that's not the same one that you quoted, but I got suspicious when I saw the phrase "the white left." I'm reverting. This is NOT what is meant by reputable publications. Please read carefully all the links I posted above regarding Wikipedia policy and stick to them. If you don't, I will revert your edits. Slim 23:23, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Slim, you're going to have to take this up with AndyL. He wrote about 20% of the Lyndon LaRouche article using www.ex-iwp.org as a source. I objected, for the same reasons you do, but the mediator, Snowspinner, backed Andy up. I am posting a note on Andy's talk page, indicating that you object to this source, and I suggest that the two of you work it out. --H.K. 16:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The IWP and its successors are sympathetic to Black nationalism and a large number of their leaders, such as Lenora Fulani, and members are African-American. The term "white left" is used by them as a disparaging term (in the same way that, say, Malcolm X and the Black Panthers referred to "white liberals"). In any case, I think both Herschel and Slim are forgetting that www.ex-iwp.org is a website of *Ex* IWP members and is highly critical of the organization. According to the main page on http://www.ex-iwp.org "Journalists and former members often describe Newman's tendency as a destructive political/therapy cult" so if Slim's concern is that the IWP is a cult he shouldn't have a problem with using ex-iwp.org as a source since the people operating that site are of the same opinion. See, for instance, this message from M. Oritz, the webmaster of ex-iwp.org:

I was a member of the International Workers Party cult from 1985 to 1990. During this time, my mental and physical health were damaged and my actions were systematically controlled and corrupted by Fred Newman (and his associates) through the use of Social Therapy -- a fraudulent, coercive and manipulative psychotherapeutic technique. Newman and his "therapist/activists " (cadre) also aided and abetted in my indoctrination into his underground "revolutionary" Marxist-Leninist organization (the International Workers Party). :In addition to the emotional (and political and professional) damage caused by Newman's reckless and dangerous therapeutic treatment, I also endured five years of unpaid, slave labor; was forced to make secret (and public) biweekly financial contributions; and was pressured to participate in secretive (and illegal) money-laundering schemes. Newman's associates (Dr. Lenora Fulani and others) have repeatedly publicly dismissed me as a "government agent," "political opportunist," and "sellout" and have continually spread malicious rumors in an effort to discredit me. By continuing to expose Fred Newman, I hope to encourage individuals or organizations formerly (or currently) involved with this totalitarian cult to reexamine their experience and to join me in speaking out.

AndyL 02:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Andy. The issue between myself and Herschelkrustofsky, C Colden and the other LaRouche editors is that they should provide reputable references for their claims, and that they shouldn't delete information inserted by others if it is referenced to a reputable publication. By "reputable", I mean mainstream, a properly edited newspaper, a responsible publication, a peer-reviewed journal. I know these are all subjective terms, but I still think we mostly know them when we see them. Regarding the article in question, although it was on the ex-IWP website, it doesn't seem to have their endorsement. It appears to come from a white supremacist magazine called the National Alliance. The article is here. Would you call this article a "reputable reference" or National Alliance a "reputable publication"? Slim 04:05, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, the source of the article is the National Alliance which is a white supremacist, neo-nazi group. No, I would not consider the National Alliance a reputable source.AndyL 08:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy, for the input. Slim 08:41, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind looking for other documentation on King's curriculum vitae, but I see no indication on the ex-iwp website that Dan Friedman is not a member in good standing, or that the organization does not endorse the content of his article that they have posted on their website. Again, I have no use for either the IWP or the National Alliance, but they may very well have their facts straight on Dennis King. The IWP in particular would likely know him. --H.K. 15:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you don't mind looking for other documentation, why didn't you do so when I first objected? That would have saved us both a lot of trouble. But you like trouble, don't you? Regardless of whether this article is endorsed by the ex-IWP (and it clearly isn't), if you think a white supremacist, neo-Nazi magazine article is a fit source for Wikipedia, then you have no business editing here.

but I see no indication on the ex-iwp website that Dan Friedman is not a member in good standing, or that the organization does not endorse the content of his article that they have posted on their website.

Ex-IWP posts a lot of material from the IWP but certainly doesn't endorse that material. In any case, regardless of what the ex-IWP site thinks of the article I think it's a stretch to call a publication by a fascist group reputable. Certainly, given the pains you've gone to to deny claims that LaRouche is a fascist I'm rather surprised that you'd now turn around and claim a fascist source as credible. AndyL 04:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quite simply, Herschel, you were incorrect when you wrote that the quotation was "According to Dan Friedman of the International Workers Party". In fact, Dan Friedman belongs to the white supremacist National Alliance as is easy enough to determine if you read the byline of the article. Secondly, unless the claims made by Friedman can be verified from another source we should not repeat them on wikipedia as they are possibly libelous and the National Alliance is not exactly the most accurate or credible source (for one thing they have a habit of accusing everyone under the sun who they don't like of being Jews or Communists). Honestly, Herschel, do *you* think that the National Alliance should be seen as a credible source? Perhaps you should check out their website before answering that question?AndyL 16:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not think they should be seen as a credible source. I have not claimed (as you allege above) that they should be seen as a credible source. As far as I knew, "National Alliance" was the not-very-revealing name of a publication that Dan Friedman writes for, and it appeared on a website that you vouch for. Dan Friedman is mentioned elsewhere on the ex-iwp site as being involved in the production of a play written by Fred Newman. Moreover, I don't for a moment believe that you need to ask me this question, except as a cheap debating tactic, and SlimVirgin's new campaign of posting notices around Wikipedia talk pages that HerschelKrustofsky relies on White Supremacist sources is deceptive and thoroughly despicable. --H.K. 21:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also Herschel, when you allege a double standard in relation to sources for the LaRouche article and sources for this article you are overlooking one key fact - the IWP belonged to the LaRouche movement in the early 1970s and Fred Newman and the others who have written things on LaRouche and the NCLC are doing so as a result of personal experience with him and his movement ie they are ex-LaRouche associates and ex-members of the LaRouche movement. Conversely, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that Dan Friedman or the National Alliance have any personal experience with Dennis King any more than they have any personal knowledge of the ADL.AndyL 17:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HK writes: "I do not think they should be seen as a credible source." Then you have no justification in using them as such in the article. AndyL 22:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Now that I know what the National Alliance is, I will find an alternate source for the material on King's activity in the PLP. --H.K. 23:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not "posting notices around Wikipedia talk pages that Herschelkrustofsky relies on white supremacist sources." I have posted a message to YOU on the Talk pages of the articles we are in disagreement over, and on your own Talk page, with the links to various Wikipedia policies on sources, original research and verification, saying your use of white supremacist literature shows you haven't learned policy. It is typical of you to distort what I've said. I suggest you read the policies, because if you were to stick to them, disputes would virtually disappear. I don't care if you post that, say, a Lyndon LaRouche presidency would be the best thing that could happen to America. I ask only that, if you do post this claim or any other, you supply a reputable reference. While there may sometimes be disagreement over what constitutes reputable, because there are many borderline examples, the National Alliance is not reputable by any standard. I don't believe you didn't know what it was. What you might want to reflect on is why you can never find ordinary sources for your various claims. In any event, as you twist everything I write, I am no longer going to discuss issues with you. I've done it for six weeks and it's gotten me nowhere. I am therefore going to delete any of your dubious claims that are not sourced to reputable publications. I will not revert on sight. I will not revert if you provide a good reference and if the claim is relevant (even arguably so) to the subject matter. No more discussion. Slim 22:29, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

"National Alliance"

I cited a page from an organization (www.ex-iwp.org) of former members of the International Workers Party. It turns out that one such former member, Dan Friedman, wrote an article, which appears on the ex-iwp website, that was published in a magazine called National Alliance[link removed from site banned by Wikipedia], which is completely unrelated to the White Supremacist group with the same name. It is published by the New Alliance Party of Lenora Fulani (who is African-American). The New Alliance Party appears to be an IWP front. --H.K. 13:35, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Poor choice by them of a magazine name. Nevertheless, the fact remains that while the IWP and its members have personal knowledge and experience of Lyndon LaRouche and his organization by virtue of having been members of the NCLC they have no such personal knowledge of Dennis King and are not, in and of themselves, a "credible" media source. Their allegations against King should not be used unless they can be verified elsewhere. AndyL 21:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The issue of the credibility, or lack thereof, of the IWP/ex-IWP does not hinge upon whether they knew King or LaRouche personally or not. It is a question of whether the organization(s) are known to be purveyors of falsehood and exaggeration, or whether they are a trusted source of credible information. If it is the former, it makes no difference whether any of them knew LaRouche personally or not (I note that on the ex-IWP website, the individual who is used as a source for the LaRouche article is described in NCLC memos as a "paranoid schizophrenic" and a "police agent.") If they are untrustworthy, their animus toward LaRouche as either disaffected supporters, or failed infiltrators, would likely aggravate their propensity for fibbing. On the other hand, if they are found to be a credible source, Dan Friedman may very well have known Dennis King personally: the community of professional leftists in NYC was pretty incestuous in those days. --H.K. 06:14, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed formulation

This article has been festering here in a protected state for a long time. I propose the following formulation to break the logjam:

Biographical information on King is largely unavailable from mainstream publications, although such disparate sources as Dan Friedman of the International Workers Party's publication National Alliance[link removed to site banned by Wikipedia, "namebase.org"] and William Norman Grigg of the John Birch Society's New American[1] agree that King was an activist in the Progressive Labor Party for ten years.

--HK 16:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I put up a notice yesterday asking that the page be unprotected, but no one has acted on it yet. See here. I agree with your suggestion above, so long as all the other unreferenced material is not added again e.g. the ghostwriting business, and that LaRouche is the only thing King is known for etc. Slim 23:47, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Source of Info?

It is entirely possible that the PRA website once posted something by Dennis King, but is there a cite or source for this claim? I have no recollection of it, and I am the webmaster. In any case, what is the point of including this information? King has no formal ties to PRA, and never has. He is someone whose work we cite with approval, but we do that with scores of researchers. --Cberlet 14:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Herschel, you cannot use LaRouche sources for this article. Dennis King is not a "closely related" article within the terms of the ArbCom ruling. He wrote a book about LaRouche 16 years ago. That doesn't make him closely related to LaRouche; he's just a commentator like many others. Therefore, any information that goes into this article must come from sources that are separate from LaRouche. The Daniel Brandt/Namebase reference you gave was based entirely on the LaRouche affidavit.

If you want to write about the so-called John Train Salon, is there a mainstream news article about it somewhere? If there was such a prominent gathering of journalists and intelligence officers engaged in a plot, someone more reputable is likely to have written about it. Slim 22:23, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt reviewed the affidavit and offers his own assessment. He is not a LaRouche supporter. The affidavit was entered into court as sworn testimony, and is not someone's speculation.

Train & co. did not exactly issue a press release after holding their meetings. They did not wish to advertise their activity, and Chip Berlet's recent rampages at Wikipedia suggest that some people are still hypersensitive about public scrutiny of these events. None the less, the documentation is solid, and I will add the Mira Lansky Boland testimony if that will satisfy you. --HK 22:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Weed, who is Mark Evans, and where was this article published? Herschel, where did Daniel Brandt write about the affidavit (apart from the Namebase entry)? The thing about affidavits is that they are standard fare in the conspiracy world. When's there a story no reputable news organization will touch, someone will go and swear an affidavit and start sending it round, hoping it will persuade the media to cover it because it's an "official" document. So an affidavit, in and of itself, is not worth much, in terms of doing good journalism or a good encylopedia entry. Slim 22:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Weed, I've made the Evans quote invisible until we find out who he is. You wrote that he is a journalist and conspiracy researcher. Where did you find that information? Slim 01:33, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

The "conspiracy researcher" formulation was added by Chip Berlet to the quote as it appears in the Berlet article, and Weed apparently transferred it intact to this one. A Google search for "Mark Evans" + "Journalist" turns up 1,730 entries, which satisfies me that he probably has as much claim to being called a journalist as Berlet does, so I have made the quote visible again, sans the "conspiracy researcher" formulation. --HK 15:41, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is not a proper way to do research. I just did a Google search on "LaRouche" and "Fascist" and came up with 32,000 entries. Proof? Of what? What mainstream or reliable alternative publications has Mark Evans written for? I am only aware of his work as a conspiracy researcher.--Cberlet 18:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A Google search for "Chip Berlet" + "Journalist" only turns up 902 entries, despite the fact the Chip must have written a hefty percentage of those 32,000 entries calling LaRouche a fascist. --HK 21:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, who does Mark Evans write for, or who has he written for? If he is a journalist, he must write for someone. I couldn't see where the article you cited had been published. I am going to make that invisible again until we determine that he really is a journalist. Otherwise, we could just stop a person in the street and ask for their opinion of Dennis King.

Herschel, to be consistent here, you should give us your real name, and let us create a page about you, into which we insert all kinds of unsubstantiated material that we've found via Google searches, written by people others call journalists, but who seem not to write for any known publications. Would you like that? If you wouldn't like it — if you would strongly object — then please understand the strong objections of other people when you do it to them. Slim 22:39, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Scaife & King

The article on Richard Mellon Scaife includes this sentence:

He also provided funding for Dennis King's campaign against Lyndon LaRouche.

Two questions: do we know that Scaife provided this funding? And, is it correct to say that King conducted a campaign against LaRouche? I don't see that information in this article. -Willmcw 21:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Scaife did not fund King. That is an unsubstantiated charge from the LaRouchites and King has denied it. I changed the Scaife article to say that Scaife facilitated research into the LaRouche group, which is fair. King wrote numerous articles about LaRouche, so did I, but as journalists we would object to the word "campaign" to describe what is generally called "investigative journalism."--Cberlet 23:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course, this is why your critics do not consider you and King to be "journalists." Dick Scaife does not "facilitate research" by "journalists", he gives money to "campaigns" -- unless you count the money he gave to the "Arkansas Project" of the American Spectator. But wait -- that was just a "campaign" against Bill Clinton, masquerading as "journalism." Weed Harper 15:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Facts matter. Supposition, rumor, and suspicion are not fact. There is no evidence that Scaife ever funded King. The charge originates with the LaRouchites. What is arguably fair is to say that King attended one meeting with Scaife at the home of John Train to talk about LaRouche. I used "facilitated" to try to attain a NPOV that the LaRouche supporters would accept. --Cberlet 16:26, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Back in '82, I recall New Solidarity running of photo of Dennis King, along with Dana Beal of the Yippies, demonstrating against LaRouche's "War on Drugs" policy outside a LaRouche conference in New York City. This suggests to me a "campaign." --HK 16:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are a logic gap and evidence void here. Even if King was at such a demonstration, you would have to document that King was there as a demonstrator, not a journalist covering the event; and then you would have to document that King recieved funding from Scaife before that event. Even then the word "campaign" could be considered biased. If (and only if) you can find non-LaRouchite documentation for these claims, it would be worth discussing the sentence. --Cberlet 16:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Weed, I am requesting that you leave Dennis King alone. You and/or Herschel have edited a lot of nonsense into it over the months, and it has now been restored to a more encyclopedic state. You have elsewhere made your contempt for this person obvious and you should therefore not be editing an article about him. The IWP is not a reputable source. It is a cult. In trying to blacken King, which the LaRouche movement is always at pains to do because King has written a book about LaRouche, you are acting in a way that could be perceived to be a promotion of Lyndon LaRouche, which is a violation of the ArbCom ruling. SlimVirgin 21:59, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Slim reversions

Slim, on another talk page, you told Herschel that you would never revert a well-documented edit, and now I find that you have done just that on this article, replacing it with a fuzzy, undocumented edit. Also, "Weed, please leave this page alone" is a pretty poor excuse for an edit summary. You say I have demonstrated contempt for King, and therefore should not edit an article about him; meanwhile, you have teamed up with Berlet to edit every LaRouche article, after you have called LaRouche "insane" and Berlet has called him every name under the sun. Practice what you preach. Weed Harper 21:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you're talking about Scaife and King, then I haven't reverted a well-documented edit. You claim that Scaife has funded research against LaRouche via King. Your source is a LaRouche publication. The Scaife and King articles are not "closely related" to LaRouche under the terms of the ArbCom ruling, which means you're not allowed to use LaRouche sources; and not allowed to mention LaRouche unless it's "highly relevant" to the article. If you can find a mainstream, reputable source that says Scaife funded attacks on LaRouche via King or anyone else, by all means put it in, and I will certainly not revert it. I repeat: you will never find me reverting a relevant, well-documented edit. As I've said before, personally I don't care whether Wikipedia calls LaRouche a monster or supports him for president. My only interest is that all edits to Wikipedia be based on good sources. I have not teamed up with Berlet or with anyone. I agree with editors who use source material well, and I disagree with editors who don't, and it's that simple. As always, you're looking for conspiracies where simpler explanations suffice. You should learn to use Occam's Razor. I also don't understand why you seem not to understand the ArbCom ruling now that's it been in place for some time. SlimVirgin 22:18, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, it is obvious to me that Weed is talking about the cites on King's stint in the PLP, since that was the material he put back in. Now, I believe that you have a point about the IWP being a cult, but why is it that you object so strenuously to the use of the IWP as a source on this page, but yet you have made no effort at all to remove the IWP cites on the Lyndon LaRouche page? I would like to propose that they be removed from both pages. --HK 18:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have never attempted to rewrite or make substantial edits of any of the direct LaRouche pages (Lyndon LaRouche, Political views of, and United States versus), notwithstanding your claims that I am an anti-LaRouche activist; that's the only reason I haven't removed the IWP and several other sources and claims from those pages. I don't understand why Weed Harper insists on adding the IWP as a source to Dennis King, when there already exists a source for the information, and that King was in the PLP remains in the article. I agree that the IWP is not a credible source and should not be relied upon on any page, so if you were to remove it as a source from LaRouche pages, I would have no objection. SlimVirgin 18:16, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

PLP

For ten years King was a member of the Progressive Labor Party, which he left in 1973. [2]

An unregistered user has been deleting this without explanation. I don't know if it is true or not, but it is sourced. Therefore I've been restoring it. If anyone has better informaiton then let's use it. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:56, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

The bio of King is only four sentences long. Why should one of those sentences focus on King's political activities of more than thirty years ago? This would be worthy of mention if the bio of King was a substantial one dealing with his entire life. It's not, and if you look at the history of this article you will see the stuff about PLP was originally inserted by followers of LaRouche. It was inserted as part of a larger attempt to discredit King today, decades later. It was left in the article as a sop to the LaRouchians during the wikipedia battles of last winter. My argument for removing it is not the truthfulness of the sentence in question but its appropriateness. Given the brevity of the bio of King and the lack of any clear picture of what he has done over the course of his adult life since his twenties, the sentence in question appears to be implanted for malevolent reasons. The solution is not to expand the bio of King, which would only lead to further LaRouchian attempts to turn the bio into a dart board, but to simply delete the sentence.--May 10, 2005

Thanks for responding. The activities of people in the past are precisely what biographies are made of. Whether those activities were five years or a hundred years ago makes little difference. This will never become a substantial article dealing with his entire life if we start by removing information. The motives of editors in adding information is generally best left unspeculated about, as we try to assume good faith. There seems to be an assumption that participation in the PLP was a bad thing and mention of it is inevitably derogatory. They are not purported to have killed anyone or broken any laws, so I don't see why it should be considered as harmful info, except for the fact that his opponents like to mention it. The LaRouche folks have not been using this as a dartboard recently, and in fact, have not been participating noticeably in the project recently. I think that the addition of more information, particularly positive info, would be helpful. However if there is little of note to record about King then deleting the article altogether is an alternative. In conclusion, I think that removing sourced, apparently true, information from an article is almost always wrong and I do not see an adequate justification in this case. -Willmcw 23:49, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Facts don't exist in isolation. They exist in a context. The context here is a postage-stamp bio that simply states the person has written two books and worked on investigating LaRouche with two other journalists. Period. Then tacked on, oh by the way, he was a communist 35 years ago. Have you treated any other postage stamp bios of relatively obscure people in this way? Name one. And its not true that you don't delete facts. For instance, there was a paragraph in the LaRouche article listing several journalists (including King) who'd worked on the investigation of LaRouche in various parts of the country and commenting on their cooperation with one another. For better or worse, it was deleted because somebody thought it wasn't relevant. Did you restore it? No. Did anyone else restore it? No. I have factual things taken out of articles I've worked on (including bios)all the time by people who felt the facts in question weren't sufficiently relevant in the context. With all due respect, I think Willmcw's argument is disingenuous.--May 11, 2005 P.S. Willmcw things we should assume that editors act in good faith when they add something. I think the record of the LaRouche editors on various articles suggests that this is not always the case.

The deeds of the subject of a biography are more relevant than the deeds of others. Thus, the actions of King are somewhat relevant to LaRouche, but highly relevant to King. Regarding LaRouche, it became evident that some editors who support LaRouche were not showing good faith in their work. Despite that instance, we should still assume good faith until it is proven otherwise. And good edits made in bad faith are still good edits. -Willmcw 06:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute: it is a clear instance of vandalism. Unsupported deletion of relevant material from an article is classified as vandalism. I don't know what the motivation for the vandalism is and I don't care. Continued repetition of the offence would be an appropriate cause for an administrator to consider blocking the offending account. Tannin 07:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article lacks critical reviews. I will keep posting the POV dispute notice until one such as the following is added.

His book on LaRouche has received harsh reviews, especially on Amazon.com:

Upon reading the King version of Lyndon Larouche I found so many inconsistencies between what I persoanlly know to be true about Lyndon, as a man of science and physical economics, that I was forced to conclude that King is simply a man of little intellect, and even lesser morals. I became further enlightened when I flipped to the back of King's book and saw that he thanks the Smith/Richardson foundation for funding the book-length slander. [3]

Cognition 2 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)

• You completely fail to understand what POV means. This article is not on the book but its author. It makes no NPOV claims about the book—it says that Dennis King wrote a book critical of Lyndon LaRouche. This is verifiable and NPOV. Criticisms of the book are irrelevant here because the article does not make any POV statements about the book. If the article were to claim that the book was the most accurate or comprehensive account on LaRouche then criticism would be appropriate. (Even if that were the case, an Amazon review is probably not sufficently encyclopedic.) "Some people don't like one of his books" is not grounds to claim POV. Quale 2 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)
  • That someone is thought of as a slander artist is definately relevant in a biographical article. Cognition 2 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)

• Your argument fails on every level.
  • In the U.S., the more appropriate term is libel rather than slander.
  • Libel is a legal term. If Dennis King has been sued for libel it should be mentioned in the article. I am not aware of any such suit, and you have not provided evidence.
  • An Amazon customer review is not encyclopedically notable. In fact, the review you are so in love with isn't notable on any level at all, except as an example of how bizarre LaRouchites are. What some random anonymous person supposedly thinks about an encyclopedically notable person is not relevant in a biographical article.
  • The review doesn't contest any fact in the book, so its claims are not verifiable or falsifiable and are thus completely uninteresting. If it listed specific examples of the many inconsistencies the reviewer claims they could be discussed, although that would probably belong in an article about the book rather than in this bio. Quale 3 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

I removed the adjective "controversial" from the description of King as an investigative journalist. Both of his books received favorable reviews from The IRE Journal, organ of his professional organization, Investigative Reporters and Editors Inc. Almost all the reviews of his book on LaRouche in 1989-90 appearing in mainstream publications were highly favorable (see King's website where many of these reviews are available). Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in a 1986 speech said that King deserved a Pulitzer for his work on LaRouche. The unfavorable reviews cited above on amazon.com appear to be mostly by supporters of LaRouche. -- 18 July 2005 15:06 EST

Non Sequitur

The current version of the article contains this formulation: "During the 1960s King was active in the Progressive Labor Party at a time when it was involved in fighting the scientific racism of intelligence researchers like Arthur Jensen.[4]" The link, to a John Birch Society site, mentions the PLP membership but nothing about Jensen or scientific racism. This should be reformulated. Is there any evidence that King joined the PLP specifically to oppose Jensen et al? It seems more likely that he joined for the same reason that anyone joins a political party, which is to say, general agreement with its tenets. --HK 16:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Dennis King's profession?

Is it still correct to call King an investigative journalist? It looks like he hasn't published anything for over a decade. Now it would probably be more proper to call him a "blogger." He may have some new profession now that puts bread on the table. --Mr Keck 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it today. Also, his given name is "William Dennis King." --Mr Keck 15:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I rephrased this. Not only is "blogger" inaccurate, but here is a reference that I am still regarded as an investigative journalist albeit not as active as in past decades. [5] (see Ireland's May 21, 2005 piece). The last edition of my book on investig journalism techniques was published in 1999 and I'm working on a new edition. I continuously use investigative methods in compiling articles and gathering public records for my website. As to publishing in convention mediums, Mr. Keck has no way of knowing what I am or am not working on. So I deleted the word "former" as being not-sourced. And by the way, thanks, Mr. Keck, for providing my full name.--Dking 00:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be citing a blog to back your claim that you are not a blogger. Is there an actual distinction between "web-based advocacy journalism" and blogging? --Mr Keck 14:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't a blogger only that blogging is only a relative small part of what I do on the web. I mostly put research articles and other materials on my and other websites apart from blogging. Because these writings have a strong point of view it is accurate to refer to them as "advocacy journalism." I have never called the Pope "the Rat[zinger]" or written anything about him either positive or negative. Doug Ireland, whose blog site I cited, is a nationally known journalist. I did not cite his blog as a reference source within the body of the article, which indeed would be questionable, but merely on the discussion page. Mr. Keck's revision of the article itself was improper because it was unsourced and simply his own unsubstantiated opinion. But even if I never published a work of investigative journalism at any point in the future, his description of me as a "former" journalist would be improper since this is not done in biographical encyclopedia articles. A person know as a boxer, a dancer, or a politician may retire or die but they are still referred to as an "American boxer," etc. in bios, not as "retired boxers," etc.--Dking 17:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There was evidently some confusion about Mr Keck's post. Looking at the Doug Ireland website that Dking cites, it is Ireland who refers to the Pope as "the rat," not Dennis King. --NathanDW 20:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am deleting the statement again since LaRouche follower NathanDW has restored it in the original form which does imply that I called the Pope a "rat." And even in respect of Ireland the statement is not accurate; he includes the term "the Rat" (capitalized) in a list of aka's for the Pope, and the Pope's prior name was Cardinal Ratzinger. Also, since I did not use the term myself, capitalized or not, the fact that Ireland used it is irrelevant to this discussion page. The link to Ireland was merely cited as an example that I am regarded as functioning as an investigative journalist. I gave the link because Ireland is an established journalist, which I think is indisputable. That a LaRouchian should complain about Ireland's criticism of the Pope's stance on so-called family values issues is laughable considering that (a) the LaRouche organization recently purged all its members who had returned to or converted to Catholicism as a way of distancing themselves from LaRouche's demands; and (b) the LaRouche organization has pressured women in its ranks to have hundreds of abortions over the years.--Dking 22:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It was in fact Doug Ireland that I was talking about; he says the following on his blog: "The man some of us refer to as The Rat was, the British daily reminds us, "known as Pope John Paul II's 'enforcer of the faith'..." He is talking about the Pope, who indeed was formerly Cardinal Ratzinger. Doug Ireland may be an established journalist (I'll take your word for it,) but I wasn't impressed by his blog. --Mr Keck 22:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources tag

I added a tag indicating that more reliable sources are needed. It is probably not a good thing when the "best" source referred to here is a publication of the John Birch Society. Quatloo 21:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Addendum, I overlooked the single Washington Post reference, but the issue still stands. Quatloo 21:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)