Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/medcab06-07

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mediation, arbitration,
requests for clarification, and
other discussions about the
LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement,
AN/I, 2005-8
Arbitration 2006
Arbitration 2005
Arbitration 2004
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Mediation 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Template talk
Categories
This box:

Discussion of the Medcab case 2006-11-26 LaRouche

Points of Contention[edit]

Add points here

  1. Are Dking's edits permissible under the NPOV policy?
  2. Are Tsunami Butler's edits permissible under the NPOV policy?
  3. Are NathanDW's edits permissible under the NPOV policy?
  4. Are Will Beback's edits permissible under the NPOV policy?
  5. Do the edits of Dking violate WP:COI#Citing_oneself?
  6. Do the edits of Dking violate WP:LIVING?
  7. Do the edits of Dking violate WP:FRINGE?
  8. Do the insinuations of Dking that editors who disagree with him are LaRouche agents, or the insinuation by Will Beback that such editors are paid by LaRouche, violate WP:AGF?
  9. Are the edits of NathanDW, TsunamiButler, MaplePorter and HonourableSchoolboy repeatedly incorrect and a nuisance that requires administrative action?

Proposed Solution[edit]

Proposed Solution to 1[edit]

Proposed Text The NPOV policy is complex. After consideration of the policy, Dking's edits, and LaRouche 1 and 2, we determined the following.

  1. The NPOV policy allows Dking to edit, provided that the content he adds is properly referenced per WP:ATT.
  1. Notwithstanding the above provision, COI and NOR prohibit Dking from citing sources of his creation.

The following is RESOLVED;

  1. Dking is allowed to contribute to this article, provided that the contributions are sourced per WP:ATT.
  1. Dking is banned from using his own creations as sources.
  1. Any unsourced contributions may be promptly moved.

Approve

Approve. Wikipedia: not a soapbox. --NathanDW 16:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object

I strenuously object. DKing has the only published book on LaRouche and is a widely recognized expert on the movement. Some people disagree with some of his concluding analysis of LaRouche, but there have been no real disputes about the facts. This proposed decision would appear to directly contradict the letter and spirit of WP:COI. Quoting QP:COI, "You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest; when in doubt, check on the talk page." A number of the DKing citations can be recited back to their original sources to reduce the number of citations, but I don't think there is any substantive problem. DKing's book was published a long time ago, and it's not like he's changing his book according to what he is trying to add to Wikipedia. I can see no purpose for eliminating all references to DKing's book other than to advance the POV political advocacy agenda of some LaRouche supporters.
Eliminating DKing's book as a source eliminates a huge percentage of the biographical information on LaRouche that does not originate with the LaRouche movement, which is undoubtedly what proponents of the movement want. There were two previous ArbCom decisions that went against LaRouche supporters for engaging in political advocacy (and the fact that there were TWO separate decisions should give some insight into the magnitude of the problem). This latest flurry of requests by LaRouche supporters should be understood in that context. Rather than attempting to challenge accurate facts presented by DKing, the members of the movement are now trying to challenge the inclusion of material on bogus procedural grounds. -- Mgunn 20:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I don't read the moderator's proposal as requiring that material already added to the article by Dking be removed. I certainly think that there is a place for material sourced to his book in the article. However, I think the article has just about reached the saturation point with Dking material, and I also think that the article is quite long enough. The only area where I think things should be added would be at the end, to keep up to date with whatever LaRouche is doing now. --Tsunami Butler 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dking is banned from using his own creations as sources." should be eliminated, and "Notwithstanding the above provision, COI and NOR prohibit Dking from citing sources of his creation" should be changed to "COI and NOR allow, but generally discourage Dking from citing sources of his creation." -- Mgunn 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did propose this. Geo. Talk to me 21:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object

The moderator (if indeed the proposed solution comes from the moderator, since it is unsigned) apparently has not read the exchanges on the discussion page in recent months. We have a situation in which LaRouche followers have grotesquely mischaracterized the contents of my book on LaRouche, as by stating that I provide no examples of open anti-Semitism by LaRouche but instead rely solely on code language. Either I reply by citing myself, or I rely on others to do so, who may or may not have the time to do the necessary research and wage an edit war with these people. I can cite LaRouche directly on some points, but his supporters can come back and claim that such citations constitute original research. The proposed solution is a step in the direction of giving crank followers of LaRouche, some of whom are profoundly ignorant of the history of their own movement and of LaRouche's theoretical writings, control over the contents of this page. Finally, the proposed solution is suspect because it focusses solely on Dennis King and does not address the three points of contention relating to the deliberate insertion of misleading and often downright absurd information (and the edit warring to preserve such edits) by followers of LaRouche.--Dking 19:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this complaint falls under the category of issue #9 that I brought up. On numerous occasions, certain pro-LaRouche editors have just been wrong. Another example of this occurred in a disputed edit over the legal case LaRouche brought after the Democratic party refused to recognize the delegates LaRouche had won in the primary. LaRouche lost at both the district level and the appellate level at summary judgement. As I remember, TsunamiButler repeatedly inserted text that the ruling against LaRouche ruled unconstitutional part of the Voting Rights Act. This is demonstrably untrue. The courts ruled very clearly that the Voting Rights Act did not apply in this case.
Why did TsunamiButler get this wrong? I don't think she purposefully made a mistake. I'm guessing TsunamiButler took LaRouche at face value when he has said the ruling against him overruled part of the Voting Rights Act. I think this illustrates one of the general problems in this article. LaRouche supporters believe what LaRouche says and insert as fact various things they learned from LaRouche publications. The problem is that many of these things are objectively and blatantly false. -- Mgunn 09:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Solution to 1,5 (Take 2)[edit]

Policies here on Wikipedia are complex. After reviewing them, the following was determined

  1. The NPOV policy allows Dking to edit, provided that the content he adds is properly referenced per WP:ATT.
  1. "COI and NOR allow, but generally discourage Dking from citing sources of his creation."
  1. Inappropriate unsourced contributions will be removed.

Approve It looks reasonable to me if the final line is minorly changed to "Inappropriate unsourced material will be removed." Statement's that require footnotes should have footnotes, but every line doesn't have to be a footnote extravaganza. I don't think anyone has been complaining about lack of footnotes from dking. As I understand it, Tsunami Butler's complaint is that there are too many. -- Mgunn 09:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object

Comment[edit]

I was invited to say something by Geo. I have not done much actual editing on the LaRouche articles; I came originally to get answers to certain questions I had about him. I think he is complicated, eccentric, and original. There are many of his ideas which I find difficult. However, it was immediately clear to me when I started reading the Wikipedia articles that they were mainly intended to demonize him, not provide information. I could see that there was a team that Owned these articles, which was Will Beback, SlimVirgin, and Cberlet. If anyone disagreed with their edits, they would immediately accuse that editor of being part of a conspiracy to support LaRouche. I can see that new editor Dking has jumped right on that bandwagon. Furthermore, I have seen editors harassed and in some cases banned for being part of this supposed pro-LaRouche conspiracy. Being labeled a "pro-LaRouche editor" is a signal for the harassment to begin.

As for Tsunami Butler's summary of the conflict, I would not call myself "pro-LaRouche," but "anti-defamation" is something that I definately am.

As I have said elsewhere, I have serious doubts as to whether Dennis King's book should be considered a reliable source. It is an obvious smear job. I don't care whether he got off on a libel suit -- American courts are famous for letting libel go unpunished. As I understand it, people that want to sue for libel take their cases to Britain where the courts take libel more seriously. At any rate, all you have to do is read a chapter or so of King's book to see all the techniques in play: guilt by association, enormous conspiracy theories based on flimsy or no evidence, inflammatory language. It is not a serious work of research. And you can see how Dking automatically falls back on these same techniques to make personal attacks on editors that disagree with him. This should stop.

Will Beback left a message on my talk page a while back, encouraging me to set an example on talk pages by talking about edits, not editors. Then he turns around and claims that some editors may be being paid by LaRouche. This is the same old conspiracy-mongering, and it's a pretty lame tactic for carrying out a content dispute. That's what I have to say. --NathanDW 00:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just some background... I, mgunn, come to the LaRouche article after I had to remove/escort out some LaRouche follower after he disrupted a Stanford University event with completely inappropriate and ludicrous accusations. At this point, I had no real idea who LaRouche was. I did a quick searches on LaRouche and found the article on Wikipedia and this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46883-2004Oct20.html On Wikipedia, I came across this version of the article, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&oldid=89459757 and removed some material that was both false and improperly sourced from the lead. I got immediately reverted by pro-Larouche editors. (The whole talk page discussion is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#The_intro_again ).
Essentially, LaRouche is a wacky fringe political figure and conspiracy theorist at best (Dennis King and Berlet have an even harsher view). I think an honest factual article may look like it's showing negative POV because the facts aren't pretty. The movement is completely wacko (for example, check out this 9/11 conspiracy theory of LaRouche [1]).
Working on this article have been a number of LaRouche supporters (NathanDW gives all signs of being in that category btw) and several published LaRouche critics, DKing and cberlet. I think what you're going to find is that dking is going to be exceedingly hard to refute on the facts while a large number of the editors by various pro-Larouche followers are simply wrong. This isn't to say I follow dking all the way with his analysis on LaRouche's goals and motives, but dking is extremely knowledgeable on the movement.
If I ran Wikipedia, I'd punish/ban editors for edits that are just factually wrong. Maybe I'm not familiar with Wikipedia policy.... people get warnings/bans for 3R violations, no personal attacks etc... but I don't see bans placed on people for being wrong. I see people making inaccurate edits all the time and the only person who gets penalized is someone who cares about the truth and has to go clean the mess up. If you look through the discussion pages, you'll see that if there were real bans for being wrong, a number of pro-Larouche editors wouldn't be here. -- Mgunn 06:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism or blatantly wrong material is easy to remove, but half right, half wrong material is a huge pain to deal with. I've spent hours refuting/fixing half-right, half-bogus edits. In my opinion, repeated, sloppy, partially inaccurate edits should have the same penalties as vandalism. -- Mgunn 06:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific Wikipedia policies which, I contend, have been violated at this article[edit]

WP:UNDUE: From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

WP:FRINGE: "The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia."

Theories by Dking or Cberlet that I believe conflict with these guidelines include:

  • The theory that criticism of Great Britain or of Venice is a form of anti-Semitism
  • The theory that support for NASA, or fraternization with NASA scientists, German or otherwise, represents support for fascism
  • The assertion that LaRouche has a plot for "conquering the world," that "centers on eliminating a Jewish banking oligarchy."

I do not object to these theories being briefly referenced under "Criticism," but the article should not become an essay or soapbox for these views.

WP:LIVING#Biased_or_malicious_content: "Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article."

WP:COI#Citing_oneself: "Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether or not your citation is an appropriate one, and defer to the community's opinion."

Dking and Cberlet have inserted inappropriate large amounts of self-cited work. Since, in my view, there can be no doubt that both of them are "pushing an agenda," citing their own essays cannot be seen as citing "reliable third party sources." Will Beback has claimed that for their to be conflict of interest, Dking or Cberlet would have to be making money off of Wikipedia, but in fact, that's not what WP:COI actually says. What Dking and Cberlet are doing is promoting themselves.

WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing: "...remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is dickish." Whenever an edit by Dking or Cberlet is disputed, those two, along with Will Beback and Mgunn, immediate commence referring to the disputing editor as a "LaRouche supporter." This is not only a form of McCarthyism, but it also is a clear case of "attributing motives." Will Beback went one step further, insinuating that dissenting editors were being paid by LaRouche (diff.) See also Dking's comment below.

WP:RS:"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"

Shortcut

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

  • surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known;
  • surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media;
  • reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
  • claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.

The claim of Dennis King and Chip Berlet that LaRouche is a closet fascist is covered by all of the above, particularly in that it is "against an interest [he] had previously defended," i.e. LaRouche campaigns loudly against fascism. This is also a claim that "seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial," and a "surprisingly or apparently important calim that is not widely known." King certainly claims that there is a conspiracy to silence him. Virtually all of the edits of Dking (other than strictly factual biographical material) and Cberlet are intended to "spin" the article to lend credence to this claim.


(To be continued) --Tsunami Butler 15:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dking[edit]

By this line of reasoning, Tsunami, [I am referring to your comments in the WP:FRINGE paragraph above], the edits of you and your colleagues should be deleted from this article, since your view of LaRouche as a great genius and world savior without an anti-Semitic bone in his body (and whose federal felony conviction was a plot against an innocent man orchestrated by evil "oligarchs") is a crank view held by a very very small minority. I am not advocating deleting your viewpoint, merely pointing out the logical consequences of your argument.--Dking 23:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tsunami Butler wants me to stop referring to her as a "LaRouche supporter," calling the phrase "McCarthyism." Does she DENY she's a supporter of LaRouche? Who else but a LaRouche supporter would characterize the LaRouche movement's vociferous support for Nazi war criminal Arthur Rudolph (which involved describing the prosecutors of Rudolph and other war criminals as KGB agents, subhumans and followers of the anti-Christ) as innocent support for "NASA scientists" (or, as Tsunami or one of her comrades wrote earlier, support for "scientific research")? And I note that one of Tsunami's fellow LaRouche fans deleted the paragraph referring to their leader's support for Nazi war criminals from the article prior to its being blocked from further editing. If anyone tries to restore it when the article is unblocked, will the "LaRouchians who are not LaRouchians" start yet another edit war?--Dking 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response[edit]

Personal attacks do not advance the purposes of the project. In the course of article content disputes, they are sometimes used by tendentious editors as a diversionary tactic (see also Poisoning the well.) The fact of the matter, Dking, is that your edits have frequently violated Wikipedia policy in ways that are so egregious that any good-faith editor could not help but notice them, without having any particular opionion with regard to LaRouche. This appears to be the case with User:Pascal.Tesson, which is why I found your conduct toward him so reprehensible.

With regard to Arthur Rudolph, perhaps you would care to cite your sources. I found this commentary by a LaRouche movement writer by googling: "The most outrageous case was that against Dr. Arthur Rudolph. While he declared his innocence, he agreed to be deported. Once in Germany, an investigation ensued into the war-crimes charges. He was found by German authorities to be innocent of all charges. But the effect of this scheme was that the German-American scientists, who had been the backbone of America's space and defense programs, were terrified and demoralized."[2] The Wikipedia article Arthur Rudolph seems to confirm this version of the story. So your characterization of Rudolph as a "Nazi war criminal" seems to me to be irresponsible and a violation of WP:LIVING. This sort of conduct on your part harms the project. --Tsunami Butler 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on proposed solutions[edit]

User name "Geo." invited people to this page, presumably to serve as mediator. But the two mediation proposals so far have been unsigned, and at Geo.'s own page it is announced that he/she has taken a break from Wikipedia. So would the persons proposing solutions to the points of contention please identify themselves?--Dking 22:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though unsigned, the page history [3] shows that Geo.pl made the edits. -Will Beback · † · 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am back from break. Geo. Talk to me 02:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to accusations by Mgunn[edit]

Mgunn has made vague claims that my edits are "repeatedly incorrect," and one specific complaint, that I "made a mistake" on the Voting Rights Act. Interested third parties can review the discussion here. The crux of the matter may be seen here in the left column, in red. I will respond to other specific allegations by Mgunn as they come up. --Tsunami Butler 15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there are additional accusations made by Mgunn and Dking on the mediator's talk page, so I will respond to this also. My first edit to the Lyndon LaRouche article was this one, where I restored material that I did not originally add, but I felt that deleting it unbalanced the intro, and I still believe this to be true. I think that the formulation "highly regarded in Russia and China" is probably Original Research, and I would favor replacing it with a different formulation. However, the fact that LaRouche has been covered, and apparently prominently covered, in Vremya and the People's Daily of China, is far more notable than the fact that he has been attacked in print by Dennis King and Chip Berlet, who are both virtual unknowns, with no academic credentials, and who are alleged by the LaRouche movement to be simply hired hands for LaRouche's opponents (whether these allegations are true is in dispute, but King acknowledges receiving grant money from the Smith-Richardson Foundation, and Berlet does not deny attending the John Train meeting-- I'm not certain whether King admits or denies it.) So, my point is that however we choose to describe it, the prominent coverage of LaRouche in other parts of the world deserves at least equal billing in the intro with the criticism of King and Berlet. --Tsunami Butler 07:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tsunami, we have been over the issue of the John Train meetings again and again. As you perfectly well know, I have stated on this discussion page that I attended two meetings at John Train's house in the 1980s. It is not a matter of some secret to be admitted or denied, since nothing conspiratorial happened; these were simply informational meetings. And why do you keep harping on my getting a grant from the Smith-Richardson Foundation; your organization has never come up with the slightest information to indicate that Smith-Richardson is a sinister organization. This is all just a kneejerk issue LaRouche uses to pump up his followers: Evil, evil Smith-Richardson...Dennis King...Smith-Richardson...evil, evil...grrr! Can't you see how LaRouche has programmed you and your colleagues? None of you have the slightest knowledge about Smith-Richardson, Dennis King, John Train (or for that matter, the Queen of England); you've just memorized a lot of empty cant. As to Chip Berlet and I having no special academic credentials, would you please cite for us the academic credentials of Lyndon LaRouche?--Dking 19:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LaRouche doesn't need academic credentials to be notable, since he is the topic of the article. Dennis King and Chip Berlet, on the other hand, are marginal at best, given their lack of credentials.
Dking, you have been warned by two admins about personal attacks. Heed the warnings. --Tsunami Butler 15:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on point #8[edit]

I briefly edited the article and left a few comments on the talk page in mid-February. I would be very reluctant to do so again, because I was immediately followed to my main articles of interest by User:172 and User:Will Beback, and harassed by them. They began reverting my edits and/or claiming that they were LaRouche-inspired. I believe that this is a tactic of intimidation to scare away any editors that might try to challenge their domination of the Lyndon LaRouche article. --HonourableSchoolboy 15:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone say what the status of this is, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on entire case[edit]

How many times do these policies have to be revisited? Just look at the box above on "Mediation, arbitration, and requests for clarification." As long as Dennis King and I follow the appropriate Wiki guidelines, as published authors concerning Mr. LaRouche, we can carefully cite our own work, especially when LaRouche supporters systematically remove cites to our work, which in some cases was originally posted by other editors. As for credentials, I do not have a degree, but my writing has appeared in major newspapers, been presented at academic conferences, and has been published in scholarly journals and academic press books. I am on the editorial board of a scholarly journal that deals with fascism and totalitarianism. This entire case is superfluous and a gigantic waste of time.--Cberlet 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I'm concerned that it was ever started. The policies are clear, and the ArbCom decisions are clear, so what more is there to mediate? Could the mediator, if there is one, identify himself, please, and say what the status of this case is, and what the issues are? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just waiting for Citizendium. -- Mgunn 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of Berlet's credentials, I describe him as the "dean of LaRouche watchers" in my book on LaRouche published by a reputable publisher. That should be worth at least as much as Lyndon's purchased "Academician" title from the Moscow Ecological Institute.--Dking 19:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, the two of you held an election, and you elected him Dean? --HonourableSchoolboy 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the recognition of Berlet's expertise in this subject matter comes from the many mainstream publications that have published his work, the many appearances he has made on national TV, the many legitimate organizations that have invited him to give presentations, and the many scholars and journalists who have cited his work. My use of the term "dean of Larouche watchers" also reflects the fact that Berlet has covered the LaRouche beat continuously for over 30 years, beginning before I did and continuing during the 1990s when I was pretty much silent on the topic. Hence I would say he has fully earned an informal honorific (in contrast to LaRouche's formal "Academician" title, which is a joke to anyone outside LaRouche's entourage).--Dking 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that LaRouche had any title, and it's irrelevant. The article is about LaRouche. He's automatically notable. In my opinion there has to be some standard of notability that determines how much of the article space is devoted to the claims of critics. --HonourableSchoolboy 00:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

I believe that the whole point of this proceeding is that Dennis King and Chip Berlet do not follow the appropriate Wiki guidelines. Also, I have seen statements by SlimVirgin that the ArbCom decisions say that PRA is a valid source. I see nothing in those decisions that could be construed as saying that. I'm sure that in some instances it would be perfectly valid, and in other instances not, depending especially on the guidelines in BLP. It is also clear from the ArbCom decisions that "promotion of LaRouche" means sticking superfluous references to him all over the place -- not asking that articles about him follow BLP. This is another example of SlimVirgin trying to bend these decisions to her own purposes. --HonourableSchoolboy 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making personal attacks, and read the relevant ArbCom cases carefully (all of them). This case is closed, by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the ArbCom decisons thoroughly. They are very specific. I see no endorsement of PRA as a source. I see nothing unreasonable in asking you to explain, with specific citations, your claims about the Arbcom decisions. --Tsunami Butler 13:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/medcab06-07&oldid=1092034926"