Talk:Kenneth Kronberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.


I don't know why, but I can't make a wiki link to Fidelio magazine, which re-directs to the right section of "Schiller Institute." When I put it in the article, it shows up red. Someone had made links to the opera, wrong location. --MaplePorter 06:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Benton[edit]

I did not vote in the deletion controversy. I think that Kronberg probably deserves an article. However, I have concerns about the Nicholas Benton article in the Falls Church paper. I found this quote at the Biographies of Living Persons policy page:

:Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

:Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.

On these grounds I think that the Benton comments should be removed. --MaplePorter 02:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the Falls Church News-Press an obscure newspaper? Is that reference being used to support derogatory info? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 03:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes to both questions. Mr. Hexham, whose post follows, should familiarize himself with WP:RS. Sources must be published in order to be used on Wikipedia. However, his lengthy quote is useful because it indications, by my reading, that Benton was misrepresenting the content of the "morning briefing." --MaplePorter 20:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What evidence do we have that it is an obscure newspaper? What information sourced from there is derogatory? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::According to the Wikipedia article on the Falls Church News-Press, it has a small circulation, around 30,000, and the author of the article, Nicholas Benton, is also the sole owner of the paper, which means that the normal fact-checking and review that is emphasized in WP:RS is unlikely to apply. Benton opines that the "morning briefing" "...appears to assert that the only way the “baby boom” generation, ostensibly including those among LaRouche’s own associates, can be in the “real world” is through suicide." Judging from the quotes that Hexham provides below (albeit from a non-published source,) this is a derogatory and malicious interpretation by Benton, who is referred to on other talk pages as a disaffected ex-member. --MaplePorter 00:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it has a Wikipedia entry tends to negate claims of obscurity. Sole propietorship of newspapers has a long tradition in journalism and is not a reason to exclude a paper. The statements you mention are hardly interpretations as they are almost verbatim from the so-called "morning briefing" text that I've seen. If we have a reliable source calling the journalist an "disaffected ex-member" then we can include that as an ad hominem rebuttal. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::The statement about suicide is clearly hyperbole in the "briefing," not intended to be taken literally. Benton is treating it as if it were a literal recommendation. "Malicious" seems to be the right word for this. --NathanDW 16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking people at their word can't be called a malicious interpretation. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::A Wikipedia entry makes it notable? That's bass-ackwards logic. Wikipedia is famous for including all sorts of stuff that no conventional encyclopedia would carry. The paper's small size makes it "obscure." The BLP policy says to exercise caution precisely in cases like this one. --Don't lose that number 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, a Wikipedia entry doesn't make it notable, but rather it is a sign of its pre-existing notability. I'm not sure how BLP applies here. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to remove all reference to the Benton article--some of what he has in there is definitely sourced--for example, the quotes from the LaRouche organization "morning briefing." What follows is a direct quote from that briefing, longer than the quote in the Benton article.

The breakdown in fundraising is a symptom of a moral breakdown in leadership. The issue is not a supportive attitude to the right agenda; the issue is the conviction to make that agenda effective. The disintegration began in the period of the 1990s to 2000, especially, in Leesburg, in 1992-93. When Lyn came out of jail, he presented his solution to the sales force in the very living room in which he spoke last night. People went screaming out of the room, and refused to change. This Boomer policy failure went on uninterrupted into Y2000, and only changed as the Y2K bubble finally exploded. The print shop was the worst. "Lyn is wrong," they said. "There may be crisis, but the economy won't go under. There will always be money there for people smart enough to grab it." This was the prevalent approach radiated back and forth, out of Leesburg into the whole organization.
Winstar was another part of it; a phoney company which was paying big salaries, while producing and selling absolutely nothing! "We have a lifestyle." Commitment to the lifestyle was a cause of the collapse. Some of them disappeared in 2000 or thereafter.
Don't go telling a Boomer to exert leadership. We're organizing the country: namely the 18-35 year olds. How? Just like an army: convince them that that's what they should be doing! That's what we're doing! The change into the new news aspect of the LPAC website by the LYM is the key to everything. It's already raised the quality of our intelligence, much of which was bullshit (if passable bullshit) before. We're entering into active exchange with significant people, not just in the US, but into Russia and India as well. We're in interchange of views with key people in various parts of the world.
We're reaching the most active part of the younger generation, with product which no one would have dreamed of. We go the the Boomers: "We're your boss." "You? Who are you?" "We represent the youth, the leadership." But, you have to make it stick!
We're stirring controversy; we're getting responses,-- often enraged responses. Rage! How can you say that? How dare you? We're setting the agenda, by forcing them to respond. That's how you organize the older generation: "Hah! These young guys are doing something!" it's always that way,-- it's young adult leadership which moves the entire population.
Through the website postings, pulled together into briefings in the evenings, the publications develop over weeks. Not stylized, stereotyped publications which must always devote one page to this and two pages to that. Take the ideas off the website and deploy with them. To influence the population, you need ammunition. The best is knowledge they could not get otherwise. They may not agree, but they'll be impressed by your command of the subject and your mission. That's the way you organize. It's not consolidated yet; we can do much better, and we will do much better in two weeks. In one month, we won't recognize ourselves.
The Boomers will be scared into becoming human, because you're in the real world, and they're not. Unless they want to commit suicide.... Hexham 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that MaplePorter and NathanDW are awfullyl anxious to denigrate Nick Benton, and have their own interpretations of the "morning briefing" (e.g., "not intended to be taken literally"). If Mr. NathanDW knows the principals personally, he may be in a position to say whether or not this is to be taken literally--and he may be right, or he may be wrong, in his conclusions. But if Nick Benton is an ex-member, as they say, then one may infer that he does know the principals personally--and that might be taken to suggest that he knows how to interpret what they write. According to Dennis King and others, the author of the "briefing" was Antony/Tony Papert. One of its readers, we know, was Kenneth Kronberg. There are persistent rumors that the words Papert was recording were those of Lyndon LaRouche himself, reflecting a meeting Tuesday night, April 10 at LaRouche's home. None of this can be cited or sourced in Wikipedia, but it does raise questions about the motivations of Mr. NathanDW and Mr./Ms. MaplePorter in attacking Mr. Benton as a "disaffected ex-member" and interpreting the "briefing" as hyperbole. Is this based on their intimate knowledge of the subject?Hexham 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:I have no insider knowledge. I just read the text which you supplied, and used common sense. --MaplePorter 22:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does the bottom of the page say 1949 births, when the page itself says that Kronberg was born in 1948?Hexham 17:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I fixed it--changed it 1948, the correct year. Hexham 17:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Kronberg family website[edit]

Not only did the LaRouche org hound this man to his death, now they are trying to keep off this page the barest mention of his family's memorial website. The website is not being cited as an authority; it is only being cited as to the fact of its own existence. This is within Wikipedia guidelines.--Dking 20:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

:It is most emphatically not "his family's memorial website" -- it is a propaganda site run by his cousin, acting as a meatpuppet for Dennis King. --NathanDW 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's proof of that charge we should keep the website just as we include the websites of individuals. It is just as relevant as the memorial page by L. LaRouche. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

:::As an external like, it's not a problem. However, a quick glance at the web page does confirm the relationship to Dennis King. --Don't lose that number 14:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

All I see to connect them is a link to King's website. There's also a link to LaRouche's website. What's the point? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nick Benton's newspaper[edit]

"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article." --WP:BLP. Benton publishes his own obscure newspaper. I have deleted the Benton material on this basis. --NathanDW 01:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What evidence do we have that it's an obscure newspaper? I recal it has a paid circulation in the tens of thousands. While Benton is the publisher, if there is an editorial board of some kind then it would not be considered "self-published". Further, while the quotation mentions the LaRouche movement, it doesn't appear to name any living person. For those three reasons, the source seems adequate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I think you are being a bit sophistical, Will. The term "LaRouche movement" is Eponymous; it is pretty much impossible to refer to it without referring to a living person. What is more, I would say that this is the intention -- if you look at Cberlet's recent edits at Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement, he interprets Benton's article to mean that "In fact, one former LaRouche member charges that LaRouche has suggested that unless the "Boomers" shape up, they should kill themselves, which is exactly what high level LaRouche "Boomer" Kenneth Kronberg did in 2007." This has "BLP violation" written all over it.

I objected to the use of Benton's paper as a source back in May, and I still object. I ask that you refrain from hair-splitting, and recognize that this is exactly the sort of thing that the BLP policy is designed to prevent. --MaplePorter 07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This reference [1] indicates that the paper has one editor, Nicholas Benton. --MaplePorter 13:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that source indicates the paper has only one editor, it simply lists one editor. The same source also lists one editor for the New York Times.[2] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::I see a lot of Wikilawyering here, arguing for the use of this source. The claims made are sensational and inflamatory. Have they been covered by any other newspaper? Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. --MaplePorter 21:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Which claim is exceptional? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::::The implication that LaRouche induced one of his colleagues to commit suicide. It comes through clearly, regardless of how carefully you manicure the wording in the Wikipedia entry. In case anyone wants to argue about the intent, Dennis King has posted an entry on his blog entitled "LYNDON LAROUCHE AND THE ART OF INDUCING SUICIDE." --MaplePorter 14:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Heres's the text we've got now:

  • Nicholas Benton, the owner of the Falls Church News-Press and a self-described disaffected former member of the LaRouche movement,[5]] has suggested in that paper that pressure from within the LaRouche movement played a role in Kronberg's death. Benton writes that the LaRouche movement's "morning briefing"[2] on the day of his death attacked Kronberg's printing company and suggested that Baby Boomers within LaRouche's ranks commit suicide. According to Benton, after calling the print shop "among the worst" of the Baby Boomer generation, the briefing said: "the Boomers will be scared into becoming human, because you’re the real world, and they're not. Unless they want to commit suicide."[2][4] Benton writes that the morning briefing is considered "authoritative" within the LaRouche movement.[2] Critics of the LaRouche movement charge that it is a political cult.[6][7][8]

How do you propose altering it to meet your concerns? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

::Will, it's a wild claim, published in an obscure source, by a guy with an axe to grind, making a questionable interpretation of yet another source which is unpublished. No real encyclopedia would touch it. Why are you so eager to include it? --Marvin Diode 20:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it a wild claim that there was a morning memo? That it's considered authoritative? Is it s wild claim that the memo contained commentary on the place of baby boomers in the movement and society? Is it a wild claim that the subject committed suicide? Those parts seem uncontested. The only matter at issue, if I understand you correctly, is the linking of the memo to the suicide.
  • Benton... has suggested in that paper that pressure from within the LaRouche movement played a role in Kronberg's death.
We clearly attribute that linkage to Benton, and describe his interest in the matter. We could modify it:
  • Benton... has written that Kronberg's death may have been linked to internal issues within the LaRouche movement as well as the failure of his business.
Is that better? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Again, why are you so eager to include it at all? I would suggest waiting until a significant media source presents it as notable. My hunch is that it's not going to happen -- this is tabloid tattler stuff. --Marvin Diode 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not eager. Do you think the proposal above is sufficient? If not, how would you change it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
What constitutes a "significant media source"--in terms of readership,circulation, advertising, etc.? The Kronberg entry is filled with citations of, links to, and quotes from LaRouche-related publications as if they were authoritative, but it might be argued that these are not significant media sources, but rather the self-serving propaganda vehicles of a small political group whose interest it is to prevent any discussion of possible links between Kronberg's suicide and pressure from within the group. It is my view that those sources are far more questionable than Benton, and demonstrably have a whole shed full of "axes to grind."
The suggestion of rewriting the entry to say something about "internal issues" as a cause of Kronberg's death is far too obscure. Why not simply list the correlations, without making the claim of causality? (1) Morning briefing appears, says X. (2) Kronberg leaves office, gets in car, drives to overpass, jumps off. There's no question the briefing appeared. There's no question as to what it said. There's no question that Kronberg jumped off the overpass not long after the briefing appeared. To delete all reference to the morning briefing, and to let all the citations from LaRouche literature stand, risks making Wikipedia a LaRouche forum. Not a good idea. Hexham 12:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable approach. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

:::My question, which the two of you seem to avoid, is: Why isn't this story covered in any other press? The fact that it is not suggests to me that the story doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I suppose that the example that comes to mind of a "significant media source" would be the Washington Post, because they ran an obit for Kronberg, but without the speculation. I think it is rather improper to include to Post as a source for that section for that reason, because it makes it look as if the relatively prestigious Post endorses the speculation. As far as LaRouche sources are concerned, the ArbCom decisions and Wikipedia policy generally say that they may be used only as a source for the views of LaRouche and his movement. To suggest that there is some sort of competition between LaRouche's press and Benton's paper in this article is comparing apples with oranges. I think, for example, that quotes from Benton's paper would be fine in the article on his paper (there is one.) --Marvin Diode 00:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To address Hexham's suggestion I've edited the article to remove the assertion of a linkage. So far as I can tell, that is the only part of the article that can be viewed as making an exceptional claim. Unless anyone can come up with a better explanation for the BLP tag I'll take it down. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP dispute[edit]

WP:BLP applies to living persons. Which living person is at issue in this BLP dispute? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC) :Lyndon LaRouche. The term "LaRouche movement" is Eponymous; it is pretty much impossible to refer to it without referring to that living person.--MaplePorter 21:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And what are we saying about Lyndon LaRouche in this article? Can you quote the offending passage? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

MaplePorter's suggestion that one cannot talk about the LaRouche movement without talking about Lyndon LaRouche--that the two are coextensive--amounts to special pleading that no entry in Wikipedia can say anything critical of, or potentially damaging to, the LaRouche movement because it might thereby affect the living person. As I indicated above--a balancing test makes plain that this is an attempt to turn Wikipedia into a LaRouche-leaning forum. Hexham 12:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think that Maple is arguing against criticism-- the BLP policy does not prohibit criticism. It does, however, require careful attention to sources, for claims that could be defamatory. --Marvin Diode 13:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's the defamation? The Wikipedia article reports what Benton wrote, which is a fact (he wrote it). Embedded in that is the assertion of what the morning briefing said (fact) and of the charge by Benton of internal pressures (fact; Benton charged it) and of Kronberg's suicide (fact). How does LaRouche get defamed in this process? The entry nowhere says that LaRouche did it, that he did it on purpose, that he intended the consequence. Where's the defamation? --Hexham 18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC) :It seems to me that it clearly implies that LaRouche did it, that he did it on purpose, that he intended the consequence. There would be no reason to include the allegations about the morning briefing, etc., unless for the purposes of insinuation. --Marvin Diode 00:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that implication. The article does not say that LaRouche wrote the memo, or that he intended one of his followers to kill himself. We mention that there is a memorial on a LaRouche website, indicating that he was well-regarded. Further, while the LaRouche movement has apparently commented on the coverge of Kronberg's death, I haven't seen that they've disputed the existence or contents of the "morning briefing". In sum, I don't think this article violates either the letter otr the spirit of WP:BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:::As you may be aware, Dennis King has announced with great fanfare that he has written an article on his personal website that claims that LaRouche personally induced Kronberg to commit suicide. It looks to me like the Benton material, even in a toned-down version, is being included here to support King's claim. --MaplePorter 06:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read King's piece, and I don't see a link to it either. It'd probably be considered a reliable source, but I don't see anyone proposing to use it as one. Unless it includes a plan to subvert this article I don't think it's a concern for us here. Incidentally, I did read that another journalist is working on an article about Kronberg, which doubtless will also mention the Benton material. I hope there won't be claims that we're improperly supporting his work too. We can include all significant viewpoints while remaining neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion that the Benton material is included to support Dennis King's claim is ludicrous. The Benton citation has been there for months--the article was written in April. Dennis King's new article, "Lyndon LaRouche and the Art of Induced Suicide," has just been posted on his website in the last few days. So the inclusion of Benton can hardly be attributed to a desire to "support" King. In addition, I agree with Will Beback that the King piece might reasonably be used as a reliable source, and perhaps should be considered. If not a reliable source, it is certainly a significant piece of writing, and hence newsworthy. LaRouche himself considered it newsworthy, inasmuch as he issued a press release on the article ("Is Dennis King Contemplating Suicide?"), to be found on the LaRouche PAC website. Perhaps the most even-handed approach would be to note the publication of King's piece and LaRouche's riposte, without endorsing either point of view. Hexham 11:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::Actually, the suggestion is not so ludicrous. This Wikipedia article was actually written on May 9 by User:Tonalvalue -- that day was that user's first and only sign of Wikipedia activity [3]. The original version included cites to both the Benton article, and to Dennis King's website. --MaplePorter 13:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We've edited the article to remove the allegation of a link between LaRouche and the suicide. What BLP issues are outstanding, if any? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Benton never wrote that the document "suggested that Baby Boomers within LaRouche's ranks commit suicide." I have removed that as OR. Benton is too clever to say that, although he clearly wishes to imply it. Benton also asserts that the briefing is a "paraphrase of LaRouche," in case there are still any doubts about the BLP policy bearing on this issue. --MaplePorter 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't say that the briefing is a "paraphrase of LaRouche," so if that's it then we can remove the BLP banner. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Why were the reference to Dennis King's article on induced suicide, AND the reference to LaRouche's response, removed? Instead of trying to avoid offending everyone all the time, perhaps we should report on facts. King's article is a fact, LaRouche's response is a fact, and neither is cited for the truth of the matter. They are news developments in a newsworthy topic. Please explain the removal. Thank you. Hexham 19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::They were deleted because they were unsourced. Please see the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, WP:RS, and the somewhat more restrictive policy on sources for biographies of living persons, WP:BLP. Dennis King's website is not a suitable source (except for his own biographical article) because it is self-published. If and when the controversy between King and LaRouche about the death of LaRouche's colleague hits the mainstream news media, it will be suitable for inclusion. --Marvin Diode 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the BLP dispute tag: there is no evidence that the purported briefing has anything to do with Kronberg or his death, other than speculation by Benton, who is clearly not acting as a neutral observer. In addition, it appears to me that this article was created by the mysterious User:Tonalvalue primarily as a WP:COATRACK for this speculation from Benton (and Dennis King.) So, until a reliable source published similar material, I think the tag should remain. --Marvin Diode 14:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it matters who wrote the first draft of this article. It's been substantially revised since then. We don't say that the suicide and the memo are connected, we say that Benton has reported on a memo issued just before the suicide. I think that it's unreasonable to charge a BLP violation when no living person is involved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::Benton says that the message in the "briefing" was a "paraphrase of LaRouche," who is a living person. Seriously, Will, do you really believe that this story about the briefing has any other purpose than to defame LaRouche? This is what the BLP policy is all about -- prevent the inclusion of items from dubious and obscure sources that are intended to harm the reputation of a living person. This is a textbook case. --Marvin Diode 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This article never says "the briefing was a paraphrase of LaRouche." That's an absurd standard anyway - followers are obviously going to parrot their leader's thinking. But commenting on the statements of unnamed followers is not the same as commenting on the statements of LaRouche. Since you appear unwilling to accept any compromise, I think the next best course is to get a policy clarification to determine whether criticisms of eponymous organizations can be violations of BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::::In the morning just hours prior to the Kronberg suicide on April 11, a daily internal document, the “morning briefing” circulated among members of the LaRouche entities, lashed out, in a paraphrase of LaRouche, at what it called the failures of the “baby boom” generation, including among the entities’ own members, and singled out “the print shop” as “among the worst.”[4] --Marvin Diode 22:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, our article doesn't say that. Anyway, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Eponymous organizations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
And Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is an article by a newspaper owner self-published?. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

::::I note that the only response on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard was unfavorable to using Benton as a source[5]. I can't find the archive of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Eponymous organizations, but I recall that the response there was similar. --Marvin Diode 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If we quoted from that day's briefing itself, would that help? That way we would be citing Benton for what that's worth, and quoting the briefing to show precisely what was said. Hexham 15:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I have a query for Diode--if self-published is a criterion flagging something as unusable, why is the Kronberg page full of the self-published (and perhaps biased) material on Kronberg that appeared in the LaRouche publications--e.g., in EIR magazine? Because certainly LaRouche material is self-published.Hexham 15:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC) :I just reviewed the article and found nothing that was sourced to EIR. Could you point out what you are referring to? --Marvin Diode 00:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The article I'm referring to is Nancy Spannaus's obituary of Kronberg. Although on the Kronberg page it is sourced to the LaRouche PAC website (which itself is certainly self-published and certainly self-serving), it originally appeared in EIR magazine, of which Spannaus is an editor. Hexham 10:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Take a look at WP:SELFPUB. Kronberg was a member of the LaRouche movement, so under Wikipedia policy a self-published source from that movement is acceptable in an article about him. However, in an article about an opponent of the LaRouche movement such as Dick Cheney, material sourced to LaRouche publications would be excluded. --Marvin Diode 14:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously an absurd standard in certain instances--like the present one. There are those who argue that, by committing suicide, Kronberg left the LaRouche movement--and these individuals point to the raft of memos attacking Kronberg before his death, to suggest that the relationship between Kronberg and LaRouche was not harmonoius. Therefore, to assert that LaRouche publications are acceptable in an article about Kronberg, when the very point of the whole story may be the rift between Kronberg and the LaRouche movement, and its tragic consequences, is circular and self-serving. --Hexham 11:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

:Who are these "individuals"? Is there a published source for the "raft of memos?" It's important to understand that Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for the promotion of speculative, esoteric theories. See WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:BLP. --Marvin Diode 14:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


WP:V says:

  • Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

I believe that applies in this case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

::That could be discussed, except in this case, the Dennis King website is simply hosting an unpublished document, attributed in the Reflist to Tony Papert. Dennis King's theories or qualifications aren't an issue in the edits in question. --Masai warrior 23:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to feel that it's OK to report that the LaRouche websites are hosting an unpublished letter.[6] King's qualifications allow him to be used as a reliable source on the LaRouche movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, why did you change the text from "jumped" to "fell"? The headlines of the sources are "Rt. 28 Suicide Jumper Was Long-Time Associate of LaRouche" and "Man Jumps from Overpass". Do we have a source that claims he fell instead of jumped? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

::::We know how the document you cite[[7]] was obtained -- Freedom of Information act. How was the supposed Papert document obtained? Exactly what are Dennis King's expert qualifications? And the fell/jumped question was prompted by the law enforcement source cited in the article, which said "apparent suicide." My view was that anything beyond the official source was editorial supposition. --Masai warrior 12:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't know how it was obtained, we only know the claim about how it was obtained. Both are letters obtained in some fashion that are posted on self-published sites. No source asserts that Kronberg accidentally fell from the bridge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::Whatever. Both unpublished letters have now been removed from Wikipedia, so at least we're consistent. --Masai warrior 20:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you restored the letter in this edit: [8]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::::No, I did not. I restored a reference to the letter. The letter itself is not used as a source. I will accept the reference to the morning briefing that is presently in the article, sourced to Benton and Klein. The two unpublished documents would seem to be roughly equivalent under Wikipedia's rules, although I do see an important distinction: we know how the FOIA document was obtained, whereas Dennis King's website provides no comparable information that could establish the authenticity of his document. I know you will argue, what if the LPAC site is lying about a FOIA case? But I suspect that that could be checked, and anyway Will, you are very predictable: if a source attacks LaRouche, you say it's reliable, and if it doesn't, you say it's not. --Masai warrior 06:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC) ::::::::::Oh -- and what are Dennis King's expert qualifications? --Masai warrior 06:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

King has published a major biography of LaRouche. I'm going to restore the Papert letter. If you think we should attribute King as the host of the letter that's fine. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::Perhaps we should attribute him as the author of the letter. But I think that it is in the best interests of the project to stick with published sources. Plus, there are all sorts of lunatics that have managed to get books published. What are King's academic credentials? Does he belong to any relevant professional societies? --Masai warrior 14:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Academic credentials aren't necessary for expertise. There's no indication that King wrote the letter, and the author is named. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

At WP:RSit says: "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context." "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people." Dennis King claims on his website that LaRouche uses mind control to make people commit suicide[9]. He says in his book that photos of galaxies are evidence of Neo-Nazism. Welcome to the domain of the Tin-foil hat. Now, you say that "Academic credentials aren't necessary for expertise." What exactly is the basis for King's so-called expertise? --Masai warrior 23:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to get into a game of listing extraodinary claims by LaRouche I don't think you'll win. The relevant policy statement is WP:V:
  • Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
King is an established expert, quoted countless times on LaRouche and his movement, whose work in the field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The contents of this memo are not an extraordinary claim, and excerpts have been printed elsewhere in reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

:::And I am happy to retain those portions that have been printed elsewhere in reliable sources. King is too biased to be a reliable source, especially with that Tin-foil hat. --Masai warrior 13:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "tin-foil hat" you're referring to, but it appears to be a disparaging remark about a living person. Unless we have a specific reason to discount King's expertise, current WP policy allows his self-published research on the LaRouche movement to be used as a reliable source. If there's evidence that he has altered documents or made simialr research transgressions then that would change the equation. But the mere dislike of him by the LaRouche movement is not sufficient grounds to discount him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


There are many comments and opinions attributed to Ken Kronberg by Avi Klein in the Washington Monthly. Since Ken is no longer here to set the record straight, it is important that these comments be attributed to Klein's article, rather than just reported as fact. That is why I formatted the Wikipedia article to centralize attributions of this sort (from reading Klein's article, it looks like the source for these comments is Molly, although it is generally not specified.) --Masai warrior 20:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's more appropriate to organize biographies chronologically. The Washington Monthly is a reliable source and shouldn't receive special attribution, or have material sourced to it segregated from the rest of the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It's very disruptive when editors re-organize articles when there isn't a consensus. If it continutes we'll have to protect the page. I suggest that we discuss the matter here and find a consensus instead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

::I agree that it's disruptive, and I consider it disruptive when you do it. There is a great deal of material that is dubious and may violate WP:LIBEL. One solution would simply be to remove the material, but I don't imagine that you are going to agree to that. In lieu of that, I propose that we list it under "allegations" (I yield to the superior version by the IP editor, "allegations by critics," since it is obviously not all from the Washington Monthly (only the published part is from the WM. The rest is from the websites of King and Berlet.) Also, please stop re-inserting unpublished material supposedly written by Papert -- you should apply the same standard that you insist upon at the Jeremiah Duggan article. --Masai warrior 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who started the reorgainzition so you're the one who needs to justify it. What specific information is defamatory and improperly sourced? Are you arguing that Washington Monthly is an unreliable source? If it's reliable then it should be treated normally, if it's unreliable then it should be deleted. It should not be segregated and treated like a pariah. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This may not be germane to the main thrust of this discussion, but I am startled to see Masai Warrior referring to "Ken" and "Molly," rather than "Ken Kronberg" and "Molly Kronberg." This extreme informality suggests strongly that Masai Warrior knew the Kronbergs, and knows Molly Kronberg, and that in turn suggests that Masai Warrior knew them in the context of the LaRouche organization. Now that in no way precludes Masai Warrior's operating usefully here as an editor, but I think it is important to be clear on one's views and strive for balance.

Additionally (as I also argue below) the fact that Molly Kronberg can reasonably be assumed to have been an important source for Avi Klein's Washington Monthly article might be taken to mean that the article has a high degree of validity. I think it is most likely that only among LaRouche circles is it now considered axiomatic that Molly Kronberg's principal role is as Enemy to LaRouche, rather than as a widow with, one can theorize,a great deal of knowledge of the overall situation. --Hexham 11:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


I agree with the "coatrack" message. I strongly suspect that Chip Berlet, Dennis King, Avi Klein and their cohorts had great hostility for Ken Kronberg so long as he was alive, and now they cry crocodile tears because they see an opportunity to get their viewpoint out. --Niels Gade 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Except for a small amount of background on the LaRouche movement, I don't see how this article is really about a different topic. Specifically, which parts aren't directly related to the subject? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

::The supposed biography of Kronberg is an excuse to push a conspiracy theory about his death. --Masai warrior 23:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a conspiracy theory is alleged. The article appears to lay out a story in which a failed business man is pushed to suicide by a lack of support from his community. No one disputes that version of events. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

::::How do you know it was "lack of support from his community"? He left no suicide note. For all we know, he was pushed to suicide by a wife who was undermining his life's work by supporting George Bush. In a matter like this, it is disrectful to the deceased to speculate about his motives, but the real issue here is that the usual gang, King, Berlet, etc., have ghoulishly seized upon Kronberg's death to push their agenda. That's why this is a coatrack article. --Masai warrior 13:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In any event, discussion of a person's death, conspiracy theory or not, hardly constitutes a shift of topic away from the person. Gzuckier 16:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

::::It's like it says at WP:COAT: A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats".' --Niels Gade 21:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Although many couples disagree about politics, we are asked to believe it plausible that Kronberg was driven to suicide because his wife supported George Bush? If she was undermining his lifework, why not divorce her?

I think it just as reasonable to speculate that Lyndon LaRouche destroyed Kronberg's lifework by destroying PMR, and destroying Kronberg's belief in him (LaRouche). The famous morning briefing, the string of attacks on Kronberg apparently written by LaRouche and posted on FactNet (and nowhere disputed), Kronberg's reported remarks to his wife, PMR's financial books, all suggest this is a more reasonable evaluation. Masai Warrior is merely echoing LaRouche's attacks on Molly Kronberg, printed in the ubiquitous morning briefings, I am told. --Hexham 19:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We only know what we read in reliable sources. The Washington Monthly is a reliable source, and so are King and Berlet. Even the LaRouche sources don't seem to dispute the published assertions. Nobody in the reliable sources has asserted that his wife drove him to suicide, and saying so without proper sources, even on a talk page, would certainly violate BLP. It isn't speculation to report what's written in sources, such as the lack of payments to the company from the LaRouche movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Facts, allegations and gossip[edit]

I would like to continue a discussion of some issues raised in the "formatting," "sources" and "coatrack" sections above. I think that in an encylopedia we should differentiate between things which are undisputed facts, things which are credible allegations, and things which are dubious allegations. I realize that Wikipedia permits anything that has been published to be included in an article, but I think that responsible editing should recognize that not all published material is equally credible. For example, many allegations from Dennis King, such as "Dennis King writes that the pregnant wives of members would be taken to abortionists by the "coat-hanger brigade," women from the national office trusted by the leadership," come from unnamed sources, and are basically just titillating gossip. If there were a named source, the allegation should be taken more seriously. Some of the allegations in the Washington Monthly come from Molly Kronberg. Since the source of the allegation is known, it is more credible than an unnamed source, but it should be noted that she evidently has her own political axe to grind. Since Kronberg left no suicide note, I think that editorial speculation about his motives should be avoided. As far as formatting is concerned, I think that it is appropriate to place undisputed facts in one section, and allegations, particulary inflammatory ones, in another -- this is not "treating them like a pariah," it is just normal, responsible editing. --Niels Gade 16:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be argued that Molly Kronberg is the best possible source, since as far as I know, she was living with Kronberg at the time of his death and as his wife might be supposed to be privy to his thoughts and motivations--at least, as I say, that's arguable.
The assertion that she "has her own political axe to grind" is somewhat bizarre. If she blames LaRouche for her husband's death, that is certainly an axe to grind, but it may also be probative in terms of the causes of her husband's death, and it's extremely hard to see how one could claim that that is "political." Just because she is apparently, and understandably, angry at LaRouche, doesn't mean she's wrong.
In addition, it can be assumed that a responsible journalist like Avi Klein in a reputable publication like Washington Monthly factchecked his material, rather than relying for a major feature article entirely on any one individual. It seems clear from the content of the article overall that he interviewed a large number of people, going back to LaRouche's days on the socialist left in the '50s--for which Molly Kronberg is clearly not a source.
The LaRouche movement has, from what I understand (that morning briefing again) been blaming Molly Kronberg for her husband's death since August--not before, mind you; it would seem that Niels Gade is reflecting that viewpoint, rather than taking a more balanced approach to evaluating the Klein article, and rather than viewing Molly Kronberg as perhaps being an extremely and uniquely useful source.--Hexham 11:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Molly Kronberg is certainly a useful source, better by far than anonymous sources. However, the assertion that she "has her own political axe to grind" is not so bizarre if she was actively supporting Bush at a time when her husband was campaigning against him, in the middle of a catastrophic war which has brought shame to the U.S. You make references to the "morning briefing," which is unpublished. How do you have access to it? --Marvin Diode 14:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The "morning briefing" has been published in part in the WM and other artilces, and in whole on King's website. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Hexham refers to comments about Molly Kronberg. The page on Dennis King's website does not mention her. --Marvin Diode 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I referred to comments about Molly Kronberg made above, by Niels Gade. Will_Beback merely pointed out, when you inquired how I had access to the morning briefing, that various editions of the morning briefing appear on Dennis King's website, which they do. Some of the excerpts from morning briefings appearing on King's website make no mention of Molly Kronberg--and some do. For example, King's citation from the Operations Bulletin of Aug. 19 is a quote from the morning briefing which refers to Molly Kronberg. If you are thinking of a much more recent morning briefing attacking Molly Kronberg, which you may well be, then the same question arises: How do you have access to it? Although that may not be any of my business.... --Hexham 04:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, your views that the present war is catastrophic and has brought shame to the U.S., although they may be true, have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand, and suggest only that you are hostile to what you take to be Molly Kronberg's political viewpoint--suggesting that you have a political axe to grind, and are grinding it precisely on the issue of Molly Kronberg's politics, to make the claim that she cannot be a reliable source or witness because she not only didn't agree with her husband's politics (insofar as you know them), but does not agree with your own. This is an absurd criterion for editing Wikipedia.--Hexham 04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

:::You misrepresent my comments. Whether Molly's views disagree with my own is irrelevant, and not a "criterion for editing Wikipedia." Whether they disagree with her husband's, on the other hand, in a controversy which has polarized the entire nation, cannot be dismissed as a trivial matter, since this may have been a source of great emotional pain to him. Keep in mind, of course, that as far as the article is concerned I am against all speculation about why Ken killed himself, since there was no suicide note. Molly's opinions should be noted.

:::I have gone back to Dennis King's self-published website and I now see that there are several purported internal documents from the LaRouche organization posted there. I haven't spent a lot of time browsing King's site, because I am put off by the screeching tabloid tattler quality. I certainly wouldn't regard it as a reliable source. --Marvin Diode 20:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Due to your numerous comments about King no one here doubts you think he is an unreliable source. However the standards we use for the project allow the use of self-published material by acknowledged authorities. King meets those standards. Until the policy changes it does not help for you to keep disparaging King's work. If there are 3rd-party sources that show he has made significant errors in his reporting then that would be different. Nothing personal, but uour opinion does not count in the equation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Other editors please note the discussion at --Marvin Diode 15:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I did note the discussion--and added a bit on what I consider to be the LaRouche organization's implicit but compelling acknowledgement of the validity of the various memos Dennis King has posted. --Hexham 03:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Is this person notable? Don't get me wroong I applaud any anti-cult efforts, I was a great wikifriend of User:Smee, but half those efforts got deleted. The Observer article in the refs doesn't mention Kronberg at all that I can see, it's about that young man that died- Jeremiah. A person doesn't usually have an article just for dying or being in a cult. Jeremy may be notable enough for an article, Kronberg probably isn't.Merkinsmum 12:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC) :The article survived a request for deletion when it first appeared. Of course, that could have been for any number of reasons. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The subject was a leading member of the LaRouche movement. He headed their largest business and co-founded one of their main publications. Folks often do become notable for their deaths. See Steven Parent, notable only for being a victoim of the Manson Family, or Category:American murder victims, which undoubtedly has many entries for people who become famous after, and because of, their deaths. This subject has had a long article written about him by a 3rd-party so the threshold of notability is achieved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I beleive the Observer article is used as a source for background on the LaRouche movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted material[edit]

A published article by Nicholas Benton says:

  • In the morning just hours prior to the Kronberg suicide on April 11, a daily internal document, the “morning briefing” circulated among members of the LaRouche entities, lashed out, in a paraphrase of LaRouche, at what it called the failures of the “baby boom” generation, including among the entities’ own members, and singled out “the print shop” as “among the worst.” It then went on to state, speaking to the younger generation, “the Boomers will be scared into becoming human, because you’re the real world, and they’re not. Unless they want to commit suicide.”[10]

That has been summarized in this article as:

  • According to Nicholas Benton, the "morning briefing," now available on Dennis King's website, contained an attack on WorldComp/PMR saying the "printing company is the worst," and a suggestion that Baby Boomer members who were not wholly supportive of LaRouche should commit suicide.

This material was removed, with the edit summary:

  • (This misrepresents what Benton said. Benton chose his words rather carefully.) [11]

How can we better sumarize the material? It looks quite accurate to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC) ::Nick Benton wrote: "The April 11 version, written by Tony Papert of LaRouche’s inner leadership circle, his National Executive Committee, appears to assert that the only way the “baby boom” generation, ostensibly including those among LaRouche’s own associates, can be in the “real world” is through suicide." Hexham and John Nevard have re-written this to be "According to Nicholas Benton, the "morning briefing," now available on Dennis King's website, contained an attack on WorldComp/PMR saying the "printing company is the worst," and a suggestion that Baby Boomer members who were not wholly supportive of LaRouche should commit suicide." Benton does not say anything about being "wholly supportive of LaRouche," nor does he say there was a "suggestion that [members] should commit suicide." Incidentally, both Nick Benton and Dennis King have been found to be self-published sources, see above. Avi Klein wrote: "In 1989, Molly was put on trial in New York state court with a number of other cadres. She tried to prevent LaRouche from testifying in her defense, believing that he would not make a good impression on the jury. To LaRouche, this was a grave betrayal. Eager for any public platform he could get, he insisted on speaking on her behalf. Molly was eventually sentenced to five years of probation for defrauding lenders." Hexham embellished this considerably by writing "Interestingly, as Avi Klein mentions, Molly Kronberg strenuously opposed having LaRouche testify in the New York trial, and much of the animosity between the two can be traced to that point, although some animosity pre-existed the trial." Since we are dealing with living persons and essentially implying responsibility for a murder(!), editors should carefully follow Wikipedia rules, and cite sources very scrupulously. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC) :::Please refer to this discussion. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no 'murder' implied, except in your mind. I can't see anyone claiming that LaRouche, or the L.O., physically rather than psychologically pushed Kronberg to suicide. Perhaps a civil case would find in favour of LaRouche, but noone is reasonably suggesting murder was involved. Not that that would stop the L.O. blaming Kronberg's death at some suitably removed point on the Vaaaaast Right Wing Conspiracy, as they seem to be hinting at in several of the L.O. sources linked. John Nevard (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::Regardless, your edits insert material that does not appear in either source you cite, and those sources are self-published to begin with. --Niels Gade (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits on the article by various editers did indeed insert 'material' that did not appear in sources cited- Wikipedia is not after all a collection of quotes. This is why we summarize the information on the LaRouche organization's morning briefing. John Nevard (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Summaries are fine. But adding your own observations, insights, and editorial comments is prohibited under WP:NOR. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Appriopriate sources[edit]

I have been reading some of the policy statements and I came across this: Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the best available sources supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material. Be sure to also adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and not giving undue weight to minority opinions. The requirement to provide carefully selected qualitative sources for exceptional claims especially applies in the context of scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people. (from WP:REDFLAG)

It looks to me like this policy has been overlooked on the LaRouche articles. Any and all attacks on LaRouche are sought out by some editors and placed in the articles, without regard for the quality of the source, and the claim is made by these editors that anything that is published is acceptable and appropriate. This kind of behavior conflicts with the above policy. As far as this article is concerned, the Washington Post is a strong source, the Washington Monthy less strong but acceptable, whereas Nick Benton, Dennis King and Chip Berlet are all very weak and should only be used for non-controversial claims. Also see this discussion as Niels suggested. --Terrawatt (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche has done and said so many extraordinary things that they have become ordinary. What specific assertions do you think are extraordinary in regard to LaRouche? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

::Point taken. But it looks to me like you have done a lot of googling of LaRouche material, and it may be slowly becoming apparent to you that his critics have reinvented him in a form that is easier to attack than his actual, complicated self. So whenever I see material introduced to these articles which appears to intentionally misrepresent LaRouche, his ideas, or his movement, I'm going to ask to see some seriously unimpeachable sources. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This article should adhere to the same policies and guidelines that pertain to all Wikipedai articles. Obviously, nothing should be misrepresented. But since LaRouche has sought to impeach every critic, and since he and his organization have been impeached as sources, there are no "unimpeachable sources". I think we do use the best available sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

::::But from the standpoint of the policy that Terrawatt is citing, all sources are not created equal. No one is likely to object to a citation to the New York Times. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Even the New York Times is considered part of the grand conspiracy to defame LaRouche.
  • In January-February 1974, the New York Times provided a defamatory shield for the documented FBI/CPUSA efforts to assassinate LaRouche. ...King's libels were subsequently repeated in the New York Times, whose reporters had already admitted their intention to defame candidate LaRouche for the purpose of instigating a fraudulent prosecution of him. "Hey, You Liars, Who Is Lyndon LaRouche, Really?"
So if "unimpeachable" is the standard for sources then we need to delete everything written about Lyndon LaRouche because there are no such sources. Thzt's why WP does not require its sources to be "unimpeachable". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::Wikipedia requires its sources, in cases like this, to be "the best available sources" and "qualitative sources for exceptional claims." (WP:REDFLAG) I think that most Wikipedia editors have enough sense to figure out what that means. You seem to be making argument for argument's sake; I'm not suggesting we apply LaRouche's standards, I'm saying that we should apply Wikpedia's. --Terrawatt (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You wrote that if you see material which you think is misrepresentative you'll ask for "seriously unimpeachable sources". That's not the WP standard. The WP standards are in WP:V and WP:RS. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Is this article being controlled by the subject's wife with the help of a Wikpedia Administrator?[edit]

{RFCpol | section=RfC: Is this article being controlled by the subject's wife with the help of a Wikpedia Administrator? !! reason= This article appears to be written and controlled by the subject's wife, with the cooperation of a Wikipedia adminstrator. Balancing information is being excluded. !! time=07:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)}

This article appears to be written mainly by Molly Kronberg, and serves as a platform for her to scapegoat the Larouche group for her husband's death, while exonerating herself. She collaborated with various writers such as Avi Klein to produce articles favorable to her agenda, and then put them here as sources. She also collaborated with a Wikipedia administrator, Will Beback, as can be seen here, and he has deleted information from the Larouche group that would bring balance to the article. I think it is illegitimate that the article is being controlled in this way. Keinehexen (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I posted on your talk page:[12]
  • Negative assertions about living people need to be cited from reliable sources. LaRouchePAC does not qualify as a reliable source. The criminal trials of LaRouche and his associates were well-reported at the time, and have been commented on by LaRouche and others extensiely since then. This theory does not appear in any of the previous reporting or commentary of the case. If we're going to report it at all it should be framed as a new theory, and the name of the purported villain should be left out.   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You never replied, and instead have posted this attack. That doesn't really advance the issue.   Will Beback  talk  08:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you want comments on. I'd also like to note that your RfC summary is clearly not neutral. Please revise that. Try to say what the dispute is about "There is a dispute whether or not to include information about X". -Andrew c [talk] 16:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

::OK. Is it proper for the article to feature only Molly Kronberg's side of the story? Is it proper for Molly Kronberg to write most of the article? And is it proper for Will Beback, an administrator, to collaborate with her to enforce this state of affairs, through deletions such as these:[13][14][15]? Keinehexen (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Like any article, this should include all significant points of view that can be verified in reliable sources. An unsigned press release on a LaRouce-related website is not a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  19:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

:::It does look rather like Will is acting as press agent for Ms. Kronberg, so I have added the neutrality tag. Also, this is a "LaRouche-related" article, on the celebrated "LaRouche template," so it is perfectly proper to use LaRouche sources. --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make personal comments. All I've done recently is adding a picture and removing material with poor sources. LaRouche sources are probably acceptable for a non-living person, but they are not suitable for a living non-member. If this new theory of the criminal cases from the 1980s has a reliable source then I don't object to adding it. But I've read quite a bit about the case and I don't recall ever seeing any mention of it before this week.   Will Beback  talk  19:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Keinehexen, it sounds like you have issues with editors, not content. You could post one of your concerns on the conflict of interest message board, and if you have issues with admin actions perhaps ANI. Alternatively, you could start a user RfC. But if your primary concern is with editors, not content, please don't file a content related RfC. On article talk pages, you should try to not comment on users. This isn't the appropriate venue. -Andrew c [talk] 14:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

:::I appreciate your suggestions, and perhaps you could post links to the pages you mention. But my issue is with content. I never would have noticed the strange behavior of the editors had I not been shocked by the content of the article, and tried to improve it. In response to Will Beback, the revelations about Molly's role in the Larouche trials are indeed new, and you can see that the press release was dated last week. I have no idea why they waited so long to make it public, perhaps out of deference to good work Molly did in the distant past. But even the shameless propaganda of the Avi Klein article raises the question. The Larouche trials were all about accusing people of minor white collar crimes, slapping on a "conspiracy" charge to make it a felony, and then giving people 70-80 year sentences to terrorize and intimidate the movement. The fact that Molly got zero jail time must have raised some eyebrows at the time. I don't see how it is possible to understand Ken's decision to take his own life without knowing this. He had cheerfully faced adversity for years, so the financial troubles of the printing house don't account for it. I can see why Molly would try to use the Washington Monthly or Wikipedia to throw up a smokescreen, and I don't see how such a biased article as this one can be tolerated. I am further shocked by editor THF deleting the link to Ken's poem to Indira Gandhi, which is a bit like spitting on Ken's grave. Keinehexen (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Nor is it a battleground for your off-wiki disputes. Find a reliable source. THF (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

third opinion[edit]

Here from the RFC. is an inappropriate primary source for BLP articles as it does not qualify as WP:RS. Moreover, none of the deleted material actually discusses the subject of the article. I am removing the NPOV tag unless someone can point me to a RS-viewpoint that is omitted. If we are to include LaRouche viewpoints that discuss living people, they must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. THF (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#How can one disagree about NPOV? I am replacing the NPOV tag on these grounds:
  • While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
  • Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others

:Also, what is your specific rationale for this? --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My rationale is WP:EL, WP:ELNO, WP:LINKFARM, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:RS, and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The NPOV tag does not belong because there is no reliably sourced point of view that is omitted from the article, and no one has identified one. THF (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

:::You felt that three was an excessive number of links, but one is not excessive? You object to the linking to memorial sites, so you deleted one and left another? Help me out here. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The homepage of the subject is appropriate under WP:EL. Larouchepac and a random poem are not. I'm still waiting for you to defend the NPOV tag by identifying a single reliably sourced viewpoint that is omitted from the article. THF (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::That's not the homepage of the subject, not even close. It was launched by Ken's cousin who opposed Ken's political views, and is seeking now to exploit Ken's death to undermine Ken's life's work. --Keinehexen (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC) ::::::I'd also like to know why you think Larouche PAC is any less reliable than the Washington Monthly. --Keinehexen (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's one of those questions that self-contains the answer. THF (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The memorial page appears to have been put up with the approval of the subject's family, making it functionally similar to a personal homepage. As for LaRouche PAC, I don't think Wikipedia use political action committees as sources for anything beyond, perhaps, their list of staff members. PACS don't even appear on the list of reliable sources. Aside from that, LaRouche sources as a whole aren't considered reliable in part because they promote a fringe viewpoint, in part because they're viewed as self-published, and in part becuase they simply aren't reliable. This claim that LaRouche and his associates were all put in jail simply because of the actions of one mid-level functionary is counterfactual. Until it's printed in a reliable source it doesn't belong in this encyclopedia.   Will Beback  talk  08:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

:How is the cousin's page (mainly a directory of links to Dennis King and Chip Berlet sites) "functionally similar to a personal homepage"? As far as PACs are concerned, they are legitimate sources for their own opinions, and since much of this article is about the LaRouche movement, the movement's views are notable and necessary under NPOV. However, I'm not going to edit war with THF over the neutrality tag. Instead, I'm adding the Conflict of Interest tag, since clearly Ms. Kronberg wrote much of the article, either personally or via proxy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP limits what we can say about living people. So do other Wikipedia policies. This is an extraordinary claim and it therefore requires highly reliable sources. LaRouche and his associates have been quoted as blaming the prosecution on everyone from Don Regan to Raisa Gorbachev. The movement has published numerous websites, collected petitions, even held investigative panels into the prosecutions, and this theory has never appeared in any of them to the best of my knowledge. As for conflict of interest, this article has been edited by one individual more than any other. HK's various socks made at least 53 edits. But applying a tag doesn't identify a problem in the text or fix it. Unless it serves some purpose it's a waste of time.   Will Beback  talk  18:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

:::The tag serves to alert the reader to possible bias in the article. BTW, why did you remove this? --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

He said why he removed it in the edit summary: is not a reliable source. That's not going to change. The tag is meant to reflect legitimate disputes over whether all notable points of view are fairly represented in the article. For the third and final time: what reliably sourced point of view do you think should be included in the article that is not? THF (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a response to Will Beback's statement that "this claim that LaRouche and his associates were all put in jail simply because of the actions of one mid-level functionary is counterfactual": go back and re-read the press release.[16] The LaRouche trial in Boston had mistried. The government dreaded re-trying the case in Boston, because it was certain to lead to an acquital. In order to hold the trial in a different venue where they could get a conviction, they had to make it look like it was not the same set of charges. Therefore, they needed to come up with a new angle, and that was the supposed failure of LaRouche to report income to the IRS. The only evidence to support this charge was the royalty checks signed by Molly Kronberg (but repudiated and never cashed by LaRouche, a fact omitted from Kronberg's testimony.) Long story short, the "actions of one mid-level functionary" provided the crucial fig-leaf needed for the prosecution to move the trial to a venue where they could get a cooperative judge and a guilty verdict. It's not so mysterious. As to why they waited so long to make this public, as I said earlier, I don't have the answer. --Keinehexen (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what fresh point you're making, if any. I'm quite familiar with the trials, having helped research and write the featured article on that topic. Wikipedia does well enough by just reporting what reliable sources say.   Will Beback  talk  09:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Keinehexen (No Witches) claims that the only evidence to support the charge of conspiracy to defraud the IRS against LaRouche was the royalty checks signed by Molly Kronberg and testified about by her in the LaRouche trial in Alexandria. This is not true, as I know from having done work on the trials as well. A number of people who were in the LaRouche organization (like Kronberg) were subpoenaed to testify on that count: Rick Magraw, Kathy Magraw, Richard Welsh. etc. Former members like Pam Goldman also testified to LaRouche's lavish lifestyle--that is to say, his unreported income, or income in kind.

The ultimate reliable source to refer to would be the transcripts of the 1988 Alexandria Federal trial, and I encourage everyone interested in this issue to refer to them.

Among other things, based on my reading of the transcripts and my having talked to people involved, I believe that Keinehexen et al. are overlooking the fact that part of Kronberg's testimony involved payments by New Benjamin Franklin House for LaRouche's rent--payments that LaRouche did not "repudiate." Perhaps the reason that Kronberg did not testify to LaRouche's having repudiated the royalty checks is that no such thing ever happened, although it's true that the checks were never cashed, and that was made clear in the Alexandria trial. I believe the prosecution argued that the checks were not cashed because LaRouche decided to have no income whatsoever.

What convicted LaRouche on the tax charge was, not receiving royalties from New Benjamin Franklin House, but his claim that he had no income at all when he demonstrably had access to and control over a great deal of income. Hexham (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC) :Did you in fact make a deal with the prosecution in exchange for no jail time? Keinehexen (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Keinehexen has concluded that Hexham is Molly Kronberg, or so I deduce from his/her question about jail time and deals. Without bothering about that issue of identification or misidentification, let me note that of the three defendants convicted in New York--Robert Primack, Marielle Kronberg, and Lynne Speed--only one served any prison time, namely, Primack--and he served AFTER he had left the organization, suggesting that the prosecution's chief interest lay in punishing crimes, not going after "the organization" as such. Is it possible that Speed made a deal? Probably not.

Otherwise, note that a large number of Virginia State LaRouche defendants did in fact make deals with the State prosecution to avoid prison time--and perfectly properly so. That is to say, they pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and felonies. Inasmuch as Richard Welsh testified for the prosecution in the Alexandria trial in 1988 under a grant of immunity, and inasmuch as Richard Welsh was indicted in Virginia, and inasmuch as Richard Welsh didn't go to prison--you might as well ask him the same question.

But of course, Welsh pleaded guilty in Virginia, as did many others. None of the four New York defendants--Primack, Kronberg, Speed, and George Canning, pleaded guilty there (although Canning may have pleaded guilty in Virginia subsequently).

Interested parties would be well served to examine the New York State trial transcripts, including those for the final hearing of the trial, on July 13, 1998--almost nine years after the trial ended. There you could read Prosecutor Rebecca Mullane's strongly expressed demand that Kronberg be sentenced to 1-3 years.

Perhaps Wikipedia should consider posting excerpts of the trial transcripts--like Kronberg's Alexandria testimony, LaRouche's New York testimony, and the sentencing hearing I referred to above. Hexham (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC) :I'll take that as a "yes." Keinehexen (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's stick to discussing the article and what we can find in reliable sources. this thread seems to have wandered off-topic.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hard to parse your response, but if you were to take that as a "yes" that I am Kronberg, or a "yes" that Kronberg did a deal, you would be making a grave mistake--perhaps not your first.

I agree that this thread has wandered off-topic. In terms of reliable sources, what I am about to suggest is not a reliable source, since it is a self-published LaRouche document, but it is extremely significant in what it does not say, since it says virtually nothing about Molly Kronberg. I refer to the LaRouche organization's "Railroad!," a 623-page paperback published in 1989 on the 1988 Alexandria trial and post-trial motions. Hexham (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


What is the correct tag?[edit]

I see that there has been a debate between THF and other editors about what sort of tag describes this article's problem. As I see it, the problem is that it is dominated by the opinions of Molly Kronberg. I read the debate about COATRACK. I agree that the article was probably not created because Ken Kronberg would have had an article were he alive, but the article creation was an excuse to put forward Molly's theory about his death. Since the bulk of the article comes from the Avi Klein/Molly Kronberg account in the Washington Monthly, I am putting on a template message that it relies too much on one source. Keinehexen (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything sourced to Molly Kronberg. Everything is sourced to third parties. I see eighteen cites to the Washington Post, the Falls-Church News-Press, The Connection, and The New York Times, and sixteen cites to the Washington Monthly, which, let us face it, is the longest third-party account of Kronberg's life. I have repeatedly asked for links to other reliable sources to include, and no one has provided any. THF (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::I'd like to point out that the "Onesource" tag does not mean literally "one source" -- it can mean that the article "relies largely on one source." Also, Keinehexen did not claim that the article was "sourced to Molly Kronberg." The claim was that the Washington Monthly article was a vehicle for her theory. Looking at the Wikipedia article, approximately two thirds of the article is devoted to this theory, i.e. "Allegations by LaRouche critics," and almost all of that comes from one source, the Washington Monthly. However, upon reflection, I think that the correct tag is COATRACK. Also, I think that THF is using an improper definition of NPOV. An article does not fail NPOV only in cases where reliable sources are excluded; it also fails where a minority viewpoint, such as Molly's, is given undue weight. At WP:UNDUE it states "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." This article names no prominent adherents for the theory that takes up two thirds of the article. Therefore, to achieve NPOV, that section should be reduced in proportion to its notability. Alternatively, we might want to open another AfD discussion, because I doubt that this article would have been created were it not for Ms. Kronberg's desire to promote her theory. The major source cited, the Washington Post, provides nothing beyond an obituary. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, this isn't "Molly's viewpoint." It's the viewpoint of the only major story to be written about the life of Mr. Kronberg published in a reliable source, and I see no evidence that the journalist is somehow not credible. As such, it's is not the "minority viewpoint," but it is the only reliably sourced viewpoint. (For the sixth time, I repeat my request: what reliably sourced information is missing?) It's unavoidable that an article about someone as marginally notable as Kronberg is going to rely on the only source that has lengthy coverage. Your problem is with the lenient standard of WP:N that permits an article to be created on the basis of one large story and several trivial mentions. I would personally !vote weak delete if the AfD were brought, but I warn you it is unlikely to succeed, as the subject has only gotten more notable since the previous discussion. THF (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::Hmmm. You're making a pretty persuasive argument here for the "Onesource" tag. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

The onesource tag, which reads, "Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations of additional sources" is not appropriate in an article when no one on the talk page has identified an "additional source." But I'll repeat my unanswered request for that additional reliable source for the seventh time. Either answer the question, or drop the WP:STICK. THF (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::::The Onesource tag asks others to provide additional sources. I don't know of any, and I don't find any by googling, but that doesn't mean that no sources exist. Failing additional sources, I think that an AfD may be an option. It says at WP:NOBJ that "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." Since no significant press coverage has appeared since the one-shot Washington Monthly article, notability is in question here. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Make the nomination, find the source, or quit repeating yourself, please. THF (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

::::It is worth noting that Hexham knew about the Avi Klein article no later than May 16, 2007[17], six months before it was published. Keinehexen (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So? Lead times for free-lance journalism of that size are often many months: the author takes time to research it, time to write it, and then the publication process takes months. Of course [she] knew that a reporter asked to interview her about this five months before it was printed. THF (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet theater[edit]

I've struck through edits posted by socks of banned user:Herschelkrustofsky. Obviously, postings from him have dominated this talk page. New accounts that post here are going to receive extra scrutiny because this is obviously a magnet for that user.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Libel suit[edit]

I count 35 links to the Legal Times blog from Wikipedia articles.[18] As the blog of a mainstream news source, I believe it meets the standards of WP:V.   Will Beback  talk  00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS says that blogs are "largely not acceptable." I'm not arguing for the removal of reference to Mollie's suit. I do think, however, that we should leave the "citation needed" tag there until a better source is found. The blog post contains material that has been disputed in earlier discussions here. --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If it's deemed an unacceptable source then many articles will be affected, so you should take it to WP:RSN so that editors interested in other affected articles can join the discussion. What's the disputed content?   Will Beback  talk  06:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It isn't a personal weblog; if you read the policy, it deals with these kinds of blogs in a footnote, [19] and they're fine as sources -- particularly if you're not challenging the material it's supporting. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

:::OK, the footnote clarifies things. Since the author of the blog post is named, I have no further objection. It should probably be attributed in the article, though. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Postings by sock of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Case withdrawn[edit]

The edit from yesterday says the Molly Kronberg case was withdrawn. This is unsourced and no reason is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenneth Kronberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)