Talk:Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up

ADL as source

When the primary focus of an article is an attack by the ADL, it has "POV edit" written all over it. I have re-written the article with a section on criticism for the ADL business. --H.K. 16:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The edits by SlimVirgin contained numerous factual errors which are attributed to the ADL. The Zayed Centre conference which hosted Lyndon LaRouche was mistitled ("The Middle East as a Strategic Crossroads" was the name of LaRouche's speech, not that of the conference) and the statements attributed to LaRouche appear nowhere in the transcript of his address. I have linked the transcript, provided an accurate summary, and retained the SlimVirgin/ADL quotes as general, rather than specific allegations. --H.K. 16:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Provide reputable references. The ADL, regardless of the fact that you personally don't like it, is regarded as a reputable source. Don't delete material attributed to the ADL.

Slim, you seem to be having a bit of a tantrum here. None of your ADL business was removed; I added a neutral section at the beginning of the article, so that it begins to resemble an NPOV article. Also, I made it clear that the ADL commentary about LaRouche does not refer to his speech at the Zayed Center, which is now properly linked to the article and available for your inspection, so that you can see that Zionists, Christian Zionists and so forth are nowhere mentioned in the speech. In fact, I might suggest that you actually read the current version of this Wikipedia article before reverting it. --H.K. 15:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

• Wikipedia:Verifiability

• Wikipedia:Cite sources

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

• Wikipedia:No original research

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

LaRouche supporters inserting LaRouche propaganda

Krusty, I am gong to keep on reverting your attempt to insert too much LaRouche material into this article, which is not about a related person or organization, following the ArbCom ruling. That means you're not allowed to use the LaRouche organization as a source, and you're not allowed to draw undue attention to him. Why do you think LaRouche merits more space in this article than, say, President Carter? As for inserting the Center's objectives, it has none. It doesn't exist anymore. Grow up. Slim 19:37, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Anti-LaRouche activists inserting anti-LaRouche propaganda

You have a curious standard here, which is that you seem to find it appropriate to insert copious amounts of anti-LaRouche propaganda, but find it objectionable to have any rebuttal (in this case, a simple factual report on the content of LaRouche's address to the center. Would you care to explain how you consider that to be propaganda? And it was placed there to correct what was clearly a deceptive misrepresentation of that address.) Perhaps you will find it more satisfactory to remove our respective edits on LaRouche equally. LaRouche is not particularly relevant to an article on the Zayed Center, and I did not originally mention him here; some other editor did.

Now, one other thing: if you are arguing that the objectives of the center are irrelevant to the an article on the center, now that it has been closed, why have an article at all? Unless, of course, you see it as another opportunity for the dissemination of anti-LaRouche propaganda. --H.K. 23:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stop calling me an anti-LaRouche activist. YOU are a self-confessed LaRouche activist, which is why I refer to you as that. I am not an anti-LaRouche activist. I am simply opposed to your poor research methods and your offensive choice of sources.

I'm not the person who wrote the Zayed Center article, and I'm not the person who first mentioned LaRouche in it. I suspect it was you who did both, or one of your associates, and that you did it to gain another mention for LaRouche in Wikipedia. Now that the center has been closed amid accusations of anti-Semitism, it has all gone horribly wrong for you, and you would prefer the LaRouche reference to be removed or even the article to be deleted. I have no interest either way. Delete the references, or recommend the article for deletion, as you see fit. The only reason I will keep on reverting is if (a) you attempt to increase the space devoted to LaRouche, (b) delete the references to the ADL without deleting the LaRouche reference entirely, or (3) try to make the center sound more respectable than it was, (unless you do so with reference to reputable third-party sources). Krusty, if you would stop acting as a LaRouche representative, and start acting like a regular Wikipedia editor, you wouldn't have to get yourself tied up in such intellectual knots. Slim 23:14, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I've checked the history and it seems the very first editor mentioned LaRouche, though you are the only one who tried to make the center sound respectable. Therefore, I feel the reference should remain, as it was first inserted by someone other than you. However, I have reduced it as a compromise. Do not keep inserting what the center's aims ARE. It has no aims. It doesn't exist. You are being foolish. I suggest, if you feel it is a pointless article, that you suggest it at RfD. Slim 23:25, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

White supremacist article

Herschelkrustofsky, your use of a white supremacist, neo-Nazi magazine and similar suspect sources as references shows you haven't yet got the message, so here again is Wikipedia policy. Please read it this time. Slim 19:42, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

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

• Wikipedia:Verifiability

• Wikipedia:Cite sources

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

• Wikipedia:No original research

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

I will respond to this (again) for the benefit of readers who have not visited Talk:Dennis King, which is where the issue of the "White supremacist article" came up. I cited a page from an organization (www.ex-iwp.org) of former members of the International Workers Party. It turns out that one such former member, Dan Friedman, wrote an article, which appears on the ex-iwp website, that was published in a magazine called National Alliance[1], which is completely unrelated to the White Supremacist group with the same name. It is published by the New Alliance Party of Lenora Fulani (who is African-American). The New Alliance Party appears to be an IWP front. --H.K. 13:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

SlimVirgin argues that since the Center is closed, it is not necessary to have a neutral description of the aims of the Center. However, he apparently does believe that it is necessary to retain the hostile characterization by the ADL. An NPOV article would contain both. --H.K. 21:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since it has been four months since there has been any discussion on this matter, I think we can remove the NPOV tag. Any objections? -Willmcw 10:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

None from me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

"Semitism"

Would be nice to mention how a lot of the effort of the Center seemed to be devoted to redefining the word "Semitic", and developing an ideology of Semitism according to which Arabs were true Semites, while Jews were merely phoney fake imitation Semites. AnonMoos (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Since it was abolished 18 years ago, it may not seem notable in 2021, but when it existed it was a semi-notorious irritant well-known to those concerned with hatred of Jews... AnonMoos (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It might be notable; there is certainly linkrot and difficulty finding sources after 2 decades. The current article is mostly sourced to their own site, the ADL, and LaRouche's media, which is why I am concerned. User:¾ (alt of power~enwiki, p, n) 21:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

LaRouche isn't (and shouldn't be) a source for anything about the center; LaRouche is a source for his own bigotry, in accordance with the "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" section of Wikipedia:Verifiability. But the ADL is quite reputable in this particular area. AnonMoos (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)