The following is the present state of attempting to "edit in" to an article in Wikipedia entitled "New World Order (conspiracy theory)" information concerning Congressman Larry McDonald's opposition to the New World Order. The Section head "Notable Opponents of the New World Order" was deleted as well as the entry concerning Cong. Larry McDonald. The story is not completed and there are still hopes, albeit not very high, that at the end the deletion will be reinstated.
The entry that was deleted:
Notable opponents of the New World Order
- Larry McDonald - Lawrence Patton McDonald (April 1, 1935 - Sept. 1,1983), a conservative Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, represented the 7th congressional district of Georgia. He was onboard Korean Airlines Flight 007 when it was shot down by Soviet interceptors just west of Sakhalin Island on Sept. 1, 1983. He was the 2nd president of the John Birch Society and the only member of Congress reportedly killed by Communists during the Cold War."
"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government, combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control ... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."[1][2]
(Speaking of Carroll Quigley, a history professor and Secretary to Council on Foreign Relations:) "He says, Sure we've been working it, sure we've been collaborating with communism, yes we're working with global accommodation, yes, we're working for world government. But the only thing I object to, is that we've kept it a secret."[3]
From the talk page of article:
I had posted the below section but it was removed with the comment that it should first go to the Talk page as it is controversial subject. I think that it is approptiate to be a section on opponents of the New World Order and I think that one of the most notable was Larry McDonald. What I have posted is referenced and quite fairly representing his points of opposition. What do people think? --Bert Schlossberg (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily opposed to such section. However, editors must take particular care when describing living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Furthermore, we would need to find a reliable source that that mentions Larry McDonald (or anyone else) as a notable opponent of the New World Order or, more precisely in light of the title of this article, a notable New World Order conspiracy theorist. --Name Deleted (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is Cong. Ron Paul's (himself notable) replay of Cong. Larry McDonald on Pat Buchanan's Crossfire show of 1983, and Ron Paul's comment certainly underlining McDonald's notability https://www.youtube.com/user/rescueKAL007#p/c/FD3DE4F0642C350C/0/1c8v-kgLvhM Bert Schlossberg (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
That's not a reliable source. Please check the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline page. --Name Deleted (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Referring to the second paragraph above, I think you probably did not intend that you think that Larry McDonald is still alive. I believe that there is indeed evidence that he survived and alive at least until 1995, but I do not think that you intended that. Just a note, and a reason why the reaosning (in part) of that paragraph would not holdBert Schlossberg (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to note that Bert attempted to add exactly the same information to the Rockefeller family article, and he is related to a person killed on board the Korean Air flight which is mentioned. It was reverted and is being discussed on the talk page. Name Deleted (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know. --Name Deleted (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I won't pursue it further. But I will note this. I am, indeed, related to someone on the flight. This has a lot to say about my motivation in the first place. But do we not all have motivations in being involved in editing? So the only issue ought to be accuracy, regardless of our various motivations. Secondly, it is true that I have posted the same info for a number of people. But that is precisiely because it applies equally to a number of subjects. Similarly, There was one letter signed by three senators - Kennedy, Levin, and Nunn. I posted under these three persons, of course, changing the order according to the article. So. having added the "exact same information" could not be wrong in any sense, as I see it. If it be wrong, then fault must be found as to its applicability to the subject, and not to its sameness. Bert Schlossberg (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
From remark put on "talk" of my User page:
Bert, I don't mean to personally attack you but I have to say this: You are living in a dark fantasy world if you think any of the information you provided is “accurate”. The notion that the passengers of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 were killed by agents of some New World Order conspiracy simply to assassinate Larry McDonald disgraces their collective memory. I sympathize with your loss but I find it heart-breaking that in your desperation to make sense of the senseless you have embraced the paranoid delusions of the American far-right. So the tragegy is compounded... :(Name Deleted) (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
(Name Deleted), you really are way off. I do not believe that the passengers of KAL 007 were killed by agents of the New World Order, let alone were killed to assassinate Larry McDonald. Where are you getting this idea? If I did hold to this idea, it would not be, in and of itself, a disgrace to the memory of the victims or a disgrace to their families. And some of the families of KAL 007 believe as I do about survivors.In any case, I do not have the belief that KAL 007 was brought down by the New World Order to get Larry McDonald. But if there were evidence to that presented to me, I would proclaim itBert Schlossberg (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
This article http://www.conservapedia.com/Korean_Airlines_Flight_007 articulates fully what I do believe about the above. You will find nothing in it about the New World Order. The cause lies elswhere.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
My apologies then. Let's move on. Name Deleted (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
From Talk page of New World Order article:
Let's move on then. --Name Deleted (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The best way to move on is by reinstating what has been deletedBert Schlossberg (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It won't (at least not in the way you want it to be) so forget about it. --Name Deleted (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
On which grounds do you think that edit is not to be reinstated - because it is not important to this article that there are notable opponents to New World Order?, That Larry McDonald, the president of John Birch Society and congressman from Georgia was not notable? having no influence?, That McDonald should not be mentioned as he was on KAL 007 shot down by the Soviets and inclusion of him as "notable opposition" could come about only by prejudice by someone on the "extreme right" and thus not disinterested? That McDonald did not say what the edit says he says in opposition to the New World Order? I say here what I have told you on my User page, that I personally do not believe that KAL 007 was shot down in a plot of New World Order to get Larry McDonald, as you mistakenly thought of me, that the cause of the shootdown lies elswhere, and that that is not my "motivation" for this edit. If I did believe that, though, that KAL 007 was, indeed, shot down by the New World Order, would that be reason for deletion of the edit? Is it a requirement of Wikipedia that edits are accepted, only if the editor think it not true, or is disinterested and really doesn't care?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said before, I'm not opposed to having a section that lists notable New World Order conspiracy theorists but we need a reliable source that states that Larry MacDonald is a notable New World Order conspiracy theorist (rather than an opponent of the New World Order) in light of the fact that this article is about the notion of a New World Order in conspiracy theory. The fact that McDonald was on KAL 007 shot down by the Soviets is completely irrelevant information that shouldn't and wouldn't be mentioned in this article even if we decided to add him to our list of New World Order conspiracy theorists. That being said, MacDonald's lunatic assertion that Rockefellers and company are involved in a communist New World Order conspiracy would and will be a great addition to the Round Table section of the article (in part because it neutralizes User:Name Deleted criticism of this article which he expressed in a section above). --Name Deleted (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem is also a matter of synthesis above all. Yes, it is true that McDonald's plane was shot down by the Soviets. Yes, it is true that he was quoted as mentioning the Rockefellers and The New World Order as being related. My problem is that there is nothing showing that the flight being shot down has anything to do with The New World Order or the Rockefellers. So why are you trying to add that information to these articles? Another question is in regards to the Rockefeller quote: what comes in between the two phrases with the ellipsis (the three periods)? It seems like quote cherry-picking to go from the first part of that sentence, a skip, and then the end of the sentence. (I read the source, and the quote reflects the source accurately.) Name Deleted (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The issue of synthesis is a good point. --Name Deleted (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I am glad to see that part of what I had originally edited in has been put back - but not in the section I had originally "Notable opponents of the New World Order". It now being in in the Round Table section makes sense as McDonald's quote does speak to that point. Yet, you have deleted McDonald's other quote concerning Quigly - "He says, Sure we've been working it, sure we've been collaborating with communism, yes we're working with global accommodation, yes, we're working for world government. But the only thing I object to, is that we've kept it a secret." when Quigly is substantially dealt with in the same Round Table section. Why is that? Another question I have, for my clarification - you are not opposed to a new section that "lists notable New World Order conspiracy theorists" (as has been deleted) but you say "we need a reliable source that states that Larry MacDonald is a notable New World Order conspiracy theorist (rather than an opponent of the New World Order) in light of the fact that this article is about the notion of a New World Order in conspiracy theory." I understand from this that you accept part of what I present of McDonald's quote and have placed it in Round Table because he is in fact, an opponent of the New World Order, but do not accept the other part because we do not have a source that says that he is a "notable New World Order conspiracy theorist." Is that right? My point in asking is this. Don't you think that that requirement is quite stringint, especially in the light of the fact that the part that is accepted and now appears in Round Table also does not have the backing of a source saying that "McDonald is an opponent of the New World Order"? That he is an opponent of the New World Order is evident from what he says. In like manner, to my way of thinking, that McDonald is a notable New World Order conspiracy theorist is evident by what he says and by who he is! In the light of all this, Mcdonald being the president of J.B.S. and member of Congress, and a sitting member of Congress at the time KAL 007 was shot down, and the only sitting Congressman ever killed (reportedly) by the Soviets during the Cold War,and a man that exerted a tremendous influence on conservatives, and in the manner of death, fueled much indignation among many, that probably swayed them toward conspiracy theory thinking, all of this (which would be gleaned from the original full edit I made) justifies inclusion of what has been deleted, and remains delteted, namely - "He was onboard Korean Air Lines Flight 007 when it was shot down by Soviet interceptors just west of Sakhalin Island on Sept. 1, 1983. He was the 2nd president of the John Birch Society and the only member of Congress reportedly killed by Communists during the Cold War." Besides, isn't it customary in Wikipedia to add a little bit about a person to identify him and pointing out the importance or background of a person?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
None of the information about the flight, the Soviets, or the John Birch society has anything to do with the New World Order. Referring to him as a Congressman and having a wiki-link to his article is enough information for an article about New World Order (conspiracy theory). If people want to know more, they can click on his name, where they can find that info. And if you can find a reliable source that connects his death to the New World Order, then perhaps it can be added. Name Deleted (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Singling out and quoting MacDonald as arguing that there is a one-world government conspiracy (with a neutral description of who is he) is different from creating a section that lists him as a notable New World Order conspiracy theorist. As I said before, Wikipedia editors must take particular care when directly and explicitly describing persons as conspiracy theorists for legal reasons in light of how damaging such a label can be to a person's reputation. So we need a solid reliable source that explicitly describes him as a “notable New World Order conspiracy theorist”.
As for his quote about Quigley, it's not important, especially since we explain how Q's work is often misinterpreted by conspiracy theorists.
As Name Deleted explained, none of the information about MacDonald you want added is relevant and important to an article about New World Order conspiracy theory.
--Name Deleted (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Did you find my description of Larry McDonald - "Lawrence Patton McDonald (April 1, 1935 - Sept. 1,1983), a conservative Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, represented the 7th congressional district of Georgia. He was onboard Korean Air Lines Flight 007 when it was shot down by Soviet interceptors just west of Sakhalin Island on Sept. 1, 1983. He was the 2nd president of the John Birch Society and the only member of Congress reportedly killed by Communists during the Cold War." not neutral?
Further, "Wikipedia editors must take particular care when directly and explicitly describing persons as conspiracy theorists for legal reasons in light of how damaging such a label can be to a person's reputation" This is, as you say, a restatement of what you had previously said, except in your previous statement, you have, probably by error and not reflecting your thinking, that McDonald is still living. Does what you say now also apply to someone who is dead? that is, that for legal reasons, Wikipedia must have someone who is dead described in the reliable literature as a "notable new World order conspiracy theorist" before listing him as such in an article?Bert Schlossberg 18:21, 3 March 2010 (EST)
You seem confused. The issue of neutrality is about whether or not it is appropriate to describe MacDonald as a conspiracy theorist while the problem with your description is that there is too much information in it that is irrelevant to an article about the New World Order. That being said, in light of the fact that he is dead the issue isn't so much legal reasons as much as it is one of fairness. So having a solid reliable source neutralizes any possibility of a dispute erupting in the future with some reader complaining on this talk page that it is unfair to describe MacDonald as a conspiracy theorist. Are we done? -Name Deleted (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is the end of the discussion without a doubt. This whole discussion on Wikipedia, and just this discussion, has just been archived and is no longer visibleBert Schlossberg 21:32, 3 March 2010 (EST)