Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Formatting

The formatting of this article was strange. The 1970s section was out of chronological order. The 1980s section had subsections with placed with the same kind of headings as the main sections. The criticism section was smack dab in the middle of all this, interrupting chronological order. I have re-done it in a more conventional way. --Harry Angstrom (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Good move, I always thought it was a bit odd. Can you clarify if you changed any text? It's very hard to tell if text is changed during a re-organization.   Will Beback  talk  04:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

::No text changes. I did add an extra sub-sub-heading in the 1970s section. --Harry Angstrom (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The most common criticism

I changed this text:

To this:

Because the earlier version made unsourced assertions. In particular, that the "most common criticism" is that the subject is a "conspiracy theorist", and that he has been accused of being an anti-Semite due to two campaigns. Let's find sourcs for those assertions before restoring the old text.   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read the section called "allegations of anti-Semitism," you will see that in each case, the allegations fall into one of those two categories. There is no one who alleges that LaRouche thinks that "Jews are bad" or that "Judaism is bad" -- they make claims that are "derivative" from his attacks on NeoCons or Zionists. It is perfectly reasonable for an introductory sentence to summarize the section which follows. Besides, your version is highly improper because it says that LaRouche is criticized for being an anti-semite, in other words you present the anti-semitism as a fact rather than an allegation. --Harry Angstrom (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It is true that LaRouche has been criticized as an anti-Semite. We can change the text to say he is accused of these things rahter than being criticized for them. If you can find a source syaing he is accused of being an anti-Semite for those two campaigns then we can add that fact too, but we can't synthesize that deduction on our own, as that would violate WP:NOR.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
For quotations of accusations of anti-Semitism, see Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research#"Anti-semite". I don't think a single one says that he is accused of being an anti-Semite because of those two campaigns.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, we should expand that list to include the other common accusations, which are amply sourced.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

libel suits

The "libel suits" should be connected to "criticism," since they were a response to the criticism. To understand why LaRouche sued individuals or groups X,Y and Z, it is necessary to know what X,Y and Z said about him, so I put the libel suits information as a subheader to "criticism." --Harry Angstrom (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Then let's add the criticism to the appropriate chrono locations too. It makes no sense to place these at the very end, especially the 1984 case which was so important.   Will Beback  talk  19:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
What makes it "so important"? --Harry Angstrom (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
A number of things. First, it was well-covered in numerous reliable sources. Second, it had long-range impacts on LaRouche and his movement. Out of the many legal cases involving LaRouche, it is arguably the third most important, after the two criminal trials.   Will Beback  talk  06:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI, criticism sections are increasingly deprecated. See WP:CRITICISM. A better method is to interleave criticism (and praise or countercriticisms) into the article as appropriate. In the case of this article, I suggest we try to focus on events. So rather than saying, "The ADL has said LaRouche ...." we should instead say, "In 1984, the ADL issued a report ...." That way the matter can be handled in chronological order, with the libel suit in sequence. I'll start working on that. The libel suits don't appear directly connected to what is in the "criticism" section, so it may require adding a little background to each.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:CRITICISM is equivocal. The advantage of consolidating the criticisms in one place is that you can eliminate redundancy; we only have to say "LaRouche condemns anti-semitism" once, whereas if you interleave accusations of anti-semitism throughout the article, the rebuttals will have to be reiterated. It isn't necessary to connect the libel suits to specific criticisms in the present format, because the personalities who were sued are identified in the preceding section. What is problematic is the unsourced assertions about King and Berlet which appear in the libel section.--Coleacanth (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Be that as it may, libel suits aren't criticism. I'll work the material into chronological ordser and add sourced material while deleting unsourced material.   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. I note that the post-1994 material is all muddled together, and should really be organized chronologically too. I don't really see a need for any thematic sections in this article, which should remain narrowly focused on the events in the subject's life. We have an entire separate article devoted to his ideas and another devoted to his organization, plus other pages on specific topics. In any topic we cover here the focus should be on what he did or what happened to him. Some material seems tangential, like the Palme assassination, which probably belongs in the movement article, or the German reunification announcement, which belongs in the views article (if notable). Sometime soon we'll reorganize and rewrite this article.   Will Beback  talk  08:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You added a reference to LaRouche suing the ADL in 1978, but then you "flavored" it with quotes from the ADL published in 1984 and 1986. You should replace those quotes with contemporaneous ones or drop them. --Maybellyne (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Says the account that just added an assertion from a 2006 speech to the same 1979 section.[1] Both of the quotes I added are attributed to the report that was the subject of the 1979 libel case.   Will Beback  talk  20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
And a 2002 article by someone besides LaRouche. Let's keep this a chronological biography. If LaRouche or Steinberg said something in 1979 about anti-semiticism or the ADL then let's include it here. But this isn't the place to add comments from decades later.   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
LaRouche is being accused of anti-Semitism, which he opposes. Your edits are designed to diminish or disparage his opposition, and they violate the BLP code. If you are going to attempt to obstruct the other side of the story, necessary under both BLP and NPOV, we should just put the libel suits and criticism (which you are inserting, using the libel suits as a "cover") back where they were. Please don't re-insert them until this has been sorted out. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Not "is": "was". This is history. If LaRouche condemned anti-Semiticism in 2006 then that's fine. But the events we're discussing here concerned the 1970s. If LaRouche condmend anti-Semitism at the time then that's relevant to this material. What he did decades later, without reference to this libel suit, isn't relevant.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW, please don't make 10-15 major, controversial edits in a row. Make one or two, and then allow other editors a chance to respond. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
If editors wish to respond I'm always interested in discussing edits.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Then don't make them so fast that it is impossible to keep track of what you're doing. --Maybellyne (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no way of knowing how capable folks are of keeping track. I try to leave a descriptive edit summary with every edit.   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Your edits have the effect of giving the accusations more emphasis while undercutting or trivializing LaRouche's response. In case you haven't read BLP, it says that criticism should be written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone... Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The ADL report came out in 1979. LaRouche's "response", which didn't mention the ADL or the suit, came in 2006. They don't really seem to be related.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks more and more like "moving the libel suits into chronological order" was a tactic to give more prominence to criticism, while neutralizing any response. If you just move the information that LaRouche sued the ADL, without the lurid quotes from the ADL charging LaRouche with anti-Semitism, that would be acceptable. But if you insist on adding the lurid quotes early in the article, it becomes a BLP issue. BTW, please take care to make your edit summaries accurate. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit summaries? Could you be more specific?   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
At least I leave edit summaries.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm moving the actual 1979 libel suit to the LaRouche movement article since it did not directly involve LaRouche. However the ADL report that made the assertions about LaRouche does directly concern him. Complimentary quotes about LaRouche, such as that by Menshikov, are not relegated to the end of the article. The ADL report about LaRouche is notable and should appear in chronological order. As for the NBC suit, I don't understnad what BLP issue are involved there. Please explain.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the date of these articles?

  • "The John Train "Salon" and the Evidence of Criminal Fraud Filed With the Fourth Circuit Court"
  • "Summary of Relevant Evidence on the Record Demonstrating the Innocence of Lyndon LaRouche And Co-Defendents"

Are the authors known or are they anonymous?   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a sentence because it makes allegations about living people without an adequate source.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
If you prefer, we could link to this affidavit:[2] --Maybellyne (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
That's even less reliable. Are the listed sources anonymous and undated?   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Third-party sources

The lack of third party sources for many issues has come up at the "Views" article but it applies here too. There are a number of entries that follow the pattern of "LaRouche announced..." If no one outside of the LaRouche movement has reported it then we shouldn't either. This article should rely primarily on reliable, secondary sources, whether they be Chinese or English. This article is due for an overhaul, so if sources can be improved now is the time to do so.   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It "came up" because it is your personal opinion that you voiced repeatedly. I see no basis in policy for it. In fact, the first "LaRouche" arbcom case specifically permits the use of LaRouche sources in "LaRouche" articles, subject to regular policy. In my opinion, nothing should be deleted here unless it is off-topic, non-notable, or problematic in that sort of way. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
They're permitted to use as references, just like any self-published source. But self-published sources are not used to decide notability. If these various statements and activities are notable they will have been reported in mainstream reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted talk page

There is a directory at the top of this page which provides links to various LaRouche-related talk pages, including Talk:John Train Salon, which evidently was deleted by John Reaves in October 2007. The reason given is Wikipedia:CSD#G8. I followed that link, and found that it says "This excludes any page that is useful to the project, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user and user talk pages, talk page archives, plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons." So I would like to know if that page can be restored. --Maybellyne (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why?   Will Beback  talk  20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Because it is somewhat extraordinary for a talk page to be deleted, is it not? --Maybellyne (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not extraordinary. It is standard to delete the talk page after the article is deleted.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

German reunification

  • On October 12, 1988, LaRouche gave a speech in Berlin, Germany, in which he said that "that the time has come for early steps toward the re-unification of Germany, with the obvious prospect that Berlin might resume its role as the capital.";[1]

I moved this material to Views of Lyndon LaRouche‎ [3] and expanded it.[4] An editor restored the orginal text here, saying:

  • this should be retained; it was an important forecast, not just a "view" [5]

However the original material does not contain any forecast. Rather, LaRouche simply said it was time to start taking steps toward reunification, not that it would happen. In that spech, he did make several more definite predictions though. He said he didn't think there would be peace between the USSR and the US for decades. He said that a world food crisis would dominate politics for the next two years. He said his comments would be seriously examined at the highest levels in both countries and that he'd have influence in the Bush administration. However there is really no evidence that any of the contents of this speech are important or notable. So I don't see why it belongs. At some point we might add a list of LaRouche's predictions, and these predictions would fit in there. But the material that Maybellyne restored is incomplete, is misinterpreted, is in the wrong place, and is lacking in evidence of notability. I'll delete it from both articles in a week if more sources can't be found.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Socks

Checkuser and behavioral evidence have revealed that Maybellyne, Coleacanth, and Harry Angstrom are socks of banned user Herschelkrustofsky, and so I've crossed out their comments here.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is rediculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.195.222 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes in SDI section

The inclusion of unattibuted and off-topic insinuations from Dennis King and Linda Hunt, plus the earlier deletions of views of General Paul-Albert Scherer (deleted by Dennis King, as I recall,) have created a neutrality problem in this section.--Leatherstocking (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought the subject was proud of his associations with these individuals. What insinuation? The text is little changed from what's been there before - I mostly just moved a chunk to a more appropriate location.   Will Beback  talk  18:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
What does space colonization have to do with SDI, that makes the SDI section "more appropriate"? And the insinuation from King and Hunt, which should be attributed to them, is that these celebrated space scientists, and therefore, by association, LaRouche, were somehow Nazi sympathizers. This should probably be deleted altogether on BLP grounds. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That's the problem with thematic sections. I can move them to a nearby section. The association with these folks isn't a secret, and LaRouche made entire campaigns around some of them. Do you dispute the association of LaRouche with Scherer or Ehricke? Also, it isn't just King and Hunt who note the connection - it's also discssed in "The Skeptical Eye: Big Head's Back" Siano, Brian. The Humanist. Washington, DC: May 1992.

The LaRouchies have also published Primer for Those Who Would Govern, a book by none other than the rocket pioneer Hermann Oberth. Their own review says that Oberth, prior to World War II, "promoted the development of the rocket projectile as the only available means to settle differences between opposing armies." Oberth, 21st Century claims, "inspired a whole generation" of rocket scientists, "among them Wernher von Braun, Arthur Rudolph, and Krafft Ehricke." All three are Class of Peenemunde, early 1940s, and the latter two have longstanding relationships with LaRouche. Rudolph, for example, was the production manager at the Mittelwerke factory, and the Justice Department charged him with working thousands of poorly fed slave laborers to death. Even though Rudolph admitted that he'd been fully aware of the Mittelwerke living conditions, the LaRouchies organized a defense fund for him.

I'll delete the mention of Rudolph's Nazi Party connection and add the defense fund.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Textfiles

An editor just added a link to textfiles.com.[6] Here's a Google search for files that mention LaRouche on that site.[7] Are all of them reliable? if not how do we decide which ones are and which one aren't?   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If no one thinks it's a reliable source I'll delete it.   Will Beback  talk  19:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep it. It's a non-controversial re-print of a published LaRouche source. The way we decide whethe to use sources hosted at textfiles.com is simply on a case-by-case basis. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
And what's the evidence that this particular source is reliable. I recall that folks disputed the veracity of a scanned image of a LaRouche publication. How do we know that this document is what it purports to be?   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
As I recall, the disputed document was supposed to be a typewritten leaflet, not a published source, and it was hosted by a biased website. The Warren Hammerman speech/article is all over the internet, and I have no basis for challenging it as some sort of forgery. If you have such a basis, let's discuss it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Like any source, it's reliability is tied to the author and publisher. Who published the document?   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
If there's nothing further I'll go ahead and delete the reference.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There are many files that purport to be internal LaRouche movement documents on the Internet. Some are in text form, and others are scans, some of which are even typed manuscripts on letterhead. If folks want to take a relaxed approach to sources then we should be consistent and let in all of them. But if we're not going to do that then we need to apply the rules consistently. I don't see any way in which a text file on a site like Totse or textfiles.com can be regarded as a reliable source for a BLP, especially when there's neither an assertion of previous publication in a reliable source nor any mention of it in a source of known reliability.   Will Beback  talk  07:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures?

Are there any more freely available pictures that could be added to this article? It is rather long and detailed, and there must be some other picture of LaRouche floating around, particularly one that doesn't have him half-covering his face? Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 08:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We've never found a better one for LaRouche. I've added some of the related images. I looked on Flickr a while back and didn't see anything except more folks standing in the street. Adding photos of people who aren't significantly connected to the subject wouldn't be good asi ti would tend to give the connection undue weight.   Will Beback  talk  09:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche Lerner debate

  • On December 2, 1971, LaRouche engaged in a spirited debate with leading Keynesian economist Abba Lerner at Queens College, in New York City. The debate pertained to arguments put forward in a leaflet by LaRouche's National Caucus of Labor Committees, specifically on the questions of the wage and price controls and austerity policies being put into place at that time by the Nixon administration, and by Brazil's military regime. Lerner offered a qualified defense of those policies against LaRouche's claim that they represented a revival of the ideas of Hjalmar Schacht. According to the only published accounts, those of the LaRouche organization, Lerner said, "But if Germany had accepted Schacht's policies, Hitler would not have been necessary." LaRouche supporters claim that Lerner's friend, the late philosopher Sidney Hook, attended the debate and stated, "LaRouche won the debate", but "will lose much more as a result of that."[2] LaRouche interpreted Hook's remark to mean that the "establishment" in economics departments in academia would unite against him and no longer debate him, for fear of another upset.[3]

Given the overall length of the article and the lack of secondary or contemporaneous surces for this incident, it seems like undue weight for an obscure event. Maybe a sentence?   Will Beback  talk  11:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. This was the only public confrontation between LaRouche and the economics "establishment," and it was over the Hjalmar Schacht issue, which seems to be central to LaRouche's ideology. If you are looking for something to cut as being overly long and detailed, I would suggest the fight with the Quaker Church in "Early Life," which is worth one or two sentences max. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Who cares if it was his only confrontation? That alone doesn't make it notable. Are there any secondary sources which even mention this?   Will Beback  talk  17:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Beyond this, neither of the sources you mentioned are credible. LaRouche wrote one, and the other is on a supporter's website. Since there's no other verification, the paragraph ought to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.154.33 (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If there's nothing further I'll delete the paragraph.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

SDI 2

I'm seeing a lot of deletions here, and it does seem that the pattern is to delete material that tends to show LaRouche in a positive light. Unless the deleted material can be shown to be improper, there is a neutrality problem. --71.93.115.179 (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There are deletions and additions. Deleting improper material improves the article. Please review this talk page, its recent archives, and the edit history of the article to see the reasons for the deletions.   Will Beback  talk  06:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Material that is improper should be identified in terms of the Wikipedia rules, but it seems that it is being termed "improper" more due to POV. I just compared the earlier "criticism" section and it is obvious that the main "coded references" theorist is Dennis King. Yet the current version of the article removes him altogether from the "coded references" section and deletes what he says in that department. It looks to me like this is an effort to make King more credible, which is a POV tactic. You should make clear what rule this material violates before you delete it again. --71.93.115.179 (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
And who might you be?   Will Beback  talk  06:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You continue to delete sourced material without offering a proper explanation. In the case of the claim that LaRouche acted as a "back channel" between Reagan and the Soviets during 1982, you deleted with edit summary "trim, undue weight." That has nothing to do with what you actually did. There is a difference between reducing "weight" and omitting the reference altogether. Again, this appears to be a POV-based deletion. The sourcing is perfectly adequate, because it is identified as "LaRouche-sourced" for the skeptics, and also Gen. Scherer is an expert in this field. --71.93.115.179 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And who are you? You're obviously not a new user, and you're obviously familiar with LaRouche. That narrows the list.
As for the Scherer material, we don't have room for everything. The SDI section is already too long. We don't need a big block quote from someone who had no involvement in the SDI project whatsoever.   Will Beback  talk  06:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, this is a self-serving claim that can only be found on a LaRouche website, so the sourcing is not adequate.   Will Beback  talk  06:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Will, you have re-deleted sourced material with the edit summary "excess weight"diffdiff, and you say the SDI section is too long. This appears to be a purely personal, aesthetic judgement on your part. Scherer may not have been involved personally in SDI, but then neither was Daniel Graham, who gets a fair amount of space to present an anti-LaRouche view (of course, Dennis King gets more space than either of them.) It looks to me like Scherer and Graham had equivalent positions in their respective governments. However, the material you deleted is specifically on LaRouche having informal discussions with Soviet representatives, and I would think that Scherer has the credentials to evaluate such a claim. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Then let's cut the stuff from Graham too. There's no reason to be adding entire chunks of text from the LaRouche website. There's no end to the amount of sourced material we could at to this article. The entire section is too long and should be cut in half. Let's just say that LaRouche claims to have invented SDI, and that others dispute it. We can say someone claims he talked to the Soviets too. We can cover all of that in a hundred or two hundred words. Can you find a single source which hasn't been published by LaRouche that devotes more than a sentence to LaRouche and SDI?   Will Beback  talk  17:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
There's another quote from LaRouche at the end, which is sourced to an internal speech dated 2003, and now only found on Internet Archive - on other words, not a prominent comment by him. Anyway, he says:
  • ... in 1979, I issued a paper on strategic defense.
It sounds like this is his SDI plan. Do we know the title of this paper? Was it issued publicly? It'd be good to focus this section on what LaRouche actually did, not on what other people were doing.
Regarding the Scherer quote, only one sentence appears to concern LaRouche directly, and only half makes a notable assertion: "...the developer, the originator of this idea, who is the scientific-technological strategic expert, Lyndon LaRouche. " There's no connection between what LaRouche did and the embassy talks or the Soviet rejection. This is really a fringe theory so we need to keep it short and conservative.   Will Beback  talk  18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
If the only source we have for the Scherer quote is the LaRouche movement then it should probably be removed entirely.   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I think it's fascinating to have two Military Intelligence big shots weighing in on the topic. I think the sourcing is fine -- the ArbCom permits the use of LaRouche sources on this article. I say dump the Dennis King part, it's trivia, and you will have a nice short section. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
LaRouche sites are sufficient for the LaRouceh movement, but Scherer is not a member of the LaRouche movement. Let's "dump" King, Scherer, Graham, and everybody else. Let's say that Larouche says he invented SDI, that others disagree, and leave it at that. I just looked at several books on Google that are devoted to the history of SDI and none of them mention LaRouche at all. This whole thing is just a fringe theory.   Will Beback  talk  01:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Searching through secondary sources for any mention of SDI and LaRouche, I've found a couple of stories that note he claims to have invented it, several reporting that NPDC candidate support it, the alegation from the Boston trial that donations and loans were solicited for SDI research, despite the lack of any actual research being conducted, and an FEC investigation which found checks made out for SDI were deposited as presidential campaign donations ipresumably to help qualify for matching funds. If we don't want to go with the route of shortening the material as I've suggested then we can add those last two well-sourced assertions.   Will Beback  talk  05:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
According to Dennis King, who you normally seem to regard as infallible, Brigadier General Paul-Albert Scherer, former chief of West German military counterintelligence, also joined the bandwagon. After LaRouche's indictment, he testified before a Schiller Institute-sponsored commission set up to prove that the U.S. government was violating LaRouche's civil rights. He praised LaRouche's warm heart, "gentle humor," and devotion to the Western alliance. Generally, you regard anyone who praises LaRouche as a member of his movement. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You're making a bunch of assumptions. Do you regard King as reliable? Do you believe anyone who praises LaRouche is a member of his movement? The quote you posted above doesn't seem to have anything to do with SDI. If we have a source that calls Scherer a member of the LaRouceh movement, or otherwise makes it clear, then it's a double-edged sword. On the one hand we might be able to use the LaRouche website as a source for his statement, on the other hand it means he loses whatever claim of objectivity he would otherwise have. I'm concerned that the quotation is excerpted, with ellipses. Based on other such quotations I don't really trust it to be an accurate reportig of the words or their context.   Will Beback  talk  05:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
This material wsa presented with far greater weight than it deserves. No reliable secondary sources give LaRouche any credit for SDI. I've trimmed material from LaRouche, King, etc, and we should probably trim this down to a paragraph. LaRouche's views on the use of beam weapons belong in Views of Lyndon LaRouche. This article should remain focused on events and actions. The only references in reliable secondary sources cast doubt on LaRouche's version.   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

There's a recent dispute over the criticism section. The section is muddled, especially the subsections. The entire section needs a re-write. We should make a more systematic approach to reporting all significant view of the subject. I proprose that the first place to start is with the section heading. "Reception" is being used nowadays in place of "Criticism", as it allows for a moe NPOV treatment of pro and con evaluations. Second, we should try to identify the most prominent commentators (pro or con) on the subject, Third, we should then summarize what those sources say. Does that sound like a good approach?   Will Beback  talk  09:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No. "Reception" seems euphemistic, given the overwhelmingly negative tone of the section. Please specify what you think is "muddled" about the current version. It's clear from the disputes of the past day or so that you wish to delete quotes from Dennis King which demonstrate his penchant for whack-a-doodle conspiracy theorizing, but I'm sorry, that's an essential feature of his "criticism." Since he is unknown to most readers, I object to any effort to try to give him a "makeover" and pass him off as a sanitized, generic "author." Otherwise, given the massive amounts of material that you are either deleting or re-writing, I would wait until other disputes are resolved before opening up a new one.--Leatherstocking (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
"Reception" is used because it's neutral. Such sections are used to contain both negative and positive views. All of these folks are unknown to most readers, so I'm not sure about the focus on King. He's just one of many commentators. As for timing, the trouble with waiting is then it never gets done.   Will Beback  talk  16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
King's conspiracy-spinning has been noted by three third-party commentators, Daniel Pipes, Laird Wilcox, and the New York Times. It's notable.--Leatherstocking (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
But is this the right place to include a lot of detail on it? Further, if Pipes, Laird, and the New York Times are notable sources then why don't we include what they have to say about the subject of the article?   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
"Reception" is totally appropriate when discussing, for example, a literary work or a film, but "Criticism" is most appropriate in this case, and others where a public figure or movement is being discussed. Kpaddock (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Back in December 2008 and January 2009 we had a very long discussion about what terms of criticism to include in the lead. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive57#Lyndon LaRouche Based on a review of sources in that thread and at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research, and with the participation of otherwise uninvolved editors and some HK socks, there was a consensus for the current formulation:

  • There are sharply contrasting opinions on LaRouche. Supporters have described him as the greatest living economist,[2] and a political leader in the tradition of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Martin Luther King.[3][4] Critics have called him an extremist,[5] a conspiracy theorist, [6] a political cult leader,[7] a fascist,[8] and/or an antisemite.[9]

I propose that we use the criticism section to go into greater detail on each of these views. Right now we have headings for only the last two, plus "coded language", which doesn't appear on the list. But we have nothing on extremism, conspiracy theorist, or political cult leader. There are ample sources for each of those, which is why they are on the list. I think if we streamline the material it needn't be much different in size than the current section while still being more comprehensive. Detailed critiques of his views belong in the "Views" article. If we devote a paragraph or so to each topic, then it might even be shorter.   Will Beback  talk  08:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am open to this suggestion as long as it does not result in sanitizing the "coded references" section, which is necessary because of the heavy reliance on King and Berlet as sources here at Wikipedia. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
What's the big deal with coded sources? Can you show that it is one of the most common criticisms of LaRouche? It sounds like you want to include it just to disprove it, like a straw man.   Will Beback  talk  17:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I've read enough King and Berlet to know that the "decoding" approach is central to their attacks. But don't take my word for it. As you mentioned, Wilcox, Pipes and the NYT are all critics of LaRouche, and yet they noticed it too. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
This article isn't about King or Berlet. It's about LaRouche. So let's cover the main criticisms of the subject and leave off the less significant ones, or at least treat them with no more weight than their prominence deserves. If you insist, we can use a sentence or two to say that some critics assert that LaRouche uses coded terms, and that others disagree. Looking over that section, some of the material in there doesn't appear to have anything to do with "coded references". Moving those out of there will get us moving in the right direction.   Will Beback  talk  04:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
A very good point that this is an article about LaRouche, not his critics.. I strongly support further discussion of criticism, especially those that appear in the lead but are not discussed in the body of the entry. Kpaddock (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a Wikipedia "writer" but I do read the articles and discussions regularly. I have never seen an article about a living person that criticizes that person in the second paragraph of the intro. It's obvious that LaRouche's career has been plagued with controversy, but I don't think it appropriate to include criticism in the introduction. Soory if this comment is in the wrong place, but I couldn't figure out how to start a new section.12.169.83.234 (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. This section is a fine place for it. I'd point you to the discussion among many editors of this very topic, here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive57#Lyndon LaRouche . But the shorthand version is that this concern was raised before and the community agreed that this presentation of criticism is appropriate. Article introductions should provide an overview of the contents, including praise and criticism. I can't recall how it ended up in the second paragraph instead of the third or fourth, but that seems relatively trivial.   Will Beback  talk  18:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I beg to differ. The "community" came to no such agreement. There was a small but determined group of editors who insisted that the intro be loaded with criticism. This group included accounts belonging to two individuals who are frequently cited as sources for criticism in the article, Chip Berlet and Dennis King. I too thought that this was a highly unusual approach to a Biography of a Living Person, which is why I began watching this article about 1 1/2 years ago. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Check the cited thread. Neither Cberlet nor Dking participated.   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Dking and Cberlet edit-warred to insert the criticism into the lead. In the cited thread at the BLP noticeboard, the defense of the practice was mostly you. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that even a single word in the current lead was added by either of those editors. There seems to be an obsession with those two individuals, blaming them for things in which they had no involvement.   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

In the section on LaRouche's anti-Semitism, I removed the wording placed there by one of the LaRouche sock puppets, who mischaracterized what I said in my book, and who included a quote from Laird Wilcox that says he thinks I exaggerated the links of LaRouche to the far right. That is not directly relevant to the section in which it is inserted, which is about LaRouche's anti-Semitic views not his political alliances. That he sought or seeks such alliances is a symptom of his views, but the particular intensity of the alliance of LaRouche with this or that individual on the far right (who are always falling out with each other) isn't the issue here. However, I added a citation to the National Review, which in a cover article in 1979 also detailed the history of LaRouche's involvement with the anti-Semitic right. Furthermore, for the record: Although LaRouche and Carto soon had a falling out, as Wilcox observes, LaRouche continued to cultivate neo-Nazi and other far right alliances around the world down through recent years; for instance, with the Carapintadas in Argentina, with death squad supporters in Spain and Colombia, with paramilitaries in Mexico, and with accused Nazi war criminals and former Nazi military officers in Germany. And LaRouche continued to attract, and still attracts, followers and allies on the fringe right in the United States.Dking (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche sock puppet Leatherstocking reverted my changes without giving any reason. I have restored the changes, which are properly sourced, and have also taken out the criticism of my book by a NY Times reviewer. The quote from the Times reviewer refers to whether or not LaRouche can be regarded as a fuehrer type, not whether or not he has a history of anti-Semitic writings and statements. The latter is the issue of this section. Furthermore, the statement by the Times reviewer is already in the Dennis King article -- it was copied here in an attempt to divert the thrust of the section away from LaRouche's well-documented anti-Semitism and into a critique of my book.Dking (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

::::If you are the same person as Dennis King who wrote the book in question, it is improper for you to edit this article. I suggest that you post the changes you wish to make on this page, and let other editors step forward to make them. --Steve Grayce (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am Dennis King. I am a recognized, widely published expert on the subject in question. It has been determined by past Wikipedia decisions that I and Chip Berlet, also an expert on the subject, are entitled to edit on this article and even to cite our own work within reason. You have provided no Wiki rule, or ruling, for your arbitrary reverting of this article to its prior version. I provided reasons for my edits and also proper citation for my changes.--Dking (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::If you don't mind, I'd like you to point out the page at Wikipedia where it says you are entitled to edit and cite your own work on this article. --Steve Grayce (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve, generally speaking, its accepted within the norm of human society that we allow the experts in a given field to write the articles within it...99.35.40.20 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Scans of documents

The purported FBI letter (File:Fbidoc.jpg) is apparently uploaded from the Schiller Institute website. Yet I recall editors complaining about using scanned documents hosted on partisan websites as sources. How is this file different from a scan of a LaRouche letter hosted on laroucheplanet.info, for example? Do we even ened this document, since we already have LaRouche's statement?   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a relevant image for this article. It looks like an official FOIA release, and the FOIA process is well known. Is there a basis for disputing its authenticity? In the case of the Dennis King site, I would certainly question any typewritten document with no logo that was supposedly an "internal document," when the means by which is was obtained are not revealed. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
What was the basis for disputing the authenticity of the material on Laroucheplanet.info? I just want us to be consistent. Either we allow scanned documents in or we don't. I think we're safest if we remove the purported letter and avoid using scans of primary sources hosted on partisan website.   Will Beback  talk 
No one knows how the LaRoucheplanet site got the document in question, nor do we even know who "LaRoucheplanet" is. On the other hand, the origins of the FOIA document are not obscure. There is no secret about how FOIA documents are obtained. I am restoring it, and I suggest you take it to the RS noticeboard if you doubt its authenticity. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
So, to be consistent, if Laroucheplanet identifies the source of its documents then we can use those too? Do you think that's what's in WP:V and WP:NOR?   Will Beback  talk  05:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
We would have to know exactly who "laroucheplanet" is, and the precise nature of his or her relationship to the LaRouche organization, in order to decide whether to give credence to a story about how he or she obtained secret internal documents. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Do we know who the webmaster at the Schiller Insititute is, the one who posted the FBI letter?   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ken and Molly Kronberg

I question whether the Kronberg business is notable enough for an extensive section in this bio, particularly because it has its own article. I find it strange that a great deal of material is being moved out of this article to others, but this section is moving in the opposite direction. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a paragraph about Kronberg in the article until HK's sock deleted it. When it was restored, you acted on behalf of the banned user and deleted it again. There is quite a bit elsewhere in the article about collaborators and people with whom LaRouche met, so it's not that unuusual. The LaRouche side is presented, though again it's from anonymous postings. Let me see if I can trim it some more so that weight won't be an issue.   Will Beback  talk  15:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Please avoid personal attacks. I didn't "act on behalf of a banned user." When there is an article devoted to a topic, it is customary to use the "main" template to direct readers to that article, rather than replicating its contents in another article. Aside from the fact that LaRouche is now the defendant in a lawsuit (according to a blog,) the relevance to his biography seems scant at best. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
When you restore edits by a banned editor then you are acting on their behalf.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That is bad faith speculation about my motives. I don't make any edit that I can't personally justify on the basis of Wikipedia policy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not speculating about your motives, I'm describing your actions. Shall we count up how many times you've restored HK's edits, or defended his socks? You're doing it right now on a noticeboard, so add another one to the list.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Committee to Save the Presidency"

I found two sources in answer to the citation request. Could the editor who has tagged them as "rejected" explain what was lacking? --Steve Grayce (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources I looked at didn't mention mobilizing for Clinton, or a petition agaisnt impeachment. What are the sources? Are they from the LaRouche movement?   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

::Oh. I'll see if I can find more, and otherwise I'll just edit the article to match the sources. --Steve Grayce (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Normally I'd say that's fine but right now there's a discussion over using articles like that as exclusive sources for assertions. So I suggest preserving the status quo on that material pending resolution.   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates

Could the editors using the citation templates please bear in mind that they make the page very difficult to edit, so that the writing inevitably deteriorates? It's also hard to read the references section in edit mode, and therefore hard to place new refs in alphabetical order. Also, they're not supposed to be added to pages that already have properly formatted refs. See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever system makes most sense if fine with me. The citations in this article seem like a jumble to me. If someone wants to convert the refs into a consistent format that'd be wonderful.   Will Beback  talk  09:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Re your edit summary, I'll take anarchy any day over citation templates. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I like templates but I wish there was a way of placing them outside the text and just using "ref names" inline. So, which system is preferable? A modified Harvard system using {{citation}} ? I did something like that in Millennium '73. It was a pain in the neck getting it all working, but it's very nice now that the work is done.   Will Beback  talk  10:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem with templates is fourfold: (1) people add unnecessary details to the refs just because there is a parameter for them, so refs become ever longer and harder to read; (2) because there are so many unnecessary words, the text becomes impossible to edit for flow, which means bad writing, and it can't be copy-edited; (3) the references section becomes impossible to read quickly in edit mode, and if you want to add one, you can't see where to slot it in, because all the refs begin with C; (4) the template formats seem to be inconsistent, so the refs don't always end up looking the same.
But don't get me started.
What I'm doing is removing templates and retaining a Harvard ref in the text. I'm doing it that way because it's faster to get rid of templates that way, than having to extract all the info from the template and rewrite the ref from scratch. And I'm moving the templated ref into References. At some point, I'll try to find the time to de-template that section too. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
And (5) I think they slow down the loading time. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I hear they cause cancer, too. ;)   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, from the stress. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms in the intro

I moved DETAILED criticisms and other stuff to the CRITICISM section where they belong. I left some of it in the intro specifically because it seems that the consensus among wikipedians is to leave them in the intro if it makes up a major portion of the persons work, such as LaRouche. So now the intro is more clean and lean and more in line with good intros. Also, I moved the entire ORIGINAL paragraph from the intro to the criticism section,including the defensive part. Even thought there usually isn't any of that in that section, however, due to the extensiveness of that section, it would seem only fair to ALSO leave in some defensive, or contrasting views there. I actually suggest that that section be shortened and summarized and the current section be split into a separate article of criticisms of LaRouche, of which there is no shortage of, and on that page the critics and defenders could have more leeway in portraying those there. Please do not revert to old version without first discussing it here, but do clean up style in both intro and criticism.Seeasea (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

:The main effect of your edit was to minimize views of supporters, making it into a general "supporters think he's a good leader." I frankly think the older intro was better, but I'm respecting your wishes and making only a small change. Another editor thought that it was improper to have criticism in the 2nd paragraph. I also think that, but if it must be there, it should be balanced with supporters' views. --Steve Grayce (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the intro to the the form it's had for about 8 months. This was discussed extensively on the BLP noticebaord, and this is the text that the community agreed upon.   Will Beback  talk  16:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The main things that I wanted to change were details that are extraneous and uninformative in a generalized intro. The idea that he "has one of the best private intelligence organizations" does not tell me anything. Calling him an extremist is kind of self-evident and does not need to be mentioned along side other criticisms here., especially the loading up on specific references to those. Also in the supporters section, calling him a great leader and economist is exactly what it says, and giving examples of similar leaders, as similarities of influence etc. certainly not style, is not applicable, even if the article referenced it mentions them as similar. and to reply to the claim that it minimized supporters views, I had removed aprox. EQUAL ratios of pro and con views; however, in its current state anyways is more loaded to the critics side.
Once again, my aim was to remove EXCESS details.Seeasea (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Those critical terms were chosen because they represent the most common criticisms of the individual. I agree that the description of his intelligience agency may be unhelpful here, and it probably belongs in the LaRouche movement article instead. While we should include the views of followers, we should also be careful about giving those views excess weight. Most reports I've seen say that the subject has a following of about a thousand people in the U.S., and perhaps another thousand internationally. So it's not a large movement and the followers are basically holding a fringe view.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, "controversial" is a fairly meaningless term that could be applied to a large proportion of the topics on Wikipedia. Better to say what the controvery is. In this case, the paragraph describing the disparate views of the subject does that.   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Which is why i propose that he should simply be described as controversial in the intro, and put the specific, even if common criticisms AND DEFENSES down in the criticism section. There is no need for the excessive details in intro...though i must say the heritage foundation critique is funny and probably gets people interested in reading the article.Seeasea (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The list of criticisms is a summary, not a detailed description of why he received those criticisms.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are supposed to contain summaries anyways, not full books on the subject.Seeasea (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I also put in the template to split the article. I also believe that the article could be left here if all the inane details were to be removed...i.e. there is no need a day by day account of his activities and list of his interviews, see section on press coverage for examples etc.Seeasea (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your proposal. Could you flesh it out with more specifics about which parts would go into which articles, and place it in a new thread at the bottom of the page?   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Ill try to do that later this week, but if someone else doe start that, it would be nice.Seeasea (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the "split" tag tag for the time being. We can easily re-add it once you've posted your proposal.   Will Beback  talk  03:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I added the section below, second to lastSeeasea (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I moved it to the end (where all new threads go). I'll respond there.   Will Beback  talk  03:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

There is a problem with the lead. It is making the criticism appear to be a minority view, in part because it's not detailed in any way, and in part because it's left to the end. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I just recently moved that material to the end, just because it's commentary, but I don't care much where it is in the intro as long as the basic text is retained. There's already talk here about making the body of the article better reflect the rigorously-sourced lead. That's a top issue to be adressed.   Will Beback  talk  11:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
That would be a good idea. The article reads in parts like a giant press release, or a running commentary on his life from the LaRouche movement. Although self-published material is allowed in BLPs, we're not supposed to use it where it's unduly self-serving. Also, adding every tiny detail that's apparently been published somewhere in the world just isn't sustainable, especially when the links are dead so that we can't know what the articles said. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

:::It looks to me like you have added many "tiny details" in the way of criticism from marginal sources, while removing many "tiny details" that represented a favorable appraisal of LaRouche (mainly from Russian or Asian sources.) I see this as part of the dispute over article neutrality. --Steve Grayce (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the Article

The article is extremely long.

The first suggestions that i would make would be to take up SlimVirgn's ideas regarding the extra details of LaRouche's life that are mostly inane. The Criticism section can be spun off into another article like Views of LaRouche, an example of this is the artcile of Noam Chomsky who is also controversial, where the criticism on his bio page is two sentences with a link to another very long page of criticism.

LaRouche on Obama section and section of Larouche on financial crisis should be moved to the Views article.

Press coverage paragraph is irrelevant and serves no readily apparent purpose.

as does the webcast paragraph, perhaps the comments he made there can be moved to the views srticle and/or criticism section/article.

The Mop Up section should be moved to a separate article on his movement, or an article which is organization specific.

These are suggestions that I believe could be a good start to fixing this article. I am not sure how to make an article and link it here to be an example of what it might read like if these suggestions where to be taken without changing the real article, so...Seeasea (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am putting up the split template to bring notice to these suggestions.Seeasea (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Seeasea, can you first of all tell us what your main account is? You've done almost no editing with this one, yet you're familiar with the other articles and how to add a template. Given that this article has been very troublesome, and that you're suggesting extensive changes, it would be good to know which editor we're replying to. If there are privacy issues, feel free to e-mail the editors on this page instead. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This is my main account, however, it took me a long time to get an actual acount, and i often forget to sign in, my apologies to the wikipedia community. Seeasea (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with several points in this proposal. The article has been split many times, and we shouldmake the best use of those child articles.

We can streamline this article by moving out material that is better suited to a child article, leaving a summary per WP:SUMMARY. I am currently working on a spin-off of the movement article focusing on the violence and harassment by the movement. "Operation Mop Up" might be handled in greater detail there, but in the meantime it should stay here. I do not think that splitting off the "criticism" section would be good at this time. Per other discussions, a full rewrite of that section is pending. We should wait until that has been done before deciding whether to split it off.   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Should I continue bringing up points here so that an experienced editor can make the choices, or should I BE BOLD? Im not experienced in doing something to that extent in an article, but I am learning.
Just some more points while im at it: The deaths of Duggan and Kronberg seem to be almost exclusively related to the movement. As does the Lawsuit against NBC. those three paragraphs/sections should probably be moved. The founding of the Youth movement is also more borne out of the organization rather than the man, so perhaps it should be moved to the movement article.Seeasea (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It'd be best to wait a bit and see if there are other comments before doing any major changes, and even then it may be better to have a more experienced editor make the edits.
The NBC case is directly related to LaRouche because he was found personally liable for the damages, which resulted in his important testimony about his lack of income, which in turn may have helped result in this later conviction on tax charges. The Duggan and Kronberg matters are also directly relevant, though it might be possible to shorten them a bit further. We currently mention the founding of a few entities. If we move one we should be consistent and move them all. Perhaps a sentence for each in their chronological position might be more appropriate instead of deleting them entirely.
How familiar are you with the LaRouche movement?   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Not specifically very. Seeasea (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've been working toward your ideals. As I wrote above, some of this material shouldn't be removed entirely, but it can be shortened. Here's what's been done so far, related to this proposal:
  • Moved most of the Obama material to the movement article.[8]
  • Trimmed the material related to Kenneth Kronberg [9]
  • Another editor has substantially trimmed the "press coverage section". [10]
  • And shortened the "criticism" section. [11]
  • Various edits have also resulted in a shorter "Operation Mop Up" section.
  • If there's no objection, I'll move the "webcasts" material to the "Movement" article (though it needs a secondary source), while keeping the address to the Zayed Center.
So progress is being made, even if it isn't as dramatic as an article split.   Will Beback  talk  17:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I guess if we follow SlimVirgin's suggestions below in Primary Sources (which I tried to make that point above, in not so many words, in Criticism in the Intro) would really bring the whole article into better shape and in line with my ideal, which i suppose is a shorter, more focused article.
Perhaps even to try and separate within the same article between bio and career as in many wiki bios. Seeasea (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
We've partially split the topic. The subject's career as a presidential candidate is covered almost entirely in another article, Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns, and we can probably move even more details over there. The trick is that the career spanned 32 years, so it's hard to know how to summarize it here. (A complete summary added to the mid-1970s, when he ran first? A sentence for each campaign in chrono order?) Another career is author/economist. While we list his books here, their contents are discussed in the "Views" article, if at all. His leadership of the movement is probably his main role. We talk about the movement in the "Movement" article, but there's little about his role there. His role is extensively covered in the "Trials" article, but only within a limited time frame. So much of it is covered here. That's probably appropriate. If we removed that there wouldn't be much left in this article after 1969. Since that's a key source of his notability we shold keep a significant summary here if we moved it. It's a complicated life to cover.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

There is so much fluff in this article that I suggest we reduce the reliance on primary source material, and try to use only material from LaRouche that secondary sources have deemed worthy of mention. As it stands, we're acting as almost a platform, mentioning every meeting, every press conference, every speech that a supporter deems notable. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're mentioning individual interviews and profiles. The subject has had dozens, if not hundreds, of articles about him, and numerous interviews. I can't think of another political figure for whom we'd include such minor press coverage.   Will Beback  talk  04:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
His supporters say they regard him as a world statesman, yet when they edit this article, they do so as though he's a figure of no importance, so that every even slightly positive reference to him in the media must be mentioned. I suggest we stop engaging in OR entirely (which includes picking and choosing material from primary sources), and stick only to what secondary sources regard as important. That doesn't mean we can't use LaRouche articles at all, but it does mean that someone else must have mentioned them first. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree and, in informal mediation, Leatherstocking has now also agreed that these articles should be based on secondary sources. That's what's required by WP:V:
  • Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
If we follow that policy then there won't be so many problems with this and related articles.   Will Beback  talk  06:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, I'm glad that's agreed. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::I'm confused by your comments, because the material SlimVirgin is deleting seems to be mainly from press coverage of LaRouche, not from LaRouche's own publications example 1. He also deleted all the comments from various 3rd party observers that cast doubt on the methods of Dennis King.example 2 Plus, although he complains about material being used from LaRouche publicatiosn, he himself added material from LaRouche's own publications example 3, although, as another editor pointed out, he provided a totally bogus summary of what was said. He has added a lot of what I would consider defamatory quotes, while systematically deleting favorable press coverage which is just as well sourced, and necessary for balance. I believe that especially examples 1 and 2 should simply be reverted, although I will wait for an explanation of what you both are doing. What it looks like to me is that you are simply trying to produce a highly biased article. --Steve Grayce (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be shortened, tightened, fluff and repetition removed, articles that don't say anything removed as sources, and so on. Above all, it must conform to NPOV (including UNDUE, which you might want to read), V, and NOR. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::::I have read UNDUE. You just re-added a quote from Antony Lerman, a person so obscure that he has no bio on Wikipedia, to the intro. So much for "shortened" and "tightened." And I must object to the remarkable arrogance with which you write "revert no more. This article must be properly written." Is your personal opinion the only standard for what should be regarded as "proper"? --Steve Grayce (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the name of your main account, please? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
A clarification: when we use the contents of a newspaper article, we're using it as a secondary source. If we simply list its existence, we're using it as a primary source for its existence. Some of the pieces about LaRouche have been notable. For example, the King series in Our Town is mentioned in many other sources. But writing something like "the subject was interviewed in Time magazine", would be treating it as a primary source unless we're either using the interview as a source for some of its contents, or if the fact of the interview is reported in another secondary source. I think I may have added a few of those muyself, and I propose we delete them all. Being interviewed on Vremya is not, in and of itself, significant. If folks really want it we could say something like, "LaRouche has been interviewed and profiled in countless media sources inseveral countries."   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the listed deletions above, other editors here have complained about the length of the "criticism" and "Obama/healthcare" sections, so those edits may have been the result of requests. Example #1 I've addressed above.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
For a long time the intro had quotes from two individuals without articles, so if you thinnk that's arrogance then there are other editors to whom that characterization would better apply.   Will Beback  talk  06:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

At least at this article, the issue of primary sources is a red herring. The issue at this article is neutrality, and edit warring. On August 28 I placed the "controversial" template[12], requesting that substantial changes be discussed on the talk page first. Since that time, SlimVirgin has made over controversial 60 edits with no prior discussion. Both of you (SlimVirgin and Will) have edit warred to remove secondary-sourced material. There has been bullying and intimidation of other editors ("What is the name of your main account, please?") I have started a thread at WP:NPOVN. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The sourcing issue is very important, and that's why we're in mediation, at your request.
I hadn't realized that SlimVirgin and I had been edit warring with each other. Or are there are editors who are also edit warring? ;) The only dispute I've been involved in here over sourced material is, I believe, the title of a High Times article. In that case I was adding the secondary-sourced material which was repeatedly deleted by an editor who was apparently not edit warring since you didn't mention his name. He's now admitted that the sentence was only added as an attack on a critic, and all we have is the article name anyway- no content.
Regarding the new account, he's obviously experienced at Wikipedia, and obviously knowledgeable about LaRouche. Doesn't that make you wonder if it isn't a returning baned editor, HK, whose used several socks on this article in just the last couple of months? We should all assume good faith, but after more than fifty socks that assumption becomes somewhat more limited. Rather than creating drama let's just stick to discussing the article and how to improve it. Which leads us back to the problem of excess reliance on primary sources. Let's work together to find 3rd-party sources.   Will Beback  talk  16:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Will Beback is systematically shifting the article away from a relatively NPOV position to one that is biased, in violation ofWP:BLP#Criticism and praise. For example, he deleted the Laird Wilcox rebuttal to Dennis King's "coded language" speculations, without providing any explanation. [13] The mention of the founding of the Schiller Institute, also deleted, is clearly notable as it is the overall umbrella organization for the LaRouche groups internationally. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Schiller Insitute founding doesn't need a whole paragraph. I'll add back a sentence on it. I see that in most places the founder is listed as Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Here's the new text.[14]   Will Beback  talk  18:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the edit to "Allegations of coded references", I used the last draft at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 15#King on LaRouche on Jews, a lengthy discussion of the material. Among other problems, the previous text "put the cart before the horse" by first disputing King's theory before presenting it. As for the general issue of criticism and praise, this article doesn't not seem to treat them equally. For example, most of the "Financial crisis of 2007–2009" seems to be complimentary mentions of the subject, while most of the criticism is relegated to a separate section at the end. The structure of the article is an important aspect of NPOV. We should probably move most or all of the criticism material into the chronology.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Will, you astound me. The "Financial crisis of 2007–2009," two paragraphs long, features various press reporting what seems to be an objective fact, that LaRouche's forecast was correct. It is immediately followed by the 12 paragraphs of the "criticism" section, which contain what appear to be rather fantastic speculations about hidden meanings in LaRouche's writings. So, your position is that "criticism" is receiving short shrift, because is "relegated to a separate section at the end"? Incidentally, I must have missed the part where you explain why you deleted the quote from Laird Wilcox. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Assessing the accuracy of LaRouche's various forecasts and predictions is a judgment call. We have other sentences that can be moved out of the criticism section to make it shorter. With most of the press reporting, it's probably best to mention it in the chronolgy, as is done with the "Fincancial crisis" section. As for Wilcox, what does he say about LaRouche?   Will Beback  talk  19:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you not read what you were deleting? Wilcox and George write that "Dennis King goes to considerable lengths to paint LaRouche as a neo-Nazi, even engaging in a little conspiracy-mongering of his own. King maintains, for example, that words like "British" were really code words for 'Jew.' But I notice now that you also deleted examples of King's "decoding" technique, perhaps because you think King is shooting himself in the foot with some of his claims. However, that is typical of King's methods and the reader should be aware of this, since King is hardly a well-known commentator. You also placed a duplicate paragraph from an earlier section at the beginning of "coded references" for no reason that I can see. I am reverting this poorly-conceived edit. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This whole criticms section has major problems. If Wilcox is a notable source why aren't we quoting him on LaRouche? There seems to be a lot of space devoted to attacking King's view, and to be neutral we should include the praise for it too, or delete the criticism. Anyway, I've merged the two King paragraphs to reduce the redundancy.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this dispute still active? If so, what exactly is disputed? If no, let's remove the POV tag.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You are still making 15-20 edits a day to this article, many of them controversial. It is difficult to follow such a frenzy of edits, but my sense is still that the tendency is to shift the emphasis in order to give undue weight to criticism. When the article is stable, I'll assess it and tell you whether the dispute is over. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
So there's no problem that you can identify? In that case let's take off the tag. If you find something identifiable we can restore it.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The criticism section has now been expanded to 14 long paragraphs, largely due to the inclusion of extended and often repetitive quotes. It should be condensed. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The whole section will be re-worked, per the discussion below.   Will Beback  talk  15:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the tag, due to unexplained deletions of sourced material from the China and Russia sections. SlimVirgin has made over 30 edits today to this article and it will take time to unravel them all. I have also added the "controversial" template to this page, and I ask other editors to refrain from making massive numbers of controversial edits, so that proper discussion can take place. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Another point of dispute is that recent edits have highlighted the two WP:COATRACK articles on the LaRouche list, Jeremiah Duggan and Kenneth Kronberg, without giving similar emphasis to other articles on the LaRouche list that depict LaRouche in a more favorable light, such as Amelia Boynton Robinson. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The Duggan matter has received considerable attention in the press, and the Kronberg matter has ended up in court. I'm only aware of a few sourcess for Robinson's connections to LaRouche,and most aren't really suitable for this article, in my opinion. One article deals with complaints about how a celebration of Harriet Tubman's life was essentially hijacked by the Schiller Institute and Robinson into a pro-LaRouche rally. Another concerns an honor for Robinson that was withdrawn after Seattle City Council (if I recall correctly) learned that she was campaigning for LaRouche. I suppose that concerns how LaRouche is seen by others, but it's tangential and since the article is so long already I don't recommend adding it.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I forgot that your search engine only locates negative material. I use Google, which found these items: [15],[16][17].
In this recent edit [18], you moved material out of the bio because it had little to do with LaRouche personally. However, Jeremiah Duggan, who had nothing do with LaRouche and little to do with his movement, is retained in the article. This is a clear violation of NPOV. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
My search engine mostly includes English-language sources. The Michigan Daily is a student newspaper. Either you or HK have objected to using those in the past. Do you consider it to be a reliable source? If so, there are a variety of relevant assertions in that article. I'm not sure what your point is about the Bailey material - it seems to be in the article now.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the two foreign sources, the Italian one only mentions LaRouche as connected ot the Schiller institute, and we;'ve already mentioend Robinson in that context. The German ones goes slightly farther, saying she's campaigning for the New Bretton Woods program. That would seem more appropriate for her bio or for the material no the NBW at the "Views" article. As for Duggan, I didn't add it but the weight of the media coverage merits some mention in this article.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
So is the neutrality dispute still about the insufficient ontent related to Robinson? Another editor is asking that we reduce the space devoted to the founding of the WLYM, and I've suggested trimming all of the "foundings" to a sentence each, especially for organizations that have articles of their own. Does that seem fair?   Will Beback  talk  16:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Robinson and the Schiller Institute, I've trimmed the other mentions of the founding of organizations to a single short sentence each, and now the Schiller Insitute has the longest sentence because of the Robinson and Foourcade material. Note that we don't mention the cofounders of other organizations at all. In light of that, and of the lack of sources that mention Robinson and LaRouche except in the context of the Schiller Institute, which has its own article, it appears that there is ample weight given the association between LaRouche and Robinson. OTOH, I notice we don't mention the associations with Farrakhan or Bevel, both of which are often noted in sources. I'll try to add something about those individuals.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

High Times article

I'm not sure I understand why folks keep changing the verifiable title of Chip Berlet's article in High Times. The High Times Reader is partially available on Google,[19] and the title of the article is clear. What evidence is there of another title? Does anyone have a copy of the article so we can mention its main point? Is this considered a significant article for some reason? If it is then we should say more. If it isn't then we should say less (i.e., nothing).   Will Beback  talk  01:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

:It is you who are changing the "verifiable title" - as I mentioned, I can send a scan of the front page of the article, if you want to challenge my honesty. The subtitle should not be censored. Perhaps you want to present Chip Berlet as an ultra-serious academic writer, but that is misleading. He was in fact Washington Bureau chief for High Times, and High Times is all about taking dope. --Steve Grayce (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The most verifiable material is what's printed in the book, which is on the shelves of dozens of libraries and is partially scanned into Google).[20] Most of us don't have stashes of old High Times. If you have the magazine could you scan the entire article, so we can summarize its key points? It's not clear why this article is even important. What does it tell us about LaRouche? From what I've read elsewhere, it documents the relation of LaRouche to a "front group", the National Anti-Drug Coalition. LaRouche's anti-drug views are best included in the "Views" article, and his organiztions are best covered in the "Movement" article. So how is it relevant here?   Will Beback  talk  06:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

:::I think my comments above are sufficiently clear. The reader is entitled to know something about a writer who is quoted so often in this article. --Steve Grayce (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's about Berlet then it should go in that article. You make it sound like you've added it simply as an ad hominem attack on a critic. If so, then that's inappropriate, especially since it isn't a rebutal to any specific criticism or comment. Unless there's some direct relevance to LaRouche, I'll delete it. The article doesn't need extra irrelevancies. If someone wants to use the article as a source we can add it back then.   Will Beback  talk  06:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose that we remove all of the mentions of specific media articles or interviews. Instead, let's just use those as sources, which is typical of most biographies. If we keep them, we should consider weight and make sure that all significant profiles ahve been included.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I've never seen a bio list a subject's interviews. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

webcasts

I disagree with this edit, where reference to the webcasts was moved to another article. Unlike much material here which has little to do with LaRouche personally, the webcasts seem to be an important, professional activity for him and appropriate to a biographical article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

While it may be personally important to him, is it important as part of his biography?Seeasea (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
LaRouche has engaged in many forms of communication, such as writing articles for EIR. We don't mention those. Has anyone outside the LaRouche movement made note of the existence of these webcasts? Another problem with that material is that it "cherry picked" one item from a webcast, a comment about George W. Bush. It's not clear why that one bit was added out of presumably dozens of webcasts and hundreds of assertions. LaRouche has expressed opinions on many politicians and even presidents, and made numerous predictions about their future behavior. It's inconsistent to include one and exclude the rest without an objective criterion. If these views are notable then we could add a section on LaRouche's views of politicians to the "Views" article, though I think we'd have to restrict it to non-living people to avoid BLP problems.   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, here are a number of press references: [21][22][23][24][25] --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The first of those is from February 6, 2000, so it predates the webcasts. The www.aljazeerah.info page appears to be a press release. And the rest are from student newspapers. Are we considering those to be good sources? (and two are duplicates) In any case, none of them announce the start of webcast, or discuss LaRouche's use of the Internet. They simply mention individual webcasts. Those that are relevant might be used as sources for the "Views" article. But there's nothing here to show that the fact of his using webcasts is in itself notable.   Will Beback  talk  18:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Lerman article

"Antony Lerman writes that, from 1973, LaRouche began to abandon Marxism and, with little warning, adopted far-right, even neo-Nazi, ideas, a process that began with a campaign of violence against his opponents on the left. The violence was accompanied by the development of conspiracy theories and paranoia about his personal safety, often involving alleged attempts to assassinate him.[4]
"According to press reports, NCLC members physically attacked meetings of the Communist Party and later of the SWP, and other groups who were classed by LaRouche as "left-protofascists."

I added the first paragraph above to introduce the Operation Mop-Up section. See where I placed it here. Will moved it, then another account changed it, and now it reads:

"By the mid-1970s, LaRouche and his movement were no longer promoting a socialist agenda. Antony Lerman writes that LaRouche moved from Marxism to far-right, even neo-Nazi, ideas, along with the development of conspiracy theories and paranoia about his personal safety, often involving alleged attempts to assassinate him.[4] LaRouche associate Jeffrey Steinberg alleges that accusations of this sort, coming from the ADL and related organizations, were an extension of the FBI COINTELPRO program.[5]

Two things about this:

1. Will, I'd like to move it back as the introduction to the Operation Mop-Up section, because Lerman is talking about the emergence of violence. See [26], scroll down to p. 212. Any objection?

2. I feel that the way it's been edited sums up the problems with this article, in that we are equating the views of a secondary, scholarly source with those of someone who works for LaRouche, a non-academic primary source. I feel we must stop writing, "On the one hand this, on the other hand that," in order to place LaRouche's views about himself on a par with those of reliable, secondary (and in some cases, scholarly) sources.

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the previous Lerman material covered too much. Let's add what Lerman has to say about "Mop UP" to that section, and so on. BUt the shift from "left to right" seems to be generally accounted to after that, so lets' not conflate them. Later, we can add what Lerman says about the "left-to-right" shift, which may deserve a section of its own.   Will Beback  talk  09:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
To the second point: we shouldn't need to rely on primary sources to cover rebuttals. There are plenty of secondary sources which mention both sides.   Will Beback  talk  09:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
There are conflicting views in secondary sources about LaRouche's "shift." Lerman is drawing upon the Dennis King theory (and he cites King.) The Rosbalt quote presents a different view. Editors should resist the temptation to give preference in the article to their favorite version of the story, for the simple reason that BLP says Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. By the same token, if there is an inflammatory accusation made and no secondary source found to refute it, a refutation from LaRouche sources is appropriate. I believe that Will is in error by claiming that it is "undisputed" that the violence between LaRouche and the CP was initiated by LaRouche. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
We note LaRouche's view of the matter, citing one of his autobiographies. But he seems to the be the only one who has that view. The matter has been covered in many sources, and none of them assert that LaRouche acted in self-defense, though some quote LaRouche' claims. See User:Will Beback/Scratchpad#1973 Operation Mop Up.
Regarding the shift, I haven't seen any source that puts the shift before Operation Mop Up. I think the Lerman syntax is a bit unclear, but I think he probably means "starting at the end of 1973". LaRouche didn't start using violence in 1973, though that appears to have been the climax. What Lerman seems to be saying is that the 1973 violence was the start of a process that ended with the ideological shift. We might say something at the end of the Mop Up section like, "some observers say that the operation marked the beginning of a shift from Marxism...".   Will Beback  talk  18:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
We may be giving excessive weight to LaRouche's view of this. The entire section is, by one measure, 400 words long. Of that, we have one 98-word paragraph quoting an autobiography and a 99-word paragraph on his 2000 theory. So half of it is devoted to his views, which at odds with what everyone else says. While it's important to mention his views, I think we should summarize them in a shorter format. In the long term, it may make sense to give the fullest coverage of this in the "violence and harassment" article I'm drafting, and then we can just leave a summary here. I'd originally planned to keep the coverage of this incident short, but it can be as long as necessary.   Will Beback  talk  19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Boris Mezhuyev/Rosbat view of the ideological shift, it's another view that we should include but since this issue is covered by so many sources we shold avoid giving any one view excess weight.   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not keen on the "some observers" thing. I think we need to be very clear who is saying what. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In-world/out-of-world

I think we have something of an in-world, out-of-world problem here. Chunks of the article simply lists other articles that have been published about LaRouche, as though this article is about those articles or their writers. But it isn't; it's about LaRouche.

Therefore, we should mention other articles only when we are using them as sources, and we should use them as sources only when they say something that is worth adding to the article. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a problem with the way this is written, trying to copy edit it. We make a lot out of trivial things (a section on some articles in China and Russia that amount to nothing), and we downplay major things (like five years in jail). This section, for example:

LaRouche's promotion of space colonization included dealings with German scientists and engineers who had worked under the Nazi government of Germany during the Second World War, some of whom emigrated to the U.S. after the war under Operation Paperclip, and ended up with NASA. They included Arthur Rudolph, and several other Peenemunde rocket experts, including Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Adolf Busemann, Konrad Dannenberg, and Hermann Oberth. LaRouche collaborated with Ehricke on ideas about the colonization of the moon and Mars.[6] After Ehricke's death, LaRouche sponsored the "Krafft Ehricke Memorial Conference" and in 1988 delivered a national TV broadcast entitled "The Woman on Mars."[7] LaRouche also had a relationship with Karl-Adolf Zenker and Paul-Albert Scherer, West German Admiral and former head of West German Military Intelligence, respectively, who both served in the German military in World War II.[8][9] When Rudolph was forced to renounce his U.S.citizenship after an investigation into his past, LaRouche supporters formed a defense fund for him.[10]

What is it saying exactly? Also, the next paragraph is another one describing that Berlet et al published an article, but with no detail of what it said. So why do we mention it? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

References

I've been moving long refs out of the text and into the References section, leaving short refs behind. I still have about ten that I've removed but not yet added to References. Will do it over the next day or so. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, could whoever keeps changing refs to citation templates please not do that? See WP:CITE. Once an article has a stable format, templates are not supposed to be added. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

My edits

To report on my recent edits, I've continued streamlining, removed repetition, removed material hinted at but not developed (e.g. mentioning articles without giving us the content), made headers more explicit so readers can get a rough timeline at a glance, moved the criticism into the text so we don't have a separate criticism section, replaced some more long refs with short ones, and tried to improve on some of the writing and the flow of the narrative. The article is now down to 91 kilobytes.

I've also been finding URLs for some of the articles, which I'll continue doing. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your description of your edits. Beginning on August 28, you began a series of controversial edits, 140 of them at last count, despite the "controversial" tag on the talk page which asks that controversial edits be discussed in advance. The general effect of these edits has been to eliminate well-sourced material that presents LaRouche in a favorable light, while giving disproportionate amounts of space to highly derogatory criticism from obscure individuals, in a manner that overwhelms the article and appears to take sides. You have edit-warred and reverted without comment any attempts to modify your edits. Your edit summaries are also often misleading. The NPOV problems at this article are worsening by the day. I have also started a thread at WP:BLPN. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I started watching only after Leatherstocking brought this to the attention of a noticeboard frequent but, since then, I haven't seen anything egregious from SlimVirgin.Simonm223 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Policies

As LS has complained about my edits, it might be helpful to list the principles I'm keeping in mind when I edit this article:

1. NPOV: This does not mean that the article be even-handed between LaRouche and others. That would be a violation of UNDUE. NPOV means we reflect majority and significant-minority published opinion, in rough proportion to their appearance in reliable sources. The more mainstream or scholarly the publication, the better.

2. NOR: This allows the use of primary sources. In this case, that refers to LaRouche publications and other sources directly involved with him in some way. It urges caution, however, and advises that articles be based largely on secondary sources. The more contentious the issue, the more we should rely on secondary sources; we should not be picking and choosing from primary sources ourselves. In other words, this article should reflect the opinions of academics, journalists, and other writers who have read the primary sources, and have decided what is worth writing about and how to present it. It should not reflect our opinions of the primary sources, or our decisions about what's worth mentioning and what not. See Wikipedia:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

3. BLP: This insists that any contentious material about living persons be sourced to high-quality sources. No self-published or questionable sources are allowed, but see exception 4 below. (Also see Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources).

4. SPS: Because this article is about LaRouche, his own publications are allowed as sources, even though they would normally be regarded as questionable or self-published, but they may only be used sparingly, and so long as: (1) the material is not unduly self-serving; (2) it does not involve claims about third parties; (3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; (4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and (5) the article is not based primarily on such sources. See Wikipedia:V#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves.

5. LEAD: This should include notable controversies.

6. The writing in general: It should be possible for readers who've never heard of LaRouche to understand the article. This means we have to create some kind of narrative flow; not use jargon; not refer unnecessarily to complex political relationships and ideologies; not include unnecessary details about who-said-what unless secondary sources have deemed those points important.

That's it for now. Will add more as I think of it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ United States Policy on the Reunification of Germany October 12, 1988
  2. ^ Convict Him or Kill Him: The Night They Came to Kill Me
  3. ^ LaRouche's Fateful Debate With Abba Lerner March 12, 2004
  4. ^ a b Lerman 1988, p. 212.
  5. ^ Who Are the American Family Foundation: Mind-Controllers Targetting LaRouche? April 19, 2002
  6. ^ King 1985, chapter 10
  7. ^ "The Woman on Mars," video aired on national TV by the LaRouche Democratic Campaign in 1988, LaRouche in 2004 website
  8. ^ Linda Hunt, Secret Agenda: The United States Government, Nazi Scientists, and Project Paperclip, 1945 to 1990, New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991
  9. ^ King, Chapter 10
  10. ^ Siano 1992
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/Archive_19&oldid=1136972410"