Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 24

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Tag

I've removed the tag, which has been added many times by LaRouche accounts over the years. It's clear that the material from the Post and Times can't be removed or minimized within NPOV, because it reflects the overwhelming majority view about LaRouche. Any other details that need to be added can be discussed without the tag being used as a bargaining chip once again. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

:Excuse me, but the NPOV dispute is not about removing material about the Post and Times, and the NPOV tag is not being used as a "bargaining chip." Other than you and Will, it looks to me that every visitor to this page has commented on the lack of neutrality, and as the tag says, it shouldn't be removed until the dispute is resolved. If it will help, I will initiate a RFC, because I am beginning to feel like I am having difficulty getting a response from you and Will. In the meantime, I have moved the latest thread about unresolved issues to the bottom of the page. Delia Peabody (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC) sock of banned user Will Beback talk 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Delia, you're one of the LaRouche accounts, perhaps the same person as before. That's becoming clearer with every post you write. As such you ought not to be editing the article, in part because of the ArbCom cases, and in part because you have a COI.

The article can never be neutral for the LaRouche movement, because they have beliefs about LaRouche not shared by anyone outside the movement. It the article became neutral in their eyes it would violate NPOV and V. The LaRouche accounts have made over 1,000 edits to the article, and that's only counting the known accounts, and not counting the IP edits. The edits invariably try to slant the article in favour of LaRouche in a way that violates the content policies, and when they're challenged they slap the tag on. It can't continue forever. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

:::In addition to being a personal attack, this gives the appearance of being a tactic to chase away newcomers and maintain ownership of the article. As I mentioned, every person who has commented, other than you and Will, has noted the lack of neutrality in this article. Delia Peabody (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC) sock of banned user Will Beback talk 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen Delia break or bend any rules. There was a double revert today, however, over the NPOV tag. I hope that won't happen again. I believe it's an editor's right to add/keep an NPOV tag until there is consensus on the talk page to remove it. Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't an editor's rights to do that; otherwise practically all articles would be tagged. See WP:NPOV dispute. Delia is a LaRouche account, there's no point in pretending otherwise. This means he's almost certainly one of the same small group of LaRouche employees (one person, or maybe two) who've been causing a problem with this article since 2004. If he works for LaRouche, he has a clear COI, and shouldn't be editing it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Intelligence network"

Please explain the basis for this edit. In your last discussion post, you seemed to be accusing me of wanting to "minimize material from the Post", and yet it appears to me that this is exactly what happened with your own edit. I was struck by the fact, when I read the Post article today, that it seemed more balanced than the Wikipedia article. But in your edit you moved the material I added from the Post in a way that gives greater weight to Mother Jones and other relatively obscure sources than to the national figures interviewed by the Post, and you reformulated the material from the Post in a way that makes it appear less positive. Delia Peabody (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC) sock of banned user Will Beback talk 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Image of poster

A link in this article to a commons photograph of a poster commons:File:Obama Hitler political sign.jpg was deleted by a bot[1] because the image had been deleted on commons.[2] However, the image was subsequently restored though I have no idea of the rationale.[3] I am merely reporting this; I have no view on whether the photograph would improve the current article. Thincat (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. I've re-added it to the most relevant part of the article, where it's already mentioned. Will Beback talk 10:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have now found the undeletion rationale.[4] and the image was then moved leaving a redirect. Thincat (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Overseas reception

The Duggan matter led to considerable coverage in the UK press of LaRouche. Perhaps we should include the views of LaRouche from the UK press generated by that event (though not the event itself) in the "Overseas reception". We also have a considerable amount of news coverage from Latin America (above) which needs to be included somewhere. We cold add it to the "Meetings with world leaders" section, but it's mostly from the 1990s and 2000s. We could add a paragraph to the 1990s section on the subject's Latin American connections. Will Beback talk 23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We should add the British press coverage to Overseas reception, as it was very extensive after Duggan. I think we should also create a "LaRouche in South America" section to give the context of his meetings here; there are lots of sources. I was also thinking of creating a brief "LaRouche on the British" section, as that seems fairly central to this thinking. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not in favor of including more about the Duggan case in this BLP than we presently have. I have transferred the material that was here in toto to LaRouche movement (with attribution), replacing the briefer summary that was there previously. --JN 466 23:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the most coverage LaRouche has had for a long time, so it would be odd to minimize it, and he responded to it personally several times. And the coverage of the British press certainly counts as part of his overseas reception in the 2000s. The problem with lumping these two issues together, and using this LaRouche article as the source, is there's a danger of allowing the LaRouche movement to frame it. We have to use the framing of reliable sources. Also, we should include LaRouche's personal responses, because this is his biography. I see you removed the response of his the article cited. Can you say why? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am with Will here. Adding comments on LaRouche in the UK coverage of that case to the overseas reception part seems fair enough. The event itself is a better topic for LaRouche movement. --JN 466 00:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

[e/c] If we're going to have an "Overseas reception" section then it needs to be NPOV, which means including all significant views with weight proportional to their prominence in secondary sources. Right now, the material all seems to be laudatory. Needless to say, there are other views of the subject which appear in non-US sources. We need to give them their due weight as well. One aspect of that is the UK coverage from the 2000s. While the Duggan case may have been the spark, UK reporters discussed LaRouche in general as well, and we can add their views aside from the Duggan matter covered elsewhere. FWIW, there's also considerable coverage of LaRouche in the German press. At some point we should research and summarize those too. Will Beback talk 00:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The overseas reception section seems quite unbalanced right now, and lacks critical views. --JN 466 00:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to take some time over the next few days to write something about the British press perception in the 2000s, though if others get there first that's fine. If wonder if Wikiproject Germany or the German WP could help with German press coverage, given that LaRouche's HQ outside the U.S is in Wiesbaden. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I speak German; if you point me to an article you're having trouble translating, I am quite willing to help. --JN 466 00:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The German material isn't a priority, but it'd round out the article. The German Wikipedia article is rather poor, but it does have a couple of German sources. Th AGPF anti-cult site has extensive coverage of the subject: www.AGPF.de/LaRouche. It's not a reliable source on its own, but it has links and copies of source materials which could be helpful. Google would be a good place to search for recent news coverage. Some German news articles are also archived in the Proquest newspaper archive. Will Beback talk 01:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Russo

What are editors' views of this source? It's a 1989 M.A. thesis, San Jose State University. --JN 466 07:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I see a variety of opinions on masters' theses at WP:RSN. What do you think? Will Beback talk 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The thesis seems much like King. I would be open to using it, but would also listen carefully if someone were to raise concerns. I like the passage in it that mentions the role his personal charisma plays in his movement (p. 13); he seems to be a charismatic leader in the Weberian sense. It is a pity that there is not more written about this aspect of his movement. On the other hand, I would oppose citing hearsay passages like the one alleging that he sat "in his apartment with stockpiles of canned food and guards at the door", and "is reported as saying that most women are lesbians and marry men to hurt them." If we don't have the maturity to forgo using it for cheap shots, I would oppose using it. ;) --JN 466 08:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the basis for treating those different types of assertions differently. I've only glanced through it. Are some of the assertions better referenced than others? Do some seem like like exceptional claims while others do not? Please explain. Will Beback talk 08:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The thesis looks like a good source of information to me too. I agree with Jayen, that because this is a BLP, extra care should be taken when considering adding pejorative opinions. Cla68 (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The first page of chapter one (page 12 of the Acrobat file) alone makes some remarkable assertions, calling LaRouche the "master", not just "leader", of his movement, which is described as an international empire with thousands of fanatical followers over whom LaRouche has a degree of psychological control comparable to that of Jim Jones. Whew! Maybe it'd be better as a source for the somewhat less biographical LaRouche movement article, or other side articles. But I'm open to hearing what other editors think too. Will Beback talk 08:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would not be comfortable with saying that some sources may only be used for "positive material". OTOH, it is normal to view some assertions as being extraordinary and requiring exceptional sources for them. From what I've read, LaRouche is known discussing sexual issues in political and power terms (and politics in sexual terms).[5][6] So saying that he calls women lesbians is not an exceptional claim. However, it's not necessary to include in a bio either. Will Beback talk 09:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

On close reading, it's basically a tertiary source. While he draws some conclusions of his own, it doesn't appear that he did any original research or conducted any interviews. There's little reason to use it directly as a source. Most of the sources Russo used are still available. His facts are available elsewhere and his conclusions are not noteworthy. However it may be useful as a guide for how much weight to devote to various events or themes in the subject's life and the movement. For example, considering how much space Russo devotes to the union issue it is probably underrepresented on Wikipedia, where the history of the movement is split between several articles. Will Beback talk 09:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

On looking into it further, I am inclined to agree with your assessment; there is little that is not available elsewhere. The issue of charisma is addressed in Architects of Fear (from which Russo copied the quote), as well as in Conjuring science: scientific symbols and cultural meanings in American life by Christopher P. Toumey. We should include something on that topic somewhere in the article. --JN 466 23:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought the thesis' bibliography used some news and magazine articles as sources which may not be readily available as the associated articles may not yet be digitized. If the information is available elsewhere, however, then perhaps it isn't helpful to use the thesis as a source. Cla68 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Some sources that aren't digitized are still available in libraries. Is there a particular footnote or source that you think would be particularly valuable? I might have a copy or be able to get one. Will Beback talk 01:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just that Infotrac and NewsStand don't go back much further than 1990 with much of their archive, although with some sources they go back to 1980. If the articles are available, even on microfiche, then I guess that's fine. Cla68 (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Content policies

I haven't looked at most of the recent edits yet, but glancing at them I see more self-published material being added. Also, someone suggested above using a self-published (or unpublished) MA thesis.

We're not allowed to use self-published sources in BLPs, unless written by the subject. Even then they should be used with caution; must not be used if they involve claims about anyone other than the subject; must not be used if they are unduly self-serving; must not be used if they involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. See WP:BLPSPS. There was already material in the article that violated this policy and that therefore needed to be removed, so we shouldn't be adding to it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have added a single reference to EIR to the article, this one, to source that he did not run for president in 2008. It seemed important to point that out, given that we are commenting on him having had the greatest number of successive presidential campaigns. --JN 466 01:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. As I said I've only glanced at the recent edits, and so probably got a false impression. The key to resolving issues here is to stick very closely to the content policies. We have to represent the majority view and significant-minority ones—not tiny-minority ones—and we have to do that in rough proportion to how they're represented by reliable sources. No self-published sources are allowed, unless written by LaRouche about LaRouche only, and not for anything contentious or unduly self-serving, or about any other person or organization.

By "unduly self-serving," we mean anything that makes his views seem more notable than reliable sources make them seem. I would say that applies to, for example, whether he endorsed John Kerry; if that's notable, a reliable source will have mentioned it. I offer that only as a minor example. Overall, I really think we need to stick to reliable secondary sources for just about everything in this article, except maybe for his early years. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am in broad agreement with you, though I don't think his saying that he endorsed Kerry, or had decided not to run for president again, is unduly self-serving or contentious. --JN 466 02:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We can use Klein as a secondary source for LaRouche not running in 2008. I can't find any other news sources that made note of the absence.

As for endorsing Kerry, who cares? Did any independent source make note of the endorsement? Which other endorsements of LaRouche are we noting? Why report this one? Will Beback talk

(ec, to Jayen) The SPS policy was developed to allow the subjects of BLPs to be used for things like date of birth and where they got their first job. But Wikipedia should never be used as an extension of the subject's website to air his or her personal opinions to a broader audience, i.e. Wikipedia must not be used a platform. If the views are notable, a reliable source will have noted them (indeed, that's our definition of notable), then we can discuss whether to include them. But they must first have appeared in a reliable source. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not overly attached to having the info that he endorsed Kerry in the article. In the source I cited, he appeared to link this endorsement to his decision not to run again, so I kept the info together. But it's not a big deal. Per SPS, we may use self-published sources "as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". I agree we can cite Klein instead; I wasn't aware that source commented on the fact that he wasn't running in 2008. --JN 466 02:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, on a number of occasions LaRouche ended his campaigns shortly before the general elections and gave weak endorsements to the official Democratic nominees. His endorsements just aren't that important (and thatr's not unique to LaRouche - we don't report them for other perennial candidates either.) Will Beback talk 02:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Kerry thing is just a minor example of the problem. For future reference (see WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS):

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ...

"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—

it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources."

We need to go through the article and remove anything not compliant with this, and also make sure we don't add any more. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, why do you keep deleting my request for a 3rd party source for the Kerry endorsement?[7][8] Will Beback talk 02:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've inserted a third-party reference (Klein) that he did not run again, as you proposed, and his endorsement of Kerry is attributed in-text to his publication. We don't need a third-party source to verify that LaRouche said it, if we cite LaRouche himself. If you'd rather not have the endorsement of Kerry mentioned, because you think it's not noteworthy, feel free to delete it. I would be in favour of keeping it, as it reflects his political views, and might be of interest to the reader. --JN 466 02:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche's publications are full of things he says, but we don't include them just because we find them interesting. If the Kerry endorsement was not reported in any 3rd-party sources then we shouldn't report it either. There's no special reason to report this endorsement. If I restore the request will you delete it again? Will Beback talk 03:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want to restore the request for a third-party source? I've already said, if you don't want the Kerry endorsement in the article, based on the source we have, just delete it. ;) If he regularly made these endorsements after dropping out of the running, it may indeed not be noteworthy. As I've explained, the only reason I included it was because he wrote that when he decided to endorse Kerry in 2004, he decided, at the same time, that he would not run again in 2008. I may have read more into that than was warranted. --JN 466 03:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Could I request that we all stick very closely to the content policies, with no wavering from them? The advantage of the page being edited by experienced editors is that we all know what the policies say, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel with every example. It means we can leave discussion for occasions where the policies don't offer clear guidance. And it's best not to tag SPS violations; we should just remove them. Then if someone wants to restore them later, they can do that with a reliable source. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Slim, how do you interpret the BLPSPS wording that you quote above? I notice it differs from the wording in WP:SPS. I don't recall when that difference arose; my recollection was that the two policies were word-identical at one time. WP:SPS says,

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Where WP:SPS refers to "material", I've always interpreted this to refer to the material added to the article. The BLPSPS version, on the other hand, could be read to imply that if the cited source -- even parts of it that are not used to source article content -- contains any material that is about third parties, or is contentious, then the whole source becomes inadmissible. Do you think this is the intention?

For example, if a subject says on their website, "I was born on January 19 1955", and then says, on the same page, "I don't like Al Gore", is it okay to cite the website for his birth date, if we don't add anything about his views on Al Gore to the article? That might impact how we use SPS here in this article, because LaRouche usually says something about some third party in his writings. --JN 466 03:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What we want to avoid is a self-published source being used as a source of any kind about living people. This is for two reasons, most importantly libel. We don't want John Smith's website being used to say in John Smith that, "John Smith said in 2011 that he liked the colour red," then when we read the source it also says, "And by the way, Living Person X is a pedophile."

But secondly, we also don't want the article to be used as a platform for a subject's non-notable views. There are plenty of reliable sources about LaRouche out there for anything that might be notable enough for inclusion, so there's just no need to use his websites. As you say, doing so is almost always problematic, because many of his links include contentious material about living people. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am undecided whether I ought to endorse your interpretation of policy or not. I can see both advantages and disadvantages in proceeding that way. But, more importantly perhaps, I am not convinced that your interpretation of policy enjoys community support. The LaRouche criminal trials article, which is an FA, cites LaRouche publications like this one, "The Night They Came To Kill Me". It did so on the day it was promoted. The article on the conspiracy theorist David Icke, whose main contributor you are, and which you took to GA-level, cites multiple self-published books by Icke. All of these contain lurid conspiracy theories, and potentially libellous statements about living people. By following your proposal in this article, would we not be adopting a different standard than the one followed elsewhere? In asking this I am not excluding the possibility that we might agree to do so. But we would need a good reason. --JN 466 06:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Hard cases make bad law". Since you cite the example of a particular citation in LaRouche criminal trials, I should mention that it was added by one of HK's socks.[9] FWIW, that particular citation is not really needed- the assertion could be cited from another source. A large of that featured article is the way it is because of the insistent demands of HK, not because it's the best way of reporting on the topic. So I don't think we should use it as an example of ideal editing practices. Will Beback talk 06:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is far from the only LaRouche movement source in that article. As an FA, it underwent community review. You stated in your nomination that it was "comprehensive, fully sourced, and neutral. It has passed PR and GA reviews. I've just finished converting (almost) all of the citations to templates. I think it's ready for FAC." It was on the main page a few weeks later. FAs are representative of the highest community standards. These sources have been in that FA for more than two years. And all the LaRouche movement sources that are in this article, the Lyndon LaRouche biography, at this present time were in it before I started editing on 28 February, after intensive editing by SlimVirgin throughout February. Above, four days ago, SlimVirgin chided me for removing a LaRouche movement source, saying: "Also, we should include LaRouche's personal responses, because this is his biography. I see you removed the response of his the article cited. Can you say why?" --JN 466 07:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You're quoting me out of context, Jayen; I asked why you'd removed LaRouche's personal response and replaced it with a generic movement response. You still haven't explained why you did that. But of course the best thing is to use a secondary source for LaRouche's response, and that bypasses the issue.

As for Icke, I was careful not to link to any page of his that might contain libel; if I've missed one please point it out and I'll remove it. Though bear in mind that Icke's allegations about people is that they're giant lizards. (And I didn't bring that article to GA.)

The point is that there's no need to use self-published sources in this article, because there are lots of mainstream secondary sources. Personally, what I usually do with articles like this is I link to a primary source in a footnote only, and only for material already discussed by secondary sources. So, for example, where Johnson discusses Plato/Aristotle, I also linked to a LaRouche article from The Campaigner where he discussed it himself. But it's important to check that there's no libel on the page, and that's very risky with LaRouche pages.

I don't know why we're arguing about this anyway, because Jayen has said he didn't add self-published sources (or did, but then removed them), so it's a moot point. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that SPS should only be used where necessary because of the lack of secondary sources. In that vein, before removing any SPS's, you should first find a secondary source that says the same thing to replace it. If no secondary sources can be found for a certain comment, then we should stick with the SPS (since that is better than nothing and is considered correct for comments by the subject). Silver seren^C 00:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I replaced one SPS with another because I wanted to let the reader know whether the Kronberg case was still ongoing, or whether it had been resolved in either party's favour. That is often a problem with legal cases; papers report their starting, and then sometimes don't report their ending. The one source I found was a LaRouche source commenting on the fact that the Kronberg case was still in the courts, and it also duplicated LaRouche's "hoax" comments on the Duggan case. So I used that instead of the other one. But it's fine now—fine, that is, if you are happy with your preferred source for LaRouche's response, which blames Cheney and his wife for everything. I haven't named Cheney in the article, so I personally am okay with citing it. (I wouldn't be so happy if we named Cheney in the article.) --JN 466 00:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

@Silver seren: I think that's backwards. If a particular comment can only be found in a SPS than it's usually better to leave it out. The SPS in this matter is also a primary source for LaRouche's comments, and primary sources should be used very sparingly, usually just to provide illustrations or details of matters already mentioned in secondary sources. So if a secondary source says LaRouche denied an allegation, for example, then we might go to the primary source to briefly quote his actual remarks. But we wouldn't want to say that we could use anything in self-published, primary source simply because they aren't in secondary sources - that'd be the exact opposite of what WP:V says. Will Beback talk 00:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You act as if we aren't allowed to use primary sources at all. WP:PRIMARY states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Thus, primary sources may be used in the absence of a secondary source for straightforward information, especially for the use of quotes from the subject. We just can't have any interpretation of the meaning of information in primary sources, those must come from secondary sources covering the subject. Thus, primary sources are fine to use for certain types of information and shouldn't be deprecated because of that. Silver seren^C 00:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche's material is not only a primary source, it is self-published. The content policies are clear on the issue of self-published sources, and the policies are there to resolve disputes, so there's no point in arguing that we should ignore them. See WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you point out where someone said the policies should be "ignored"? I can't find anyone saying that. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes? Both of those say that we're allowed to use primary sources. The SPS's are reliable for the subject of LaRouche, they are not just a random fan writing a blog, they are specifically by his organization about him, making them reliable, so long as we keep the information neutral and not include any of the overdone language. Silver seren^C 01:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would allow that LaRouche publications are not, so to speak, "the most self-published" sources I've seen. Executive Intelligence Review etc. are publications that are listed in google news, are sold, have an editorial staff (headed by LaRouche), and so forth. They are not quite as self-published as someone's website or blog. To my mind, they are an intermediate type of source; close to, but not quite self-published. For example, if the editor of The New Yorker writes an article, we would not say it is self-published. On the other hand, EIR is very clearly not The New Yorker. There is a spectrum here that ranges from newspapers operated by ehtnic, political or religious fringe groups and their leaders, to mainstream, but clearly partisan, newspapers. All in all, I think the article has it approximately right at present. --JN 466 01:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

An editorial staff headed by LaRouche, who presumably calls the shots, yes? Being listed by Google News is certainly no seal of approval. Frequently Google News includes "press releases" by sites that accept anonymous submissions. (Or they certainly have in the recent past.) AndroidCat (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

But we're not talking about using them as sources for controversial information. We're talking about using them for quotes by LaRouche and for basic information like "LaRouche ran in the presidential election in this year". Things like that. It's specifically the type of information that primary sources are supposed to be used for. Silver seren^C 05:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's perhaps what I would have gone with on another topic that I can't discuss, but in the end, the solution was to eliminate all refs from that organization as well as all critical sites, regardless of their merit. Mind you, that didn't stop the bickering, just shifted it to journalism vs. academic sources, but a change is as good as a break, right? AndroidCat (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've used primary sources before in World War II articles like this one. I used the primary sources as a last resort when I couldn't find helpful details in the secondary sources. In that article, I used US Navy after-action reports to, as Silver seren explains, provide non-controversial detail, such as "the ship sank at 06:40". Cla68 (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly how primary sources should be used. Will Beback talk 06:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

October Surprise section

The Wikipedia article on the October Surprise has in its title that it is a conspiracy theory, but recently in 2010 a newsman investigated and found that a confidential Russian report of the incident was withheld and buried. http://baltimorechronicle.com/2010/070110Parry.shtml is an article entitled "COVER-UP OF CIA & GOP TREASON: Rethinking Iran-Contra" by Robert Parry Originally published in ConsortiumNews.com earlier today, 1 July 2010. This story says

In view of the latest evidence – and the crumbling of the long-running October Surprise cover-up – there appears to have been a single Iran-Contra narrative spanning the entire 12 years of the Reagan and Bush-41 administration, and representing a much darker story.

And it was not simply a tale of Republican electoral skullduggery and treachery, but possibly even more troubling, a story of rogue CIA officers and Israel’s Likud hardliners sabotaging a sitting U.S. president, Jimmy Carter.
— Robert Parry, ConsortiumNews.com earlier today, 1 July 2010

The current reference citations date much earlier than this newer 2010 information. A Google search of ("Daniel Pipes" Polish Jewish Zionist neoconservative OR neocon) indicates that his character profile matches the very people accused of the ill doings involved (anti-Arab/pro-Zonist neocons), and the subsequent cover-up that resulted in proof that certain witnesses (like credit card paper trails locating one witness in America rather than Europe) were offering perjury to support the story of the plot.

The aforementioned news story references http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/050610.html that states

A Russian government report, which corroborated allegations that Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign interfered with President Jimmy Carter’s Iran-hostage negotiations in 1980, was apparently kept from the Democratic chairman of a congressional task force that investigated the charges a dozen years later.
— Key October Surprise Evidence Hidden, Robert Parry (A Special Report) May 6, 2010

I suggest that the discredited, older references be removed, and that the section be redone and use the newer reference links above. Oldspammer (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. The author of the article is Robert Parry, who also runs consortiumnews.com. In other words, it's effectively self-published. Exceptional claims like this require highly reliable sources and this article would not meet that standard. If the author's findings have merit they will undoubtedly be repeated in better-vetted sources. As far as this article goes, I don't see how it changes the basic assertion: that LaRouche and his followers were the first to publicly discuss the theory. Other details about the theory are best covered in the article on that topic. Will Beback talk 11:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

George and Wilcox

Can someone provide the actual quote from Wilcox. All I can read is p. 312, where he writes, ""During the 1970s and 1980s it often seemed that the media had given the man two extra names. Most common references to him began: "Political extremist Lyndon H. LaRouche." Few would deny that the label was warranted--LaRouche's pronouncements and demeanor, as well as those of his associates, virtually personify the extremist style....Other appellations applied to LaRouche have included...." (Ironically, most of these labels came from LaRouche opponents who object to his penchant for name-calling.) Depending upon what one focuses on and what one ignores it would be possible to make a case for each of the above epithets. It could also be argued that to one degree or another LaRouche contains elements of all of them. One thing is very certain: Lyndon LaRouche has spent much of the past twenty years cultivating a vast array of enemies, some of them not much less "extremist" than he." Berlet had not even published any academic papers or books at that time (1989). TFD (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

George and Wilcox devote a whole chapter to LaRouche, so we can't post all of that here.

Other appellations applied to LaRouche have included "Communist," "Trotskyist," "former leftist," "neo-Nazi," "Stalinist," "Democratic candidate," "Marxist-Leninist," "cult leader," "small-time Hitler," "demagogue," "kook," "Hitlerian hate-monger," and "anti-Semite." (Ironically, most of these labels came from LaRouche opponents who object to his penchant for name-calling) Depending upon what one focuses on and what one ignores it would be possible to make a case for each of the above epithets. It could also be argued that to one degree or another LaRouche contains elements of all of them. One thing is very certain: Lyndon LaRouche has spent much of the past twenty years cultivating a vast array of enemies, some of them not much less "extremist" than he. On the other hand, his distorted view of the world and his demonstrated hostility toward various groups, including Jews, has produced some justifiable alarm.

Although mainstream figures are legitimately concerned with the LaRouche organization, a good number of his harshest detractors come from extremist ranks themselves. A writer who has spent considerable time on LaRouche is John Foster "Chip" Berlet, of Political Research Associates (PRA) in Boston. His articles on LaRouche go back into the 1970s. Berlet is also a veteran of the 1960s student I left, and currently serves as the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) representative to the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation. Harvey Klehr confirms:

The NLG is an affiliate of the Soviet-controlled International Association of Demo¬cratic Lawyers (IADL), founded in 1946. Expelled from France in 1949, the IADL is now headquartered in Brussels. Over the years it has supported every twist and turn in Soviet foreign policy, including the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan. The American Association of Jurists, the regional affiliate of the IADL, is headquartered in Havana. Its president, Ann Fagan Ginger, is a long-time NLG activist

In 1987, when Berlet moved with his organization to Boston from Chicago, the Chicago Area Friends of Albania gave him a special sendoff, noting that, "Chip was one of our founding members, and a steadfast friend of Albania through thick and thin." King gives Berlet credit for considerable assistance, and Berlet in turn reviewed King's book for the Marxist-Leninist Guardian.

If I recall correctly, these excerpts are courtesy an OCR program, so there may be significant errors. Will Beback talk 02:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a little confusing because while Bertlet began in the New Left and was an anti-fascist activist and journalist, his career transformed into academic writing about the American Right, for which he is best known today. Ironically Wilcox, Horowitz and Larouche was also Leftists. I do not think that the mention of Berlet is useful, it belongs in his biography article. TFD (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the sentence should just read "They also commented that LaRouche was most vehemently criticized by authors who "come from extremist ranks themselves". It's true that Berlet isn't necessary for the section, but the notion about LaRouche's critics in general is, I believe. Silver seren^C 04:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. TFD (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that King credits Berlet for substantial assistance with his book, which we do cite extensively. And he is one of the most prominent LaRouche critics around; mentioning LaRouche's notable critics by name is valid, as readers will come across their writings elsewhere. (Incidentally, there is also an English-language Pravda article stating that Berlet was, or had been, a member of both the Communist party and the Socialist Workers Party, which clashed with LaRouche in Operation Mop-up. Am still looking for further sources on this.) --JN 466 04:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

More prominent critics would be American politicians Daniel Moynihan and Adlai Stevenson III. Maybe we should have a section on LaRouche's critics? Will Beback talk 04:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, I just think it's proper to point out information about Berlet and King that Wilcox has said in terms of them being critics of LaRouche. That in itself does relate to LaRouche and is fairly important. Silver seren^C 04:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've split out the material on critics, which is not directly related to the material on matter of LaRouche's ~~criticism~~ extremism. We can add more material to both sections. Will Beback talk 04:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It is important, because until I researched the matter I had no idea that King and Berlet came themselves from leftist circles that had been bitterly at war with LaRouche. King has said he didn't mention it in his book because he thought it was not important; George and Wilcox say they disagree, and that he should have disclosed it. --JN 466 04:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

We can include the political backgrounds of Moynihan and Stevenson too, along with those of the other significant critics. Let's see what we can say about the backgrounds of George and Wilcox while we're at it. Will Beback talk 04:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking George and Wilcox have some sort of positive affiliation with LaRouche? Silver seren^C 05:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No, neither do Berlet or King. Will Beback talk 05:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think any previous rivalry creates an automatic bias. It's ridiculous that King would even surmise otherwise. Silver seren^C 05:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What rivalry are you referring to? Will Beback talk 05:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the relevant passage from George and Wilcox: "[LaRouche] began teaching Marxist economics at the Free School of New York, where he organized a following of young new leftists, including members of the Columbia University chapter of the Progressive Labor party (PLP), a Maoist group founded by former members of the CPUSA. During the student strike in 1968 LaRouche and his followers— many of whom were in the PLP—organized their own faction within Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which they called the SDS Labor Committee. During the 1968-69 period, the SDS national office found itself increasingly under attack by the PLP-oriented faction within SDS ranks. By the end of 1968 the LaRouche faction, now known as the National Caucus of SDS Labor Committees, was expelled over policy differences in the New York City teachers' strike. At the 1969 SDS convention in Chicago, the organization split into three factions and soon disintegrated, with the PLP-dominated Worker-Student Alliance in sharp opposition to LaRouche's group. Dennis King, author of Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, had been a Marxist-Leninst and a PLP member from 1963 until 1972, although he does not mention this anywhere in his book. 2 His bitterness at LaRouche is suggested in his comments: "The main cause of the split was the sectarianism and ideological extremism of the two major factions, not the actions of LaRouche's followers, who were reviled as elitists by both camps. But LaRouche's 1967-68 raid on the PLP had definitely helped to tip the balance. It was his first lesson in how a small but adroitly led group, through the right tactics at the right time and place, can help to produce a "manifold shift" in the larger political arena. 3" Footnote 3 says: Dennis King says he has not concealed his past PLP membership and has spoken of it on a number of occasions but did not think it was relevant for his book. We disagree.--JN 466 05:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied about this purported rivalry below. Will Beback talk 07:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

When I read Berlet's review of King's book on King's webpage, which says it was published in The Guardian, I thought it was published in The Guardian. I had no idea it was the Marxist-Leninist U.S. Guardian. --JN 466 05:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh, wow, yeah. There's kind of a big difference there, both in leanings and in reliability. Silver seren^C 05:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous reviews of King's book. But this article isn't about King's book, or about Berlet. If we're going to talk about Berlet, we should give his views on the subject. Will Beback talk 05:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The question is though, how radical and extremist is Berlet? If he's as bad as his publications seem to hint at, then we need to point that out if we're going to use his views in the article. Silver seren^C 05:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Dennis King was a member of the Maoist Progressive Labor Party, but left in 1973. My view is that if Berlet and King were writing for the Left-wing press, then we could question their work. But when they write for mainstream newspapers or their works are published by the university and academic press, then we should regard them in the same way as any other writer. Wilcox is not more expert on Larouche, but he is more expert on the theory of extremism, while Berlet analyzes the Right in terms of right-wing populism. TFD (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So, essentially, only use sources from them that are in the proper publications. I do think we should note their connection to LaRouche specifically though if we're going to be presenting their views. Silver seren^C 05:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. And note that we cite King extensively, and according to George and Wilcox, "King gives Berlet credit for considerable assistance". --JN 466 05:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche was also expelled from the Democratic Party, but I don't think that means all Democrats are LaRouche's "rivals". As for Berlet, as mentioned before, if we're going to refer to him then we should give his views (directly, not under the presumption that they are included in King's book). If we don't include his views, then there's no need to include criticism of him. Will Beback talk 07:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"LaRouche was also expelled from the Democratic Party" Source, please. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I kinda have to agree with the IP above. I don't remember seeing anything about LaRouche being expelled from the Democratic Party in sources. I mean, he was going to run on a Democratic ticket in 2008 when he withdrew. Silver seren^C 09:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but have you guys actually read the article? Will Beback talk 10:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what the article says "He again entered the primary elections for the Democratic Party's nomination in 2004, setting a record for the number of consecutive presidential campaigns. Although Democratic Party officials distanced themselves from him and did not permit him to participate in candidate forum debates, he insisted on running as a Democrat." And then it goes on to say he withdrew from the 2008 election. I distinctly remember a reference in my search on Google News that stated that he was going to run for the Democratic ticket before he pulled out of the election in 2008. So I don't understand what you're getting at. Silver seren^C 10:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In the 1996 Democratic presidential primaries, he received enough votes in Louisiana and Virginia to get one delegate from each state, but before the primaries began, the Democratic National Committee chair, Donald Fowler, ruled that LaRouche was not a "bona fide Democrat" because of his "expressed political beliefs ... which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic," and because of his "past activities including exploitation of and defrauding contributors and voters." Fowler instructed state parties to disregard votes for LaRouche.[102]

The Democratic Party did not recognize him as a member, regardless of what he said he was. A court case about it decided that the party is allowed to exclude people. LaRouche v. Fowler. [10] Will Beback talk 11:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Is "excluded from being elected" (by instructing a party to disregard his votes) legitimately summarized as "expelled from the party" ? As far as I know, there is a legal procedure to expel someone, has this procedure been carried out in the case of LaRouche? 81.210.206.223 (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell me about this legal procedure, and why it matters for this discussion. Will Beback talk 12:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

WB, YOU have claimed that he was "expelled". Please provide the source for EXACTLY this assertion and not a source that he was "excluded from a vote", as you did. It should be easy, considering the ease this assertion was made. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyndon Larouche [sic] is not a bona fide Democrat and does not possess a record affirmatively demonstrating that he is faithful to, or has at heart, the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States. This determination is based on Mr. Larouche's expressed political beliefs, including beliefs which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic, and otherwise utterly contrary to the fundamental beliefs ... of the Democratic Party and ... on his past activities including exploitation of and defrauding contributors and voters.

He was officially determined to not be a bona fide Democrat in 1996. So clearly he was no longer a member of the Democratic Party, if he ever was a formal member. However this seems more like argument for argument's sake. Will Beback talk 13:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

WB, you're just quoting Fowler's argument, its validity has never been established nor "officially determinded". Your task is simple: Provide me with a reliable source that says "Larouche expelled from Democratic Party" or "Expulsion of LaRouche". I do not demand much. Just a simple simple and straightforward source or quote. This cannot be reasonably considered "argument for argument's sake". 81.210.206.223 (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to concern any proposed edit to the article. If you'd like us to add more on the relationship of LaRouche to the Democratic Party I'm sure we can find the sources. Will Beback talk 14:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree ,that your answer as from where the claim, that Larouche was expelled from the Democratic Party comes, may not be of immediate relevance, thus I ask you to provide it later on. Please also add the reply from the holocaustresearchproject editorial board, as we have been waiting for this for now almost a week. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN#Is_this_article_a_worthwhile_source.3F

81.210.206.223 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Uncited statement

Will, the assertion that "Gregory Rose describes the contacts with Liberty Lobby as extensive" seems to be uncited. What is the source please? --JN 466 09:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

George and Wilcox, like the footnote says. We can also add a citation to the original source. Will Beback talk 09:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that's okay, thanks. We should perhaps mention that Rose was an FBI informant, and that George and Wilcox did not find him very credible. Source wording:

Gregory Rose had been an FBI informant within the USLP. His previously mentioned article in National Review was in retaliation for a series on the Buckley family in the Campaigner, which attempted to link the Buckleys to the "RockefellerCIA conspiracy." Rose responded with some heavy linking of his own and charged that there was extensive collaboration between LaRouche and Willis Carto:

Carto was a conduit for extremist right-wing contributions to LaRouche's USLP campaign for the presidency, including part of the more than $90,000 used to purchase a half-hour prime-time commercial on NBC on the eve of the 1976 elections. 12

On the other hand, Rose also linked the LaRouchies to the Soviets, stating: "The NCLC is avowedly pro-Soviet, as even a cursory examination of New Solidarity will show."Rose asserted:

The NCLC is in a position to promote a pro-Soviet line on such issues as U.S. defense posture within certain conservative circles, whereas the Soviets could not make such an approach directly. It is equally obvious that information on conservative attitudes and personalities gained from NCLC contacts would be helpful to Soviet intelligence.

Much of the Left regards the NCLC as a police-provocateur organization. There is little evidence, if any, to support such a hypothesis. However, the evidence of a Soviet connection is extensive and well-founded. 13

In retrospect, we now know that LaRouche was definitely not a Soviet agent and also went nowhere with either the conservatives or the radical right.

Incidentally, the court document you used mentions that the National Review retracted the allegation of "intimate ties" between LL and LaRouche. (The retraction seems to have involved only that one sentence, and did not affect the remainder of the description of the ties between the two groups.) --JN 466 09:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, add that Rose was an FBI informant. Quoting G&W on their opinion of Rose might be a bit much though. Are we going to make a habit of describing writer's opinions of each other, or should we try to stick to writing about LaRouche? Will Beback talk 10:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're citing Rose's statement to an expert source which quotes it, and then explicitly characterises it as unreliable. And you do so without indicating the opinion of the source you cite. That is, in a way, misrepresenting the cited source, don't you think? Perhaps it is better if you do cite Rose's statement to the National Review. --JN 466 10:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the G&W immediately disagree with Rose, which we already included. So we already were presenting one side of the argument. I just added in the other side. Will Beback talk 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Extremism

George and Wilcox (1992) noted a tendency in the media to preface any mention of LaRouche with the words "political extremist", and had little quarrel with the label, stating that LaRouche "virtually personifies the extremist style". Citing the example of Chip Berlet, a noted LaRouche opponent, they also commented that LaRouche was most vehemently criticized by authors who "come from extremist ranks themselves", noting that Berlet was credited by King for assistance with his research, and published a review of King's book in the Marxist-Leninist U.S. publication, the Guardian.^[1]
George and Wilcox concluded that the "primary evil" of LaRouche's movement lay not so much in their "ideological pronouncements", but in the way they treated their opponents, and in what they termed the "anti-democratic and anti-civil-libertarian nature of LaRouche and his followers". However they warned that "indiscriminate or unfair repression of this and other extremist groups also represents a danger. [...] The price we pay for a free society is that some people will behave badly. Another aspect of that freedom is that other individuals and groups are free to organize and propagandize against the LaRouche operation, and in this way contain its influence."^[2]

^ George & Wilcox 1992, pp. 312, 324–325
^ George & Wilcox 1992, pp. 324–325

At present, this section could be better titled "George & Wilcox's views of extremism". If we're going to have a section on "extremism", I suggest that it should include more sources than just George and Wilcox, it should be focused on LaRouche rather than his critics, and avoid the editorializing. Any objection to making this section more compliant with NPOV? Will Beback talk 22:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

True. If you're going to have an entire section sourced to a single person or group, then it should really be attributed to them directly, since it's just their opinion and, at least within the article and said section, not a view that appears to be a majority without other sources being involved. Silver seren^C 23:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Laird Wilcox' view on its own is fine because he is considered the leading modern expert on extremism. Most modern writers, including Chip Berlet do not use the term, which was based on a 1950s concept that the political views of the population could be charted in a bell curve, and the fringe on both the Left and Right could be called "extreme". Probably better to balance Wilcox's view with other writers on the American Right. Also, could someone check the original source (I could only get page 312 on Questia), and confirm that Wilcox actually refers to Berlet in this way. TFD (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Another obvious source would be "The LaRouche-Organization: In the Gray Zone between Extremism, Cultism and Political Exoticism" By Matthias Mletzko in Yearbook of Extremism and Democracy (E & D) 7th Year 1995 edited by Uwe Backes and Eckhard Jesse. Nomos Publishers, Baden-Baden. That's a German resource, relevant because of LaRouche's extensive movement in Germany.

Other sources we could be using in this and other sections include:

"Beast-man politics" by James Bowman The New Criterion February 2004.[11]
"Extremism in the Electoral Arena: Challenging the Myth of American Exceptionalism" by Gur Bligh, Brigham Young University Law Review 2008

And there are countless newspaper and news magazine articles that include references to LaRouche as an extremist. While I don't think we should necessarily make the section longer, there are numerous sources available to give it more inclusive coverage of widespread views. Will Beback talk 00:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

...I must not have been reading this properly the first time. Reading through it again, I kinda see what you're doing. Wilcox points out some important things about the majority of critics of LaRouche, mainly that most of them are extremists themselves. George and Wilcox also go on to say in the quoted section above that there isn't anything inherently wrong with LaRouche ideology, but the wrong part is in the way they go about trying to express it. But also that groups like LaRouche should be free to create their own organizations, because there are always groups on the opposite political spectrum that are just as extremist to oppose them.

And, for a second, I thought you were actually trying to make this section neutral, but as you stated above, "it should be focused on LaRouche rather than his critics", you're trying to remove anything that would discredit the critics of LaRouche, especially of the critic Berlet. This isn't about trying to make it neutral at all, but to make sure that the Wilcox statement is tempered and worded with other things so that the reader will not give any weight to the obvious expert in the field and will instead focus on the other critics that say worse things about LaRouche. Silver seren^C 02:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't cite Berlet in the article, so devoting space to discrediting him seems inappropriate. If we were to cite him and then add material that questioned his reliability, that'd make sense. As for "obvious expert in the field", that could apply to Berlet or King more than to Wilcox and George, though they are also significant sources.

What is the purpose of this section? The title implies that it is a discussion of extremism by LaRouche, or at least allegations of extremism. If so, it should include more than one source, since numerous sources discuss LaRouche's extremism. Is that incorrect? Will Beback talk 02:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence says that media sources generally describe LaRouche as an extremist, and George and Wilcox explain why that is so. The section also explains that LaRouche came from a hotbed of extremism, where people fell out with each other very badly, and then started criticising each other. George and Wilcox thought it worth mentioning as a significant aspect of the story in their discussion of LaRouche, so I don't see why we should not mention it. --JN 466 04:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That's one view. It may be worth including, but if Berlet is significant enough of a critic to mention in this regard then we should include his views of LaRouche too. Otherwise the article isn't compliant with NPOV which calls on us to include all significant views. Also, George and Wilcox are not the only writers who comment on LaRouche's extremism, so we should include a broader range of views. Is that a problem? Will Beback talk 04:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Berlet's views are probably represented in King's book, which he contributed to. I don't mind summarizing his views, if he's stated them independently in reliable sources, but we should be careful of sourcing too much negative BLP material to sources that experts like George and Wilcox describe as extremist themselves. --JN 466 05:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. Can you please summarize his views in the appropriate sections? I'm not sure why George and Wilcox are more expert on the subject than Berlet and King, but they are also a good source. Will Beback talk 05:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So far I've focused on locating mainstream publications commenting on LaRouche, which seemed a higher priority. George and Wilcox don't bother outlining Berlet's views either, but okay. Can you help with identifying suitable sources by Berlet? --JN 466 05:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

George and Wilcox are not the only people who've written about LaRouche. Aside from articles which Berlet has written, he's also been quoted frequently in mainstream newspapers in regard to LaRouche. Aside from G&W, other journalists don't seem to feel that Berlet is a compromised source. While they are one source, they aren't the only one and it'd be POV pushing to simply take their word for the reliability of Berlet as a source. Will Beback talk 07:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But Wilcox is an expert of extremism. So, wouldn't anyone he says is an extremist then be considered as such, at least by us? Silver seren^C 08:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Berlet is also an expert on extremism, and is perhaps more widely cited than Wilcox, at least by mainstream newspapers. Will Beback talk 10:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I searched the Proquest newspaper archive. "Laird Wilcox" alone gets 88 hits, and "Laird Wilcox"+Larouche gets 3. "Chip Berlet" gets 578 hits, and "Chip Berlet"+LaRouche gets 40. So Berlet receives an order of magnitude more attention than Wilcox in the mainstream print media, both generally and in regard to LaRouche. Now that doesn't indicate what the press is saying about Berlet or Wilcox, just the frequency of mentioning them. But I think it's representative of the relative level of respect given Berlet by journalists and their editors. Will Beback talk 14:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's true that Chip Berlet is well represented in the press. Looking at Google scholar, the two versions of the book by George and Wilcox have a combined total of 77 citations; Berlet and Bellman's book on LaRouche, Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag, has 4 citations, while Berlet's Who is mediating the storm? Right-wing alternative information networks has 12. The book by Berlet and Lyons, Right-wing populism in America: Too close for comfort, is well cited however, at 132 citations. So it's a good source, George's and Wilcox's comments notwithstanding. --JN 466 14:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I get 37 hits for Nazis, communists, klansmen, and others on the fringe: political extremism in America by G&W and 29 hits for Lyndon LaRouche and the new American fascism by King. That's roughly comparable. Of course the G&W book covers many topics and LaRouche is just a single chapter, while the King book is dedicated entirely to LaRouche. Will Beback talk 15:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in an edit summary earlier on, George and Wilcox’s book appeared in two editions. The first, Nazis, communists, klansmen, and others on the fringe: political extremism in America, was published in 1992, and has 37 citations. In 1996 they published a new edition, titled American extremists: Militias, supremacists, klansmen, communists & others, which has 40 citations. As far as I can tell so far, the chapter on LaRouche is word-identical in both editions. Hope that clears things up for you. --JN 466 15:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the substance of the thread: I see that LaRouche held a press conference in 1988. In one of the more notable comments he said "extremist" was not part of his birth certificate. That comment encapsulates both the ubiquity of the criticism and his rebuttal. Any objection to adding a sentence about it? Will Beback talk 15:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. It's covered in the first sentence of the "George and Wilcox's view of Extremism" section (which is a rather silly title ...). Feel free to tweak the wording in the direction you've indicated; the source, if you refer to it, will allow you to do that. --JN 466 15:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reworked it so it all fits together, I hope. Will Beback talk 11:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, well done. --JN 466 13:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY

I've partly undone this edit by Will, pending identification of a secondary source; citing court records without a secondary source is a WP:BLP violation. It's also only indirectly about LaRouche; we already say that there was contact between the Liberty Lobby and LaRouche, and the journalist may have been quite correct in pointing that out. --JN 466 06:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading the court judgment, this edit strikes me as improper in another way as well, apart from the policy violation. This is because the material inserted was apt to create an impression in the reader that the Liberty Lobby and LaRouche entertained an association in 1984 and beyond, and thus would have been understood to contradict the previous sentence, sourced to George and Wilcox, which implies that any significant association between the Liberty Lobby and LaRouche ended with a disagreement over how to treat Zionist groups in 1981.

Looking at the sources on which the journalist relied for his assertions, as described and dated here, I find that they in fact all refer to events that occurred in the late 70s and up until 1981, a time frame in which, as the article states, there was indeed contact between the Liberty Lobby and LaRouche. The only exception is a single 1984 article published in the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight which was a reprint of an article that had previously appeared in a LaRouche publication.

The Liberty Lobby reprinting a single LaRouche article in 1984 is not a sufficient basis for presenting what is essentially a primary source-based WP:OR argument to the reader implying that the reliable source, George and Wilcox, is wrong, and that the BLP subject carried on having a collaborative association with the Liberty Lobby after 1981. This is the sort of thing we really should avoid in this article. --JN 466 07:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the misinformation coming from the journalist who wrote that article or from Will's edit? Silver seren^C 07:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure misinformation is the right word, but the problem lies with Will's edit. There is no question that there was an association between the Liberty Lobby and LaRouche before 1981. The defendants in the lawsuit wrote about this connection in 1984. Their research was based on sources that related to events prior to 1981.[12]. Will's edit introducing the 1984 court decision was apt to create the impression that there was a continuing association in 1984, and that the source I cited is wrong. Here, for reference, is the present wording and what Will added to it, based on the primary source, marked in bold:

The Liberty Lobby, which was briefly in contact with LaRouche's organization, pronounced itself disillusioned with LaRouche's views in 1981, because of what they described as his softness on "the major Zionist groups". The group sued a journalist, John Rees, in 1984 for defaming it by writing that the Liberty Lobby and its founder, Willis Carto, were associated with LaRouche. The district and appellant courts found there was sufficient evidence for the claim and no evidence of malice.[123]

The problem should be apparent. --JN 466 09:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that appellant court decisions are treated as secondary sources. The connection to LaRouche is that a journalist was sued by Liberty Lobby for claiming a connection to LaRouche. Is Liberty Lobby connected to LaRouche or not? If there's really no connection then we wouldn't mention them. But a federal court, and an appellant court, both found there was sufficient evidence of a connection to reject the claim of libel. It's also notable that an allegation of an assocation with LaRouche was regarded as defamatory. Will Beback talk 07:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no reference to appellate court decisions, or any intimation that they should treated differently from other court records, in BLP policy. That there was contact between LaRouche and the Liberty Lobby is already stated. The only thing that I would consider is removing the "briefly". It seems the contact spanned a number of years. --JN 466 09:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added the following: "George and Wilcox say that while the contact is often used to imply "'links' and 'ties' between LaRouche and the extreme right", it was in fact transient and marked by much mutual suspicion." The source wording is as follows:

The relationship, such as it was, between the USLP and Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby was marked by a good deal of mutual suspicion. Carto found LaRouche's writings too obscure and convoluted for his liking. Put simply, he was no more adept at understanding them than anyone else. Nor was he particularly happy with the large number of Jews associated with the USLP. The LaRouche people, on the other hand, regarded the Liberty Lobby crowd as "red-necks" and "idiots." Carto acknowledged some exploratory talks with LaRouche, particularly concerning his proposal that LaRouche

assist us in fighting the IRS, pushing for legislation against the IRS and putting his organization in a more populist stance, and they refused that. Their derivations are entirely different from ours. They've never dropped their basic socialist positions. Every socialist likes high taxes and every populist hates high taxes. There's a fundamental difference there.

I think they've gone very far afield by, for instance, their support of Alexander Hamilton.That's an anomaly. I just can't feature that. Alexander Hamilton was a royalist, he was a pro-aristocrat, he was for a central bank. For Christ's sake, this is anathema as far as I'm concerned. We are pro-Jackson and pro-Thomas Jefferson. To us central banking is really the core of the evil so I can't go along with that. 14

Although the transient relationship is frequently mentioned to illustrate "links" and "ties" between LaRouche and the extreme right, it was brief and fleeting. Given their respective personalities, a union of LaRouche and Carto would be a miracle under any circumstances.

--JN 466 09:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between appellate and district court findings. However I'm thinking we're focusing a bit too much on the Liberty Lobby. I assume the paragraph is really about allegation of racism on the part of LaRouche. I'm fine with deleting the defamation lawsuit to reduce the overall LL material. Will Beback talk 10:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I move the Liberty Lobby material to a section in the early 1980s, because it's such a temporal thing. No one asserts that the connection (however deep) lasted more than a few years. It flows better there and keeps the biography more chronological. Will Beback talk 14:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, good move. --JN 466 13:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Future editing

Could we focus on getting the rest of the article ready, then look at the lead? As it stands, it's slanted heavily in LaRouche's favour, so I wouldn't want to see that get worse. The lead is meant to summarize the tone and views of the article, which in turn has to reflect the tone and views of the reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is it slanted in LaRouche's favour? --JN 466 23:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In a now-archived thread we compiled additional sources on LaRouche's reputation in Latin America, or as he prefers to call it, "Ibero-America". I suggest we create a short section to cover that material. Will Beback talk 23:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't begin to reflect the concerns about him. No mention of the violence, the conspiracy theories, the widespread and very serious defamation of people who've criticized him, the ego-stripping, the extensive concerns that he's running a cult, and the strange political ideas such as the royal family trying to assassinate him (and this is a recent and highly notable claim). We currently have one sentence in the lead that deals with criticism, and it mentions it only in passing: that commentators have described him as a conspiracy theorist, cult leader, fascist, or anti-Semite. The rest is puffery. Look at the second para about his conviction. One sentence describing it, and two sentences from his supporters saying it was a set up.

Anyway, the lead is the last thing that ought to be settled, and now is not the time. The article has to settle down first. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? We have a whole section on ego-stripping, we have references to mutilated pets, attacks with chains and bats, the Beatles being a British Intelligence weapon, and much else besides. --JN 466 23:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think I misunderstood you. You were referring to the lead, were you? --JN 466 23:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as the lead is concerned, I agree. The sentences about the alleged abuse of power could be shortened, or even dropped altogether; that content is fine in the article, but unduly prominent in the lead as it stands. --JN 466 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's leave the intro for the time being, since it's passable. Above I proposed a section on reception in Latin America, but hindsight I think that would be too limited. "Reception at home and abroad" or something like that would be sufficient to cover views in the North America, Europe, South America, Asia, Australia, and any other relevant continents. Will Beback talk 00:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine. As for reception at home and abroad, we already touch on some of these in the body of the article. The Latin America thing is mentioned, there is a mention of the Iran episode, and there is domestic criticism. Plus we have the Arab and Russian commentators right at the end. I was really only thinking of adding a half-sentence to the lead, to indicate that he is at times taken seriously as a commentator and advisor abroad. Won't we end up duplicating stuff if we add another Reception section? Or am I misunderstanding (again) what you are proposing? --JN 466 01:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as Latin America, the sources are at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/Archive_23#Addition, and the material contained in them is not in the article. The Egyptian and Russian commentators now in the article are limited to those added by HK. I suspect that if we search a little more we'll find other views from those countries. In any case, I don't think we should add more to the lead until we've made sure that the article itself is closer to complete. Will Beback talk 05:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What content would you want to add from there? --JN 466 11:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing any specific text at the moment, just saying that the international coverage may not be balanced. We have some already found sources which cover other aspects of his reception in Latin America, in particular, and I suspect we can find more sources for other views in other lands. To add one view from Latin America without adding others that are equally prominent might not end up improving the article or the lead. Next week I'll look over the specified sources and draft some text. Will Beback talk 23:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of quote

This removal of the full quote changed the significance and meaning of the information. With the full quote, LaRouche is saying that, "if he had the vigor" he would continue running into his nineties. Removing the quote, then adding the fact that he had decided not to run because of his age, removes the qualification he had earlier given, and may give a negative impression of the subject of this BLP. I think the full quote should be left in. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a long quote that doesn't add much, one which mostly talks about an unnamed friend. If you want to add something like "if he had the vigor", then go ahead. I don't know we even need to mention he said he'd run into his 90s. Lots of politicians make assertions about their future activities that aren't particularly newsworthy, and which no one cares about when they aren't fulfilled. Will Beback talk 01:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the quote; it adds colour, and CBS is a mainstream source. I also don't see him saying that he had decided not to run in 2008 due to his age; while he was musing about his age lower down in the article, he said in the first paragraph that he felt he could be more effective by not running himself. --JN 466 01:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why we need to use that long quote just to say he planned to run in his 90s if he had the vigor.

In an interview with CBS News, he said he would keep on running: "I have a dear friend, almost 92, who was beaten up marching across a bridge in support of Martin Luther King back in the fight for voters' rights. She is traveling around the world today ... She's doing her job, and if I have her vigor, when I get to be 91, 92, 95, I'll probably be doing the same thing."

Versus:

In an interview with CBS News, he said he would keep on running into his 90s if he had sufficient vigor.

What does the extra verbiage of the quotation communicate to readers?

How would you summarize the second half of his announcement,this where he talks about humans being immortal versus having an animal body? If he's not talking about age then what is he talking about? Will Beback talk 01:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If we want to add "color", there are some very colorful quotations we could pick. Cla68 has suggested that we make this a dry recitation of facts, presumably avoiding "color".

As for the CBS article, are we summarizing its main points? Isn't the fact that LaRouche was not allowed to participate in candidate forums also significant? Will Beback talk 01:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added that he was rebuffed by Party officials and not allowed to participate in candidate forum debates. That second half of the article you are referring to seems to be him outlining his personal spiritual and moral beliefs; I don't see good cause to go into detail about these here in the article, based on this source. --JN 466 02:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no lack of color. I've added a quote from the same source about what his plans were instead of running for president. Will Beback talk 02:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche says he'll keep on running — maybe for the rest of his life. "I have a dear friend, almost 92, who was beaten up marching across a bridge in support of Martin Luther King back in the fight for voters' rights," he said. "She is traveling around the world today ... She's doing her job, and if I have her vigor, when I get to be 91, 92, 95, I'll probably be doing the same thing."
In a 2003 interview with CBS News, he said he would keep on running as long as he could replicate the vigor of his friend Amelia Boynton Robinson.

LaRouche appears to refer to Robinson, but does not do so by name. FWIW, we already mention Robinson in the article. The issue here is his presidential campaigns, so I just don't think there's any benefit to the reader to referring to someone else's vitality. It seems like it'd be sufficient to say that he expressed an intent to keep campaigning as long as he had vigor. What, besides unnecessary color, does a longer treatment add? Will Beback talk 22:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I propose we simplify it to this:

In a 2003 interview, he said he would keep running as long as he had enough vigor.

The interviewer doesn't seem especially important either. Will Beback talk 06:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

- I'd prefer us to keep it. --JN 466 15:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  - Keep what, and why? Will Beback talk 22:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  - Unless there's any other comment, I'll go ahead and make the proposed edit. Will Beback talk 01:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
    - I oppose this edit. You do not have consensus for this change. Specifically mentioning who he is trying to replicate the vigor of is informative to the reader and gives context to his comment. 165.91.15.6 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Three issues: First, where does he identify Robinson? Is it OK for us to just guess who he might mean and add that as a categorical assertion? Second, why does it matter whose vigor he was trying to match? Why do we even need to say he was planning to keep running into his 90s, since he didn't succeed in that goal? Third, why do we need to include that he said this in an interview with CBS News? Does it matter who the interviewer was? Will Beback talk 01:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important to point out that he looked up to Robinson and wanted to show that he could match the vigor that she had in respect to her. We do not have to put her entire name, we could just put Robinson. It is obvious that he is referring to her. If we need to have a wider discussion among other editors to determine this, then so be it, but it is not any stretch to see who he is referring to. And I do not mind if the interviewing group is removed, they are unimportant. 165.91.15.6 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe there are many quotes available from LaRouche on Robinson that express admiration of her and even identify her by name. LaRouche apparently admires a number of people, living and dead. If there's a good reason for including them then we should include a broader array. As for obvious conclusions, I think it's obvious that he said he was not running in 2008 because of age, but Jayen didn't approve of us drawing that kind of conclusion. So for consistency I think it's best if we avoid drawing our own conclusions about what LaRouche may mean in any particular quotation. Will Beback talk 02:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

When he said that quote, was Robinson nearly 92? That would be a definitive meaning right there. 165.91.15.6 (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that many people were 92 years old in 2003. If there's an important reasons for communicating LaRouche's admiration of Robinson I'm sure we can find a more direct assertion. Will Beback talk 04:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Many people that were also beaten unconscious during a Martin Luther King Rally while crossing a bridge? I do not see how you could argue that he was not talking about her. 165.91.14.69 (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You're asking us to engage in original research. Again, why is this important to include? Will Beback talk 04:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

We know he means Robinson. Originally, we just used the quote as it is given in CBS: "I have a dear friend, almost 92, who was beaten up marching across a bridge in support of Martin Luther King back in the fight for voters' rights ...", but you didn't like that either. Editors are saying that there simply is nothing in reliable sources that reflects positively or neutrally on LaRouche. But as soon as anything from a neutral, human-interest piece like this CBS interview is put in, it is snipped away bit by bit with a view to deleting it altogether. Just leave it there, Will. This kind of quote would be uncontroversial and welcome in any other article. --JN 466 04:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"We know he means Robinson." How do we know that, without using original research?

This quote is neither neutral, nor interesting. It's just off-topic. Including his 2003 assertion that he hoped to keep campaigning into his 90s followed immediately by the assertion that it was his last campaign seems more like a way of making him seem foolish. It's akin to saying "Candidate Smith said in January that he was in the race until the end. He dropped out in February." What other articles have quotations to convey their admiration for unnamed persons? Will Beback talk 05:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting. At first the passage looked like this:

He again entered the primary elections for the Democratic Party's nomination in 2004, setting a record for the number of consecutive presidential campaigns.[106] In an interview with CBS News, he said he would keep on running: "I have a dear friend, almost 92, who was beaten up marching across a bridge in support of Martin Luther King back in the fight for voters' rights. She is traveling around the world today ... She's doing her job, and if I have her vigor, when I get to be 91, 92, 95, I'll probably be doing the same thing."[107] LaRouche subsequently endorsed John Kerry at the 2004 election, and wrote in 2008 that he had decided to remove himself from the roster of U.S. presidential candidates.[108]

Then you edited it down several times in ways that to me looked designed to make it sound mocking: [13][14][15].

And after I said here on the talk page that I liked the quote because it added colour, you responded by adding an out-of-context quote that seemed equally mocking, mimicking my words in the edit summary: "add quote, for color". Your expressing concern now that the article should not make LaRouche seem foolish seems at variance with the intentions one would deduce from your edits. I simply do not believe that you have any concern whatsoever in that regard. Lastly, this is LaRouche's BLP. I can't think of any other BLP where an editor would say that what the subject said in an interview with a major news organisation about his presidential candidacies is "off-topic." It's mind-boggling reasoning. --JN 466 05:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Again I ask, why do we even include this? You said you added it for "color", but that's not a good reason. There is no lack of colorful quotes we could add to this article. Let's go back to the source, the 2003 CBS interview. Is this really the most interesting item from that piece? If we want to say something positive about the subject using that source, then the fact that he had received more contributions than several more prominent candidates seems more significant than that he hope to keep active as long as Robinson. His assertion that he is hated and regarded as a threat is more colorful. His quote that he is running to provide leadership instead of just to be president is significant to his entire political career. I wouldn't object to using any of those. But either the long quote about staying active as long as his unnamed friend, or even the shorter, NOR version of staying active as long as Robinson, seem less interesting and less significant, especially since he did not make his goal. Will Beback talk 23:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

We should simply say, "He again entered the primary elections for the Democratic Party's nomination in 2004, setting a record for the number of consecutive presidential campaigns." And link to CBS as the source. Adding a quote from eight years ago about what he thought he might do in his 90s doesn't tell us anything. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a man who ran for president aged 83; that is actually quite unusual. What he thought about running for office at that age does tell the reader something about him. It's a bona fide quote that a reliable source thought worth their while printing. Is this about his name-dropping Boynton Robinson or MLK? If so, he has a right to name-drop Boynton Robinson; she is a friend of his, and CBS didn't feel the need to cut it out. --JN 466 23:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If so, he has a right to name-drop Boynton Robinson; she is a friend of his, and CBS didn't feel the need to cut it out.

CBS did cut out the name if it was ever there: Robinson is not named in the interview. As I suggested above, there are more interesting and important assertions in the interview/article than his intent keeping campaigning into his 90s in emulation of his unnamed friend. Will Beback talk 05:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

CBS has him name-dropping MLK: "I have a dear friend, almost 92, who was beaten up marching across a bridge in support of Martin Luther King back in the fight for voters' rights." We had that before, and you deleted it too. It just so happens to be true. --JN 466 10:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why we would pick out an eight-year-old quote about his having had an unnamed friend who did something—which tells us nothing about Lyndon LaRouche—and not mention that the same source says: (1) Democratic Party officials want nothing to do with him; (2) Party leaders have refused to allow him onstage at candidate forums; (3) that Don Fowler, former national Democratic Party chairman, said of him: "Not only is he not a registered voter but he has an extensive written record of racist and anti-Semitic opinions"; and (4) that some of his past proposals have included a quarantine of AIDS victims and the colonization of Mars. He has charged that Queen Elizabeth II is a drug dealer, and that Henry Kissinger and Walter Mondale are Soviet agents. [16]

To choose the weakest part of the story to add fluff—and it's not even fluff about LaRouche—isn't a good editorial choice. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of what you have posted here. The article section you critique says, "Although Democratic Party officials distanced themselves from him and did not permit him to participate in candidate forum debates, he insisted on running as a Democrat." This is the content you complain is missing, but it is there. I added it, ten days ago.

What about the other points you raise? His AIDS quarantine proposals are already mentioned in two locations in the article. They have half a section devoted to them. The Queen being supposed to be a drug dealer is already mentioned. Mondale being a Soviet agent is already mentioned. Kissinger is mentioned twice. Colonising Mars is only mentioned in a footnote, but I have previously voiced my support for mentioning it in the article proper. Why don't you add a paragraph on it? --JN 466 00:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The AIDS initiative remains one of the most written-about aspects of the subject's legacy. We devote little more space to it than his tuning initiative, which is comparatively very obscure. To maintain fair weight, we should increase the AIDS initiative tenfold.

As for the interview, it contains many more interesting and relevant items than his hope to keep campaigning into his 90s, some of which could be counted os "positive", such as that his fundraising equaled or surpassed more mainstream candidates. This seems like the most obscure and least important things we could add from that source. Will Beback talk 23:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Length

When I last checked this it was 8,500 words, and it's now nearly 10,000, which is too long. The new material includes things that really aren't very notable -- a whole section on music, for example, which is more connected to the Schiller Institute. Also lots of quotes and wordiness. I ask again that we stick to the policies, focusing on the issues the high-quality sources focus on, and roughly reflecting the same degree of coverage. If the article were read by the mainstream journalists and academics who've written about LaRouche over the decades, we would want them to see it as unsurprising. Currently, I think they would be surprised at some of the emphasis, and at some of the issues we don't mention.

I intend to go through it again and tighten the writing where I can, remove unnecessary quotes, remove material relying on self-published sources, or anything repetitive, and try to get the length down that way. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I would focus on things that are repetitive first, and on self-published sources next, before deleting material. There are certainly quite a few of those. If you want to make deletions beyond those, please discuss them first. I intend to review the deletions you have already made. --JN 466 05:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

the coroner opened and closed the inquest, inviting the LaRouche movement to attend later hearings as an interested party.

What do we mean when we say that the inquest was "opened and closed"? Surely the inquest is ongoing; I don't understand why we say it is "closed". Is the wording at fault, or am I missing something? --JN 466 00:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it should be adjourned. I'll fix it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?

Lyndon LaRouche has written about economics a lot, and some reliable sources have called him an economist. He has no formal qualifications or professional background in economics. Should the first sentence of his biography say in Wikipedia's voice that he "is an American political activist and economist," as in this version? Or should we say he "is an American political activist," as in this version?

In both versions, the first paragraph ends with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

(no threaded replies, please)

Support There are many sources that discuss LaRouche as being an economist (see [17] [18] [19] [20]). I do not think you have to have a degree to be considered an economist. LaRouche is considered an economist by most of the media and much of the government because of "LaRouche economics", which includes his unique views on how the economy should work and what should be done. Most people do not agree with him, surely, but that does not change the fact that he is considered an economist because of this. 165.91.14.186 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose calling him an economist in Wikipedia's voice, or referring to it in the first sentence. He has no qualifications in economics, has never studied it formally, and has never been employed as an economist. He has not been published in that subject by a reliable publication, or a peer-reviewed one. He isn't a member of any professional body of economists, and so far as I know has never been called an economist by academic economists. Some newspapers have referred to him as an economist, but they've called him a cult leader far more often, and we don't call him that in WP's voice. It's enough that the first paragraph says he has written prolifically in that subject, as well as several others. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayen has posted a snippet view link below, [21] and argues that it shows LaRouche had a book about Marxian economics reviewed by an academic journal in 1975, but in fact it looks more like an ad from the publisher (see Volunteer Marek's comments below). Google shows the book as having not been reviewed. [22] The Stanislav Menshikov citation Jayen offers is from a LaRouche publication. [23] And holding seminars at the Free University of New York in the 1960s required no qualifications, and LaRouche talked to people there about Marxism and dialectical materialism. Teaching or writing about Marxian economic theory doesn't make a person an economist (I was taught it by a sociologist).
What's needed is a post-graduate qualification in economics and academic recognition from a professional body in that field, and that's what's missing. For a person who really is a modern American economist we wouldn't be having to hunt around using Google snippet view; the sources would be mainstream and clear, and that's what we need before we attribute a profession to someone in Wikipedia's voice. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't "look more like an ad from the publisher", it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for verifying. I've posted that info to RSN, and will let other editors who have commented know. --JN 466 22:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Support. The reliable sources linked to above by the IP clearly call him an "economist." Also, last year, while searching in Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand for information, I found this from Xinhua, showing that LaRouche had correctly predicted the recent financial crisis. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Seriously, wikipedia should not be endorsing this guy as anything other than what he demonstrably is, an "activist". I've been many times accosted by his supporters while living in Chicago, and never once did any of them come up and say, "Are you familiar with the novel economic theories of Lyndon LaRouche?" Silliness aside, he has no credentials as an economist other than some people calling him one; if that were an acceptable basis, we would be calling Alistair Crowley a "Master of the Dark Arts" and the article on Jesus of Nazareth would start out by saying "Jesus was a rabbi and the savior of all humanity." siafu (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Support, most definitely. Even King, hardly charitable towards LaRouche, says on page 51 that LaRouche became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist" (see [24]) and later refers to "LaRouche's major achievement in economics -- his model of a totally mobilized economy". It would be a travesty for Wikipedia not to acknowledge that. --JN 466 02:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- An editor below asked for academic sources that call him an economist. Here is an Oxford University Press publication that refers to him as a "US economist": [25] Here are some academic publications I found in Google Scholar that call him an economist: [26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. This paper by the US Department of Defense says, "LaRouche became widely respected as a serious economist and political strategist in Latin America in the early 1980s", citing King. This, by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Singapore, notes LaRouche's influence on government planners in Malaysia. Here is Stanislav Menshikov, a notable Russian economist, referring to LaRouche as an economist: [33] To be sure, LaRouche does not have academic qualifications, although he did teach Marxist economics at the Free University of New York. However, he seems to have some standing among some economists abroad, and seems to have provided economic advice to governments on several continents, making him a de facto economist. --JN 466 17:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also note that LaRouche published a book in 1975, Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) (entry at archive.org), ~~cited here for example in a university press publication.~~ While his later works have been published by his own publishing outfits, this one was published by D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts); so it's not correct to say he never got published as an economist. --JN 466 03:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- His book was reviewed in the American Economic Review, a highly prestigious journal published by the American Economic Association: "NEW Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy Lyn Marcus, Chairman, National Caucus of Labor Committees March 1975 Cloth 544 pages An unprecedented approach to Marx's method and economic theory, this book explains, analyzes, and interprets Marxian economics through an interdisciplinary approach. ..." [34][35] --JN 466 10:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't reviewed. That's actually just a publisher's advertisement in the back of an issue. I can understand however how it might have seen like a book review based on the google books search.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for verifying. I've posted that info to RSN, and will let other editors who have commented know. --JN 466 22:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh This is a perennial dispute, I'm too worn out to venture an opinion. Whatever the outcome I hope it can become stable in the future. Will Beback talk 02:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Support The majority of foreign language entries at Wikipedia about "Lyndon LaRouche" calls him an "economist" or "economist and activist". 81.210.206.223 (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose No of course he is not an economist. TFD (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose calling him an economist. He occasionally talks about economics, but that has never been his profession, nor does he have any formalized training on the subject. Small town newspapers calling him an economist as a convenient shorthand doesn't mean WP should do the same, when there are far better resources around which to build his article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm renewing my oppose, and I'm not changing it back. The new information that has come to light makes it clear that LaRouche is absolutely not a serious economist, but desperately wants to be recognized as one in order to more strongly promote his fringe views. Pretty much all of the below sources were already promotional pieces from related organizations, and the fact that the one that I thought put it over the top into support turned out to be yet another advertisement has sealed the deal for me. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose calling him an economist. We should reserve the term for those who have a higher degree in economics, and publish peer-reviewed papers in the normal journals. Same goes for "historian", "sociologist" and practitioners in other academic disciplines. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose calling him an economist. WP policy requires the use of the most reliable sources, not cherry-picking marginal publications of marginal para-economists from marginal institutes writing marginal articles & "monographs" published by marginal publishers in Armonk (NY), Russia, Peru, etc., to support POV editing. Similarly, none of the three Jesuses of Ypsilanti are called Jesus Christ on Wikipedia. Has the Journal of Economic Literature ever reviewed his attempted Riemannian geometry take on Marxist economics? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 16:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - at least until I see some academic sources which call him an economist. I'd be fine with "economic commentator" though. I think it might also be possible to mention that he is sometimes referred to as an economist "in newspapers" in the body of the text, but not in the lede. And Cla68, LaRouche has been predicting a financial crisis ever year since like 1478 or something. But then, so has my grandpa (who thinks the world is going to hell). I mean, eventually you'll get it right. It's standard "make it rain" strategy; promise rain, if it comes, claim credit, if it doesn't blame something or someone else. Repeat.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Add - JN466 asked me to take a look at an issue of AER which might have had a book review of LaRouche's book [36]. I checked, and it is NOT a book review, rather just an add from a publisher in the "Back Matter" section where the description of the book is not a review but rather just the publisher's blurb. So I'm sticking with my oppose.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose calling him an "economist" in the lede, as this gives undue weight to one of the many claims about his background and capabilities and is not the main reason for his notability. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose calling him an "economist" in the lede, per arguments made by SlimVirgin, siafu and Jonathanwallace above. LK (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, not an economist per Itsmejudith. If you don't do economic research, don't publish in journals, and don't have economists calling you an economist, you aren't an economist even if you have a degree, which he doesn't. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Itsmejudith, that description in the lede should be reserved for those who "have a higher degree in economics, and publish peer-reviewed papers in the normal journals". We can use the sources listed in the body of the article, to make a reference to his Latin American portrayal. Dave Dial (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose An economist? No. Perhaps "named as an economist" (along with all the other things he has been named as). But seriously, no. - LuckyLouie (talk)
- Comment': I'm not opposed to "has been called an economist" or the like. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  - The article on David Irving (which has much the same problem on whether to characterise the subject as "a historian") uses the interesting compromise "...is a writer specialising in the military history of World War II", which carefully avoids taking a position in the first line. Shimgray | talk | 17:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The material stating what he has written is well-supported, but it would be better to avoid potentially misleading descriptions. Itsmejudith has the right of it, and Will Beback makes a compelling argument (no, really - it would be nice if this article would stay at least somewhat settled). - 2/0 (cont.) 18:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Support:--- He should be considered as the economist ; As per the reference and the redefining the entire concept , he should be considered as a researcher which is reflecting in his post/publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dryusufkamal (talk • contribs) 20:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

We also might want to take into account that LaRouche is considered a economist in Latin America, as many sources say. He doesn't have to be considered an economist just in the United States to be one. 165.91.14.214 (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I can read Spanish, so, if you'll link to some sources I can check them out. If they're not online, please give the citations and I'll try to look them up in a library database. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A snippet from the Centro de Documentación e Información of Bolivia(see [37]) stated "Uno de los hombres más importantes en este esquema de militarización de la política mundial es el economista Lyndon LaRouche, socio de Sun Myung Moon y principal «padrino» de personajes como Otto Reich, Gary Speer, Donald Rumsfeld, ..." 165.91.14.214 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Author? Title? What does the rest of the paragraph say? Will Beback talk 00:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The author and publisher is the Centro de documentación for Bolivia. A Centro de documentación appears, according to its entry in the Spanish Wikipedia (by the way, the link to the English entry is incorrect) to be a knowledge portal, usually focused on a specific area of interest, unique to Latin America. So, it appears to be a reliable source. Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So the author is anonymous? Do we know the rest of the context of the article? I don't think that using snippets from Google, where we can only see a few words, is a good way of writing articles. Will Beback talk 01:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

More. Ciclos (see [38]) says "Según el 'economista y estadista' Lyndon LaRouche, diversas organizaciones intentan destruir la soberanía del país, ... Esta es, en concreto, la conclusión a que llegan el "economista y estadista" Lyndon LaRouche y su Executive ...". Ercilla (see [39]) says "México entró en bancarrota desde que firmó en 1982 los acuerdos ¡a económicos con el ex presidente George | Bush», dice desde Chicago el conocido » economista Lyndon Larouche. La situación permitió que afloraran a ambos lados de la ...". 165.91.14.234 (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I found a source (see [40]) that states that LaRouche had an economic paper published in the International Journal based in New York. Snippet says "LaRouche, Lynclon, "Introducción a la Economía Dialéctica", en Boletín Internacional, vol. III, núm. 2, Nueva York, junio-julio, 1976, pp. 8, 13-15. ..." 165.91.14.234 (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I found a source (see [41]) from the National Anti-Drug Coalition of Mexico, where it called LaRouche a "noted economist and political leader of North American". 165.91.14.234 (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If this is the same periodical, it appears to be a general interest magazine published in Spain. The copy in Google books was digitized, not published, by the University of Texas. Still, it appears to be another reliable source calling LaRouche an "economist." Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

National Anti-Drug Coalition of Mexico may be a LaRouche group. One of their groups is "National Anti-Drug Coalition". Will Beback talk 01:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If so, perhaps that would help confirm that LaRouche has had significant influence in Latin America. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't be scrabbling around trying to decipher unclear sources. To call someone an X in Wikipedia's voice, he has to be an X in some objective sense, in a way that almost no one would disagree with—where there's evidence of qualifications as an X, or employment as an X, or publication as an X.

If we call someone an X just because some sources have done it, then we also have to include the other labels some sources have attached to him, otherwise we're being POV in highlighting just one of the terms. This is a mark of poor editing, which is why you often see in articles being edited a lot: "John Smith is a singer, song-writer, producer, author, screenplay writer, director, impresario, philanthropist, and convicted arsonist." :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dennis King, whose work we cite a dozen times, says on page 175, "LaRouche became known as an Important Economist, and government officials quoted Operation Juarez [written by LaRouche]. As friends of "Ibero-America" his EIR intelligence profilers enjoyed an open door to high officials. Peru's President Alan Garcia, already a populist on the debt question, even addressed a Schiller Institute delegation in Lima." According to King, he was not just an economist, but an uncommonly prominent one, at least in Latin America. There are few economists indeed who have that sort of influence. Mark Weisbrot is a more recent example, and some of his views actually seem to parallel LaRouche's. (With the important difference that Weisbrot writes for The Guardian.) Why should we discount that in a biography of the man? --JN 466 03:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever we do, let's use sources that are fully available rather than those we can only see in tiny snippets on Google. Will Beback talk 03:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Will and SV, do you have any objection to using Dennis King as a source for labeling LaRouche as an "economist" in the lede? Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Do Jayen466 and Cla68 regard King as a reliable source? Will Beback talk 04:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

His 1989 book meets RS. His websites don't. --JN 466 07:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll second that. Will, you didn't answer my question, do you accept King's book as a source for calling LaRouche an economist in the lede? Cla68 (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In the cited passage, King doesn't say LaRouche is an economist. He says that he "became known as an Important Economist". If that's what we want to say, then King would be a fine source. I'm sure we can find a source that makes the assertion more directly, and without the irony. Will Beback talk 08:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said above earlier, on page 51 King says that LaRouche became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist", mentioning meetings with three Latin American heads of state. It is not a very difficult question, Will. He was viewed as a serious economist in Latin America, who had the ear of multiple heads of state, who based their policies on his writing. That is being an important economist to any reasonable person. --JN 466 08:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If King says that LaRouche is known as a serious economist in Latin America then I'm fine with adding that to the article. There's talk about creating a section for LaRouche's activity in Latin America and that would be the logical place to discuss how he's viewed there. Will Beback talk 08:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect, you are still dodging the question. Are you happy to describe him as "an economist" in the lead. Yes or no. --JN 466 11:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't dodged your question. You asked about using King for a source and I answered you. For the RfC question, I've already non-answered that in the previous section: my response is "Ugh". But if we're going to call LaRouche an economist then let's at least find a source that does so directly. They're not that rare. Probably some biographical encyclopedia uses the term. Will Beback talk 12:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@Siafu: You should try and keep your own personal feelings out of the discussion. And I think we should be calling people by what reliable sources describe them as. If most reliable sources described Crowley as that without being sarcastic, then that would mean that a bunch of people believe it to be true, which would make it fine to include. Most reliable sources describe LaRouche as an economist, including the government, even if they dislike him. 165.91.14.234 (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you haven't provided any sources from the government (I think they also describe him as a convicted felon, should we include that in the lead?), I find that claim rather dubious. Moreover, it's one thing to say that some people SAY he's an economist, and to include that in the article, it's quite another to state categorically in the lead that he IS an economist. Most people who are familiar with him would most charitably refer to him as an "activist", or possibly a "political figure". siafu (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition to King's comments on LaRouche's standing as an economist abroad, he's been described as an "economist" by news agencies and US papers like
- Associated Press
- UPI
- The New York Times
- The Los Angeles Times
- The Milwaukee Journal
- Lewiston Morning Tribune
- Times Daily
- Ocala Star Banner
- Daily News of Los Angeles
- The Bulletin and others.
FWIW, he once taught "Elementary Marxist Economics" at the Free University in New York" (which was an alternative, Marxist institution set up in the 60s). --JN 466 11:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversial economist and self-styled politician Lyndon LaRouche was in Maine Tuesday, at least in spirit. In front of post offices throughout the state, including Lewiston, Lisbon and Brunswick, LaRouche followers set up signs depicting President Barack Obama sporting a Hitler-style mustache, and actively sought signatures on petitions to impeach the president. In Lewiston, the sight of the Obama-cum-Hitler image angered people who thought the image was disrespecting the office of the president ...
- Short takes on the week's news.(Editorial). Sun Journal (Lewiston, ME) (Dec 4, 2010)(680 words) Reading Level (Lexile): 1300.
WCVB-TV, Boston, reported Frank bested the 29-year-old supporter of economist Lyndon LaRouche in the 4th Congressional District Frank first won in 1980. The Boston Globe reported Frank had 82 percent of the vote to 18 percent for Brown with about two-thirds of the votes counted.
- Barney Frank heads to general election. UPI NewsTrack (Sept 14, 2010)(225 words) Reading Level (Lexile): 1090.
LaRouche, now 87, has been a self-styled economist, political activist and perennial candidate for president for half a century.
- District 22 candidate draws fire from Democratic party.(THISWEEK). The Houston Chronicle (Houston, TX) (April 25, 2010): p.12. (591 words) Reading Level (Lexile): N/A.
An economist and philosopher, LaRouche has centered his campaigns on what he says is the coming collapse of the economic system. He is not running for president in 2008.
Lyndon LaRouche
Born in Rochester, N.H., on Sept. 8, 1922.
Economist, political activist, pamphlet writer.
Served in Army medical units in India and Burma during World War II.
Best known as a perennial candidate for president running eight times whose followers solicit money on sidewalks.
Founded the U.S. Labor Party in the early 1970s.
Sentenced to 15 years in prison in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations.
Paroled after five years and resumed political activity.
Opposed invasion of Iraq.
- Lawmaker's donations blasted; Recipient of funds called anti-Semitic.(LOCAL). The Record (Bergen County, NJ) (Oct 26, 2007): p.L01. (660 words) Reading Level (Lexile): 1240.
LaRouche, 85, has courted controversy for decades. Hailed by backers as an economist and philosopher and denounced by detractors as a conspiracy theorist and anti-Semite, LaRouche has run for president eight times, claiming that the U.S. financial system is on the verge of collapse. He served five years in prison in the late 1980s and early 1990s for mail fraud.
- LaRouche donation upstages other issues; Johnson apologizes again during 37th District candidates' debate.(NEWS). The Record (Bergen County, NJ) (Nov 1, 2007): p.A10. (727 words) Reading Level (Lexile): 1410.

"Self-styled economist" was in the article for a while, but some editors objected to that strongly even though it's a common formulation. Anyway, if we were to add it these and other news sources would be adequate. Will Beback talk 12:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: I posted the full list of career highlights from The Record, it's interesting which few items they pick out as the most important. Will Beback talk 12:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of his followers have been accused of harassing political opponents, and Mr. LaRouche, who describes himself as a leading economist, says he has been threatened by Communists, Zionists, narcotics gangsters, the Rockefellers and international terrorists.
- U.S. CHARGES AIDES TO LaROUCHE WITH CREDIT-CARD FRAUD SCHEME.(National Desk). The New York Times (Oct 7, 1986)(1102 words) Reading Level (Lexile): 1460.
Several U.S. scholars have issued statements here recently to refute the Cox report that accused China of "stealing" nuclear secrets from the United States. Lyndon Larouche, an economist and founder of the Executive Intelligence Review, said "the Cox Committee's report is scientifically illiterate hoax". "The Cox Committee's report itself contains sufficient crucial evidence to reveal its claims of alleged scientific espionage by China to be intrinsically fraudulent," said Rarouche, who is also Democratic Presidential pre-candidate. The authors of the report were "incompetent in the field addressed" and they have "acted willfully in reckless disregard for truth" by releasing such a report, Rarouche added. Rarouche's spokesman Debra Freeman, speaking at a press conference here Wednesday, said the Cox report is "absolutely and completely ridiculous" and "it's hard for credible and knowledgeable people to accept". "The intention of the Cox Committee is to sabotage and destroy President Clinton's state policy of strategic partnership with China," she said.
- U.S. Scholars Refute Cox Report. Xinhua News Agency (June 7, 1999): p.1008155h0257. (256 words)
In a 1979 autobiography, he wrote, During the last several years it has become increasingly evident that I have gained some degree of importance in respect to shaping current world history. He also wrote that by a large margin of advantage he was the leading economist of the 20th century to date.'
- LAROUCHE SAVORS FAME THAT MAY RUIN HIM.(National Desk). The New York Times (April 4, 1986)(2730 words) Reading Level (Lexile): 1390.
Mr. LaRouche, whose presence here includes a 172-acre complex outside town, a publishing company, a printing company and what he describes as an intelligence-gathering operation, describes himself as an economist and a private citizen with specialized political-intelligence capabilities. He has run for President three times and has said he would run in 1988.
- SMALL TOWN IN VIRGINIA TENSE HOST TO LaROUCHE.(National Desk). The New York Times (April 11, 1986)(1821 words) Reading Level (Lexile): 1310.

More. Will Beback talk 12:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@TFD: You have not made any argument whatsoever. @Torchiest: If you look at the sources just above this, you would see that he has been called an economist by higher news powers than local newspapers. Did you read this discussion? 165.91.15.6 (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

URGENT!:Please delete the title "economist" from every one of those convicted hoaxsters and fraudsters and impostors who have been called "economist" and are being refered to as "economists" by Wikipedia, YET have never received a formal education in economics nor have ever received a B.A., M.A. or Ph.D in economics:Malthus,Quesnay, Mirabeau,Turgot,Hamilton, A.,Marx, Ricardo, Bastiat,Keynes, Menger. More soon to follow, I fear the world has been set up by a group of ruthless impostors posing as economists!Ronald Reagan (Reagonomics) was a dressman and an actor! Jesus was a carpenter! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've invited the Oppose voters above to have a look at the Google Scholar sources I just posted and see if that does or doesn't affect their view. --JN 466 19:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The DOD report is just quoting King. The Ackermann article comes from the Spanish-language edition of LaRouche's EIR. S. Glazyev is connected to LaRouche as well, IIRC. The Lebedev Physical Institute also seems to be connected to the Schiller Institute, since they co-sponsor seminars. The "John Joseph Moakley Oral History Project" looks like a partial mirror of Wikipedia text, though I can't find the exact edition they'd be copying. I don't think we can really use papers behind paywalls that we haven't read in full as sources. Will Beback talk 01:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, if the Lebedev Physical Institute co-sponsors seminars with LaRouche's Schiller Institute, then that reflects positively on the Schiller Institute, rather than negatively on the Lebedev Physical Institute. Look at the Lebedev Physical Institute in Google Books: thousands of matches, hundreds in University Press publications. People from that institute have won Nobel prizes. If people who have mainstream prestige are "connected" with LaRouche, we cannot thereby disqualify them as reliable sources on LaRouche, unless you want to give a censored image of what mainstream acceptance he has. --JN 466 16:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The point of this discussion isn't to review how well-connected LaRouche is or how well-accepted he is. It is just about whether to call him, in the editorial voice of Wikipedia, an "economist". If that term is used mostly by groups or individuals with connections to him then that argues against us using it as an unequivocal description. While these citations are interesting, other factors to consider include that he has no formal training as an economist, that his writings have never been published by any reputable publications in the economics field, and that he does not earn his living as an economist, although he does work as an editor for EIR, and writes articles about economics along with many other topics. Wikipedia defines "economist" as "a professional in the social science discipline of economics". "Professional" usually refers to someone with professional training. To take a similar example from a different field, William Mulholland is not called an engineer by Wikipedia. Midway through the article we say he is "best described as a self-taught engineer". He did engineering-type work, but he was not a professional engineer. Even if someone from the Lebedev Physical Institute called Mulholland an engineer, that would not make him one. Will Beback talk 20:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The point of my comment was that I wanted to make you aware of the way you dismiss sources on the basis that "they are connected with LaRouche". It's biased, and in the case of an institute that has produced Nobel prize winners, comical. --JN 466 20:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, could I ask again that you stop relying on LaRouche sources? The Stanislav Menshikov source you linked to in one of LaRouche's publications—as evidence that he had called LaRouche an economist— also shows him calling LaRouche's wife the "scientific leader" of the Schiller Institute and a "prominent political figure" in Germany. But she's not a scientist, and she's not a prominent political figure, just as LaRouche isn't an economist. If you use LaRouche sources, or sources connected to him in any way, you'll find puffery regarding him, and serious attacks on people he doesn't like, and we want to avoid both of those things. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Slim, Stanislav Menshikov is a significant economist, and if he considers LaRouche an economist, that is a valid voice in the mix. The photo of him and LaRouche is not photoshopped; Executive Intelligence Review publishes the English version of Menshikov's book. I have not advocated citing that source, and wouldn't cite it. But in this case it simply serves to illustrates a fact: Menshikov considers LaRouche worthwhile. That's part of his reception. --JN 466 21:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Beyond that, please show where I have relied on a LaRouche source, or withdraw that comment. I would not wish to have that insinuation stand here unchallenged. Thank you. --JN 466 21:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It doesn't matter who he is. He has said things that we know aren't true (we know that L's wife is not a scientist or prominent political figure), and it appears only in a LaRouche publication, so it's not a source we can rely on for anything. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We can rely on it for the fact that Menshikov has a positive opinion of LaRouche and his wife, for whatever reason. --JN 466 21:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Zepp-Larouche studied political science, history and philosophy. Whether that makes her a scientist (and what kind of degree she has, if any), I don't know, but it may be debatable. I wouldn't describe her as a "prominent political figure" in Germany though; that's clearly off the mark. --JN 466 22:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no question that LaRouche has been called an "economist". He's been called many things, and "economist" is not the leading term. A search of Proquest for "LaRouche and within3 economist" gets 123 hits, while the same search for extremist gets 2742 hits. If noteworthy people and institutions have called LaRouche an extremist should we put that in the lead?

Regarding the Lebedev Physical Institute, it is "one of the leading Russian research institutes specializing in physics", a very different field from economics. Having prize winning physicists on the staff does not make other members of the institute experts on all topics. Will Beback talk 21:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That it's an institute for physics would have been a valid argument, Will. That it's "connected with LaRouche" wasn't. But never mind. We probably should mention in the lead that LaRouche is often described as an extremist. I wouldn't state is in the article's editorial voice, as it's a value judgment, but it's one of the most notable things about him. Care to figure out a wording? --JN 466 22:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We include in the intro that LaRouche "has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis", so we already cover his writings on economics. So the question again is whether to use the authoritative editorial voice to say that LaRouche is "a professional in the social science discipline of economics". A comment by a Menshikov does not make LaRouche an economist, a profession for which there are objective criteria. If Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling called someone a physician, that alone would not make the person a physician. Will Beback talk 22:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Marx didn't study economics either, yet is described as an economist. But never mind; I've removed economist from the lead, as the oppose votes clearly have it above, and have added that he is often described as a political extremist. My criteria for calling him an economist are different: he has had an influence on various countries' economic policies, notably in Latin America, and, according to a Wall Street Journal article, in Malaysia. I think we ought to state that in the lead, if we don't call him an economist, because it is actually important. --JN 466 22:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If the RfC is closed could we close it formally? Then we might start a fresh thread on what more to add to the lead or the body of the article about LaRouche's influence on economic issues. Will Beback talk 22:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Aren't RfCs usually open for a month? I didn't mean to preempt the RfC's closure; I just don't think it is appropriate to maintain a wording in the article that is overwhelmingly opposed by the outside editors who've come in to comment. Personally, I have no objection to closing it, as it seems unlikely to me that the outcome will change. I would rather work on adding a sentence to describe what influence he has had abroad. --JN 466 22:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I should add that it wasn't me who inserted "economist" in the lead. I can't speak for 165.91.14.186 (talk · contribs) who did, and whether they would want the RfC to run its full course. --JN 466 23:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It was you who added "economist" to the lead, on March 3, before the IP. [42] It's usually up to the person who opens an RfC if it should close early, and I don't mind either way. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My mistake; I only recalled adding the sentence about him being viewed as an economist in Latin America, per King. Apologies. --JN 466 23:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

RSN thread

Slim, I hadn't been aware that you'd started a thread at RSN pointing to this RfC, with a factually incorrect assertion there that LaRouche had never been independently published as an economist. That's kind of a poor show.

I would have appreciated a link to that discussion here, just like I posted here when I contacted people who had previously commented. (Which I've done again.) The fact that his book was reviewed in the American Economic Review, and not unfavourably so from what I can make out, makes me less happy to discount the "economist" label. So he was published by a reputable publisher, had his work reviewed in a leading scholarly economics journal, met with a bunch of presidents, and influenced the economic policy of multiple governments. If that is so, why should we not call him an economist? --JN 466 04:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The book was not review in AER. The excerpt comes from a publisher's advertisement in the "Back Matter" section. It's a publisher's blurb not an actual book review. See my comment above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Heck, and you started the same thread at the Fringe theories noticeboard, the BLP noticeboard, and at WikiProject Economics as well, each time with the same faulty assertion of fact. That's canvassing, in effect even if not intentionally so, and you're out of line. --JN 466 04:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not canvassing, and it's not at all out of line. It's quite standard to post RfCs to noticeboards that interested editors might be watching, and I worded the requests neutrally, [43] [44] [45] [46] referring to the arguments on each side that had been raised at the RfC by the time I posted. [47] If you later found a book review of his (or whatever it was), I'm sorry, but I'm not psychic. You, on the other hand, have been posting on multiple user pages openly trying to persuade people. It's fine to ask people, neutrally, to review something, but it's important not to cross into actual persuasion, and it's best avoided on user talk pages in case that's what it looks like. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You posted a message to four locations claiming that he had not been independently published as an economist. That was false, and it wasn't part of the RfC statement above. Don't you think it would have been more collegial to adivse editors here that you were intending to post to four additional locations, and to give them sight of the statement you were going to post before doing so? It would have saved a lot of hassle. --JN 466 23:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I summarized on the boards what had been argued on both sides up until that point. You later found a book that you say was independently published—and I'm still not sure whether that's accurate—but even if it was, you discovered it after I'd posted to the boards summarizing the arguments so far. And there's still no evidence that he was published "as an economist". Marxian economics is studied by people outside the field of economics; possibly more so outside it than within it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you post to outside noticeboards about this page, please let editors here know that you have done so, or (preferably) are going to do so. Thanks. --JN 466 00:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Could editors please stop posting to noticeboards and user talk pages? This getting a bit absurd. Will Beback talk 05:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you have a specific referent? ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

They're all canvassing. But so what? The fact that WP:CANVASS is one of Wikipedia's dumbest policies (written by someone in complete bad faith after they lost some vote or something) does not mean that I don't appreciate being informed. In the real world informing potentially interested parties of this kind of thing is normally commended. I appreciate the notice that Slim left at WikiProject:Economics and I also appreciate JN466's post to my talk page asking me to look into the AER thing. I learned something from both of these. It makes for a better discussion. I can make up my own mind on these things and there's no need to insult my intelligence by assuming that I can't. Now stop pointlessly accusing each other.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you. We need uninvolved editors here, and of course they can make up their own minds. But while it's standard to post RfCs on generic noticeboards, village pump, wikiprojects, etc, I think posting to individual talk pages is best avoided. This extended discussion with one of the opposers, for example, is not a good thing in my view; it starts to look like badgering, though I accept that's not the intention. It also seems to have been done on several user pages. So I'd like to ask that we limit requests to neutral venues such as noticeboards, and that we do our best to word the requests neutrally, then let people come here and decide for themselves. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

To replicate what I said at the RSN thread, the notification to the Fringe theories noticeboard was highly inappropriate, as it seems to be purposefully trying to draw in anti-LaRouche editors, as the users at that noticeboard are critical of fringe theories and theorists. There is no chance that they would ever accept LaRouche as an economist, no matter how solid the sources or sound the reasoning, as that would be affording him a sense of credibility, which someone who is anti-fringe theories will never do. Silver seren^C 22:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's highly appropriate, because he's a fringe thinker, and that board is where people with experience of evaluating those things hang out. If the sources showed evidence of qualifications in economics and professional standing, of course editors would accept him as such, myself included. It's because they don't that we're having this discussion, but that's also why the discussion was unnecessary. If people would stick to editing within policy, it could all be avoided. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that sources including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, UPI, CBS News and others have referred to him and continue to refer to him as an economist, I disagree that the discussion was unnecessary, or that the matter was only a question of editing within policy. It's a matter of editorial judgment, not policy. This RfC has looked at the question in detail, and given that this point has come up time and again, it was useful to have wider discussion on it. That's how this place works. --JN 466 23:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the "New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, UPI, CBS News" also refer to LaRouche as "fringe", meaning that we have as much reason for including that epithet as the other, and that recourse to the WP:FRINGE board is not illogical. Will Beback talk 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

To call someone an X in Wikipedia's voice we usually need more than just some sources using the term, especially when it's a professional designation. I recall a version of Michael Jackson that said in the first sentence he was a singer, songwriter, producer, director, recording artist, screenplay writer, dancer, choreographer, manager, businessman, and philanthropist. I've seen articles begin with "X is an arsonist." If you want to include in the first sentence all the things reliable sources call LaRouche, "economist" would be far down a long and somewhat unpleasant list. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Self-published source

As we discussed the use of SPS recently, I want to let you know that I've used a self-published source in the new section on the Verdi tuning initiative. I have used it to source one fact only: that LaRouche's initiative to have Italian legislation introduced was unsuccessful. I believe the source is reliable for that information, and its use certainly cannot be construed as "self-serving". Thanks. --JN 466 09:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche has had many initiatives. We cover most of them in the "Views" article. We cover the Verdi tuning initiative in full in the "Sciller Institute" article. I don't think this is important enough to devote even a sentence to, much less an entire section. Unless there's a compelling reason to have it tin the bio we should delete it. If we're going to keep it, then we should devote far more space to his much more important AIDS initiative. Will Beback talk 10:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is LaRouche's BLP. If classical music is something he cares about -- and it is -- and he involves himself in notable public initiatives in this field, which even attract a degree of mainstream support, then that is something that I, as a reader, am interested in. I would like to get a rounded image of the person; not just all the things he has done wrong, but also the things he has done right. --JN 466 10:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

He also cares about AIDS, and water resources, and colonies on Mars, and fusion energy, and exchange rates, and Third World debt, and the Beatles, and and and. Most of those have been given more coverage in reliable sources, and so deserve more weight than the tuning initiative. If we devote about 200 words to a topic with three independent source, should we devote 2000 words to an initiative for which there are thirty sources? This article is going to get very long very fast. Why don't we have a relatively compact section in which we can list all of the minor initiatives which have only gotten a few mentions in the mainstream media. Will Beback talk 11:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That I cited three sources does not mean that there were only three. We already mention the Beatles, Aids (Toumey has more on that), Mars (in a footnote; we should bring it into the article), fusion energy and exchange rates; we mention a "debt moratorium" and opposition to the IMF's austerity measures. If there is more on third-world debt in good sources by all means add it. --JN 466 12:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It deserves less space than the Mars colonization initiative, which is widely reported on, and much less space than the AIDS initiative, which is among the most prominent topics concerning LaRouche in scholarly source. Like I suggest, let's just make a short section for the minor proposals like the Mars colony and the tuning initiative, etc. They're too numerous to devote significant space to individually and are already covered in other articles. Will Beback talk 12:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, are there really more than three good sources for the tuning initiative? Or even ten? If so we should add more to the Schiller Institute#Music section. Will Beback talk 15:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There are indeed more; see e.g. the Washington Post article, and others. Thanks for adding material to the section to round it out; covering his comments about rock music etc. seems pertinent.

I disagree with removing the labels "Jewish" and "African American" from the descriptions of Brainin and Warfield though. One of the complexities of the man is that he makes statements that many people feel are anti-Semitic or Nazist, yet manages to attract Jews and African Americans both as personal friends, and as members of his organisation. We should not hide that complexity. If you want a source saying that Brainin was Jewish, and Warfield was African American, sourcing that info is a trivial matter; just look at their BLPs. --JN 466 10:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no question that the subject has unusually broad and particular interests, and no doubt that describing them adds color to the article. How much color and how much repetitive material is the editorial issue.

Brainin wasn't a Jewish violinist or an Austrian violinist: he was a classical or chamber violinist. How many sources describe him as a "Jewish violinist"?

A politician, LaRouche has associated with people from a great variety of religions, ethnicities, and cultural heritages. If we want to identify the ethnicity or religion of each the article will grow much longer. For example, while Warfield may have been a friend of LaRouche, Roy Frankhouser was a very close associate for many years. Yet he isn't mentioned in the body of the article. Let's try to keep our eye on writing a biography that shows the most significant aspects properly and doesn't devote excess weight to minor issues. Will Beback talk 11:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case, it doesn't cost as much to identify Brainin and Warfield as members of their respective ethnicities; it just adds three words. Both were notable for being Jewish and African American espectively: Norbert Brainin suffered persecution under the Nazis which forced him to flee his native Austria [48][49][50][51], and William Warfield was a president of the National Association of Negro Musicians. But let's wait a while; if there are no comments from other editors, I'll let it go.

Frankhouser should be mentioned, IMO. George and Wilcox devote (from memory) at least two full pages to him in their 15-page chapter on LaRouche, and he has a whole chapter to himself in King. --JN 466 13:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The following paragraph is cited from an internal LaRouche propaganda piece, and has been removed to ensure compliance with Wikipedia standards of verifiable sources.

"His appellate attorney, Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. Attorney General, argued that the case represented an unprecedented abuse of power by the U.S. government in an effort to destroy the LaRouche movement.^[1]"

The Executive Intelligence Review is a non-verifiable internal document. Please do not cite such materials again. --76.121.70.153 (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

^
For conspiracy and brainwashing campaign, see "Have the Mass Media Brainwashed Your Neighbor about Lyndon LaRouche?", Executive Intelligence Review, undated.
- For Ramsey Clark, see Clark 1995.

"The Executive Intelligence Review is a non-verifiable internal document." No, simply no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.206.223 (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

We can't use LaRouche movement sources for assertions about living people who aren't members of the movement. As for having the Clark assertion in the intro, it's hardly unusual that a lawyer says his client was unfairly convicted. It's probably worth including in the article, but it's not sufficiently important for the intro. Will Beback talk 06:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Music section

Could whoever wrote this say which sources support which parts of the text? We have to make sure that the self-published source isn't supporting anything about third parties, or isn't alone supporting the notability of parts of the paragraph.

In 1989, LaRouche advocated that classical orchestras should return to the "Verdi pitch". Orchestras' pitches have risen since the 18th century, because a higher pitch produces a more brilliant orchestral sound, while imposing an additional strain on singers' voices. Giuseppe Verdi succeeded in 1884 in having legislation passed in Italy that fixed the reference pitch for A at 432 Hz, but in 1938, the international standard was raised to 440 Hz, with some major orchestras tuning as high as 450 Hz in recent times. LaRouche's initiative advocated returning to the Verdi standard and was supported by leading opera stars, including Joan Sutherland, Placido Domingo and Luciano Pavarotti. A spokesman for Domingo said this support did not imply endorsement of LaRouche's politics, with which Domingo would disagree, and that Domingo was not aware of the origin of the initiative. Renata Tebaldi and Piero Cappuccilli attended conferences as featured speakers at LaRouche's Schiller Institute, and the discussions led to debates in the Italian parliament about reinstating Verdi's legislation. LaRouche gave an interview to National Public Radio on the initiative from prison. The initiative was opposed by Stefan Zucker, who felt that LaRouche was using the issue to gain more acceptance, and objected to the establishment of a "pitch police". In the end, no legislation was passed in Italy.

Sources:

"Shall Lyndon LaRouche call the tuning pitch?", Richmond Times Dispatch, September 16, 1989.
"As Pitch in Opera Rises, So Does Debate", The New York Times, August 13, 1989.
"Eavesdropping", The Hour, May 2, 1989.
"A Revolution in Musical Tuning – Return to Verdi’s Scientific Pitch C=256 Hertz", Schiller Institute website.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

See above at #Self-published_source: the Schiller Institute publication supports only one fact: that no legislation was passed in Italy. I was unable to find a reliable source stating so, and it seemed relevant to report that the initiative was unsuccessful. --JN 466 23:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

But it implies there was an initiative in Italy that was real, that might have succeeded, and that LaRouche led it, but it failed. Like everything else, that would need a secondary source. Much of what was in that section wasn't connected to LaRouche.

Why do we have a section on this and not on the AIDS initiative? That got a lot more media coverage, and it came directly from LaRouche himself. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you saying we don't have a section on the AIDS proposal when we clearly did and do? Your comment again lacks any basis in fact. I don't mind expanding the section -- as I mentioned before, Toumey has good material on it.

As for the Verdi initiative, we have secondary sources. You have just listed them yourself. Did you read them? "the Schiller Institute, an organization that promotes a strong alliance between the United States and Western Europe, sponsored a conference promoting a return to the Verdi standard. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the institute, and the opera stars Renata Tebaldi and Piero Cappuccilli were featured speakers. As a result of the discussions, legislation modeled on the Schiller Institute petition and the Verdi legislation of 1884 is being debated in the Italian Parliament." There are more, too, listed here for example: [52] "In an article in The Washington Post on the LaRouche-sponsored bill to lower the tuning pitch, Joe McLellan wrote, “Zucker has taken a firm lead in opposing the legislation” and went on to quote Opera Fanatic at length, calling OF’s articles “an exhaustive study of pitch and LaRouche.” (“Lyndon LaRouche’s Pitch Battle”)" "The LaRouche bill in no way veils its threat to artistic freedom. According to Article 2 of the bill, state-subsidized organizations must adopt A 432. According to Article 5, “The utilization of instruments of reference”—tuning forks and tone generators—”not conforming to A 432 is punishable by the confiscation of the non-standard object and with a fine for each specimen of $73-$730.” The LaRouche literature makes no bones about this, and the petition’s celebrity signers are all presumably aware of it. (“Lyndon LaRouche and the Golden Mean”)" Are you seriously going to argue that you doubt there was any such initiative, and debate in the Italian Parliament, in the face of coverage in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and all of Zucker's published writing against the LaRouche bill? --JN 466 02:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are so many good sources, there's no need to add a self-published one. Three things are causing the problem here: (1) reliance on SPS, so please don't add any more; (2) cherry-picking from certain sources, but not representing the overall coverage of an issue, thereby violating NPOV; and (3) not sticking closely to what the secondary sources say, but puffing them up slightly, or adding sources that don't mention LaRouche at all. If we could just stick very closely to the best-quality secondary sources that talk about LaRouche, and summarize what they say very accurately, all will be well. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As I have said before, the self-published source was used for one thing and one thing only: to report that LaRouche's initiative was unsuccessful. Are you really going to tell me that it is better not to report that, and leave the reader wondering whether LaRouche actually managed to have the Italian Parliament pass his bill? Really? And could you please indicate here any edit at all, with a diff, in which I have inserted a self-published source inappropriately? I am prepared to look at and discuss any diff you can present, but if you fail to present any, I would like you to stop making that assertion, as it is uncivil. As for (2) and (3), I would broadly reject these as valid descriptions of my editing mode. In the Verdi section for example, I made sure to include the statement of Domingo's spokesman, saying Domingo would disagree with LaRouche's politics and would have been unaware of the campaign's origin, as well as Zucker's opposition to a "pitch police". You on the other hand deleted any reference to the top opera stars supporting LaRouche's initiative (without any edit summary indicating what you had done), even though the cited source mentions them, very prominently: "one of his organizations has hatched a campaign supported by the world's leading opera stars" (in the lead paragraph, with a list of names following in the second paragraph) and an even longer list here. There is slowly a little heap of reliably sourced material building up that was deleted as not sufficiently reflective of reliable sources. The inherent contradiction in that argumentation should be apparent to you.

I would also ask you to please use edit summaries that are actually descriptive of what you have done, rather than monotonous references to "tidying", "flow" or "tightening", which actually represent deletions of material cited to reliable secondary sources. I am telling you now that I am seriously considering reverting the article to yesterday's status, as you did not see fit to discuss any of your wide-ranging changes, and it is not apparent from looking at the history what has happened to the article. --JN 466 07:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Brainin

I can't see the point of adding that violinist Norbert Brainin was a personal friend of LaRouche. He could have been a friend regardless of LaRouche's musical interests, and LaRouche could have held the same interests without that friend. It seems more of the same thing the LaRouche movement does constantly: "some of my best friends are dot dot dot," depending on what they're trying to show. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

SV, the editing process and the article would not suffer if you would not dive into speculation. Apart from this, is this your own observation or is it shared by reliable, high quality sources? If not, it's WP:OR. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's commonplace in Wikipedia biographies to comment on subjects' notable friendships. I see no reason to make an exception for LaRouche, even if that does serve to enhance his credibility. We're not here to diminish his credibility, nor to enhance it, but simply to report neutrally. Brainin and Warfield were his friends and thought highly of him; ours is not to reason why, but to report the info to the reader. --JN 466 23:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen that done, unless it's clearly relevant in some way. What the movement does is make maximum use of African-American or Jewish relationships, which it uses as human shields to ward off criticism. :) Mostly it's the movement writing about them, not them writing about the movement. Warfield was only mentioned in an SPS, by the way. We shouldn't keep adding self-published material about third parties. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As SV seems to be impervious to arguments and would rather rely on a bad faith - conspiracy theory of her own, I believe we should take this to the appropriate Noticeboard.81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course I can see the publicity value of these relationships to LaRouche, but if they're reliably attested, then I don't see why we should not report them. Brainin was reported to have referred to LaRouche as his "good friend" in the Washington Post, and I understand he participated in Schiller Institute events. The Warfield source was taken from the LaRouche criminal trials FA. Warfield allowed his name to be added to a petition calling for LaRouche's exoneration which appeared in reliable sources (as did Brainin), and served on the board of LaRouche's Schiller Institute; see [53]. I assumed if the source is good enough for an FA, it is good enough for this BLP. Perhaps the source is insufficient to describe Warfield as a "personal friend" of LaRouche's, but he was at any rate an ally and associate. We can leave it to the reader to assess the significance of these relationships; if we censor them out of the article, we don't give the reader that opportunity, and are failing in our task of giving a complete picture of LaRouche, including his ability to forge politically useful relationships with notable figures. YMMV. --JN 466 03:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, self-published sources may not be used if they involve claims about third parties, or are unduly self-serving. If you want to change that policy, please try to do that, but we can't keep ignoring it here.

For the ones mentioned in secondary sources, can you give examples of other American politicians' bios where we mention their friends? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the Washington Post, which quotes Brainin calling LaRouche a good friend and reports his playing a benefit concert for LaRouche, is a self-published source? For a politician's bio off the top of my head, look at Frederick Douglass, which mentions numerous friendships and prominent associates. --JN 466 06:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Douglass is not a good comparison because of the unique circumstances of that person's life. And one example, even if apt, does not prove that something is "commonplace". Will Beback talk 22:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's commonplace in Wikipedia biographies to comment on subjects' notable friendships.

I don't recall seeing this often, and I've worked on hundreds of biographies. Those cases that I know of report on friendships that are notable because of their effect on the subject's life or work, and there's no evidence of either in this case. Will Beback talk 06:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, could you link to a modern American politician's biography where we include mention of his friends for no particular reason? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Among fringe figures: Nat Goldhaber, Matt Koehl, Robert Jay Mathews, Max French, Wolfgang Droege. Mainstream political figures: Jack Abramoff, John F. Kennedy, Scott Reid (politician), Willie Brown (politician), Terry McAuliffe, Tom Coburn. Whether mentions of friends in this BLP are "for no particular reason" is debatable. These are people who signed the petition for LaRouche's exoneration, took leadership roles in LaRouche organisations, and/or supported public LaRouche initiatives, thus taking a public stance. The Washington Post article about Brainin's LaRouche benefit concert is here. Brainin gave another concert sponsored by Lyndon Larouche's Schiller Institute in 1990, using the lowered pitch, per Washington Post article here." --JN 466 15:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that research. Looking at the source for the first one, I was amused to see this, in an article about voting: I discovered, in the voting booth, that a friend of mine was his vice presidential candidate.[54] I'm not sure how close a relationship really is if one isn't aware that a friend is running for Vice President of the United States. Perhaps we shouldn't have the claim in that article.

Maybe we should have a section for "Friends and associates"? Then we could put all of the notable people whom sources describe that way in one neutral section. Will Beback talk 20:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like an approach that might work. I wouldn't include the opera stars in that though; that's too tenuous a connection. Brainin and Warfield on the other hand would qualify. --JN 466 22:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Puffery

I think we should be on the lookout for inadvertent puffery, following the tone of the LaRouche publications. A lot of this section was taken from a New York Times article that didn't mention LaRouche, and mentioned his wife only in passing. Some names in the section were referred to only in LaRouche publications, though the policy says that self-published sources can't be used for material on third parties.

The section also said: "LaRouche's initiative advocated returning to the Verdi standard and was supported by leading opera stars including ... Placido Domingo ... A spokesman for Domingo stated that this did not imply any endorsement of LaRouche's politics, with which Domingo would disagree, and that Domingo would not have known about the origin of the initiative." In fact, the source said Domingo had simply signed a questionnaire about this at some point, but can't remember where it came from. So "LaRouche's initiative" was not supported by him in any real sense.

We shouldn't add material that implies LaRouche is supported by the great and the good, by famous Jews, African-Americans, by musicians etc etc —because he's not. I keep expecting to see that he's hoping to become Elton John's new son's godfather. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources stated so, and I see no reason why we shouldn't. While the NYT did not feature LaRouche prominently in its piece, The Richmond Times titled its piece, "Shall Lyndon LaRouche call the tuning pitch?" The Hour clearly linked the initiative to LaRouche in its lead paragraph- --JN 466 23:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot that reliable sources state. We have to reflect the overall coverage within limited space, so we have to judge what the sources have mostly focused on, and not devote large sections to issue they've barely written about, then barely mention issues they've written about a lot.

You wrote that the NYT did not feature LaRouche prominently, but in fact they didn't mention him at all. There is a passing mention only of his wife. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. However, other sources did feature him prominently. --JN 466 00:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but you based the section on a high-quality source that in fact didn't mention LaRouche. That's what puzzles me. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't base it on "a high-quality source", but on multiple reliable sources, among them the sources that prominently featured LaRouche's role in the initiative, linking it to him personally. These are the same sources in fact which you have just listed above, in #Music section. I used the NYT article on the initiative for background info on what the initiative was about (orchestras' tendency to tune higher and higher over the past several centuries). --JN 466 00:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this initiative notable enough to split off into a daughter article? It sounds like LaRouche isn't the only person who's ever pursued this. Another prominent supporter was apparently Giuseppe Verdi. Then we cold reduce the amount of space devote to it here, and fold back LaRouche's views on music to the "views" article, which exists just to hold material like this. Will Beback talk 09:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Verdi pitch might make a valid article, but LaRouche's initiative was notable and has a place in this BLP. --JN 466 15:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates

Could I request, per WP:CITECONSENSUS, that no more citation templates be added to the article? We've got the Harvard templates, but someone has recently been adding the "citation" template too, and it's slowing down load time considerably. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it highly unlikely that a single citation template in the body text slows the load time considerably, when we have nearly 150 such templates in the references and further reading sections. In fact I am not sure that the present citation strategy relying widely on multiple harvard citations included in a single reference does the load time any favours at all. Right now, this article has 9,515 words of prose, and sometimes takes 20 seconds to load. L. Ron Hubbard has 13,338 words of prose, over 300 references, and consistently loads in 3 to 5 seconds for me. This said, I agree we should stick with the format we have for the time being. That means any new book references should be added by adding the book to the references section first, using a citation template, and then using the harvnb template in the citation itself. But I wouldn't mind hearing from a technically clued-in person about the likely reasons for the long load time. --JN 466 02:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a single citation template; someone had added several, and it's the templates that are causing the slow load time. In addition we had lots of LaRouche sources, also templates, that weren't being used, though I've removed those now. It takes me quite a bit longer than 20 seconds to load.

We haven't only been adding books to the References section, but everything. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there have been significant changes since the above comment, but the article loads in a couple of seconds for me, and I don't have a super-fast connection either. There may be one bad template or other element which causes slow loading. Will Beback talk 04:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the templates that cause the slow load time. Apparently whenever you put something within {{ }}, you're telling the Mediawiki software to swap the contents of the template page with appropriate parameters, then scan the page again to see if one of the new parameters contains a template, which then gets expanded the same way. I have only a vague idea of what this means—I'm copying it from here—but this is just one discussion among many, and so far as I know it's not in any doubt.

L. Ron Hubbard has been sourced largely without templates, which is why it loads faster even though it's longer. We have around 150 templates in the References section alone, plus probably a similar number in the article. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wilcox

I find this problematic, because it's just one opinion, and it's not clear it's mainstream or shared by anyone else.

George and Wilcox wrote that mainstream commentators have legitimate concerns about LaRouche, but that he is most vehemently criticized by authors who they said "come from extremist ranks themselves," citing the example of Chip Berlet, a researcher for Political Research Associates.^[1]

^ George & Wilcox 1992, pp. 312, 324–325.

This is what the movement constantly tries to claim, that their main critics are Berlet and King and they can't be trusted. Neither view seems to be shared by others. Berlet in particular is regularly interviewed by mainstream media on LaRouche, including the BBC. Therefore I think we ought to find other sources who say the same, especially if we're going to mention Berlet by name.

Also, it's demonstrably false that he's most vehemently criticized by extremists. The New York Times had a headline linking him to "savagery" on its front page, and both the Times and W/Post have had multiple, major investigative pieces on him. It would help a lot if people would make themselves familiar with those archives. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

George and Wilcox are reliable sources. Wilcox is an expert on political extremism left and right; George is a professor of political science and sociology at the University of Central Oklahoma. As documented by George and Wilcox, both Berlet and King have a history of involvement in organisations of the extreme left. They bill themselves as "LaRouche's worst nightmares". (Note that The Guardian cited on that page is not The Guardian, but the Marxist-Leninist US Guardian.) --JN 466 05:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's quote obvious that Berlet is an extremist himself by his own admission and where he has publicized some things, even if he is an expert on LaRouche. George and Wilcox's views on Berlet are important to note, as it gives context to the criticism of LaRouche by Berlet. Silver seren^C 05:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If Berlet has an opinion of Wilcox and Laird should we add that too? How many opinions on one source about another should we add? It seems like it'd be better to keep the focus on LaRouche, and put the material on Wilcox in the Wilcox article, and the Berlet material in the Berlet article. The only thing that'd be relevant to this article would be explicit comments about Berlet's views of LaRouche, not his general political background which counts more as ad hominem attacks on a critic than as relevant material on LaRouche. Will Beback talk 06:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that Wilcox is pointing this out about Berlet in relation to his views on LaRouche, specifically stating that Berlet is also from "extremist ranks" like LaRouche. In this manner, by commenting on Berlet in relation to LaRouche, they are commenting on his views about LaRouche. Silver seren^C 06:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Precisely so. --JN 466 07:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, it's not clear that "LaRouche's worst nightmares" is Berlet's description. Since it's King's website I'd tend to assume it's King's caption.

This still seems like an ad hominem attack on a critic, one whom we don't even cite in the article. If we're going to mention him to criticize him then we should at least include his views of the topic. Will Beback talk 09:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't checked the sources, but the Laird Wilcox article says:

Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates told a reporter that "Laird Wilcox is not an accurate or ethical reporter...He simply can't tolerate people who are his competition in this field."[8][9]

Shall we add that to this article? Will Beback talk 09:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Was Berlet telling the reporter this in relation to Wilcox's views on LaRouche and did he made a direct comparison of similarity between Wilcox and LaRouche? It doesn't seem that he did, which is the primary difference between the quote in the article and the quote you just made. The one in the article is about Berlet's relation to LaRouche, being from similar "extremist ranks", and, subsequently, how this relation affects the criticism he has made of LaRouche. The quote you just gave is Berlet just trying to shrug off criticism that Wilcox has said about him in general, but there's no indication that it is meant to be in relation to LaRouche. Silver seren^C 09:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If he said it in relation to LaRouche, then yes; otherwise, no. George and Wilcox consider the fact that both King and Berlet have a history in far left politics (and the fact that King considered this "unimportant" to mention in his book), significant. I don't disagree with them. This is all the more relevant as they were associated with organisations that actively clashed with LaRouche in the 1960s. --JN 466 10:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The comment by Berlet seems to be a direct response to the criticisms of Wilcox, and should probably be given to provide a complete picture so we don't leave the un-rebutted charge.

Does anyone object to adding Berlet's view of LaRouche? If those views are not relevant then why would we go out of our way to impeach a critic whom we don't even cite? Will Beback talk 10:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The charge is rebutted in Wilcox's BLP. I wouldn't use LaRouche's BLP to have Berlet criticise Wilcox, without LaRouche even being involved. (!) And note that Wilcox has examined Berlet's socialist background extensively elsewhere, quite apart from anything to do with LaRouche. I think Berlet's comment is a response to that, rather than a response to the paragraph in the LaRouche chapter.

At any rate, as of now, SlimVirgin has deleted both the cited information on King's communist background, and the info on Berlet's leftist extremist credentials. So I wouldn't use the presence of information that isn't in fact present any more as a reason to cite Berlet. I suggest we raise that line of thinking again once the information has been restored. Otherwise, generally speaking, I have absolutely no objection to citing Berlet in the article, as long as he's got something to say that hasn't been said thrice over already. --JN 466 12:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, King and Berlet have cooperated on other topics as well. For example, they had their own falling-out with the Jewish Anti-Defamation League in the early 90s, and the ADL stated in a 1993 letter to the New York Times that King and Berlet had smeared them through misrepresentation and fabrication, adding that King and Berlet did not then enjoy standing as a "credible source of information". Also: [55] Just for background. --JN 466 13:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We should steer clear of doing in this article any of the things the LaRouche movement does, which includes trashing people who criticize them; seeking Jews, African-Americans and famous people to associate with the movement; and trying to blame all criticism on Berlet and King. As always, the way to proceed is to rely on high-quality, mainstream secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that George & Wilcox is a high-quality, mainstream secondary source, and we should give its point of view. If its point of view happens to coincide in some minor detail with that of LaRouche, that's tough. Agreement with LaRouche's positions cannot drive our selection as to what to include and what to exclude, just as we cannot exclude statements from high-quality sources that LaRouche would disagree with. --JN 466 13:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jayen and SilverSeren on this point. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Berlet is an important enough commentator to get this kind of attention, we should be citing his material in the article. He's a recognized expert on right-wing extremists. Will Beback talk 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Any objections? Will Beback talk 04:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've started citing Berlet already, so no objections. But please address SlimVirgin's concerns below about length; we probably shouldn't be adding too much new material, but rather reflect Berlet's views in what we have.

Further to George & Wilcox's point that Berlet and King are the most committed LaRouche opponents, note that of all the authors we cite, they are the only ones known to have edited Wikipedia articles on LaRouche. --JN 466 12:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't make too much of what is "known" about Wikipedia editors since the majority of us use pseudonyms. For all I know you might be George and for all you know I might be Wilcox. ;) Will Beback talk 18:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If we add back Johnson's criticism of Berlet we should probably also add back, in proximity, the LaRouche movement's criticism of Johnson, or at least a hint about it. Will Beback talk 18:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The characterisation of Berlet as a far left extremist is not from (writer) George Johnson, but from (professor) John George (and Wilcox). The names are confusing. --JN 466 04:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that everybody gets criticized. Will Beback talk 04:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Another source request

Could we have a secondary source for this?

LaRouche wrote in 2000 that the FBI had been using the Communist Party to bring about his "personal 'elimination'."^[1] He cited an October 1973 document, which noted that the Communist Party USA was conducting a background investigation "for the purpose of ultimately eliminating" LaRouche and the NCLC; the memo suggested the FBI help them anonymously. LaRouche wrote that this took place as part of COINTELPRO, a series of covert, and often illegal, FBI projects, which ended officially in 1971, aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States.^[2]

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed this until we find a secondary source. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a look and couldn't find one, so it seems like a good call. --JN 466 00:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Load time test

Did you find that removing the citation templates solved the load time problem, Slim? --JN 466 03:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It made it faster for me, but not by much. There were still lots of templates left in the article in the form of the Harvard refs, so it wasn't a very good test.

The way I normally cite articles with lots of newspaper articles as sources is one of two ways:

(a) I give a full citation on first references in a footnote (which is listed under Notes); then (b) after that I say Witt, October 24, 2004, but I make it a link directly to the article, which you can't do if you're including a Harvard ref template. I then don't repeat the citation in a separate References section.

Or I only do (b) throughout, and repeat the full citations in a separate References section.

For an example of the second method, see Muhammad_al-Durrah#Notes. The benefit is that readers click once and go straight to the source when it's online—including directly to the page if there are multiple pages—and there are no templates, which really speeds up load time in a long article. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think (b) sounds good; I would support moving to that method. With some regret, as I think the harvard templates and the way they jump to the reference section are neat and pretty, but the overhead they impose on load time in this article is too much. --JN 466 05:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is going through a period of heavy editing. Could we please leave changes to the citation style until it's more stable? I'm not seeing the same problem as you two- maybe it's your browsers. Will Beback talk 05:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem with waiting. Which browser are you using? I'm seeing the problem in both Google Chrome and Firefox. --JN 466 05:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Death of ... subheadings

I am inclined to consider the subheadings "Death of Jeremiah Duggan" and "Death of Kenneth Kronberg", re-introduced by SlimVirgin, to be BLP violations. This would be appropriate headings if we were writing an attack piece, and wanted to impress on the reader that in our view, LaRouche bore personal culpability for these deaths.

Duggan's death was officially ruled a suicide in Germany, and that decision was upheld by the German supreme court. A separate British inquest is underway, based on suspicions of foul play (which still would not involve LaRouche personally, to my knowledge), but has come to no official conclusion to date. The way it's included here, it's a WP:COATRACK.

In the Kronberg case, what is relevant to this BLP is that Kronberg' widow sued him for libel and harassment. The following content is a WP:COATRACK in this BLP, as it lacks a clear and unambiguous link to LaRouche's personal actions:

Kenneth Kronberg, a longtime associate of LaRouche, committed suicide in April 2007. Kronberg was president of LaRouche's PMR Printing Co. and World Composition Services Inc. in Sterling, Virginia, and co-founder of the Schiller Institute's Fidelio magazine. The Washington Monthy wrote that he had tax arrears because groups within the movement were late paying for his printing services. On April 11 he jumped off an overpass shortly after seeing the movement's "morning briefing," a summary of material members are expected to read. According to the newspaper, the briefing attacked "baby boomers" like Kronberg, and singled his print shop out for criticism, adding, "The Boomers will be scared into becoming human, because you're in the real world, and they're not. Unless they want to commit suicide."

That material is fine in the Kronberg article, but not in LaRouche's BLP. BLPs have to be written conservatively per policy. The way it is written now seems to me to strongly imply guilt on LaRouche's part in both cases, and indefensibly so. If we cannot come to an agreement here on this talk page, I propose we seek outside input from the BLP noticeboard. --JN 466 00:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The alleged link between Duggan's death and the LaRouche cadre school he attended attracted more coverage for LaRouche than probably any other single issue in the 2000s, or even since the criminal trials. Yet you tried to hide it among stories from China etc. in overseas reception. That's not on. It's not a BLP violation, because it's supported by multiple high-quality sources; because LaRouche has personally responded to it; because it was discussed by the High Court in London, and by the British and European parliaments; and because a coroner recently invited LaRouche's representatives to attend future hearings as interested parties. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/Archive_24#Overseas_reception, a thread started by Will Beback which you participated in, less than three weeksago. It was agreed there to include the related press coverage as part of his overseas reception. You yourself said, "We should add the British press coverage to Overseas reception, as it was very extensive after Duggan." Your accusing me now of trying to "hide" the story in overseas reception is an unwarranted and bad-faith attack, which I feel you ought to apologise for. --JN 466 00:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

But not the incident itself. You seem to be writing about some incidents in a straightforward way, and about others from the perspective of the press coverage they triggered. I can't see the point of moving between universes like that. Why not X happened, then Y, then Z? Also, the way you're summarizing them is making it less clear what happened. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

At the time we had this discussion, Duggan's death was only mentioned in passing in the Kronberg section. I understood the proposal to include it in the reception section to be aimed at giving more weight again to the coverage LaRouche had received as a result of the incident. I didn't and don't have a problem with that, and as far as I recall, I then removed the passing mention in the Kronberg section, and instead added a paragraph in the reception section, per the linked discussion.

I am under the impression that there is no reliable source alleging that LaRouche was in any way personally involved in Duggan's death. To my knowledge, no source implies that LarRouche instigated or condoned the alleged foul play, or was even aware of Duggan's attendance. If I am mistaken about that, please help me out by posting the relevant sources here. If there are such sources implicating LaRouche, I would change my mind on this.

What I am also mindful of here is that the entire German court system, all the way to the German supreme court, firmly insists there was no foul play, and has ruled Duggan's death a suicide. A separate British inquest is ongoing, but has come to no conclusion as yet.

All this being so, as things stand, recounting the details of the death and its resultant controversy is very appropriate for the LaRouche movement articles, but not LaRouche's BLP, except inasmuch as the resulting press coverage touched on LaRouche personally, characterising him as the leader of a controversial, anti-semitic and fascist cult embroiled in a controversy over a death at one of its events. I have no problem with you summarising the press coverage in those terms, and I hope this explains what you describe as my "moving between universes". We have to use the sources in the way they relate to LaRouche as our BLP subject. If instead we include narrative details of Duggan's death in LaRouche's BLP, this creates the impression that LaRouche was involved in these events, and if, as I believe is the case, LaRouche was not even aware of Duggan's existence, it's a WP:COATRACK. If you have sources even alleging that LaRouche was aware of Duggan, or said, "this is a spy, deal with him", then it becomes legitimate to describe the incident here.

Let me try to explain it another way: what is happening here in this BLP is like describing the death of Alexander Litvinenko in the BLP of Nikolai Patrushev, the Russian secret service chief at the relevant time, absent any source implicating Patrushev in Litvinenko's death. As I understand policy, we are not meant to write BLPs that way. You may believe that LaRouche is personally to blame for Duggan's death, and therefore feel that this material is essential here, but unless there are sources implicating LaRouche in the death, it isn't. It's covered in the LaRouche movement articles, appropriately so, and the Death of Jeremiah Duggan article can rightfully be wikilinked from this BLP. We should go no further (again, unless there are sources I am unaware of.) --JN 466 01:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Duggan's death was only mentioned in passing when you removed the section; it had otherwise been a stand-alone section for some years, I believe. LaRouche and his wife both attended the conference Duggan was at, and remained there for days afterwards; LaRouche's wife told people in Weisbaden after his death that he had been a spy, according to the reliable sources; LaRouche has commented on it personally more than once; and the incident (rightly or wrongly) triggered more coverage of him than over any single incident since his conviction, including extended pieces in the Washington Post, London Times, and on BBC's Newsnight. It's therefore appropriate to cover it here summary-style.

I have no personal beliefs about it, so please don't attribute any to me. All I want is that this article reflect the mainstream coverage of LaRouche, regarding this and other incidents. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with the way you are presenting this material in this BLP. The way it reads is close to an insinuation that the man is guilty of murder. Perhaps I am being oversensitive; but I'm sufficiently disquieted that I will post to the BLP noticeboard to get some outside eyes on this. Please find below a draft of what I intend to post; please look it over, and let me know if anything is factually incorrect. --JN 466 05:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft for BLPN post

Deaths related to Lyndon LaRouche

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) has today done a major overhaul of the Lyndon LaRouche BLP. There are two sections that strike me as potential WP:COATRACKs; both are related to suicides by people associated with the LaRouche movement. The sections in question read like this yesterday:

After SlimVirgin's first set of edits, they read as follows:

I felt concerned that this presentation of these incidents in LaRouche's BLP (as opposed to articles on his movement, where I wouldn't have such concerns) was uncomfortably close to insinuating personal responsibility for these deaths on the part of LaRouche, and was incompatible with BLP policy demanding that we edit conservatively.

Talk page discussion: Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Death_of_..._subheadings

It should be noted that the Duggan case went all the way to the German Supreme Court, which denied appeals for further enquiries. The German authorities gave a verdict of suicide, based on eyewitness testimony, which according to them ruled out third-party involvement in the death. There have been several British coroner's inquests over the past few years investigating allegations of foul play raised by Duggan's family; one is currently still underway. None of the sources, to my knowledge, present any evidence linking LaRouche to this death.

Subsequent edits to these sections: [56][57][58]

LaRouche is a person widely considered to hold repugnant views. He has earned this reputation. At the same time, a BLP policy is worthless if it is only applied to people about whom there are only nice things to say. I am uncomfortable with these edits. Am I being oversensitive? Are SlimVirgin's edits fully in line with the letter and spirit of BLP policy? Comments welcome. --JN 466 05:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what these sections have to do with his life and personal activities. This is information that should be noted on the movement page, as it has to do with activities undertaken by the movement. For example, Duggan's death has to do with a LaRouche school in the area, not with LaRouche himself. This information should be moved to the article on the movement, it has no place in this BLP. Silver seren^C 05:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Which local LaRouche school is that, Silver seren? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The "LaRouche movement cadre school in Germany" that the section talks about. I don't see how such a school has anything to do with him personally, it has to do with the movement as a whole. So it shouldn't be in this article, but in the movement article. The Duggan incident led to criticism of the LaRouche movement. It couldn't have led to criticism of LaRouche personally because it had nothing to do with him personally, any criticism would be aimed at LaRouche's movement even if they just used LaRouche's name. Silver seren^C 22:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a school as such. They rented a room in Wiesbaden and they were recruiting people. If you think LaRouche shouldn't be named, you'll need to explain that to the courts, MPs, and newspapers. And also to LaRouche himself, because he has personally responded, and said he feels it's directed at him, and coming from his personal enemies. We just follow the sources. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Silver seren's point doesn't make sense. The activities of LaRouche movement entities can certainly lead to criticism of LaRouche himself, and in this case the deaths of Duggan and Kronberg led to significant investigations of LaRouche. Will Beback talk 22:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I didn't do a major overhaul, so please remove that. I restored some of the material Jayen removed recently; removed some that he added; removed some SPS; and tightened the writing.

The Duggan and Kronberg sections are the same as they've been for a long time. Jayen, please make that clear if you post anything. You were the ones who made the changes recently; I restored the old texts. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make sure to point that out. --JN 466 13:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The post should also note previous discussions: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive22#Worldwide_LaRouche_Youth_Movement_and_Kenneth_Kronberg. It may also be relevant that HK's socks have twice tried to get both articles deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Kronberg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Kronberg (2nd nomination). the Duggan article was also raised by HK in two ArbCom cases, and the ArbCom found no problems. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. It's important for uninvolved editors to know the history of this material. Will Beback talk 23:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've worked on Death of Jeremiah Duggan with SlimVirgin in the past, and agree that article is neutral; and, actually, a rather well-written and well-sourced article. This post is exclusively about how to present related material in LaRouche's BLP. --JN 466 13:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: Please see post at the biographies of living persons noticeboard here. --JN 466 14:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jayen's concerns and support his suggested wordings and weight about the two suicides. In fact, since LaRouche himself has never been linked to the Duggan suicide, I wouldn't have a problem with not mentioning Duggan at all in this article. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Action taken

I have removed both sections in line with comments from outside editors at BLPN. --JN 466 09:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

[1] George & Wilcox 1992, pp. 312, 324–325

[2] George & Wilcox 1992, pp. 324–325

[3] For conspiracy and brainwashing campaign, see "Have the Mass Media Brainwashed Your Neighbor about Lyndon LaRouche?", Executive Intelligence Review, undated.
For Ramsey Clark, see Clark 1995.

[4] For Ramsey Clark, see Clark 1995.

[4] George & Wilcox 1992, pp. 312, 324–325.

[5] LaRouche, March 10, 2000.

[6] LaRouche, February 9, 1998.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]