Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

• Talk page archives
• Talk page index
• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research

Mediation, arbitration, requests for clarification, and other discussions about the LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement, AN/I, 2005-8
Enforcement, Hershelkrustofsky socks, Sep 19, 2008 Enforcement, MaplePorter, Sep 19, 2007 Clarification, Nathan/DLTN, July 23, 2007 Enforcement, Herschelkrustofsky (HK) Clarification, Tsunami Butler", Apr 1, 2007 Clarification, Appeal, Jan 24, 2007 Clarification, ManEatingDonut, Nov 22, 2006 Clarification, LaRouche, Oct 23, 2006 HK probation, Apr 15, 2006 HK/BirdsOfFire, Mar 31, 2006 HK blocked, Sep 29, 2005
Arbitration 2006
HK banned, May 5, 2006.
Arbitration 2005
N_ and others, Nov 2005. Cognition's statement, Nov 22, 2005. Modification of LaRouche 2, Dec 23, 2005. HK indef probation, Dec 23, 2005 LaRouche 2, Jan 25, 2005–Feb 17, 2005. LaRouche 2 talk LaRouche 2 evidence LaRouche 2 proposed decision LaRouche 2 proposed decision talk
Arbitration 2004
LaRouche 1, July 4—Sep 13, 2004. LaRouche 1 talk LaRouche 1 evidence LaRouche 1 evidence talk LaRouche 1 proposed decision LaRouche 1 proposed decision talk
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Med cabal talk, Feb 17, 2007 Med cabal/Tsunami Butler, Nov 26, 2006
Mediation 2004
HK and AndyL, July 3, 2004 HK and DJSupreme23, Jun 14, 2004 HK and Adam Carr, Nov 15, 2004 HK and SlimVirgin, Dec 16, 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche Lyndon LaRouche 1, Jan 17–Jun 17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 2, Jun 20–22, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 3, Jun 21–24, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche draft, June 24-25, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 4, Jun 25–July 5, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 5, Jul 05–Aug 1, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish, June–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche HK list, July–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche HK list archive Lyndon LaRouche 6, Aug 6-9, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 7, Aug 11-17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche omissions, Sep 9-10, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 8, Aug 18–Sep 28, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 9, Sep 18–Oct 11, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 10, Dec 2004–Jan 20, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche archive, material missing Lyndon LaRouche 11, Jan 20–Jul 19, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche 12, Jul 2005–Nov 12, 2006 Lyndon LaRouche 13, Nov 2006—Feb 18, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 14, Feb 18, 2007 - August 1, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 15, August 8, 2007 - November 18, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 16, November 20, 2007 - Lyndon LaRouche 17 Lyndon LaRouche 18
Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement Political views temp Political views 1, Aug 21–Nov 29, 2004 Political views 2, Dec 2004–Jan 11, 2005 Political views 3, Jan 2005–Oct 02, 2006 "Cooked quotes", Jan 22–23, 2005 Political views mediation, Feb 27–Mar 04, 2006 Political views 4, Oct 23, 2006–Oct 11, 2007 Political views 5, Oct 11, 2007–Nov 28, 2007 Political views 6, Nov 28, 2007–Apr 12, 2008 Political views 7, Apr 15, 2008–Sep 24, 2008
Talk:Amelia Boynton Robinson Talk:American School (economics) Talk:American School (economics)/Archive 1 Talk:American School (economics)/Archive 2 Talk:Anti-Defamation League Talk:Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität Talk:Dirigisme Talk:Helga Zepp-LaRouche Talk:Jeremiah Duggan Talk:Jeremiah Duggan 1, Nov 14–Dec 6, 2004 Talk:Jeremiah Duggan 2, Dec 2004–Jan 2005 Talk:John Train Salon Talk:Kenneth Kronberg Talk:LaRouche Movement Talk:LaRouche Youth Movement Talk:Schiller Institute Talk:Schiller Institute/Archive 1 Talk:Synarchism Talk:Tavistock Clinic Talk:Tavistock Institute Talk:Tavistock Institute 1, Nov '04–June '06 Talk:LaRouche criminal trials Zayed Center
Template talk
Template talk:LaRouche Template talk:LaRouchetalk
Categories
HK sockpuppets

Books

The lead actually isn't as bad as I thought it would be. The rest of the article, I didn't really have the patience to plow through. Regardless, as I mentioned on one previous occasion, the biggest problem with the LaRouche articles is the lack of any reliable, neutral academic sources on LaRouche and his movement. We have a bunch of newspaper articles, and one polemical anti-LaRouche book, but no scholars of political science (or new religious movements) seem to have published anything much on this topical area. Even on a controversial new religious movement ("cult") like Scientology, we have unbiased material from professors of comparative religion. There is nothing like that here, and I wonder if writing an article that meets both WP:NPOV and WP:V might simply be impossible. *** Crotalus *** 21:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• A search on Google Books turns up a title called "Lyndon LaRouche: A Study in Political Extremism" by Carol M. Riggs (George Mason University, 1996). Unfortunately, I could not find this on Amazon, nor is an ISBN listed on Google Books. Has anyone seen this book or knows what it contains? If published by a university, it might serve as a reliable source on this article. *** Crotalus *** 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Riggs book is in FR, but I've not seen it. There are good sections about LaRouche in several books, e.g. George Johnson's Architects of Fear, which is quite detailed, and which I've been using here. Also see Robins, Robert S. and Post, Jerrold M. Political Paranoia: The Psychopolitics of Hatred. Yale University Press, 1997. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Worldcat, Riggs' work is an MA thesis for George Mason University.[4] Doctoral dissertations are regarded as reliable sources, but i don't think masters theses are awarded the same status.   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The best recent scholarly biography of LaRouche is a fairly long entry in Robert J. Alexander's International Trotskyism 1929-1985 Duke University Press, 1991 ISBN 9780822310662.   Will Beback  talk  03:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I recently obtained photocopies of the relevant pages. I'll add citations to it soon.   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexander is a good find, thank you. I've added it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't able to read the whole section on LaRouche in Alexander on Google Books. How heavily does Alexander rely on Berlet and King as sources? I see a reference to King on p.947 and 949 in the Google Books preview, which is troubling; to what extent is Alexander independent of the two keystone anti-LaRouche authors? What I was hoping to find was something similar to the academic sources by comparative-religion scholars on New Religious Movements, which avoid pejorative terms and instead describe what their subjects believe. Even the most widely criticized religions usually have a sympathetic ear in academic sources, but it appears that this is not true for LaRouche. *** Crotalus *** 16:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::I think more to the point is the fact that Alexander was active in at least three organizations (Socialist Party, LID and SDUSA) that bitterly opposed LaRouche in the 70s, and there are number of similar cases where authors that fit this description (like Tim Wohlforth) are given disproportionate weight in the article. Angel's flight (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A) The King book is a reliable source in and of itself so citing is is not a problem, whether we do it directly or whether it's cited by a book we cite.

B) According to whom were the Socialist Party, LID and SDUSA "bitterly opposed" to LaRouche in the 1970s?

C) The Alexander book is published by a university press, and thus is among the highest quality sources available.

D) No source is entirely neutral. If we had to rely on 100% neutral sources throughout Wikipedia it would be a much smaller encyclopedia. We would certainly have to exclude all self-published sources.

E) If editors think the Alexander book is unreliable then they are invited to make their case at RSN.   Will Beback  talk  19:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Crotalus, none of the reliable sources has anything positive to say about LaRouche that I've been able to find, because his organization is highly troubling. The newspapers of record are The New York Times and The Washington Post, because he used to live in New York and now lives in Virginia. The academics base their work on the output of those newspapers, and on what LaRouche himself has said, which is consistent with the newspaper reports; he often boasts about the issues that others find problematic.

Some articles if you're interested in reading about the mainstream perception of his movement. I've added one book (George Johnson) that looks more closely at the ideas, and you can read a fair bit of it on Amazon:

• Montgomery, Paul L. "How a Radical-Left Group Moved Toward Savagery", The New York Times, January 20, 1974.
• Blum, Howard. "U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy", The New York Times, October 7, 1979.
• Johnson, George. "The 'New Dark Ages' Conspiracy," Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics. J.P Tarcher, 1983, chapter 10, p. 187ff.
• Mintz, John. "Ideological Odyssey: From Old Left to Far Right", The Washington Post, January 14, 1985.
• Lynch, Pat. "Is Lyndon LaRouche using your name? How the LaRouchians masquerade as journalists to gain information", Columbia Journalism Review, March/April 1985.
• Witt, April. "No Joke", The Washington Post, October 24, 2004.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

More mainstream sources:

Time magazine

• Politics From the Twilight Zone By Richard Stengel;Lee Griggs/Chicago Monday, Mar. 31, 1986
• Larouche's Tangled Web Monday, Jun. 09, 1986
• Card Tricks: Uncovering a LaRouche scam By Anne Constable Oct 20, 1986

Others:

• Publish and Perish: The mysterious death of Lyndon LaRouche's printer By Avi Klein Washington Monthly, November 2007
• Odd Man Out; The loony who's staying home: Lyndon LaRouche. July 2, 2007 The New Republic
• Beast-man politics February 2004 by James Bowman

There are more articles behind firewalls, but the tone is the same in those. Overall, the subject has received far less attention in the past twenty years than in the prior twenty.   Will Beback  talk  10:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, my perusal of Google Books indicates that most of the material on LaRouche by third-party sources is negative in tone. That isn't surprising. What did surprise me is that there were seemingly no third-party sources that took a sympathetic or neutral view of the LaRouche movement. It may be true, as SlimVirgin states, that "his organization is highly troubling," but Scientology is probably more so, and has far more influence today (how many A-list Hollywood celebrities are LaRouche followers?) And despite that, there have been third-party accounts written by scholars such as James W. Lewis that are studiously neutral, focusing on the beliefs of the group and how they affect their daily lives, not on whether those beliefs are perceived as threatening by others. It seems like this might be an interesting opportunity for a sociologist to do some research that apparently has not yet been conducted. Of course, on Wikipedia there probably isn't much we can do about this situation; but I still wonder how we can best balance our responsibilities under WP:V (especially regarding third-party sources) with those of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. It would be like trying to write an article on Scientology where the only third-party sources in existence were some newspaper and magazine articles, some articles published by Tilman Hausherr through a think tank or research committee, and an anti-Scientology book written by Andreas Heldal-Lund. If that was all we had, neutrality would be a very difficult task. *** Crotalus *** 14:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You make some very good points. But let's remember that we're not trying to write a neutral article, but rather an article which follows the neutral point of view policy. That does not require that we balance "good" and "bad" in equal measures, but simply that we report all significant points of view with weight according to their prominence in independent sources without favoring any of them. So we report that the subject is viewed as a genius by his followers and something else by other observers, etc. Lewis is a tertiary source who has only written a very short summary of other sources. Tertiary sources can sometimes be helpful in assessing weight, but his book isn't much help beyond that. Here is even shorter entry is from the same publisher, with a different focus: World fascism: a historical encyclopedia, Volume 1 By Cyprian Blamires I certainly agree that there is fodder for sociologists here. Most of the scholarly treatments are from the political side.   Will Beback  talk  12:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

An older book from Germany is Deckname Schiller : die Deutschen Patrioten des Lyndon LaRouche, by Helmut Lorscheid; Leo A Müller. Rowohlt, 1986. Rowohlt is a major publisher and the book probably qualifies are reliable. It's a bit hard to find and it is, of course, in German, but there are excerpts here:[5]. More recent is a long entry in de:Jahrbuch Extremismus und Demokratie, 7th ed., 1995, written by Matthias Mletzko. I can't find an untranslated version, but a translated copy is floating around which can be found here: [6]. A 16-year member of the German organization wrote Verirrt : mein Leben in einer radikalen Politorganisation in 1994 which was published by a reputable publishing house, Verlag_Herder.[ISBN 9783451042782]   Will Beback  talk  09:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Recap of neutrality dispute

Over the past weeks I've taken a much closer look at this article, so I am posting an updated survey of neutrality issues, and a summary of observations made by myself and others. During this same period the article has been rewritten in parts by SlimVirgin, and I would say that most of the changes have been for the better, but problems remain.

• There are substantial unresolved "weight" issues, which were the original reason for the neutrality dispute. Responses by the two editors who control the article have been indicative of the problem:
  • When the question is raised about the long and detailed discussion of unproven allegations by LaRouche's opponents from the 70s, it is argued that anything from a published source on these topics is appropriate and necessary for inclusion. On the other hand, when there is a request for greater coverage of LaRouche's political or economic intiatives, it is argued that "We only report significant points of view, not everything ever published." As Crotalus put it, "Excluding or minimizing LaRouche's own views might have the effect of giving undue weight to his opponents."
  • Then there is the question of what belongs in this article as opposed to other LaRouche-related articles. When the original attempt was made to move criticism of the NCLC and US Labor Party to National Caucus of Labor Committees and US Labor Party ([7]), it was rebuffed, with the argument that "It's appropriate for a biography to discuss a subject's activities and the public responses to them." When a proposal is made for greater coverage of LaRouche's political activities (as oppposed to real or alleged scandals,) the response is that we have other articles for those topics.[8]
  • Events which would be of obvious biographical interest are given short shrift. For example, why did LaRouche meet with Mexican President Lopez Portillo and Indian President Indira Gandhi? Surely they were not just a social calls.
• Other problems:
  • Wikipedia:ASF#ASF says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Some of SlimVirgin's recent edits are retrogressive in this regard. For example, He joined the next year, adopting the pseudonym Lyn Marcus for his political work; King writes that this was to avoid problems with employers or the FBI was changed to He returned to Lynn in 1948, and the next year joined the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), adopting the pseudonym Lyn Marcus for his political work to avoid problems with employers or the FBI. Dennis King's book contains many errors and fabrications; his claims, if they must be included, should be attributed without exception.
  • WP:BLP says that biographies should avoid having a tabloid quality. For example, the speculation sourced to Paul L. Montgomery that LaRouche changed political direction because his ex-girlfriend married another member of the movement is pure TMZ. The very old and never-proven allegations about "ego-stripping" and brainwashing receive extremely lengthy and detailed treatment in the article. BLP says "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Also, WP:NOTSCANDAL says to avoid "Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." I would not say that this article is written purely to attack LaRouche's reputation, but I would say that it is written primarily to do so. Angel's flight (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dennis King's book contains many errors and fabrications...

I'm not aware of any determination that King's book is inaccurate. Can you provide evidence of this charge?   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

::Certainly. LaRouche frequently characterized his opponents during the 70s as "proto-fascist," despite their claim to be leftists. He mocked their supposed opposition to fascism in an article called “Solving the Machiavellian Problem Today,” (New Solidarity, July 7, 1978), saying "It is not necessary to wear brown shirts to be a fascist….It is not necessary to wear a swastika to be a fascist….It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist to be a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one!" Dennis King slyly takes this quote out of context and implies that LaRouche was in fact recommending that his readers become fascists. This is a clumsy and malicious trick, and King is still so pleased with it that he features it on the opening page of the online version of his book on his own website.[9] In case anyone may think that this is merely a careless oversight by King and not a deliberate misrepresentation, King reveals the truth toward the end of his book, saying "As LaRouche, referring to his enemies, said in a 1978 speech: 'It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist to be a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one.'" [10] Now that I have provided a typical example at your request, would you mind responding to the substantive issues I raise above? Angel's flight (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask for examples, I asked for evidence. This is the same stuff that the LaRouche accounts keep repeating. There's no indication that any independent observer consider the King book to be full of "errors and fabrications". If you don't think this is a substantive issue and want to drop it then that's fine.   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Will, please don't refer to other editors here as "LaRouche accounts". I've asked two other editors on this page to be more careful about following WP:NPA, and they appear to be trying to comply. I expect the same of you. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, then I invite you to leave this content discussion. Now, Angel flight, I would really like to see the NPOV tag ultimately removed from this article, because I think this article is comprehensive enough to have a chance at FA. Why don't we discuss your objections one at a time? Please list the first one, and let's try to get it resolved. Cla68 (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, you frequently ask non-LaRouche editors to leave this topic, but I've never seen you ask one of the LaRouche accounts to leave. You're not a neutral participant here, though you're just a welcome as any other editor in good standing.   Will Beback  talk  05:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you should address Cla's substantive remarks instead of casting aspersions. You're not exactly neutral either, and your input doesn't seem all that helpful to me. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Friends of HK" committee is welcome to post here, but supporting banned users is unhelpful. But I'm not going to give postings by socks of HK any attention. HK has violated this project's policies countless times in order to promote a fringe cause, and uses WR as a platform for attacking WP editors. Since you two are not the subject of his attacks you might find it amusing, but I don't. Nor do I appreciate having to waste time dealing over and over with a person who has been barred from this website for good cause. I am certainly not going to leave this topic for HK to rewrite according to the dictates of the LaRouche movement. Is that what you want?   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(out) "Friends of HK"??... assumes facts not in evidence. I think some of your sock allegations are not particularly well founded. You seem to trot them out whenever you're losing arguments on merits. That may be a false perception but it does seem that way to me. HK is not the sole source of everything about LaRouche you disagree with. As I said, this approach is less than helpful. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're not friends of HK, and if you are friend of this project, then maybe you could ask him to stop attacking WP editors and sneaking back here under assumed names. As for socks, HK has used several dozen of them on this site that have been identified, and probably some that haven't been. After that many socks, and so few new accounts here that haven't been socks, it's logical to lower the good faith granted new editors who appear and push the same POVs as HK. This particular sock uses an IP registered to a small LaRouche HQ.   Will Beback  talk  04:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Since Lar raised the issue of identifying socks, let's take a look at the "many Irish heroes and heroines of antiquity". Joyce's Ulysses includes a list of these heroes, conveniently excerpted here:[11] listed at Accounts were created using those names, one after another, in sequence, over about a half a year. It defies probability that they could have been created by different people in that order by sheer chance. It was clearly the work of one editor. Does anyone here dispute that those were socks?   Will Beback  talk  08:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

It's unfortunate to see established editors fall out over this. The way to resolve all disputes is to stick to high-quality sources. We're lucky in that LaRouche has lived his adult life in either New York or Virginia, so the newspapers of record—The New York Times and The Washington Post—are two of the best newspapers in the world. They've written extensively about him since the 1970s, including several major investigative and analysis pieces. Those articles form the backbone of our article, along with some analysis pieces from academics and other writers, and some material from LaRouche himself.

I'm known for being strong on BLP, and for doing my best to include minority voices in articles I work on. If there were anything out there that was positive about LaRouche in good sources, I would add it. But there just isn't anything that I can find. Our article is actually kind to him. The sources are significantly harsher, but some of the material is so negative I found myself unable to add it (and it's worth adding here that, although the sources for that material were secondary ones, the material originated with LaRouche himself, so there was no doubt about it).

That's all I want to say about these meta issues. As always, if we're careful to reflect the best sources, and we make sure that anything contentious is sourced particularly well, almost all disputes will resolve themselves. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for a remedy

I don't see any way to avoid the problem that Crotalus points out, that the article relies on LaRouche's opponents for content. This may not be an optimal situation, but I think that enlightened editing could produce a neutral article that does not become a platform for the opponents' views.

BLP says that articles should be written "conservatively," and in a highly controversial article such as this one I think we should take that seriously and then it should be possible to keep conflict to a minimum. The standard that I used in working on the "Views of LaRouche" article was Wikipedia:RS#Quotations. When we are relying on LaRouche's opponents for source material, I think the biggest problem area is going to be when these opponents are attributing views to LaRouche but framing them in such a way as to discredit him. I also think that it is undesirable to include allegations by opponents about the internal workings of the organization, because it is hearsay and likely to be biased information. The "conservative" course of action is to write an article based on information in the public record -- I think this is what makes the "LaRouche Criminal Trials" article successful, because it is very factual and does not rely upon anything that cannot be verified.

I went on Amazon and looked at the George Johnson book and found it to be a mixture of biographical information and sardonic commentary. I think a neutral BLP could be crafted by emphasizing the biographical information and de-emphasizing that which is contentious. In the case of the Johnson book, for example, I would omit that comment where LaRouche's followers "denounced him as part of a conspiracy of elitists that began in ancient Egypt," since I'm pretty sure the LaRouche people would take exception to how that is worded, and I am also skeptical of Johnson's commentary about the "briefings." I also think that perhaps Johnson's analysis of LaRouche's views belongs in the "LaRouche's views" article, but that's a different issue. On the other hand, I saw a lot of non-contentious, useful content, and Johnson provides at least a partial answer to the question that was raised about why LaRouche met with the Mexican President.

I can only see snippets of the Jackson book but I suspect that it might also be possible to glean solid biographical information from it without adopting the author's polemical tone. Delia Peabody (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove that he had formed relationships with Ku Klux Klan supporters? The source (Johnson, New York Times, p. 2) says: "By promoting this abstruse ideology Mr. LaRouche has developed alliances with farmers, nuclear engineers, Black Muslims, Teamsters, pro-lifers and followers of the Ku Klux Klan." You removed the Ku Klux Klan from that list, and placed it instead in his list of foes. [12] Can you explain? It's an odd thing to remove given that his former head of security was a Klansman.

He may have made statements against the Klan itself, of course, if you want to clarify that (it's hard to find a group he hasn't made statements against at some point). SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In Architects of Fear, page 22, Johnson says "LaRouche counts among his enemies not only international bankers, the Federal Reserve, and the Trilateralists, but also Ken Kesey, Bertrand Russell, Playboy magazine, the Nazis, the Jesuits, the Zionists, the Socialist International, and the Ku Klux Klan." So I guess it's both. However, following the link to the Klansman I think you mean, Roy Frankhouser, he is not described as "former head of security" for LaRouche, but only a consultant. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe he was described by the police or courts as head of security, or former head (I forget which), when LaRouche was arrested. I've tweaked your Klan edit for flow. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't think inclusion of these sorts of lists is helpful in moving the article toward neutrality. Any political commentator has "likes" and "dislikes," but I think that lumping disparate targets together in a list like this is a method of "framing" by LaRouche's opponents that is intended to seem comical. It isn't necessary to include it in the article, in my opinion, or if it is necessary, it should go in "Views of LaRouche." Delia Peabody (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently slanted toward LaRouche, because we don't include a great deal of the criticism, and barely mention it in the lead. It's not for us to decide what's appropriate. The reliable sources decide that. We highlight what they highlight, so long as the quality is good. You can't claim that all the reliable sources are "opponents." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• ...the article relies on LaRouche's opponents for content.

LaRouche considers almost everyone an opponent, including the mainstream press. We should not tailor the article to exclude those whom LaRouche has attacked, or who have criticized LaRouche or the movement. We're here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the book-length treatments upon which much of this article relies are authored by what outside observers would call "opponents". C'est la vie. I must respectfully disagree with what SlimVirgin says about "highlighting". When a Wikipedia editor extracts 5 or 6 lines from a 400-page book in order to use them in the article, this is an entirely independent editorial decision, not dictated by the book's author. I am proposing some guidelines for how those decisions might be better made, to create a more neutral article, adhere to BLP, and lessen the tendency toward disputes among editors. Do you disagree with my suggestions? I'm asking that they be discussed. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with your suggestions, which are based on speculation and your own personal views. Wikipedia has a procedure for identifying reliable sources. We don't need a special set of rules for this page.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you disagree. The rules for identifying reliable sources are not at issue here. The problems with this article, in my opinion, are problems of NPOV and BLP, both of which govern how reliable sources are used in articles. I don't advocate any "special rules" for this page. I am suggesting that we agree on an approach for the application of NPOV and BLP, because it seems that quite a few editors have expressed concerns about this article coming up short with regard to those policies. Delia Peabody (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your suggestions seems to be that you will determine which reliable sources are "opponents", and then we will treat those sources differently. If so, I object to that. If there is an objective determination that some sources are unreliable, then that's a different matter.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If the term "opponents" makes you uncomfortable, disregard it. I think the suggestions I am making about how to better conform to NPOV and BLP should be applied to all reliable sources, and in my opinion, this article will be substantially improved as a result. I'd like to request that you respond to the suggestions themselves, which I will re-state without any reference to "opponents": BLP says that articles should be written "conservatively," and in a highly controversial article such as this one I think we should take that seriously and then it should be possible to keep conflict to a minimum. The standard that I used in working on the "Views of LaRouche" article was Wikipedia:RS#Quotations, and I propose that views attributed to LaRouche, whether directly quoted or not, be verifiable from original sources. I also think that it is undesirable to include any allegations about the internal workings of the organization, because it is hearsay and likely to be biased information. The "conservative" course of action is to write an article based on information in the public record -- I think this is what makes the "LaRouche Criminal Trials" article successful, because it is very factual and does not rely upon anything that cannot be verified. Delia Peabody (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am very content to follow WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. You are creating new rules which I do not accept. You are making assertions with no basis, such as saying that all sources which discuss the movement's inner workings are likely biased and rely on hearsay. "Hearsay" seem to be a derogatory term for common reporting. If a source is reliable then we should use it, if not then not.

I assume there are specific sources or assertion that you're concerned with. Rather than creating new rules in the abstract, it'd be more productive if you specified anything in the article that violates the core Wikipedia policies so we can address them directly.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I am not "creating new rules." I am trying to encourage a conceptual discussion of what BLP means when it says "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively." I don't think this article is written "conservatively," compared to other BLPs of controversial individuals. If I need to break it down sentence by sentence, I can do that, but I thought it might be useful to approach it more generally first. Delia Peabody (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Conservative" isn't defined in the policy, but in the context it seems to mean "carefully". However you are suggesting additional rules, such as arbitrarily deciding that some sources are from opponents and that sources that describe the internal working as are likely to be biased. None of that is in the policies. I think we'll be fine if we follow them as written.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, the King and Berlet books are reliable sources, but also appear to be works of opinion. The issue is that since this is a BLP, we try to give the subject the benefit of the doubt. In my opinion, this means that criticism can be applied more liberally to the "LaRouche movement" article than here. This article, in my opinion, según Delia's suggestion, should be more of a dry recital of the events of LaRouche's life and platform, and the contrary opinions of his actions should be contained, for the present, in the articles that focus on his politics of his and his followers. Cla68 (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. This may mean the introduction of a sentence in the introduction that shows how the Larouche article are forked, like in "This article is about the views of Lyndon LaRouche. For an overview of his organization, see LaRouche movement, and for the man himself, see Lyndon LaRouche", likewise "This article is about Lyndon LaRouche. For an overview of his organization, see LaRouche movement, and for the Larouche criminal trial, see "LArouche criminal trials". 81.210.206.223 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The King book doesn't appear to be any more a work of opinion than most biographies. It was widely and favorably reviewed when it was published, and since then it has been cited by most other writers on LaRouche. The fact that LaRouche and HK seem to hate King should not affect our use of it. I don't know what Berlet book you're referring to, but if we use a Berlet source we can do so appropriately. Again, this all seems rather abstract. If someone wants to propose an edit that'd be fine, but I don't see how this hypothetical discussion helps anything.   Will Beback  talk  11:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Remember that the "King Book" is not a "biography" by any standards. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sez who? Every library and database I see calls it a biography.   Will Beback  talk  22:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I dare to call it, respectfully, an "UFO on its flight of fancy from LaRouche to secret Nazi bases below the polar ice". Seriously, how did those UFOs end up in a "Biography"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.206.223 (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources and structure

Sources

A couple of people have asked about the sourcing for the article, so I'm describing it here for future reference.

LaRouche lived all his adult life in either New York (1953–1983) or Virginia (1983–present). That means the two newspapers of record for information about him are The New York Times and The Washington Post. We are lucky in that regard, because they are two of the most authoritative newspapers in the world, and they have both written extensively about him, including several major investigative and analysis pieces from the 1970s onwards. They have a tendency to be somewhat understated in their writing, the Times in particular, which is helpful here. Their articles provide the backbone and focus of much of this article—in the sense that we highlight what they highlight—augmented by academic and other writers, and on occasion by LaRouche himself.

Their archives on LaRouche can be accessed here:

• The New York Times, before 1981.
• The New York Times, 1981–present.
• The Washington Post, before 1987.
• The Washington Post, 1987–present.
• Mintz, John. "The Cult Controversy", The Washington Post, includes a series on LaRouche.

In addition to the above, the main books we use—books about him, or with chapters or significant sections on him—are listed here in the References section.

Content policies

The content policies (V, NOR, and NPOV) say we should reflect the views of reliable secondary sources, and should highlight issues in rough proportion to their inclusion in those sources. Primary sources may be used to augment secondary sources with caution, though not for anything contentious; see PTST and BLPPRIMARY. Self-published sources by LaRouche may also be used with caution for anything non-contentious to augment secondary ones, subject to BLPSPS. Looking at each section in these terms:

The lead

The current lead is arguably a violation of NPOV and LEAD in that it leans in favour of LaRouche, doesn't adequately reflect the views of the best sources, and omits several significant controversies. We do mention the cult issue, the antisemitism, and the fascism concerns, but only in passing. It's obviously difficult to write about these issues, because they inevitably look entirely negative, which explains the lead's current approach.

1960s

This relies on some of LaRouche's own writings, but the issues aren't contentious, so it seems fine to do that.

1970s and 1980s

The 1970s reflects the mainstream coverage well, except that we don't touch on the distinctive language he's known for, which is an issue we should consider developing (succinctly) in future. We should also develop the concerns about his relationship with the Soviet Union, and perhaps add something more (very briefly) about his philosophy.

The 1980s is okay too, except that the section on the Strategic Defense Initiative is sourced mostly to LaRouche, so that should be re-sourced. The NBC lawsuit section could perhaps be developed, because it was pivotal in a number of ways. His relationship with Bailey wasn't as straightforward as we portray it (he sued them, or they sued him, I forget which), so we should tidy that up, and make sure we're not lifting what he said about LaRouche out of context.

1990s and 2000s

LaRouche was most active until his imprisonment in 1989, when he was 67. He has been less active since then, so has been written about less during the 1990s and 2000s. We include a few things in the 2000s that secondary sources haven't covered, which isn't ideal. The most coverage was triggered by Jeremiah Duggan's death and the Obama healthcare issues. If I were writing this alone, I don't think I'd split the 2000s into five sections, but I'd have to look through the newspaper archives again for ideas about how best to structure it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}

The Orlando Sentinel is unusual in that they make most of their archives available without a paywall. OTOH, they don't have a good way of searching for them as their archive search goes to a paywall site. Luckily, they're searchable through Google. [13] Many of them are wire reports originating from other sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I have come across some biographies by now, good, bad and really bad ones. Bad biographies usually are prone to fall into many traps, like psychoanalytical fancy, or they highlight minor episodes and cover up major events.

I stated earlier that I agree with Cla68's point that a biography should be a "dry recital of the events in a person's life". If we decide what to exclude or include, what to highlight and what to neglect, this decision is not entirely onto us and may not be based upon our personal preference. I thus cannot agree that LaRouche is known for a "distinctive language". What does that mean? I am totally at a loss here. Also, where does the claim that LaRouche was "less active since 1989" come from?

What does "active" mean in this context? Did the output of published papers decline since 1989? Where there less campaigns going on? What is the source for that particular claim? I would also claim that from 2000 to the present the Duggan Case has received attention from the media, but was it a major event for the subject of the biography? What about the [approx] 2001- campaign against the Neoconservatives? What about 2002? This Schiller-Institute Website "International Interventions" [14] lists many activities of LaRouche in 2002. Same here for 2003 [15] What about his 2004 presidential campaign? Activities in 2005: [16], 2006: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/lar_related/2006/lar_list_2006.html, 2007: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/lar_related/2007/lar_list_2007.html, 2008:http://www.schillerinstitute.org/lar_related/2008/lar_list.html. What about Kesha Rogers in 2010? Now, I do not claim that ALL those events and campaigns have equal importance, but they have been, albeit partially, covered and received recognition in the mainstream media. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "less active" is accurate. However he received much less attention in secondary sources after his conviction than before it. The lists that 81.210.206.223 posts are all from the Schiller Institute, which is not a secondary source for LaRouche. Per WP:DUE, prominence in secondary sources is how we determine how much weight to give topics within an article.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As an experiment, I did Google news searches on Kesha Rogers + LaRouche (11 hits, 9 in the U.S,) "Jeremiah Duggan" + Larouche (37 hits, but only 2 in the U.S. -- almost entirely British) and "Kenneth Kronberg" suicide + Larouche (5 hits.) However, WP:DUE also says "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." So the question regarding Jeremiah Duggan may be how significant Jeremiah Duggan is to the subject of this article, not whether LaRouche is significant to the subject of the Jeremiah Duggan article. Also, I have a question for Slim and Will -- can you give me an example of any other BLP article in which a similar percentage of space is given to the opinions of critics? Delia Peabody (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

According to whom are the sources we use in this article critics?

Google hits are too crude a measure to use as a standard. A passing mention gets the same weight as an in-depth profile.   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have entered the query ""larouche critic Dennis King" SITE:washingtonpost.com" in google and right now my cursor hovers over the search button. And i WILL press it...81.210.206.223 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain what means you are using to calculate the relative "prominence in secondary sources" of individual topics under WP:DUE? And is it the case that you see nothing in this article that you would consider "criticism" or "the opinions of critics"? Delia Peabody (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

King is a critic, but also the best available source. However even that source is only use twelve times, out of more than 120 citations, or fewer than one tenth. Since King is so widely cited by other reliable sources, we could use that book much more without giving it undue weight. Regarding DUE, it's pretty clear in the policy: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. By extension, if 200 sources mention LaRouche's presidential campaigns then those should get more space than his congressional campaign mentioned in only a couple of sources.   Will Beback  talk  02:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Since King is so widely cited by other reliable source ... Would those all be critics too? After all it wouldn't be surprising to find critics of any particular subject referencing each other now would it. John lilburne (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

One can imagine all sorts of scenarios, but doing so doesn't help us build an encyclopedia. Our aim is to use the best possible sources, and one common measure of a source's reputation is how often it's cited by other authors. But we've already discussed the King book a few dozen times on this page. It's been established as a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  08:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Its not a question of the King book but whether by quoting other critics that are in effect simply referencing King, one isn't in effect a acting a bit like the grocer with his thumb on the scales. John lilburne (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That may be hard to do if one is stuck in a feedback loop, and just as an observation some seem to be complaining that it is so strong there is a perceptible squeal emanating from the articles. From what I read here the impression is that he is more loopy-lou than most American politicians, definitely into lala land, are there no redeeming features? John lilburne (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, this article is kinder to him than the sources are, in that we've left out or minimized some of the significant controversies. The normally understated New York Times had an article about him on its front page in 1974 with the word "savagery" in the headline, [17] and it's been downhill from there.

This has little if anything to do with Dennis King. We could remove everything sourced directly or indirectly to him, and the substance of the article would be the same. And in any event, his book is widely regarded as reliable. It's only the LaRouche movement that has started the unreliability meme, but they smear everyone who criticizes them, so it would be unwise to take that seriously without an independent source. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. So as with King John a total rotter with no redeeming features at all. John lilburne (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

All we can do here is go by the reliable sources, and make sure they're high quality for anything contentious, which is what we've done. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not one redeeming feature at all? Amazing even a stopped clock is right at least once a day. But it seems that here we have disproved the old adage that something cannot be sliced so thinly it only has one side. BTW what was the result of the earlier questions regarding reliability of foreign language sources? John lilburne (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not the purpose of Wikipedia articles to specifically seek out damning or redeeming qualities in biography subjects. As I wrote above, we just summarize reliable sources. If there are sufficient sources which say that the subject loves dogs and bunnies, or donates to African orphans, then we can add that.

The preponderance of views at RSN seem to say that the Pirogov seminar paper is not a reliable source for a BLP.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of purpose, having made 600+ edits over 5 years to this article have you really not come across a single article, fact, comment or whatever, from a RS that wasn't negative in some way? John lilburne (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

John, this page is here so we can discuss the contents of the article, and specifically the source material. If you want to discuss it, the sources do have to be read. We can't read them for you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be 120 sources used in the article, it has been edited on and off by two people over a 5 to 6 year process, and they have both been instrumental on deciding what is or is not a RS concerning the article. Now after all of that time there is a neutrality tag on the article. Rather than ferreting through 6 years of arguments in diverse places, it seems reasonably to ask those two people, that are the undoubted experts on the matter, whether there have ever been any positive RS concerning this guy, that are incorporated into the article. So far neither of the article experts have been able to point to a source that presents this person in a favourable light at all. One doesn't need to read 100s of sources, and the minutia of discussion going back 6 years to conclude that a process that over 6 years has not discovered a single positive feature about a person is truly remarkable. John lilburne (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What's a "positive RS"? What's a "positive feature"? Can you give examples?   Will Beback  talk  11:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Playin' stupid is not helpful WB, on the contrary.81.210.206.223 (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I suppose I have my answer as to why this article has a neutrality tag plastered all over it. But good grief fellow, is it really the case that the editor of a BLP page, of five years standing, and having made 600+ edits to the page, countless talk page contributions and battled through a number of notice boards, is incapable of recognising when a source is making a positive comment about someone, or when the subject of the article they edit is said to have been right about something, anything at all. John lilburne (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know why you're even asking the question about "positive RS" and "positive features". The article is full of both. We frequently cite the subject's autobiography. If that isn't a "positive RS" then what is? As for "positive features", we mention all kinds of achievements that most people would consider positive, like meeting foreign leaders, running for political office, proposing legislation, and so on. So if that's what you're looking for then re-read the article and you'll see it's already there.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• • shrug** None of what you mention are achievements or particularly positive. We've all met foreign leaders. My wife's sat on a podium with Putin, I've shook hands with the Queen of England - I have a super8 film of my sister talking with her mother, and the Yippies nominated a pig for President. John lilburne (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So then I have to ask again: what are you looking for that isn't in the article? Please be more specific than just "positive".   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That presupposes that I actually give damn about the minutia of this article - News I don't, and even if I did why would I want to spend time battling over it across numerous notice and incident boards? My sole interest was why this article is incapable of balance, and you have adequately answered that in the above discussion, thanks. John lilburne (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. You haven't read the article and you don't care about it. Yet you have a strong opinion about it. You asked about positive material and sources, I pointed you to some, but I didn't respond quickly enough or those aren't what you meant by positive, so therefore you understand fully the problems with the article. Thank you for participating in this volunteer project where everyone is welcome.   Will Beback  talk  09:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe there was some recent discussion about using some non-English sources to add some neutral or positive content to the article? Cla68 (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The only recent discussion of a foreign source concerned Pirogov, and the preponderance of input at RSN was that the seminar paper is not a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not how I remember it. Ah, here's the discussion from three weeks ago, it appears to have been archived. There was an Arabic and Chinese source. Are these two sources currently used in the article? Also, the discussion on the Pirogov source at the RS Noticeboard was split as to whether it was reliable or not, which means we have to decide amongst ourselves here whether we use it or not. Cla68 (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many sources that we don't cite. We could write an article several times this long and still not use them all. We should rely mainly on the best available sources.

How do you figure the RSN discussion of Pirogov was split? Almost all of the uninvolved editors seemed to say that the seminar paper wasn't appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of facts are hard to describe as negative or positive. The subject met with world leaders. The subject sponsored a state initiative on AIDS. The subject ran for president. Are these positive or negative? They're neither. They're just facts.   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted the main newspaper archives above. The only way to learn about him is to read the articles. It's a lot of reading, but there's no unfortunately no shortcut if you want the information (independently of this article) and a sense of the scale and flavour of the coverage. I didn't see your earlier question, sorry. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I'm intending to remove this, unless an editor not associated with the LaRouche movement gives very specific examples of how NPOV is being violated, examples that are actionable within the policies. The tag was added recently because someone wanted the Russian/Chinese section to be restored, and it was, bar one source that didn't gain consensus here or on the RSN. Even that material arguably shouldn't have been added, but it's there now.

The tag has been used inappropriately for years by various LaRouche accounts as a bargaining chip, and it's not something we should be encouraging. Discussions can always continue without tagging. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking back at the talk page archives to Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/Archive_22#Neutrality_dispute, it seems that the reason for the tag was not so much lack of the Russian/Chinese section (that was Angel's Flight who has been blocked.) The original reason was more general issues of weight which I don't think have been resolved. I attempted unsuccessfully to address them in the "suggested remedy" section above. I will summarize what seems to me to be problematic:

• The original issue was higher weight given to the 1970s than the recent decades. It is said that there is less coverage of recent decades in secondary sources. At the risk of raising a sensitive issue, an 8-part interview in the main Chinese government paper was probably read by more people than all other sources combined. Also, as has been pointed out, there is no coverage of the Kesha Rogers primary win, which got significant coverage including at least one in-depth write-up in the U.S. (Time magazine.) I think there needs to be some transparency here in examining the criteria for giving "weight" to sources.
• It seems to me that there is more space in this BLP devoted to criticism than in any other BLP I have looked at. Put aside for a moment the controversy over whether the sources cited are called "critics." Criticism can come from non-"critics", and more importantly, factual information as opposed to opinion can come from "critics." My suggestions above, boiled down to essentials, were that this article could be brought better into conformity with BLP by reducing the ratio of opinion to factual information in the article.

I think it is important that these issues be resolved and I support keeping the tag until such time as that has been accomplished. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask you to address this from another starting point. Which criticism of LaRouche in this article do you think is legitimate, well-sourced, and appropriate for this article? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

For "well-sourced," I would say that after an initial scan of the article they all look OK except for one. An allegation that unnamed members of the NCLC attacked an unnamed paraplegic member of the SWP with clubs is sourced to an opinion piece in the Washington Post, which in turn attributes the story to Crawdaddy!, a rock and roll magazine.[18] In my opinion, that's too weak a source for an exceptional claim. For "legitimate" and "appropriate", I think the allegations of anti-Semitism under "Ideology: Plato, Aristotle, allegations of fascism, anti-Semitism" qualify, and I would retain a significantly shortened version of the Blum/Montgomery allegations which I think presently receive undue weight. I am concerned about the number of unsubstantiated allegations in the article. I am also concerned about numerous characterizations of LaRouche's views - my first reaction is that they belong in the "views" article, and secondly, I would want to check them against original sources for accuracy. I must say on the question of Dennis King that I found the example of misquoting that was given by Angel Flight to be disturbing.[19] Delia Peabody (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'll look at the Washington Post paraplegic point again.

• Which allegations are unsubstantiated (in the sense of unsourced or poorly sourced)?

• You're welcome to add any primary sources to footnotes to augment the secondary sources, but you have to be careful you don't engage in OR. If the Post says LaRouche said "X," and you find in a primary source that he said "sort of X," you may not be looking at the material the Post looked at.

• I don't understand your point about King. That quote isn't in the article, and very little in the article, and nothing contentious, relies on King.

• The Blum/Montgomery material is important. It was a major, two-part investigation in the New York Times, introduced by an editorial written (as I recall) by the editor-in-chief, and it appears to have caused or contributed to the demise of the U.S. Labor Party.

• Montgomery and Blum. "U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy", The New York Times, October 7, 1979.

• Montgomery, Paul L. and Blum, Howard. "One Man Leads U.S. Labor Party on Its Erratic Path", The New York Times, October 8, 1979; courtesy copy here.

• The New York Times. "The Cult of LaRouche", editorial, October 10, 1979, courtesy copy here.

• Also see Montgomery, Paul L. "How a Radical-Left Group Moved Toward Savagery", The New York Times, January 20, 1974.

• To argue that our coverage of it is UNDUE is wrong-headed. We highlight what the good sources highlight. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The paraplegic allegation: this is about a period in the 1970s in which LaRouche and his followers were physically assaulting left-wing activists in the streets and during meetings with bats and clubs. This is not denied by LaRouche, though he says he was not the instigator. Several arrests were made in the New York and Philadelphia areas, and it stopped. One of the victims was reportedly disabled.

• Our article says: "Writing in The Washington Post that year [1976], Stephen Rosenfeld said LaRouche's ideas belonged to the radical right, neo-Nazi fringe, and that his main interests lay in disruption and disinformation. The NCLC had been terrorizing a number of people on the left, he wrote, including Noam Chomsky, Marcus Raskin, and Lester Brown, and had attacked SWP Party members in Detroit with clubs, reportedly including a paraplegic member."

• The source is Rosenfeld, Stephen S. "NCLC: 'A Domestic Political Menace'", The Washington Post, September 24, 1976. Here is information about Rosenfeld.

• The source says:

For a long time I thought the NCLC (LaRouche) was just a bunch of harmless left crazies who phoned a bit too often to report that the Rockefellers were cannibalizing the world. Not until Washington Post reporter Bill Chapman's story of September 12 did I realize that for some years the NCLC has been terrorizied a broad center-left band of the political spectrum: Noam Chomsky, Marcus Raskin, Frances Fox Piven, Lester Brown, the Community Party, United Auto Workers, and so on.

Then I found two other factual accounts worth reading, Charles Young's "Mind Control, Political Violence and Sexual Warfare: Inside the NCLC" in the June Crawdaddy ... In a typical detail, reported by Young, NCLC goons in an attack on a Socialist Workers party meeting in Detroit "beat a paraplegic with clubs."

• The Crawdaddy feature was Young, Charles M. "Mind Control, Political Violence & Sexual Warfare: Inside the NCLC," Crawdaddy, June 1976, pp. 48–56, and it said:

Incidents are too numerous to mention, but among the choicer ones were disruption of a Martin Luther King Coalition meeting in Buffalo where they beat a women who was seven months pregnant; a riot at Columbia where about 60 NCLCers stormed a stage during a mayoral debate in a failed attempt to assault the CP candidate, and an attack on an SWP meeting in Detroit where they beat a paraplegic with clubs.

There's also Hyatt, James C. Hyatt, "A Communist Group Uses Fists and Epithets To Battle U.S. Unions," Wall Street Journal, October 7, 1975.

It would be worth getting hold of these. And also William Chapman's Post story. In the meantime, we can add in-text attribution to our article. It might be worth looking to see whether Chomsky has ever written about this. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I have a copy of "U.S. Labor Party: Far to the Left Of the Far Left" by William Chapman, The Washington Post, September 12, 1976. It's a bad copy of a scratched microfilm, but mostly legible. It includes a substantial amount of material on violence and verbal attacks by LaRouche's movement against unions and leftist groups, as well as other background.

Regarding HK/Angel's flight's assertion of a misused quote, I don't see it. While King did quote a line without giving extensive context, that isn't necessarily an error. He didn't assign any specific meaning to it and readers can interpret it for themselves. It's not an example that proves the book unreliable.

As for charges of anti-semitism, they are so commonly made that they deserve some discussion.

The New York Times material is important and cited by many other authors. We can add more citations for much of that material, which isn't exclusive to the Times.   Will Beback  talk  00:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: The claim from Crawdaddy! is a good example of what I mean by "unsubstantiated allegations." The alleged attackers are not named, the alleged victims are not named, the persons making the allegations are not named, and of course, there are no arrest or court records. BLP says "Be wary of sources... that attribute material to anonymous sources." When you say "Several arrests were made in the New York and Philadelphia areas, and it stopped," you are quoting Dennis King, but when I followed the link to King's book, I also found no specifics, and significantly, no mention of any convictions. I think that it might be appropriate to mention that there were many allegations, coming from both sides, but even if they were published in a reliable source (not Crawdaddy!) I would still think that under BLP, it would be neither legitimate nor appropriate to give anonymous allegations weight beyond just that.

On the question of UNDUE, you say once more that "We highlight what the good sources highlight." You make it sound like the source comes with instructions as to which sentences or paragraphs are to be inserted in Wikipedia, and the editor does not need to use any personal discretion or judgment at all. I find this very difficult to accept. From the Blum/Montogomery articles we have a very lengthy section which says basically that LaRouche was paranoid about being assassinated and had armed bodyguards. I find this to be very unremarkable. It was probably true of a majority of militant leaders at the time -- and possibly with good reason, when you consider how many activists actually were assassinated, including even minor figures like Fred Hampton. Giving such a long and detailed account makes it look like LaRouche must have been far more gun-crazy than other militants (many of which liked to have themselves photographed holding firearms.[20]) It's an example of something I think could be UNDUE. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen Chapman's article in the Washington Post now, and added details from it. We had those details (Chomsky et al being threatened) sourced before to Stephen Rosenfeld, who was referring back to the Chapman article. I also added in-text attribution for the material Rosenfeld cited from Crawdaddy. Delia, when the Washington Post publishes serious allegations in this way, we follow suit because it's a high-quality news source. We can't start dissecting whether their journalists got things right, or whether they ought to have cited other organizations.

The majority of militant leaders didn't believe the CIA, KGB, and British royal family were plotting to kill them over a period of 30 years plus. And now that you mention it, did someone remove from the article that he recently accused the royal family of wanting to assassinate him? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I see now that you have added even more in the way of anonymous allegations in this edit. Some of these allegations don't even directly name LaRouche -- you have one that only says "Piven was almost pushed down a flight of stairs by someone calling her a fascist and CIA agent." You have also gone on to use Crawdaddy as a source, which I think is very ill-advised. Don't you think it would be appropriate to look for consensus before making an edit like that? It's certainly not likely to help resolve the neutrality dispute. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again—they appeared in the Washington Post, they do name LaRouche and his followers, and they're consistent with stories that appeared in many publications, including other high-quality ones. The director of the FBI even confirmed the violence issue personally, and LaRouche did not deny it. Our article can't make light of it because the LaRouche movement is objecting.

I added this because you felt the Rosenfeld story alone wasn't good enough. So I added another. Now you complain about the second. But, as you know, there are lots of articles about this, written by good, independent journalists. Almost every major press story about LaRouche around that time focused on, or alluded to, these issues. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit

Unlike the reports that LaRouche had bodyguards, which I don't think are very notable, I think the meetings with foreign leaders are quite notable. I am not aware of any other radical leader from the US who managed to do that, and I am surprised that the sources presently in use in this article have so little to say about it. The chronology for this section is presently wrong, because Gandhi died in 1984, so LaRouche did not meet with her in 1985. I would like to propose that it be moved and expanded as follows:

LaRouche and his wife Helga met with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and Mexican President José López Portillo in 1982. LaRouche continuted to have frequent contacts with Indira Gandhi up until she was assassinated in 1984. LaRouche met with López Portillo to warn him about attempts by international bankers to wreck Mexico's economy. A Mexican official told The New York Times that LaRouche had arranged the meeting with Portillo by representing himself as a Democratic Party official. However, Portillo continued to maintain a relationship with LaRouche, appearing with Zepp-LaRouche in Mexico in 1998, and endorsed LaRouche's candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1999, according to the LaRouche movement in 2004. LaRouche also met with Argentine President Raúl Alfonsín during this period. Turkish Prime Minister Turgut Özal reportedly met with LaRouche in 1987, then reprimanded his aides who had mistaken LaRouche for the Democratic Presidential candidate.

I think that these meetings should probably be given even more weight than this. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I was concerned about this part that's already in the article; it will have to be confirmed or removed. "However, Portillo continued to maintain a relationship with LaRouche ... and endorsed LaRouche's candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1999, according to the LaRouche movement in 2004." Sourced to Executive Intelligence Review, February 27, 2004.

LaRouche published this after Portillo died. We need an independent source that said Portillo maintained a relationship with LaRouche and endorsed him. Self-published sources by the author of a BLP subject are allowed, so long as they don't mention third parties and aren't unduly self-serving. See WP:SPS.

I have no problem with the bits you want to add that appear in independent sources. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)