Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement

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

• Draft and source pages
• Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources
• Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/Temp
• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Gays & AIDS
• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox
• Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/China Youth Daily

Restoration of Quote

I inserted this "Later, the LaRouche magazine Executive Intelligence Review wrote of "the monstrous plan to dehumanize Germany’s Jews, that led, inexorably, to the Final Solution, and the murder of 6 million Jews."

which is sourced to Steve Douglas in the Executive Intelligence Review Intelligence Review, February 3, 2006" Capitulation to Fascists Can Be Deadly: Take Germany, Spring 1933-August 1934" http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/2006_1-9/2006_1-9/2006-5/pdf/08-15_605_feat.pdf

It proves beyond doubt, that the LaRouche-movement does not deny the official number of 6 million murdered Jews during the Holocaust. I see no reason to remove this. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The movement is made up of many people. While a single article may be informative, it doesn't prove the point that the entire movement, LaRouche included, believes in the standard account of the Holocaust. Let's find two or more sources and then we can add it as an opposing view. But let's not belabor it.   Will Beback  talk  12:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources for use of the standard number can be found here:

(Larouche-Spokeswoman) Debra Freeman :“We mourn the loss of six million Jews and countless others,” she claimed, but warned that if Obama’s policies are allowed to flourish “the whole world will go down and with it a lot more than six million people.” : http://my.ojornal.com/sports-news/larouche-supporters-make-their-case-taunton-green-election-day

Lyndon Larouche, Webcast "Well, you see the President's health-care policy: That's a policy of intentional genocide. It's a direct copy of the policy that Adolf Hitler put into effect, beginning September-October [1939] at the beginning of World War II. This was what we talk about when we talk about the 6 million, and that was only part of the total number of dead [in the Holocaust]. That's what you're talking about!" http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2010/webcasts/3705jan30_opener.html

Steve Douglas: "Later, the LaRouche magazine Executive Intelligence Review wrote of "the monstrous plan to dehumanize Germany’s Jews, that led, inexorably, to the Final Solution, and the murder of 6 million Jews.", Executive Intelligence Review Intelligence Review, February 3, 2006" 81.210.206.223 (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading this recent discussion on Jimbo's talk page, which asserts that BLP sourcing standards applies to groups as well, I doubt Feldman is a good-enough source for what we are using it for. We agreed at RSN that it is basically a self-published source; if WP:BLPSPS standards apply to this group, we are probably better off relying on higher-quality sources for this type of content. --JN466 16:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The article basically comes from a once-blacklisted site. Its editors do not have "time to answer" emails about who is in charge of the site and the project and who might be the editorial board. So far, i have no evidence at all, that there is an editorial board at all for this site. This, and some other irregularities, prompt me to think of the article as self-published. It does not meet the requirements for WP:BLPSPS. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Jimmy Wales' talk page do not set policy. The question on this thread is not about Feldman, but about the relevance of the so-called "balancing quote" from Steve Douglas.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy's argument has merit though; not because it's Jimmy who said it, but because it does. The reason we are talking about balancing quotes is because we are trying to balance Feldman with another self-published source from the other side. We should just stick to good third-party sources. --JN466 12:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There are enough actual Wikipedia policies that we don't need to rely on of-hand comments for guidance. The long held consensus of the community is that the BLP policy only applies to living people.

Feldman is a third party source and an expert on the topic; Douglas is neither.   Will Beback  talk  19:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In case it's helpful (apologies if you have this already), The New York Times had a front page story about LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party in 1979. It included (p. 16, column 5) that the party's newspaper claimed one million Jews had died in the Holocaust, rather than six million. See "The U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy", The New York Times, October 7, 1979: "The party's newspaper has printed that "only" a million Jews died in the Holocaust." It might also be worth looking through Helga Zepp-LaRouche's Das Hitler-Buch (1984), though I've only seen this in German. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The corresponding section used to be much longer.[1] Bill Masen cut it down. Now we're back to enlarging it with so-called "balancing quotes". There's plenty more we can add back which would "balance" it this way and that. Is longer better? NPOV says a lot about adding all relevant views, but not much about readability. This article needs to cover so much ground that we need to make some effort to the avoiding "weight" problems with any particular section.   Will Beback  talk  08:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The 25 lines of "Accusations of Fascism" are "balanced" by 5 lines, which say that Berlet/King have "gone too far to paint Larouche as a "would-be-Führer". The paragraph about alleged homophobia is not "balanced" at all. The section on "coded anti-semitism" is 40 lines and "balanced" by 7 lines. The section on "Anti-semitism of 40 lines is "balanced" by 4 lines.This is, very roughly a ratio of 1:6, 6 lines of "Accusation" for 1 line of response. I think that makes it clear, what is wrong with this article. It is not at all a matter of how large this article is, it is clearly a matter of (undue) weight and much more of BLP, which also applies to this article "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.". Feldman is given 12 lines for his views on LaRouche, yet there is evidence that it is self-published and thus not a high-quality source. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV says that all significant points of view should be included, with weight proportional to their prominence in independent, reliable sources. We should avoid using primary sources, like the Douglas piece, except as quotations to illustrate views already covered in secondary sources. The Freeman quote, which appears in a secondary source and is uttered by LaRouche's frequent spokesperson, would be a better choice.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the secondary source for Freeman's quote? 81.210.206.223 (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This thread is about the Douglas quote you added. I don't see any disagreement so I'll replace it with the Freeman quote.   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Freeman quote is a good choice. Well done for locating a secondary source. --JN466 23:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who found it. ;) Thanks for doing that. I'm going to cut the first several paragraphs which are cited to primary sources or Feldman. We have better, secondary sources available which cover the same ground.   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it was the IP above, surely? Otherwise my memory is worse than I remember it being. ;)

Secondary sources sounds good; there should be no shortage. --JN466 02:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I missed the sig. There are plenty of secondary sources. I'll add the NYT source SV added next. It's reliable and unequivocal.   Will Beback  talk  07:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of image

LaRouche's philosophy references an old dispute between Plato (left) and Aristotle (right), here illustrated in a fresco by Raphael. Aristotle gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge through empirical observation and experience. Plato gestures to the heavens, representing his belief in The Forms. George Johnson describes LaRouche's conspiracy theory as a "distortion of a real philosophical distinction".Johnson 1983, pp. 193

Will, could I ask you why you removed the image? [2] It does a good job of illustrating the Plato/Aristoteles debate that LaRouche references so much. If you are concerned about text being in the caption that does not appear in the body of the article, I don't mind repeating that text in the body, in particular Johnson's view that LaRouche's Neoplatonism is "distortion of a real philosophical distinction". Do you mind if I do that and restore the image? --JN466 13:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That image does not include LaRouche or any member of his movement. Pictures just for illustration don't add much to the article. We could add pictures of Marx, lasers, Al Gore, CounterStrike, the Queen of England, Adolf Hitler, etc. But wouldn't suggest adding those either.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures help break up walls of text. Apparently, LaRouche movement literature often references the Plato and Aristotle debate, so the picture seemed to be appropriate as explained by Jayen. Cla68 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would it be more able of breaking up walls of text than the photos I suggest?   Will Beback  talk  02:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are better depictions of Plato, if his appearance makes any difference to this article: File:Plato Silanion Musei Capitolini MC1377.jpg, File:Herma of Plato - 0042MC.jpg,− or pick one of these commons:Category:Monuments and memorials to Plato. I can find examples of the other photos as well, if we really want to start filling this article up with illustrations.   Will Beback  talk  03:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that this image illustrates the precise philosophical debate that LaRouche makes so much of -- Aristotle pointing to the ground, Plato pointing to the sky. --JN466 21:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche supports Plato because he point to the sky while the villainizes Aristotle because he points to the ground? That's overly simplistic. Illustrations of Platonic forms would be more relevant; they appear often in LaRouche publications. ~~

That would require secondary-source coverage of that primary-source content, and I'm not aware of any. The distinction between Plato's and Aristoteles' approach and its relevance to LaRouche's views, on the other hand, are referenced at length in secondary sources like Johnson's chapter on LaRouche (most prominently on pp. 192–195), as well as in George/Wilcox. --JN466 16:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any source which say LaRouche's views are inspired by, or even connected to, this painting by Raphael. Let's stick to the material found in reliable secondary sources. We don't need to add illustrations.   Will Beback  talk  05:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that two of us disagree with you. Cla68 (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy. What policy-based arguments can you muster to support including a disputed illustration which is not referenced in any reliable secondary sources?   Will Beback  talk  08:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors are given considerable leeway in how to illustrate articles. The requirement is merely that "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." The dispute illustrated by Raphael is indeed directly related to the content of this section.

I'm not aware of any policy requiring that a particular illustration be mentioned in secondary sources before we are allowed to use it to illustrate an article in Wikipedia; by that token, 99% of our illustrations would have to be removed, wouldn't they? You yourself just proposed using illustrations of the Platonic forms, which unlike the dispute depicted by Raphael aren't even mentioned in secondary sources, only in primary sources. I don't understand why those would be okay, but this image, which speaks directly to the content of this section, is not.

Could you explain? Do you feel the image unduly dignifies LaRouche's philosophy? If so, then we could discuss that. Otherwise I really see no policy reason not to use the image. --JN466 13:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm confused. Above you wrote that adding illustrations of platonic solids "would require secondary-source coverage of that primary-source content, and I'm not aware of any". Here you write that editors are free to add any illustrations they think might be relevant. I've proposed a bunch of other, better illustrations of Plato, but those suggestions seem to have been ignored, along with other ideas for illustrating the article with "relevant" pictures. Anyway, we don't need that image and there's no source to add it. I really don't understand why it's being pushed so hard.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What is so difficult to understand? The precise dispute between Plato and Aristotle depicted in that image is extensively referenced in LaRouche's writing, as described in secondary sources. That is what most of the section is about. I think it does a good job illustrating the article. Looking abck at this thread, your first objection to the image was that we shouldn't have content in captions that we don't have in the body text. I offered to remedy that; then you said it was because LaRouche wasn't in the picture. Then you wanted to add an image of Plato, or the Platonic forms instead, even though we're not writing about those in that section. Then you said it was necessary that the image should have been mentioned in a secondary source writing about LaRouche. I understand you don't like the picture, but you give a different reason each time. To me, it's clearly related to the content of that section. That is why it is useful. It helps place LaRouche's ideas in philosophical context. --JN466 21:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added a more relevant image, to a concept directly discussed in the text, to an illustration from Platonic solid.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That one is of more tangential relevance to the text than the one above; it relates to one sentence, whereas the other relates to the section as a whole. --JN466 22:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The section is on "neo-Platonism", not on Raphael's painting. The detail from the painting adds nothing, while the Kepler drawing illustrates a concept graphically which is otherwise obscure.   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just googled the image; a very similar section of it is actually used on the Schiller Institute website: [3]. Also used in full here: [4] It still isn't clear to me why you object to the image; would you care to explain? I think it works because it establishes the wider context of his ideas. There is a wider philosophical dispute between Platonism and Aristotelianism, which LaRouche references, although it does take a peculiar and distorted form in LaRouche's world view, as the caption pointed out. --JN466 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Kepler image is used often in LaRouche publications, and the concept that it illustrates is central to LaRouche's view of science. The Raphael painting is much less informative, and to the extent that it illustrates anything we can explain the division between the two philosophical views better with text.   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. The Plato/Aristotle image illustrates what is at the heart of that section; it's precisely what we are writing about. I don't mind having the Kepler image as well, but the Plato/Aristotle image directly relates to the content. It's not like we have a surfeit of images in the article. --JN466 01:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The Raphael image provides pictures of the philosophers, but their physical appearance makes no difference to LaRouche. If it did, the busts would be more accurate depictions.   Will Beback  talk  02:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The important point about the image is not the physical appearance of the philosophers, but that it pictorialises the dispute LaRouche references: Plato pointing to heaven, the realm of ideas underlying physical reality in the Platonist world view, and Aristotle pointing to the ground, asserting that the material world is all that exists. --JN466 13:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The image is actually in prominent use by the movement itself. I posted a couple of examples above; other examples found in Google Images include the Campaigner cover shown here, and the Fidelio cover here. --JN466 13:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

All we care about in this article is LaRouche's view of the dispute, not Raphael's. We can do a fine job of describing LaRouche's views without that image which reduces complex philosophical questions to a couple of hand gestures. The Kepler image is also used frequently in LaRouche publications, but it illustrates something much harder to describe.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind using both pictures. I have been unable to glean from your responses why you object to the use of the image. --JN466 23:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Homeowners and Bank Protection Act

• In 2007, LaRouche proposed a "Homeowners and Bank Protection Act". ... It failed to be adopted in Congress.

What's our source for Congress's failure to adopt the act? The text gives the impression that it was introduced as a bill, but my impression is that Congress never considered it. I suggest either deleting that line or, if we have a source, explaining its history in Congress.   Will Beback  talk  06:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Also regarding that section, HousingPredictor.com may be a self-published source. The writer of that article, Mike Colpitts, is elsewhere described as the site's editor[5] and he self-describes as its founder and as a real estate broker.[http://activerain.com/housingpredictor] I don't see any sign of additional staff. What indication do we have that this is a reliable source?   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The article in question, "Chain Reaction Slams World Housing Markets" seems to be a partial restatement of "From Massachusetts Bay Colony to Tunis, Today: How Shall We Reverse the Global Chain-Reaction Collapse?".   Will Beback  talk  06:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Colpitts is quoted as a housing market expert and forecaster in reliable sources; here for example in The New York Times [6], Die Welt [7], Bloomberg Businessweek [8], MSNBC [9], The Philadelphia Inquirer [10]. The site is not a one-man operation. --JN466 14:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

While Colpitts is an expert, the fact that he made the comment on his own site, rather than in one of these publications, does speak against quoting his view in the article though. I'm a little bit torn here; on the one hand Colpitts is an expert forecaster, and if he says LaRouche's forecasts have been accurate, then it's not without weight; on the other hand, his site is not a particularly prominent publication. I wonder if this is comparable to the Feldman quote, which we discussed above; Feldman is an expert too, and in the end we decided against using him on the basis that the source was more or less self-published. If you want to make an argument along those lines, Will, I'd be happy to drop the quote. Any views from other editors welcome. --JN466 16:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Colpitts is an expert forecaster of housing trends, not banking regulation. Why do you say that the site is not a one-man operation? I don't see any indication that HousingPredictor.com has an editorial staff or anyone else working there.   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Colpitts is a forecaster, so presumably he has expertise in judging the quality of forecasts. Have you not noticed that several authors are regular contributors on the site? [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] If you think Colpitt's view is not notable enough, feel free to delete it. --JN466 21:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Colpitts is a real estate agent who created a forecasting website. He's not an academic. As for the other contributors, I hadn't found those. They appear to be other real estate agents. However having other contributors does not mean that there is any editorial oversight of Colpitts' writings. In other LaRouche articles we deleted citations to Nicholas Benton, editor-in-chief and owner of a small, respectable newspaper on account of a lack of apparent oversight over his writing. Ditto for Feldman.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If we keep the Colpitts material then I think we should allow the Benton material back in as well.   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean and have dropped the sentence. The wording as it stands now is unlikely to lead the reader to believe that Congress did consider (or even adopt) the bill. --JN466 14:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that was unclear. I believe it that a resolution urging passage of the bill in Congress may have been considered in the Pennsylvania legislature, and at least a couple of city councils passed them.   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it was a fair comment. My research found a petition to Congress, and references to "urging" Congress, but nothing more substantial. --JN466 21:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dividing content by nature of source

I don't understand the logic of this edit, summarized as "separate scholarly description and journalistic reception". Is Johnson a scholar or a journalist, or both. It seems to me more logical to discuss a topic including all significant sources and then move on to the next topic, instead of segregating sources and presenting views on a single topic in different places. Johnson certainly isn't the only person who's commented on the neo-Platonism ideology. How are we going to handle additional sources? Integrate them or give each author/surce a separate section?   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

We can cross that bridge when we come to it. :) Johnson's writing style is quite different in his book than it is in his press article. I'd rather represent each source faithfully than present an uneven mixture that reflects neither source. --JN466 22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Where else do we do that? if we're going to devote sections or paragraphs to one view alone then it should be labeled at the outset. "According to Johnson's 1983 book...." However I don't think that's a good way of writing about a topic like this. How is Johnson's style different from one source to another? Johnson is not a scholar, he's a journalist, so i don't understand why his book is called a "scholarly" description in opposition to his other writings.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Left and right are false distinctions for LaRouche; what matters is the Platonic versus Aristotelian outlook, a position that Johnson says led LaRouche to form relationships with groups as disparate as farmers, nuclear engineers, Black Muslims, Teamsters, pro-lifers, and followers of the Ku Klux Klan—even though LaRouche counts the Klan itself among his foes. Commentators like Johnson in Architects of Fear (1983) and George and Wilcox in American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others (1996) have written that this philosophy can be applied to any number of situations in a manner that becomes plausible once one accepts its basic premise. In their view, it forms the foundation of a conspiracy theory that justifies paranoid thinking.

I don't understand why these sources are all lumped together, but Johnson(1989) is segregated. Are we going to re-write it so that each source is presented separately?   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It works there; it didn't in the other case. Don't you think it's good writing to present views, and opinions on these views, separately? We do that many times in Wikipedia. --JN466 22:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't it work? I don't understand why some of Johnson's remarks about Platonism are segregated but others are not. I think it'd be best to keep material on a topic together. The material in question is just as relevant to the views as the other sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Because one is a factual description, and the other is a critique. What I am trying to do is to first have a clear, neutral, factual description of the philosophy, and then the critique. We shouldn't be trying to do both things at once. Does that make sense? --JN466 01:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The material in italics posted above does not appear to be a factual description, but rather an assessment.   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done some more work separating critique from content. [18] I take the view that left and right being viewed as false distinctions falls under content, rather than assessment. --JN466 12:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We should probably attribute that "left /right distinction" material. With this end-of-paragraph citation scheme I can't even tell which source says that.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's from Johnson, pg. 192, and attributed to LaRouche himself: "'Left' and 'right', Larouche says, are false distinctions, smoke screens used by the conspirators. What counts is whether you are on the side of Plato or Aristotle ..." --JN466 23:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Where does Johnson connect that view to LaRouche's outreach to Black Muslims, et al? "...a position that Johnson says led LaRouche to form relationships with groups as disparate as farmers, nuclear engineers, Black Muslims, Teamsters, pro-lifers, and followers of the Ku Klux Klan...". 00:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've re-read Johnson and can't find this connection. He says that LaRouche eschews left/right divisions, and that he has formed relationships with these groups, but he doesn't seem to connect the two causally. Other authors seem to explain those relationships as being inspired by expediency or opportunism rather than a philosophical or political belief.   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy

Thanks for adding the summary of the review. However I think we need to keep an eye on the weight issue. The book is not cited frequently by either the LaRouche movement or anyone else, and we only have a single source for it. Something closer to a single paragraph would probably be more appropriate, perhaps 200 words instead of 472.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Two sources are cited; I'll have a look for other ones. I think there are some points of interest, some of which tie in with what comes later on. McLemee refers to the book as LaRouche's "theoretical magnum opus". --JN466 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I see a citation to McLemee, but since McLemee doesn't say much about the book I'm not sure what in the material is sourced to it. Which material do we use McLemee for?   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466 was kind enough to send a copy of the review. I think his summary is accurate. However I still question the amount of space devoted to it. Despite McLemee's comment, the book does not seem particularly significant to LaRouche's notable views, or those of the movement. While the reviewer and journal are highly esteemed, we have other issues which have received far more attention. Would it be possible to cut it down by about half?   Will Beback  talk  05:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Unlike the BLP, this article is not in any present danger of reaching a prohibitive size. It's useful content; it covers LaRouche's own dictatorial tendencies, his criticism of almost all other Marxists besides himself, an early indication of his antipathy towards the British, some of his basic views on economics, his familiarity with private business (he was, after all, a management consultant, and is personally wealthy), which is all useful stuff. Points covered in Inside Higher Ed include the large amount of history, anthropology and sociology in the book, and his private business experience. IHE also quotes Bronfenbrenner's “distinct impression, redolent of the 1930s, of the one-man-party member with whom the world is out of step”. I didn't use that quote, but it's partly why I included LaRouche's censure of most other Marxists, and the final quote from Bronfenbrenner about dictatorship. --JN466 12:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article is in danger of reaching a prohibitive size. Bill Masen has twice come through to reduce the article to a more readable length and to improve its balance. When he started in August 2010, the article had 9423 words. In early March it had 5364 words. Now it's up to 7066 words. If we start adding long sections on minor topics then we'll make it less readable and less balanced. WP:WEIGHT is an important part of NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"LaRouche, AIDS and the British"

LaRouche has alluded ambiguously to this before in his conspiracy theories, but in this video it becomes shockingly explicit: http://www.larouchepac.com/node/17802 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.251.206 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Party Line

This [19] p 12A is the "source" for the claim that "LaRouche's views are the party line of the LaRouche movement." which is made in the first sentence in this article. On closer inspection, the "Evening Standard" article turned out to be nothing more than a slanderous, highly biased opinion piece by an abandoned, local newspaper expressing a personal view of its editor. The tone of the article is designed to ridicule its subject, therefore i cannot agree that it is a [WP:RS], or even close to neutral, nor can i agree that it is accurately summarized, the word "party line" does not even appear in the "ES" article. If the sentence about the "Party Line" should remain in the article about the views, i sincerely ask for a better source. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The tone of some of the sources you offered on another page regarding LYM is not neutral at all. Is it necessary for sources to project an appearance of neutrality for them to be reliable? if so then many of the LaRouche sources will need to be removed.

The author of the source in question is a notable columnist, Donald Kaul.

Is there an issue with the assertion itself? Is there a record of members of the LaRouche movement disagreeing on significant with Lyndon LaRouche? Is freedom of thought encouraged within the movement?   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it is quite obvious that this "source" is flippant, jocular and highly biased "[LaRouche is a] neo-nazi, trotskyite, crazy, nut..etc". This article does not seriously qualify as a source for the assertion that LaRouche's opinion turn into a mystical "party line". Kaul simply asserts this, with no proof or explanation at all. This is my problem with the quote. This gives the reader the impression, that LaRouche thinks up every idea for himself, with no input whatsoever from the movement, top down. Yet, the [LaRouche Movement] article writes of quote "interlocking think tanks that formulate varied economic, cultural, and scientific initiatives" and lists several researchers and writers. If you want to keep it, i propose we either assume the line of the "Movement" article (the think-tank idea) or you find a source which proves that the members of the movement are heteronomical no-brainers. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not an appropriate goal. I doubt we could even find any source which uses the word "heteronomical". ;)

Are you saying that the LaRouche sources which are flip, jocular, or highly biased should not be used either? it seems like you were just offering such a source[20] for another article.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This may be a case for the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Anyway, the source is too weak for such an extraordinary claim. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you answer the question about how your theory of rejecting "flip, jocular, or highly biased" sources applies to the source you offered for the WLYM article?

Are you actually arguing that it's an extraordinary claim to say that the LaRouche movement follows LaRouche's views?   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This wiki article sums up an unproven, slanderous, biased and highly personal opinion "by "he" I mean all LaRouche followers; internal dissent is not a big number with them" into the sentence "LaRouche's views are the party line of the LaRouche movement." This is first, Kaul's own opinion (I doubt he seriously checked it) and can by no means be summed up the way it is done here, it is too weak for this purpose. I don't know why you are constantly coming up with the WLYM article, which by the way just uses bare facts and which you did not even link properly. ;) 81.210.206.223 (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask you again: Are none of the LaRouche sources "flip, jocular, or highly biased"?   Will Beback  talk  23:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

My argument remains that this source is unappropriate for such the bold assertion that LaRouche's opinion is the "party line". Are none of the other secondary sources biased, flippant and jocular? Find some reliable sources to back up your claim, the Kaul article is unappropriate.23:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.206.223 (talk)

Furthermore, the assertion (supported by a single low-quality source) is in the lead and nowhere else in the article, whereas the lead is supposed to summarize what is in the article. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead doesn't come close to even trying to summarize the article. Would you like me to revise it so that it does?

I've found another source and will add that. It's really not an uncommon view, although my searches for "heteronomic" are still coming up short.   Will Beback  talk  00:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So can we delete the other, low-quality source by Kaul? 81.210.206.223 (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If we delete all "flip, jocular, or highly biased" sources "designed to ridicule" then many LaRouche sources will have to be deleted too. They are much lower quality than this mainstream newspaper columnist. Do we agree?   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

We should stick to high quality, reliable sources. My reasons why a particular source is low quality are relevant for this specific source, but were not meant as editing policy. Please dont mix this up. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're following policy, then it should be applied evenly. If we're not following policy, then let's drop it.   Will Beback  talk  02:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Queen and drug trafficking

IP editor 81.210.206.223 has said that the material Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement#The Queen and drug trafficking is not closely related to the LYM. That material would seem more appropriate in this article. Currently we don't give much attention to one of LaRouche's most famous views. It's buried in "The "British" conspiracy" section and is mentioned only in reference to a book. I propose moving it over and making it a subsection. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  02:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What part of the material do you consider valuable for the article?81.210.206.223 (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

All of it, though it would benefit from some re-writing.   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What exacty do you consider "buried" in the article and why do you consider it as "buried"? 81.210.206.223 (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is covered well in the article now. It's one of LaRouche's most notable views, and is more complex than the usual short formulation. It merits a subsection of its own. NPOV says that views should receive weight according to their prominence.   Will Beback  talk  07:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please define what exactly "the issue" is? 81.210.206.223 (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"The Queen and drug trafficking".   Will Beback  talk  08:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This specific issue has been the subject of 5 discussions on the "views" talk, 5 in the bio article, 1 disc in the "movement" article and 1 in the NCLC article. It is thus disputed and controversial. This is why i think its inclusion or exclusion and ,if at all included, the way it is presented should be more than well considered.81.210.206.223 (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess you've been around longer than I have. ;) Anyway, I've raised it here for consideration. Does anyone disagree that it is among LaRouche's most famous views?   Will Beback  talk  09:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. I reviewed the archived talk pages. This takes about 15 minutes. For my part I would maintain that it is not up to just 1 editor to decide about the materials exclusion or inclusion. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, what can you tell us about those previous discussions? Was there ever a consensus between legitimate editors on how to present this material?   Will Beback  talk  10:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you might know more about this material and its discussions. After all, according to my count,you brought it up for discussion 3 times now. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Was there ever a consensus among legitimate editors on this? Either way, it's a current proposal. If there's something informative in the past discussions then please bring it forward.   Will Beback  talk  10:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I just checked the archives of this page and the bio talk page, and I can't find any significant discussion of this material. There have been passing references, but they dealt more with the "coded references" concept than with the simple allegation of drug dealing. If 81.210.206.223 is aware of any discussions I've missed that are relevant then I'd appreciate it if he could link to them. We don't want to keep going over the same ground.   Will Beback  talk  19:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not averse to including something on this, but we should note WP:Rs#Quotations and ensure that if we present LaRouche's views on this, it is in a form that LaRouche would recognise as his view. --JN466 00:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I'll start work on this.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche and the movement have made a number of allegations regarding the Queen of England, which are a subset of the allegations regarding the British Empire, the City of London, and the nation in general. While we have a section on the general allegations, I suggest focusing this section on the allegations concerning Queen and the royal family in particular, but not limited to the drug allegation, although that is the most prominent. While it should include quotations or citations to actual comments by LaRouche and members of the movement, it's important to include other viewpoints even if (or especially if) those differ from the movement's own views. WP:RS#Quotations is a useful guideline in some circumstances, but it does not trump NPOV which requires including all significant points of view.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The best way to start work on text is by to compile source material. To that end, I'm adding relevant excerpts to Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/Queen, arranged by source and date. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to help. The material in the article will be a summary of that material.   Will Beback  talk  22:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think the source file is largely complete now. There are excerpts from 10 books and citations to 22 more, all of which contain some form of the assertion. There are 109 excerpts from periodicals. That number could have been twice as high but I left out most of those who simply repeated short forms of the assertion. A few excerpts are about other crimes or plots by the royal family besides the drug trade. Significantly, there are several which explicitly remark that the dope dealing claim is what LaRouche is best known for. I could have added more of those but they are sufficient. Based on that level of prominence, this issue clearly deserves considerable weight within the article.

I have included 17 excerpts from LaRouche publications. The most recent, from a year ago, states plainly: "Yes, Mabel, the Queen of England does push dope. Anyone who seeks to deny this now, is worse than a Nazi-like liar. [..] One of the leading features of the practices of the drug-pushing British monarchy, is the British effort to destroy the Catholic Church..." From 1995 is a letter to the editor from LaRouche in which he fails to deny the assertion while denying another. At other times, he or his aides have denied it or said he was misinterpreted.

Does anyone have any other sources to add before we start summarizing the sources?   Will Beback  talk  07:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've also added a survey of previous text on the subject from this article and the biography. Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/Queen#Versions. The current version is based almost entirely on text added by HK's accounts, so there's no reason to use it as a basis for a fresh draft. Instead we should start from scratch using the provided sources.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work compiling the material. From what you have on your page, it is a complex topic, with LaRouche claiming at various points that he is being misrepresented. Would you mind if we draft something here on the talk page, or on a subpage, first? --JN466 13:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My plan was to make a draft first, maybe even starting with an outline. The responses from LaRouche himself are complex, as he or his followers seems to alternate between repeating the claim and denying it. For that and other reasons, we should probably rely mostly on the secondary sources. I think it'll take at least three to five paragraphs. The first paragraph should probably start with the claim of notability: that this is what LaRouche is best known for. That could be followed by the oft-cited quoted "Of course she's pushing drugs. That is, in the sense of..." Then a paragraph or two on details of the accusations. We might add a paragraph about Dope, Inc., the most prominent publication making the charge. Then a final paragraph about the denials and re-affirmations. We currently devote over 600 words to the matter. I think we can fit the re-write into about the same space.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Columbia Free Press

Is the "Columbia Free Press" a RS? It looks like some sort of "alternative" news media outlet. It is used here: [Marable, Manning (January 17, 1997). "No Compromise with Racism: Farrakhan, Chavis and Lyndon La Rouche - Part One of a Two Part Series". Columbus Free Press.] Is this a quality source? Opinions? 81.210.206.223 (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I checked Infotrac and EBSCO's Teacher Reference Center, as well as doing a Google search, and can't find any mention of it anywhere. Does anyone else have any information on this publication? Cla68 (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Manning Marable, who just passed away, was a respected scholar and commentator, and an expert on African American history. I believe that the column in question was syndicated, so the cited publication doesn't matter much. It was also published in New York Amsterdam News and The Sun-Reporter.[21] Regardless of that, alternative media outlets, such as Columbus Free Press, aren't necessarily unreliable either.   Will Beback  talk  06:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't have any information on Columbia Free Press either. In my opinion, it's not an issue of whether its a free publication or not. The problem is, if we can't find the publication, then we can't meet WP:V. Do you have the full citation for the columnn in New York Amsterdam News or Sun-Reporter? Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's right here. [22]   Will Beback  talk  07:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So, it's this organization? Cla68 (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a connection, besides a similar name.   Will Beback  talk  07:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the "about us" page for the newspaper.[23]   Will Beback  talk  07:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If you click on the "home page" link to that website, it does confirm that it is the organization in the article I linked to. That website is run by an activist organization. So, if we use it, it probably should be attributed in the text. If Manning's column really is run in over 300 publications, as it claims at the bottom of that web page, then it shouldn't be a problem to find a source for it that isn't a self-published website with a political agenda. Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many newspapers in the U.S. with "Free Press" in their name. Could you quote the text or the link you're referring to that connects the newspaper to the Free Press (organization)? And where does it say that the newspaper is self-published? The "about us" page I linked to lists "Editor & Publisher: Bob Fitrakis, Managing Editor : Suzanne Patzer, Senior Editor : Harvey Wasserman. Self-published websites don't have three editors who are different from the author.   Will Beback  talk  07:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the link you gave. Clicking on the "Back to Front Page" link at the bottom of that page brings you to this which is the Free Press (organization) (see link on the right). The link on the left side goes to the website which hosts the Columbus Free Press. So, it appears that the publication is run, or at least hosted, by that political organization. To me, that means that we should, at least, attribute the source in the text. Cla68 (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the box in the center: "As a service to those of you who would like to visit the websites of either of these independent organizations, we present the dual gateway below." They are "independent organizations". And our text is already attributed to the author.   Will Beback  talk  07:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So, you have a source that is openly promoting traffic to a political activist organization on the entry page to its website? The free press site openly declares a political bias in their reporting, "Progressive news and commentary". I don't see anything wrong with attributing the source of the column when it's not a major publication. If someone said that we should attribute information taken from the Washington Times, I would consider that a reasonable request since that paper is run by the Moonies. Cla68 (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I think that there are two organizations with similar names and web domains. For the convenience of readers they've made a "disambiguation" page. I don't think it implies any endorsement or other connection. It certainly doesn't state any. All newspapers with Times in their titles are not part of the same organization either.

In this case, the column ran in at least three newspapers. We can attribute it to all three if we think that would actually improve the article, though I've never seen that done in any other article.   Will Beback  talk  07:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like some of the same assertions appear in Marable's book, Black Leadership (1998). Is the Columbia University Press a sufficiently reliable publisher?   Will Beback  talk  08:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

All I suggested was attributing the source in the text. What is your reason for not wanting to do so? Cla68 (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We do attribute it to the source: Marable Manning. It hardly matters where the column was printed, but if folks here agree that attributing all newspaper sources in every article would be a good thing then we can start be adding them here. I believe there are several dozen in this article alone. But since readers can simply click on the footnote, it seems pointless and would make the article harder to read.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's in the book, then let's just use the book, and this discussion will be moot. --JN466 01:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Part of it is in the book and I've adjusted the citations to reflect that. Another part is only in the column.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, part 2 of the series is identical in the Sun Reporter (as archived on Highbeam) and Columbus Free Press: [24], [25]. I can't find Part 1 on Highbeam, but I don't see a very good reason to assume it didn't appear in the Sun Reporter as well, given that part 2 is clearly marked as part 2 both on Highbeam and the Columbus Free Press site. --JN466 01:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Environment and energy

I started a section on the matter of "Environment and energy", central issues for the movement, and ones where they are leading advocates. I have a dozen books on hold at the library on the matter, and many additional sources to yet add, so the material is less than half complete. Due to the extensive coverage in 3rd-party sources, it's apparent that the topic of global warming/climate change and other environmental/energy issues deserves significant weight in this article.   Will Beback  talk  09:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with a section on environment and energy. I will happily add the primary sources. Waalkes (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

How are you going to decide which primary sources to add?   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the existing material it seems like all viewpoints are included. What's left out, specically?   Will Beback  talk  11:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I must have a look at your new sources first. In case they are acceptable as sources i have no issues yet, but ill gonna have a look at the relevant section now. If any questions should arise,

I might be able to help, as I have some science background. Cheers.Waalkes (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't delete well-sourced material. The fact that Limbaugh quoted the LaRouche sources is reported in multiple sources and show how significant they are. Maduro's scientific qualifications are relevant since he's such an important researcher, and are also reported in multiple sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please dont revert my edits on Maduro and Limbaugh again. "Deny" is a subjective term, we don't use in scientific discourse. A theory is challenged, but not "denied". Also, noone cares what a crazed right-wing commentator thinks about LaRouche's theories. At last, don't revert my deletion of Maduro's background. It is not important, otherwise we would also be adding something on the background of one of the main sources of this article, namely Chip Berlet. Waalkes (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The qualifications of a scientific researcher are relevant, which is why the sources mention it. I don't care so much about the Limbaugh, though as I say it's very well-sourced. Here's yet another source for it: [26].

As for "challenging" versus "denying" a theory, I'm not sure where that rule is laid out. Maduro denied that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer. For example, he wrote an article titled "CFCs are not depleting the ozone layer".[27]   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, theories are usually "challenged", "questioned" or "doubted", but not "denied", that would give ab false impression of undeniable truthfulness, which is what is not wanted in science. concerning limbaugh, im open to suggestions and opinions.Waalkes (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Any sources to support this theory of theory denial semantics?

As for Limbaugh, many sources say he prominently repeated claims about ozone depletion that originated with Maduro. That's relevant because it shows how significant Maduro's assertions have been.   Will Beback  talk  10:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with "questioned the theory". It's the neutral expression to use. Are you fmiliar with Maduro's book to safely say that he does not accept ANY assertion about the ozone hole whatsoever? then i would go with "deny". In any other case, i prefer "question". Waalkes (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

To say that something is flat out wrong is not to question it. "Question" does no convey Maduro's stance on the issue adequately. Here's a line from a popular science magazine:

• Larouche's followers are part of a continuing movement that has come to be known as the ozone backlash. Afforded ostensible respectability by a handful of contrarian scientists, it seeks to deny the environmental threat posed by thinning of the Earth's fragile ozone shield, and to roll back the ban on the chemicals that have contributed to it. [28]

Maybe the problem is with the word "theory". If the conjunction of "theory" and "denial" is troublesome then it'd make more sense to get rid of "theory".   Will Beback  talk  12:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The complex relationship of CfC and the ozone layer and human influence and how Cfc influence it is a theory which can be debated, uestioned and challenged. Also, i asked if we should mention Chip Berlet's credentials for the sake of consistency. Your opionion? Waalkes (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If third party sources mention Berlet's credentials in the context of discussing his work on the LaRouche movement, then it might be appropriate to include. We already discuss King's past political connections, and Maduro's scientific credentials are of equal or greater relevance.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, what's about Footnote 117? It just says "Edwards"?Waalkes (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that "Edwards" is a primary source. Is this correct? Why are you using it and which criteria did you use to select it? In addition, i would like to add that the tone of the article on environment sounds like a conspiracy theory. It should be rewritten to reflect that fact, that the Larouche movement was engaged in a SCIENTIFIC debate. Waalkes (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It is described as a conspiracy theory by several writers, and is connected with the overall Malthusian genocide plot. I'm still working on this section. There are a couple of significant sources I haven't added yet, and I need to fill in some citations. I hadn't been aware of how much had been written on this topic.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Edwards quote, it is a primary source. I actually found that in the Edwards article, where I now see it was added by user:Terrawatt, a sock of HK.[29] However it fits my criteria for using brief quotes from primary sources: it provides an illustration for something what has been referred to in secondary sources. Edward's claim of millions of lives lost is frequently cited and that specific paper has also been cited. So the quote provides the assertion in the author's own words. However if there's an objection to it we could paraphrase the quote or just refer to the assertion more generally without using the primary source. Primary sources need to be used with care, and if they are significantly disputed they should probably be omitted.   Will Beback  talk  23:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's another short description, from an academic paper describing various viewpoints and citing Maduro for the denial viewpoint:

• The problem of ozone depletion does not exist: There is a fierce publicity action to deny the problem of ozone depletion. It would be a fake problem, brought into the world by commercial interests. Moreover, the reasoning continues, even if ozone depletion would occur, it would not lead to more UV-radiation, and even if there would come more UV radiation, that would be beneficial rather than harmful (Maduro and Schauerhammer, 1992).
  • van der Leun, J.C. (1 November 1995). "Assessment report on NRP subtheme 'Effects of enhanced UV-B radiation'". In S. Zwerver (ed.). Climate change research: evaluation and policy implications : proceedings of the International Climate Change Research Conference, Maastricht, the Netherlands, 6-9 December 1994. Elsevier. p. 983. ISBN 9780444821430.

That brings out an element not already in the text: that even if there were ozone depletion it wouldn't lead to any harm.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I still see no sufficient rationale for the inclusion of Maduro's academic credentials and the exclusion of Berlet's academic credentials. Waalkes (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think the scientific training of the lead author of the leading book "questioning" ozone depletion is irrelevant? Several authors think it's relevant enough to include in their short descriptions, presumably to point out that he only has an undergraduate degree in an unrelated field. Since he's apparently contradicting atmospheric scientists with advanced degrees, that puts his views into perspective. Is there any other information about Maduro which would be or equal or greater relevance?   Will Beback  talk  21:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it help if we'd put Chip Berlet's views (the main source of this article) in perspective by adding that he attained no degree? Waalkes (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The main source for this article, directly or indirectly, is Lyndon LaRouche. Would it help if we put his views in perspective by adding that he attained no degree? ;)   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It is also helpful to acknowledge that "deny" and "denial" are advocacy terms used by "green" activists, and that if they appear in the article they should be put in quotes. Waalkes (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"Deny" is a common term in the English language. The article currently includes this text; A 1998 editorial in LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review denied that he had said the Queen was a drug trafficker,.. Are you saying we need to put that word into quotation marks? I don't think that would help the article.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Laundry list

This article is a laundry list of every possible topic which can remotely be associated with LaRouche. Despicable as he is, this sort of laundry list, melange, and misch-mosch is not a reasonable article at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it's isn't a list of every possible topic which can be remotely associated with LaRouche. It is, with minor exceptions, a description of the main views of an active political movement, one that has it's own unique political platform. A number of those views have been significant enough to affect the general discourse. It is based almost entirely, on reliable, published reports. It's actually a much more rigorously written article then many other "views" articles. See Political positions of Mike Huckabee or other articles in Category:Political positions of American politicians.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are specific issues of concern we can discuss those. However this complaint is so non-specifc and so unfounded that it's impossible to address.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Any view not directly linked to LaRouche or to a formal position of his movement should go. Right now, it seems that any article in any publication produced by LaRouche or any associated with him, or anyone associated with any organization remotely connected to him, or anything said by anone associated with any publication, or involved with anything written connected even marginally to LaRouche, is fair game for inclusion. This makes for an absurdly broad net, somewhat worse that the Scientology mess. The solution is to focus on material relating directly to his formal positions, and to formal positions stated by his personal organization. Otherwise, this remains one of the worst articles on all of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)