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

Neutrality and COI

I am the one who added the tags, which were then removed by John Nevard in violation of Wiki rules. I had provided my reasons on this page, but they too have been removed, so I'm starting fresh.

Numerous socks on the pro-LaRouche team have been foiled by checkuser and banned, whereas the socks on the anti-LaRouche team continue to run free. Under the Wiki rules of combat, as explained to me above, this means the victorious team is allowed to delete sections of sourced material, like the way the ancient Native American warriors used to take scalps from their fallen opponents. This may harm the article content, but who cares about that? However, the result is that the anti-LaRouche team has slanted the article too far in its direction, which is the basis for my neutrality dispute.

Also, editor Dking is Dennis King, which causes a conflict of interest so big that it can be seen from space. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that each of these accusations really needs to be made in some appropriate forum other than the article talk page.--Janeyryan (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Leatherstocking, it's a basic Wikipedia policy that banned users may not edit. That's what "banning" means. If you look over this article, you'll probably find that most of it was written by HK or his socks, and very little of his writing has ever been removed. But HK is banned now and may not edit here any longer. In the future, any time his socks are identified their "contributions" will be deleted, per policy. If he doesn't like that then he can appeal his ban to the ArbCom. Ditto for Gnetwerker. As for King, this has been discussed many times before. By previous agreement, Dking is only inserting materials that have been published in reliable sources. So far as I'm aware, he hasn't written anything for publication about the subject in a long time and receives no royalties from the sales of his out-of-print book. On many issues, such as LaRouche's promotion of SDI, there is no comparable 3rd-party source available. We can't source this entire article from LaRouche-movement publications. Finally, there's only one team here, the pro-Wikipedia team. Let's all work together in compliance with the site's policies and guidelines to make the best encyclopedia possible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know with whom Dking made this "previous agreement" -- it ought to be aired publicly if such an agreement exists. And I don't think he's abiding by it -- he often just inserts his opinions, unsourced. And as far as his book is concerned, it is a mass of highly dubious conspiracy theories mixed with some useful research. I'm not saying that either his book or the LaRouche publications should be banned as a source, nor should either be automatically accepted as a source. I am however saying that Dking has a clearcut COI problem and edits he wishes to make should be discussed on this page in advance. --Leatherstocking (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to your own view, but Lyndon LaRouche and the new American fascism meets Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source. It was published by a major, mainstream publisher with a good reputation. The book itself was widely and favorably reviewed. I don't recall where we all agreed to Dking not using unpublished material from his website, but I think we can all agree that it's best, given current sourcing rules for BLPs, that he not do so. Please explain how you think King's COI is different from your own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the COI tag. There doesn't appear to be sufficient justification for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• POV tag

Why is there a POV tag on the page? Specifically, what part of the article violates WP:NPOV? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is slanted toward fringe viewpoints. During the long time it was protected, it was fairly balanced. Now there is undue weight given to claims like "LaRouche is a fascist," which SlimVirgin put in the intro. That view is only held by a few fanatics. Janeyryan, please note that the tag may not be removed until the dispute is resolved. --Leatherstocking (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the sources you're calling a "fanatic" is Dr. Matthew Feldman, senior lecturer in 20th-century history at the University of Northampton in the UK, a specialist in fascism, co-author of Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science, editor of A Fascist Century: Essays by Roger Griffin, and editor of Routledge's quarterly journal, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions.

When an academic with that kind of background expresses the view that LaRouche is a fascist, it's an opinion that deserves to be prominent in the article, and he's not the only critic holding this view. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

[E/C] The assertion that "LaRouche is a fascist" has been made on many occasions, and is printed in reliable sources. Searching Google for [LaRouche fascist OR fascism] retrieves a supposed 92,000 ghits, and an actual 635 hits.[1] For specific references, besides the obvious ones by King, Berlet, and Wohlforth, see Fascism By Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman ISBN 0415290201, The Party By Barry Sheppard ISBN 1876646500, Race in the Global Era By Clarence Lusane ISBN 0896085732. What evidence do you have that this is a fringe viewpoint? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Was the late U.S. Senator Daniel P. Moynihan being a "fanatic" when he called LaRouche a fascist in 1986? Was the late ADL factfinding director Irwin Suall being a "fanatic" when he called LaRouche a "small-time Hitler" in 1984? Was the federal court civil jury in LaRouche v. NBC being fanatical when it found Suall not guilty of libel for his above remark about LaRouche, and even awarded the defendants hefty damages at LaRouche's expense?--Dking (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no shortage of fringe fanatics who have gotten jobs at universities and published books. After all, according to this very article, LaRouche himself had a book published by a reputable publisher, D.C. Heath. Likewise, any fanatic can spam the internet with his views. That's why Wikipedia has a COI problem: fringe characters open accounts here and quote themselves, hoping to get some Google juice. All the people Will Beback mentions know each other and function as a clique, well out of the mainstream.

In answer to Dennis King, I don't think Moynihan and the ADL were being fanatics; they were engaging in dirty politics. That's different. Also, I see another example of non-neutral, biased editing by Dennis King, where he deletes P.A. Scherer's 3rd party verification of the "back channel" and then adds his personal observation that there is no 3rd party verification.

Here is how I would handle the problem of keeping fringe viewpoints out of the intro to this article: take a sampling of how "newspapers of record" like the New York Times have described LaRouche over the past decade or so, and use that as a guide for how the intro should be written. (By the way, there was a big push by the anti-LaRouche team to say that LaRouche was not an economist, and I found this: [2].)

At WP:BLP it is written: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides." --Leatherstocking (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While it's possible that scholars, journalists, and politicians are fringe fanatics, the burden of proof is on the person making that assertion. To assert that scholars on two continents form a clique for the purpose of spreading falsehoods about LaRouche requires proof, otherwise it comes very close to being a BLP violation. Mainstream newspapers have used the term "fascist" in relation to LaRouche and his politics. (see below). They use all kinds of terms, so many that we need to include a selcection in order to illustrate the range. As for your last point, LaRouche's political position is relevant to his notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is politics, and politics is full of name-calling. Your Google searches have yielded editorial polemics and quotes from political opponents, in addition to more of the usual nonsense from "alternative newspapers" and people like Chip Berlet. You could easily get similar results for George W. Bush[3] and Vladimir Putin[4], but because those political figures are more high-profile than LaRouche, attempts to put those sorts of polemics in their article intros are quickly reverted by Wikipedia administrators. Apparently Wikipedia doesn't have enough administrators to police the more obscure articles like this one. I'll repeat my proposal in case you missed it: take a sampling of how "newspapers of record" like the New York Times have described LaRouche over the past decade or so, and use that as a guide for how the intro should be written. --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your searches brought up random pages that simply mentioned the names and phrase somewhere. If you look at Vladimir Putin, you'll see that it does include assertions of a fascistic tendency in Putin government. If you look below, you'll see that several major newspapers are included: Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun - Times, Boston Globe, Houston Chronicle, Wall Street Journal. I'm not sure why we'd limit ourselves to the last decade. No one is asserting that LaRouche has changed his politics in the last 30 years. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The accusation in the Putin article is under "criticism," not in the intro. And in your citations, we're now down to just four major press, and it looks like three out of the four are opinion pieces. So it boils down to this: your team-mates have insisted on giving undue weight to claims that LaRouche is a "fascist," while suppressing reports in Associated Press and New York Times that he is an "economist." This is a neutrality problem and a BLP problem. And on top of this, you personally have taken it upon yourself to remove the COI tag regarding Dennis King. So, the basis for the dispute is clear enough. It's high time an administrator came in and cleaned up this article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The same paragraph that mentions he's been called "fascist" also says he's been called an "economist". As for COI, you never justified the addition of the tag. The burden is on you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

See below. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Fascism" citations

• It's clearly a neo-fascist organization," said Mike Fellner, a staff member of the underground newspaper Take Over. "I don't care what their espoused rhetoric is, their actions toward the left show that they're fascist." Fellner said many leftists believe that NCLC is itself a "police front organization" designed to divide the left and discredit the documented information on the CIA. But to Fellner, it matters little whether or not they are in fact agents. "Even if they aren't police agents, they act like police agents."
  • Local Group Hasn't Won Masses Yet. The Capital Times, Feb. 25, 1974.

• We of the press should be chary of offering them print or air time. There is no reason to be too delicate about it: Every day we decide whose voices to relay. A duplicitous violence prone group with fascistic proclivities should not be presented to the public unless there is reason to present it in those terms.
  • NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace. Stephen Rosenfeld Washington Post September 24, 1976

• LaRouche's movement is an odd species of homegrown fascism, complete with a fascination with violence and a penchant for harassment of critics. Over the last decade, his various groups have spent millions of dollars spreading his message.
  • THE GAME'S UP FOR LAROUCHE. :[FINAL EDITION, C]." Stephen Chapman " Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext), March 30, 1986,

• LaRouche said descriptions of him as a neo-fascist and anti-Semetic "originate with the drug lobby or the Soviet operation — which is sometimes the same thing."
  • LaRouche alleges conspiracy from Moscow to White House. Associated Press FREDERICK POST, FREDERICK, MD., THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1986, D-8

• The rise of candidates loyal to Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. in Illinois and elsewhere is cause for serious concern because it appeals to people who are suffering economically and are searching for scapegoats, the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson said yesterday. "All of us stand to suffer with the rise of LaRouchism," Jackson said after a breakfast meeting with reporters. "When teachers and farmers and meatcutters start losing their jobs, they start reaching out for scapegoats. And that's where your classic racism, fascism and anti-Semitism come from."
  • LaRouchies appeal to poor, Jesse says. Jerome Idaszak. Chicago Sun - Times. Chicago, Ill.: Apr 15, 1986. pg. 34

• People who invited attention to themselves, in any way, from the organization received harassing phone calls, at the least. Sometimes "they" arrived unannounced; few residents felt brave enough to slam their front doors shut. Once inside "they" launched insistent arguments, seeking converts to their oxymoronic blend of paranoiac fascism and pseudo-Christian theology. Most of all, according to my Loudoun friends, the uninvited LaRouche delegations came after money. Generally, they would not leave until a donation had been tendered. Men and women were forced to pay a bribe to enjoy the ease of their own homes.
  • Leesburg's LaRouche nightmare. Roy Meachum The Frederick Post, FREDERICK, MD. OCTOBER 15, 1986 A-6

• Although LaRouche is only one of 13 defendants, the case inevitably will focus on him. He is an enigmatic individual, whose political views started in the 1960s with Marxism but in the 1970s veered toward the right and, say most of his detractors, toward fascism.
  • LaRouche trial: Sure to be a spellbinder. SUSAN LEVINE Knight-Ridder Newspapers. Providence Journal. Providence, R.I.: Oct 20, 1987. pg. A-16

• Followers believe that only LaRouche can now save Western civilization through an iron-fisted policy that parallels those of fascist and authoritarian regimes.
  • LAROUCHE GROUP CALLED ADEPT AT SMEAR TACTICS. Jonathan Kaufman, Globe Staff. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Aug 5, 1988. pg. 6

• CLASSICAL European fascism of the 1930s variety found neither a deep wellspring nor a significant following in American political life, except perhaps for the short-lived German-American Bund, which campaigned on the eve of Pearl Harbor against American assistance to nations resisting German and Italian aggression. Yet in a chilling echo from the past, America has experienced during the 1970s and 1980s the revival of a movement best summed up in the words of its own leader, Lyndon H. LaRouche: "It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one!"
• In the 1960s he grew enamored of European fascism and began spouting anti-Semitism. By the early 1970s his National Caucus of Labor Committees had recruited 600 hard-core members in 25 cities. Severing former leftwing ties, they moved to the right. Reaching out to the Ku Klux Klan, LaRouche declared the death of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust a hoax.
  • The strange ascent of Lyndon LaRouche, a native American fascist. :[2 STAR Edition]. DAVID E. SCHOB Houston Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext) [serial online]. April 30, 1989:19

• Or to put the question another way, why hasn't despotism happened here? The possibility is not that far-fetched, considering how much Franklin Roosevelt feared Huey Long, how so few people dared to oppose Joseph McCarthy, and how so blatant a fascist and anti-Semite as Lyndon LaRouche managed to acquire a mantle of political respectability before committing the common frauds that got him sent to prison. ... The LaRouchian fantasy that Queen Elizabeth presides over the world narcotics trade derives from the rantings of British fascists in the 1930s and is shared today by the Ku Klux Klan.
  • An American Hitler // A frightening look at Lyndon LaRouche and America's receptiveness to right-wing extremism. Series: Books :[CITY Edition]. MARTIN DYCKMAN St. Petersburg Times [serial online]. June 4, 1989:6D.

• Roberto Pena Pena, a Tijuana engineer whose name appears on the ad, attended the press conference to accuse the group of misrepresenting itself when he was asked to sign his name and donate $107. He said a representative of the group told him he was ordering a magazine subscription and that he was not told of the advertisement, which he characterized as "fascist."
  • Hard-line Baja group's AIDS views condemned. Ernesto Portillo Jr.. The San Diego Union. San Diego, Calif.: Aug 11, 1990. pg. B.1

• These groups are accurately called neo-fascist because of their reliance on authoritarian solutions,demagoguery, scapegoating, and xenophobia. Other peddlers of paranoia on the Far Right include the Populist Party and the followers of Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche, a minor socialist theorist in the 1960s, switched tracks in the mid-1970s and began embracing fascist themes, pulling along 1,000 followers, some of whom were ordered to engage in physical assaults against political rivals.
  • Friendly Fascists. Chip Berlet , The Progressive [serial online]. June 1992;56:16.

• And the neo-fascists are beginning to form an international movement. Mr. Zhirinovsky attends the conventions of the German People's Union and refers to this crowd of Bavarian fanatics as his German "partner." Louis J. Freeh, the new FBI director, goes to Germany to look into connections with American neo-Nazis, like Gary Lauck of Nebraska, the so-called Farm Belt Fuhrer. The Ku Klux Klan and the Lyndon LaRouche gang are busy in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.
  • Fascism's Lengthening Shadow. By Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Wall Street Journal (Europe) [serial online]. December 28, 1993:PAGE 6.

• He has been accused of being a cult leader, fascist and anti-Semite -- all of which he and those around him vehemently deny.
  • Democrat on the dark side. Peter Morton, Washington Bureau Chief. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Jun 16, 2005. pg. FP.8

• In addition, he has pursued his political interface with neo-fascist charlatan Lyndon LaRouche, who has cozied up to the Nation of Islam and Minister Farrakhan to secure an outlet for his destructive agenda in the Black community.
  • Black Empowerment: Farrakhan, Sharpton And Black Misleadership. Fulani, Lenora. New Pittsburgh Courier. (City Edition). Pittsburgh, Pa.: Jul 27, 1996. Vol. 87, Iss. 60; pg. A-7

• Rev. Bevel's teaching is incompatible with Elijah Muhammad's. James Bevel is an integrationist. His doctrine weakens and softens the attitude of the Black nation. He ran for vice president with a Zvil-Fascist White man named Lyndon LaRouche. He tried to introduce Mr. LaRouche before the Black political convention an Mr. LaRouche was properly booed off stage.
  • Rev. Bevel Attacks Black Nationalists!. Shabazz, Malik Zulu. Afro - American Red Star. Washington, D.C.: Jun 7, 1997. Vol. 105, Iss. 43; pg. A5

• Nevertheless, when the National African American Leadership Summit called for a national political convention at St. Louis in September 1996, at least three thousand representatives gathered to participate. On the convention's final day, the Reverend James Bevel, one of Martin Luther King Jr.'s former lieutenants and a recent convert to political conservatism, was given the podium. Bevel proudly introduced "the man of the hour," Lyndon LaRouche. Many in the audience were stunned: they immediately recognized LaRouche as a leader of fascist extremism in the United States and a defender of the former apartheid regime of South Africa. Instantly the crowd turned against Bevel and LaRouche, booing them off the stage. A fistfight erupted between several black nationalists and some of LaRouche's supporters, which was broken up by Farrakhan's security force. Throughout the country, perplexed African-American activists asked themselves why a white supremacist would be permitted to address a black political convention. Only Farrakhan could have given permission for LaRouche to speak. What seems at first to be a curious paradox was no puzzle at all. There were significant elements in their respective ideologies that brought Farrakhan and LaRouche into agreement.
• AN EVALUATION of Farrakhan's relationship with racist extremist Lyndon LaRouche requires some background information. From 1949 until his expulsion in 1966, LaRouche was an activist in the Socialist Workers Party, a Trotskyist organization. At the height of the mobilization against the Vietnam War, LaRouche established his own radical sect, the National Caucus of Labor Committees. Within a few short years, the LaRouche group mutated from the left to the ultra-right, embracing a fascist agenda of extreme anticommunism, racism, and antiSemitism. In 1973 the La Rouchites initiated "Operation Mop Up," a series of violent assaults against members of the U.S. Communist Party Armed with clubs, pipes, and other weapons, LaRouche's cult tried to disrupt public meetings and physically intimidate radical activists. Much of LaRouche's violence and hatred focused on the black movement. In 1977 he declared that African Americans who fight for equal rights are obsessed with "zoological specifications of microconstituencies' self interests" and "distinctions which would be proper to the classification of varieties of monkeys and baboons." In these same years, LaRouche courted leaders of the Ku Klux Klan and white fascism. In 1974 his front organization, the National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC), collaborated with racist groups in Boston to support an anti-busing candidate for Congress. The following year, the NDPC initiated a legal defense campaign on behalf of Roy Frankhouser, Grand Dragon of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. LaRouche later provided intelligence information on the U.S. anti-apartheid movement to the apartheid regime in South Africa.
  • Black fundamentalism. Manning Marable. Dissent. New York: Spring 1998. Vol. 45, Iss. 2; pg. 69, 8 pgs

• Even though he furiously accuses all manner of people of being Nazis, his own brand of politics both employs standard elements of fascism and revisions that may initially throw some people off track.
  • Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Restyled for the New Millennium by Helen Gilbert

Error in "Early life" section

The section on LaRouche's early life says "LaRouche is the son of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Sr. (June 1, 1896 - December 1983)[8] and Jessie Lenore Weir (November 12, 1893 - August 1978)[9]), a descendant of Elder Brewster from the Mayflower and other prominent Yankee families on his mother's side."

This is grammatically incorrect or ambiguous: what is the antecedent of the the antepenultimate word "his"? Does it refer to Jessie Lenore Weir, in which case it should be "hers", or does it refer to Elder Brewster, LaRouche Jr, or LaRouche Sr? Is the word "descendant" a reference to LaRouche Jr or LaRouche Sr, rather than to Weir? Please clarify! Incidentally, there is no citation for this descent, or I could check myself. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. The reference is to Jessie's side of the family (her father was a Protestant minister). Lyndon LaRouche, Sr. was of French Canadian descent and a convert from Catholicism to Quakerism. I can't vouch for Jessie's descent from Elder Brewster but have no particular reason to doubt it. I'll let someone else make the change in the article's wording.--Dking (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for COI tag

This article has been substantially edited by User:Dking, who is Dennis King in real life. He violates these sections of the policy: Self-promotion "Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates."

"1. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages." (Dennis King is an obscure individual who uses Wikipedia for self-promotion. Dking's editing generally revolves around adding links to his personal self-published websites, http://www.larouchewatch.com,http://lyndonlarouche.org/, and http://dennisking.org/ (the last one is defunct.) Diffs: [5], [6],[7] ,[8] ,[9] ,[10] ,[11] ,[12])

Close relationships "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias." (Dennis King is the most extreme of LaRouche's critics. He sees LaRouche as evil incarnate, and his edits at Wikipedia are relentlessly biased.)

For examples of Dking's editing which fail NPOV, here are two recent ones:

• In this edit[13] Dking removes sourced material which indicates that the former head of West German Military Counterintelligence has provided independent verification of LaRouche's claims that he participated in "back-channel" talks between the U.S. and Soviet governments. In his next edit[14] Dking inserts his own unsourced editorial comment that no such independent verification exists. These two edits taken together provide a representative example of biased editing by Dking.
• This edit[15] provides another example, where Dking simply removes sourced material which he doesn't like. The contested passage is an opinion, in quotes, attributed to the subject of the article, not a statement of fact. Therefore the sourcing is correct and Dking's deletion fails NPOV. Note in the edit summary where he attacks "false even-handedness."

The subject of Dking's conflict of interest has come up four times at WP:COIN. Aside from a sweep of the project to remove Dking's linkspamming, there has been no action taken, because Dking's cronies have interceded each time to block discussion. Therefore there should be a tag on this article to warn the reader. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that the article should have a COI tag. Not because of the edits of Dking, but rather because of the far more numerous and extensive edits by user:Herschelkrustofsky and his socks. HK, who is ______ _____ in real life, has been a member of the movement since the 1980s. I can point to dozens, probably hundreds, of edits of his that promoted the LaRouche POV. If it weren't for editors like Dking this article would be even worse as far as COI problems go. So, yes, please, let's keep the COI tag on the article until we've re-written it to remove HK's biased edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on the tag. I don't root for either team. However, there was a weird sort of equilibrium at these articles before your team succeeded in banning all the editors from the other team. The last two editors that were banned were supposedly socks of Gnetwerker. Do you now claim that Gnetwerker and Herschelkrustofsky are the same person? --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we drop the use of "teams" please? However, aside from yourself, there have been only two editors who promoted the LaRouche POV: HK and Cognition. HK was much more prolific than Cognition, so it's mostly just the one editor. As for the last set of socks, they were a special case and I'd rather not get into the details here. Suffice it to say that they belonged to a banned editor and as such were not permitted to edit here. The bottom line is that this article has been shaped by HK, a 20-year member of the LaRouche movement, more than by any other individual. It's his POV and COI that are the biggest problem with this article, not a few edits by Dking. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm supposed to take your word for all this? I'm not inclined to do so, since you just called me an "editor who promoted the LaRouche POV," and I have never edited LaRouche articles except on rare occasions to revert bad edits or place tags. I have never added any material promoting any POV. So you seem to have a rather lax attitude toward factual accuracy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to take my word for it. The evidence is in the article history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to find out much about what goes on when editors get banned around here, but I did find this. Although he doesn't explicitly say so, I am assuming that Jayjg's conclusions were based on checkuser. The thing that makes them noteworthy is that they do not support the claims that you are making on this page -- it rather looks like you added a generous dose of poetic license. In the future, I am going to be much more skeptical of your pronouncements.--Leatherstocking (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you ever gave any of my "pronouncements" any credence. But if anyone else who wants additional evidence of the sock puppetry and ownership problems with this topic they are welcome to ask. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the quotes about the back channel, and the deletion looks like POV to me. Reliable Sources says that publications of groups such as the LaRouche group may be used as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities, and there is countervailing stuff from LaRouche opponents, so I would say it is appropriate to restore the quotes. --Bill Chadwell (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Banned user

This isn't an article on a charitable organisation where news coverage focuses on them helping the poor and they provide sources which expand on that. Coverage in reliable sources does not give any credence to LaRouche conspiracy theories. If nobody cares about what they have to say, they can bleat all they like, mentioning it is unencyclopedic. Nevard (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Bill, the policy says we may allow self-published and questionable sources to be used as sources on themselves (the policy is WP:V, by the way, not WP:RS, though they should say the same thing). It doesn't say we must.

For my own part, I always edit with a presumption in favour of allowing self-published sources their say in articles about them. The exceptions are when what they write is hard to believe, or is newsworthy but not supported by other sources, or if they make claims that impact another living person.

The claim here is that LaRouche conducted negotiations with the Soviets about their view of SDI, with the knowledge of the NSA. If true, this is newsworthy, yet (so far as I know) there are no non-LaRouche sources who say it. Therefore, we have to proceed with extreme caution.

Then write that LaRouche says he negotiated with the Soviets. We can use self-published sources for that. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would allow it in the article so long as there are no BLP issues — because it's either true or, if false, it tells us a lot about the nature of the LaRouche movement, which makes it informative either way — making clear that there are no non-LaRouche sources for it. But the editors who don't want to allow it are acting within policy. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Back channel discussions would seem to be by nature confidential, so I wouldn't look for confirmation in the press. However, I think that the confirmation by Gen. Paul Albert Scherer is significant, so the latest deletion by Will Beback serves to underscore the neutrality and bias problems with this article. --64.183.125.210 (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Views of critics

The views of critics are identified as such, and are well-sourced. The intro should reflect the article. What reason is there for deleting the material? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a straightforward application of the policy on Undue Weight. The opinions in question -- that LaRouche is a fascist or anti-Semite -- are sourced to obscure individuals. Putting these opinions in the opening section gives them undeserved prominence, out of proportion with the role they play in the article. And since these opinions are derogatory, this is a BLP violation. --198.147.225.58 (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the #"Fascism" citations section above, to see the range of sources that use that term alone. There's another list like that in the archives concerning the other term, I believe. Prominent figures have used the terms, including people like Jesse Jackson, Patrick Moynihan, and the chair of the DNC. I suggest checking through some of the archives, we've all discussed this many times. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your list is unimpressive, but it might be appropriate to include a quote from Jackson or Moyhnihan. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not meant to be impressive. But those citations clearly indicate that this is a frequent criticism, and that's why it's in the intro. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Politicians get called names all the time, and "fascist" is a common epithet, applied to many controversial politicians and even some non-controversial ones. Wikipedia editors should show mature judgement and refrain from giving undue weight to such name-calling. Having it noted in the article is one thing, but putting it in the lede is way out of line. Remember that BLP is one of the primary policies here. Resist the temptation to make Wikipedia a vehicle for your own vendettas. --198.147.225.20 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the solution here is ultimately, but why are conspiracy theorist and leader of a cult permissible and fascist is not? The former isn't as strong a label perhaps, but the latter certainly is. As a side note - you should probably register an account make sure you log in if you wish to partake in these discussions. If for no other reason then so we know it's the same person every time. :) Thompsontough (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume that someone who's so familiar with WP policies is not a new user. Regardless, another primary policy is "assume good faith", so asserting that edits are made as part of a "vendetta" is out of place. Certainly, some terms get thrown around loosely, but in this case the term "fascist" appears to be used as a specific description. The King book's subtitle is "The New American Fascism", indicating that it's not just a casual epithet. As for undue weight, please refer again to the incomplete list of the uses of the term by a variety of speakers. The quantity and quality of sources mean that this matter deserves significant weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm the same person now with an account. I don't usually do talk pages so I didn't think I needed a handle. I had thought that "leader of a political cult" would be acceptable because the Washington Post (a newspaper of record) had called him that 4 years ago. However, I went back and read the article, and they don't actually make the claim, so now I think it should be taken out of the lede as well. It was fashionable to call LaRouche a fascist back in the 80s but it couldn't stand up to scrutiny and died out. Will Beback's list is mainly from that era. I haven't familiarized myself with all Wikipedia policies, but I do know BLP, and it was clearly written to stop the use of Wikipedia for vendettas. Therefore I don't think I am out of line for using the term. I didn't accuse anyone, I just said that it is a temptation that people ought to resist. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The text that #198 removed four times (probably violating WP:3RR, btw) originally said:

• There are sharply contrasting opinions on LaRouche. His supporters regard him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas critics variously see him as a conspiracy theorist, an anti-Semite, a fascist or neo-fascist, and the leader of a political cult.

In general, LaRouche was mentioned in the press more prominently in the 1980s than in subsequent decades. Is there any doubt that critics, or even just commentators, have used those terms? That's all we're saying, that those are significant critical views that have been expressed about the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The important word here is "significant." If you consider every person who makes a criticism "significant," you wind up with this. Because this is a sensitive BLP issue, I suggest that newspapers of record be the standard for what nasty labels may be applied to a living person, at least as far as the lede is concerned. There is no shortage of criticisms later in the article. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Dennis King and Chip Berlet, to list just two, are not significant critics? If not, then who are LaRouche's most significant critics? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Good example. Under WP:Reliable sources, Dennis King and Chip Berlet "should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities." --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I don't see either of them mentioned on that page. What's your point? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

To rate being included in the lede, I would say either a newspaper of record, as I mentioned above, or a person or insitution notable in his own right. Otherwise, it's undue weight to the opinion, even if the opinion has been published somewhere. The Heritage Foundation qualifies, for example. Dennis King and Chip Berlet would not. Perhaps they are particular favorites of yours, because they do make the claims you seek to include, and you have restored these claims 4 times now. I'd suggest that you be satisfied with the fact that their claims are well represented in the article. These claims may very well be defamatory. BLP says that "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." It also says that the burden of evidence "rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material," and that the 3RR rule does not apply to the removal of material that violates BLP. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Numerous people have made these assertions. BLP is not being violated to report what is said about the subject. NPOV requires that all significant points of view are included. What harm is possible be repeating that has been said dozens of times about a public figure by other public figures? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Appearance in a "newspapers of record" is not a standard for making assertions about BLPs. However, the NYT, which is undoubtedly a newspaper of record, said that LaRouche turned the movement away from Marxism and towards the extreme right and anti-semitism. See "U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy", October 7, 1979. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, it was not uncommon to see LaRouche called these things back in the late 70s- early 80s. The Washington Post did it also. However, both the Post and the Times have continued to cover LaRouche to the present day and no longer make these claims. I could see some mention that twentyfive-thirty years ago, these claims were made, but to imply that such views are widely held today is incorrect and damaging to the subject. May I ask, why are you so intent on including such claims? --Number OneNineEight (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it was common and that's why we need to include it in the lede. I don't believe the Times, the Post, or anyone else has retracted their comments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In light of the discussion at WP:BLPN, I've restored the information but changed the tense. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please simmer down and stop re-adding this material until it can be adequately discussed at the notice board. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 presidential election

I'm curious as to why LaRouche didn't run in the 2008 election. I only did a quick Google search, but the only article I found even mentioning the thought of his candidacy was a Mother Jones article gloating that he wasn't running for the first time in 32 years. Does anyone know what happened? It would be great to include here if so. Narco (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

His age, he's 86 years old, is the factor he's mentioned. If he won he'd be 90 by the end of his term. I think I can find a source for him commenting on his decision to not run in 2008. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I came here curious about the cleanup tags and decided to look up LaRouche's views on Obama. He's apparently a stepping stone for Bloomberg, although considering how long ago that was, LaRouche's theory might have changed. More recently, he alleged that George Soros and the British are behind Obama's presidency, but was on Obama's side (I guess) when people associated with Soros criticized Obama's cabinet choices. Thompsontough (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The possibly misinterpreted reference to Obama as a racist and a monkey in a leaked memo got some attention too.[16][17] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)