Jump to content

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MaplePorter (talk | contribs) at 20:50, 19 September 2007 (→‎"No conceivable reason to allow fair use?"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).


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
Arbitration 2006
Arbitration 2005
Arbitration 2004
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Mediation 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Template talk
Categories
This box:
Archives


Kerry Endorsement?

There's an unauthenticated assertion that Lyndon LaRouche endorsed John Kerry in 2004.

Six weeks before the election he made the endorsement.
  • A John Kerry, elected into the White House by my methods, mobilizing the lower-80%-income households on behalf of a radical change in policy, back to policies associated with Franklin Roosevelt's bankruptcy reorganization/economic recovery, will function as President. [1]
I have no idea what he meant by "elected...by my methods" or "Kerry...will function as President", but it's clearly an endorsement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of RfC(LaRouche, Et AL)

To All Interested Parties;

A RfC, has been initiated this day on all LaRouche articles. Dagomar 20:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this page. It's just an attempt to sidestep a delisted RFC. See discussion here also: [2] RxS 03:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain what was wrong with Dagomar's page? It seems to me that it is common to discuss disagreements about both articles and the approach of editors. --Gelsomina 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continue discussion

The specific question that has arisen most recently is whether or not this printed publication:

Berlet, Chip, and Joel Bellman. (1989). Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag. Report. Somerville, MA: Political Research Associates.

Is a reliable published source for LaRouche related pages.

A printed report from Political Research Associates (PRA) is neither a publication "solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers." (See: WP:LIVING#Reliable_sources) Objecting to this PRA report is simply a misapplication of Wiki policy based on a POV disagreement with a well-discussed matter of PRA being a reliable source. It is.--Cberlet 12:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are simply searching for a loophole in the WP:BLP policy. I agree with the proposal by Dagomar in the (now-deleted) article RFC, that highly derogatory or contentious material produced by your organization should be included only if there is a second, independent, corroborating source. --Marvin Diode 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite clear: "solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers." Material from PRA is regularly cited and quoted by major daily newspapers, major weekly news magazines, network television, and scholarly books and journals. This is hardly "searching for a loophole." Other than tiny marginal "partisan websites or in obscure" publications, where can you find a cite from a reputable published source describing the work of PRA as marginal? There may be a few, but they are the exception, not the paradigm. Dennis King and I are the primary journalists writing about LaRouche. --Cberlet 14:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Then whenever you want to include highly derogatory or contentious material produced by your organization in a Wikipedia article, all you have to do is show that this material has also appeared in one or more "major daily newspapers, major weekly news magazines, network television, and scholarly books and journals." That will serve as a second, independent, corroborating source. Problem solved. --Marvin Diode 15:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This type of glib and snide response is not constructive. We are supposed to be starting a discussion over with a change in attitude and an attempt at good faith.--Cberlet 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely 100% serious about this. Any material from your organization's website that has also appeared in "major daily newspapers, major weekly news magazines, network television, and scholarly books and journals" will get no complaint from me. On the other hand, if it hasn't appeared in those conventional media outlets, it probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia, particularly if it is highly derogatory or contentious. I think that we are getting at the heart of the BLP policy here. --Marvin Diode 21:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a straw argument. Yes, two sources are better than one, but what you keep sliding past is that the material in a print publication from PRA is not from a "website." And furthermore, even if it is just from the PRA website, that is still a reputable reliable source. If you disagree, please cite the applicable Wikipedia policy text from which you draw the conclusion that text that has not appeared in "conventional media outlets" violates BLP.--Cberlet 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear to me that PRA constitutes a WP:RS for these purposes. It might make more sense to phrase it something like "according to Chip Berlet/PRA...". If we had a mainstream source it would certainly help matters. In general, we need to be very careful with BLP issues. JoshuaZ 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific reason that PRA would not be a reliable source? 00:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
PRA presents claims on its website that are far more extreme than what would be found in reliable sources, and it presents claims that are unverifiable. The latest dispute at "Political views" concerns allegations that LaRouche holds particular views, and these allegations are based not on any published material by LaRouche, but rather on anonymous sources. [3] This is not the sort of thing a reputable publication would do. Also, as has been emphasized, it says in BLP that "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution." Cberlet evidently thought he had done an end run around this policy by simply changing the cites in the Wikipedia article away from cites to the PRA website, to cites to printed versions of the same article. That makes no difference -- it is still "partisan" material that has not been, and would not be, touched by reputable publications. And beyond that, any "partisan website" could simply issue a print-out and say, "Oh, look, that policy doesn't apply to us, either."
It seems to me that the mindset here is all wrong. Instead of asking, "is this material appropriate for an encyclopedia," certain editors are asking, "is there some way I can sneak this material past the relevant policies, in order to use Wikipedia as a soapbox?"--MaplePorter 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times uses anonymous sources routinely yet we still view them as a reliable source. According to whom is PRA a partisan source? According to whom are its claims "far more extreme" than would be found in a reliable source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is hard to see an organization that by its own description studies a specific subset of the political spectrum and the threats that those groups represent as somewhat partisan. When BLP is concerned we need to excercise caution even when dealing with Lyndon LaRouche. JoshuaZ 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<---------Reporters covering LaRouche sometimes use sources that are not named because the LaRouche group has a history of harassing, smearing, suing, and beating up their critics. By the logic above, we at Wiki would not accept material from scholars of butterflies on the butterfly page because they are too focused and partisan. Recall that LaRouche sued me (as Chip Berlet) for defamation and lost in a jury trial. Journalists cover a beat. My beat is apocalyptics, neofascists, and right-wing demagogues. Why am I being considered partisan when I do my job? This concedes too much ground to those who support fanatic groups here on Wikipedia. Just by covering a subject I become a partisan? I think not. My work on LaRouche has appeared in major daily newspapers and the Encyclopedia Judaica. If we let totalist partisans set the terms of reputable text, Wikipedia becomes an ad page for the most militant editors supporting controversial groups. This is a bridge too far.--Cberlet 01:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PRA's mission statement says:
  • Political Research Associates is a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society. We expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights.
Their "core values" include:
  • Our work is even-handed, fact based, reliable, and not over-dramatized. Our commitment to mutual respect means that in our work, we do not caricature or demonize the followers of right-wing organizations, and we recognize the abilities of the movement's leadership.
It's not clear if they mean "progressive" in the political or the generic sense. I'm not sure if all the editors to this page would even agree that the subject is "right-wing" much less the leader of a movement that "undermines human rights".
That said, I don't think that all of this material is needed in the article. Even impeccably-sourced speculation on why he has a certain belief may go beyond the realm of biography. It would be better to keep this article focused on events to keep it a manageable length. To the extent that we need to discuss his beliefs (and their genesis) we have Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the PRA sentence Will quoted from above sounds pretty partisan to me. And if someone has been sued by someone else, even if they won the suit, that makes them almost partisan by nature (although in that case if the court made any findings of fact those are clearly a reliable source that could be used). In any event, Will's point is a good one which moots most of this. In any event, if someone can't tell from reading most of whats already in the article that Lyndon Larouche is preemptively not saying for BLP concerns even if courts have decided that most fun words like "crank" and "windbag" are not-actionable then I doubt that more such material is going to change their minds. JoshuaZ 01:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, JoshuaZ, let us analyze your position from a power structure perspective. People with lots of money sue their critics all the time. They seldom win their lawsuits, so these types of lawsuits are called SLAPP lawsuits (strategic lawsuit against public participation). The point is to silent critical coverage by journalists. So, using your logic, wealthy demagogues determine the text of Wikipedia entries simply by filing lawsuits. Can you explain why that is a good idea?--Cberlet 01:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't work in a number of regards. 1) Courts will often in defamation suits rule that the party being sued is in fact telling the truth (see Libel), which gives an unambiguous reliable source 2) courts will often rule against SLAPP lawsuits and which will make things look worse for the plaintiff in question 3) Wikipedia is not a venue for improving public policy but is concerned with what should constitute reliable sources. The bottom line is that the vast majority of the time if two people have been in litigation they are not going to be reliable sources about each other under almost any circumstances. In any event, this doesn't deal with the fundamentally partisan nature of PRA. Also, as Will has pointed out, there doesn't seem to be much need for this material here anyways. JoshuaZ 02:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really challenge the idea that "The bottom line is that the vast majority of the time if two people have been in litigation they are not going to be reliable sources about each other under almost any circumstances." Please read the entry on SLAPP lawsuits. Aggressive totalist groups often employ lawsuits to silence their critics. The outcome of your position is that wealthy aggressive bullies get to determine the content of Wikipedia. Serious investigative journalists who get sued and prevail are suddenly suspect as biased. Setting the other issues aside, I wish you would take responsibility for the outcome of your position on this question. How come serious investigative journalists who get sued and prevail are sudenly not reliable? Please explain. Please do not dodge the question. It is at the heart of this debate.--Cberlet 03:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't that complicated- once someone has been sued by someone they will almost certainly have long-standing residual emotional dislike of the person in question. This means that although they can be a reliable source, where BLP is concerned we need to be very careful since BLP requires us to use very reliable sources. In any event, one simple solution to this is to attribute the claims in the text to the journalist or source in question rather than report it uncritically. So it isn't as much of an issue as you seemed to think and in any event isn't something we have any options about. Our hands are essentially tied. If you want to change things, change the calculus of lawsuits, not Wikipedia policy. JoshuaZ 03:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a reliable source. Becasue this subject has sued a number of news sources (and lost every case) we should not assume that the suits changed their coverage, which the subject asserted was biased to begin with. Chip Berlet covered LaRouche before he was sued, and his coverage isn't obviously different before and after the suit. Further, this source isn't a one-person website. The article in question was co-written with another journalist and presumably reviewed by an editor. If it were itself libellous the subject could have sued, demanded a correction, or printed a rebuttal in one of his own publications. I'm not sure I understand what's meant by "where BLP is concerned we need to be very careful since BLP requires us to use very reliable sources". The entire article is a biography, and we agree that PRA is a reliable source for other material in it. I think the issue here really is whether or not this an extraordinary claim, one which would require extraordinary proof. Is it extraordinary to suppose that the subject would make an odd and offensive remark? If so, then an especially-reliable source should be used. However I'll repeat my position that we don't need material on the subject's views of women in this article. It's a stretch to say that it is a core concept of his, or that his relations with women have been so important to merit so much space in an encyclopedia biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you've convinced me that it is probably enough of a reliable source for this purpose. JoshuaZ 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Will Beback has overlooked one detail here, which is that this is actually a discussion about Political views of Lyndon LaRouche that was moved to this talk page at Cberlet's request. That being said, I think that Will is still correct when he says that "Even impeccably-sourced speculation on why he has a certain belief may go beyond the realm of biography." In this particular instance, it is not even speculation as to why he has a belief-- it is speculation about whether he has the belief in question, since there is no public record of LaRouche ever holding such a belief. This is the problem that I have with the Chip Berlet/PRA site -- it is rife with conspiracy theories, even as it denounces same. As MaplePorter said, if my memory is good, in the most-recently-deleted RfC, Berlet and King avoid discussing LaRouche's publicly documented ideas and activity, in favor of churning up murky speculation based on old, obscure and generally unpublished or anonymous sources. When dealing with BLP articles, I think speculation of any kind should be avoided. Stick to undisputed, established facts. --Marvin Diode 06:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't argue that the specific text belongs on this page, I am arguing that it is a bad policy to suggest that journalists are no longer reliable sources if they cover a beat or are targets of SLAPP lawsuits to silence them. Certainly, especially with a convicted felon, is is not persuasive to suggest that anytime LaRouche rebuts a criticism it becomes "undisputed, established facts." First person accounts of experiences in the LaRouche group are germane, even if people want to avoid being named due to the well-documented aggressive bullying of critic by the LaRouchites.--Cberlet 12:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many instances where I would not object to the use of PRA as a source, where they are actually acting as journalists. However, there are also many instances where they cross over the line into speculation (I think that the "mission statement" quoted by Will is a bit of a joke.) So, I think that the guidelines in WP:BLP should be strictly followed. Material from PRA that is "derogatory," "contentious," or a "conjectural interpretation of a source" should be removed, unless a stronger corroborating source can be found. As Cberlet has repeatedly said, there are cases where PRA material has been quoted in mainstream publications. Those are the cases where there should be no problem using PRA as a source. --Marvin Diode 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Marvin Diode is quoting selectively from WP:BLP. The full sentence reads:

Material sourced from PRA is obviously not unsourced. PRA meets the standards of WP:V. Nobody is saying that this dispute is over "a conjectural interpretation of a source". Picking individual words out of a policy is not the best way to convey their meaning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just another attemnpt to rewrite the guidelines of Wikipedia. Where is this "mainstream" source rule located? Cite it please. It is OR and POV to claim that something published in print by PRA should be disallowed because a wiki editor claims certain sentences "cross over the line into speculation."--Cberlet 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:FRINGE, especially Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. --Marvin Diode 20:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That says:
  • The notability of a fringe theory should be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.
PRA qualifies as a verifiable and reliable source. What is the "fringe theory" in this instance? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You and Cberlet keep asserting that PRA "qualifies as a verifiable and reliable source." I am not convinced. A good example of a "fringe theory" is the material that sparked this discussion.[4] How does Chip Berlet know that a break-up of a relationship caused LaRouche to change his views? LaRouche generally attributes his views, particularly when they change, to various authors he has encountered whose ideas have impressed him. Is Chip Berlet a psychologist? Does he have any academic credentials of any sort, that would qualify him to engage in such speculation? Then he begans to talk about what LaRouche "apparently had concluded" about the problem of making a revolution being due to women, and quotes an anonymous source. I sincerely doubt that this sort of stuff would be tolerated in any other Wikipedia BLP article, and should not be tolerated in this one. Now, one thing I would like to add to the previous discussion. In addition to the fact that there is material on the PRA website that I believe is unsuitable as a source for BLP articles, for the reasons already given, the matter is complicated by the fact that all this stuff is being inserted in Wikipedia articles by Cberlet himself, which immediately raises the question of both WP:COI and WP:SOAP. Please don't dodge this issue. We have material that is clearly derogatory, appears in no other source, and is being aggressively added to Wikipedia articles by its author. I say, find another source that will vouch for this stuff, rather than judging it by the proclamations of its adherents, which keep getting reiterated in this discussion. --MaplePorter 22:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that my proposal should be applied to all contentious/potentially libelous/derogatory claims. Dagomar 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I interject something here? I think that many of the "LaRouche" articles are too long and too obscure. Why not make them slightly shorter, and stick to information that is universally accepted? After all, "Wikipedia is not a battleground." --Gelsomina 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Let's take the material one part at a time.

  • In 1972 LaRouche's second wife, Carol Larrabee (also known as Carol Schnitzer), left him for Christopher White, a younger man who was a member of the LaRouche network in Britain.

I think we can all agree that this is not a fringe theory. The next part quotes Chip Berlet and Joel Bellman:

  • [LaRouche's] previous conspiratorial inclinations had now grown into a bizarre tapestry weaving together classical conspiracy theories of the 19th century and post-Marxian economics. He began articulating a `psycho-sexual' theory of political organizing. Sexism and homophobia became central themes of the organization's theories….The problem with making the revolution, LaRouche apparently had concluded, was that women are castrating bitches. One former member left in disgust when she was told women's feelings of degradation in modern society could be traced to the physical placement of female sexual organs near the anus which caused women to confuse sex with excretion

So we are attributing it, not saying that this is true. That addresses the concern of User:JoshuaZ, who wrote above that:

  • ...one simple solution to this is to attribute the claims in the text to the journalist or source in question rather than report it uncritically.

Now then, is the theory described by Berlet and Bellman exceptional? Based on the writings of LaRouche, it does not appear to be. For example, we quote him saying:

  • the classical case is the sexually athletic Macho who regards himself as a successful performer in bed, the Macho who has much to say and think respecting his capacities for various modes of penetration and frequency and cubic centimeters of ejaculations. The ugly secret of the matter is that he is almost totally sexually impotent.

Elsewhere in the same essay he writes:

  • Night after intervening night, the Macho beds his whore-wife with an inner sense of bloody violence and self-degradation. In the morning, this miserable existentialist arises from the bed of disgust and self- disgust. He looks with disgust at the sleeping figure of the woman with whom he has shared self-degradation, and trudges, bearing an awful load of anomie, back to the house where he lives with his madonna-wife and her children. He needs a drink so desperately, to seem to wash the wretched taste from his mouth, but the drink merely begins the cycle of the new day's recurring nightmare. Tonight, he will sleep beside his madonna-wife, after an evening of being patron to her children, and Friday night the homosexual, he will be back with his whore-wife again... Indeed, the more women he has bedded, the more acutely painful and real to him is the fact that he has never maintained a sexual relationship in which the woman was the conscious subject of his desire for her as she is...Probe his unconscious processes more deeply, bringing up for him what he has barely concealed from himself for so long, and his self-consciousness will know that all these women, his madonna-wife and his whore-wives, are surrogates for his possessive, sadistic mother. It is merely necessary to connect his infantile feelings from the ages of between approximately two and five to his adolescent and adult fantasies, and he must shriek with agony of despair that this, too, has always been true. He will also immediately understand that the preoccupation with the cult of the Virgin Mary is the cult of female sexual impotence, the cult of female sadism, and he will thereby also understand the feelings of bloody violence he has for all sexual acts, and the sense of rape he experiences in sharing the bed with his madonna-wife...More deeply, it becomes a sense of psychological death. More deeply explored, the infantile love of the Macho for a woman is often reified hatred of his infantile, sadistically possessive mother. It is reified because infantile hatred toward the mother is associated with a powerful dependency, such that infantile love and infantile hate become thus mixed, confused. The need to love becomes also the need to destroy, to degrade; one can love only a degraded woman (the whore-wife) and one can love the madonna-wife (the mother of her children) only by sensing this to be an act of degrading the Virgin. His madonna-wife must be chaste (i.e., a certain kind of Virgin), so that she does not deprive him of the feeling of rape in her bed. The woman, especially the madonna-wife, is a pure sadist in bed—she lures and rejects, both as her labile, sadistic mother lured and rejected her, as her mother lured and rejected her father, and taught her thus the way of a madonna with men. The whore-wife artifices the madonna-wife as caricature, as parody; she is sadistic, but is always finally conquered, the payment of price the veiled homosexual's consummate act of degradation of both the man and herself, the payment of the “gift” to the mistress her certification as a whore. [5]

Given that text, the material by Berlet and Bellman doesn't seem inconsistent with LaRouche's own theories, and does not appear to be an exceptional claim or a fringe theory. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I am not following your logic at all here. First of all, you say regarding the breakup of LaRouche and Carol Schnitzer/Larrabee, you say "I think we can all agree that this is not a fringe theory." The problem is, no one said it was. The claim that was called a fringe theory was the claim that LaRouche changed his philosophy as a result of the break-up. That is pure speculation.
Secondly, you quote a long segment from LaRouche, but nowhere in that segment do I find the views attributed to LaRouche by Berlet's anonymous source. So what is your point? The fact that the dubious material is attributed to Berlet and Bellman doesn't suddenly make it OK. This stuff touches on so many Wikipedia policies that it should be treated with extreme caution, and yet you seem to be saying that we should have a carte blanche attitude towards material from the PRA website. There are many websites (including LaRouche's) that have a much larger paid staff than PRA, and yet they are regarded as partisan and therefore not suitable as sources. Is it your claim that PRA is not partisan? --Marvin Diode 14:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You overlook the well-established fact that LaRouche materials are full of factual errors and crackpot conspiracy theories making them unreliable for Wikipedia, except when used on a LaRouche-related page. Second, you are inventing a Wiki policy that does not exist: that to be cited on Wiki bio pages journalists have to provide a primary source for every conclusion they put into print. This is absurd. There is no such Wiki policy, as has been explained repeatedly. We are going in circles again.--Cberlet 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The material from Bellman and Berlet seems to cover the same type of concepts as the quoted text. "[W]omen are castrating bitches" appears to be a fair summary of "these women, his madonna-wife and his whore-wives, are surrogates for his possessive, sadistic mother" and "the infantile love of the Macho for a woman is often reified hatred of his infantile, sadistically possessive mother". Regarding the overall reliability of the Berlet material published by PRA, Berlet is one of the two most respected journalists covering LaRouche. If there's doubt about that I can assemble a list of all the times Berlet has been quoted on LaRouche by other reporters. Note, too, that an uninvoled editor droped in and agreed that Berlet is a suitable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will Beback appears to be attempting to make a case that if a theory is plausible, it cannot be fringe. This is not what it says in WP:FRINGE, where we find the following: "In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual." In other words, regardless of how willing you are to believe Berlet's speculation as published by his organization, the fact that no other published source has covered it makes it unacceptable. It is also irrelevant, under WP:FRINGE, that some of Berlet's other theories have made it into mainstream publications (as Marvin said, those other theories would probably be acceptable for inclusion.) WP:FRINGE also says that Inventors of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventor of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. There is a clear pattern here of Cberlet using Wikipedia to promote theories that have not made it into conventional press, and are unlikely to do so. It is also clear that this is exactly the sort of thing that WP:BLP seeks to prevent: material about living persons that is derogatory should be especially carefully sourced. No matter how you parse the words, Will, it seems indisputable that Wikipedia policy is intended to prevent highly partisan authors such as Berlet from using Wikipedia as a vehicle to attack their targets, using speculation or conjecture that would be unacceptable in sources that are understood to be "mainstream" under WP:FRINGE. --MaplePorter 06:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is known for having a variety of opinions that are often described as "fringe", "extremist", or "odd". Numberous courts and juries have ruled against the subject's assertions of libels and falsehoods. The subject has written in strong language about women dominating men, as well as sexual orientation, gender and familial roles, and sexual potency. I don't see any evidence that Berlet and Bellman's description of LaRouche's beliefs are inaccurate. Perhaps MaplePorter could explain how LaRouche's concepts of the "possessive, sadistic mother" and the "cult of female sadism" are different from the concept that "women are castrating bitches"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS:
  • "The obsession with shit and the endless stream of scatological and sadistic humor issuing from Marcus around this obsession, successfully and repeatedly reduced all the individuals in the sessions to the level of animals. They were forced to concede that a large part of their thinking could be reduced to a preoccupation with shit, and especially to the fear of this preoccupation. Women were hit particularly viciously with this form of reductionism, even to the point of tracing their sexuality to the proximity of the anus and the vagina with only the thin strip of the perineum distinguishing between the two. Marcus claimed that this anatomical peculiarity was the origin of women's feelings of degradation, since it gave rise to their confusion of the sexual act with the act of excretion. This was a radical departure" from" classical Marxism since it located identity not within the matrix of social-reproductive relations, but in bestialized anatomical reductionism. The degradation of women was further predetermined by the infantile relation a woman had to her mother where the first sexual encounter was imprinted on her memory as "the mother cleaning the shit out of her little vagina." This confusion of sexuality with shit led both men and women to cover up the odors associated with lovemaking; according to Marcus, this was the reason that women wore perfume and men smoked after making love. Needless to say, none of these assertions were challenged."
  • "True History of Lyn Marcus and the Labor Committees" 1975 Critical Practice: The Theoretical Journal of the International Workers Party.
That's sufficient to show that PRA isn't the only source reporting this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You consider this sufficient? You have managed to dredge up a source that is yet more dubious than PRA, the International Workers Party. Two bad sources may agree, but you are still flaunting Wikipedia policy. It looks to me like you are fairly desperate to use Wikipedia as a soapbox against LaRouche, if you have to resort to this sort of stuff.
A few other relevant points. Wikipedia policy doesn't ask that we present evidence that Berlet's and Bellman's theories are incorrect before excluding them; the policy is that "In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual." The International Workers Party is hardly an important mainstream group.
Finally, in answer to your question about the long quote from LaRouche: he's talking about the psycho-sexual environment among the members of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party back in the 1970s. You appear to extrapolating this to mean something about mankind in general. And it is the case that I find his theories about the PSP to be over-the-top, which is why I would not recommend that they be included in the article on the Puerto Rican Socialist Party, any more than I would recommend that Berlet's pyscho-sexual theories about LaRouche be included in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. --MaplePorter 14:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: You made a big deal about the fact that the material appeared in "no other published source". That's clearly incorrect. BTW, it's the job of Wikipedia admins to flaunt policy. ;) We wouldn't have to do it so often if editors didn't flout policies so often.
B: Berlet is frequently quoted on LaRouche in mainstream media outlets. What source do we have that calls this material "non-mainstream"? According to whom is it fringe?
C: Despite its title, the essay is not limited to the Puerto Rican Socialist Party. ("There is only one phenomenon to compare with such pitiful caricatures of socialist politics; that is the even more pathetic performance of the Latin-American “Macho” in the bedroom. In fact, the political life of the PSP is the principle of the sexual impotence of the “Machismo” extended into the domain of political commedia...This is not strictly peculiar to Puerto Rico; all Latin politics is permeated with the same pathetic, self-defeating quality...Throughout, we shall state the psychological truth which every Latin can recognize in his own private thoughts as the essence of “Machismo” as sexual impotence.") If you want to add a disclaimer to indicate that he really meant that only the women of Latin America are castrating bitches then maybe we can find a neutral way of saying that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a source that calls a theory "fringe" to establish that it is such. We need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the theory has not been "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual." That is what WP:FRINGE says, and that is Dagomar's proposal as I understand it. I think the proposal is reasonable and that we should agree to use it as the basis for consensus. It would be improper to try to make a case that material from PRA or related sources should be acceptable or unacceptable on a blanket basis; we should decide on a case by case basis, according to whether the material has appeared in, or been referenced by, "at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual." --Marvin Diode 00:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGE does not apply to this situation. It concerns "theories":
  • We use the word theory in a very broad sense, including conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth.
The material in question is very different from the material covered by that guideline. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following sentence in WP:FRINGE reads Some of the "theories" addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations. Berlet's speculation that LaRouche having a relationship break-up caused him to change his philosophical views is an excellent example. Some of the material discussed earlier about "coded messages" would also qualify, along with some of Berlet's more far-fetched "summaries" of the meaning of LaRouche's ideas. --Marvin Diode 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the Berlet/Bellman quote, which attributes their opinions to them. I've left out the connection to LaRouche's wife leaving him, as that appears to be the heart of this dispute and is more purely conjectural. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There is speculative attribution of views to LaRouche without solid evidence that he subscribes to those views, which I believe violates BLP. --Marvin Diode 00:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation does not attribute views, it interprets the views expressed by LaRouche in the "Sexual Impotency" article and elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC responses

In from the RFC. Looking at the arguments here, I think I'll have to agree that Cberlet's theory that the breakup caused LaRouche's views to grow into a bizarre conspiratorial tapestry does fall on the far side of BLP. Other parts of the quote may be acceptable, as long as they can be properly matched up with actual LaRouche quotes. Sorry, Will.--SarekOfVulcan 13:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not in disagreement. I don't particularly support the assertion that the splitup led to the views on feminism either. I do support the use of the quote interpreting those views. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm confused. "It's a bogus arguement, but it's encyclopedic that other people have made it"?--SarekOfVulcan 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are two separate issues. One is whether we should use the quote:
  • [LaRouche's] previous conspiratorial inclinations had now grown into a bizarre tapestry weaving together classical conspiracy theories of the 19th century and post-Marxian economics. He began articulating a `psycho-sexual' theory of political organizing. Sexism and homophobia became central themes of the organization's theories….The problem with making the revolution, LaRouche apparently had concluded, was that women are castrating bitches. One former member left in disgust when she was told women's feelings of degradation in modern society could be traced to the physical placement of female sexual organs near the anus which caused women to confuse sex with excretion
The other is whether we should juxtapose the material on the subject's views on women with his personal history. While his history is undisputed, I agree that the juxtaposition implies a connection and is probably best left out. However the quotation makes no reference to that personal history. I assert that Berlet and Bellman are notable commentators on the subject, and that their interpretation of the subject's comments are informative. We present them in a neutral, attributed fashion. I dispute the assertion of user:Marvin Diode that the quotation is forbidden under WP:FRINGE, because that guideline does not apply to this type of issue. Here is a version of the material that I think is reasonable: [6]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you back up the "castrating bitches" part of the quote? I saw where you backed up the anus/vagina part above, so if you have this, too, I'd say you're mostly covered (and boy, how many diferent ways can I trigger Lupin's filter with this edit?????).--SarekOfVulcan 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as familiar with the works of LaRouche as the authors of the contested quotation are. However reading over the essay that I've quoted from above, "The Sexual Impotence Of The Puerto Rican Socialist Party"[7], I think it's reasonable to summarize LaRouche's description of Latin American women as "castrating bitches". Let's review what LaRouche says in that essay about the relation between women and men:
  • Tell the Macho his type is often a schizoid, make this clear to him, show him his miserable childhood swarming with sadistic mother and sibling and other surrogate-mothers, and his self-consciousness will acknowledge all this to be the truth of the bloody, tiring matador of an Ego in the bull-ring below. Yet, he whimpers, becoming angered at the person who has afflicted him with such self-knowledge: “I am helpless but to behave so. Don't you see; I can act only on the ‘sincerity of my feelings?'”
  • He will also admit—his self-consciousness will admit—that it is the same with the women with whom he has shared such a bed of alienation. Too often, he has heard a woman's voice in the darkness, asking him, “Are you finished?” in either such plain words or words which mean the same to his self-consciousness.
  • Probe his unconscious processes more deeply, bringing up for him what he has barely concealed from himself for so long, and his self-consciousness will know that all these women, his madonna-wife and his whore-wives, are surrogates for his possessive, sadistic mother. It is merely necessary to connect his infantile feelings from the ages of between approximately two and five to his adolescent and adult fantasies, and he must shriek with agony of despair that this, too, has always been true.
  • More deeply explored, the infantile love of the Macho for a woman is often reified hatred of his infantile, sadistically possessive mother. It is reified because infantile hatred toward the mother is associated with a powerful dependency, such that infantile love and infantile hate become thus mixed, confused. The need to love becomes also the need to destroy, to degrade; one can love only a degraded woman (the whore-wife) and one can love the madonna-wife (the mother of her children) only by sensing this to be an act of degrading the Virgin. His madonna-wife must be chaste (i.e., a certain kind of Virgin), so that she does not deprive him of the feeling of rape in her bed. The woman, especially the madonna-wife, is a pure sadist in bed—she lures and rejects, both as her labile, sadistic mother lured and rejected her, as her mother lured and rejected her father, and taught her thus the way of a madonna with men. The whore-wife artifices the madonna-wife as caricature, as parody; she is sadistic, but is always finally conquered, the payment of price the veiled homosexual's consummate act of degradation of both the man and herself, the payment of the “gift” to the mistress her certification as a whore. For the mistress, to discard the lover's gift is to destroy him totally—he never existed. He is merely an object, without inner life; he is dead.
  • “The witch” is a not-uncommon form of such a “Poltergeist,” in both men and women, since the more common potential psychoses and extreme manic-depressive “parasites” of this sort are modeled upon a parody of the mother- image. (The labile, possessive mother, or the “Schwaermerei” of a variety of surrogate mothers is a common basis for a “witch” image.) In no case is such an inferred image a mere construct; in all cases, discovery of such a Gestalt of a mental parasite-entity permits empirical demonstration of the existence of precisely such an entity. Indeed, the afflicted individual has often been aware of such a parasite within himself or herself long before, and in many cases the ingenuous appellation of the name of the parasitical entity has been made by close acquaintances (e.g., “she's a witch”) before then.
  • Sometimes—often enough—her fantasy is not specifically sexual at all, but rather one of pure female sadism. With the (typically) frigid woman, the gratification of sexual performances originates in the sense of power over the male whom she sees as essentially pathetic.
  • This pathetic (depressive) aspect of the Macho syndrome gives the sadistic woman the greatest pathological joy. Here she has the most suitable of victims, a wretched creature to torment with her “moods.” “Come here, Fido,” she grudgingly offers him in one moment, and in the next, “Sorry, Fido, I'm not in the mood. Let's discuss art, Fido. Down, Fido, don't you respect me at all!” What pure sadistic delight for her it is to be as impotently capricious as she chooses, to play cruelly with this helpless pet. He perhaps strikes her; she resents the blow, but delights in the evidence of the misery she has effected in him! Here is a man in whom she can evoke the most profound suffering.
The last two exceropts seem particularly relevant. I could quote further, but I think that "castrating bitches" is a fair summary of the way LaRouche has described these women. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, after reading Will's laborious argument, it would appear that you would have to conclude first that all Latin American men are Machos before you could fairly draw the conclusion that all Latin American women are "castrating bitches." The whole argument looks like an excercise in WP:SYNTH, and Will is going to an awful lot of trouble hoping to include material that is tremendously obscure. I think that Will's assertion that "that Berlet and Bellman are notable commentators on the subject, and that their interpretation of the subject's comments are informative" is simply an indication of his POV.
Secondly, it looks like Berlet and Bellman are engaging in hostile speculation about LaRouche's ideas in an attempt to smear him. I have tried to find the anus/vagina thing referenced in any publication by LaRouche, and I haven't found it. I am not reassured by the fact that B&B have an anonymous source that agrees with the International Workers Party on this -- in fact, I would not be surprised to learn that their anonymous source is the IWP. My view is that this stuff fails both WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE. I would like to also say that I agree with comment of Gelsomina that these articles are already too long, and we ought to be trimming some of the super-esoteric stuff, not finding excuses to insert more. --Marvin Diode 21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MD to address your first point, the essay does indeed cover a broad swath of humanity, including Latin America, and, to a lesser degree, Italy and Spain. Re-read the first two paragraphs. Second, I don't think that anyone would say that the quotation from Berlet and Bellman is entirely neutral. That's why we attribute it rather than simply report their findings. I think we could shorten it and just quote a few phrases rather than presenting the material as a blockquote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, Will, is that you are doing exactly the same thing that Chip Berlet does -- you are selectively combing the essay (Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party) for quotes that you hope will make your case, meanwhile entirely ignoring the central point of the essay. Back in the 1970s, LaRouche was strongly influenced by the ideas of L.S. Kubie, who wrote about neurotic distortion of the creative process. LaRouche tried to take a sociological approach to this idea, to find what sociological factors would prevent creativity (which he identified with political leadership.) The article you are quoting opens quite plainly with "We speak therefore of such impotence in “Macho” Left politics not to degrade the Latin revolutionaries, but to begin to rid them of this disease. To cure such a disease, especially such a disease of the mind, it is first necessary to identify the disease; to bring about the cure, it is first necessary to acknowledge the sickness." Yet, you are trying to make a case that LaRouche is simply either anti-Hispanic or anti-woman, neither of which is justified. Incidentally, LaRouche is not the first person to find fault with Machismo. --Gelsomina 05:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you're familiar with LaRouche's work already. It's hardly necessary to "comb" the essay; it's replete with the kind of language that I've quoted at length. Frankly, now that I've had more time to study the material, I'd say that simply placing some excerpts from the "sexual Impotence" article into the section would be less neutral than quoting Berlet and Bellman's relatively mild summary. I see that LaRouche cites Lawrence S. Kubie often in his other writings. We can add something about that to the section. Regarding the opening of the essay, I'd compare it to the opening of Antony's eulogy for Caesar, "I come not to praise him but to bury him" (and then of course he goes on to praise him persuasively). The essay is addressed at the sickness of the men and women of the political class of Puerto Rico. But it doesn't stop there: the analogy continues:
  • This is not strictly peculiar to Puerto Rico; all Latin politics is permeated with the same pathetic, self-defeating quality....Nor is the problem limited to Latin American culture; the Italian Left ranges from almost as miserable down to more wretched than the Spanish “Machismo.” To an equal or slightly lesser degree, the entire population of the capitalist world is infected with the same impotence, and the consequent tendency to make Left political life a thinly-disguised reflection of that same sexual impotence.
It's not up to us to parse this essay and decide it's interpretation. That would be unsourced original research. The Wikipedia system is to cite the interpetations to verifiable 3rd party sources. In this case, Berlet and Bellman. If there are more interpretations then we can add those too. Though I've certainly read other indictments of machismo, I've never seen such a lurid one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that Berlet and Bellman's "relatively mild summary" has any relationship at all to the essay by LaRouche. You were the one who brought up the essay, arguing that it somehow made Berlet and Bellman credible, and this argument is simply WP:SYNTH. We're back to question of whether Berlet and Bellman's comments should be excluded on the basis of both WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE, and to me the answer is clearly yes, unless a quote can be presented from LaRouche, or a mainstream source, that corroborates them. --Marvin Diode 14:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's see what we can agree on. Is it fair to say that LaRouche articulated a "`psycho-sexual' theory of political organizing"? Gelsomina appears to confirm that LaRouche was influenced by Kubies concept of "neurotic distortion of the creative process". Is it inappropriate to call the thesis of "Sexual Impotency" a "psycho-sexual theory of political organizing"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Dennis King appears to have made a similar observation about the interest of LaRouche in psycho-sexual concepts:
  • LaRouche also taught that the alleged pathology of the Jewish family, especially the mother's possessiveness, produces psychosexual aberrations in young Jews. A 1986 New Solidarity item, "Jewish Mothers in the Age of Aquarius," joked that homosexuality is the natural result.[8]
Since King's book was printed by a mainstream publisher that means the assertion that discussion of LaRouche's interest in this field doesn't fall under WP:FRINGE (not that it ever did, IMO). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to say that LaRouche articulated a "`psycho-sexual' theory of political organizing." I think it would be a good idea to re-title the section, since I don't think LaRouche ever had a strong interest one way or the other in feminism. When he was writing about psycho-sexuality in the 70s, he referred to his ideas as "humanist," meaning that he advocated a universal human identity for both men and women, as well as all ethnic groups etc. He opposed "particularism." He does acknowledge that women have special obstacles to overcome under present social conditions, when he says in the Puerto Rican Socialist essay that "Since the woman has a special, doubly-hard struggle to realize a socially potent intellectual life, it is necessary to go beyond mere self-consciousness of adult individual roles, to self-consciousness of the process of struggling against the special kinds of problems which confront women in their efforts to play a positive role in the socialist movement." Also, I don't think he has written much at all about psycho-sexuality since the 70s, but his organization must think that these writing are historically important because they have them all posted on the LaRouche Youth Movement website. --Gelsomina 13:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary

The following is in the article.

This appears to me to be commentary (however reasonable). Who can we attribute it to? TableManners 06:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we wait for an answer, I am removing it as OR. --Marvin Diode 06:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea to remove it if it is uncited.--Cberlet 12:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Women and feminism

This RfC concerns a dispute at Political views of Lyndon LaRouche#Women and feminism. In the early 1970s, LaRouche published controversial comments about psychosexuality and political leadership. Chip Berlet, an investigative reporter known for covering LaRouche, co-wrote an article on the topic of LaRouche's views of feminism. Can we quote from that article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question would be is it more of that hidden swastika nonsense or is it factual? Recounting (and briefly analyzing) things LaRouche actually said is fine; the advocacy journalism seems to be a pretty questionable and one-sided source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourdee (talk • contribs) 06:22, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
My guess would be that it is nonsense, but much less problematic from a BLP standpoint. It is hopefully clear to the reader that Dennis King looks at galaxies and sees swastikas, and the reader will most likely conclude that it is an "eye of the beholder" sort of problem. It is much more troubling when Wikipedia says that "according to source King/Berlet/etc., LaRouche believes such-and-such," when we are dealing with sheer speculation. Any opinions attributed to LaRouche should be provably LaRouche's. --Marvin Diode 14:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above. The subject's theories of psycho-sexuality are reasonably well-documented. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the subject's theories of psycho-sexuality are not a matter of dispute. We were referring to other claims made by LaRouche's critics. --Marvin Diode 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which claims are in dispute? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Will Beback, can you please provide a citation to the particular Chip Berlet article you'd like to use as a source? Without seeing the specific article, all other editors can do is either endorse an interpretation of hearsay (if pro-inclusion), or assume bad faith on Berlet's part (an ad-hominem attack if anti-inclusion); neither is encyclopedic. Please free us from the horns of this dilemma by being specific about the article you had in mind. VisitorTalk 08:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source is "Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag" by Chip Berlet and Joel Bellman, Political Research Associates, March 10th, 1989. It's been referenced in at least a couple of independent books.[9] Also this work,[10] though I'm not sure what it is. Also some blogs, including one that said, “Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag” is probably the finest and most concise piece of work on the LaRouche group that I’ve ever read... ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you were able to find blurbs for Berlet is irrelevant. LaRouche's EIR was described by Norman Bailey, a former senior staffer of the National Security Council, as "one of the best private intelligence services in the world," but its use as a source is still restricted to articles about LaRouche, because it is regarded as partisan. Berlet's articles are certainly no less partisan. --MaplePorter 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the content dispute is not over whether this article may generally be used as a source, but over whether specific speculations and theories which appear only in this article will violate WP:FRINGE or WP:BLP if they are included. Some editors, including myself, have recommended that theories which are highly derogatory in effect should be included only if they have been referenced in a mainstream source as well. --Marvin Diode 14:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis King's book is a mainstream source, published by a maor publisher, and it covers this material as well. Though I don't think WP:FRINGE applies at all, the fact that material on the subjects views of psycho-sexuality and women is referenced in a mainstream source makes that guideline inapplicable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will, I think you ought to take a few minutes and re-read WP:FRINGE. It covers theories, not sources. A source may be generally acceptable, but a theory from that source may be not notable or acceptable, if it has not been "accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications." --MaplePorter 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first sentence:
  • This page offers guidance on establishing which non-mainstream "theories" should have articles in Wikipedia...
No one is suggesting writing an article about LaRouche's theories of psycho-sexuality. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether that last post is intended to be facetious. The question at hand is whether certain of Chip Berlet's and Dennis King's theories regarding LaRouche pass the FRINGE test. The dispute intersects other policies as well, such as BLP. --Marvin Diode 00:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not facetious. WP:FRINGE refers to whether or not WP should have an article on a given theory. I don't see anyone sugesting we have an article on LaRouches' theories of psycho-sexuality, or on Berlet & Bellman's reporting on LaRouche's theories of psycho-sexuality. There's no question that LaRouche does discuss psycho-sexuality in a number of different writings because he uses that very term. What exact assertion is in dispute? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will is apparently arguing that because of that opening sentence, WP:FRINGE only applies when there is an article about the theory in question, not when the theory is brought into more general articles. In practice, this is not the case. WP:FRINGE may not be the operative policy, but I have seen, for example, at September 11, 2001 attacks‎, that any kind of conspiracy theory or non-orthodox theory about the attacks is excluded from the article as non-notable. I think that the same logic could well apply to some of the theories of Berlet and King, which as I have mentioned before, often focus on revealing the "hidden truth" about LaRouche that no one would arrive at simply by reading his writings, or the coverage in the mainstream press. In other words, their theories have the same basic characteristics as the stuff they denounce as "conspiracism."
As far as which assertions are in dispute, the one that has been most recently disputed is Berlet's claim that "LaRouche apparently had concluded... that women are castrating bitches." He's putting words in LaRouche's mouth, and this is unacceptable under multiple Wikipedia policies. I think that the Nick Benton article should be discussed here too, although Benton is more restrained in his language than the Wikipedia editors who have "summarized" him to make the insinuations more explicit. Certain "non-mainstream" theories might be acceptable if they don't stray into defamation, but the ones that Will is promoting are, in my opinion, defamatory. The Benton article implies that LaRouche caused a friend of his to commit suicide. --MaplePorter 06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't contain anything about castrating bitches now. Is there anything currently in the article that's in dispute? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least three times I've asked about any specific problems with Political views of Lyndon LaRouche,[11][12][13] and haven't received any complaints about material that's currently in the article. So I assume this RfC is succesfully concluded. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just taken a look at the current version, and it looks like most of the disputed material is now gone. I saw a few problems, which I changed: first of all, I believe that it is disputed whether LaRouche "has theories about female domination of men," so I changed that to say that LaRouche's critics say he has such theories. Also, from what I can tell, "The Politics of Male Impotence" was actually an unpublished internal memo, so I edited the section to say that. Previously it was worded in such a way that made it appear that this was a published article by LaRouche. I haven't had the time to actually wade through the photostats that Chip Berlet posted, and I think it would be helpful if someone could do that and provide a better summary of what was in the memo. --Marvin Diode 05:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<------According to Wiki policy, it is better to cite a published summary than conduct original research. Since this has already been done, I propose the summary of LaRouche's views be "women are castrating bitches."--Cberlet 14:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

Lately I keep getting junkmail from Citizens Electoral Council, a Rouchite entity in Australia. (I'm in California and have no connexion to Australia.) Has he moved or something? —Tamfang 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The LaRouche Movement has affiliated groups in many countries. Our article on the Australian group is at Citizens Electoral Council. I'm not aware of LaRouche himself ever visiting that continent and he certainly hasn't moved there unless it's a secret. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No conceivable reason to allow fair use?"

Will Beback just removed an image with the edit summary "rm fair use image - no conceivable reason to allow fair use." Could you explain this, please? --Marvin Diode 21:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is replaceable, in that both people are still alive. There's no critical commentary about the photo itself. The people in the image are not the subjects of this article. There's no source listed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to add commentary to address your concerns. The image depicts King and Berlet at LaRouche's trial, which is relevant to LaRouche's bio. It's unlikely that it is replaceable, since such an event is probably not going to happen again. The source is listed. --MaplePorter 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the image as long as the cutline is accurate. King and I took a train down to DC to celebrate the incarceration of convicted felon and neofascist homophopbic antisemite Lyndon LaRouche. We did not attend the trial, but we wanted to applaud and cheer as he was led off to jail.--Cberlet 00:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DC? I thought the trial that led to LaRouche's conviction was in Virginia, and that he was not given bail during the trial. Was he let out prior to his incarceration and then turned himself in to authorities in DC? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We took a train to DC. Union Station. I came down from Boston, and met Dennis on the train in New York. After we arrived in DC, we took the Metro to Alexandria, Virginia for the sentencing. LaRouche was led out the back door of the courthouse after being sentenced. That's where the picture was taken by LaRouchites. :-) --Cberlet 01:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to include our photos on this page, at least have the backbone to decribe why we were there. What is being disputed? Homophobe? Neofascist? Lunatic? Antisemite? "Small time Hitler?" All from reputable published sources.--Cberlet 03:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, enough of these sly personal attacks. Cut it out. I deleted the copyrighted image that was posted as form of political POV cyberstalking.--Cberlet 13:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait until consensus/a decision is reached on whether or not it falls under fair use. Sfacets 14:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in fighting over an image that will deleted shortly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why will it be deleted? Who makes the decision, and how would you know in advance? --MaplePorter 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to archive?

Can we archive an earlier section of this talk page? It's getting pretty long. --Marvin Diode 14:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche&oldid=159027723"