Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

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

Archives

What a ridiculously bloated article!

I don't know much about LaRouche, but from what I have read, he doesn't strike me as a major intellectual figure, yet this article is longer than most Prime Minsters, President, heads of state and towering figures of history - it's as long as Napoleon Bonaparte's article! 'And' he has a separate, extensive page dedicated to his view: Views of Lyndon LaRouche, which is fully protected from editing. Unbelievable. Interesting, amusing stuff, but just way too much when one takes the objective view. Proof Reader 01:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

<---------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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ok, you've convinced me that it is probably enough of a reliable source for this purpose. JoshuaZ 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research).

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)

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)

Please see WP:FRINGE, especially Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. --Marvin Diode 20:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think that my proposal should be applied to all contentious/potentially libelous/derogatory claims. Dagomar 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Commentary

The following is in the article.

“ It is unclear from LaRouche's writings whether he actually studied all these philosophers at such an age, or simply formed opinions about them based on general impressions. ”

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

While we wait for an answer, I am removing it as OR. --Marvin Diode 06:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to remove it if it is uncited.--Cberlet 12:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

See above. The subject's theories of psycho-sexuality are reasonably well-documented. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Which claims are in dispute? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

<------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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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 BLP violation redacted Thatcher131 13:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC) 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)

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)

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)

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? BLP violation redacted Thatcher131 13:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC) All from reputable published sources.--Cberlet 03:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And to think that some people say you edit here with an agenda! --Gelsomina 15:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Why the change of heart? You seemed only to happy to include it just hours ago. What changed? Was it because your POV additions were removed by other editors, or was it all just to prove some kind of point. Arkalochori 00:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

There's no point in fighting over an image that will deleted shortly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why will it be deleted? Who makes the decision, and how would you know in advance? --MaplePorter 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#user:MaplePorter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the fair use ratinale of this image - it could be argued that the circumstances in the photo can not be reproduced - the photo depicts two outspoken critics of LaRouche after a relevant event in his biography. The Photograph is located in the criticism section of the article, and both subjects are mentionned in the article. Per WP:FU "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." are acceptable. Sfacets 01:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not how fair use works, it would only apply if this page was about Dennis King or Chip Berlet. It is not. There is no substantive commentary on Dennis King or Chip Berlet or the event. Fair use does not extend this far. It never has.--Cberlet 02:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

poor references

You have about 80 links that are unlabeled, non-ref links in the articles. That is really shitty. I am going to convert them over to refs. It will take hours get the titles and dates for them. Please respect that.--RidinHood25 00:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the http://dennisking.org/ web site has been down for months. I am really uncomfortable with the 15 links to that site that this current article has. It is too many considering that there are plenty of other sources about the subject. Maybe we can just point to that web site or make two or three points based on that site and let it go at that.--RidinHood25 00:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We can probably get webarchive links to dennisking.org. I don't think 15 is too many out of over a hundred, considering that King wrote the only full-length biography of the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for labelling the links. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Yeah, there is one archive.org link to the major King book. The rest...feh. The pages are there in the archive.org site. I really do not trust these one-man web sites that focus on one other man: there is often objectivity problems. I would rather have a dozen more newspaper articles on the subject rather than another dozen pages from King.--RidinHood25 02:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I object to the wholesale deletion of numerous references to a website that has been down for a few days; espcially without any attempt to find cites from other sources such as King's book. And the snide personal attacks on King and his work are objectionable. Feh indeed.--Cberlet 02:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh, I'm sure Mr King writes some very nice articles ;) Sfacets 02:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So, then, everyman a King?  :-0 --Cberlet 03:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete all references to links that are down. The right way of handling them is at Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RidinHood25 says that the web site dennisking.org has been down for "months." That is not true. It has been down for one week. It is now back up under the name lyndonlarouche.org If "dennisking" is changed to "lyndonlarouche" in the web paths, the relevant files will be there. One reason I changed the name is because I figured Lyndon is such a great economist, statesman, historian, mathematician, philosopher, psychologist, musicologist and criminal mastermind that he really deserves a web address of his own.--Dking 18:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this can also be seen as a deliberate deception on your part, trying to lure people to your site by posing as part of the LaRouche organization. Did you find that "dennisking.org" wasn't generating much interest? --Masai warrior 21:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that should be a fight for another time and venue. Arkalochori 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ponder our complicity in a distorted Wikipedia structure

I am temporarily leaving Wikipedia in protest over structural and procedural polices that reward aggression and bigotry here on Wikipedia.

I do not think these are intentional, but there has been a consistent refusal to deal with these issues over several years.

The system rewards and promotes:

1). aggressive bullies and stalkers who are often young and male.

2). racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, and Islamophobic bigots.

I am leaving for one month to commemorate the anniversary of Kristallnacht, which is on November 9th; after which I will reconsider my options, especially regarding the failure of Wikipedia to deal with the protracted and multi-year manipulation of Wikpedia by supporters of the BLP violation redacted Thatcher131 13:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Lyndon LaRouche, especially on the entry, Views of Lyndon LaRouche.

At what point do we as Wikipedia editors become complicit? At what point do we step back and consider how we have become enablers and apologists for aggression and bigotry?

I came to this decision while preparing an essay tied to the anniversary of Kristallnacht in Germany.

(Chip Berlet)--Cberlet 12:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are the supporters of LaRouche whom you wish to see "dealt with"? --Marvin Diode 14:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs a way to fight groups from aggressively imposing their POV other than with other groups fighting aggressively to impose their own POV. Both groups believe their POV is the NPOV. Both seek to write and interpret policy and accuse the other of violating policy. Chip, anything you can think up to help Wikipedia find a better solution than the one Wikipedia has currently would be a step in the right direction. Add any ideas you have to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiquality . Thanks. I think we need revision tagging (stable versions), a content arbcom manned by volunteer university profs, and other ideas provided at the WikiQuality page I just linked. Can you drum up significant financial contributions contractually earmarked for an independent evaluation of issues concerning bias where the amount and the details are part of the submitted proposal and subject to acceptance by the Wikimedia Foundation? Care to try? WikiMedia and Wikipedia are slowly moving towards accountability and professional standards. Too slow, but it's the right direction. WAS 4.250 13:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Section on anti-semitism is incomprehensible

The section on anti-semitism is incomprehensible. I was reading the article on LaRouche while writing a piece on Ann Coulter whose increasingly derranged attacks appear to me to be ever more LaRouche like by the day. Since Coulter has recently branched out into anti-semitism I was looking to see if there were some bankable comparisons.

Instead I find a conspiracy theory about spiral galaxies. While it is true that neo-Nazis do use codes to signal their views (e.g. 88 for Heil Hitler) that does not mean that everyone who uses the number 88 is an anti-semite. Without more context it is impossible to tell whether this is a genuine issue or simply the result of speculation as adled as LaRouche's own. --66.31.39.76 13:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the latter is probably the case. But I have another issue with this article. In the "criticism" section, it more or less implies that Dennis King and Chip Berlet are or were leftists. I don't think that they were ever leftists in the conventional sense. They should be identified with their affiliation with the drug culture or drug legalization movement, in Berlet's case because he was Washington bureau chief for High Times magazine, and King's case because of his long-time association with the Yippies. --Leatherstocking 15:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested on LaRouche's views on Jews or other topics, then the best article to read is Views of Lyndon LaRouche. That article focuses on what he wrote, including his philosophies, historical and economic analyses, etc., while this article focuses on what he did. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The section on antisemitism is retarded. Look at this nonsense: He claims that certain photos of barred spiral galaxies and of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory plasmoid experiments which appeared in LaRouche's New Solidarity newspaper and Fusion magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika" and of the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest. Lyndon LaRouche is crazy enough without having to interject other people's crazy conspiracy theories into the article about him. LaRouche denounces antisemitism, LaRouche does not protest at Israeli embassies or anything like that. he thinks the Queen of England is behind everything, he probably thinks she's behind Zionism too for all I care. Is everyone okay with removing it? Shii (tock) 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're familiar with the source materials and can improve the material then feel free. But please don't remove sourced material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Shii, I respect your intentions which I believe are consistent with WP:BLP. But I think it would be more defamatory to simply say that "critics claim he's anti-Semitic," leaving the reader to assume the worst. Better to provide a glimpse into the reasoning of said critics, which I agree does bring to mind the term "crazy conspiracy theories." --Marvin Diode 08:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed hundreds of mainstream media articles on LaRouche, and I'd say that he is much more freqently called an "anti-Semite" than a "cult leader". I'm not sure the description is only made by critics, but if we call virtually all of the mainstream media "critics" then it applies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Both of you guys-- I see your reasoning. However, the section should be cleaned up.

Will, I disagree strongly with your characterization of LaRouche criticism. Looking at the sources cited in refs 1 and 2, you see that most of the criticism is mostly calling LaRouche crazy, with only a side reference to the fact that the ADL considers him a crypto-anti-Semite. The exception is Berlet, Chip & Bellman Joe. "Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag" which does not read to me like a reliable source; its language is somewhat paranoid. Example:

And why do most mainstream media outlets refuse to use terms such as "anti-Semite" and "small-time Hitler" when court actions have resulted in those terms being found not defamatory but "fair comment?"

Perhaps because such terms are both wrong and mean-spirited? Anyway... Marvin is right, better to keep a full explanation of how the claims of anti-Semitism are conjured up. Shii (tock) 19:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The full discussion of LaRouche's views on Jews is in Views of Lyndon LaRouche, which covers his philosphy. This article is focused on the deeds of the subject. As for the description of LaRouche as an "anti-Semite", we can add dozens of newspaper citations if you think it would help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that LaRouche has written millions of words in his life, and to single out anti-Semitism among various labels people ascribe to him gives far too much weight to irresponsible critics like Dennis King. What's wrong with just "conspiracy theorist"? We shouldn't overuse the word "anti-Semite" into meaninglessness. In the case of both LaRouche and David Icke the crypto-anti-Semite supposition should be explained in the body of the article but not given unneeded weight in the lead. Shii (tock) 04:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a few opinions on this subject if I may. First of all, please don't take offense, Wikipedia has a sort of cultish worship of published sources. Don't get me wrong, I realize that there must be some sort of criteria that limit what can be introduced into an article, so it is reasonable to require that it come from a published source. But on the other hand, let's not kid ourselves, the major media lie all the time, mostly by repeating things that they know to be lies, like the WMD in Iraq. The cultism at Wikipedia comes from what appears to be shared delusion that if it has been published, it's gospel, when in fact the major media are owned by characters like Rupert Murdoch who buy them because it gives them the power to make or break people. Now, bear with me, because I'm coming to my point. LaRouche has critics, by which I mean people who have taken a dispassionate look at his views and see defects in them. One example would be Daniel Brandt (oops, I understand that he's a bit of a bogey-man around here.) However, most of the people who are referred to in this article as "critics" are not critics at all. They are Enemies with a capital E. These are people who would be beside themselves with joy if LaRouche caught a bullet. Now, my answer to Shii's question about why they call LaRouche an anti-semite. They answer is simple. LaRouche's organization is led primarily by Jews, and has been for almost 40 years. The charge of anti-Semitism is intended to demoralize them, upset their families, and so on. It's not criticism, it's psychological warfare. That's my two cents worth. --Leon Pringle 07:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The characterization of LaRouche as an anti-Semite is certainly not limited to King. On the contrary, it's one of the most common characterizations made, and is made by the leading mainstream media sources.

• ...[T]he New York Times published a series of articles stating that members of the US Labor Party, which LaRouche founded, have "initiated gang assaults at rivals' meetings, taken courses in the use of knives and rifles at an anti-terrorist school and produced private intelligence reports on antiapartheid groups in the United States for the Bureau of State Security of South Africa." The Times series also branded LaRouche as an anti-Semite.
  • FRINGE CANDIDATE OR A THREAT?; ; THE LYNDON LAROUCHE CAMPAIGN; Charles Kenney Globe Staff. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Feb 17, 1980. pg. 1
• LaRouche has been denounced as an anti-Semite and a hate monger, and Democratic Party leaders have publicly disavowed any affiliation with him.
  • LaRouche backers laud Illinois upsets; NENE FOXHALL, Houston Chronicle Political Writer. Houston Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). Houston, Tex.: Mar 22, 1986. pg. 27
• Calling Mr. LaRouche a fascist and an anti-Semite, ...[Sen. Daniel] Moynihan said the party should follow the example of Democrats in Washington Heights and Inwood who identified candidates for the school board as LaRouche supporters and defeated them by publicizing Mr. LaRouche's political theories. ... There was no way Mel Klenetsky could win the Democratic nomination from me, Mr. Moynihan said. But, he added, it would be a hollow victory if we got there by allowing a fascist, anti-Semitic conspiratorial element to be further legitimizted as an element in our party...In a telephone interview yesterday, Mr. Klenetsky called Mr. Moynihan's statements smears, gossip and slander. He said that both he and Mr. LaRouche were vigorously opposed to fascism and anti-Semitism.
  • MOYNIHAN DENOUNCES LAROUCHE, KERR, PETER. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Mar 24, 1986. pg. B.
• [LaRouche] said the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization that considers him an anti-Semite, has always "attacked me on behalf of the drug lobby." He said the news media had been "intoxicated into believing its own lies" - that he is a Nazi and an anti-Semite; and he dismissed one question as the ravings of a "drug-pusher."
  • LAROUCHE SPEAKS HIS MIND Larry Eichel. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Apr 10, 1986. pg. A.18
• Many people have a hard time figuring out what the LaRouchites really believe in. Are they right-wingers or left-wingers or just plain nuts? How can they be anti-Semitic when so many of them are Jews? It sounds confusing, but it can be explained...To gain support of other right-wing extremist groups and distressed farmers, they came up with an anti-Semitic pitch: Jewish bankers are the cause of their woes. But because many of the longtime members are Jewish, they had to be brainwashed, stripped of their heritage, convinced that the organization and its world-saving mission was more important than family and dignity.
  • FOR LAROUCHITES, IT'S ALL A HOAX; Mike Royko. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext). Chicago, Ill.: Apr 14, 1986. pg. 3 <
• A small-time Hitler," the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith said of LaRouche two years ago. LaRouche sued for libel, but a jury sided with the prominent Jewish organization, which considers LaRouche a leading anti-Semite.
  • Authorities See Pattern of Threats, Plots Dark Side of LaRouche Empire Surfaces; KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 14, 1986. pg. 1
• In reply to your Jan. 22 editorial, I think it sufficient that I make but two crucial points. First, since I am not an anti-Semite, as some have suggested, reporting of the assertion that I am anti-Semitic tarnishes the publication, such as your own.
  • I'm not anti-Semite, Larouche says; The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Jan 30, 1995. pg. B.2
• Mr. LaRouche is a magnet for criticism. He has been accused of being a cult leader, fascist and anti-Semite -- all of which he and those around him vehemently deny.
• But Bob Baker, a Virginia-based agriculture activist who is associated with Lyndon LaRouche -- a convicted U.S. felon who is well-known to Jewish groups -- is still scheduled to speak at the show being held at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre next month. "In the case of Lyndon LaRouche, you make it guilt by association," Irving Abella, a York University professor of Canadian Jewish history, said last night. "This is a man who is anti-Semitic, has a history of criminal activity and has expressed extreme views."
  • Health group in hot water over second speaker. Krista Foss. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Feb 23, 2001. pg. A.19
• ...Lyndon LaRouche, an American rightwing extremist condemned by leading Jewish organisations as an anti-semite.
  • Mystery death of anti-war student: Family calls for new German police inquiry after crucial questions left unanswered. Hugh Muir. The Guardian. Manchester (UK): Jul 12, 2003. pg. 14
• In a Dec. 11 letter to Dunn, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe said LaRouche was not a legitimate Democrat because of expressed political beliefs "which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic."
  • Democrats bar LaRouche from Utah primary. Dan Harrie. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Jan 8, 2004. pg. B.6
• Hailed by backers as an economist and philosopher and denounced by detractors as a conspiracy theorist and anti-Semite, LaRouche has run for president...
  • LaRouche donation upstages other issues ; Johnson apologizes again during 37th District candidates' debate; WILLIAM LAMB, STAFF WRITER. The Record. Bergen County, N.J.: Nov 1, 2007. pg. A.10

So there you go. Newspapers in three countries, quoting various notable sources, saying that LaRouche has been called "anti-Semitic" over 27 years, and that he's been denying it regularly. There are at least 200 more citations in the same archive that include LaRouche and anti-Semite that don't mention King. This is a widely-held view point, and NPOV requires that we include it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done a re-write on the intro to make it clearer and rewritten the King section to focus on the core of his assertions, and to make it shorter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Using the Big Lie against Dennis King

Once again (second posting above), the LaRouche editors are allowed to spread the old drug lobbyist-dealer-smoker lie against me with impunity, even though it is not relevant to the discussion at hand and is totally at variance with Wiki discussion page policy. My answer to this standard refrain (memorized and repeated by LaRouche Youth Movement members who know nothing about me) is at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/biglie.htm In capsule, convicted felon LaRouche--not me--was the one who worked for cocaine dictator Manuel Noriega and had the alliances with Carlos Marcello, Tony Pro, the Melis, the Patriarchas, Mitch Werbell, John Cody (the Gambino man in Local 282), and heroin banker Michele Sindona.--Dking 00:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I said you had a long-time association with the Yippies. Do you deny this? --Leatherstocking 01:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we can consider the source of these accusations. Maybe he has an association with some individuals, but how you'd stretch that affiliation into his being an alleged advocate of drug legalization, a label so important that it is stronger than his identification a leftist I have no idea. He is a writer, one article in a certain magazine does not make an allegiance. He is pretty clearly left-leaning (Progressive Labor Party) but the relevance of this to his published works which are what is of importance here is minimal. --arkalochori ^|talk| 02:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Arkalochori says about me: "He is pretty clearly left-leaning (Progressive Labor Party)." Just to set the record straight: My relationship with the PLP ended 34 years ago. For many years I have considered myself pretty much a political moderate, left-leaning on some issues, right-leaning on others.--Dking 14:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, thirty years is a long time after all. Again to Leatherstocking, I don't see the connection between knew five yippies becoming he was an advocate of drug legalization. --arkalochori ^|talk| 00:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say he was. I said two things: that he shouldn't be identified as a leftist (he says he's left leaning on some issues, right leaning on others -- but the idea that he's a "moderate" is a bit much.) I also said that he and Berlet should be identified with the drug culture or drug legalization movement -- maybe "counterculture" would be better. Hippies maybe. BTW, "Big Lie against Dennis King" is quite melodramatic and grandiose, reminds me of LaRouche. --Leatherstocking 18:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is all this defame Dennis King and Chip Berlet stuff allowed on this page? It has no relevance to the subject at hand, which is about creating a truthful autobiographical article about Lyndon LaRouche--a convicted felon whose past ties to drug traffickers and associates of organized crime have been well documented.--Dking 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the claim that the assertion that LaRouche is a fascist or anti-semitic is a "fringe" concept, proposed only by a couple of critics. I saw this quote from Oct. 29, 2007, by Democratic New Jersey Assemblyman Gary Schaer:

• In a written statement, Schaer said: "For more than a generation, Lyndon LaRouche's neo-fascist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic remarks and writings have been well documented by numerous groups committed to fighting prejudice and bigotry."[14]

The view certainly isn't limited to only a few opponents. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Left vs Dropped Out

When does Wikipedia use "dropped out" and when does it use "left" when describing departing a college without a degree? Uncle uncle uncle 20:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Kronberg

With all due respect, I think the Kronberg material is getting a bit long. We should try to limit it to one or two lines of background plus the parts that directly relate to LaRouche himself, especially anything LaRouche has done or said in response. We have a whole article on Kronberg, so we should avoid devoting too much space to him here. the material on Molly Kronberg appears tangential and I think we should remove it entirely, or simply say that his widow blames LaRouche, or however it's best summarized. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I just shortened that section before I read this comment. --Terrawatt 14:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a short reference to the Molly Kronberg interview back into the Kronberg section. --Hardindr 21:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Which I reverted as a mistake. The link to the article is sufficient. --Marvin Diode 03:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The deletions by Marvin Diode are not acceptable. They are POV and based on marginal and idiosyncratic original research. Furthermore, there is an extensive pattern of tendentious editing. --Cberlet 03:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the deletions by Cberlet, who is obviously Chip Berlet? It looks like he and Dennis King are trying to present themselves here as scholarly types. I laughed when I saw King's edit summary about "the literature." So then Cberlet deletes a sourced quote from King because it is obviously a bit zany. I can guarantee you that if he found a zany quote from LaRouche, he would insist that it be included. --Niels Gade 15:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm: [[15]] --Cberlet 16:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Zany quotes from King may be better included in the article on King. This article is about laRouche, so we want the material which is most helpful in creating a full biography. We already spend too much space on the anti-Semitism issue in this article. It's already covered in greater depth in the "Views" article. I think the swastika imagery information is interesting, but not important enough to include in this biography that's too long already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Will Beback, Cberlet and Dking are trying to "spin" this section to make the accusations appear more plausible than they actually are, and this treads upon WP:BLP. For example, in Will's re-write of the section, he simply takes a number of King's more dubious claims, such as "LaRouche shifted his emphasis from the Rockefellers to the Jews," and states them as fact. Perhaps the one thing we agree upon is that the section is unnecessarily long. The "swastika imagery"section, however, is not merely interesting -- it sheds important light on King's methodology, and where something as serious as allegations of anti-Semitism is concern, this should not be sanitized. --Marvin Diode 21:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The point of my edit was to include the major points of King's assertions about LaRouche regarding anti-Semitism. This article isn't about King's methodology. If we have reliable sources that discuss his methodology we should include that in the article on King. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Molly Kronberg interview, I thought that it was more appropriate to leave it out altogether since it is in the linked article. But if Cberlet and Hardindr insist on adding to this article, then the other material [16] about her support for Bush and her apparent conflict with her husband's views belongs there also, under NPOV. --Marvin Diode 21:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true. The particular text I deleted is POV, misrepresents the underlying cites, and violates WP:SYNTH. --Cberlet 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I just read pages 75-77 of King's book. I find that the claims inserted into this entry use selective quotions in a way that do not reflect the complicated arguments being made by King, and instead trivialize them. As such, I have deleted them pending a full discussion.--Cberlet 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that your latest version just tries to put a positive "spin" on King's "complicated arguments." --Niels Gade 00:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the chapters of King's bio of LaRouche dealing with Jews? What do you think his main points are? How would you summarize it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

King on LaRouche on Jews

Proposed version by Will Beback

Here's my version of the summary of King's assertions about LaRouche's view of the Jews.

• Dennis King cites LaRouche's connections with neo-Nazi and fringe ultra-conservatives, including Willis Carto, and Ken Duggan, as being a reason that LaRouche shifted his attention from the Rockefellers to the Jews in the mid-1970s. However King also notes that there were anti-Semitic writings before then. King reports that some Jewish members quit the movement due to anti-Semitic jokes, Holocause denial, and a perceived resemblance between LaRouche's writings and Mein Kampf. To placate others, King asserts, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew": " To be a real Jew, he suggested, one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community."[17] King compares LaRouches' writings with various Nazi and other anti-Semitic tracts going back to the 1890s and finds a common themes of connecting Jewish power with the British Empire. King points to assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families.[18] Daniel Pipes has contradicted some of King's assertions, writing: "Dennis King insists that [LaRouche's] references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really `code language' to refer to Jews. In fact, these are references to the British." [ref Pipes, Daniel, Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From, Simon & Schuster (Free Press), 1997, p. 142] noting that "LaRouche places a British-Jewish alliance at the center of his conspiracism."[Pipes, p. 137]

I think that properly and neutrally summarizes the two chapters of King's book that deal with this issue. Can anyone who's read the material suggest ways of improving it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Will Beback version

That is a complete and totally NPOV and fair summary. Kudos.--Cberlet 00:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more.

• "Dennis King cites connections" is conspiracist wording; what exactly consitutes

a "connection"? "Cites" sounds authoritative, when based on what I have seen from King, "alleges" would be the case.

• Your summary baldly states "LaRouche shifted his attention from the Rockefellers to the Jews" as fact, when this is undoubtably another allegation from King.

• "To be a real Jew, he suggested," is written in such a way as to imply that it is LaRouche doing the suggesting, when in fact it is King doing so.

• "King points to assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families." In fact, it is King that is suggesting that the families LaRouche criticizes are Jewish, and it is King that is claiming that it matters. One can criticize the Rothschilds as bad businessmen without giving a hoot whether they are Jewish.

• "Pipes, however, also criticizes LaRouche's antisemitism," is OR -- the quote from Pipes says that "LaRouche places a British-Jewish alliance at the center of his conspiraism.[sic]," which does not necessarily mean that Pipes even claims LaRouche is anti-Semitic. You are again baldly stating that LaRouche is anti-Semitic as fact, when it is an allegation.

• You have omitted King's analysis of "coded messages," presumably because it embarasses your POV-team. This is unacceptable -- it is a trademark methodology of King. --Marvin Diode 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see about fixing those problems:

• Dennis King asserts that LaRouche made connections with neo-Nazi and fringe ultra-conservatives, including Willis Carto, and Ken Duggan, and so shifted his attention from the Rockefellers to the Jews in the mid-1970s. However King also asserts that LaRouche had written anti-Semitic commentaries before then. King reports that some Jewish members quit the movement due to anti-Semitic jokes, Holocause denial, and a perceived resemblance between LaRouche's writings and Mein Kampf. To placate other Jewish followers, King asserts, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew": "To be a real Jew...one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community."[19] King compares LaRouches' writings with various Nazi and other anti-Semitic tracts going back to the 1890s and finds a common themes of connecting Jewish power with the British Empire. King points to assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families.[20]

That addresses your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd points. Regarding your fourth point, the text I wrote:

• King points to assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families.

is intended to summarize this text:

• The LaRouchians listed what they believed to be the key institutions of British power in the twentieth century--the Fabian Society, the Round Table group, the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the British Secret Service, etc. Each was said to be under "Rothschild" control. In a pamphlet on the British aristocracy, LaRouche aide Chris White wrote that the scions of the Rothschild family "preside over" the British organs of power: The "evolution of the Rothschild family and its outlook" has determined the "evolution and outlook of the British political system."

How would you suggest summarize that point, which appears as part of a general explanation on LaRouche's view of the connection between important Jewish families and the British Empire? Regarding your 5th point, I didn't alter the text about Pipes. On further investigation I think we can improve our summary of what he says and should make it a standalone paragraph. Regarding your last point, I don't see "coded messages" mentioned in either chapter. According to whom is it King's trademark methodology? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The "coded messages" are found in Chapter 10 [21]. At least one commentator, Daniel Pipes, has found King's decoding notable, plus your own summary notes that King also thinks "Venetian" is code for "Jews." You use, in your above comment, the summary "King points to assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families," and then you quote a text from LaRouche which doesn't mention Jews at all, but does mention the Rothschild family. Please recall my above comment about how it is possible to criticize the practices of the Rothschilds without giving a hoot about whether they are Jewish -- your statement, and presumable King's, imputes a motive to LaRouche which is defamatory. --Marvin Diode 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't find "coded messages" used as a term in that chapter either. Could you please quote the text you're referring to? Does Pipes call "coded messages" King's "trademark methodology"? If so can you give a reference for it? My summary didn't mention Venetians. As for the Rothschilds, they are Jewish. They control the main institutions of British power. Therefore a Jewish family controls the British Empire. It is certainly possible to criticize the Rothschilds and other Jewish banking families without being ant--Semitic, but that's beside the point. This paragraph is only intended to summarize King's view of LaRouche, not to decide whether LaRouche is in fact anti-Semitic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of the problem of relying on LaRouchite publications for facts. King does talk about masked antisemitism in his book, but you would need to actually have a copy of King's book in front of you to find the references. Since the LaRouchites are incompetent hacks when it comes to research, we see that various chapters from King are put forward as proof, when in fact it is just another example of why LaRouchite publications are not considered a reputable source. Happy hunting. Hint--look for the Queen!--Cberlet 02:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

King's Chap. 10 doesn't really concern Jews or anti-Semitism, so I don't know why we'd cite that material anyway. If we had a section of views of LaRouche's purported fascism then it would be relevant. It's not relevant to anti-Semitism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I can't find "symbolic scapegoat" in Chapter 17, nor does the word "euphemisms" appear in Chapter 29. I'm left with the impression that whoever wrote that version hasn't actually read the book in question, and neither have the editors who keep restoring it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your impressions are false. Both "symbolic scapegoat" and "euphemisms" were added to the article by User:Dking.[22][23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.245.109 (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Those were words used in a summary of several chapters, and did not mention "coded" which is the term used by LaRouchites to disparage the work of critics detailing antisemitic tendencies.--Cberlet 13:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand which part of the previous comment you are disagreeing with. --Niels Gade 21:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The words were not quotes from the King book, but used by King in a summary. The comments by Will Beback were thus accurate.--Cberlet 21:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback said he thought that the words were added by someone who had not read the book, yet it appears that they were added by the author of the book. --Niels Gade 21:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please strop this nonsense, it is a waste of time. Will Beback wrote that whovever wrote the disputed version of the summary of King's book did not refer to the proper chapters, and overall the text misrepresented King's views. Move on. We are dealing with text that will properly reflect King's views. See below.--Cberlet 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed version by Marvin Diode

• Having taken a look at Niels' draft, I would like to withdraw this and endorse Niels' version. --Marvin Diode (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is my version of the summary, which was intended to correct the defects in Will Beback's. The refs have been removed because the software gave me an error message:

• Dennis King asserts that in order to hide anti-Semitism, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew." According to King, LaRouche thinks that to be a real Jew, "one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community." King also claims to have found "euphemisms," "semantic tricks," and examples of "symbolic scapegoating" in LaRouche's writings that he claims confirm the allegations of conventional anti-Semitism. For example, King claims that LaRouche's published attacks on Henry Kissinger include a disguised form of anti-Semitism. King further says these examples bolster his argument (which also references certain images used in LaRouche publications) that LaRouche is a neofascist whose world view secretly centers on anti-Semitism and includes a "dream of world conquest." He claims that certain photos of barred spiral galaxies and of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory plasmoid experiments which appeared in LaRouche's New Solidarity newspaper and Fusion magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika" and of the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest." He also points to a 1978 illustration in New Solidarity of Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David -- and certain headlines (in more recent LaRouche publications) such as "How the Venetian Virus Infected and Took Over England" -- to bolster his argument that LaRouche's attacks on a "British" oligarchy are often coded attacks on international Jewry. This latter claim is disputed by author Daniel Pipes, who writes: "Dennis King insists that [LaRouche's] references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really `code language' to refer to Jews. In fact, these are references to the British."

--Marvin Diode 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Marvin Diode version

Hopelessly biased and fails to reflect main contentions of King in an NPOV way. Trivializes antisemitism of LaRouche. Ignores long history of coded antisemitism in public discourse that became common after WWII. Other version by Will Beback is far better.--Cberlet 15:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am confused by your comments here -- on another post you made today, you say that coded antisemitism is "the term used by LaRouchites to disparage the work of critics detailing antisemitic tendencies," and yet here you say that this version "ignores long history of coded antisemitism." --Niels Gade 21:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And the questions about misquotations hasn't been addressed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Which are the questions that hasn't been addressed? Could you specify any misquotations? --Niels Gade 21:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are discussed under "Proposed version by Will Beback" above. The direct quotations don't match the references listed in the article. Marvin's version does not appear to be a correct summary of what King has written about LaRouche's alleged anti-Semitism. At least he's dropped the unsupported claim of "coded messages", but it still isn't a fair saummary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that King requires nearly this much verbiage. How about a simple one-line description: Journalist Dennis King has written a book-length conspiracy theory which alleges that LaRouche, who opposes both fascism and anti-Semitism, is covertly an anti-semitic fascist. That ought to be enough. --Terrawatt 22:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

King wrote the only full-length biography of LaRouche published in a reliable source, so he deserves as much space as anyone. That said, I agree that the paragraph can be shortened by sticking to what King says about anti-Semticism, rather than bringing other material into it. The overall section shouldn't be too long as the topic is covered in the "Views" article. Rather than dwelling on what King says I'd rather quote Royko, Moynihan, the ADL et al. to show that this is a viewpoint held by a variety of notable commentators. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(Irrelevant aside) I have been asked to participate in this discussion but I don't want to, because I need to complete a lengthy paper on the meaninglessness of the term "jihadism" by Sunday evening, and I am utterly fed up with the wiki model of consensus which guarantees that this stupid topic will be argued again and again for years to come. I think the wording "critics have variously seen him as a conspiracy theorist, an anti-Semite, or the leader of a political cult" is sufficiently neutral and should be preserved. Otherwise, godspeed to you all Shii (tock) 22:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose mediation as the quickest and most painless way of resolving this. --Marvin Diode 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be easier if we simply discuss the matter here. There are several outstanding questions about your proposa;, and you haven't addressed my responses to your questions about my proposal. If we're not discussing things here I'm not sure what a mediator can do to help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am unclear about what the "outstanding questions" are regarding my proposal. I looked back over your earlier comments and couldn't find what you refer to as "misquotations," unless you are talking about the use of the terms "euphemisms" and "symbolic scapegoating." I'm not particularly attached to those terms -- they apparently were added to the article by Dking. ---- Marvin Diode (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback. The version by Marvin Diode is not as good as the version by Will Beback. I propose we move on. This is starting to go in circles.---- Cberlet (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If Marvin isn't attached then let's remove them since they aren't in the sources listed. Regarding the spiral galaxies, that material doesn't appear in a discussion of LaRouche purported anti-Semitism. Since that alleged anti-Semitism is the focus of this section, I think we should limit ourselves to citing discussions of it. We should also summarize King's main points. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaving out the parts that Marvin isn't attached to, the parts that don't concern anti-Semitism, and the Pipes material, here's Marvin's version:

• Dennis King asserts that in order to hide anti-Semitism, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew." According to King, LaRouche thinks that to be a real Jew, "one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community." King says that LaRouche's published attacks on Henry Kissinger include a disguised form of anti-Semitism. King further says these examples bolster his argument (which also references certain images used in LaRouche publications) that LaRouche is a neofascist whose world view secretly centers on anti-Semitism and includes a "dream of world conquest." He also points to a 1978 illustration in New Solidarity of Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David to bolster his argument that LaRouche's attacks on a "British" oligarchy are often coded attacks on international Jewry.

I think we can do better, but this is better than what's in there now. Let's keep wokring on it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does the quote "dream of world conquest" come from? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I found it, in Chapter 10 of King's book. However it doens't concern anti-Semitism so we should delete that too. While King does connect LaRouche's anti-Semiticism to an interest in fascism, I don't think we should get into that in this section. If we're going to explain Kings view of LaRouches' view of the connection between the British Empire and Jews, I think we can do better than that example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed the heading because this appears to be a section on comments on Marvin's version. Marvin said he wasn't attached to the sentence about euphemisms, yet you seem to have deleted a lot of other sentences too. It looks like you did this because you want to limit the discussion to anti-semitism charges, and I don't see the point to this. I think King's theory, which seems to be an agglomeration of guilt by association claims to suggest that LaRouche is a Nazi, should be dealt with as a whole. It could be done within the anti-semitism section, I don't see a big conflict. The Pipes material should stay, definately relevant. I recall there being more from Pipes in the last version Marvin did before they froze the article, maybe Marvin forgot to include it. The galaxies stuff should stay, too -- so much of the article is dominated by King's beliefs that it is appropriate to examine his methods. The section on German scientists (elsewhere in criticism) is very strange; it is partly factual, and partly some sort of innuendo that since LaRouche worked with the scientists, and the scientists worked for the German government, and the German government was Nazi, then LaRouche must somehow be pro-Nazi. In the Living Persons policy it warns against guilt by association claims, and if you feel you must include such claims by King, you should make sure that they are identified as such, so that it doesn't appear that Wikipedia gives credence to this technique (this would be my main criticism of the Will Beback version.) --Niels Gade (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course this material should be limited to anti-Semitism. The title of the section is "Allegations of anti-Semitism". Are you proposing changing it to "Allegations of anti-Semitism and fascism"? If so there are other allegations of fascism we should include too. If not we should keep it limited to anti-Semiticism. I'm not proposing deleting the Pipes material outright, I just left it out to simplify the editing of the stuff from King. I've got the Pipes book on order and will undertake a re-write once I've got it. If there are 3rd-party sources that addres King's methodology those would be appropriate in the article on him. As is standard with neutrality, we should make it clear that we aren't calling the subject anti-Semitic but are just reporting what is being said in reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If that is so, I suggest that you delete the sentence right now, written by Berlet in the present version, which says that Pipes "recognizes that LaRouche is an anti-Semite." --Niels Gade (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is protected so we can't change anything for a few more days. As I said before, I have the Pipes book on order and should be able to write a paragraph on his views of LaRouche and anti-Semitism next week. In the meantime, much of the book is available online courtesy of Google. I'm not sure Cberlet has done the best job of summarizing Pipes statement on p.137 of Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes from . which reads in part: "Lyndon LaRouche places a British-Jewish alliance at the center of his conspiracism..." I think we should leave aside the Pipe matter until later and focus on the King material for now. Do we agree to limit the overall section to the allegation of anti-Semitism, or do editors want to expand it to include allegations of fascism? I prefer to keep it limited because of space issues, and because we already have the "Views" article, but I'm flexible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be limited to those options. I favor Niels' proposal. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're abandoning efforts to improvement the text you previously edit-warred over? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to leave out Pipes entirely on this page. It would be a good compromise.--Cberlet (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Pipes apparently devotes considerable attention to LaRouche. Since he's a respectable figure and his book is a discusses some of LaRouche's conspiracies, he's a valuable and reliable source. However I agree that we should stick to the most important allegations. Leaving Pipes out entirely would leave a void, but if we want to devote space to the issue I think Moynihan and others are more prominent commentators. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion by Niels Gade

I think that the formatting of the criticism section is artificial. I propose the following. First, drop the subheaders. Start with a general paragraph that reviews criticism from various parts of the spectrum, Heritage Foundation, etc. Then Will's list of people who simply say "LaRouche is antisemitic," such as Moynihan, with a link to the section in "Views of Lyndon LaRouche." There should be a short paragraph on the ADL (and also the Australian ADC -- there is a noteworthy link in the CEC article to their attack on LaRouche, where their reasoning is that he attacks a particular family that is Jewish, and they say he "hopes' this will rub off on Jews in general. This is similar to King's argument about the Rothschilds.) Then a section on King, Berlet, and Wohlforth, who all make similar charges (including fascism,) and a discussion of their guilt-by-association and decoding techniques. The German scientists section should be shortened and combined into this section. The other notable decoding charges such as Bartley should be in this section too. I think that subheadings are generally unnecessary. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments of Niels Gade version

Why don't you write up a draft here of what you have in mind? --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would object to ad hominem attacks on critics of LaRouche. A "discussion of their guilt-by-association and decoding techniques" would require 3rd-party sources that I doubt exist. I don't think that grouping criticisms by critic is better than grouping it by type of criticism. This article isn't about the critics, it's about LaRouche. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done a preliminary version. As it turns out, grouping criticisms by critic is the same as grouping by type of criticism. I found that there were numerous allegations of antisemitism in the first part of the section, so that it then seemed strange to have another section called "allegations of antisemitism." The entire section was sort of a patchwork quilt that was obviously something built up over time by many different writers. I tried to make it more coherent but I'm sure it still needs lots of work. --Niels Gade (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's quite long and should have sub-sections in it for readability and organization. The problems start with the first sentence, which makes an unsourced and hard to verify assertion presented in a odd way:

• The most common criticism of LaRouche in the mainstream press is that he is a conspiracy theorist, with some authors charging that this veers off into antisemitism.

Does even a single author claim LaRouche "veers off into antisemitism"? Is the ADL an author or a part of the mainstream press? Further, it ignores the discussion we've had above, including readding the misquotations in this text:

• King also claims to have found "euphemisms,"[14] "semantic tricks,"[15] and examples of "symbolic scapegoating"[16]

It doesn't properly summarize what Pipes has to say. It doesn't quote the most notable commentators, like Moynihan and Royko, but instead focuses on the comments of lesser, though still significant, individuals. I can't see why Linda Ray deserves a long quotation. It's better to summarize than to quote, and this material is too long already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we're goig to have a consolidated "criticism" section it should give the best-possible overview of the criticims of the subject. A number of individuals have complained that LaRouche and his group defrauded them of their savings. Many of them testified in court, and their stories have been reported in the mainstream media. We can't leave them out of a general criticism section, especially since their criticisms led to criminal prosecutions.

·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of these comments and disagree with others. However, I'd like to suggest that we carry on this discussion here, so that we can examine the draft and the comments without having to jump from page to page. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I reject that suggestion since it is built around an already biased piece of text. We need to stay here and work out a proper NPOV text, not be lured off to an editing forum set up by one side or the other. Read Lakoff on framing. If one adopts the frame established by one side of a debate to have the debate, then the side that first framed the debate always has the advantage.

It seems that Will Beback is attemption an NPOV version. We should work with that version, taking into account the specific issues rasied by Will Beback above.--Cberlet (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have re-written my proposed draft of the criticism section, taking into account the comments of Will and Marvin. --Niels Gade (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The version we are working on is on this page. See below.--Cberlet (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed version by Cberlet

Here is my rewrite of the Will Beback version:

• Dennis King observes anti-Semitic writings by LaRouche trace back to the early 1970s, although the Rockefellers were the main target at the time. King argues that LaRouche's emerging connections with neo-Nazi and fringe ultra-conservatives, including Willis Carto, and Ken Duggan, were the main reason that LaRouche shifted his focus to the Jews in the mid-1970s. King reports that some Jewish members quit the movement due to anti-Semitic jokes, Holocause denial, and a perceived resemblance between LaRouche's writings and Mein Kampf. To placate others, King asserts, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew": " To be a real Jew, he suggested, one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community."[24] King compares LaRouches' writings with various Nazi and other anti-Semitic tracts going back to the 1890s and finds a common themes of connecting Jewish power with the British Empire. King points to assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families.[25] Daniel Pipes has contradicted some of King's assertions, writing: "Dennis King insists that [LaRouche's] references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really 'code language' to refer to Jews. In fact, these are references to the British." [ref Pipes, Daniel, Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From, Simon & Schuster (Free Press), 1997, p. 142] Pipes also notes, however, that "LaRouche places a British-Jewish alliance at the center of his conspiracism."[Pipes, p. 137]

We can work with this.--Cberlet (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Cberlet version

That looks good to me. Thanks for improving it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are my comments to the Chip Berlet version:

• Dennis King observes anti-Semitic writings by LaRouche trace back to the early 1970s asserts "anti-Semitic writings" as fact, when it is an allegation. This tactic is continued throughout the Berlet version:
• LaRouche's emerging connections with neo-Nazi and fringe ultra-conservatives: allegation presented as fact. Incidentally, if this goes into the article, it should be balanced with the George/Wilcox view that "Although the transient relationship is frequently mentioned to illustrate "links" and "ties" between LaRouche and the extreme right, it was brief and fleeting. Given their respective personalities, a union of LaRouche and Carto would be a miracle under any circumstances."
• LaRouche shifted his focus to the Jews in the mid-1970s: allegation presented as fact.
• King reports that some Jewish members quit the movement due to anti-Semitic jokes, Holocause denial, and a perceived resemblance between LaRouche's writings and Mein Kampf. This is something that King alleges, not something he "reports."
• King points to assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families. This is in fact an assertion by King, not LaRouche.

However, I agree with Niels that it is a bit silly to be confining our discussion to re-writing a paragraph that is supposed to focus on allegations of anti-Semitism, when much of the earlier part of the section is also about allegations of anti-Semitism. There should be a re-write of the entire criticism section, and I think Niels has made a useful start. If Chip is going to insist that it is impermissible to discuss this, we should start the mediation now. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Those issues are easily dealt with:

• Dennis King asserts that anti-Semitic writings by LaRouche trace back to the early 1970s, although the Rockefellers were the main target at the time. King says that LaRouche made connections with neo-Nazi and fringe ultra-conservatives, including Willis Carto, and Ken Duggan, which were the main reason that, acording to King, LaRouche shifted his focus to the Jews in the mid-1970s. King asserts that some Jewish members quit the movement due to anti-Semitic jokes, Holocause denial, and a perceived resemblance between LaRouche's writings and Mein Kampf. To placate others, King asserts, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew": " To be a real Jew, he suggested, one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community."[26] King compares LaRouches' writings with various Nazi and other anti-Semitic tracts going back to the 1890s and finds a common themes of connecting Jewish power with the British Empire. King points to what he says are assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families.[27] Daniel Pipes has contradicted some of King's assertions, writing: "Dennis King insists that [LaRouche's] references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really 'code language' to refer to Jews. In fact, these are references to the British." [ref Pipes, Daniel, Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From, Simon & Schuster (Free Press), 1997, p. 142] Pipes also notes, however, that "LaRouche places a British-Jewish alliance at the center of his conspiracism."[Pipes, p. 137]

That should take care of each of the complaints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing that strikes me about this stuff is that there is no actual evidence of anti-Semitism. If King is to be believed, LaRouche 1) knew some anti-Semitic guys; 2) wrote some articles on Britain that remind King of other articles, written by some anti-Semitic guys; and 3) criticized some Jewish families and the policies of the state of Israel. However, this seems like an accurate depiction of King's message. I suggest that it be merged with Niels Gade's longer piece on the other page. --Terrawatt (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Our job isn't to prove or disprove LaRouche's anti-Semitism, it's just to report what notable people have said in that regard. 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs)

Terrawatt's combined version

After a couple of tries to fix it in situ, I've reverted Terawatt's change to the criticism section. It was worse than what we had before. If folks want to organize the criticism by topic or by critic, both have their advantages, but the version pasted in did neither, and repeated the same same topics and critics throughout. I propose that we agree on a format for the criticism section and base our writing on that structure. Since other editors appear to prefer organizing by critic, I'll agree with that if it makes the process easier. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I abandoned my attempt at organizing by critic, and went instead with organizing by topic, because I understood that to be what you wanted. I even put in a special section on fascism allegations, because I thought you wanted that. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it didn't work in the end. Antisemiticism was mentioned over and over again, and other important criticisms were omitted or barely mentioned. I don't think that having two editors go off and work on a version of their own was a good procedure. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument here. I don't think it is possible to make rigid distinctions as to formatting by critic versus formatting by topic, since there is overlap -- some critics weigh in on numerous topics. I think that the Niels Gade/Terrawatt effort is in fact a big improvement over what you reverted to, which is all over the map. I'm putting it back. Niels responded to all the criticisms that were made during the time the article was protected. If there are additional objections or suggestions now, you should list them here, rather than reverting his work. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The work is stil in progress. Let's agree on the text here before adding it to the article to avoid getting into an edit war. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Then please list your objections. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I already did. For starters, antisemitism was mentioned over and over again, and other important criticisms were omitted or barely mentioned. Is the intent to give an overview of all significant criticisms of the subject, or just to cover criticisms in a couple of defined areas? I think it's more logical to do the former. I think we should first agree on a structure and scope, and then follow that plan. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Terawatt's edit was an amazing example of a biased POV propaganda text. It should be enshrined as an example of misdirection and slanted construction. It is not possible to fix it. It violates NPOV in almost every paragraph. Just look at how criticisms of LaRouche are encapsulated in efforts to discredit those criticisms.--Cberlet (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Terrawatt's edit is simply a combination of your material, and mine. You refused to comment on mine during the time-out, and I find your above comments to be unproductive. Please make specific complaints on this talk page. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. Terrawatt's edit was biased and propagandistic. See section on Sockpupptes and Metpuppets below.--Cberlet (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to say that I am very disappointed with what has gone on here. Marvin presented a detailed list of objections to Will Beback's version, which were addressed and the version was improved. If Chip Berlet and his followers would follow suit, instead of just throwing insults, the process could move forward. The article was locked up for several days, and now we seem to be back to square one. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We may need to lock the article again if folks insist on adding and fighting over material that doesn't have consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and Meatpuppets

I think it is appropriate to point out that everytime a pro-LaRouche sockpuppet or meatpuppet is banned, another one magically appears. How long should Wikipedia put up with this? The LaRouchites have an endless supply. This is clearly a problem. --Cberlet (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It must be especially enraging for you to realize that LaRouche's ideas are winning the support of actual young people, who will be going strong long after LaRouche's baby boomer opponents have finished their rapid descent into senility. --Polly Hedra (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep its raining LaRouchites from the sky....It's the End of the World as We Know It! --arkalochori ^|talk| 01:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a rain, more like a steady drizzle. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Herschelkrustofsky, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Herschelkrustofsky. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you need a citation for the "cult" thing you can just tell our readers to compare this comment to the Washington Monthly discussion of LaRouche's recent generation-war obsession. Kind of scary actually Shii (tock) 05:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There do appear to be new pro-LaRouche accounts, but I can also think of at least two recent WP:SPAs that edit with the King-Berlet-Beback team. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Diode, Can you please stop insulting me and Assume Good Faith? Thank you. --Hardindr (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Current version being discussed

Let's not get sidetracked. There is a version of the King section under discussion. I have broken it down into smaller chunks so we can address issues in a related way. Here is the last revision of the text:

• 1 Dennis King asserts that anti-Semitic writings by LaRouche trace back to the early 1970s, although the Rockefellers were the main target at the time.

• 2 King says that LaRouche made connections with neo-Nazi and fringe ultra-conservatives, including Willis Carto, and Ken Duggan, which were the main reason that, acording to King, LaRouche shifted his focus to the Jews in the mid-1970s. King asserts that some Jewish members quit the movement due to anti-Semitic jokes, Holocause denial, and a perceived resemblance between LaRouche's writings and Mein Kampf.

• 3 To placate others, King asserts, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew": " To be a real Jew, he suggested, one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community."[28]

• 4 King compares LaRouches' writings with various Nazi and other anti-Semitic tracts going back to the 1890s and finds a common themes of connecting Jewish power with the British Empire. King points to what he says are assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families.[29]

• 5 Daniel Pipes has contradicted some of King's assertions, writing: "Dennis King insists that [LaRouche's] references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really 'code language' to refer to Jews. In fact, these are references to the British." [ref Pipes, Daniel, Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From, Simon & Schuster (Free Press), 1997, p. 142] Pipes also notes, however, that "LaRouche places a British-Jewish alliance at the center of his conspiracism."[Pipes, p. 137]

I think this is an excellent version. It is NPOV and accurate. I suggest we place it in the article.--Cberlet (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss this further. This has already been settled, and in fact it was already placed in the article by Terrawatt, and then reverted by you and your followers. I would hope you would stop being so arrogant and enter into an honest discussion about the work that I did, which was also discussed by others, entered by Terrawatt, and reverted by you and your followers. You have yet to present any concrete objections to it, and I am replacing it now to jog your memory. --Niels Gade (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You are not familiar with Wikipedia. There is always a need to discuss matters to get consensus. There is no consensus for the major revision. Let's keep discussing it until we find consensus, and until then let's leave in the text that had been here for a long time without complaint. Also, please don't refer to me as a "follower" of Cberlet. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 06:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, let's continue the discusion of the proposed material. Does Niels Gade or anyone else object to the material proposed above? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Will, you are misrepresenting the history of this dispute. The version of the text that had been here for a long time without complaint is this one, and it was Cberlet who first attempted a major revision without consensus in this edit. Regarding personal attacks, you have historically argued that if it doesn't mention a name, it's not a personal attack -- not that I necessarily agree. What do you think of Cberlet's diatribe about sockpuppets and meatpuppets, above? Is there a personal attack there? --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we stick with discussing content. Do you have any objections to the text posted above? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I can live with it. It has been thoroughly discussed, and it's in the presently protected version of the article, and as far as I know, no one is disputing it. It's the rest of the criticism section that is under dispute, so we should roll up our sleeves and get to work on that. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. Once the other editors agree we can post it and move on to the other parts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The one thing I changed, because Marvin suggested it, was in line 2 about Willis Carto etc. I added the quote from Laird Wilcox and John George which disputes the significance of the so-called "connections." Cberlet seems to be saying above that it is wrong to include rebuttals to the criticisms against LaRouche, but I see at Chip_Berlet#Criticism that that is exactly the way criticism is handled at that article, so I see no reason to object to it here. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should separate out the (alleged) association of LaRouche with far-right figures. Obviously the relationship with Frankhouser is important. But regarding Carto, this is an example of where we cover the same ground twice:

• Rose also alleged that LaRouche at this time was in contact with Soviet diplomats, while also linking up with ultrarightists such as Willis Carto of the Liberty Lobby and Pennsylvania Ku Klux Klan grand dragon Roy Frankhouser.[44]
• King says that LaRouche made connections with neo-Nazi and fringe ultra-conservatives, including Willis Carto, and Ken Duggan, which were the main reason that, acording to King, LaRouche shifted his focus to the Jews in the mid-1970s (Authors Laird Wilcox and John George dispute this assertion: "Although the transient relationship is frequently mentioned to illustrate "links" and "ties" between LaRouche and the extreme right, it was brief and fleeting. Given their respective personalities, a union of LaRouche and Carto would be a miracle under any circumstances."[49])

Anyway, it sounds like the text printed above is acceptable to everyone, with the addition of the Laird Wilcox comment. Can we now move on to the fundamental question of how to organize this material? The two modes that have been suggested are by topic and by critic. Right now we do neither. A third way, which I don't think is practical, would be to organize criticisms by date. Because LaRouche had more publicity in the 1980s than before or since it would end to lump the criticism into that one period, but some views think that it's better to distribute criticism throughout an article rather than grouping it together as we're doing. I think that it would be simplest to organize the criticism by critic. That way we can list the main points by each critic, which it is tidy and simple. If we want to do it by topic, then we ned to decide what the signifcnat criticism are first, which will be more time consuming. Some criticisms may not fall into any neat categories and so would have to be included in a "misc" section. Any other thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent(?)] Here is the reasoning that I used to organize the current version: first I started with the high-profile critics, Washington Post, New York Times, National Review, etc., assuming that they would be of primary interest to the reader. Their criticisms do not fit into a particular topic well. For the remainder of the section, I organized it by topic. When Terrawatt added in the section written by Will Beback, he created an additional topic, "allegations of anti-Semitism," which was obviously the correct thing to do. Some critics appear in more than one topic. I think that if you try to organize it by critic, there will be battles over which critics are more notable, who gets "top billing," etc., especially since two of those critics are editors here. I have some questions about whether Tim Wohlforth is important enough to be quoted or even mentioned.

The other thing that concerns me is what is to prevent Chip Berlet from doing what he did last time the article was locked: refuse to participate in the discussion, and then go revert-crazy after unlocking. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet was active in discussing revisions on this page. Proposed material that had no consensus was added to the article as soo as it was unprotected. I suggest that we achieve consensus before adding controversial material. It is unfair to say that Cberlet went "revert-crazy" unless you apply that term to yourself as well: he reverted no more than you did.

It sounds like organization by critics will be the simplest. I agree that we'll have to decide which critics to include. I don't think it matters much what order they're arranged in. Major media and organizations are probably better handled separately from individual writers. I agree that Wohlforth would probably near the end if included at all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that it sounds like organization by critics will be simplest. There are more critics than there are criticisms -- plus there are a number of critics who have virtually identical views, meaning King, Berlet, and some of their friends. It makes more sense, from the standpoint of the convenience of the reader and lack of repetition, to organize by topic.

Having said that, I am generally satisfied by the hybrid version that was posted by Terrawatt. However, I do have a few specific objections/suggestions which I will list, and I suggest that others do the same.

• I agree with Will's comment that the "links and ties" to right-wingers should be consolidated.
• In the section about Linda Hunt and Dennis King and their views on LaRouche and German scientists -- is there a quote that makes clear what they are insinuating? Or is this another case of "links and ties"? Also, the areas of collaboration between LaRouche and the scientists should be specified: space colonization, fusion, SDI, and whatever else.
• I also agree about Wohlforth/Tourish being too obscure, plus Linda Ray as well. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the hybrid version, but I'd be willing to organize the criticism by topic instead. If we want to organize do that then we need to decide which criticisms count as major and which are minor. The major criticisms are probably worth a paragraph or subsection each, while the minor criticisms may be consoliated into a single paragraph. Here's a list of some major criticism: anti-Semite, cult leader, "nutball" (various synonyms are used), fascist, fraudster. Are there others? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with the hybrid version. I would include conspiracy theorist and neofascist in the list of major criticisms of LaRouche.--Cberlet (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are all covered in the hybrid version, except "nutball" which is an epithet, not a criticism. Please list your objections to the hybrid version. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My objections have been posted before. The "hybrid" version is poorly-organized and repetitive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As we search for sources I think we'll be able to refine "nutball" or it may be combined with "extremist", "fringe", etc. Let's base it on what we find in the sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Then let me re-phrase my request. Please list some suggestions that will allow us to improve it, as I did with your version of the Dennis King section. It appears that we agree that the "links and ties" material should be consolidated. Perhaps it should be omitted altogether, on the grounds of guilt by association. But please make some specific suggestions that will enable us to improve the article, instead of vague complaints. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should work it over further, I think we should start from scratch with a clear organization and good research. Are there ny other major criticisms you'd like to add to the list? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It is Marvin Diode who keeps raising the issue of code language here. Now he says the quote from Linda Rae, who wrote directly about this issue from personal experience, is too "obscure." He also claims that Linda Hunt (the expert on Operation Paperclip) and I "insinuate" things about LaRouche and the "German scientists." There is no insinuation--we both wrote openly and bluntly and cited names, dates and events for LaRouche's alliance with former Nazi scientists to defend the indefensible war criminal Arthur Rudolph and to glorify the heritage of Nazi science (a heritage, I might add that includes not only V-2 rockets but the likes of Dr. Mengele). And why should we be allowing the LaRouchians to impose on this article polite terms like "German V-2 scientist"--the Germans who worked on the V-2 program were then and have been since then commonly referred to as "Nazi scientists" and "former Nazi scientists." They worked for Hitler and for the Nazis to kill the enemies of Nazism, and by doing so were each of them responsible in some degree for the Holocaust and for the even larger number of people killed through German military aggression against its neighbors. Many were in the Nazi party. Some, like Werner von Braun, were SS members. Wikipedia should use the blunt common-sense term "former Nazi scientists" for these people (as is used in media not subject to incessant censorship by LaRouche followers operating under pseudonyms).--Dking (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)P.S. Even the LaRouchians on occasion used the term "Nazi" for these scientists before concocting their Wiki spin. Remember the article from Fusion (I think it was) back in the 1980s entitled "Lessons of Nazi Jet Aircraft Development"?--Dking (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, we get the guilt by association thing. The question is, what exactly are you alleging about LaRouche? Do you claim that he supports Nazism? -- because he says he opposes it. What exactly is "Nazi science," and how does it differ from everyone else's science? Are you saying (as you appear to say above) that LaRouche supports Dr. Mengele? It is unclear whether you are making such claims, or as Marvin says, merely insinuating. Do you plan to go to Wikipedia articles such as Werner von Braun and re-write them, in order to cast these scientists as passionate pro-Nazis?

On the subject of "links" and "ties" or "connectos," it should be noted that this is a standard tactic of Conspiracy theory. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get bogged down with specifics. While I appreciate that Dking thinks the association with scientists who work with the Nazi regime is important, that isn't a common criticism of LaRouche and may be better handled by presenting it as factual part of the biography rather than as criticism. Regarding "links and ties", we can include that under the "conspiracy theorist" part of the criticism section, if we can find a source for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the "links and ties" in King's attacks on LaRouche, as mentioned in the article by George and Wilcox. --Terrawatt (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like fine material for the Dennis King article. For this article rebuttals from LaRouche and associates would be appropriate. I believe that there are many comments about King from LaRouche, so there shouldn't be a lack of balance. As for our work here I don't see anyone else suggesting additions to the list of major criticisms. I propose that we take them individually, see what sources we can find, and then compose text to summarize the sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I put a lot of work into the material which is in the present version, and the categories of criticism which I included seem to correspond to what you are proposing. You seem strangely unwilling to state your objections to simply refining the present version. I don't see the point of starting from scratch. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've spent some time on improving the old version that was in the article, but I don't think that just reworking the same old material is really helpful because there are fundamental problems with the organization and lack of careful research that predate your editing. The best way to write encyclopedia is to just summarize the sources. I assume you don't object to going back to the sources and see what they say. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Will, why don't you prepare an alternate version then, and post it for discussion at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/criticismdraft? Then possibly it could be merged with Niels' work, as was done by Terrawatt last time around. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, why don't you agree to follow Will Beback's suggestions? I am very tired of having this discussion go in circles in a way that diverts us from editing text in a constructive and collaborative way. The version by Niels Gade was constructed in a way that dismissed and diminished the criticisms of LaRouche, trivialized the seriousness of the criticisms, and create an impression of LaROuceh that is only believed by a tiny handful of his followers. Not suitable for a real encyclopedia. Not worth attempting to integrate. This relentless effort to use the flawed and POV work of Niels Gade is tendentious and disruptive in a passive agressive way. Perhaps that is hard to see from where you sit, but from where I sit it is painfully obvious. Note that Niels Gade is drawn from the name of a Danish compoer of the type favored by LaRouche, and used by a new editor who appeared after another pro-LaRouche editor was blocked. Niels Gade has devoted the bulk of edits to a single issue: promoting LaRouche. There is no reason to pursue an attempt to revise the work of Niels Gade on this page. None. A waste of time. Move on.--Cberlet (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, do you guys have to make a conspiracy theory out of everything? Niels Gade is my given name, and my parents did not intentionally name me after the composer. But what if they had? It's not like being named after someone evil like John Foster Dulles. And LaRouche has never, to my knowledge, shown any interest in Gade the composer. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than starting by preparing an alternate version, I think it would be more helpful to start by assembling research. Once we have all the relevant source material picked out, it's easier to write the actual text. I'll start up a page at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research with headings for the major categories of criticism that we've identified. We can all add either citations or short quotations from reliable sources criticizing the subject, along with whatever rebuttals from the subject or his supporters that we can find. Once the research seems complete we can draft a neutral, consensus version that's well organized, gives proper to the issues, and correctly summarizes sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: An obvious place to start is with the citations we alreay have in the article. I'll move those in tonight or tomorrow unless someone else does first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

minor correction

"Readings of Marx and Lenin were off the reading list of LaRouche's followers" should read "Marx and Lenin were off the reading list for LaRouche's followers" —Jemmy_tc 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Tha seems like a proper and minor correction, so I've gone ahead and made it. Thanks for pointing it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Will, it should be "Marx and Rosa Luxemburg were off the reading list." Works by Lenin were never on the list to any significant extent.--Dking 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

While LaRouche's Marxist roots are mentioned in many sources, I don't recall (my memory is bad) any mention of Luxemburg. Is that in New American Fascism? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The LaRouche organization published its own translation of The Industrial Development of Poland[30] and LaRouche often referred to the ideas of Luxemburg. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Then if no one objects I'll make the change. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche on Wikipedia

I strongly recommend that the administrators or whoever is in charge here include in LaRouche's Current Activties section quotes from the press release that appeared on the LaRouche PAC website today. It has intrinsic interest, particularly for a Wikipedia entry.

[31]

The entire press release reads as follows:

Are You a Wikipediaphile? December 11, 2007 (LPAC)--"What I want to emphasize," Lyndon LaRouche said this morning, "is that I am very serious about Wikipediaphiles." What you are dealing with, is a drastic shortening of attention-span among victims of MySpace, Facebook, and the like. "Which is again, the same thing that you are getting with the shooters, on the killer games. What you are getting here, especially in the 14-18 age group, but also some older people,-- you are getting an extremely abbreviated attention span, which has crippling effects now. I think they have trouble getting from one end of a short sentence to the other.

"You get scrambled, not just fragmented sentences. Wikipedia, with Jimmy Wales and company, and all the people who are behind this,--" LaRouche continued, "Wikipedia is the H.G. Wells program. You have something which everybody cites, essentially. It's on the internet, and it's the dictionary. You Google. And when you Google, you go to Wikipedia. This becomes truth. And you find that Wikipedia changes its definitions of references as it evolves. It eliminates what it said before, and it says something different. The opposite thing, or something different."

So therefore, this is the synthetic history idea, which is H.G. Wells. Wells called it the "Permanent World Encyclopedia." [link to pamphlet] Now you call it, "Wikipediaphiles!"

Remember George Orwell's 1984. The job of Winston Smith, the protagonist, was to change history, by changing old newspaper records to match the new truth as decided by the Party.

"Remember that George Orwell was the guy, who, together with the two crazy brothers--Aldous and Julian Huxley--the three of them were the guys who took the Kool-Aid, in this case, LSD. They took the natural Kool-Aid, LSD, and they were all conditioned under the direction of the patronage of Wells, who was their patron, but under the direction of Alistair Crowley. So it's a Satanic cult."

"The problem we have, to combat that, is, how do you combat an absolute idiot on the question of an argument?", LaRouche asked. "So therefore, you have to make the idiocy of this thing, the issue. And thus, you say, `Oh, you poor idiot. You're a Wikipediaphile.' Hoo Hoo. Don't you Google! Don't you Google at me! Who are you, Barney Google?"

I think this gives useful insight into the mind of Lyndon LaRouche.Hexham (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is interesting. We're developing material in the Views of Lyndon LaRouche article to cover this new campaign. So far it doesn't appear to be particularly notable because it's barely been mentioned in 3rd-party sources. This article is focused on the actions of the man, rather than his various proposals and theories. More appropriate would be a long sentence just updating his current priorites (Anti-Clinton, mortgage reform, anti-social networking, anti-global warming, still pro-nuclear, etc). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

None of that makes any sense. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Clinton?! --Polly Hedra (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Hilary Clinton. At least that's my impression. I haven't fully researched his opinions on the 2008 election. I recall that in some past elections he's been slow to support his party's nominees. Anyway the point being that we should summarize briefly his most current issues, and expound on them in the "views" article as sources allow. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your impression is mistaken. LaRouche issued an open letter to Hilary this summer, advising her that if she came out for the impeachment of Cheney, she could win the White House in a landslide. She hasn't done that, of course. LaRouche has also said that as it presently stands, none of the available candidates is adequate for the present crisis.

I'd like to point out that since the September 24, 1976 op-ed in the Washington Post, LaRouche simply does not get covered in U.S. 3rd party sources, for the reasons hinted at in that editorial. Instead, there are occasional canned slanders of the sort that King and Berlet specialize in. I saw the debate at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche about whether LaRouche should be considered "right" or "left," and I thought it was very funny that Will Beback found all these sources that said he was "right," but not one of them provided any evidence for the claim. It's just the media "party line." If you want 3rd party coverage of LaRouche, you need to go to the Chinese or Russian press. The recent Xinhua release would be appropriate for use in Wikipedia. --Terrawatt (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche has had fairly extensive coverage over the years. I've read hundreds of archived newspaper articles on him, there's been a whole book written about him, plus lengthy coverage in a couple of other books. Just a month or so ago a magazine did a long article on him and the movement. That's not to mention the blogs that cover his more recent activities, which we don't usually use for sources. The blogs mention the social networking campaign, but I haven't seen much yet in "reliable sources". Did the Xinhua relaese mention it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed my comments about "canned slanders" above. The Xinhua release focusses on his role as an economist, which in a sanely-edited Wikipedia article would be the central topic. --Terrawatt (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, I forget that every one out of scores of newspapers and magazines that writes about him in the U.S., the U.K., Canadam and Australia is in a conspiracy to denigrate Lyndon LaRouche. And that the only countries with strong governments and state-sponsored news services, like Russia and China, have fair coverage of him. And that LaRouche is the world's greatest economic forecaster. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about on the other page, where I raised the issue of systemic bias (WP:BIAS.) It is easy for me to imagine how the Chinese or Russians view the US media: they probably see it as controlled by corrupt and ruthless robber barons, who have enough money to purchase Fox News and the Wall Street Journal and use them for their own purposes (yes, I'm using Rupert Murdoch as an example.) It is true that China has a state-sponsored news service, but I'm not going to automatically accept that this is somehow different than what we have in the US, where the media went meekly along with all the BS about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And to dismissively refer to China and Russia as "strong governments" is to ignore the shameful fact that the present US administration has tortured, wiretapped, and renditioned with no significant opposition from any American institutions. --Terrawatt (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I remember now. You were saying that the WSJ was no longer reliable because of Murdoch, even though the sale hasn't gone through yet. Anyway, this article isn't about the media conglomerates, even if everybody does love to hate them. The issue here and now are whether a few articles deserve a mention in LaRouche's biography. Since the articles have not attracted attention from the press (in any country) they don't appear notable and I think we should only mention them in passing in a brief summary of LaRouche's current opinions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Will, I think you're evading Terrawatt's point. He's not making assertions about the reliability of the WSJ as a source, he's pointing out that the Chinese may very well view the US press with the same skepticism that you view the Chinese press. And it appears to me that you place a lot of emphasis on a minor publication, the Washington Monthly, because it is congenial to your POV, while at the same time you dismiss a major wire service, Xinhua, because it is inconvenient to your POV. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't dismissed Xinhua, I simply said that if they haven't talked about LaRouche's campaign against social networkng sites/Wikipedia/cyberspace then they aren't relevant to this discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The campaign against social networking sites is notable, but there is broader point to be made here. The fact of the matter is, LaRouche has been accurate in his forecasting, and that, in an NPOV article, would be central to his notability. The Chinese and Russians recognize that, and they are interested in LaRouche's ideas because both of those countries have big economic problems which they wish to solve. And yes, there is a policy (as opposed to a "conspiracy") in the media of "the U.S., the U.K., Canadam and Australia"(sic) to denigrate LaRouche, just as there was a policy to uncritically report about the terrible threat posed by the Iraqi WMDs. People in "the U.S., the U.K., Canadam and Australia" are far too smug about their alleged freedom of the press and "reliable sources." --Terrawatt (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche has the same track record of accuracy in his predictions as an auto-repeating taped message claiming economic collpase weekly for 30 years. As such, it is non-notable, absurd, and ridiculous. Not proper for a real encyclopedia.--Cberlet (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously he was way off on that one. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The campaign is notable if it's been noted. Per this discussion, it doesn't seem to have been noted, except in one article that you think is of poor quality. Regarding economic predictions, those too appear non-notable. Do you have a 3rd-party source for this "policy" shared by every newspaper in the English-speaking world? Is there a policy document? How is this policy disseminated and enforced? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a 3rd-party source for a policy decision on the part of the American press to parrot the fake alarm from the Bush administration about Iraqi WMDs? Probably not, but I think that it was still a policy. I was told once by a journalist that the big papers, WaPo, NYT, and the wire services hold conference calls to decide how certain topics would be covered, and the lesser publications just follow their lead. I found this believable. According to an article by Jeff Steinberg, On Sept. 24, 1976, almost a decade, to the day, before the Leesburg raid, editorial writer and leading neo-conservative Stephen Rosenfeld, speaking for Graham and the Lazard Freres-centered financial interests, wrote a signed editorial [in the WaPo] titled “NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace,” demanding that the entire U.S. media adopt a uniform policy of blacking LaRouche's name out of the media, or of publishing slanders, aimed at blunting his growing political support.[32] I find this believable also. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have ready access to the cited article, but I'd be surprised if it actually admonishes the media to publish slanders. In any case, it's hard to imagine how a single editorial 29-years ago determined the coverage by every newspaper in the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Australia for decades. Is it your belief that editors around the world read the Washington Post for instructions on how to cover minor American political figures? Is that how Murdoch and NBC get their marching orders? It's certainly possible, just as it's possible that Mondale and Kissinger were agents of influence of the Soviets. Anyway, I think WP covers these theories sufficiently in the articles. We can't assume that they're true, as that would violate NPOV, but neither should we ridicule them. You and many folks out there believe these things are true and we should simply report that in a neutral fashion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

<--- I don't se any evidence given in this thread that proves "this is the main initiative of the LYM at present".[33] It is a mischaracteriztion to say so. Is there any independent or even internal source that says so? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Spring case

Here's a noteworthy incident that should be included inthe artilce someday. It was a right to die case, similar to those of Karen Ann Quinlan, Terri Schiavo, etc.

• The widow of Earle Spring, who became the focus of a celebrated case about involuntary removal of life-support systems, today filed an $80- million lawsuit against a Holyoke nursing home and others, charging they violated her husband's right to privacy. Named as defendants were: the Holyoke Geriatric and Convalesent Center; two administrators; four nurses and four nurses' aides; Lyndon LaRouche, a former US Labor Party presidential candidate; and Donna McDonough of Hartford, Conn., and Dr. Nelson Gillet of Brookline, who opposed the removal of life-support systems.
• "SPRING'S WIDOW FILES $80M SUIT;" Associated Press. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Jul 30, 1980. pg. 1

We can add research here and write a summary later on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Some of those activists, including Nurse McDonough, held a press conference yesterday outside the office of Atty. Gen. Francis X. Bellotti, saying that they were "trying to stop the murder of Earle Spring." Among the group were Joseph McDonough, the nurse's husband and Connecticut campaign chairman for Lyndon LaRouche of New Hampshire, a splinter-group candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination; and Larry Sherman of Dorchester, LaRouche's Massachusetts campaign chairman.
• "SPRING'S GUARDIAN ASKS NEW HEARINGS". Richard A. Knox Globe Staff (Contributing to this article were Globe reporters Jean Caldwell and Joseph M. Harvey.). Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Jan 23, 1980. pg. 1

• COL-founder Lyndon LaRouche in 1980 already had the beginnings of such a policy in the United States noted. At the time, the case of Earle Spring 70jährigen big stir. His family was on the grounds that Springsteen wanted to die, to a breakdown in vital dialysis treatment crowded, while the nurses who used Spring, say that he wanted to continue. The Club of Life took up this debate at the national and international level and called for the right to life movement, to take a clear position, in order not complicit in the so losgetretenen euthanasia movement. In fact, we succeeded to a significant change in the right to life debate in the United States.[Google machine translation from German]
• "From the New solidarity No 43/2002 "Unser Kampf gegen Kulturpessimismus und Euthanasie" (Our struggle against cultural pessimism and euthanasia). [34]

• During the public comment session, Stephanie Ezrol of Lyndon Larouche's National Democratic Policy Committee read from the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and said that legalizing "euthanasia" is tantamount to murder.
• "Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment: Appendices" [35]

I've seen more coverage of LaRouche's involvement which I hope ot find again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Qn

Looked in on this article after a long time, following a puzzling email to the mailing list. Question: There's an enormous list of people who have 'accused' LLaR of anti-semitism according to that section. I don't, however see citations for even one. No doubt those are forthcoming? I'd like to see a couple of actual quotes, also. Remember also we aren't concerned just about LLaR's reputation, but that of the people we're paraphrasing. Relata refero (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

See #Section on anti-semitism is incomprehensible above for quotes and sources. I thought we'd added the sources, but for the time being the article is protected. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't care less in this particular case, but the obvious product of a lexis search on larouche+antisemitic being put front and centre in an article is precisely why WP can be so incredibly crappy sometimes. If there's a nuanced peer-reviewed article that discusses his attitude, it should be in there, and its conclusions quoted; but instead we have a bunch of people who happen to have used the word antisemitic in this context once, with no indication of how representative that statement was of their overall view, or of what agenda they might have had at that point, or of whom else they have called anti-semitic, to indicate their reliability. Instead, there's inept original research through quote-mining. Whatever. Thanks for answering, anyway. You'd best put the references, and the original quotes in footnotes when you can so the occasional reader who bothers can come to the correct conclusions about the assertions in the main text. Relata refero (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The "correct conclusion" is that the subject is frequently called "anti-semitic". The relevatn editing history of this material is that some editors, who apparently favor the subject, added a line indicating that two people call the subject "anti-Semitic", when in fact he has been called that by a number of noteworthy individuals and organizations. I think that listing the individuals is preferable to saying vaguely that the subject "has often been called 'anti-semitic'". It's not original research, much less inept original research. If you'd like to provide a link to an article you've researched to show us how to do it better I'd be happy to learn from your example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to provide that link, but am afraid that its impossible for reasons of privacy.

I see, however, that you haven't quite understood here, so am willing to explain further: We, as editors, are not supposed to state the conclusion that "the subject is frequently called anti-semitic" in the absence of a few sources of unimpeachable reliability saying so. In other words, we need a reliable academic or three to come to that conclusion on seeing the evidence, and then we can quote it. A reliable academic may review this evidence, placing it in context, and saying "Oh, Terry McAuliffe had X reason, and the ADL calls Mahatma Gandhi anti-semitic, so their statements of belief are irrelevant", or something. For us to take on the role of coming to that conclusion based on an analysis of primary sources is pretty much definitional OR. Browsing around for a few quotes and then using those to support a conclusion is also, I'm afraid, a little inept. Relata refero (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What reasons of privacy keep you from providing an example of how you perform good research?

You seem to be saying that biographies can only make assertions based on three academic sources. I'm not aware of any biography that meets that standard.

Regarding this biography and this assertion, LaRouche has been called "anti-semitic" by the most reliable source we have, a full-length biography published by a major publisher. He's also been called "anti-semitic" by a varietry of notable figures whose statements have been reported in reliable secondary sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

On your first point, I'm a returning editor. You already know this, it was mentioned at WT:SOCK some time ago. In any case, we are not discussing my ability to conduct research, we are discussing how not to conduct it.

'Biographies' do not need to make assertions based on three academic sources. Peer-reviewed studies of the of the man are free to make assertions based on whatever sources they find. (I do not know what full-length bio you mean. Was it peer-reviewed? Considered reliable? What are the academic reviews? the reviews in the political press?) If you can't find an statement in a few review articles that he is "frequently called anti-semitic" than it is OR to take a few instances of his being described as anti-semitic and convert it into "frequently called ant-semitic". So much for your "variety of notable figures" and "reliable secondary sources". Unless the RSSes report that LaRouche is frequently called anti-semitic, its still OR by synthesis.

Frankly, in this case the individual almost certainly is anti-semitic, based on my cursory reading over the past few minues. That's not an excuse for this sort of shoddy work in a BLP. Relata refero (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so there's nothing of your own that you can point to as an example of good research? Not even under your new account? You pointed me back to a thread I'd forgotten about where I see that your old account isn't a secret at all.

How many peer-reviewed, academic biographies are available for this or 99% of WP biography subjects? As for the matter of "frequently called anti-semitic", that text isn't in the article.

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop calling my research "shoddy" and "inept". Every statement you're complaining about is referenced to a reliable secondary source. If you can improve the sourcing then go for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am awfully sorry if in my view the current approach is inept. I do not intend to impugn your abilities as a writer, merely to indicate that the approach you currently favour is inappropriate.

(On a personal note, as mentioned there and elsewhere, I do not wish to discuss my previous accounts; as I mention on that thread, it is a secret, for good reasons. And finally, thats bloody irrelevant to this article and how its written. Cease talking about it now.)

Peer-reviewed academic biographies are not available for this individual? Fine. He is presumably the subject of several neutral peer-reviewed papers? If his anti-semitism in particular is not discussed except in passing in a book that appears to be written by someone notable mainly as a critic of this man, and in several statements that you have conflated, then it is not notable enough. If it is discussed in any manner other than as a random adjective in a couple of secondary sources, please bring that to the table now.

Finally, if you are unable to understand my point, please do not belabour yours. "Every statement is referenced to a reliable secondary source". No, it isn't. They're referenced to primary sources. For the last time: what indication do you have that McAuliffe mentioning on one occasion that LLaR is "a racist antisemitic bigot whos not a Democrat" or whatever is in any way notable enough? Has this statement been mentioned elsewhere in mainstream reporting? Ditto for the others? Or has someone merely quote-mined secondary sources for the name and the phrase? Because the latter is the definition of inept, shoddy, original research. Relata refero (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

So this is your ideal of proper research? [36] One non-peer-reviewed article, in a vaguely partisan newspaper, is enough to support an assertion of "considerable attention"? Yet you call multiple newspaper citations "inept, shoddy research"? I don't see the distinction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeat this slowly: "Not About The Editor." Not once, but several times, until you get the message.

Taking your pointless little point anyway, Starkry is a not particularly prominent figure; in terms of how much attention he has received in the press, this latest bit of attention-seeking is fairly major; If the DT is fairly major, people were free to replace it with any of the 99 other sources; indeed, someone added the guardian bare hours afterwards, without changing my text; I had, of course, read several articles on the subject before deciding the incident seemed notable enough. Relata refero (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

McAuliffe

"For the last time: what indication do you have that McAuliffe mentioning on one occasion that LLaR is "a racist antisemitic bigot whos not a Democrat" or whatever is in any way notable enough? Has this statement been mentioned elsewhere in mainstream reporting?" Relata refero (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe has determined LaRouche is not a "bona fide" Democrat, according to a letter sent to Texas Democratic Chairman Charles Soechting. "This determination is based on Mr. LaRouche's expressed political beliefs, including beliefs which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic, and otherwise utterly contrary to the fundamental beliefs, values and tenets of the Democratic Party," it said.

• "LaRouche set to be on ballot for state Democratic primary;" POLLY ROSS HUGHES, Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau. Houston Chronicle. Houston, Tex.: Dec 21, 2003. pg. 39

• In a Dec. 11 letter to Dunn, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe said LaRouche was not a legitimate Democrat because of expressed political beliefs "which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic."

• "Democrats bar LaRouche from Utah primary" Dan Harrie. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Jan 8, 2004. pg. B.6

• The Anti-Defamation League maintains he is anti-Semitic, and when LaRouche sought to get on the Democrats' presidential primary ballot in Texas in 2003, Terry McAuliffe, then the national party chairman, said LaRouche is not a "bona fide" Democrat. "This determination is based on Mr. LaRouche's expressed political beliefs, including beliefs which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic, and otherwise utterly contrary to the fundamental beliefs, values and tenets of the Democratic Party," McAuliffe said in a letter to Texas party officials.

• "Lawmaker's donations blasted ; Recipient of funds called anti-Semitic". JOSEPH AX, STAFF WRITER. The Record. Bergen County, N.J.: Oct 26, 2007. pg. L.01

• "Despite the attempts of the DNC and Terry McAuliffe, we are not operating outside of the party. We're not on the fringe. In fact, we actually are inside it, shaping the Democratic Party," declared West Coast LYM leader Cody Jones, who asked LYM members from the Los Angeles area, the Oakland/Bay Area, and Houston, Texas, who are also elected officials of the Democratic Party, to stand.

• "LaRouche Youth Movement, Dem Leaders Demand Open Convention" [37]

• In an open letter to McAuliffe, LaRouche accused his party's chairman of making "fraudulent allegations" against him and that McAuliffe has made "offenses against the intent of our Federal Constitution" in terms of the process of selecting presidential candidates. LaRouche charged that McAuliffe, who was hand-picked by former President Bill Clinton, had sent a letter to Democratic state party officers attacking him personally and calling him an anti-Semite.

• "LaRouche: McAuliffe is Nuts, Kerry is Incompetent". By Charles Mahaleris. Talon News April 2, 2004

"Has this statement been mentioned elsewhere in mainstream reporting?"="Has this statement achieved notability out of the narrow context of LaRouche being banned from a particular local election by the Democratic party?" Relata refero (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If the convention is so unotable, why was LaRouche trying to attend it?--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't the vaguest. My point stands, and I'd like a reply from Will. To repeat, has this statement achieved notability out of the narrow context of LaRouche being banned from a particular local election by the Democratic party? Relata refero (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. This was the national DNC chairman sending letters to two (and maybe more) state party chairman. A presidential primary isn't exactly a "particular local election". The fact that LaRouche has been essentially banned from the party is indeed notable, especially in his biography but also in the general history of party politics and presidential elections. It's part of a dispute between LaRouche and his supporters and the Democratic Party which is so lengthy, complicated, and well-covered that we could write on entire article about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"full length bio"

The "full length bio" he's talking about is by Dennis King, who is not a reliable source on anything. --Leatherstocking (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The King book was published by a major publishing house. It's been widely reviewed. I'm not aware of anybody unaffiliated with the LaRoche movement who has raised doubts about the reliability of the factual content. However, it is not used as a source for the material being discussed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:American military personnel of World War II

As a non combatent member of the army, LaRouche counts as having military service, can somebody please add Category:American military personnel of World War II.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought these huge WWII-veteran categories had been deleted. Anyway, this seems non-controversial. Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is non-controversial. --Marvin Diode (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

SNL Weekend Update Sketch (may have precipitated Lyndon LaRouche theatre)

There's no mention of the Saturday Night Live Weekend Update update sketch from the 80s where Al Franken did a Lyndon LaRouche impression. If I find sources for it, can we add that to the article?--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's already there:

• Saturday Night Live in the mid-1980s had a series of skits called "Lyndon LaRouche Theatre", satirizing his national TV ads by casting them as a parody of Masterpiece Theatre (LaRouche typically spoke from an armchair in a library.) For example, one skit shows Queen Elizabeth II as a drug dealer.

Isn't that it, under "LaRouche in popular culture"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. It wasn't an "update" sketch. The above text is correct and complete, except it doesn't mention that LaRouche was played by Franken. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Did not know about Lyndon LaRouche Theatre. It was probably also Franken. I know for a fact he also did LaRouche on week end update in 1988. I'll find some sources.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is gonna be a hard one to source... the week end update was around the time that news articles first started depicting LaRouche as insane... Franken came on... gave a conspiracy theory esq. speech about the facist conspiracy and then said they are now promoting the biggest Lie of all, "That I, Lyndon LaRouche... am insane". He did it with a bunch of creepy pauses and called people like Bush Sr. (and some democrats too) "in bred" and other big words like "nefarious". At one point he drank form a glass of water, his hand shaking insanly with a glaze in his eyes. Dammit I can't find a source!... not even something on Youtube (which admittedly wouldn't be acceptable anyway). Can anybody help me out.. .at least give me a time frame... I though it was around the time of the 88 presidential election but I may be wrong about that.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall the scenes you mention, but the SNL episodes are pretty-well documented so if you persist then you can probably find a source. I checked ProQuest newspaper archive and didn't find anything about Franken and LaRouche there. However I was reminded that Franken made news in 2004 when he wrestled to the floor a LaRouche follower who was heckling a campaign appearance by Howard Dean. If we mention Franken did the spoof then it may be worth mentioning the 2004 incident too. As for SNL in general, here's the only cite I can find in ProQuest.

• ...LaRouche was even parodied last weekend on "Saturday Night Live."
• "EX-LAROUCHE 'SUCKER' FEELS VINDICATED" Rex Springston. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Apr 23, 1986. pg. 1

There's at least one book on SNL, or you might try asking around on the SNL talk pages here on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You might also check the SNL Transcripts. I see only one passing mention of LaRouche during a WU segment, but I may have missed something or the databse may be incomplete. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I checked the SNL DB too and couldn't find it. If I find some time between other projects I'll do some more research. I remember this well because it was the first time I ever heard of Lyndon LaRouche.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The present reference to this is already sufficiently detailed. This is a long article that doesn't need more trivia. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request

{{editprotected}} I've received a request to add Category:American military personnel of World War II on my talk page. I'm relisting it here to be sure that if somebody wants to oppose it, they can do so. If any other admin is around here, feel free to add it yourself, otherwise I'll do it tomorrow. Best regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Already done. See #Category:American military personnel of World War II above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· —Preceding comment was added at 01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess I should've only put it here on this page. sorry.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just didn't spotted the one up :) My fault ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Chip Berlet

Many offensive self-published unrelianbe sources that are also self promotion of User:Cberlet are violotion of WP:BLP where is written Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. --Ravelhave (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Which work of Berlet's is self-published? The organization that he works for has editorial oversight sufficient to make it a reliable source, and he doesn't have a blog or similar self-published site. What are you specifically referring to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do post to my own blog, as well as several other blogsites, but I do not cite to any of those sources here on Wikipedia. How many times a year do we have to have this debate about PRA being a reliable source?--Cberlet (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue does come up often. Perhaps you could clarify specifically what kind of editorial oversight and/or peer review exists at Political Research Associates. Specifically, does Chip Berlet have the authority to put articles on the PRA web site or have books published through the PRA press on his own initiative, or does someone else have to go over them first? *** Crotalus *** 04:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not have any unilateral authority to publish anything except my own blog entries at various websites. Much of my online activity off the website at PRA is done on my own time. Everything published in print by PRA has been edited by at least two other members of the staff and/or outside reviewers. Outside reviewers include experts in an area of study, sometimes scholarly and sometimes other journalists and writers, depending on the scope of the article. All articles on the website authored by anyone on the staff are reviewed by at least two other sets of eye. Nothing published by PRA is allowed in print or online without editorial revisions, sometimes extensive. --Cberlet (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are these outside reviewers? Which articles have been reviewed outside and which by members of staff? Relata refero (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam in external links

Why are there so many extraneous links -- mostly spam -- in the external links sections? For examples: a Philippine site, a youth web site, etc. I propose to remove them ASAP. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to various organizations founded by LaRouche or his supporters, and I think that those are appropriate links for this article. --Niels Gade (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we have an article on the movement that may be be the better place for links to related organizations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP citation needed

{{editprotected}} Change: In 1978, he sued the ADL; a New York State Supreme Court judge ruled that it was "fair comment" to describe LaRouche as an anti-Semite.

To: In 1978, he sued the ADL; a New York State Supreme Court judge ruled that it was "fair comment" to describe LaRouche as an anti-Semite.{{cn|date=January 2008}}

Thanks. CM (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. CM (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• In October 1980, a New York State Supreme Court justice dismissed a defamation suit the NCLC had filed against the Anti-Defamation League and ruled that calling the NCLC anti-Semitic is merely "fair comment" or a matter of opinion.
  • "Ideological Odyssey: From Old Left to Far Right" By John Mintz, Washington Post, January 14, 1985 [38]

• He is a Holocaust denier, and the New York State Supreme Court ruled that it is "fair comment" to call LaRouche an anti-Semite."
  • On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left By Dennis Tourish, Tim Wohlforth, M.E. Sharpe 2000. [39]

• Plaintiffs [LaRouche group] have linked prominent Jews and Jewish organizations both in this country and abroad with the rise of Hitler, Nazis and Fascism, the international drug uade, and a myriad of purported conspiracies that have bedeviled the United States and the world at large, including a conspiracy to assassinate the U.S.L.P. leader, Lyndon LaRouche. At a minimum, under the fair comment docuine, the facts of this case reasonably give rise to an inference upon which the A.D.L. can form an honest opinion that the plaintiffs are anti-Semitic. (p. A-13)
  • U.S. Labor Party et al. v. Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, No. 79-11470 (N.Y. App. Div., 1980). Quoted from Secret Agenda - The United States Government, Nazi Scientists and Project Paperclip, 1945 to 1990 by Linda Hunt (1990); pp. 149 [40]

Any of these would be reliable sources for the assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I love the .... or a matter of opinion. Please note that that the NY Supreme Court did not rule on whether it was a notable opinion.... Relata refero (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not part of the court's job, so far as I'm aware. The ADL is a fairly well-known organization and this court case itself made the comment more notable (the irony of a libel lawsuit). It's been reported in countless newspaper articles on LaRouche. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm Congress For Cultural Freedom image?

I think whoever's responsible for monitoring this page overlooked a vandalism incidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.80.75.250 (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? CM (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. That's actually the title. I truly thought it was a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by

156.80.75.250 (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a joke, but it's LaRouche's. --Niels Gade (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

I removed some minor material from the trivia section of Lyndon LaRouche, per Wikipedia:Protection policy. I took out only the truly unverifiable parts. The other factoids can be sourced sooner or later, and to delete an entire section would be a "significant change", so I kept those in. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call, there was too much trivia there, and the article is long. --Niels Gade (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be good to remove these, but I'm puzzled at the claim that they are not verifiable since the Sliders and the Flagg one's both give the basic citation info within them. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a content dispute?

Is there a content dispute? I understand that there may be. If not, I am going to declare the content dispute over. If so, let's work it out. CM (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If declarations were all that we needed to end conetent disputes then editing Wikipedia would be much simpler. In this case, the protection was requested most recently by Marvin Diode. The protecting admin decided, due to the repetitive editing disputes, to set the expiration date as 2037.[41] The page had been unprotected just days earlier, after having been protected on Marvin Duiode's initiative.[42] As I recall, the unusual long-term protection was discussed and endorsed by the community. Is there some particualr edit you want to make? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For discussion of the protection of a related article, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive316#Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_article_fully_protected ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems strange that rather than deal with WP:TE, the article is locked. I just think wikipedia articles should not be locked, especally when there is no edit warring going on. And if they are locked, why do admins get to edit the articles. Seems strange. Also, I still don't see an edit war. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche is interesting (and governing).

“ If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche. ”

The article should be unlocked. I can do an Rfc to see what the community thinks if necessary. Editors who edit war to push a POV or to include WP:OR can be dealth with individually. This talk page has 0 recent discussion as far as I can tell on recent content disputes/edit warring. In fact, I really still do not see the edit warring. The article should be unlocked (again). CM (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no edit warring because the article is protected. Check the revision history before the protection and you'll see plenty of edit warring. Further admins can't edit the article in the normal sense. They may only make minor, non-controversial edits, usually in response to a request. Is there some special reason you're so interested in having the article unprotected? Is there an edit you'd like to make? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. CM (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you propose it here? If it's non-controversial then it can be done, and if it's controverisal it should be discussed first anyway. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. My edits may or may not be controversial, but if they are, they will be reverted. I would prefer to use the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle instead of the Timid, discuss cycle. CM (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the header at the top of this talk page, which says:

• Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.

Again I ask, what edits do you want to make to the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I decline to timidly submit any edits I might make for your approval. Please see WP:BRD. CM (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

BRD iis just an essay, while WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. I assume good faith on your part, but if you're not willing to discuss your edits with other users then you might want to find a different project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I will discuss my edits *if* they are reverted per WP:BRD. You might also want to take a look at WP:OWN.

“ If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so. ”

Thanks. CM (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're seeking to have me banned from editing this article, and you refuse to discuss the edits you want to make to it. That doesn't seem like a good approach to collegial, consensus-based editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry Will, I do not wish to have you banned from the article. But unless you're an admin, you are already banned from the article. I am seeking to have the vast majority of wikipedians who have not participated in content disputes in this article have the right to edit it restored. Also, in the below Rfc, you can propose something different, e.g., anybody can edit except on the specific content in dispute. CM (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your wishes are, but your proposal is to have me and a handful of other editors banned on account of being interested editors. Yet you refuse to even discuss your edits or your own interest in this article. That just doesn't seem helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This editor is under no compulsion to declare a POV. He may not actually have one, and just think that this article and the warring is a disgrace. That is a not uncommon view. Relata refero (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

When a brand-new account of an obviously seasoned editor pops in on an article that has a hsitory of sockpuppet abuse and demands that I and other editors be banned I think it's a fair question to ask why he's suddenly become involved. If you'd like to discuss exactly how this article is a disgrace that would be helpful, though we should start a new thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I seek no change from your current ability to edit this article. I seek a change for the overwhelming majority of wikipedians who did not participate in the content dispute. If you do not feel you should be included, or have some other proposals, please comment in the Rfc below. Or not. Your opinion that my suggestions are naive have already been duly noted. The fact that the article is protected is a disruption. CM (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't shown that the edits you want to make aren't part of the previous edit disputes. If the edits you want to make are non-controversial, then I'm sure that folks won't oppose the change. If they are contrverisal, they should be discussed ahead of time. Your refusal to say what changes you want to make doesn't appear to be a good-faith action, and your repetition of WP:BRD is much like than wikilawyering - pointing to an essay rather than giving a straight answer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Last time I will say this, but I decline to timidly submit any edits I might make for your approval. I will discuss my edits *if* they are reverted per WP:BRD. Any controversial edit, previously made or novel, would be reverted, and discussed. CM (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course you have to get the approval of myself and other editors to make a change. That's the same as for every Wikipedia article. [[W{:BRD]] is an essay that carries no weight. WP:CONSENSUS is a core policy. It is standard operating procedure for controversial topics to ask editors to discuss controversial changes before making them so as to avoid edit wars. I think it's ironic that you are willing to set off a new edit war while complaining about the after-effects of the last one. You are welcome to create a sandbox version and make the edits you want. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you describing future edits I would make as "controversial changes"? Please retract that. Thanks. CM (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Judging by this thread, there's already a dispute about them. If you'd like to show that your intended edits are non-controversial then that'd be very helpful. I've created an unprotected version of the article here: Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/CM version. Feel free to make all of the changes you want. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Unprotect Lyndon LaRouche

Some contributors were engaged in a content dispute on or about Nov. 21-22, 2007 (see below), which lead to the Lyndon LaRouche article being protected until 2037 on November 22, 2007. The purpose of this Rfc is to discuss solutions to open the article up for editing on content not in dispute.Content disputing contributors who participated in the edits that lead to locking should be barred from editing article until 2037. Not the entire community. If the contributors in question come to Consensus, allow them to edit the article. 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The following series of edits shows and characterizes the content dispute (excluding talk page discussions):

Contributor	time	diff
Will Beback (talk · contribs)	08:17, 21 November 2007	[43]
Marvin Diode (talk · contribs)	15:21, 21 November 2007	[44]
Tom harrison (talk · contribs) revert	15:41, 21 November 2007	[45]
Niels Gade (talk · contribs) reverrt	16:26, 21 November 2007	[46]
Cberlet (talk · contribs) revert	16:28, 21 November 2007	[47]
64.183.125.210 (talk · contribs) revert	17:25, 21 November 2007	[48]
Tom harrison (talk · contribs) revert	17:57, 21 November 2007	[49]
Cberlet (talk · contribs) edit	03:51, 22 November 2007	[50]
Cberlet edit	04:00, 22 November 2007	[51]
Cberlet edit	04:03, 22 November 2007	[52]
Niels Gade (talk · contribs) revert	06:02, 22 November 2007	[53]
East718 (talk · contribs) Protected until November 22, 2037!@#!&#!!$#	07:42, 22 November 2007	[54]

Proposal 1

comment - The following contirbutors who participated in the content dispute that lead to article protection should not edit the article until their dispute is resolved. Meanwhile, the article should be unlocked to allow other disinterested contributors to edit the article.

• Will Beback (talk · contribs)
• Marvin Diode (talk · contribs)
• Tom harrison (talk · contribs)
• Niels Gade (talk · contribs)
• 64.183.125.210 (talk · contribs)

Proposal 1: None of the above editors or edits can be inserted into the article until the parties come to a consensus on the talk page. Meanwhile, the article can be unlocked for other disinterested editors to contribute. CM (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an unhelpful proposal. It ignores the fact that numerous pro-LaRouche sock puppets have edited the article, and that new socks could be expected to circumvent any such ban. It would be helpful if you'd explain why you (a disinterested editor?) have so much interest in the protection of this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppets are coverd by "None of the above editors or edits..." clause of the proposal. I admit it could be worded better, but I think the idea is clear. CM (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you propose to decide which accounts are sock puppets? Have you read the file on this article and the ArbCom cases associated with it? These suggestions just seem very naive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You haven't even take the care to include all of the editors who were engaged in the previous edit dispute. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: The precedent for long-term/permanent protection was Views of Lyndon LaRouche. I objected strenuously at the time, even going to the Administrators' Noticeboard to complain about the admin who did it. However, I have had second thoughts about it, and I now fully support it for that article, this article, and others. I'm sure that I see it differently than Will does, but I agree that it is for the best. There are two editors, Cberlet and Dking, who in my view consistently edit tendentiously, and Will Beback who generally defends them from criticism. I tried to take this to the ArbCom ([55],) but it was not accepted. I understand that there have been sockpuppets on the pro-LaRouche side, and I can also think of at least two sock- or meatpuppets on the Berlet/King side. I have watched these LaRouche articles for a while, and in my opinion they are generally very complete -- there are plenty of questionable POV edits from both sides, but oddly enough, I think they more or less balance out at the end of the day. So I believe that it is best for the project that they remain protected, in order to avoid more grueling and fanatical POV battles. Non-controversial edits can and do get made using the process you see above. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Okay, thanks for your comments. I will dig and think further. Meanwhile, I hope others share their views (pro or con) or make alternative proposals. CM (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't believe this is a reasonable proposal, for the simple reason that the edits in the diffs are reasonable ones.--Onlyjusthisonetime (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The Rfc is not an Rfc on the edits. It is an Rfc on stopping the disruption that protecting the article causes any other wikipedian who may want to edit it. CM (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I don't believe that specific edits need to be singled out in the manner that you propose.--Onlyjusthisonetime (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I certainly think that this article needs some new eyes. However, I am not sure an RfC of this sort will be sufficient in keeping these various tendentious editors off this page. Relata refero (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Proposal 2: No editor may add content subject to the above dispute, regardless of whether or not they were involved in the dispute; but the article should be unlocked for other non-controversial edits per WP:BRD. 00:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:BRD is an essay. The most recent edit dispute was one of many. Addressing that single point doesn't solve the problem of ongoing edit disputes. Rather than these sweeping proposals the editor is invited to propose any edit he wants and if it's non-controversial then the consensus of editors will most likely agree to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article." CM (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: there is no "above dispute" that can be easily identified. Will is right about this. The basic dispute (according to my reading) is that one team keeps trying to find clever ways to sneak around the WP:BLP policy, generally by self-citing, while the other team plays defense. Protection would be unnecessary if we had an admin who was particularly sensitive to BLP and COI issues and was willing to watchdog the article{s) -- but we don't. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: it seems to me that there ought to be some way to deter the use of Wikipedia for defamation campaigns, short of permanently locking the article. --Terrawatt (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see no reason to take that action.--Onlyjusthisonetime (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Works

{{editprotected}} Please replace the entire "works" section with the following:

Lyndon LaRouche has written hundreds of articles, pamphlets, and books<ref name="LMW">[http://www.larouchepub.com/major_writings.html ''LaRouche's Major Writings'']</ref><ref name="OLBLHR">[http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=LaRouche%2C%20Lyndon%20H. ''The Online Books Page:  Online Books by Lyndon H. LaRouche''] 2007</ref>
published mostly by his own press{{cn|date=February 2008}} <!-- No doubt true but should have a source since this is a BLP. Original research to establish that his works are mostly self published is not kosher. -->such as:
*''The Case of Walter Lippmann'' (1976)<ref name="LMW"/>
*''Now, Do You Sleep With One Eye Open? Inoculate the U.S. Against the Cult Epidemic''(1978)<ref name="LMW"/>
*''Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites'' (1979)<ref name="LMW"/>
*''The Power of Reason: A Kind of An Autobiography'' (1979)<ref name="LMW"/>
*''Poetry Must Begin to Supersede Mathematics in Physics'' (1982)<ref name="LMW"/>
*''So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? A Text on Elementary Mathematical Economics'' (1984)<ref name="LMW"/>
*''There Are No Limits to Growth'' (1983)<ref name="LMW"/> 
*''The Power of Reason'' (1988)<ref name="LMW"/>
*''The Science of Christian Economy, and other prison writings'' (1991)<ref name="LMW"/>
*''The Road to Recovery'' (1999){{cn|date=February 2008}}
*''The Economics of the Noosphere'' (2001)<ref name="OLBLHR"/> 
*''Beneath the Waters of Chappaquiddick''{{cn|date=February 2008}}
*''Why Jimmy Carter Is Not a Christian''{{cn|date=February 2008}}
*''Bush Demands His Own Impeachment.''{{cn|date=February 2008}}
*''Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy''{{cn|date=February 2008}}

Thanks. CM (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that rather than saying, "published mostly by his own press", which is hard to verify, that we simply say that all of the listed works were printed by publishers associated with his movement. I also suggest placing them in chronological order. Lastly, I'm checking WorldCat, and they list 168 entries with LaRouche as an author, though some are duplicates and some are pamphlets. Let's compile a full list if we can. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's work on this in Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/works. I've compiled a list from worldCat. We can organize it and cross reference it with the list you have. It seems worthwile to include pamphlets - the distinction between a long pamphlet and a short book isn't well-defined. He's also written some introductions, which are another matter. They could be short or long. Anyway, it's a long list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added through 1986, and will add the rest later. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've posted the rest now. I think most of his works in foreign languages are translations rather than original works, so those titles might be omitted, though we could say that many of this works have been translated, some into multiple languages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Drawing from several sources, here's a better list of book by LaRouche. These are all of his English-language books of over 100 pages that have been assigned an ISBN. Articles, pamphlets, collections of pamphlets, EIR special reports, etc., are not included.

• LaRouche, Lyndon H. Dialectical Economics An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy. Lexington, Mass: Heath, 1975. ISBN 0669853089
• LaRouche, Lyndon H. The Case of Walter Lippmann A Presidential Strategy. New York: Campaigner Publications, 1977. ISBN 0918388066
• LaRouche, Lyndon H. How to Defeat Liberalism and William F. Buckley 1980 Campaign Policy. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Pub. Co, 1979. ISBN 0933488033
• LaRouche, Lyndon H. The Power of Reason A Kind of Autobiography. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Pub. House, 1979. ISBN 0933488017
• LaRouche, Lyndon H. Will the Soviets Rule During the 1980's. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Pub. Co, 1979. ISBN 0933488025
• LaRouche, Lyndon H. Basic Economics for Conservative Democrats. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Pub. Co, 1980. ISBN 0933488041
• LaRouche, Lyndon H. What Every Conservative Should Know About Communism. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Pub. Co, 1980. ISBN 0933488068
• LaRouche, Lyndon H. Why Revival of "SALT" Won't Stop War. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Pub. Co, 1980. ISBN 0933488084
• LaRouche, Lyndon H., and David P. Goldman. The Ugly Truth About Milton Friedman. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1980. ISBN 0933488092
• LaRouche, Lyndon H. There Are No Limits to Growth. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1983. ISBN 0933488319
• LaRouche, Lyndon H. So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? A Text on Elementary Mathematical Economics. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984. ISBN 0943235138
• LaRouche, Lyndon H. Imperialism The Final Stage of Bolshevism. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984. ISBN 0933488335
• LaRouche, Lyndon H. The Power of Reason, 1988 An Autobiography. Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1987.ISBN 0943235006
• LaRouche, Lyndon H. In Defense of Common Sense. Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1989. ISBN 0962109533
• LaRouche, Lyndon H. The Science of Christian Economy. Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1991. ISBN 0962109568
• LaRouche, Lyndon H., and Paul Gallager. Cold Fusion: A Challenge to U.S. Science Policy. Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1992. ISBN 0962109576
• LaRouche, Lyndon H. Now, Are You Ready to Learn About Economics? Washington, D.C.: EIR News Service, 2000. ISBN 0943235189
• LaRouche, Lyndon H. The Economics of the Nöosphere Washington, D.C.: EIR News Service, 2001. ISBN 0943235200

Regarding the text about publishers, I think it would be accurate to say that "All of his books except for his first have been published by his movement" or something to that effect. A listing of his other writings would be too long include in the article. We might summarize it by estimating the numbers of articles (over 150). We can also say that his books have been tranlated into several languages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Lyndon LaRouche has written hundreds of articles, pamphlets, and books All but the first of his books were published by the LaRouche movement. His works have been translated into several languages.

Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think so. But your list omits LaRouche's most recent and comprehensive book, The Economics of the Nöosphere. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the ISBN of that book? How long is it? Did he write the whole thing or just the lead article? It's not listed in either Amazon or WorldCat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I just found it in Amazon ([56].) ISBN is 0943235200. LaRouche is sole author. I just realized that you also have omitted Earth's Next Fifty Years (ISBN B000BR4JTU), which is actually the most recent. --Niels Gade (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Great - we can add the The Economics of the Nöosphere. "B000BR4JTU" isn't an ISBN. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Any progress being made here? CM (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we've put together an accurate, verifiable list of his books. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, then some admin should take action on the edit protected, or if that has already been done, the edit protected tag should be removed. CM (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll replace the current "works" section with this list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

The first section called Early life needs copy edit and should be made shorter. The stuff about conflicts with the Quakers is relatively unimportant and should be condensed. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? The material appears well-sourced, neutral, and relevant to the subject's life. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying get rid of it, I'm saying condense it. As with any public figure, there is plenty of well-documented minutiae in LaRouche's bio. Much of it is more interesting and notable than the stuff about the Quakers. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, but it's not quite right. There isn't much biographical info on LaRouche's younger years. It's best to look at this article as part of a series on the subject. In addition to this article on his basic life story we have an entire articles devoted to his beliefs and views, to his movement, to his presidential campaigns, and to his criminal trials. Therefore it makes sense to keep this article focused on exclusively biographical information that isn't covered in those articles. I think that a large chunk of info under "Criticism" concerns his views and would be better placed in the "Views" article if it isn't there already. The criminal conviction might be compressed a little, but moreover should be re-written to better summarize the material. The "Recent activity" section has a lot of low value stuff that could be dropped. An unsourced tour of India hardly seems worthwhile, for example. Letters to the editor don't seem noteworthy either. This article could use a "rebalancing", but I doubt that anyone would agree oon how to do it. So, we're left with what we've got. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are sources for LaRouche's recent India tours: [57][58] --Niels Gade (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's no 3rd-party coverage it probably wasn't a notable tour. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You really should try Google. [59]. Relata refero (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a good cite. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Will, could you kindly add those sources to the relevant sentence in the article? --Niels Gade (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding a source citation is non-controversial. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as we are citing The Hindu, can we also cite to this article? Quote: "Lyndon LaRouche is the American demagogue who in 1989 received a 15-year sentence for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax-code violations. He has claimed that the British royal family is running an international drugs syndicate, that Henry Kissinger is a communist agent, that the British government is controlled by Jewish bankers, and that modern science is a conspiracy against human potential." Cite to "Sourcing junk science sources" by George Monbiot.--Cberlet (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Berlet's cite is not news coverage, it is an opinion piece by George Monbiot, who looks like he is simply citing Berlet for an Ad hominem attack. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea, Niels Gade, that Monbiot needs to cite me to conclude based on published reports that LaRouche is a batshit lunatic?--Cberlet (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

See Spoor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.28.162 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Berlet's, er, comment qualifies as an objection.

{{tl:editprotected}}

Please add the following sources to the end of the first sentence in the section entitled "India, Russia, and China": [60][61][62]. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objection to the edit in question, I've gone ahead and added it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Under "Early Life," in the eighth paragraph (which begins "LaRouche enrolled at Northeastern University, but ..."), the reference to "Civilian Public Service" should be hyperlinked to the Wikipedia article on Civilian Public Service, for those of us who never heard of the Civilian Public Service before reading this article.

Scientology

The article on the Scientology "e-meter" states that "Scientology minister Lyndon LaRouche" was the first to use it. A different Lyndon LaRouche? I don't see anything about Scientology in this article. Proxy User (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. It appears to have been vandalism. I've removed it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)