Jump to content

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 09:47, 15 February 2011 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 100h) to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 22.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


Former featured article candidateLyndon LaRouche is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
WikiProject iconPolitics B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Toolbox
Mediation, arbitration,
requests for clarification, and
other discussions about the
LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement,
AN/I, 2005-8
Arbitration 2006
Arbitration 2005
Arbitration 2004
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Mediation 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Template talk
Categories
This box:


Deleted Material

Much of the material in question was sourced to what are now broken links or to LaRouche's own publications. However, I think these are reliable sources and should be included:

Iqbal Qazwini, writing in the Arabic-language daily Asharq Al-Awsat, says that:

Perhaps it is interesting to recall that LaRouche was one of the first who predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1988, and German unification. He urged the West to pursue a policy of economic cooperation for the advancement of the economy of the socialist countries like the Marshall Plan after World War II, which has rebuilt Germany.

Recent years have witnessed a proliferation of the ideas of LaRouche in China and South Asia, as the spiritual father of the revival of the new Silk Road or Eurasian Landbridge, a project of massive, industrial technology which aims to link the continents together through networks of advanced ground transportation accompanied by the creation of industrial and agricultural development zones, and bring development to areas that had been isolated from the world and the technical development accumulated in the West.(Qazwini, Iqbal, "Major International Crises Need a Giant Project to Overcome Them," [3], ;

January 23,)

According to China Youth Daily, LaRouche warned in July of 2007 that unless US stopped monopolizing world finances, and united with China, Russia, and India to reorganize the world financial system, a new world wide credit crisis would be unavoidable.("The Current World Finacial System is Unsalvageable" (现行的世界金融体系已经无可救药), by Ju Hui (鞠辉), China Youth Daily 2009-07-24)

The quote from Italian Senator Peterlini should be taken out of the footnote and made visible in the article.

The following I think should be included because the personalities are notable, even though it uses LaRouche sources. I think it's OK under SELFPUB.

LaRouche has actively collaborated with Russian politician Sergey Glazyev, and in 1999 the LaRouche organization published an English language edition of Glazyev's book, Genocide– Russia and the New World Order.[1] More recently, it also published The Anatomy of Russian Capitalism by economist Stanislav Menshikov.[2] Both books include introductions written by LaRouche. In 2008, Menshikov described LaRouche as being "among those few economists who look at the root causes, and therefore see what others cannot see".[3]

  1. ^ Press release, "EIR publishes book by Russia's Glazyev," Executive Intelligence Review, December 3, 1999
  2. ^ Press release, EIR Releases Stanislav Menshikov's `The Anatomy of Russian Capitalism', Executive Intelligence Review, March 23, 2007
  3. ^ Menshikov, Stanislav, "A view from a Senior Russian Economist as Crisis Leaps Across the Planet." Slovo weekly, October 17, 2008

Angel's flight (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Asharq Al-Awsat and China Youth Daily sources are fine. I'm reserving judgement on the self-published sources for now. Cla68 (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68, these materials were deleted for good reason. The subject is an American politician. Wikipedia articles should be based on the best available sources. By no stretch of the imagination are these the best sources for the subject. Further, relying on machine translations is inappropriate for anything significant. We've been over these many times before.   Will Beback  talk  11:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will, your argument is inconsistent. Right now you are saying that American Sources are better than sources from other countries. But when I gave you five major American newspapers[4] saying that LaRouche is an economist, you rejected them. Also, when British sources publish some sort of nasty criticism of LaRouche, you don't reject them. So what's the real reason? Angel's flight (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we do when looking for sources is use the highest quality, the most appropriate, and the best informed. It's not always clear what we mean by that. But in the case of an American politician, it's fairly clear that the most informed sources would be the ones who have watched and studied him over the decades. It makes no sense to write of an American politician: "On the one hand, 200 articles in The Washington Post say X, but one article in the Liberian Daily Thunder says Y."

Or of a British politician: The Times of London, The Guardian, and The Daily Telegraph see him as corrupt, but a freelance writer for Mother's Digest of Iceland thinks he's fabulous."

Add another factor to the mix, which is that the overseas articles are based entirely on what LaRouche has told them, or what LaRouche publications say. And it's clear to anyone reading them that LaRouche publications rarely reflect reality, especially when it comes to LaRouche himself.

The idea of scouring the earth for any kind of source who might have published something positive about LaRouche based on what they've read in his own publications, then providing machine translations of what they say, would not be appropriate editing, regardless of POV. There is no other Western politician that we'd do that for. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments above are obstructive. It is a fact that foreign language sources from quality sources are permitted and commonly used in articles about politicians with connections to other countries, for example the articles about M. Albright, Bush jr, R.Reagan etc. etc. They are usually marked as foreign language (russian, german,..etc). SV's argument, that any opinion OTHER than the mainstream comes from an "obscure" source is in itself a "bandwagon fallacy" combined with a "Poisoning the well" -fallacy, the argument that LaRouche has somehow interfered with the foreign news source is a speculative "Poisoning the Well" - fallacy. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the two "foreign" sources (I put "foreign" in quotation marks because I don't live in an English-speaking country, so non-English sources aren't necessarily "foreign" to me) under discussion here are reprinting stuff taken directly from LaRouche's websites, then I think we'll need to see some evidence of that. Otherwise, I can think of several reasons why using non-American or non-Commonwealth sources are appropriate for this article:
  • As a reader of this article, I would be interested in seeing what media observers outside the US or other English-speaking nations think or say about LaRouche.
  • I would think that those sources might have a more objective or unbiased perspective on LaRouche. For example, my acquaintances who work in the Japanese media tell me that they believe that US media reporting on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is extremely biased, and therefore lacking in credibility.
  • The fact that "foreign" media are discussing LaRouche is significant, as it shows that LaRouche's movement and ideas are having an influence outside the US and the article should reflect that.
  • Who is to say that American or British sources are "better." I expect that the editors of the Arabic and the Chinese newspapers would take exception to that statement, and rightfully so. Who is to say that observers in other countries can't have informed opinions of LaRouche?
  • Whether the sources are praising or criticizing LaRouche should be immaterial to us. We shouldn't be taking a side on whether the information in this article about LaRouche is negative or positive (except under the guidance of our BLP policy). We're not supposed to care. We just report what the sources are saying, and that includes reliable, verifiable, non-English sources.
Because of the problems associated with machine translation, I don't believe we should use direct quotes from the non-English sources, but stating in general what they are saying should be fine. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of that, and if we could find good articles written by respected writers who really have done some research into LaRouche, then I don't care if they're based in Timbuktu. The problem is this: LaRouche gets himself invited to address some forum in China. A reporter turns up to interview him politely. For background, the movement refers her to its publications, and she dutifully—probably never having heard of LaRouche—repeats whatever she's directed toward. This is done very deliberiately to generate press coverage, which is then repeated in LaRouche publications and on Wikipedia ("LaRouche hailed as world's greatest economist by China Chess Weekly!!").
The difficulty lies in determining which foreign-language sources are of type A or type B. We're not familiar with the publications or the languages, so we're being asked to buy a pig in a poke. Perhaps we could ask on those foreign-language wikis, or Wikiprojects, for editors from those countries to tell us how authoritative the articles seem to be. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
85% of whatever you see printed is like that. There is no guarantee that a hatchet job on X in the NYT wasn't sourced from some opposition organisation. There are very few investigative journalists that are going to uncover the 'real' story. When I was actively campaigning in community politics, I had my 'special' reporter, a well presented release would get into the paper almost verbatim. You can see company press releases in trade journals presented as editorial. Take most run of the mill stories in any publication and they'll will have come from PR agents. In the last couple of weeks we have all seen 100s of stories about women and wikipedia from multiple sources, problem is that they are all the same story thinly rehashed from a WMF press release, in not one of those articles did the journalists do their own research on the topic and come to their own conclusions. You know it and so does everyone else reading this page, the idea that there are a bunch of sleuthing reportser uncovering the truth, is so 1950s James Stewart. John lilburne (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's always difficult to judge. But when it's foreign-language media it becomes close to impossible. We had a situation recently in a BLP of editors accusing someone of murder based on multiple articles in Portuguese, the machine-translation of which was very poor. We can't be politically correct in a situation like that, and say "let's not be judgmental about foreign-language sources." We have to be judgmental. As I said, the best thing is to ask editors from those countries to let us know what they think about the solidity of the sources being proposed, and take it from there. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that case, it was about someone whose notability was based purely in the Portuguese speaking world. As nothing could be sourced to him in English there was no reason for the en:WP to have an article on him. This is different there are sources in English and Foreign and the notability is based both in English and Foreign. If lay people can write articles on medical subjects they ought to be able to determine a) the authoritativeness of the publication, and b) manage to work out the gist of what the publication is saying. BTW I do know that Chinese Google translate is abysmal Ah. John lilburne (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but notability was only part of the problem with the Portuguese article, John. The big issue was whether we could source contentious content in a BLP only to foreign-language sources, where there was a question mark over how notable and representative the publications were, never mind what they were saying. The BLP policy used to say it was only negative contentious content that needed especially good sources, but now it covers positive content too: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That's because we don't want BLPs to be either poorly sourced hatchet jobs or vanity articles.
If the contentious content is sourced directly to LaRouche (he says he is the world's greatest living economist; he says he was the first to warn of a global financial crisis), then readers can judge how self-promotional that is. But if it's China Youth Daily saying it, it raises the question of why they're saying it. Are they saying that he said it, or that someone else said it, or what? We don't know, because we don't have a good translation. The issue of POV is a side issue here. It's just not good editing to add contentious material to a BLP (or anywhere) that's sourced to publications of unknown quality and articles that no one here can read. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, you have been spinning imaginary scenarios about how the naive and gullible Chinese, who obviously would know nothing about American politics, would be putty in the hands of the cunning LaRouche. In order to find out what really happened, all you have to do it click on the source links. The Peoples Daily interview was conducted in Virginia by the paper's Washington bureau chief. It is the official organ of the Chinese government, and the relationship to the US is of vital importance to China, so I doubt that the 8-part interview was undertaken lightly. Interestingly, each segment of the English-language interview begins with a quote from the intro to this very same Wikipedia bio of LaRouche, which means that the author is quite familiar with every tidbit of negative commentary that you and Will Beback have so painstakingly packed into the article (yes, I've looked at the history.) Then we have the China Youth Daily interview, also conducted in the US. It has been featured on tens of thousands of Chinese websites and web publications. And since the CYD is also a government publication, I doubt that it was a hasty decision to do so. I'm sure that the Chinese government has reasons of its own for putting a big positive spotlight on LaRouche -- just as the cartelized U.S. media have their own reasons for giving him the negative treatment. Wikipedia, however, is supposed to be neutral. Angel's flight (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I usually advise when dealing with foreign-language sources for anything contentious, where no good translation is at hand, is to find editors from that language's Wikiproject, or to find Wikipedia translators. A good translation of the part you want to use is needed in any event. Here is the machine translation of one of the sources you want to use, and it makes no sense. So before arguing whether it ought to be used, the first thing is to find a native speaker who can give you a translation and offer an opinion about how authoritative a source it is. Then we would have something more concrete to discuss. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I aleady found one on another talk page: Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche/China_Youth_Daily. Angel's flight (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's helpful. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"SlimVirgin, you have been spinning imaginary scenarios about how the naive and gullible Chinese, who obviously would know nothing about American politics, would be putty in the hands of the cunning LaRouche" Angel, I loved that bit. Have you tried your hand at film script writing yet? Cheers! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor and AngelFlight, you two should cut out the juvenile taunts. Once you two start engaging in civil discourse, perhaps I'll return to participate in this discussion. Cla68 (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, it wasn't intented to be a taunt. I wanted to call attention to the inappropriate tone of SlimVirgin's comments, such as LaRouche gets himself invited to address some forum in China. A reporter turns up to interview him politely. For background, the movement refers her to its publications, and she dutifully—probably never having heard of LaRouche—repeats whatever she's directed toward. This is done very deliberiately to generate press coverage, which is then repeated in LaRouche publications and on Wikipedia ("LaRouche hailed as world's greatest economist by China Chess Weekly!!"). BTW why do we assume that the fictitious Chinese reporter is a woman? Are they more gullible? I don't think it's unreasonable of me to ask that we address reality and not these prejudicial scenarios. Angel's flight (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have spent 2 days in a speculative contrafactual wasteland. Can we get some work done now without gliding into amusing fantasies? That would be nice. My apologies, but i found those "what if" - scenarios very amusing. Now stick to the facts. Thank you. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite willing to discuss this if it's done civilly, but obviously I'm not going to stick around to be attacked. The fact is that LaRouche does seek out these interviews; there's no point in pretending otherwise. And they do tend to repeat what he says. The China Youth Daily is quite clear about that: LaRouche says X, LaRouche says Y.

It raises the issue of why not just say in the article what LaRouche has said, then link to both the primary source (him saying it, wherever it was said originally), and the secondary source picking it up (the China Youth Daily or whatever it is). The problem with the way this section was originally written (I'm writing from memory here) is that an impression was given that Chinese and Russian sources—as independent actors—were beating down his door to hail him as the greatest this, and the greatest that. Whereas what was happening was that LaRouche's people were simply arranging interviews or venues where he could make a speech, where he told the audience or interviewer what he was saying in his own publications. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, there is no need to "write from memory" here. The versions have been provided by Angel's flight just some inches up the scrollbar. Let's see, this is what what written in the original paragraph, quote: "Chinese press coverage
In November 2005, an eight-part interview with LaRouche was published in the People's Daily of China, covering his economic forecasts, his battles with the American media, and his assessment of the neoconservatives.[128] In 2006, Economic Daily, a Chinese newspaper runs directly by the Chinese State Council published an extensive biographical article on LaRouche.[129] In December 2008, LaRouche was interviewed by China Central Television and Chinese Biz News, with the discussion focusing on his economic forecasts.[130] In 2009, China Youth Daily published a new article of this type in which it was reported that LaRouche had forecast the 2008 financial collapse in July 2007. Many people scoffed at his warning, the paper said, but after one year it came true, as had all of his earlier forecasts.[131]"
Now, Slim, you wrote, quote: "an impression was given that Chinese and Russian sources—as independent actors—were beating down his door to hail him as the greatest this, and the greatest that."
Please, Slim, don't "write from memory" when sources are easily available, and don't invent things that might have been in the paragraph. The memory, alas, is oh-so-feeble.
Cheers! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this is part of the version some editors were trying to restore, though at times it was longer than this, and included something about Mexico too. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the claims you are making are flatly contradicted by what is in the sources themselves. And the snide tone that you are using makes it appear that you have a bias. Angel's flight (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of what I said is flatly contradicted by the China Youth Daily? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say "LaRouche's people were simply arranging interviews or venues where he could make a speech, where he told the audience or interviewer what he was saying in his own publications." Whereas the CYD says "On a sunny summer afternoon, our journalist visited his mansion in the Washington suburb, and listened to his unique perspective on the current world economic crisis." The journalist is clearly "on assignment," not walking blindly into some sort of ambush. Earlier you suggested that the reporter "dutifully—probably never having heard of LaRouche—repeats whatever she's directed toward." That's unlikely, given that in 2005, in the 8-part interview in the widely-read People's Daily, the interviewer says "You are quite famous in mainland China today,"[5] and in a different installment "But it seems you are much more famous overseas than here in America."[6] I would add that you seem to be casting all sorts of aspersions on these sources, without subjecting the negative commentary in the article to comparable scrutiny. Angel's flight (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Angel's flight, why not post here the exact words you'd like to see in the Russia/China section—i.e. this section exactly as you'd like to see it—along with the sources and working links, so we have something concrete to discuss? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that tomorrow. Angel's flight (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would make one small addition to that section, adding the People's Daily interviewer's observation that LaRouche is famous in mainland China and seemed better known overseas than in America. The CYD material could either be incorporated in that section or another one about the crash. The Egyptian coverage would just go in chronologically for 2003. Angel's flight (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tatania Shishov, writing in Russia Today, describes LaRouche as "the greatest American economist, a prominent politician, one of the first to struggle with the financial oligarchy and its major institutions—the World Bank and IMF. He has no equal in the field of economic and financial forecasts."[1] GG Pirogov of the Russian Academy of Sciences calls him "one of the greatest original thinkers of the twentieth century."[2]; In November 2005, an eight-part interview with LaRouche was published in the People's Daily of China, covering his economic forecasts, his battles with the American media, and his assessment of the neoconservatives. The interviewer observed that LaRouche is "quite famous in mainland China today," and seemed to be better known overseas than in America.(Tang 2005)

According to China Youth Daily, LaRouche warned in July of 2007 that unless US stopped monopolizing world finances, and united with China, Russia, and India to reorganize the world financial system, a new world wide credit crisis would be unavoidable.("The Current World Finacial System is Unsalvageable" (现行的世界金融体系已经无可救药), by Ju Hui (鞠辉), China Youth Daily 2009-07-24)

Iqbal Qazwini, writing in the Arabic-language daily Asharq Al-Awsat, reported that LaRouche was one of the first who predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1988, and German unification. He said that LaRouche had urged the West to pursue a policy of economic cooperation similar to the Marshall Plan for the advancement of the economy of the socialist countries. According to Qazwini, recent years have witnessed a proliferation of the ideas of LaRouche in China and South Asia. Qazwini refered to him as the spiritual father of the revival of the new Silk Road or Eurasian Landbridge, a project of massive, industrial technology which aims to link the continents together through networks of advanced ground transportation accompanied by the creation of industrial and agricultural development zones, and bring development to areas that had been isolated from the world and the technical development accumulated in the West.(Qazwini, Iqbal, "Major International Crises Need a Giant Project to Overcome Them," [7], ; January 23, 2003)

Thanks for writing this up. I don't think I have any objections in principle, though I wouldn't mind tightening it a little, especially the last paragraph. What is the Egyptian coverage, by the way?
Does anyone else have thoughts about whether to add this? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just noticed you've included material from a dead link that we can't find a replacement for (Russian Today). Also, can you link to a translation for the second Russian citation (GG Pirogov)? I've just looked but can't find LaRouche in it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Asharq Al-Awsat is not Egyptian. I must have Egypt on the brain. I followed the Pirogov link and got a rough translation -- I use a Google Chrome browser which offers to translate foreign text. It's the 4th essay on the page. The Shishov interview is archived in Russian (I don't know what language the original link was in) here: [8] I set up a subpage here with the raw machine translations: Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/russian Angel's flight (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tightening

I started tightening bits of this recently, and I'm about to go in and tighten some more, particularly toward the end. I'd normally have incorporated the China/Russia section into some other section, but as it's being discussed I won't edit it for now. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for your edit reducing the emphasis on Tim Wohlworth, because I think his opinions are given undue weight in this article. But I am wondering why you deleted the "expand section" tags. That is currently an open dispute. You also deleted this line: "A spokesman for the German public prosecution service said in 2007 that Duggan's mother simply cannot accept that her son committed suicide"(ref name=Degen), which tilts that section too much toward one POV. These are controversial edits which ought to be raised beforehand on this page. Angel's flight (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tightening wherever possible, and the "expand section" tags shouldn't be there, because they don't actually achieve anything. If people want to read the details about Duggan they can go there; it's all in the lead.
Rather than discussing what's missing or UNDUE, what would be more helpful for now is if you could identify anything you think might actually be wrong, or poorly sourced/unsourced. That's the more important issue, and easier to deal with quickly. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If "expand section" tags "don't actually achieve anything", why to we have them? It seems to me that the whole basis for the neutrality dispute is precisely that things are missing or UNDUE. And one could just as easily argue that the entire Duggan section is unnecessary, because readers can "go there" to the other article. But if we are to include a chunk of it here, it ought to be balanced. Angel's flight (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Duggan section is fine. We have (a) the Germans think it was suicide, (b) a British coroner said not, (c) the family thinks it was because of a recruitment attempt, (d) LaRouche says it's a press hoax, (e) a court has ordered a second inquest. That's everyone's view expressed once. That's more than fair to LaRouche given how overwhelmingly negative the international press coverage has been.
As for the tags, I can't say why they exist.
Is there anything in the article you regard as wrong or poorly sourced? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "tightening" seems to involve a lot of controversial edits. For example, you removed this sentence: We of the press should be chary of offering them print or air time. There is no reason to be too delicate about it: Every day we decide whose voices to relay from the Washington Post editorial. You offered no explanation for doing so. This sentence is highly revealing of the mindset of LaRouche's critics and I have restored it. You should seek consensus for these sorts of edits and wait until the the neutrality dispute has been resolved. Angel's flight (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


What is the point of restoring the long description of Werbell?

Mitchell L. Werbell, an Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative, mercenary, accused drug trafficker, firearms engineer, and arms dealer who said he had an ongoing connection to the CIA.

What's wrong with saying arms dealer, or mercenary who said he had ties to the CIA, or something similar? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on Mitchell WerBell III, so there's no need for a full recap of his job titles. A single descriptor would be sufficient.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was clearly a significant person in both OSS and CIA, who later became something of a rogue operative (mercenary, arms dealer.) If you mention one side of him without the other, it's oversimplification (would you be satisfied if the the article said only "OSS and CIA veteran"?) He is often referred to as Lt. General Mitchell WerBell, although there are conflicting explanations as to why. Angel's flight (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was clearly a significant person in both OSS and CIA, ...
I don't see any indication of that in his bio, which just says he was an operative of the OSS who carried out a secret mission, and that he had some CIA contact in 1972. It sounds more like he was a low-level person in those organizations. I suppose the "accused drug dealer" is amusing because of LaRouche's views on drug trafficking, and IIRC that was pointed out in a reliable source, but this isn't a bio of WerBell so we should probably limit the list to the most relevant job titles.   Will Beback  talk  09:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have links to these news agency reports? I can't find any trace of them on Google, except with reference to this article.

In 1999, China's press agency, the Xinhua News Agency, reported that LaRouche had criticized the Cox Report, a congressional investigation that accused the Chinese of stealing U.S. nuclear weapons secrets.[3] LaRouche called the report "intrinsically fraudulent," and "a reflection of the kind of scientific illiteracy" of its writers.[4] On October 13, 1999, during a press conference to announce his plans to run for president, LaRouche predicted a collapse of the world's financial system, stating, "There's nothing like it in this century.... it is systematic, and therefore, inevitable." He added that the U.S. and other nations had built the "biggest financial bubble in all history" which was close to bankruptcy.[5]

  1. ^ Shishiv 2008[full citation needed]
  2. ^ GG Pirogov, conference presentation to the Lebedev Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (FIAN), Russian Academy of Sciences website [1]
  3. ^ Xinhua News Agency, June 4, 1999.
  4. ^ LaRouche, June 4, 1999.
  5. ^ Xinhua News Agency (October 25, 1999). "LaRouche Vows to Change U.S. Politics if Elected President". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |format= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed or fixed all the dead links, except some that might be invisible. The only one remaining in the text is Stanislav Menshikov in the Russian section. [9] SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I googled the title and found it here:[10] Angel's flight (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Do you know whether that' a LaRouche summary or an actual translation? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make the Xinhau News Agency material invisible until we find links or at least a full citation. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change of direction

Angel's flight, your recent edit didn't seem to make sense. We have a section about Operation Mop Up in 1973, most of it sourced to Antony Lerman, an academic; John Mintz in The New York Times, and Paul Montgomery, also in The New York Times. Secondary sources are King, Tourish and Wohlforth, and Hentoff.

Antony Lerman writes that, in 1973 and with little warning, LaRouche adopted extreme, even neo-Nazi, ideas, a process accompanied by a campaign of violence against his opponents on the left. The violence was accompanied by the development of conspiracy theories and paranoia about his personal safety, often involving alleged attempts to assassinate him.[1] LaRouche said in 1987 that, since 1973, he had believed he was under the threat of assassination from a number of sources, including the Soviet Union, the CIA, Libya, drug dealers, and bankers.[2]

Between April and September 1973, during what LaRouche called "Operation Mop-Up," NCLC members began physically attacking members of other leftist groups, groups that LaRouche classified as "left-protofascists." A New Solidarity editorial said of the Communist Party: "We must dispose of this stinking corpse to ensure that it cannot act as a host for maggots and other parasites..."[3] Armed with chains, bats, and martial-art nunchaku sticks, they assaulted members of the Communist Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Progressive Labor Party, and others, on the streets and during meetings. The New York Times said in January 1974 that former members were astonished by the direction the party had taken.[4] The operation ended when police arrested several of his followers in Philadelphia, Boston, Buffalo, and New York City.[5]

  1. ^ Lerman 1988, p. 212
  2. ^ Mintz, December 18, 1987.
  3. ^ New Solidarity, April 16, 1973.
    • Also see King 1989, p. 21
  4. ^ Montgomery 1974.
  5. ^ King 1989, pp. 23–24

You want to add to this, or rather you want to introduce it with:

During this period, LaRouche and his organization underwent an ideological shift. According to Arthur Goldwag, LaRouche described the changed direction of his economic thinking as being in "the tradition of what used to be known as the 'American System of political-economy'... typified by the policies of Benjamin Franklin,... U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, Philadelphia's Mathew and Henry Carey, Friedrich List, and President Abraham Lincoln."[1]

  1. ^ Goldwag, Arthur, Cults, Conspiracies and Secret Societies: The Straight Scoop on Freemasons[2] p.292, Random House, 2009


First, who is Arthur Goldwag? Secondly, what does the latter have to do with the former? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it deals with the change in his economic thinking, I've placed it in its own section. [11] SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly object to your deletion. You are putting forth a claim from critics that LaRouche shifted from Marxism to "extreme, even neo-Nazi ideas." I regard this as a malicious falsehood, but since it comes from published sources, I am not asking that it be removed. I am asking, under the NPOV policy, that LaRouche's own very different description of his new policy direction be also presented, and under BLP I am asking that it be presented first, and then you may have Mr. Lerman refute it. To have Lerman's version presented as a factual account of the shift is just unconscionable, and I believe it also violates a policy here where Wikipedia is supposed to report on POVs without actually adopting them.
A quick Google would have answered your question about Goldwag: Huffington Post bioRandom House bio Angel's flight (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're mixing up two issues. Beating people up in the street is not a change of economic direction, and LaRouche doesn't deny that the former occurred, so this is not simply material from critics. The sources are high quality, and a great deal more extensive than that section implies. If you also want to discuss his change of economic thinking, that's fine, but it's a separate issue; hence the separate section. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then separate the "Ideological shift" from the "Operation Mop-up." And then balance both sections. There is a pattern throughout the 1970s sections of the article. The viewpoints of LaRouche's opponents are presented first as a factual account -- such as for Operation Mop-up -- and then LaRouche's account is added as an afterthought if at all. The NPOV approach would be to say at the beginning of each of these sections that the events are in dispute, and it would also be worth mentioning that since none of it ever went to court, it is "He said she said." And one more thing -- the 1970s section is bloated with gossipy allegations which were never proven, and these allegations are ripe for some "tightening." Wikipedia is not supposed to be a venue for scandal-mongering, particularly old, discredited scandals. Angel's flight (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can remove that from the title, sure, but Lerman's view is part of the description of the violence. Whether it's gossip or not we can't say. It's in good sources, and LaRouche acknowledged it; he just said the violence was started by others.
I think you need to find a better source than Goldwag. That quote is taken from the Schiller Institute site, [12] not connected to the 1970s. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for a better source. Under NPOV, the description of the violence should begin with an introduction that emphasizes that both sides say the other started it. The commentary by Lerman (by the way, I looked at his book, and the description of LaRouche is very short and reflects no independent research. I think Dennis King just gave him an interview and he dutifully wrote down what King said -- just kidding) about a shift in LaRouche's views should be separated out and moved to whatever section discusses the shift. I also request that the postage stamp-sized image of the FOIA document be enlarged slightly so that it might be possible to see what it says. Angel's flight (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under NPOV, the violence should be described the way the majority of high-quality sources described it. I can look through the NYT archives to see if there's a good description of who started what.
If you click on the image, you can see the text. I'm not sure we could get it big enough in the article to be able to read it there. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried enlarging it to 200px, but you still can't read the words, and it starts to overwhelm the section. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Readers can enlarge images just by clicking on them.   Will Beback  talk  04:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not uncommon to see a section about a disputed issue begin with a word of introduction, such as "in the 1970s there were violent altercations between NCLC activists and activists from opposing groups. Both sides accuse the other of initiating the altercations." NPOV doesn't say "the side with the most sources wins." It says that all sides are presented, proportionately to the sources that can be found. This would seem to be particularly important where allegations of criminal acts are being made, without any court record that demonstrates who the guilty party really is. I think there is also an UNDUE question when a lot of space is being given to unproven allegations. Angel's flight (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section already starts with LaRouche's perspective; see the first three sentences, sourced directly to him. If you want to add anything else along those lines, we'll need good secondary sources. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the Mop Up section a little more in the direction you wanted, including removing the neo-Nazi reference. Let me know what you think; see here. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 09:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where there are no court convictions, criminal activity should be reported as allegations, not fact, and if possible the alleging parties should be named. Delia Peabody (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The movement bragged about the operation, so that seems unnecessary. Whether the attacks were crimes is a matter for the courts, but the existence of the attacks is not disputed.   Will Beback  talk  04:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Books

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

  • A search on Google Books turns up a title called "Lyndon LaRouche: A Study in Political Extremism" by Carol M. Riggs (George Mason University, 1996). Unfortunately, I could not find this on Amazon, nor is an ISBN listed on Google Books. Has anyone seen this book or knows what it contains? If published by a university, it might serve as a reliable source on this article. *** Crotalus *** 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Riggs book is in FR, but I've not seen it. There are good sections about LaRouche in several books, e.g. George Johnson's Architects of Fear, which is quite detailed, and which I've been using here. Also see Robins, Robert S. and Post, Jerrold M. Political Paranoia: The Psychopolitics of Hatred. Yale University Press, 1997. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Worldcat, Riggs' work is an MA thesis for George Mason University.[13] Doctoral dissertations are regarded as reliable sources, but i don't think masters theses are awarded the same status.   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The best recent scholarly biography of LaRouche is a fairly long entry in Robert J. Alexander's International Trotskyism 1929-1985 Duke University Press, 1991 ISBN 9780822310662.   Will Beback  talk  03:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I recently obtained photocopies of the relevant pages. I'll add citations to it soon.   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander is a good find, thank you. I've added it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source request

Does anyone have a source for this?

During the 2000 Democratic primaries, he scored in double digits in multiple states, with his best showing in Arkansas, where he received 22 percent of the vote to Vice President Al Gore's 78 percent. In the Kentucky primary, he placed third with 11 percent, behind Gore and Bill Bradley. These showings came after Bradley had ceased contesting the nomination and the race was generally considered settled.

SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one source[14]. Evidently, the Economist didn't realize that LaRouche was unable to vote because felons are not permitted to register. I guess that's a typical problem with using foreign sources. Angel's flight (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I've added the figures to that section. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Goldwag

I disagree with making the Arthur Goldwag material invisible. You are asserting that there is some sort of inaccuracy in what he says, and I don't know that there is, but on the whole I found his description of LaRouche to be accurate and unusually neutral. Plus, as I understand it, the standard is "verifiability, not truth" -- Dennis King's book is riddled with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods, but it is still used as a source throughout this article, presumably because it is published and falls under "verifiability, not truth." I will continue to look for sources -- the CYD also describes the ideological shift -- but I think we should keep Goldwag for now. Angel's flight (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a good source for this. If you want to write about the change of economic direction, it's a good idea, but you need a secondary source who writes about what happened then, not a tertiary source who uses quotes from a current website to describe how LaRouche saw things in the 1970s. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A primary source would seem to be the most accurate, but I thought there was some objection to that. The fact that it appears in a secondary source (is there such a thing as a "tertiary" source?) should establish it as something worthy of inclusion. And again, Dennis King quotes and misquotes LaRouche when it serves his purposes, and there seems to be no objection to using King as a source. I thought that WP:V was the ultimate guideline. Angel's flight (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per V and NOR, you need a good secondary source, though you can augment it with a primary source (LaRouche) within reason. Goldwag is a tertiary source, and he has mixed and matched his timeframes, so the section made no sense. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 08:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say that Lerman is also a tertiary source? I think your view is debatable. I also don't see how Goldwag has "mixed and matched his timeframes" -- that seems to be your personal interpretation. Goldwag merely provides a concise description of LaRouche's orientation from the early 70s to the present. Angel's flight (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood anecdotes

What criteria are you using to decide which details about his childhood go into the article? It seems highly subjective and perhaps intended to build some sort of OR psychoanalytic theory. Considering the length of the article, I have difficulty understanding why accounts of his childhood are necessary or appropriate. Angel's flight (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has written about it, as have others, so it clearly mattered to him, and it's normal to start biographies with the early years. It's odd that you would object to it, because it humanizes him, makes him interesting. I'm about to add to it some descriptions of how he came across to others. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 08:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what criteria are you using? You have removed as much as you have added. Angel's flight (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Angel, LaRouche's Myopia may provide the key element for understanding his affinity for long term forecasts and his historical explanations: He simply compensates for his short-sightedness by looking "metaphorically" into the future or into the past. It is so simple. (or am i kidding?) Cheers! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lebedev Institute

What evidence do we have that the Pirogov source is reliable? How do we know what it really says?   Will Beback  talk  05:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See [15]. It appears that the publication was a result of workshops conducted jointly with the Schiller Institute. One of the issues includes an article by Rachel Douglas, who is not known as a scholar in English or Russian.[16] What do we know about Pirogov? Since these are foreign sources, it's hard to know what we're looking at. The burden is on whoever wants to add this to establish that it's a reliable, noteworthy, and independent source.   Will Beback  talk  06:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added something; it's more or less what Angel's flight wrote, though I've tightened it; see here. I included Pirogov, but it's not clear that it's appropriate, and I still can't see where he says those things on this page. Can someone point it out to me? Also, what is the citation date? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 07:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a Schiller Institute conference. It's not appropriate to present that as though it's an independent source. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 07:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly object to this line of argument. You both seem to be arguing that the Russian Academy of Sciences has become a self-published organ of the LaRouche movement, because one or more LaRouche-affiliated researchers spoke at a seminar there. This is an extremely novel and POV-driven interpretation of policy (and reality.) This controversy has come up before at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Pirogov. It might be appropriate to take this to the RS noticeboard. Angel's flight (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The partial-sentence quote which you removed may be found at the very beginning of Pirogov's essay here:Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/russian#Lyndon_LaRouche_and_his_physical_economy. Angel's flight (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source you want to cite is listed here in English, the GG Pies (Piragov) paper from the Methodological seminar LPI, number 2, part 2. It appears be part of a Schiller Institute (LaRouche movement in Germany) conference; see here in English, Methodological seminar LPI, number 3. It's therefore not appropriate to cite material about LaRouche from there as though it's an entirely independent source. And I still can't see where the source material is on that page. I can see the title, but not the paper. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the fourth and final essay on the page. If your computer doesn't have enough RAM to load the entire translation, trying scrolling down to the last section (with headline "ЛИНДОН ЛАРУШ И ЕГО ФИЗИЧЕСКАЯ ЭКОНОМИКА") and paste that section into your Google Translate box. However, you need not do that, because I did it for you here: Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/russian#Lyndon_LaRouche_and_his_physical_economy. I found a LaRouche site which provides some information on the seminars here:[17]. Please cite a Wikipedia policy that says that the presence of LaRouche researchers at the seminar makes the transcript unreliable. The hosting site is the Russian Press Agency NETDA on behalf of the Lebedev Institute Physics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. I think it would be nice to hear from some credentialed experts in a article that is otherwise dominated by a bunch of aging New Left types that were fighting LaRouche back in the 70s. If you think that the Lebedev Institute is somehow tainted by LaRouche contact, then we should take this to the noticeboard. Angel's flight (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You want to use as a source—for a contentious (albeit positive) claim in a BLP—a Google machine translation of a speech, unpublished except on a conference website, by an unknown person at an overseas conference that was funded in whole or in part by the LaRouche movement. And not only use it, you want to present it as an entirely independent academic source. I can't imagine any experienced editor supporting you in that. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 08:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SV, please leave the well unpoisoned.Thanks. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on those who wish to use a source to prove that it is reliable and significant. Using non-LaRouche sources, what do we know about the author of this source, Pirogov, or the seminar that published the material? It does not appear that the Lebedev Institute was the sole or even the primary publisher, and it's unclear what the role was of the Schiller Institute in the seminar. We need more information to evaluate this obscure, foreign language source, and to establish its prominence. Even if it is somehow reliable, it may be too unimportant to devote any significant space. We only report significant points of view, not everything ever published.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see what we have: Tim Wohlforth, a former SWP activist who now writes pulp fiction... Dennis King, a former PL activist who now does... who knows? Robert J Alexander, a former Socialist Party, LID and SDUSA activist who admittedly became a university prof... it seems more the case that we are reporting opposing points of view, not necessarily "significant" ones. I have opened a thread at WP:RSN. Angel's flight (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will, this is the same argument type as SV and it has come up a dozen times by now. There have been tons of Gigabytes of information already provided, but still you deny their existance. And please, IF we would report ONLY "significant" points of view, then what is the childhood anecdote about Larouches Myopia about? Significant, Indeed!81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please recap the info about the Pirogov paper? You seem to be more familiar with this talk page than I am.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query

From what I saw at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, the main basis for whatever support LaRouche enjoys here and overseas is his economic theories, proposals and forecasts. I have looked in this article for coverage of them, and found the following: cursory mentions of an Oasis Plan 1975, a three step program in 1976, a brief summary of programs under "National Democratic Policy Committee," Eurasian Landbridge proposal in 2002, and an economic forecast in 2007. Is it really the case that among all the sources that were used to compose this article, that is all we have? Delia Peabody (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delia, would a subheading "Economic Proposals" for each decade 1960-2010 solve the problem?81.210.206.223 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the life of the individual. The "Views" article is about the views of the individual and his movement. Let's avoid muddying the waters.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some of it is about the individual. Much of it is gossipy speculation about the internal affairs of LaRouche-related groups, or the nonsense about another member marrying LaRouche's former girlfriend. Since LaRouche is a political activist, is it not safe to assume that he engaged in specific political campaigns while all this is going on? Inquiring minds want to know. Angel's flight (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His political campaigns are covered in Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns   Will Beback  talk  02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean campaigns for public office, which are by nature non-specific. I mean campaigns for things like legislation that he authored, or someone else's legislation that he sought to defeat. What were the issues of the day that occupied his and his organization's time? Other than scandals, real or alleged? Angel's flight (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His proposals are covered in the "Views" article.   Will Beback  talk  02:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the "views" and by the way, the article has long ago left the sphere of being about the "life of the individual". You know it, everyone knows it. Right now, proposals are mixed into THIS article with no consistent principle. A special subheading might help. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If too much material about views, proposals, etc is in the article now the remedy would be to move that material to the more appropriate article, not to add more.   Will Beback  talk  00:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that there was "too much" material in here, that is what you said.Please stop putting words into my mouth. I am asking for a principled way to structure the proposals.

If you want an article about a politician that mentions no views and/or proposals you might also want an article about a horse that does not mention its legs. Cheers! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the material on horse's legs grows so long that it is sufficient for a standalone article then it's no longer to devote much space to them in the main article.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for structure, the article follows a straightforward chronological structure.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche&oldid=414037015"