Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

• Talk page archives
• Talk page index
• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research

Mediation, arbitration, requests for clarification, and other discussions about the LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement, AN/I, 2005-8
Enforcement, Hershelkrustofsky socks, Sep 19, 2008 Enforcement, MaplePorter, Sep 19, 2007 Clarification, Nathan/DLTN, July 23, 2007 Enforcement, Herschelkrustofsky (HK) Clarification, Tsunami Butler", Apr 1, 2007 Clarification, Appeal, Jan 24, 2007 Clarification, ManEatingDonut, Nov 22, 2006 Clarification, LaRouche, Oct 23, 2006 HK probation, Apr 15, 2006 HK/BirdsOfFire, Mar 31, 2006 HK blocked, Sep 29, 2005
Arbitration 2006
HK banned, May 5, 2006.
Arbitration 2005
N_ and others, Nov 2005. Cognition's statement, Nov 22, 2005. Modification of LaRouche 2, Dec 23, 2005. HK indef probation, Dec 23, 2005 LaRouche 2, Jan 25, 2005–Feb 17, 2005. LaRouche 2 talk LaRouche 2 evidence LaRouche 2 proposed decision LaRouche 2 proposed decision talk
Arbitration 2004
LaRouche 1, July 4—Sep 13, 2004. LaRouche 1 talk LaRouche 1 evidence LaRouche 1 evidence talk LaRouche 1 proposed decision LaRouche 1 proposed decision talk
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Med cabal talk, Feb 17, 2007 Med cabal/Tsunami Butler, Nov 26, 2006
Mediation 2004
HK and AndyL, July 3, 2004 HK and DJSupreme23, Jun 14, 2004 HK and Adam Carr, Nov 15, 2004 HK and SlimVirgin, Dec 16, 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche Lyndon LaRouche 1, Jan 17–Jun 17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 2, Jun 20–22, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 3, Jun 21–24, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche draft, June 24-25, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 4, Jun 25–July 5, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 5, Jul 05–Aug 1, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish, June–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche HK list, July–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche HK list archive Lyndon LaRouche 6, Aug 6-9, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 7, Aug 11-17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche omissions, Sep 9-10, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 8, Aug 18–Sep 28, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 9, Sep 18–Oct 11, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 10, Dec 2004–Jan 20, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche archive, material missing Lyndon LaRouche 11, Jan 20–Jul 19, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche 12, Jul 2005–Nov 12, 2006 Lyndon LaRouche 13, Nov 2006—Feb 18, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 14, Feb 18, 2007 - August 1, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 15, August 8, 2007 - November 18, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 16, November 20, 2007 - Lyndon LaRouche 17 Lyndon LaRouche 18
Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement Political views temp Political views 1, Aug 21–Nov 29, 2004 Political views 2, Dec 2004–Jan 11, 2005 Political views 3, Jan 2005–Oct 02, 2006 "Cooked quotes", Jan 22–23, 2005 Political views mediation, Feb 27–Mar 04, 2006 Political views 4, Oct 23, 2006–Oct 11, 2007 Political views 5, Oct 11, 2007–Nov 28, 2007 Political views 6, Nov 28, 2007–Apr 12, 2008 Political views 7, Apr 15, 2008–Sep 24, 2008
Talk:Amelia Boynton Robinson Talk:American School (economics) Talk:American School (economics)/Archive 1 Talk:American School (economics)/Archive 2 Talk:Anti-Defamation League Talk:Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität Talk:Dirigisme Talk:Helga Zepp-LaRouche Talk:Jeremiah Duggan Talk:Jeremiah Duggan 1, Nov 14–Dec 6, 2004 Talk:Jeremiah Duggan 2, Dec 2004–Jan 2005 Talk:John Train Salon Talk:Kenneth Kronberg Talk:LaRouche Movement Talk:LaRouche Youth Movement Talk:Schiller Institute Talk:Schiller Institute/Archive 1 Talk:Synarchism Talk:Tavistock Clinic Talk:Tavistock Institute Talk:Tavistock Institute 1, Nov '04–June '06 Talk:LaRouche criminal trials Zayed Center
Template talk
Template talk:LaRouche Template talk:LaRouchetalk
Categories
HK sockpuppets

Exclusion of Webster Tarpley

I've moved this discussion to Template talk:LaRouche movement. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved neutrality issues

Is there still any reason for the POV tag?   Will Beback  talk  20:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been meaning to get to this. These neutrality issues remain unresolved:

• I object to the inclusion of the two WP:COATRACK sections, "Death of Jeremiah Duggan" and "Death of Kenneth Kronberg," which have little bearing on LaRouche's bio and are included only as an excuse to present more criticism. Both topics, of course, already have their own articles.
• Sections devoted to allegations or criticism are long and detailed, for example "ego-stripping" and "New York Times article," while sections which report LaRouche's political activities, such as "Strategic Defense Initiative," are perfunctory. The reference to Nazi Germany in "Space Colonization" is gratuitous.

There has been general improvement in the article since SlimVirgin's blitzkrieg in late August, but much remains to be done. The overall problem remains one of violation of WP:BLP#Criticism and praise, which states that criticism must be presented in a way that "does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides." --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed the Duggan and Kronberg matters endlessly. If that's still your complaint then maybe the POV tag will stay on the article perpetually.

The only section devoted to criticism is the "criticism" section. The material that can be found in reliable 3rd-party sources about LaRouche and SDI is almost all in the article.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a chapter from a book by Dr. Yuri Gromyko which would be a useful source: [1]. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, the burden is on you to establish that this is a reliable source. Who is the publisher? Etc. What does the book say about LaRouche and what do you propose to add to the article?   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is information about the book's publisher, and these [2][3] are about the book's author. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Taking the first link: when I click on "About the Institute" I'm taken to a page with a long essay written by Yuri Gromyko.[4] So is the institute under the control of Gromyko? If so, then the book would qualify as self-published. Checking another link, I see Gromyko described as a psychologist. Is he competent to discuss economic theories or weapons systems?   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This page apears to be an autobiography of Gromyko.[5] In it, he says,

• Our partners in the discussion of the methodology of the global world development, the financial crisis of the dollar, the problems of development of the Eurasian and the risk of formation of the global financial-oligarchical sinarhizma-Fascism - a political activist L. LaRouche and the Schiller Institute staff M. Witt, J. Tennenbaum, A. Helenbroyh etc. .

What is the relationship between Gromyko and LaRouche, et al.?   Will Beback  talk  20:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I see on Google, Gromyko has spoken at Schiller Institute conferences in Germany. He is described here as "a Full Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences," which would indicate to me that he is versed in proper scholarship. His degree may be in psychology, but then again, we use Chip Berlet as an authoritative source on all aspects of LaRouche, and Berlet has no degree at all. Regarding the institute, it doesn't look like a one man show, based on this page.--Leatherstocking (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What information or viewpoint are we considering using this Russian psychologist for?   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would question that too. [6] When it comes to LaRouche's involvement in SDI development, which seems to be the main topic addressed by the chapter, I believe we have more reliable sources closer to events in the US to draw on than this one. --JN466 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

FEF

Considering the wealth of detail in the sections on criticism and allegations of misconduct, much of which could plausibly be said to belong in LaRouche movement, it seems a bit biased to be deleting even modest amounts of detail in the sections that mention LaRouche's actual political activity, as in this edit. I am restoring it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't clear what LaRouche had to do with the FEF beyond founding it. In any case, we have a special article devoted to the organizations that LaRouche founded. This article is for eventsw in LaRouche's life. The founding of FEF belongs, but other things it did that don't involve him directly do not. If we were to give a balanced qcoverage of it here then we'd need to add material about how it defrauded would-be supporters. This article is long enough, and that would all be better handled in the "movement" article.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that LaRouche founded FEF is beyond dispute and has been noted in third party sources. If it isn't clear what LaRouche had to do with the FEF beyond founding it, hereis one example: April 8, 1983. LaRouche keynoted a Fusion Energy Foundation conference in Washington, D.C. on the Strategic Defense Initiative, attended by 800 representatives of administration, Congress, business, and the diplomatic community, including 16 East bloc representatives. Representatives from the Soviet embassy and press attended, but then walked out. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that simply giving one address that wasn't reported in any 3rd-party source is much. There's plenty we can say about the FEF, though it may not qualify for an article of its own. But the place to say that is in the "movement" article, not here. Do you deny that FEF is part of the LaRouche movement?   Will Beback  talk  20:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

On further investigation, it appears that there are enough sources to justify an article on the FEF. I'm compiling sources at Talk:LaRouche movement/Sources‎#Fusion Energy Foundation. Everyone is welcome to contribute.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You appeared to be asking whether a few words about the FEF should not be excluded, because they could plausibly be included in LaRouche movement. I don't think so; if that were the case, the section entitled "New York Times article" would be in U.S. Labor Party, the sections on "NCLC" and "Operation Mop-up" would be in National Caucus of Labor Committees, "October Surprise" and "Dispute with U.S. News" would be in Executive Intelligence Review, and so on. And clearly, the fact that some of these sub-topics have their own articles has not prevented them from having extensive coverage in this one. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we include it we'll have to give a balanced view, including the fraud charges.   Will Beback  talk  01:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will's deletion, because as far as I could see, neither of the two sources cited mentioned LaRouche by name. I think such a mention should usually be a minimum requirement for material added to a BLP. --JN466 17:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We'll soon have an article on the FEF, so anything more we want to say about the organization can go there.   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've have two separate sources that say FEF was founded in 1975. What's our source for 1971 being the founding date?   Will Beback  talk  08:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Make that three sources, and a couple that say 1974. I'm going to move the material to a later date.   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Kronberg

We have 300 words on Kronberg's death in 2007. Is that really appropriate in this BLP? I don't see what the connection is to LaRouche personally. --JN466 22:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I beliee part of the reason it's so long is that it also covers the libel suit, which names LaRouche. The two topics have been discussed rather extensively on LaRouche websites, lending additional weight. That said, I think that the section can be shortened somewhat.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if we start with the element that does link to LaRouche directly, and then unfurl the directly relevant background. --JN466 23:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My usual preference for writing articles about people or historical events is to try to maintain a chronological progression. But I'm not dogmatic.   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to invert the chronology, but I coouldn't make it work in drafts so I simply trimmed the existing material instead.[7]. It's now reduced from 321 words to 229, by a rough count. I wouldn't mind cutting the last two sentences too: the tidbit about the attorney and even the LPAC view. That would cut it down to about 174 words.   Will Beback  talk  10:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I've had another go at trimming it, and have taken out the last two sentences; pls check if what is left still has all the key points. JN466 20:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. The result is about 153 words long.   Will Beback  talk  23:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded one line, giving a more accurate description of LaRouche's claims vis-a-vis Molly Kronberg. One possible solution to the problems of this section would be to remove all speculation (from both sides) about the reasons for the suicide, since this seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone just added speculation about his opposition to Bush. Is that necessary, considering how short the section is? I thin we can trim it further by just saying that they allege she drove her huisband to suicide and leave off the details, which can be found inthe linked article.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should either omit, or include, details about the speculation from both sides. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I did a little tweaking to make Leatherstocking's edits more accurate.Hexham (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP says: "Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use ... trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." Should we be using Molly's court brief as a source, particularly when it is hosted on a dubious website? --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources should only be used if we have secondary sources that cover the same matter, and even then only sparingly. I've removed the background on the suit entirely. Let's cover this fully on the Kronberg article and keep the section here brief.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, only one side of the story is getting "trimmed," as in this edit. Both sides have their theories about the causes of the suicide. There was no suicide note, so it's all speculation, and both sides should be treated equally. I've restored the version of this section as it appeared in the last edit by Cirt, October 14. If other editors feel that this section is completely out of control in terms of length, I propose this version, with speculation from both sides removed:

In 2007, Kenneth Kronberg, a longtime LaRouche associate and co-founder of the Schiller Institute's Fidelio magazine, committed suicide. Kronberg ran a printing service for the LaRouche movement in Sterling, VA. On April 11, Kronberg leapt off a Route 28 overpass in Sterling. Kronberg's widow sued LaRouche and others in 2009 charging that they had harassed and libeled her. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, there is "trimming" going on which seems to be entirely POV-based. In this edit, Will uses the edit summary, "trim speculation - not the main issue covered in the source." A look at the article tells an entirely different story. Four paragraphs are devoted to this topic:

Then, in a memo dated Aug. 18, 2007, titled “Bush-League Molly,” LaRouche wrote that his followers “had no reason to feel guilt over the suicide.”

Again on Aug. 19, 2007, LaRouche mentioned the Kronbergs in his morning briefing, detailing campaign contributions Molly Kronberg made to the re-election campaign of President George W. Bush in 2004.

“At the time of these contributions, Ken Kronberg, with other members of the LaRouche movement, was engaged in an all-out war to the re-election of Bush-Cheney and the clearly manifested fascism which they represent,” LaRouche said. “Does anything more need be said in the matter of Ken's suicide?”

LaRouche brought up the issue again in a briefing on April 14, 2008, in which he wrote that Ken Kronberg “had committed suicide because his wife was on the other side, and [Ken] thought the situation was hopeless.”[8]

It is increasingly clear that this is not a dispute over the length of the section, but over excluding some information that is well sourced, but deemed undesirable by an editor. Please don't delete it again without providing a legitimate, policy-based rationale. I would suggest taking this a noticeboard, since we are clearly having difficulty arriving at a consensus. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with retaining the sentence about what LaRouche alleged. --JN466 17:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we writing about the suit against LaRouche, or about the allegations that LaRouche made which led to the suit? Rather than repeating in detail the alleged libel, I think that LaRouche's reaction to the suit would be more valuable. Do we have any comment from him on it?   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche's comments came first, then the libel suit. Ideally I would want to start with LaRouche's comments and then say he was sued for libel. We can't do that because of the need to present the prior history. I think the section is not in bad shape now. If reaction from LaRouche to the suit is available, we could look at including at that, though it's likely to be yet another tit for tat thing, and thus potentially a bit tedious to the reader. --JN466 01:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Kronberg's testimony came first, then LaRouche's charge that she committed perjury. That it is the main claim in the complaint. Not the Bush thing.   Will Beback  talk  03:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Change in lead

I have changed the deprecatory "self-styled economist" to "economist," and added a sentence about LaRouche's reputation in Russia, based on the following sources:

"Economist"

There are many references to LaRouche as an economist, but in particular, if LaRouche's arch-enemy of the 1970s, the New York Times, can use it, so can we:

• Mr. LaRouche, an 80-year-old economist, has raised more than $3.7 million over the years, much of it through small donations and the Internet. -- "Washington: Solid Fund-Raising By Lyndon Larouche," New York Times, [9], May 3, 2003

"Leading economist" in Russia

• And, as indicated by many prominent scientists, such as L. LaRouche, GA Odum, MA Schlesser, and others, leads to a global monetary and financial collapse. -- Kuznetsov,Oleg L., Bolshakov, Boris E., Ryabkova, Svetlana, "The idea of Nursultan Nazarbayev - a democratic future designer,"[10], Interfax, October 17, 2009
• ...the greatest American economist --Shishov, Tatania, ""Globalization - Greatest Scam of the Twentieth Century," Russia Today[11], June 29, 2008
• ... the famous economist Lyndon LaRouche -- Voice of Russia, August 18, 2006[12]

"Founder of Physical Economics"

• In April 2006, of America once again came the voice of a well-known dissident and founder of the movement of physical economy Lyndon LaRouche -- Centrasia.ru, July 27, 2006[13]
• Lyndon H. LaRouche, the founder of physical economics -- the late Russian economist Pobisk Kuznetsov, paper available at his memorial site [[14]]
• The fact that the U.S. financial system moves toward a catastrophe, since the 1990's in a loud voice saying economists - the supporters of "physical economy", which are grouped around the Lyndon LaRouche. --KM.RU news, July 10, 2009 [15]
• The founder of a new direction in economic science, which he described as the physical economy.--Polar Star magazine, undated [16]

--Leatherstocking (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Good research. I moved it down beside the other characterizations, and copyedited the result.   Will Beback  talk  20:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

At least one of these persons, Pobisk Kuznetsov, would appear to qualify as a member of the LaRouche movement, according to the criteria proposed by Leatherstocking.   Will Beback  talk  03:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Platform

I moved the poliotical platform material to Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Campaign platforms. Note that there are additjonal sources on the movement's platforms in Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources#Platforms, which we'll also need to integrate with the Rusian source.   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete the very concise reference I added to campaign platforms. The platform is not a "view," it pertains to something the subject did, and being a "perennial candidate" is being presented here as a key aspect of the subject's notability. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete it. I moved it to the "Views" article. That's where it belongs. Further, the material you presented is not a balanced, comprehensive summary of his political platforms.   Will Beback  talk  00:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where the article says these were LaRouche's platform. Also, I'm not sure what this means:

• По материалам журнала «Валютный спекулянт» и сайта www.larouchepub.com

I see that most of the material is copied from this page.[17] It says:

• По материалам сайта www.larouchepub.com

In other words this material appears to have been copied off of a LaRouche website. If we're going to have platform information, please let's use reliable secondary sources and let's make sure it is reasonable comprehensive.   Will Beback  talk  02:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Before we use http://www.zvezda.ru/ or http://www.spekulant.ru we need to establish that they have reputations for reliability.   Will Beback  talk  03:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've compiled a list of platform items from the sources page.   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to Leatherstocking's re-write. But it still belongs in the "Views": article, so I've moved it back again.   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And per the postings above, it's not clear that http://www.zvezda.ru is a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is ample information available on Polar Star. Their home page in English, with a list of staff, collaborators and their respective credentials, is available here. Among the "authors and partners" are Richard K. Betts, Dean Baker, and Mikhail Delyagin, all of whom have Wikipedia bios. Here is a English-language reference to the magazine and its editor-in-chief Dmitri Rodin, and here's another.

Please do not continue to move campaign platform information to "views." A presidential campaign is not a mere expression of an opinion. It is an active process of attempting to rally support for a series of policies. LaRouche is considered notable as a "perennial candidate," and information on LaRouche's campaign platforms is exactly what is needed to provide some semblance of balance to this biographical article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain the provenence of the cited source, cinosiderfing the issues I raised above.

We don't cover his presidential campaigns in this article either. The version you reverted is incomplete and based mostly on a source of undetermined reliability and with a lack of neutrality. I'll move it back to the views article, where it belongs alongside his other views.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise to get consensus, I've left a short summary of some of the main issues. Let's keep it short here and give a full coverage in the views article.   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to disturb your conversation, I just want to add that i love the word "cinosiderfing". 81.210.198.46 (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean that isn't how it's spelled?   Will Beback  talk 

Let's take a step back and look at what is going on here. You have now reached the point of edit warring[18][19][20][21], in a biographical article, to exclude coverage of the presidential campaigns of a guy who ran for president 8 times. At the same time, you demand the inclusion of material like "Jeremiah Duggan," whom the subject never even met, and whose only connection to the subject is innuendo from LaRouche's critics. This is like Alice in Wonderland. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so only one editor is edit warring. Anyway, do you want to discuss this here or on the mediation page?   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite the lack of further discussion here, the material was restored yet again. Aside from the problem of duplicating material already covered in the Views of Lyndon LaRouche article, the actual material that's being restored is not balanced and is based primarily on a Google translation of Russian website article of dubiuous origins. We should use the best possible sources, not the worst. I don't see how anyone can argue that "www.zvezda.ru" is the best possible source for the political platforms of an American presidential candidate.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead

This lead is absurdly unbalanced. The widespread view of LaRouche is that he is a cult leader, conspiracy theorist, and very strange person. Yet our lead is almost entirely positive. We have one half of a sentence that is negative: "critics regard him as a cult leader, conspiracy theorist, fascist, and antisemite." And of course it's not even true that only "critics" say this. But we can't change it because Leatherstocking reverts almost all attempts to improve the article. I dislike using tags, but in this situation I wonder if it's time to add the COI tag. I counted the movement's various edits with the different accounts, and they amount to over 1,000. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

By all means, add the tag. You and Will must have racked up 1,000 edits between you in August/September alone. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't say "critics"; that's in the version you reverted to. Please respond to the material below; I've moved it down from earlier this week. You should have responded to it before changing the lead. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

One big problem with the Oct 21 version is that it puts the views of a few Russian sources far out of proportion to their weight. Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research has scores of sources for the contentious assertions in the lead. Weight should be related to depth and breadth of coverage in reliable sources and to intrinsic importance. Since he's gained so much attention for his predictions of financial depressions, and for the recent "Obama=Hitler" campaign, we should add those to the intro too.   Will Beback  talk  09:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should contain notable controversies. The problem with LaRouche is that there have been so many, it's hard to know which to pick. We should perhaps make a list here on talk first, and try to decide which ones gained the most mainstream coverage. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just noting here that Leatherstocking tried to move this thread behind an older one. [22] He didn't say why. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I was attempting to draw your attention to the sources I posted at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Change in_ lead, which you appear to be studiously ignoring. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Leatherstocking, I count seven Russian citations in your listing above: three for "Leading economist" and four for "Founder of Physical Economics", and none of those appear to have been from the most prominent Russian news sources. By contrast, the other phrases used for LaRouche that are in the lead have far more citations. There are 72 sources for "anti-semite" and 56 for "fascist", many of them in the newspapers of record, or quotations from prominent individuals. If the threshold is just 3 or 4 cites, then there are many more terms we should add. If the threshold is higher, then we should delete the Russian terms. But we can't have it both ways.   Will Beback  talk  03:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, i love everybody on this talkpage. You guys simply make my day! Please keep up the good work, the entertainment value of this page surpasses even "Seinfeld". Cheers, and good luck to each of you! *runs for popcorn* 81.210.198.46 (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad you're enjoying it.   Will Beback  talk  03:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Speculation vs. Argument

The verb "speculate" as used to describe my argument that LaRouche uses "British" to designate "Jewish" in certain contexts, is LaRouchian POV. My argument is backed up by solid research; see chapter 29 of Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism [23] which not only cites examples from LaRouche's propaganda but also traces the historical antecedents in earlier ultra-right movements including the Nazis. It would be difficult to interpret in any other way the notorious picture of Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David (flanked by Kissinger and Milton Friedman) that illustrated a LaRouche article in the late 1970s or the recent picture showing George Soros (LaRouche's latest symbolic evil Jew) with the Union Jack behind his head. Or LaRouche's use of the terms "British (Rothschild)" and "Zionist-British organism." As to the antecedents of this game, I have posted many of my research findings on Lyndon LaRouche Watch--and other examples can be found at LaRouche Planet [24] along with examples of such LaRouchian anti-Jewish code words as "Synarchist," "Venetian virus" and "locusts."

People can disagree with the coded discourse ("forked tongue") thesis as applied to LaRouche and other extremists (the subject of an international symposium at Northampton University last summer), but to dismiss it as "speculation" here on Wikipedia merely tends to block any serious consideration of the evidence--especially when the use of the term is followed by a one-sided compendium of remarks by Dennis King critics (the longest of which isn't even about the issue of code language). I find it curious that LaRouche editors keep trying to delete all criticism of LaRouche from this article but defend via edit-warring their own insertion into it of a rather detailed critique of me.--Dking (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And on that note, I've added the COI tag. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

LS, you've applied a lot of tags to this article. Can you explain precisely how this article qualifies?

• A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.

Does that edit make Dking a "major contributor"? Has it violated NPOV? If not, then the tag doesn't belong.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed tag. I'm an acknowledged expert on LaRouche, have tracked his career for over 30 years, and have studied his writings closely. My work has been published on the subject in mainstream publications and by a mainstream publishing house. I edit on Wikipedia under my own name. Where is the conflict?--except that I happen to disagree with the tiny band of LaRouche devotees (about 1/100th of one percent of the American public) whose current Wikipedia spokesperson is "Leatherstocking" and who think LaRouche is a great man and not at all a bigot (in defiance of massive evidence to the contrary).

This shows what is wrong with Wikipedia--that anyone with real knowledge of a controversial subject has to deal constantly with flat-earther cranks and other irrationalists. Real experts should be encouraged to edit under their own names, as they do in the real world of journalism, publishing, academia and science. Instead, on Wikipedia they are penalized for doing so by cranks who hide behind user names and use the Wikipedia rules in a defense-lawyer fashion rather than joining in a sincere scholarly debate based on evidence (instead they claim that the normal response of an expert to defend his or her legitimately published research findings constitutes de facto a conflict on interest). I know many academics who could contribute to Wikipedia but decline to do so because they know they would end up having to play lawyer games with the cranks and hired guns such as the press secretary for the Divine Light Mission's fat corrupt little guru-God who for years wasted people's times on cult-related articles and kept real scholars and scientists away via his nastiness.

As to Leatherstocking's complaint that I am not sufficiently "neutral": Sir, don't ever ask me to be neutral about anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, calls for violence against gays, and vile mockery of the families of people driven to their deaths by the LaRouche organization. Nor should any Wikipedia editor be neutral about such matters. That is not a conflict of interest, but rather common human decency.--Dking (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)