Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

• Talk page archives
• Talk page index
• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Australian media coverage
• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/works
• 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

Policies and sources

Content policies

See WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS:

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ...

"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Sources

LaRouche lived all his adult life in New York (1953–1983) or Virginia (1983–present), which means the two major newspapers of record are The New York Times and The Washington Post. Both have written extensively about him, including several extended investigative and analysis pieces from the 1970s to the 2000s. These articles provide the structure of much of this article—in that we highlight what they highlight. For their archives on LaRouche see below. For the books we use see here.

• The New York Times, before 1981.
• The New York Times, 1981–present.
• The Washington Post, before 1987.
• The Washington Post, 1987–present.
• Mintz, John. "The Cult Controversy", The Washington Post, includes a series on LaRouche.

Non-political views

There's a suggestion to rename the Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement article to "Political positions of Lyndon LaRouche". Assuming that it's adopted, a large amount of the material will have to be removed from that article. Some of it can go to the LaRouche movement article. However certain topics are better suited to this article. The "Neoplatonism" and "Conspiracies" sections would be the two largest sections that are mostly concerned with LaRouche the person rather than the movement, They take about 2500 words. The biography is currently about 9616 words, as long as it should be. The "Ideology" section is about 800 words. So we'll need to compress the material in the "Neoplatonism" and "Conspiracies" sections into about a quarter the space they now occupy in order to replace the existing "Ideology" section without making the article too long. Coincidentally, we were about to rewrite the material on the "Queen pushes dope" conspiracy theory to better reflect its prominence, based on the sources at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/Queen. It's going to be be a squeeze, but I'm sure we can manage. Other material will need to be moved over as well. Unless anyone sees it differently we can start drafting the shortened version for this article.   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I'll start drafting the conspiracy theory material here. Everyone is welcome to help, of course.   Will Beback  talk  02:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The Neoplatonism and Conspiracies sections from the Views article can go into the LaRouche movement article if that re-scoping is adopted. These topics are already adequately covered here. Please, let's not start tinkering with the BLP again. --JN466 23:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche's theories should go in LaRouche's article. Views that are held by the movement, rather than LaRouche, belong in the movement article. His conspiracy theories, etc., are not adequately covered here - the material here assumed the existence of Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement‎, which you and other editors have voted to reduce down to the much shorter "Political views of Lyndon LaRouche". Therefore, any of LaRouche's non-political views that we want to cover need to be squeezed into this article. Not a big deal, though some of his more minor views will either be left out or get very short coverage indeed.   Will Beback  talk  00:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Rejection by the DNC

• [1] "not recognized by Party leaders" is weasel words, this sort of caveat is never applied in Wikipedia to embarrassing Republicans
• [2] Political parties don't "disavow" their members in the USA; rather, their voters reject them

An editor has removed two references to the fact that the Democratic National Committee issued a decision that LaRouche is not a member of the Democratic Party. It was contested by the LaRouche campaign and as a result the courts affirmed that political parties have a right to decide who is a member. Based on the editor's other activities,[3][4] these edits may have more to do with partisan political issues than with the subject's life history. I believe this fact is notable because it is perhaps unprecedented for a major political party to formally deny the membership of a candidate, and because of the court case, and it's relevant because it would give the wrong impression to imply that the subject campaigned as a Democrat Party member in good standing. I'll undo the edits unless there is a good reason to leave them out.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Will. Party membership is determined by State law, not by the Parties themselves, and certainly not by the DNC and RNC.

The DNC did not deny LaRouche membershop in the Democratic Party, though I have no doubt that they would have done so if they could have done so. The argument over LaRouche's qualifications was not about whether the DNC could disavow him or deny him membership in the Party. It was over whether convicted felons in general, who have lost their right to register and vote, may run.

In most States, to run in a Party's primary a person must be a registered voter, registered as a member of that Party. Since a person who has lost his voting rights due to a felony conviction cannot register, he does not qualify. LaRouche fought and I think lost a legal fight over that issue, over a decade ago.

Various Party committees do issue resolutions condemning members of their their own Party from time to time. That is not particularly unusual. But the committee is not the Party, and such resolutions have no effect on who is or is not a member of the Party.

What's more, to state that the Democratic Party did thus-and-so, when actually it was just a committee of the Party that did so, is incorrect. The DNC is not the Democratic Party, and the RNC is not the Republican Party. They are not even the highest authorities in their parties; the highest authority in each party is the party meeting in convention and voting in primaries.

For example, here in NC, after Republican State Rep. Richard Morgan did a deal with Democrat Jim Black, and helped the Democrats gerrymander the State to favor Democrats, in exchange for becoming co-Speaker with Mr. Black, the Republican State Executive Committee passed a resolution condemning Morgan, and kicked him off of the Executive Committee for "party disloyalty." But they could not kick him out of the Party, because they had no control over who is and is not a member of the Republican Party. If it were otherwise, then "embarrassing" candidates like Lyndon LaRouche and David Duke would be unable to run in their parties' primaries.

Also, Will, I would remind you to Assume Good Faith. I correct erroneous & incomplete information wherever I find it. That is not a partisan activity. NCdave (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than simply deleting this material, let's get it right. Here's the appellate court's decision in LaRouche v. Fowler. According to it, the DNC adopted a rule which allowed the national chairman to determine who may receive delegates or be considered for nomination for the convention. Subsequently, DNC Chair Fowler issued a decision that LaRouche is "not a bona fide Democrat". The court found that The Party's ability to define who is a "bona fide Democrat" is nothing less than the Party's ability to define itself. On th eissue of whether LaRouche is a Democrat, the court wrote:

• LaRouche, of course, would dispute the applicability of this passage, arguing that unlike the open primary voters in Wisconsin, he is not "unaffiliated" with the Democratic Party and does not have "adverse political principles." But the Party itself obviously disagrees--and vociferously so. See J.A. 73-74 (Fowler letter) ("Mr. Larouche's [sic] expressed political beliefs ... [are] utterly contrary to the fundamental beliefs, values and tenets of the Democratic Party...."). Nor is the Party required to accept LaRouche's self-designation as the final word on the matter. Rather, the Party's "freedom to join together in furtherance of common political beliefs 'necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association.'

In other words, just because LaRouche says he is a member of the Democratic Party does not make that so. As for the authority of Fowler and the DNC, the court wrote:

• Rule 11(K) and the Fowler letter were issued pursuant to the authority duly granted to the DNC and Chairman Fowler by the Charter and Bylaws of the Democratic Party.

That seems to make clear that this was not just a decision by some committee, but was done with the full authority of the party. Therefore, it seems like it's accurate to say that LaRouche, candidacy was rejected by the Democratic Party on the basis that he was not a bona fide Democrat. But let's not just rely on our own interpretation. Here are some news reports:

• After LaRouche filed Thursday, Texas Democratic Party spokesman Sean Michael Byrne said his name will appear on the March 9 ballot, but the party contends LaRouche isn't qualified to be the nominee because he is not a registered voter. Byrne said LaRouche also will be ineligible to win delegates at the national convention because he is not qualified under the party's rules. Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe has determined LaRouche is not a "bona fide" Democrat, according to a letter sent to Texas Democratic Chairman Charles Soechting. "This determination is based on Mr. LaRouche's expressed political beliefs, including beliefs which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic, and otherwise utterly contrary to the fundamental beliefs, values and tenets of the Democratic Party," it said." The court considered many issues. On the of the fundamental ones was this: May a court require a political party--itself a First Amendment creature--to show a compelling justification before it may limit a putative candidate's ability to associate himself with the party? [..] The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear LaRouche's appeal when a lower court ruled otherwise after Democrats denied the candidate Arkansas delegates in the 2000 presidential race.
  • LaRouche set to be on ballot for state Democratic primary; [4 STAR Edition] POLLY ROSS HUGHES, Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau. Houston Chronicle. Houston, Tex.: Dec 21, 2003. pg. 39
• Top state Democrats say there is no way that perennial presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche will be allowed to take part in Saturday's nationally televised presidential debate because he is neither a Democrat nor a legal voter. "It's my call," state Democratic Chairman Dick Harpootlian said Monday. LaRouche countered that he is being unfairly excluded and that state party efforts to keep him off the stage in Columbia are being orchestrated by former national Democratic Chairman Don Fowler, a long-time LaRouche critic. When Fowler led the Democratic National Committee, he wrote letters doubting LaRouche's commitment, saying LaRouche held racist views and wasn't "a bona fide Democrat."
  • LaRouche gets hook as Dems set debate; [FINAL Edition] SCHUYLER KROPF. The Post and Courier. Charleston, S.C.: Apr 29, 2003. pg. B.1
  • Aliens can be denied aid, court says; [CITY Edition] Associated Press. Florida Times Union. Jacksonville, Fla.: Mar 28, 2000. pg. A.5
• The Democrats have tried to disassociate themselves from LaRouche, and in 1996 the party's national committee chairman Donald L. Fowler labeled him as "explicitly racist and anti-Semitic."
  • Jewish group claims new Australian party is anti- Semitic; [Daily Edition] AP. Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Aug 12, 2001. pg. 04
• Lyndon LaRouche, a perennial candidate who runs for president as a Democrat every four years, is suing to get the delegates he won with nearly 22 percent of the votes he received in the Arkansas presidential primary. Arkansas Democrats, with the enthusiastic approval of the national party, have refused to seat his backers at the state party convention in Hot Springs on Saturday. They accuse Mr. LaRouche of racism and wackiness, and say he isn't a legitimate candidate. The state party insists that since Mr. LaRouche doesn't qualify as a party candidate he can't participate in the state convention to determine who will represent the state at the party's national convention in Los Angeles in August.
  • LaRouche sues to get his delegates Arkansas Democrats refuse to seat the delegates he won; [2 Edition] August Gribbin. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.: Jun 22, 2000. pg. A.1
• [the US Supreme Court] Ruled that the Democratic Party lawfully refused to count votes cast for political extremist Lyndon LaRouche in the 1996 presidential primaries.
  • Aliens can be denied aid, court says; [CITY Edition] Associated Press. Florida Times Union. Jacksonville, Fla.: Mar 28, 2000. pg. A.5
• ...[T]he U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., dismissed LaRouche's claim. The court said the Voting Rights Act does not apply to political parties, which have a constitutional right of association to exclude undesirables from their ballots.
  • High court rules against LaRouche; [3 STAR Edition] STEVE LASH, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau. Houston Chronicle. Houston, Tex.: Mar 28, 2000. pg. 12
• The Democratic National Committee has the right to keep perennial candidate Lyndon LaRouche Jr. from qualifying for the party's nomination, a federal district court has ruled. The opinion by a three-judge panel was based in part on a party requirement that the Democratic presidential nominee be a registered voter. LaRouche, a convicted felon, lost his voting privilege in his home state of Virginia.
  • Democrats win ruling on Lyndon LaRouche; [METROPOLITAN Edition] MARY OTTO. Kansas City Star. Kansas City, Mo.: Nov 23, 1999. pg. A.3

So how should we summarize the issue?   Will Beback  talk  05:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche described his childhood as that of "an egregious child, I wouldn't say an ugly duckling but a nasty duckling."

What does his quote even mean? Does this really clarify anything about Larouche? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.234.117 (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The original source, a New York Times profile from 1974, makes no effort to explain it. But they printed it and it was also quoted in King's biography.[5] So two authors writing about him have found it interesting enough to quote.   Will Beback  talk  07:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the IP. Sure the quote appears in a 300 page biography and it made a tantalizing tidbit for a NY Times article but it appears to me to be cherry picked and not of any real value to the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Satanism

The article does not mention the cult's essays on what they believed to be Satanism. Was the topic deemed unworthy of mentioning? Desertphile (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Issues like that are generally covered in Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. The metaphorical characterization of political opponents as "satanic" has been repeated without analysis by some journalists, perhaps just to make him look foolish. IIRC, there has been some discussion of his condemnation of satanism (actual not metaphoric), but he was only a minor part of the Satanic ritual abuse hysteria of the 1980s. So, as far as coverage in secondary sources go I don't believe it's been a significant issue. However if you know of other sources on this let us know - I could be wrong.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Issues to be addressed

Here are some problems with this article that should be addressed:

1. In the lead, "Often described as a political extremist" and "largely promoting a conspiracist view of history and current affairs" are presented in Wikipedia's voice, when they should be placed in the section of the lead where critics' views are described. The word "conspiracist" is a neologism favored by people like Chip Berlet, and it is not appropriate to use it. "Critics" should be called "Critics" instead of "commentators" -- let's not pretend that there is no animus involved.

2. In "early life," "an egregious child, I wouldn't say an ugly duckling but a nasty duckling" and the "Big head" quote have clearly been cherry-picked to make LaRouche look weird and sinister. They should go. Another editor raised this issue in an earlier section.

3. References to Roy Frankhouser should include the fact that he was an FBI/ATF informant/infiltrator. There seems to be an effort here to misrepresent his relationship to the group.

4. "Piven was almost pushed down a flight of stairs by someone calling her a fascist and CIA agent" -- what is this doing here? There is no evidence that it has anything to do with LaRouche. BLP!

5. SDI: why was the quote from the former head of West German Military Intelligence removed?

6. James Bevel was in Martin Luther King's inner circle and he ran the famous Birmingham campaign. Yet in this article he is identified only as "a civil rights activist who had represented the LaRouche movement in its pursuit of the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations." This is not neutral coverage. Waalkes (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My response to your points 1) Agree with you that critics shouldn't be disguised as "commentators". 2) Agree the duckling quote is cherry picked and sensationalistic and violates WP:BLP in my opinion. I will consider the others and comment more later.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

1) The intro is a summary of the article, and should include even the controversies. See WP:LEAD. Someone who is called a "critic" in secondary sources might be called a "critic" here, but everyone who says LaRouche is a political extremists need not be called a critic any more than everyone who says something nice about him is a follower or a fan. "Commentator" is a neutral term.

2) Those quotes are not cherry picked by Wikipedia editors. They are his own words that have been quoted repeatedly in secondary sources.

3) We can add more about Frankhouser, though since there is a full biography elsewhere we don't need to go into much detail. However we'd also have to make it clear that he was not working as an informant in this dealings with LaRouche. So he was a "former informant".

4) The Piven material was discussed extensively with previous HK socks back in February. Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 23#Sources and structure. Please stop repeating the same complaints.

5) I dunno. Check the revision history and see. There isn't room for everything.

6) James Bevel was also a convicted child molester, but we don't need to mention that either. Let's keep his description short and relevant. Readers who want more information can visit his linked biography.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)