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)

1. In the lead right now, people who say something nice about LaRouche are called "members." I didn't suggest removing "extremist," I suggested putting it down in paragraph three and not in Wikipedia's voice. I did suggest removing "conspiracist", it is a neologism.

2. By "secondary sources" you mean Dennis King. The quotes are selected to make LaRouche look bad.

3. "Frankhouser became a security consultant for political activist Lyndon LaRouche in 1979 after convincing him that he was connected to U.S. intelligence agencies." see Roy Frankhouser#LaRouche trial

4. The old discussion you linked to does not address my concern about Piven.

6. You are avoiding the issue on Bevel. His importance to the movement was his activity as a member of the civil rights movement. He was not convicted of incest until 20 years after his association with LaRouche. Waalkes (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

1) We don't actually have a source for "Members of the LaRouche movement see LaRouche as a political leader in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt." It'd be good to cite that. Correction, it is cited, but Jayen466's weird citation scheme hid that fact. The commentators in question are Jeffrey Steinberg and Michele Steinberg.[6] We could go farther and describe them as "senior leaders" rather than mere members.

• Descriptions of Jeffrey Steinberg and his wife: a senior reporter for Executive Intelligence Review, Paul Goldstein and Jeffrey Steinberg, two American followers of the political extremist Lyndon LaRouche, LaRouche aide, a top LaRouche lieutenant, LaRouche security staff member, a LaRouche official, a top adviser, the top members of Mr. LaRouche's security and intelligence committee: Jeffrey Steinberg, a leader of the security staff; his wife, Michelle;, , a leader of the LaRouche security staff, Michelle and Jeffrey Steinberg, two top LaRouche aides, top LaRouche assistant, the Steinbergs, who were described as members of LaRouche's security and intelligence staff, the "director of counterintelligence" for LaRouche, three of the individuals indicted today are full-time members of Mr. LaRouche's security and intelligence staff,

We could one of those terms instead of the misleadingly generic "members".

2) There are two sources for that quotation. The original source is an interview with the New York Times. They thought it worth quoting and so did King.

3) I'm not sure what the quote from the Frankhouser bio is intended to convey. Are you suggesting adding that line to this article?

4) Off2riorob just deleted the Piven material without discussion. That's unhelpful behavior. I've moved it to the Labor Party article, where it's clearly relevant.

6) While Bevel was working with LaRouche he was engaged in incest with his daughters. Bevel even led the LaRouche team "investigating" the Omaha child prostitution allegations, claiming that prominent local politicians were having sex with minors. His past activities as a civil rights leader are no more relevant than his then-current sexual activities and hypocrisy. This article isn't about Bevel and I think that it's better to say less about him rather than open a can of worms.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

1. You are avoiding the issue. This is the lead, where we summarize, we don't zero in on individual cases. The opposition to LaRouche is framed in the most general terms as "commentators," which suggests that these views are very widely kept. The support to LaRouche is restricted to only "members," except now you are suggesting it is only "senior leaders" who support LaRouche. I think the most neutral way would be to attribute positive views to "supporters" and negative views to "opponents," but I would settle for "critics."

2. The fact that two sources liked those quotes doesn't mean they belong in an encyclopedia. Those are two sources that wanted to make LaRouche look weird.

3. It means that either Frankhouser was infiltrating the group as a government spy, or that he was approaching the group under false pretenses. The way the article is written now implies that he was a leading member of the group, which in turn implies guilt by association. I mean by that that the reader is supposed to think that LaRouche is somehow mixed up with the right-wing groups that Frankhouser was mixed up in. Another point: the article says "LaRouche established ties with the Ku Klux Klan and the Liberty Lobby in 1974." What are "ties"? It looks like it is written deliberately vague so that the reader will think LaRouche somehow supported those groups.

4. No, that was actually helpful behavior, because other editors had already called attention to this as a problem, and you kept arguing and refusing to address it. It doesn't belong in the other article, either, because it is still insinuation and anonymous allegations.

6. Bevel is mentioned in numerous other BLP articles. At Martin Luther King, Jr. Bevel is described as "SCLC's strategist." At James Lawson he is described as a leader in the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and SCLC's Director of Direct Action and Director of Nonviolent Education. At William Moyer, he is described as an SCLC leader and director of the Chicago Movement. At Fannie Lou Hamer he is described as "an organizer for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and an associate of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." Waalkes (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

1) We have sources who call the Steinbergs "top members of Mr. LaRouche's security and intelligence committee", but we have no sources which refer to the New York Times and Washington Post as "critics" of LaRouche. "Members" and "commentators" are neutral terms. This text has been essentially stable for a year, and the only people who have objected are single purpose accounts.

2) When we quote other people about LaRouche there are complaints. When we quote LaRouche about himself there are complaints. The material in question is fully compliant with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Asserting that the NYT just wanted to make LaRouche look weird by quoting him is just speculation.

3) There's no indication that Frankhouser connected with LaRouche in order to spy on him. On the contrary, it appears that LaRouche initiated the contact. It is certainly true that Frankhouser and his associates acted under false pretenses, but that was for personal gain. I think the article used to say more about that but it was probably cut somewhere along the way for space and relevancy reasons. It's covered fully in Roy Frankhouser and LaRouche criminal trials. However adding more information on that topic could be construed as depicting LaRouche as a dupe who was fooled by someone who stroked his ego. Is that really a helpful direction for this bio?

4) The Washington Post is considered a highly reliable source. If you want to argue that it isn't then I think you have an uphill battle.

6) Bevel did different things at different times of his life. As a compromise I suppose we could add that he was a former civil rights leader who was currently engaged in incest with his underaged daughters. But I don't think that'd be a net benefit to the article.

  Will Beback  talk  23:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Re 3), LaRouche knew that Frankhouser had been an undercover agent. ("Far from being put off by his associations (with racist and anti-Semitic groups ranging from the Ku Klux Klan to the American Nazi party), [the LaRoucheans] simply regarded it as part of his cover as an intelligence operative." George & Wilcox, p. 320) The USLP arranged a press conference in 1975 at which Frankhouser spoke about being such an agent. The reason LaRouche was interested in him was that Frankhouser fed him memos allegedly from a CIA contact. I've made a corresponding edit.

The wording "He reportedly called Frankhouser a "high intelligence source," though he later denied this, saying that in fact he had a low opinion of Frankhouser." (present in a footnote) strikes me as odd. Bearing in mind Frankhouser's pretending to be a conduit of messages and advice from a highly placed CIA contact, a story that LaRouche believed according to Wilcox and George, "high intelligence source" sounds like it may have meant a "well-placed source of intelligence" rather than a "highly intelligent informer". If the meaning is indeed the former, then the sentence about LaRouche changing his mind (ie that he went from considering Frankhouser highly intelligent to having a low opinion of him) may be SYN. Is this juxtaposition made in any of the cited sources? A source quote might help to clear this up. Or am I misunderstanding the passage? --JN466 02:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete his association with the KKK and the ANP?   Will Beback  talk  03:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Because as written it did misrepresent LaRouche and his followers, and what they took Frankhouser to be. They weren't interested in Frankhouser because he had links to the Ku Klux Klan and ANP, but because they thought he was a government infiltrator of the Ku Klux Klan and ANP (which he was) who could get them inside information from the CIA (which he claimed to be able to, while in fact making that part up). Do you happen to have a source quote for the "high intelligence source" and LaRouche's subsequent low opinion of Frankhouser? --JN466 04:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't Laird & Wilcox mention it?   Will Beback  talk 

1. Do you happen to have a source quote for the "high intelligence source" and LaRouche's subsequent low opinion of Frankhouser? Is any source making that connection?
2. They do mention it, as quoted above, but the presentation is focused on Frankhouser being a government informant, and the LaRouche people assuming that his links with them were part of his cover as an intelligence operative. Here is more context:

   Frankhauser was assigned to infiltrate the notorious "Black September" terrorist organization on grounds that it was plotting to kidnap Jewish Americans. On July 28, 1975, he gave an interview arranged by the USLP that was covered by CBS Evening News. During that program, CBS newsman Fred Graham revealed:
   "One government source said Frankhauser had an uncanny ability to penetrate both right- and left-wing groups, that he could still help convict those who supplied the explosives that blew up school buses in Pontiac, Michigan in 1971."
   The occasion for the interview was a press conference arranged by LaRouche's USLP. The LaRouche people were thrilled to have an actual government agent in their clutches. ...
   Following this encounter with the LaRouche operation, Frankhauser gradually worked his way into its "intelligence" and "security" apparatus. Far from being put off by his associations (with racist and anti-Semitic groups ranging from the Ku Klux Klan to the American Nazi party), they simply regarded it as part of his cover as an intelligence operative. Referring to the LaRoucheans as the "comrades," he soon acquired a reputation as a reliable source with LaRouche security officers Jeff Steinberg and Paul Goldstein. They paid his fare and expenses to travel to New York City for consultations. In time Frankhauser was a handsomely paid full-time security consultant.
   Beginning in 1977 Frankhauser started his imposture as the conduit for "Mr. Ed," allegedly a CIA contact who was funneling information and advice to LaRouche. Over the years until 1984 Frankhauser created dozens of memos from "Mr. Ed" to LaRouche, all seemingly well-informed and authentic. So realistic did the memos appear that when their existence leaked out of LaRouche circles through defectors from the security staff, there was speculation among journalists and others about who "Mr. Ed" might be, and a number of past and present CIA figures were suggested. "Mr. Ed" was actually the skillful creation of Roy Frankhauser.
   Frankhauser brought in a confederate, Forrest Lee Fick, whom he had known in KKK circles. Fick was placed on the LaRouche payroll and the two of them worked closely to continue the deception. Although intelligent and cagey, Frankhauser always had a very difficult time writing. He would dictate material to Fick, who would dutifully transcribe it for him. Among their many deceptions were the weekly "COMSTA-C" reports. These, like the messages from "Mr. Ed," were entirely the product of Roy Frankhauser, who had learned from years of observation exactly what the LaRouche people wanted to hear. In addition, Frankhauser cultivated a relationship with a media source in New York City so he would have access to wire service information before it was printed or broadcast. Hence he was able to give "tips" to LaRouche that something was imminent just prior to its being reported--a rather impressive trick that "confirmed" his intelligence ties as far as the NCLC security staff was concerned.
   Many of LaRouche's alleged "links" to right-wingers were made at the suggestion of Frankhauser. One of these was Mitchell WerBell, a former contract CIA agent and arms manufacturer with a flair for self-promotion ...

Summarising this situation as "By the late 1970s, members were exchanging almost daily information with Roy Frankhouser, who called himself the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan in Pennsylvania, and who had been accused of being a member of the American Nazi Party", without any reference whatsoever to Fankhouser's role as an infiltrator and government informer on these groups – a role the LaRouche people were aware of, and the main reason they were interested in him – failed to inform the reader correctly, by omitting crucial detail. --JN466 12:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

1) See [7]. It might be easier to find these things if all of the inline citations hadn't been reworked and placed at the ends of paragraphs. That unilateral change has made it much harder to verify and alter the article.

2) I don't object to adding that Frankhouser was an informant. But deleting that he was a KKK Grand Dragon whitewashes him. George and Wilcox find him such a compelling character that they devote an entire chapter to him. Frankhouser was much more than just an informant. I'll add back that material, leaving what you added.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) These sources are behind a New York Times paywall for me (funny, I thought they had made their archives available free). Can you see them? If so, could you provide source quotes?

(2) This is LaRouche's bio, not Frankhouser's. What interested LaRouche and his people was Frankhouser's role as a government agent and his ties to the intelligence community. The article needs to be clear on that. --JN466 22:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

1) I'm emailing the Blum article to you. I don't see anything directly relevant in the other two citations. However I think you need to drop a note to SlimVirgin, as she added this material and she could best explain it.[8]

2) Frankhouser is almost always referred to in news accounts as "a former member of the KKK and the ANP". How do we know that the LaRouche movement was exclusively interested in his as an informant, and not also for this ties to other groups? Many sources discuss the movement outreach to far-right groups. Regarding this clause: "infiltrator of both far right and far left groups" - what's the source for this? Since he was chiefly connected to the far right, adding "far left" may give the wrong impression.   Will Beback  talk  23:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Because of BLP rules, "guilt by association" types of information should be left out. Trying to guess what LaRouche's motivation might have been, using passing mentions in references, probably is not a good idea. Will, please don't edit war by trying to add back the pejorative information that Jayen removed. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's true, well-known, widely reported, and neutral. I agree that guessing LaRouche's motivation, as Jayen466 is doing, is unhelpful.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

1) Thanks, Will.

2) The sources say so; both Wilcox/George, as quoted above, and King (p. 201: "The LaRouchians were chiefly fascinated by Roy because of his alleged intelligence community ties"). Both George/Wilcox, quoted above, and King (p. 199) refer to his having infiltrated left-wing groups (SWP) as well. --JN466 23:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

3) That's pretty thin compared to the hundreds of references to him as a "a former member of the KKK and the ANP". Let's include both.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

1990's Largely Unresearched

Why are LaRouche's actions during the 1990's, even after his early 1994 release, so unreported? That movement was more than still going strong at the time, yet this section is almost blank compared too the 1980's and 2000's. Why? I'd be happy too get feedback from LaRouche supporters and opponents alike on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Est300 (talk • contribs)

That's a fair question. My guess is that it's because there was relatively little reporting on the subject after he went to prison. (The recent Obama=Hitler protests have brought fresh attention to the movement, but little to LaRouche himself.) WP:WEIGHT tells us that the amount of space devoted to subtopics in an article should be proportional to the amount of coverage in secondary sources. As with many biographies, some periods in the subject's life received more attention than others. If you can find more sources that we're not using perhaps we could expand the section.   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Will is right, there isn't much in secondary sources about the organization's activities in the 1990s. I know because I looked in a couple of source databases, including Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand trying to find information. Cla68 (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)