Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page

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

• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/archive1, Aug 21, 2004–Nov 29, 2004
• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/archive2, Dec 17, 2004–Jan 11, 2005
• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Twrigley, Feb 27, 2006–Mar 06, 2006
• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/archive3, Jan 11, 2005–Oct 02, 2006

Two recent edits that were wrongly reverted

On this edit[1] it seems silly and misleading to argue that the edits labeled "general" are any different than the ones labeled "critical." It would be more honest to label the external links either "pro-" or "anti-" LaRouche.

On the John Train edit revert ([2],) let's not forget (as some editors seem to) that this is an article about the Political Views of Lyndon LaRouche, and we should make an effort to stay current. The LaRouche people are pushing this John Train thing hard -- my sister picked up their pamphlet on campus last week.

I was initially in favor of opening up the article John Train Salon again (instead of a redirect to this article,) but Will Beback/Willmcw/User2004 told me to just put the information in this one (see [3].) I'm sure that I'm not the only person who is puzzled about why Chip Berlet and Dennis King, two hippy-dippy conspiracy theorists with no academic credentials, suddenly had access to wads of foundation money and media time. Since they are also being given a platform here at Wikipedia, this information (which seems to answer the riddle) should not be hidden or suppressed. --NathanDW 20:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was able to read Talk:John Train Salon, but when I tried to read the article, I got stuck in a loop where I kept getting redirected to Political Views of Lyndon LaRouche. Can someone please tell me how to navigate to the John Train Salon article? Thanks in advance. --ManEatingDonut 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"John Train Salon" was merged into this article. -Will Beback 23:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You can read the last complete version of the "salon" article by following this link. Very little of it actually made it into the merged version. --172.193.31.88 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The above link doesn't work either. --Don't lose that number 14:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It is appalling that the silly story of a John Train conspiracy is being presented as fact. I was at the two meetings at Train's apartment; they were informational only. No plot was discussed or developed. This is all an artifically generated urban legend and should be dispensed with in one or two sentences with the caveat that no reputable source has confirmed the LaRouchian allegations. Herbert Quinde, author of the affidavit, was not even present at the meetings and has a reputation as a prankster and a source of false information (like when he told the Spanish secret police in the early 1980s where to find Basque terrorists in France--the Spanish sent agents to kidnap totally innocent people as a result). Quinde's main source for the plot, Michael Hudson, was bullshitting Quinde because he was fed up with being harassed by the LaRouchians and thought he'd freak them out with a little disinformation. (The LaRouchians had borrowed money from Hudson and refused to pay him back; when he sued them, they printed articles calling him a KGB agent. With experiences like that does anyone thing Hudson would or should have bothered to give them accurate information?)--Dking 00:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)P.S. Another example of this silliness is the Internet rumor that my travel expenses to the meeting were paid by the John Birch Society. In fact, John Train's apartment was only a few block from my own and I walked to the meetings. I received no monetary compensation for attending from either the JBS, the CPUSA, the CIA, the KGB, little green men or anyone else.--Dking 00:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Chip Berlet already explained over at Talk:John Train Salon that only he got the travel money. But do you deny that you got foundation money for your book? --Tsunami Butler 08:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami, why do you even ask this? You know perfectly well that in the Acknowledgement section at the end of my book I listed grants from the Smith Richardson Foundation and the Stern Fund. So what? Neither of these grants came from any John Train conspiracy, since such a conspiracy never existed.-- Dking 19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am asking something more specific. The LaRouche website makes this claim about the John Train meeting you attended: "At the meeting, arrangements were also made to have King's planned book on LaRouche financed by the League for Industrial Democracy and by the Smith Richardson Foundation." True or false? They also make this claim: "On Aug. 6, 1984, attorneys for LaRouche depositioned Dennis King. When asked about the circumstances under which he was introduced to Pat Lynch, King was silent. His attorney, Scott McLaughlin, interrupted the deposition, and took King out into the hallway for 20 minutes; when they returned, King claimed he could not recall how he had first met Lynch." Your comment? --Tsunami Butler 21:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to use Wikipedia to conduct research that would help a convicted felon with a histiory of harassment. If nothing else, it violates WP:OR.--Cberlet 02:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Separate article for criticisms of LaRouche?

I apologise if this point has already been discussed and archived, i had a quick look and didn't see it. I'm wondering whether it would be easier to gain consensus on this and other LaRouche articles (and avoid NPOV tags,mediation,etc) if the analysis and criticisms of LaRouche and his theories were grouped together in a single article dedicated to that purpose. I'm no LaRouche supporter (quite the opposite), and i certainly think that such criticisms are valid and have a place on wikipedia, but i don't think that place is scattered amongst a number of different articles. The title of this article indicates to me that it should explain what the political views of Lyndon LaRouche are, not analyse the validity of those views. I would explect to see such analysis in an article titled 'Criticisms of Lyndon LaRouche' or something similar. Content in this article (and other related articles) could then be replaced by single sentences like "Point X is disputed by critics of LaRouche; see (article link here)" --D Elkington 06:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel much the same as you: that it's be best to consolidate criticism. There are some "Criticisms of ..." articles on controversial figures (though one just got deleted ) and they have the benefit of preventing the main articles from being overwhelmed by criticism. However the approach preferred by the community, and even by Wikipedia's founder, is to mix in the criticism so that all matters are covered neutrally and the pros and cons are presented together. See Wikipedia:criticism. -Will Beback · † · 10:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, i hadn't seen that discussion before. I definitely lean more towards the second proposal, i think it gives articles a more encyclopaedic feel. After reading the 'Criticism in a "Reception" or "Reception history" section' guidelines, i wonder if this might be applied to the LaRouche articles. Perhaps 'Analysis of the political views of LaRouche', as this could include both the positive and negative POV. --D Elkington 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't all that much explicit criticism in this article, considering its overall length. However some sections, even when they only quote LaRouche, appear to express a critical point of view. If you'd like to work on improving this article I suggest taking a section at a time. This article was the subject of bitter fights a long time ago, and involved editors were too exhausted to come back and fix things up after the dust settled. That work is long overdue. -Will Beback · † · 06:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Who calls LaRouche a fascist?

In an article pretty much dominated by preposterous sanitization of LaRouche's ideas, the views of his critics are slyly demeaned, like when it was said that LaRouche is called a fascist by "leftwing writers and orators." I changed this to "some critics" since the term has been used in reference to LaRouche by a number of people who are decidedly NOT leftwing, such as the late Senator Moynihan, former Our Town publisher Ed Kayatt (a rockbound Reaganite), former Our Town editor and editorial writer Kalev Pehme, cold warrior Irwin Suall (who called LaRouche a "small-time Hitler") and many American Jewish supporters of Likud, such as the late Howard Adelson. Chip Berlet's conservative nemesis John Rees has referred to LaRouche as a "roast-beef fascist," which is not simply a joke since historically many fascists have either come out of the left, sought alliances there, or merged leftwing and rightwing rhetoric in their mass agitation (by attacking capitalism but saying the bad side of capitalism is a Jewish plot). I also took out the word "orators" since in context it was an obvious nonsense term meant to suggest a lack of credibility without having to prove it.--Dking 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit was not mine

The history of this article now records that I made an insert in this article today having to do with code language, which was promptly removed by Slim Virgin. I absolutely did not make this edit and have no idea why it is recorded under my name.--Dking 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

John Train Salon

I know that Dking and Cberlet have a particular desire to eliminate the John Train material from this article, but this is an article about LaRouche's political views, and LaRouche is the ultimate verifiable source on what those views are. I don't accept SlimVirgin's argument that, in effect, we may not report LaRouche's views on Living Persons. She certainly isn't applying that across the board, or we would delete most of this article. The material deleted is sourced not only to LaRouche, but also an affidavit submitted in court, so I can't accept the idea that it can be deleted to please certain editors. --NathanDW 06:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

All contentious claims about living persons that are sourced to LaRouche should be removed from this article. Nathan, if you restore any again, it will be a BLP violation. If there's a court document and if it's independent of LaRouche, by all means use it as a source, but you should also find an independent secondary source. Until you have that, you can't add this material. Please read WP:BLP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I will try to find some outside source for this, but it seems to me that this is an unusual circumstance. This is in a section on "LaRouche's conspiracy theories," so it is not being presented as proven. I don't think your BLP argument applies in this case.

Also, I note on various talk pages that neither King nor Berlet denies that these meetings took place. They simply claim that it was a normal, innocent gathering of quasi-left-wing activists, deep-pockets right-wing financiers and intelligence operatives. So the facts are not in dispute, as far as I can see-- only the interpretation, which is of course, just another LaRouche conspiracy theory. So, where's the contention? --Tsunami Butler 03:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've worked on this a little, but it seems a bit ridiculous to document a LaRouche conspiracy theory with additional sources. It is not being presented as a widely-shared conspiracy theory, just a LaRouche conspiracy theory, so it doesn't really matter how many people agree with it. As I said, the facts themselves are not in dispute, so SlimVirgin, I would ask you to explain your thinking on this more fully. --Tsunami Butler 03:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"According to a sworn affidavit..." I guess I could have changed this to 'According to a pdf file of unknown origin on a geocities site...", but I didn't really see the point, so I took it out instead, along with everything that seemed to depend on it. If the point is that the LaRouche orginazition thinks lots of people are conspiring to make them look like loons, I'm not sure how notable that is anyway. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced that cite with a cite to the affidavit itself, which is provided in the Daniel Brandt article. What is notable about the meetings is the stellar grouping (except for King and Berlet) of persons and organizations that attended. It has COINTELPRO written all over it. --Tsunami Butler 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT and WP:BLP specifically prohibit the use of self-published third-party sources in support of biographical material about living persons. The use of primary sources alone is also discouraged. Please find a mainstream secondary source for this material, or leave it out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you kindly be specific about what you consider to be a "self-published third party source" in this article? --Tsunami Butler 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You used a self-published website as a secondary source, I believe, and an affidavit as a primary source. Others used a LaRouche publication. None of these are reliable sources within the meaning of WP:ATT and WP:BLP. For contentious claims about living persons, you must use the best possible sources, which in this case would mean a mainstream news organization or other publisher. Please decide whether to answer here or on your talk page, but not both, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be reluctant to name the source you are objecting to. Is it Daniel Brandt? I have gathered from various Wikipedia controversies that you and he don't get along. His organization is no different than Chip Berlet's (in fact, Chip Berlet was once part of his organization) and in fact, there is an organization, whereas Dennis King's website is entirely self-published.

But you still haven't answered what I think is the main question here: we are not talking about "contentious claims about living persons." We are talking about a conspiracy theory of Lyndon LaRouche. You yourself have taken pains to emphasize that he is a conspiracy theorist, and this is an article specifically about his theories. I don't see how you can object to LaRouche as a source for his own theories. --Tsunami Butler 15:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, when I ask you to post either here or on my talk page, but not both, why do you continue to post on both?

Please don't edit further without reading our content policies. That's what they are there for, so that individual editors don't have to explain everything from scratch on every talk page about every issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please. I'm not asking you to explain everything from scratch. I'm asking you to specify which source you are objecting to. --Tsunami Butler 15:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm objecting to all the sources you used. One is a self-published website; one is what looks like a post to the National Review blog; one is a LaRouche publication. Find a mainstream source. If you can't find one, let that tell you something.

Question: have you read the content policies? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions for SlimVirgin

Let me preface this by saying I have read the content policies, and I think that you have a novel interpretation of BLP. Here are my questions:

1. You say that theories or claims made by LaRouche about living persons may not be sourced to LaRouche publications. Using this interpretation of BLP, do you think that this edit, made two days ago by yourself, should be removed? It refers to a claim made by LaRouche about advisors to the British royal family, and is sourced to a LaRouche publication.

No, because it doesn't name anyone, and it's clearly absurd. But you could find another source if you prefer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

2. You say that claims about living persons may not be sourced to "self-published third party sources." Are you referring here to Public Information Research, the organization associated with Daniel Brandt?

No third-party self-published sources are allowed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Do you believe that Public Information Research is in a different category, for the purposes of BLP source citing, than Political Research Associates (Chip Berlet), DennisKing.org (Dennis King), or the Rick A. Ross Institute (Rick Ross)? The LaRouche articles have abundant derogatory material on LaRouche sourced to these latter three websites. Do you think that these articles would conform better to BLP if they were to rely strictly on mainstream sources? --Tsunami Butler 23:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Political Research Associates is a research company with employees. As for the other two, I don't know much about them. Perhaps you can do the research and determine whether they're self-published. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

4. PIR is also a research company with employees. Their home page also indicates that they were incorporated in 1989 and have 501(c)3 status. You haven't actually said whether you think PIR is a "self-published third party source," but given these facts, it seems clear that they are not. Do you agree? --Tsunami Butler 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no employees listed at the cited page--Cberlet 18:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The alleged "internal memo" and BLP

As SlimVirgin has pointed out, the standards for sourcing under Biographies of Living Persons are very high. Dubious sourcing is unacceptable. The document attributed to LaRouche is supposed to be an "internal memo." Is there a reliable, mainstream source where LaRouche acknowledges that he wrote this? "High Times" and the "Justice for Jeremiah website" are hardly mainstream sources. --Tsunami Butler 06:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please say which material you're talking about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The two purported quotes from LaRouche which are supposedly from an "internal memo" called "Politics of Male Impotence." Following the cites to Chip Berlet's website, the source is a scanned image of a sheet of typewritten paper. This totally fails the WP:V test, and also runs contrary to the rule that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" at WP:A. I am reverting this material. --Tsunami Butler 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also restoring the NPOV tag -- this article is being used as a vehicle to promote WP:FRINGE theories of Chip Berlet and Dennis King, and needs cleanup to conform to NPOV policy standards. --Tsunami Butler 22:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an exceptional claim; LaRouche is well-known for making extreme statements. And Political Research Associates is regarded as a reliable source, and has been accepted as such by the ArbCom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." --WP:BLP. Are you going to argue that Chip Berlet's website is not partisan? And in this particular case, you have an unusual circumstance: these are quotes that are being attributed to LaRouche. On whose say-so? What person is claiming that LaRouche wrote them, and how would this person be in a position to know? These are unpublished statements. Under BLP, they should go. --Tsunami Butler 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The source is LaRouche himself, and if you read the memo, it's very clearly material from him. Also, as I've told you many times, PRA is regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia, and the ArbCom has supported that. This isn't the place to discuss that decision. Please don't keep tagging the article whenever you find something you don't like.

Although it's fine to include the quote in terms of its sourcing, I'd question including it as an example of bias against "non-white, non-European, non-patriarchal, non-heterosexual cultures and identities," as we currently do. If you read the whole memo, it appears to be largely misogynist rather than racist, as he rails against German and Italian mothers too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How would you know whether is is LaRouche? If you have some factual basis for saying so, please insert your real name in the article as the person vouching for its authenticity, or better yet, leave it out. As you say, LaRouche is known for making extreme statements. Therefore, what is preventing you, Berlet and King from making your case against him with actual, verifiable quotes? There are no shortage of them on the web, from veriable, LaRouche sources. There should be no need for you to resort to such a dubious source. --Tsunami Butler 01:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Having taken another look at both "LaRouche" ArbCom cases, I see that they both pre-date the BLP policy. Therefore, I think that it is incorrect for you to assert that the ArbCom has given a blanket blessing to the use of Chip Berlet's website as a source. I think that it should be handled with extreme caution under BLP, especially because it is so often the source of "derogatory" characterizations of living persons. Whereever possible, a mainstream source should be found, and in many cases, such as the one we are discussing, the material should be removed under BLP. Your responsibilities as an Admin should take precedence over your POV in such a situation. --Tsunami Butler 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dillin, John. "Lyndon LaRouche has got America's attention now!", Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), The Christian Science Publishing Society, 1986-03-27, p. 1. Retrieved on 8 March 2006. - Born to Quaker parents, LaRouche got his political start in the 1940s, when he was a member of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. At the time he took the name Lyn Marcus, after Lenin and Marx. Other mainstream sources also mention his use of the name Lyn Marcus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami Butler, Political Research Associates isn't Chip Berlet's website; it's a professional research organization. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I am aware that LaRouche wrote under the pen name Lyn Marcus. That's in his autobiography. I am questioning whether the image of an unpublished typewritten document of unknown origin that is posted by Chip Berlet on the Political Research Associates website is actually written by LaRouche/Lyn Marcus, and I am also questioning the decision of SlimVirgin and Cberlet to insist upon using such a document as a source for Wikipedia, particularly when the number of authentic, verifiable documents attributable to LaRouche numbers in the thousands on the internet alone. --Tsunami Butler 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the cites on this to reflect the fact that it is an unpublished document of questionable authenticity. I won't revert until there has been further discussion. Ultimately this is still a BLP issue -- the BLP policy requires that we use unimpeachable sources. --Tsunami Butler 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone from the LaRouche movement questioned the authenticity? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. As I understand it, the purpose of WP:BLP is to anticipate and avoid complaints of that nature. I have restored my edits, because the previous format makes it appear as if the article in question was published, which it was not. Regardless of whether LaRouche wrote it, we have a responsibility not to mislead the readers by making it appear as if it were published.

I have restored the NPOV tag, which has been on this article since I began editing Wikipedia last October. SlimVirgin, it was you who unilaterally intervened to change the status quo on this. It ought to be obvious that there are ongoing neutrality disputes about this article. --Tsunami Butler 21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You're editing in violation of the ArbCom cases and you've violated 3RR. The material was published by Political Research Associates. Do you deny this?

If LaRouche has not denied the quotes are his, you're engaged in OR by claiming that there's no evidence they're his.

As for the tag, there are always going to be POV issues from the perspective of LaRouche followers, but that doesn't mean there are real ones, so don't keep adding the tag. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I find your interpretation of BLP to be amazingly flexible, depending, of course, on whether the Living Person is someone you like or dislike. Also, could you specify how Ms. Butler is violating an ArbCom decision? --NathanDW 02:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions for SlimVirgin

1. I also would like to know how you think I am violating the LaRouche ArbCom decisions. I have read both of them carefully. Please indicate the remedy or remedies you are referring to.

You're acting to promote LaRouche. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is baloney, and self-serving baloney as well. I am arguing that LaRouche, the subject of this article and others, is merely not exempt from the WP:BLP policy. This does not constitute "promotion of LaRouche." It appears to me that you are acting to exert ownership of these articles to make them a showcase for the esoteric fringe theories of Dennis King and Chip Berlet, both of whom are now editing Wikipedia, engaging in self-promotion and excessive self-citing in violation of WP:COI. You have thus far refused to discuss BLP as it applies to the subject of these articles. --Tsunami Butler 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Why do you object to identifying the "internal memo" as an unpublished document? By citing it as if it were a published source, you mislead the reader.

It wasn't unpublished. The part we are quoting was published or we wouldn't be able to quote it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See #3, below. --Tsunami Butler 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

3. You ask whether I deny that the material was published by Political Research Associates. No, I don't. That's exactly the point. It should be attributed to PRA, not to LaRouche. I don't care whether the Washington Post has a published account that says that Dennis King says that Chip Berlet says that LaRouche wrote it (and Chip ain't saying where he got this document.) Just because the parson's wife repeats gossip, it doesn't make the gossip more true. Now for my question: why is it that you don't recognize this as a BLP issue?

We report what published sources say, and we have a published source. As a matter of interest, how do you know it wasn't also published by LaRouche? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Because by following the cites, the trail leads to a typewritten document, posted by Chip Berlet at the PRA website. The trail ends there. Where did he get it? Dumpster diving? He doesn't say. --Tsunami Butler 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Is it your view that Public Information Research, Inc. is a source that may not be used at Wikipedia? If not, why not? I am trying to ascertain whether they have "employees" as opposed to "directors," since Cberlet is raising that as an issue. But where in WP:RS does it make that distinction? --Tsunami Butler 16:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Political Research Associates? They have staff as explained above.

No, I mean Public Information Research, which has Daniel Brandt on its board of directors. Is it your view that this a source that may not be used at Wikipedia? If not, why not? --Tsunami Butler 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had enough of this back and forth. The material has been correctly sourced, and there's no point in going on about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Like it says at the talk of the page, this is a controversial topic and substantial changes to the article must be discussed before being made. I feel like I am having difficulty getting your cooperation in this. --Tsunami Butler 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't start editing within our policies, you're going to face administrative action. People have had enough of LaRouche supporters who cause endless disruption. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I see a neutrality dispute here. Does that make me a LaRouche follower? Does it take some special rank or status at Wikipedia to add a tag to an article? --Don't lose that number 21:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the comments of D Elkington earlier on this page. The reader shouldn't have to guess which are the views of LaRouche, and which are the speculation or analysis of his critics. There is no clear differentiation in the article. This is one reason why I think the neutrality dispute tag is appropriate.

There seems to be opposition to the use of Daniel Brandt as a source. Is this a revenge thing, because he opened up the Essjay scandal? --Don't lose that number 22:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt has never published anything on LaRouche in a venue recognized as citable by Wikipedia. He has produced self-published comments in his own newsletter and on his website--these might be marginably acceptable if they were supplemental to work that had established him as an expert on the subject, but the fact is that he has never published anything on LaRouche in a citable publication, much less established himself as having any expertise in the subject. From what I have read of Brandt's self-published materials on LaRouche and the so-called John Train salon, these seem to be an uncritical rehashing of what has appeared in LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review, which itself is not recognized as a legitimate source by Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with the Essjay incident, on which Brandt of course could be quoted since his remarks have appeared in numerous publications recognized by Wikipedia. And lest anyone charge that I'm part of a giant revenge conspiracy against Brandt, I invite them to (a) read my strong support for Brandt's work as an electronic indexer and the creator of "Namebase" included in all three editions of my Get the Facts on Anyone and (b) insert a quote therefrom into Brandt's Wikipedia bio.--Dking 16:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You make the assertion that Brandt is self-published, but it appears that his material is published by a non-profit corporation, Public Information Research. --Don't lose that number 13:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Brandt or anyone else would deny that Public Information Research is a vehicle chiefly for the nonprofit activities of Brandt himself. If he publishes material on a web site he controls, that is self publication. Since Brandt has not built up prior credibility on the subject of LaRouchism through extensive publication in print publications recognized by Wiki--and since his self-published material has not been reprinted in such publications--I see no grounds whatsoever for bending any rules and citing him in this particular article.--Dking 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"If he publishes material on a web site he controls" -- how is that different from Chip Berlet and PRA? It looks like an identical circumstance to me. Also, "building up prior credibility" does not appear in any Wikipedia guidelines that I have seen -- this seems to be your own innovation. Either the publication being cited is a reliable source, or it is not. There is no "reliability by association." That is why I think that you and Cberlet should only cite your own material when it has appeared in a mainstream publication. --NathanDW 15:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop changing the subject. There are no grounds for citing Daniel Brandt's website and any attempts to do so will be deleted.--Dking 17:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that you may have a personal interest in this? --Don't lose that number 14:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this tendentious nitpicking. The Arbcom decision is clear. Plesae do not try to circumvent it by burying discussion pages with pointless objections that represent a tiny marginal POV that should not be given Undue Weight WP:UW.--Cberlet 15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but where is any of this mentioned in an arbcom decision? --HonourableSchoolboy 23:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of NPOV tag

I looked it up at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, where it says the following: "Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." Therefore it seems appropriate to me that the tag remain until the issues have been resolved. I think that the point raised by "Don't lose that number" is valid, although there are more specific issues that should be raised under that rubric. I question the intentions of those editors that just want to remove the tag without engaging in any discussion of the issues raised. --HonourableSchoolboy 00:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I have carefully followed the guidelines at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute in starting this discussion. Here are examples of bias and undue weight that I see in the article.

• In the intro, the following is Original Research: "LaRouche's critics and supporters often have difficulty interpreting or agreeing on the meaning of statements he has made." Some of LaRouche's critics insist that there are hidden meanings in LaRouche's writing. However, that is not an appropriate topic for an article on LaRouche's political views. As D Elkington suggested, it might be appropriate material for a seperate article, if it can be demonstrated that these theories are actually notable, which I doubt.

• Anyone who knows anything about LaRouche knows that the statement "LaRouche's critics and supporters often have difficulty interpreting or agreeing on the meaning of statements he has made" is correct. It's close to "the sky is blue," and it's WP:POINT to demand a source for it. It's a polite way of saying "his critics think most of what he says is nuts, but hey, there might be another way of looking at it." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• King and Berlet are a minority view among LaRouche critics. Most of them call him a conspiracy theorist, some call him either left-wing or right-wing. The idea that he is secretly in favor of what he says he is against, i.e. fascism, is a tiny minority view. Your claim that it is WP:POINT to demand a source is completely wild. --HonourableSchoolboy 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• In the section on fascism, there is the usual litany from King and Berlet accusing LaRouche of being a fascist himself, even though LaRouche writes extensively in opposition to fascism. This is irrelevant to an article on LaRouche's views. Maybe it would be appropriate to include it in the biographical articles on King and Berlet, since it is sort of their trademark.

• Cut out the personal attacks, please. Berlet and King are regarded as reliable sources on LaRouche. You may not like that, but it's a fact. Both have conducted professional research into the LaRouche organization, and King has written a book about it, so citing them is perfectly valid. And how can it possibly be irrelevant to LaRouche's political views that he's regarded by two reliable sources as displaying tendencies toward fascism? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I made no personal attacks. It is a matter of record that King and Berlet have made repeated claims that LaRouche is a fascist. They have also pushed this POV at Wikipedia. --HonourableSchoolboy 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• In the section on Conspiracy Theories, all the stuff about "conspiracism" by King and Berlet is irrelevant. This is an article on LaRouche's views, not on the speculations of his critics.

• You have that wrong. An article on LaRouche's political views tells us what LaRouche thinks his views are, and what third-party reliable sources think his views are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• LaRouche states on the record what his views are. If someone suggests that his views are different than what he says, that is speculation bordering on conspiracy theory. --HonourableSchoolboy 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Similar problems exist throughout the remainder of the article. That's why I think the neutrality tag should stay up until these issues are resolved. --HonourableSchoolboy 00:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope I've addressed your issues. Please bear in mind that to use the tag correctly, you have to make suggestions for change that are actionable within our policies. The tag can't be used to mean "I don't like this." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Too bad your marginal view has been rejected repeatedly. Must be frustrating. Please accept the majority view. Tendentious editing is frowned upon.--Cberlet 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You say my "marginal view" has been rejected by the "majority view." Looking at this talk page, I don't see it. If you were to do a head count, it appears that more editors agree with me than with you. But rather than trying to avoid a discussion of the points I raise, why don't you just respond to them in a civil fashion? --HonourableSchoolboy 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of head count. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet refers to a "majority view." I dispute this. --HonourableSchoolboy 21:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, in initiating edit war over this, you use the edit memo, "The ArcCom decision is clear." Which ArbCom decision applies to this? You have said this before, but you seem absolutely unwilling to be specific. Please quote the relevant passage, or stop bringing it up. --HonourableSchoolboy 01:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom decisions are listed on this page so by all means have a look through them yourself. There were three that touched on LaRouche: LaRouche 1, 2, and Nobs01. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read all of them. As there are restrictions on inserting material about LaRouche in articles that are not closely related. There are bans and also warnings because of personal attacks (including one warning for you, SlimVirgin.) Two pro-LaRouche editors are banned. CBerlet is warned about autobiography. There is nothing that refers to the suitability of PRA as a source, also nothing that says that this or any other article is not subject to BLP, NPOV and other policies. Every time someone raises a question about the edits of you or Cberlet, you evade the question, saying "read the ArbCom decisions." Well, I've read them, and I would like you to stop evading the questions. --HonourableSchoolboy 21:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Discussion at another article named "Political views of ......"

• It appears that a number of the United States presidential candidate biographies or presidential campaign pages on Wikipedia have an associated "Political views of ____" article.
• There is a discussion of the merits of changing the name of Political views of Mitt Romney to Political positions of Mitt Romney, or, depending on how the conversation develops, some other name.
• In case you're interested, go to Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney#Requested move.
  
• The conversation there might influence other "Political views" articles.

-- Yellowdesk 06:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a great deal of difference between calling them "political views" and "political positions." However, I think the Mitt Romney article is far closer to NPOV than the LaRouche article is. It is straightforward and unadorned, without a lot of the speculation and spin that makes this article so POV-ridden. --Tsunami Butler 06:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientific theories

A new focus for EIR and other LaRouche sources seems to be global warming, Al Gore, and baby boomers. I hate to make this article longer but we may need to add a short section somewhere on scientific theories. Some of that material now is over at LaRouche Movement#Cultural, economic, and scientific initiatives but it would make more sense here. Or we can split off some material to make a new article, "Cultural, economic, and scientific initiatives of Lyndon LaRouche", or something like that, and move the economics stuff out of this article. Material is still coming in so we can start assembling sources here. -Will Beback · † · 07:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Implications of the Gore Hoax For International Policy
• "Earth issues hot topic at Dingell meeting"
• "Ban the Green Party as Nazis, Says Berlin Newspaper"
• "'Green Nazis' in Germany Under Fire"
• Larouche emerges with attacks on Al Gore and Climate Science
• Rt. 28 Suicide Jumper Was Long-Time Associate of LaRouche
• See the Film That Pops Gore's Bubble
• "Fix or Change a System?"
• "Lyndon LaRouche's Very Tough Address to the LaRouche PAC Beverly Hills Town Meeting"
• LaRouche Addresses FDR Legacy Club (L.A. Central Committee Dem. Party Organization) ("LaRouche...slammed the current Democratic Party Leadership for massive Baby Boomer Incompetance in toleration of Al Gore's hoax.")

Not all are suitable for use as references for the article, but amy additional provide context. -Will Beback · † · 08:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bretton Woods / Gold standard

I am no expert on LaRouche, but in casually reading my material and talking to their advocates they seem to put a great deal of emphasis on returning to the gold standard or Bretton Woods system. (Or at least they did a few years ago; in current publications the emphasis seems to have shifted to "global warming is a hoax".)

This gets a one-sentence mention in LaRouche movement but I would have expected a longer discussion here. Does anyone have a source with more details? Subsolar 00:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are right on this. There is a page with a ton of information here: [4]. Maybe you could summarize it for the article, or I will when I have more time. --Don't lose that number 14:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done a bit of work on this now. --Don't lose that number 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that work, but LaRouche pubs aren't reliable sources for the actions or statements of third parties. I removed a couple of assertions about others. If we can find 3rd-party sources then we can restore that info. -Will Beback · † · 22:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning here. This was a signed open letter. Are you disputing the signatures of the signators?--Don't lose that number 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is a notable, verifiable occurence it will have been reported in a 3rd-party source. -Will Beback · † · 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Princess Diana, etc. in intro

I took a look at the Princess Diana issue. The article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard that is quoted in the intro of the Wikipedia article is dismissed by the LaRouche organization as "pure fiction." So, I am moving that reference to the conspiracy section so that both it and the LaRouche response can be referenced. The 911 conspiracy reference is undisputed, I believe. --Don't lose that number 14:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that this has been restored without the editor responding to my comment. If that Evans-Pritchard allegation goes into the intro, it will become necessary to balance it with the LaRouche response of "pure fiction," and I don't think the intro is the right place for all this. --Don't lose that number 14:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Also because King and Berlet use a lot of poetic license in describing LaRouche's ideas, it is important to remember that LaRouche's original words are readily available. Dope, Inc. doesn't say that that the British royal family are global drug dealers. --Don't lose that number 14:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am moving this to the bottom of the page, because SlimVirgin has restored the material to the lead once again without responding to my earlier comments. SlimVirgin, I don't object to a reference to these theories in the lead. I think you should find another source, however, because Evans-Pritchard mischaracterizes LaRouche's views, according to LaRouche publications ("pure fiction.") Especially if you are putting something in the lead, where it should accurately summarize LaRouche's views, it should not be a disputed version. --Don't lose that number 15:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the intro is to provide a basic, neutral summary of the topic. When you have the notorious Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (also notorious for slandering Bill Clinton) in the intro, putting words in LaRouche's mouth that LaRouche apparently denies having said, that is not in the interests of the project. That is what is sometimes referred to as "soapboxing." --NathanDW 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources are reliable publications, and these are quite typical of LaRouche's views, and some of the ones he is best known for outside the LaRouche movement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how members of the LaRouche movement will fight to stop LaRouche's actual views being known. First, you deny that he said such-and-such. Then when shown the source, you say the source is biased and is inventing it. When shown him actually saying the thing in an interview, you shout that he must have been taken out of context. When shown the whole interview, you mumble about anti-LaRouche activism then fall into an embarrassed silence. There's one very simple solution to your cognitive dissonance: end your association with the movement, because he really does make these bizarre claims. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But SlimVirgin, you haven't "shown him actually saying the thing in an interview," and the rest of your story is equally fanciful. The Evans-Pritchard article simply makes a few flippant assertions, and there are no quotes from LaRouche. Since there are enormous volumes of LaRouche's actual writings and interviews on the web, why not link directly to one of them? I am confident that with a little web searching, you can find something that will help you make whatever point you are trying to make, without introducing any actual falsehoods. --Don't lose that number 14:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The source for the claim that the British royal family are drug dealers is an interview with LaRouche himself. Which of the other claims are you questioning? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and hazard a guess, based on a quick scan of the above comments, that he is questioning the article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. --64.183.125.210 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not which of the sources, which of the claims. There are multiple sources available for each one, so all he has to do is change the source if he doesn't like one of them. What I'm asking is whether he is questioning that LaRouche has said these things. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

There are two separate issues here, so I will address both of them, even though it appears to me that they have already been addressed before.

First of all, the Evans-Pritchard article was characterized by the LaRouche people as "pure fiction,"[5] but I didn't think it was appropriate to put rebuttal information in the intro to the article. On the other hand, I didn't think it was appropriate to allow Evans-Pritchard's claims to go unrebutted. My solution was to put the whole mess in this section (and it is all still there): Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#The_.22British.22_conspiracy. I don't understand why SlimVirgin feels so passionately about putting it in the intro, but que sera, sera. Perhaps this could be resolved by referring to these views, for the purposes of the intro, as "views attributed to LaRouche by his critics."

Secondly, SlimVirgin seems to want a debate over Evans-Pritchard's claims. I think of myself as something of a connoisseur of the battles between LaRouche and his critics. I was in New Hampshire during 1980, and my visit coincided with the primary election there, so (as I have mentioned on other talk pages) I got to hear the classic radio debate between Jeff Steinberg and Dennis King, and I also saw the NBC interview with LaRouche (as I mentioned elsewhere, it was on NBC, not BBC Newsnight, although BBC may have re-broadcast the NBC interview.)

So, here we go, point by point:

• Evans-Pritchard claims the LaRouche people were "accusing the Queen of ordering the assassination of Diana, Princess of Wales." The Steinberg article [6] denies this, but apparently Steinberg was quoted in the Sunday Telegraph saying that he "could not rule out the possibility' that Prince Philip was involved in the `murder of Diana'" -- not exactly the same as "accusing the Queen of ordering the assassination of Diana."
• Evans-Pritchard claims that LaRouche is the "publisher of a book that accuses the Queen of being the world's foremost drug dealer." I've read Dope, Inc. It is a very thorough analysis of the history of the British East India Company and its cultivation of Opium in India, as well as the marketting of opium which led to the Opium Wars, and the situation in the 80s where money laundering for narcotics trafficking was conducted primarily in British crown colonies such as Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands. This book was widely circulated and very embarrassing to some of the institutions involved. It does not say that the Queen is a drug dealer. The interview on NBC is the source of that claim, which is acknowledged by Chip Berlet, who probably also has watched it. To his credit, he words it carefully later in the article:

"This is the genesis of the claim that LaRouche has said the Queen of England runs drugs. When asked by an NBC reporter in 1984 about the Queen of England and drug running, LaRouche replied, "Of course she's pushing drugs...that is in a sense of responsibility: the head of a gang that is pushing drugs; she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it." (NBC News, First Camera, March 4, 1984, transcript from NBC News, excerpt used with permission)."

What NBC broadcast was a snippet, taken from the middle of what appeared to be an argument between LaRouche and the interviewer. It appears to me that this coverage, and related coverage by Evans-Pritchard, is intended to deflect attention from the actual content of Dope, Inc by setting up a straw man argument, implying that LaRouche says the Queen is out on a street corner flogging nickle bags. Obviously (I hope,) he's not saying that. So, like I said, if it is necessary to put this stuff in the intro, I propose that it be referred to as "views attributed to LaRouche by his critics." --Don't lose that number 06:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're obfuscating and injecting your own opinions about who really intended to say what. The issue is very simple. We have four claims:

(1) LaRouche has advocated conspiracy theories about 9/11; source = LaRouche publication, allowed in this article per WP:V;

(2) he has alleged that the British royal family are drug dealers; source = LaRouche speaking to NBC/BBC, and the BBC voiceover confirms the interpretation of what he said;

(3) he has alleged that the Queen was involved in the death of Diana; source = Daily Telegraph, and it makes no difference who the reporter was, because the Telegraph is our source, not the writer;

(4) he has alleged that MI6 or senior advisers to the Queen want to assassinate him; source = LaRouche publication, and it could not be clearer or more explicit.

The material is reliably sourced; you clearly wish it were not so, but it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the way we summarize his views, we make them sound less silly than they are. For example, not only does he believe that MI6 wants to assassinate him, he also believes that they left a coded message to that effect in a British woman's magazine, and so concerned was he that he alerted the White House in case they also intended to assassinate the President. We are being charitable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be writing in the first person? --64.183.125.210 15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple solution: when not dealing with a direct quote, as in the 911 theory, identify the source of the attribution, i.e. "BBC asserts that LaRouche believes the British Royal family are drug dealers." But direct quotes are preferable. --MaplePorter 14:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy which is most relevant here is WP:UNDUE. SlimVirgin is trying to load the intro with her personal schticks. The intro was fine and neutral in the previous version. The schticks should go. --NathanDW 05:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't Lose that Number refers to a radio debate between Dennis King and Jeff Steinberg. I honesty don't remember any such debate. Perhaps it was Chip Berlet?--Dking 22:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The material that is being discussed here all appears later in the article, in the section I wrote under "conspiracy theories." However, it seems to me that the comments about the British Royals are a relatively minor feature of LaRouche's complicated world view. SlimVirgin, what is your argument for prioritizing them in the intro? --MaplePorter 14:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I just did a Google search of www.larouchepub.com and found references to the British Royals on over 460 pages. I think it would be inaccurate to say that they are a minor feature of his world view. On the contrary, they seem to be at the center of many theories even when they aren't named. By comparison the "Eurasian Landbridge" only brings up 14 hits, and the "Triple Curve" gets 74. So those seem comparatively minor, just viewed statistically. -Will Beback · † · 18:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How did you configure your search? First of all, larouche.pub is their newsmagazine. If you wanted information about LaRouche's views, rather than general news coverage, I would suggest www.larouchepac.com, his political action committee. But beyond that, I just tried a Google search of larouchepub.com for "British Royals" and got only nine hits [7]. --MaplePorter 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I closed the search, but the terms I was looking for included "royal family", "windsor", "royals", and "Queen Elizabeth". -Will Beback · † · 22:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that a "statistical" approach is appropriate to make decisions of this kind. That's why Wikipedia still needs human editors -- bots are not enough.

I've looked over this article and considered it. LaRouche has views on everything under the sun. I think the best approach would be to go back to the intro that simply says his views are controversial. I think that selecting out some for special emphasis in the intro is POV. I hope SlimVirgin will respond to this, because this page is clearly on her watchlist. --Don't lose that number 14:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Going on the idea the NPOV is the top priority, I am restoring the intro to an earlier version. If SlimVirgin objects, she will probably share her reasoning with us. --MaplePorter 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the thing about how he has "abandoned much of his Marxist ideology" seems dubious. Just about anything one can say about the man is probably contentious and subject to rebuttal, so better to have the charges and counter-charges in the body of the article. --MaplePorter 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You asserted that the British Royals are a minor part of the subject's worldview. Is there any evidence of this? I've provided evidence that they are more frequently referencd in his work than other topics covered in this article.-Will Beback · † · 07:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

These are the issues LaRouche is popularly known for, which is obvious by the frequency with which they're mentioned by secondary sources. According to WP:LEAD, the lead should mention the topic's most notable controversies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Which secondary sources? Do you object to them being identified as "critics"?--MaplePorter 14:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not all critics. Many (e.g. BBC) are independent commentators. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And the difference is? --Don't lose that number 13:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

From the RfC: I think Will Beback's on the right track here. The question is: is the British royals thing is a significant proportion of coverage of LaRouche, or of his worldview in general? Hornplease 01:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've followed up on this. LaRouche's coverage in the United Kingdom in particular has almost always mentioned his views on the Royals and on MI6. In particular, most profiles of him available on L-N since 1986, which presumably would mention what met a certain bar of notability, mention the royal family and drugs.

One fascinating bit from the early 1980s about the 'airport pests' of the LaRouche movements, accorgding to the Grauniad: "eliminate the Gramm-Rudman budget cuts, beef up Star Wars, screen everyone for AIDS and quarantine the victims, and set up a 'Nuremberg tribunal' to investigate drug dealing by Henry Kissiger, the Zionist conspiracy and course the Queen." So different in details, yet similar in essentials.

Anyway, given this, I would strongly oppose removing references to the war on drugs from the intro, particularly his reference to the Queen. Hornplease 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Another useful line, from a 3 May 1986 interview, when LaRouche had got a few on the ballot in Indiana:"Even the well-known kooky claim about the Queen of England being a drug racketeer (the LaRouche book, Dope Inc. , sports a crown, a Union Jack, and a hypodermic needle on the cover) is explained in strictly historic terms - the opium wars in the East, not, says Mr LaRouche with a chuckle, Her Majesty 'selling nickel bags on Columbus Circle in New York. That is ridiculous. '"

Note the "well-known" part, the fascinating detail about the book cover, and LaRouche's explanation. Hornplease 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a useful line, because it does make clear that LaRouche didn't mean that the Queen, or the royal family, are personally dope dealers. The sole source for all the hoopla in the press was that one line in the NBC interview: "As the head of the gang that is pushing drugs, she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it." I reverted SlimVirgin's claim that LaRouche said that "the British royal family are global drug dealers," because he didn't say that. That was attributed to him by the BBC, that's their take on the phrase "head of a gang that is pushing drugs," but the quote that Hornplease provides makes it clear that it's not LaRouche's take. --Don't lose that number 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as justification for removing the mention from the lead; merely that it should be replaced with "said that the Royals bear responsibility for the drug trade", and perhaps with the addition "generally interpreted as..." Hornplease 21:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I approve of what Cberlet has done, to add an actual quote. That is always the best course of action. I am going to do something similar now with the Princess Diana quote. I would also like to add, however, that there are really two separate issues here: 1. What are LaRouche's views? and 2. How do LaRouche's critics characterize his views? I think these two issues should be kept meticulously separate. --Don't lose that number 21:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Princess Diana issue is an interesting case in point. I have gone exhaustively over all the LaRouche articles where Princess Diana is mentioned, and he never once accuses anyone in the royal household of being responsible. Not even close. The articles in the Telegraph, Guardian and so on are all premised on a statement made on British TV by Jeff Steinberg that he "could not rule out" involvement by Prince Philip. There are two articles where both LaRouche and Steinberg specifically deny the claims of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. So this raises an interesting question: when the media are clearly misrepresenting LaRouche, what should Wikipedia policy be? Obviously, if editors are primarily interested in making LaRouche look ridiculous, they will insist on using media references that are provably false, arguing that this is permissable under WP:RS. But is this in the interests of making Wikipedia a reliable encyclopedia? --Don't lose that number 22:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done as exhaustive a search as you, but one doesn't have to search for long to find LaRouche and associates referring to Diana's death as a murder with a cover-up by the royal family.[8][9][10][11][12] - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I found those as well, but they don't say the royal household was responsible for the murder. I hope that it is clear to you that accusing the royal family of a cover-up is different than accusing them of ordering a hit on Diana (which is an important distinction from the standpoint of BLP.) You would think that this would be equally clear to the Telegraph and others, but oddly enough, it was not. --Don't lose that number 14:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that this evidence is the result of a cursory scan yet it shows that LaRouche and associates are very much concerned with the topic of Diana, believe that Diana was murdered, and believe that the royal family was involved (if only after the fact) in secret and illegal activities related to her murder. It is not a jump to believe that in the actual articles and pamphlets that I don't have access to, but which the Telegraph, etc, may have read, LaRouche or his associates have actually asserted responsibility on the part of the British royal family or their agents. Since reliable sources make this assertion, since it appears reasonable, and only LaRouche contests the assertion, I don't think there's a reason to remove it. We can and should say that Larouche denies having claimed that the royal family is directly repsonsible. - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the broader issue DLTN is raising should not be overlooked. Is the main objective here to provide a fair and neutral description of LaRouche's ideas, or to find a way to "game the system" to make him look as bad as possible? With the abundance of well-cited, undisputed quotes from LaRouche, why are some editors so insistent on including dubious and disputed ones? --NathanDW 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that most folks would consider the BBC and the Telebgraph to be dubious sources. As I pointed out above, LaRouche is demonstrably more focused on the British royal family than on topics like the "New Bretton Woods" or the "Eurasian Land Bridge". While those are undoubtedly part of his philosophy, they should not be given undue weight compared to the topics that keep re-appearing in LaRouche's articles and speeches. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 02:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

He said dubious quotes, not dubious sources. I think that it is probably the case that even the biggest and most successful newspapers have been used for propaganda purposes at one time or another. The reason I raised the question above, is that we all should refrain from using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. I am calling upon editors to be honest about this. --Don't lose that number 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

..[W]e all should refrain from using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. I am calling upon editors to be honest about this.

I can't let that comment go unanswered. First, it assumes bad faith and dishonesty on the part of other editors. Second, it ignores your own "use" of Wikipedia. See here and here, or here and here. I'm sure you don't think of yourself as spreading propaganda. Please don't accuse others of doing so either. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please say what your complaint is about those edits? Do they mislead the reader in some way? I am making a very specific complaint, that some edits to this article misrepresent LaRouche's ideas, by emphasizing some news coverage which misrepresents LaRouche's ideas. If someone wants badly to do this, they can surely claim that it is legitimate under WP:RS, but then again, wouldn't WP:NPOV take precendence? I don't know the answer. That's why I am appealing to all editors concerned to be honest. --Don't lose that number 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My complaint is that you are calling your fellow editors dishonest and accusing us of using Wikipedia to spread propaganda. Meanwhile, you are inserting LaRouche-inspired propaganda into unrelated articles. Please follow your own advice regarding propaganda and please stop making attacks on the integrity of other editors. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I am baffled by your reasoning. You seem to be using the term "propaganda" to simply refer to an opinion you dislike (I mean the skepticism about anthropogenic global warming.) Propaganda has a quite specific meaning, and I refer especially to the statement in the intro of the Wikipedia article: "Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading." It is this quality that I am ojecting to in some of the edits in this article. As far as I can tell, you are not claiming that my edits are misleading. You do, however, seem to be claiming that Lord Monckton, John Linder (a Republican!), Michael Crichton, and Richard Lindzen are "LaRouche-inspired," which seems to me to be a very, very odd claim. --Don't lose that number 06:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's reverts

SlimVirgin, you say to check the footnote because "he said it himself." The footnote says "LaRouche said of the Queen: "Of course she's pushing drugs ... As the head of the gang that is pushing drugs, she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it." That does not translate to "the royal family are global drug dealers." It is ambiguous. According to Don't Lose That Number, he is referring to money laundering by British banks. If the BBC thinks he means the royal family are drug dealers, that interpretation should be sourced to the BBC or Daily Telegraph, and the LaRouche quote makes it clear that this interpretation is disputed by the LaRouche organization. So, when you say that "he said it himself," that is not in fact the case. --64.183.125.210 15:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The BBC says "Back on the campaign trail in the mid-80s, he told Newsnight the British royal family are global drug dealers," then they quote LaRouche. It is your or Don't lose that number's POV that by "the gang," he didn't mean the royal family. The BBC thinks he did, based either on that quote, or based on other things that he said. Regardless, we have the BBC as our source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The way you have written the section, it is not clear that this is an opinion coming from the BBC. It looks like you may be quoting LaRouche, and clearly LaRouche or his organization disputes the BBC interpretation. Don't you think that under NPOV and BLP you should clarify this? --MaplePorter 14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does LaRouche dispute what the BBC says? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In the quote provided by Hornplease in the section above. Also, it is one of the claims in the Ambrose Evans-Pritchard article that is called "pure fiction" by EIR. --Don't lose that number 14:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to fix this so that it is attributed. --64.183.125.210 01:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC

This article is titled "Political Views of Lyndon LaRouche." Since it is a BLP article about a controversial politician, my view is that the only safe source for any contentious material is the person himself. Major publications are not above conducting dirty tricks campaigns where politics is involved -- this has been true for a long time, and not likely to change soon. Maybe disputed interpretations of his views could be quarantined in a section called "disputed quotes." --Marvin Diode 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)