Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

"LaRouche's promotion of the Strategic Defense Initiative"

The sentence "However, immediately thereafter, the mice went to work." in the extended LaRouche quote seems entirely unneccesary. Additionally, the phrase "There is no independent verification of either Graham's or LaRouche's statements." seems innocently misleading at best. There's a quote on the Daniel O. Graham article which puts it into context. John Nevard (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What quote? I looked and could not find it. Thanks--Cberlet (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps John was referring to this quote:

• As you know, Dan, you and I were talking about missile defense before you set up High Frontier in September of '81...You and a small group of dedicated, determined people helped us move the SDI concept over all the roadblocks put up by people of less vision and belief in American capacity. God bless you! -- President Ronald Reagan, March 1993

That may contradict the "Mice" quote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Something very weird happened last year. I remember reading this article shortly before I began to edit, and something happened that I don't understand. Note that between this edit[1] and this edit[2] the quote from General Paul-Albert Scherer disappears. You have to look at the individual revisions to notice, because it doesn't show up in the diff. How can that be? At any rate, that quote belongs in the article. --Niels Gade (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the part which disappeared:

Long-time LaRouche supporter and former head of German Military Intelligence, General Paul-Albert Scherer, has said:

In the Spring of 1982 here in the Soviet Embassy there were very important secret talks that were held.… The question was: Did the United States and the Soviet Union wish jointly to develop an anti-ballistic missile defense that would have made nuclear war impossible? Then, in August, you had this very sharp Soviet rejection of the entire idea.… I have discussed this thoroughly with the developer, the originator of this idea, who is the scientific-technological strategic expert, Lyndon LaRouche. The [Soviet] rejection came in August, and at that point the American President Reagan decided to push this entire thing out into the public eye, so he made his speech of March 1983.

Will, you're an admin, and I imagine that you have some working knowledge of the way a Wiki works. Do you have some idea how this could disappear without leaving an edit record? --Terrawatt (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It was there, but because of missing punctuation it ended up down in the footnotes. I've fixed it (which is not an endorsement of the text). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you figure out why it doesn't appear in the diff? --Terrawatt (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It was just missing slash that led to a formatting problem. The text never went anywhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are some other quotes to consider:

• New Right military specialist, retired General Daniel O. Graham, says LaRouche followers have significantly hampered his work. Graham, Director of Project High Frontier which supports and helped develop President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative plan for anti-missile defense, says the LaRouche groups have "caused a lot of problems by adopting our issue in an effort to seize credit for the idea." "They also mounted a furious attack on me personally," says Graham. "Even today I get mail asking if I'm in league with LaRouche," he adds wearily.

• "LaRouche does not just represent some nut to simply backhand away. . .he's very clever, you have to go to great lengths to get around those people." He adds: "Look, these people are purely interested in power. LaRouche doesn't care about these issues one bit, it's just a way to raise money and consolidate his political base."

--Chip Berlet & Joel Bellman, 1989. Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag. Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates.

-)--Cberlet (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche's occupation

In the capsule description of LaRouche in this article, below his picture, it lists his occupation as "activist." I don't think this is really an occupation in itself, and it reflects the line LaRouche took during his various civil and criminal trials--that he has no occupation but lives off the largesse of his supporters. I suggest that to "activist" we add "publisher" since he has in fact for almost four decades controlled a large web of periodicals and book publishing entities. Although most of the periodical activity has shifted to the web in recent years, electronic publishing is still publishing. I would not object to also adding "author," since LaRouche has written a large number of books and reports that have been sold for a profit. Although the money from those books may have been distributed in an unconventional way, still directly or indirectly he has made a portion of his income from his writings.--Dking (talk)

WP:NOR. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Go to http://www.larouchepub.com/resume.html and look under "Employment," where LaRouche is clearly described as functioning in a publishing capacity--working for the various news and economic forecasting periodicals, and the news service, that he FOUNDED, according to this official bio at a web site named, significantly, "larouchepub." (Then look under "Some most significant publications" in the same bio for sourcing of the fact that he's an author--and a prolific one.) Why in the world would LaRouche through Terrawatt want to deny that he's a "publisher"? Is it because he wants to distance himself from any possible legal consequences resulting from his periodicals' failure to pay Ken Kronberg's PMR Printing? Should Wikipedia be held hostage to the transitory legal worries of this convicted felon and his lawyers?--Dking (talk)

Isn't LaRouche the editor in chief of EIR? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the most definitive (self-provided) answer would appear on LaRouche's financial disclosure forms filed with the FEC, which I believe has a question about occupation. I've seen some of those forms, but I can't recall where. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

---

"Philosopher" is a bit rich, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvalvo (talk • contribs) 21:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Formation of the Labor Committees -- 1967-1969

The sentence:

"LaRouche's growing following allowed him to create his own tendency..."

Who writes these things? What does "to create his own tendency [within Columbia SDS competing]..." really mean? I have run into this kind of syntax elsewhere e.g. Danny Casolaro, Michael Riconosciuto, INSLAW, Fred Crisman, October Surprise Conspiracy.... The language (and the subject matter) seem to be the work of the same author. Is he this fellow, Chip Berlet? Hag2 (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, that was written before Berlet started edting. As for the text, "tendency" was apparently a poli-sci term used within leftist movement to denote ideological flavors:
  • In 1964, while still in the SWP, LaRouche became associated with a faction called the Revolutionary Tendency, which had been expelled from the party and was under the influence of the British Trotskyist leader Gerry Healy, leader of the British Socialist Labour League.
  • LaRouche's growing following allowed him to create his own tendency within Columbia SDS competing with the "Action Faction," led by Mark Rudd (which soon became the Weather Underground) and the "Praxis Axis," which saw students as the vanguard of the revolution. LaRouche organized his faction as the "SDS Labor Committee," which would develop strong influence within SDS chapters in Philadelphia.
• In context it makes sense. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback, thank you for your explanation. I will ponder the entire sentence...which I find to be a grammatical mess. Hag2 (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• If we consider "tendency" to be a synonym of "faction", then the first part is grammatically correct. It might be better to split the sentence at "competing":
  • LaRouche's growing following allowed him to create his own "tendency" or faction within Columbia SDS. It competed with the "Action Faction," led by Mark Rudd (which soon became the Weather Underground), and the "Praxis Axis," which saw students as the vanguard of the revolution.
• Is that better? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I believe reconstructing the sentence into two is much better. I prefer though that something be done with the phrase led by Mark Rudd. The parenthetical (which soon became the Weather...) is a subordinate clause that modifies "Action Faction"; it belongs in a parallel construction with the "Praxis Axis," which saw students... — such as this: "LaRouche's growing following allowed him to create his own 'tendency' or faction within Columbia SDS. It competed with both the 'Action Faction,' which soon became the Weather Underground, and the 'Praxis Axis,' which saw students as the vanguard of the revolution." — however this then means that led by Mark Rudd needs to be placed somewhere else. Perhaps in a footnote construction, or inserted earlier (i.e. before the reader encounters LaRouche's growing following....

What I find with a great deal of Wikipedia's complex sentence structures is that the authors attempt to provide too much information in a single sentence. (p.s. I had troubled with the expression growing following also since growing is an intransitive verb.) Hag2 (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are two books about the Weather Underground that are available online as PDFs. Based on these, the passage may have additional problems:
  • First, [Ted Gold] was a bright, intellectual, behind-the-scenes man ("quiet and reserved," says a friend) who, when possible, left the stage to more excitable grandstanders like Mark Rudd. He was, according to a student at the time, "one of the few people who really had read all that Marx and Lenin that they all quoted," and was one of a small group whose researches in 1967 had originally exposed Columbia's tie to the Institute for Defense Analysis. He was also a member of a moderate wing of Columbia SDS called the "praxis axis," which emphasized research and winning adherents by education and persuasion, as opposed to the "action faction," which emphasized confrontation and overt demonstrations as the best way to win followers. This latter wing, led by Rudd, Nick Freudenberg and John Jacobs, won out in the March 1968 chapter elections and dominated much of the subsequent action. [...] Originally in separate wings, Gold and Rudd nonetheless worked together throughout the Columbia battle, spent the next year in fairly close association around the New York SDS office, and finally went together into the Weathermen.
    • Jacobs, Harold (1970). Weatherman. Ramparts Press. ISBN 671-20725-3. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help) [3]
  • Davidson's opinions are indicative of the state of the US Left at the time. The major leftist organizations of the late 1960s were, with the possible exception of Weather and the SWP, virtually non-existent. They were replaced nationally, during a period of open sectarianism and police provocation, with such organizations as the social-democratic New American Movement, the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist October League and Revolutionary Unions, and the increasingly isolated and reactionary Lyndon LaRouche front groups such as the Labor Committees and National Labor Party. The total membership of all these groups was microscopic in comparison to the movement's heyday—perhaps 3,000 at most. Other groups, such as the SLA, the New World Liberation Front (NWLF), the BLA, and similar clandestine organizations engaged in armed struggle, accounted for perhaps a couple of hundred more activists.
    • Jacobs, Ron (1997). The way the wind blew: a history of the Weather Underground. London: Verso. ISBN 1-85984-167-8. [4]
• It appears that 'praxis axis' and 'action faction' were not the names of factions but were simply descriptions created by an author. From these sources it's not clear that LaRouche's faction(s) 'competed' with the others, as his group(s) are described as being 'microscopic'. I'll admit my grasp of these intricacies is limited, and the original author of this material was obviously more familiar with the events and factions. As for the first sentence, perhaps this would be better:
  • LaRouche's created his own 'tendency' or faction within Columbia SDS once his following had grown large enough. It competed with both the 'action faction,' which soon became the Weather Underground, and the 'praxis axis,' which saw students as the vanguard of the revolution.
• Yes, sentences written by committee are likely to grow too long. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)#Background mentions several groups with "tendency" in their name. Must have been a Trotskyist thing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that in contrast to the "praxis axis," which "saw students as the vanguard of the revolution," the LaRouche grouping was called the SDS Labor Committee to emphasize that it saw labor as the vanguard. --Niels Gade (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from LaRouche's autobiography, with a slightly different emphasis than the one I gave: By autumn, matters had settled down to a three-way factional division among my friends, a trio around Mark Rudd, and an assortment my friends referred to as "mush-heads." Since the putative "mush-heads" and Rudd's trio were antilabor, my friends adopted the style of "Columbia SDS Labor Committee." --Niels Gade (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Which edition is that? Anyway, I don't think we can use a self-published autobiography of LaRouche as a source for 3rd parties, so if we were to include anything from there we'd have to limit it to his own actions or words. That's tricky since he only defines the Labor Committee in terms of other groups. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that it go in the article -- I was just trying to be helpful vis-a-vis the above discussion. --Niels Gade (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• If no one objects I'll add the revised text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you added the revised text? If so, I still object to the expression growing following. It is bad grammar; growing is an intransitive verb; it is not an adjective. Perhaps something such as increasing membership, or expanding organization would be sufficient? Actually though, I thought the below was fairly good:

LaRouche's created his own 'tendency' or faction within Columbia SDS once his following had grown large enough. It competed with both the 'action faction,' which soon became the Weather Underground, and the 'praxis axis,' which saw students as the vanguard of the revolution.

• Having heard no other input, I've added the text along with the citation from above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Other input: first, there is now a typo that needs correcting: LaRouche's created. Secondly, the new version omits the reference to Mark Rudd, which seems worthy of inclusion. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed the typo. What does Rudd have to do with LaRouche? We have many articles on the Columbia SDS and the Weather Underground, and this article is already very long, so if there's no connection between them it may be an extraneous detail we can leave out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In The Power of Reason (1988 edition, in answer to your question) LaRouche emphasizes Rudd as the key factional opponent of the Labor Committees, and sort of holds him up as the exemplar as an establishment-controlled radical leftist/fascist, backed by McGeorge Bundy and the Ford Foundation. --Niels Gade (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And elsewhere LaRouche says that Rudd was controlled by the CIA. But the question still remains, whst is the connection, if any, between Rudd and the subject of this biography? If this is just about the opinions that LaRoche has about Rudd, that would belong in Views of Lyndon LaRouche, if anywhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock notice

FYI, user:Guillermo Ugarte and User:ClarkLewis have been blocked as socks of a banned user. All of their edits may be reverted without regard to their quality. I'm going to revert the SDI section to where it was before they started editing and we can make improvements from there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't their contributions to the talk pages also be removed?--Janeyryan (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but the dismissals of their concerns are always useful for the next time the LaRouchist in question comes back. Could always archive them early so as not to pretend they're relevant to the article. John Nevard (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We could strike them out, but it'd be simpler to just archive them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Archiving would probably be the best solution, then.--Janeyryan (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Who is Gnetwerker? --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Gnetwerker, aka user:7265. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean, what is his role in all this? The logs say that the latest batch of banned accounts, referred to in the above remarks, were socks of Gnetwerker. --Leatherstocking (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for discussing users. Gnetwerker is a banned user who has used socks, including user:Guillermo Ugarte and User:ClarkLewis, to edit this article. Per WP:BAN:

• Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. ... Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing.

Please stop reverting the removal of the banned user's content. I suggest that if you think the material has value that you rephrase it in your own words, based on your own review of the sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

SDS

I just came across this LTE from Carl Oglesby, President of the Students for a Democratic Society 1965-1966, which was printed in the NY Times.

To the Editor:

Some reports on the background of Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. wrongly identify his organization, the National Caucus of Labor Committees, as a Students for a Democratic Society spinoff from the 1960's.

As a national officer of Students for a Democratic Society during the middle and late 1960's, I closely watched the process by which N.C.L.C. emerged rather from the Progressive Labor Party, an organization fiercely opposed to S.D.S. and a principal factor in the destruction of S.D.S. in 1969.

Historians writing 20 years from today will surely not conclude from N.C.L.C.'s recent primary victories in Chicago that N.C.L.C. is a spinoff from the Democratic Party or in any meaningful sense a part of it.

Lyndon LaRouche is a parasite formerly of radical and currently of liberal organizations. His pattern of objectives has always been reactionary, whatever the rhetoric used to obscure the fact. It is wholly in character for him and his followers to pretend today to be Democrats, just as they pretended in the 1960's to be S.D.S.'ers.

CARL OGLESBY Cambridge, Mass., April 12, 1986

Oglesby seems to take exception at the assertion that LaRouche and the NCLC were part of the SDS, and instead were strictly associated with the Progressive Labor Party. Our own articles indicate a close relationship between the SDS and PLP, "But once the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) came to the forefront of the U.S. leftist activist political scene in 1965, PL dissolved M2M and entered SDS, working vigorously to attract supporters and to form party clubs on campuses." I'll admit that my own understanding of these factions is limited. Is this an important distinction and should we include Oglesby's view in the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

NCLC did not emerge from the PLP. LaRouche was never a member of the PLP nor was his partner Carol nor were his earliest followers in the West Village CIPA. In 1968-69, LaRouche did recruit away from the PLP about 6 to 8 student members at Columbia University and CCNY, but he attracted many more people from other political backgrounds. Furthermore, to suggest that the members of the SDS Labor Committee were not real SDSers in 1968-70 is an empty value judgement given that the activist core of SDS at major universities (esp. in the northeast and in California) was rife with members of external cadre organizations or pre-party formations -- or grouplets who were preparing to create such. Was Steve Fraser (then of the Labor Committee) not a "real" SDSer when he played a leading role in the U. Penn and Temple U. protests? Or Jared Israel (a PLP member) who helped to lead the Harvard University strike? Just who were the "real" SDSers in Oglesby's view--Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers?--Dking (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer Will's question: No, I would not include Oglesby's view: first, because it is factually wrong; and second, because the issue of whether PLP or the nascent Weather Underground or some other major faction was most responsible for destroying SDS belongs in the Wiki articles on those organizations, not here.--Dking (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that prompt and thorough reply. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and COI

I am the one who added the tags, which were then removed by John Nevard in violation of Wiki rules. I had provided my reasons on this page, but they too have been removed, so I'm starting fresh.

Numerous socks on the pro-LaRouche team have been foiled by checkuser and banned, whereas the socks on the anti-LaRouche team continue to run free. Under the Wiki rules of combat, as explained to me above, this means the victorious team is allowed to delete sections of sourced material, like the way the ancient Native American warriors used to take scalps from their fallen opponents. This may harm the article content, but who cares about that? However, the result is that the anti-LaRouche team has slanted the article too far in its direction, which is the basis for my neutrality dispute.

Also, editor Dking is Dennis King, which causes a conflict of interest so big that it can be seen from space. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that each of these accusations really needs to be made in some appropriate forum other than the article talk page.--Janeyryan (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Leatherstocking, it's a basic Wikipedia policy that banned users may not edit. That's what "banning" means. If you look over this article, you'll probably find that most of it was written by HK or his socks, and very little of his writing has ever been removed. But HK is banned now and may not edit here any longer. In the future, any time his socks are identified their "contributions" will be deleted, per policy. If he doesn't like that then he can appeal his ban to the ArbCom. Ditto for Gnetwerker. As for King, this has been discussed many times before. By previous agreement, Dking is only inserting materials that have been published in reliable sources. So far as I'm aware, he hasn't written anything for publication about the subject in a long time and receives no royalties from the sales of his out-of-print book. On many issues, such as LaRouche's promotion of SDI, there is no comparable 3rd-party source available. We can't source this entire article from LaRouche-movement publications. Finally, there's only one team here, the pro-Wikipedia team. Let's all work together in compliance with the site's policies and guidelines to make the best encyclopedia possible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know with whom Dking made this "previous agreement" -- it ought to be aired publicly if such an agreement exists. And I don't think he's abiding by it -- he often just inserts his opinions, unsourced. And as far as his book is concerned, it is a mass of highly dubious conspiracy theories mixed with some useful research. I'm not saying that either his book or the LaRouche publications should be banned as a source, nor should either be automatically accepted as a source. I am however saying that Dking has a clearcut COI problem and edits he wishes to make should be discussed on this page in advance. --Leatherstocking (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to your own view, but Lyndon LaRouche and the new American fascism meets Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source. It was published by a major, mainstream publisher with a good reputation. The book itself was widely and favorably reviewed. I don't recall where we all agreed to Dking not using unpublished material from his website, but I think we can all agree that it's best, given current sourcing rules for BLPs, that he not do so. Please explain how you think King's COI is different from your own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the COI tag. There doesn't appear to be sufficient justification for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• POV tag

Why is there a POV tag on the page? Specifically, what part of the article violates WP:NPOV? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is slanted toward fringe viewpoints. During the long time it was protected, it was fairly balanced. Now there is undue weight given to claims like "LaRouche is a fascist," which SlimVirgin put in the intro. That view is only held by a few fanatics. Janeyryan, please note that the tag may not be removed until the dispute is resolved. --Leatherstocking (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the sources you're calling a "fanatic" is Dr. Matthew Feldman, senior lecturer in 20th-century history at the University of Northampton in the UK, a specialist in fascism, co-author of Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science, editor of A Fascist Century: Essays by Roger Griffin, and editor of Routledge's quarterly journal, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions.

When an academic with that kind of background expresses the view that LaRouche is a fascist, it's an opinion that deserves to be prominent in the article, and he's not the only critic holding this view. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

[E/C] The assertion that "LaRouche is a fascist" has been made on many occasions, and is printed in reliable sources. Searching Google for [LaRouche fascist OR fascism] retrieves a supposed 92,000 ghits, and an actual 635 hits.[5] For specific references, besides the obvious ones by King, Berlet, and Wohlforth, see Fascism By Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman ISBN 0415290201, The Party By Barry Sheppard ISBN 1876646500, Race in the Global Era By Clarence Lusane ISBN 0896085732. What evidence do you have that this is a fringe viewpoint? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Was the late U.S. Senator Daniel P. Moynihan being a "fanatic" when he called LaRouche a fascist in 1986? Was the late ADL factfinding director Irwin Suall being a "fanatic" when he called LaRouche a "small-time Hitler" in 1984? Was the federal court civil jury in LaRouche v. NBC being fanatical when it found Suall not guilty of libel for his above remark about LaRouche, and even awarded the defendants hefty damages at LaRouche's expense?--Dking (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no shortage of fringe fanatics who have gotten jobs at universities and published books. After all, according to this very article, LaRouche himself had a book published by a reputable publisher, D.C. Heath. Likewise, any fanatic can spam the internet with his views. That's why Wikipedia has a COI problem: fringe characters open accounts here and quote themselves, hoping to get some Google juice. All the people Will Beback mentions know each other and function as a clique, well out of the mainstream.

In answer to Dennis King, I don't think Moynihan and the ADL were being fanatics; they were engaging in dirty politics. That's different. Also, I see another example of non-neutral, biased editing by Dennis King, where he deletes P.A. Scherer's 3rd party verification of the "back channel" and then adds his personal observation that there is no 3rd party verification.

Here is how I would handle the problem of keeping fringe viewpoints out of the intro to this article: take a sampling of how "newspapers of record" like the New York Times have described LaRouche over the past decade or so, and use that as a guide for how the intro should be written. (By the way, there was a big push by the anti-LaRouche team to say that LaRouche was not an economist, and I found this: [6].)

At WP:BLP it is written: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides." --Leatherstocking (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While it's possible that scholars, journalists, and politicians are fringe fanatics, the burden of proof is on the person making that assertion. To assert that scholars on two continents form a clique for the purpose of spreading falsehoods about LaRouche requires proof, otherwise it comes very close to being a BLP violation. Mainstream newspapers have used the term "fascist" in relation to LaRouche and his politics. (see below). They use all kinds of terms, so many that we need to include a selcection in order to illustrate the range. As for your last point, LaRouche's political position is relevant to his notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is politics, and politics is full of name-calling. Your Google searches have yielded editorial polemics and quotes from political opponents, in addition to more of the usual nonsense from "alternative newspapers" and people like Chip Berlet. You could easily get similar results for George W. Bush[7] and Vladimir Putin[8], but because those political figures are more high-profile than LaRouche, attempts to put those sorts of polemics in their article intros are quickly reverted by Wikipedia administrators. Apparently Wikipedia doesn't have enough administrators to police the more obscure articles like this one. I'll repeat my proposal in case you missed it: take a sampling of how "newspapers of record" like the New York Times have described LaRouche over the past decade or so, and use that as a guide for how the intro should be written. --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your searches brought up random pages that simply mentioned the names and phrase somewhere. If you look at Vladimir Putin, you'll see that it does include assertions of a fascistic tendency in Putin government. If you look below, you'll see that several major newspapers are included: Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun - Times, Boston Globe, Houston Chronicle, Wall Street Journal. I'm not sure why we'd limit ourselves to the last decade. No one is asserting that LaRouche has changed his politics in the last 30 years. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The accusation in the Putin article is under "criticism," not in the intro. And in your citations, we're now down to just four major press, and it looks like three out of the four are opinion pieces. So it boils down to this: your team-mates have insisted on giving undue weight to claims that LaRouche is a "fascist," while suppressing reports in Associated Press and New York Times that he is an "economist." This is a neutrality problem and a BLP problem. And on top of this, you personally have taken it upon yourself to remove the COI tag regarding Dennis King. So, the basis for the dispute is clear enough. It's high time an administrator came in and cleaned up this article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The same paragraph that mentions he's been called "fascist" also says he's been called an "economist". As for COI, you never justified the addition of the tag. The burden is on you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

See below. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This has now been resolved, so I'm going to remove the POV tag. I'm going to remove the COI tag as well since it's stale.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Fascism" citations

• It's clearly a neo-fascist organization," said Mike Fellner, a staff member of the underground newspaper Take Over. "I don't care what their espoused rhetoric is, their actions toward the left show that they're fascist." Fellner said many leftists believe that NCLC is itself a "police front organization" designed to divide the left and discredit the documented information on the CIA. But to Fellner, it matters little whether or not they are in fact agents. "Even if they aren't police agents, they act like police agents."
  • Local Group Hasn't Won Masses Yet. The Capital Times, Feb. 25, 1974.

• We of the press should be chary of offering them print or air time. There is no reason to be too delicate about it: Every day we decide whose voices to relay. A duplicitous violence prone group with fascistic proclivities should not be presented to the public unless there is reason to present it in those terms.
  • NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace. Stephen Rosenfeld Washington Post September 24, 1976

• LaRouche's movement is an odd species of homegrown fascism, complete with a fascination with violence and a penchant for harassment of critics. Over the last decade, his various groups have spent millions of dollars spreading his message.
  • THE GAME'S UP FOR LAROUCHE. :[FINAL EDITION, C]." Stephen Chapman " Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext), March 30, 1986,

• LaRouche said descriptions of him as a neo-fascist and anti-Semetic "originate with the drug lobby or the Soviet operation — which is sometimes the same thing."
  • LaRouche alleges conspiracy from Moscow to White House. Associated Press FREDERICK POST, FREDERICK, MD., THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1986, D-8

• The rise of candidates loyal to Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. in Illinois and elsewhere is cause for serious concern because it appeals to people who are suffering economically and are searching for scapegoats, the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson said yesterday. "All of us stand to suffer with the rise of LaRouchism," Jackson said after a breakfast meeting with reporters. "When teachers and farmers and meatcutters start losing their jobs, they start reaching out for scapegoats. And that's where your classic racism, fascism and anti-Semitism come from."
  • LaRouchies appeal to poor, Jesse says. Jerome Idaszak. Chicago Sun - Times. Chicago, Ill.: Apr 15, 1986. pg. 34

• People who invited attention to themselves, in any way, from the organization received harassing phone calls, at the least. Sometimes "they" arrived unannounced; few residents felt brave enough to slam their front doors shut. Once inside "they" launched insistent arguments, seeking converts to their oxymoronic blend of paranoiac fascism and pseudo-Christian theology. Most of all, according to my Loudoun friends, the uninvited LaRouche delegations came after money. Generally, they would not leave until a donation had been tendered. Men and women were forced to pay a bribe to enjoy the ease of their own homes.
  • Leesburg's LaRouche nightmare. Roy Meachum The Frederick Post, FREDERICK, MD. OCTOBER 15, 1986 A-6

• Although LaRouche is only one of 13 defendants, the case inevitably will focus on him. He is an enigmatic individual, whose political views started in the 1960s with Marxism but in the 1970s veered toward the right and, say most of his detractors, toward fascism.
  • LaRouche trial: Sure to be a spellbinder. SUSAN LEVINE Knight-Ridder Newspapers. Providence Journal. Providence, R.I.: Oct 20, 1987. pg. A-16

• Followers believe that only LaRouche can now save Western civilization through an iron-fisted policy that parallels those of fascist and authoritarian regimes.
  • LAROUCHE GROUP CALLED ADEPT AT SMEAR TACTICS. Jonathan Kaufman, Globe Staff. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Aug 5, 1988. pg. 6

• CLASSICAL European fascism of the 1930s variety found neither a deep wellspring nor a significant following in American political life, except perhaps for the short-lived German-American Bund, which campaigned on the eve of Pearl Harbor against American assistance to nations resisting German and Italian aggression. Yet in a chilling echo from the past, America has experienced during the 1970s and 1980s the revival of a movement best summed up in the words of its own leader, Lyndon H. LaRouche: "It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one!"
• In the 1960s he grew enamored of European fascism and began spouting anti-Semitism. By the early 1970s his National Caucus of Labor Committees had recruited 600 hard-core members in 25 cities. Severing former leftwing ties, they moved to the right. Reaching out to the Ku Klux Klan, LaRouche declared the death of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust a hoax.
  • The strange ascent of Lyndon LaRouche, a native American fascist. :[2 STAR Edition]. DAVID E. SCHOB Houston Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext) [serial online]. April 30, 1989:19

• Or to put the question another way, why hasn't despotism happened here? The possibility is not that far-fetched, considering how much Franklin Roosevelt feared Huey Long, how so few people dared to oppose Joseph McCarthy, and how so blatant a fascist and anti-Semite as Lyndon LaRouche managed to acquire a mantle of political respectability before committing the common frauds that got him sent to prison. ... The LaRouchian fantasy that Queen Elizabeth presides over the world narcotics trade derives from the rantings of British fascists in the 1930s and is shared today by the Ku Klux Klan.
  • An American Hitler // A frightening look at Lyndon LaRouche and America's receptiveness to right-wing extremism. Series: Books :[CITY Edition]. MARTIN DYCKMAN St. Petersburg Times [serial online]. June 4, 1989:6D.

• Roberto Pena Pena, a Tijuana engineer whose name appears on the ad, attended the press conference to accuse the group of misrepresenting itself when he was asked to sign his name and donate $107. He said a representative of the group told him he was ordering a magazine subscription and that he was not told of the advertisement, which he characterized as "fascist."
  • Hard-line Baja group's AIDS views condemned. Ernesto Portillo Jr.. The San Diego Union. San Diego, Calif.: Aug 11, 1990. pg. B.1

• These groups are accurately called neo-fascist because of their reliance on authoritarian solutions,demagoguery, scapegoating, and xenophobia. Other peddlers of paranoia on the Far Right include the Populist Party and the followers of Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche, a minor socialist theorist in the 1960s, switched tracks in the mid-1970s and began embracing fascist themes, pulling along 1,000 followers, some of whom were ordered to engage in physical assaults against political rivals.
  • Friendly Fascists. Chip Berlet , The Progressive [serial online]. June 1992;56:16.

• And the neo-fascists are beginning to form an international movement. Mr. Zhirinovsky attends the conventions of the German People's Union and refers to this crowd of Bavarian fanatics as his German "partner." Louis J. Freeh, the new FBI director, goes to Germany to look into connections with American neo-Nazis, like Gary Lauck of Nebraska, the so-called Farm Belt Fuhrer. The Ku Klux Klan and the Lyndon LaRouche gang are busy in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.
  • Fascism's Lengthening Shadow. By Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Wall Street Journal (Europe) [serial online]. December 28, 1993:PAGE 6.

• He has been accused of being a cult leader, fascist and anti-Semite -- all of which he and those around him vehemently deny.
  • Democrat on the dark side. Peter Morton, Washington Bureau Chief. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Jun 16, 2005. pg. FP.8

• In addition, he has pursued his political interface with neo-fascist charlatan Lyndon LaRouche, who has cozied up to the Nation of Islam and Minister Farrakhan to secure an outlet for his destructive agenda in the Black community.
  • Black Empowerment: Farrakhan, Sharpton And Black Misleadership. Fulani, Lenora. New Pittsburgh Courier. (City Edition). Pittsburgh, Pa.: Jul 27, 1996. Vol. 87, Iss. 60; pg. A-7

• Rev. Bevel's teaching is incompatible with Elijah Muhammad's. James Bevel is an integrationist. His doctrine weakens and softens the attitude of the Black nation. He ran for vice president with a Zvil-Fascist White man named Lyndon LaRouche. He tried to introduce Mr. LaRouche before the Black political convention an Mr. LaRouche was properly booed off stage.
  • Rev. Bevel Attacks Black Nationalists!. Shabazz, Malik Zulu. Afro - American Red Star. Washington, D.C.: Jun 7, 1997. Vol. 105, Iss. 43; pg. A5

• Nevertheless, when the National African American Leadership Summit called for a national political convention at St. Louis in September 1996, at least three thousand representatives gathered to participate. On the convention's final day, the Reverend James Bevel, one of Martin Luther King Jr.'s former lieutenants and a recent convert to political conservatism, was given the podium. Bevel proudly introduced "the man of the hour," Lyndon LaRouche. Many in the audience were stunned: they immediately recognized LaRouche as a leader of fascist extremism in the United States and a defender of the former apartheid regime of South Africa. Instantly the crowd turned against Bevel and LaRouche, booing them off the stage. A fistfight erupted between several black nationalists and some of LaRouche's supporters, which was broken up by Farrakhan's security force. Throughout the country, perplexed African-American activists asked themselves why a white supremacist would be permitted to address a black political convention. Only Farrakhan could have given permission for LaRouche to speak. What seems at first to be a curious paradox was no puzzle at all. There were significant elements in their respective ideologies that brought Farrakhan and LaRouche into agreement.
• AN EVALUATION of Farrakhan's relationship with racist extremist Lyndon LaRouche requires some background information. From 1949 until his expulsion in 1966, LaRouche was an activist in the Socialist Workers Party, a Trotskyist organization. At the height of the mobilization against the Vietnam War, LaRouche established his own radical sect, the National Caucus of Labor Committees. Within a few short years, the LaRouche group mutated from the left to the ultra-right, embracing a fascist agenda of extreme anticommunism, racism, and antiSemitism. In 1973 the La Rouchites initiated "Operation Mop Up," a series of violent assaults against members of the U.S. Communist Party Armed with clubs, pipes, and other weapons, LaRouche's cult tried to disrupt public meetings and physically intimidate radical activists. Much of LaRouche's violence and hatred focused on the black movement. In 1977 he declared that African Americans who fight for equal rights are obsessed with "zoological specifications of microconstituencies' self interests" and "distinctions which would be proper to the classification of varieties of monkeys and baboons." In these same years, LaRouche courted leaders of the Ku Klux Klan and white fascism. In 1974 his front organization, the National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC), collaborated with racist groups in Boston to support an anti-busing candidate for Congress. The following year, the NDPC initiated a legal defense campaign on behalf of Roy Frankhouser, Grand Dragon of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. LaRouche later provided intelligence information on the U.S. anti-apartheid movement to the apartheid regime in South Africa.
  • Black fundamentalism. Manning Marable. Dissent. New York: Spring 1998. Vol. 45, Iss. 2; pg. 69, 8 pgs

• Even though he furiously accuses all manner of people of being Nazis, his own brand of politics both employs standard elements of fascism and revisions that may initially throw some people off track.
  • Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Restyled for the New Millennium by Helen Gilbert

Error in "Early life" section

The section on LaRouche's early life says "LaRouche is the son of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Sr. (June 1, 1896 - December 1983)[8] and Jessie Lenore Weir (November 12, 1893 - August 1978)[9]), a descendant of Elder Brewster from the Mayflower and other prominent Yankee families on his mother's side."

This is grammatically incorrect or ambiguous: what is the antecedent of the the antepenultimate word "his"? Does it refer to Jessie Lenore Weir, in which case it should be "hers", or does it refer to Elder Brewster, LaRouche Jr, or LaRouche Sr? Is the word "descendant" a reference to LaRouche Jr or LaRouche Sr, rather than to Weir? Please clarify! Incidentally, there is no citation for this descent, or I could check myself. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. The reference is to Jessie's side of the family (her father was a Protestant minister). Lyndon LaRouche, Sr. was of French Canadian descent and a convert from Catholicism to Quakerism. I can't vouch for Jessie's descent from Elder Brewster but have no particular reason to doubt it. I'll let someone else make the change in the article's wording.--Dking (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for COI tag

This article has been substantially edited by User:Dking, who is Dennis King in real life. He violates these sections of the policy: Self-promotion "Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates."

"1. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages." (Dennis King is an obscure individual who uses Wikipedia for self-promotion. Dking's editing generally revolves around adding links to his personal self-published websites, http://www.larouchewatch.com,http://lyndonlarouche.org/, and http://dennisking.org/ (the last one is defunct.) Diffs: [9], [10],[11] ,[12] ,[13] ,[14] ,[15] ,[16])

Close relationships "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias." (Dennis King is the most extreme of LaRouche's critics. He sees LaRouche as evil incarnate, and his edits at Wikipedia are relentlessly biased.)

For examples of Dking's editing which fail NPOV, here are two recent ones:

• In this edit[17] Dking removes sourced material which indicates that the former head of West German Military Counterintelligence has provided independent verification of LaRouche's claims that he participated in "back-channel" talks between the U.S. and Soviet governments. In his next edit[18] Dking inserts his own unsourced editorial comment that no such independent verification exists. These two edits taken together provide a representative example of biased editing by Dking.
• This edit[19] provides another example, where Dking simply removes sourced material which he doesn't like. The contested passage is an opinion, in quotes, attributed to the subject of the article, not a statement of fact. Therefore the sourcing is correct and Dking's deletion fails NPOV. Note in the edit summary where he attacks "false even-handedness."

The subject of Dking's conflict of interest has come up four times at WP:COIN. Aside from a sweep of the project to remove Dking's linkspamming, there has been no action taken, because Dking's cronies have interceded each time to block discussion. Therefore there should be a tag on this article to warn the reader. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that the article should have a COI tag. Not because of the edits of Dking, but rather because of the far more numerous and extensive edits by user:Herschelkrustofsky and his socks. HK, who is ______ _____ in real life, has been a member of the movement since the 1980s. I can point to dozens, probably hundreds, of edits of his that promoted the LaRouche POV. If it weren't for editors like Dking this article would be even worse as far as COI problems go. So, yes, please, let's keep the COI tag on the article until we've re-written it to remove HK's biased edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on the tag. I don't root for either team. However, there was a weird sort of equilibrium at these articles before your team succeeded in banning all the editors from the other team. The last two editors that were banned were supposedly socks of Gnetwerker. Do you now claim that Gnetwerker and Herschelkrustofsky are the same person? --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we drop the use of "teams" please? However, aside from yourself, there have been only two editors who promoted the LaRouche POV: HK and Cognition. HK was much more prolific than Cognition, so it's mostly just the one editor. As for the last set of socks, they were a special case and I'd rather not get into the details here. Suffice it to say that they belonged to a banned editor and as such were not permitted to edit here. The bottom line is that this article has been shaped by HK, a 20-year member of the LaRouche movement, more than by any other individual. It's his POV and COI that are the biggest problem with this article, not a few edits by Dking. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm supposed to take your word for all this? I'm not inclined to do so, since you just called me an "editor who promoted the LaRouche POV," and I have never edited LaRouche articles except on rare occasions to revert bad edits or place tags. I have never added any material promoting any POV. So you seem to have a rather lax attitude toward factual accuracy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to take my word for it. The evidence is in the article history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to find out much about what goes on when editors get banned around here, but I did find this. Although he doesn't explicitly say so, I am assuming that Jayjg's conclusions were based on checkuser. The thing that makes them noteworthy is that they do not support the claims that you are making on this page -- it rather looks like you added a generous dose of poetic license. In the future, I am going to be much more skeptical of your pronouncements.--Leatherstocking (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you ever gave any of my "pronouncements" any credence. But if anyone else who wants additional evidence of the sock puppetry and ownership problems with this topic they are welcome to ask. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the quotes about the back channel, and the deletion looks like POV to me. Reliable Sources says that publications of groups such as the LaRouche group may be used as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities, and there is countervailing stuff from LaRouche opponents, so I would say it is appropriate to restore the quotes. --Bill Chadwell (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Banned user

This isn't an article on a charitable organisation where news coverage focuses on them helping the poor and they provide sources which expand on that. Coverage in reliable sources does not give any credence to LaRouche conspiracy theories. If nobody cares about what they have to say, they can bleat all they like, mentioning it is unencyclopedic. Nevard (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Bill, the policy says we may allow self-published and questionable sources to be used as sources on themselves (the policy is WP:V, by the way, not WP:RS, though they should say the same thing). It doesn't say we must.

For my own part, I always edit with a presumption in favour of allowing self-published sources their say in articles about them. The exceptions are when what they write is hard to believe, or is newsworthy but not supported by other sources, or if they make claims that impact another living person.

The claim here is that LaRouche conducted negotiations with the Soviets about their view of SDI, with the knowledge of the NSA. If true, this is newsworthy, yet (so far as I know) there are no non-LaRouche sources who say it. Therefore, we have to proceed with extreme caution.

Then write that LaRouche says he negotiated with the Soviets. We can use self-published sources for that. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would allow it in the article so long as there are no BLP issues — because it's either true or, if false, it tells us a lot about the nature of the LaRouche movement, which makes it informative either way — making clear that there are no non-LaRouche sources for it. But the editors who don't want to allow it are acting within policy. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Back channel discussions would seem to be by nature confidential, so I wouldn't look for confirmation in the press. However, I think that the confirmation by Gen. Paul Albert Scherer is significant, so the latest deletion by Will Beback serves to underscore the neutrality and bias problems with this article. --64.183.125.210 (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Views of critics

The views of critics are identified as such, and are well-sourced. The intro should reflect the article. What reason is there for deleting the material? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a straightforward application of the policy on Undue Weight. The opinions in question -- that LaRouche is a fascist or anti-Semite -- are sourced to obscure individuals. Putting these opinions in the opening section gives them undeserved prominence, out of proportion with the role they play in the article. And since these opinions are derogatory, this is a BLP violation. --198.147.225.58 (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the #"Fascism" citations section above, to see the range of sources that use that term alone. There's another list like that in the archives concerning the other term, I believe. Prominent figures have used the terms, including people like Jesse Jackson, Patrick Moynihan, and the chair of the DNC. I suggest checking through some of the archives, we've all discussed this many times. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your list is unimpressive, but it might be appropriate to include a quote from Jackson or Moyhnihan. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not meant to be impressive. But those citations clearly indicate that this is a frequent criticism, and that's why it's in the intro. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Politicians get called names all the time, and "fascist" is a common epithet, applied to many controversial politicians and even some non-controversial ones. Wikipedia editors should show mature judgement and refrain from giving undue weight to such name-calling. Having it noted in the article is one thing, but putting it in the lede is way out of line. Remember that BLP is one of the primary policies here. Resist the temptation to make Wikipedia a vehicle for your own vendettas. --198.147.225.20 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the solution here is ultimately, but why are conspiracy theorist and leader of a cult permissible and fascist is not? The former isn't as strong a label perhaps, but the latter certainly is. As a side note - you should probably register an account make sure you log in if you wish to partake in these discussions. If for no other reason then so we know it's the same person every time. :) Thompsontough (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume that someone who's so familiar with WP policies is not a new user. Regardless, another primary policy is "assume good faith", so asserting that edits are made as part of a "vendetta" is out of place. Certainly, some terms get thrown around loosely, but in this case the term "fascist" appears to be used as a specific description. The King book's subtitle is "The New American Fascism", indicating that it's not just a casual epithet. As for undue weight, please refer again to the incomplete list of the uses of the term by a variety of speakers. The quantity and quality of sources mean that this matter deserves significant weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm the same person now with an account. I don't usually do talk pages so I didn't think I needed a handle. I had thought that "leader of a political cult" would be acceptable because the Washington Post (a newspaper of record) had called him that 4 years ago. However, I went back and read the article, and they don't actually make the claim, so now I think it should be taken out of the lede as well. It was fashionable to call LaRouche a fascist back in the 80s but it couldn't stand up to scrutiny and died out. Will Beback's list is mainly from that era. I haven't familiarized myself with all Wikipedia policies, but I do know BLP, and it was clearly written to stop the use of Wikipedia for vendettas. Therefore I don't think I am out of line for using the term. I didn't accuse anyone, I just said that it is a temptation that people ought to resist. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The text that #198 removed four times (probably violating WP:3RR, btw) originally said:

• There are sharply contrasting opinions on LaRouche. His supporters regard him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas critics variously see him as a conspiracy theorist, an anti-Semite, a fascist or neo-fascist, and the leader of a political cult.

In general, LaRouche was mentioned in the press more prominently in the 1980s than in subsequent decades. Is there any doubt that critics, or even just commentators, have used those terms? That's all we're saying, that those are significant critical views that have been expressed about the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The important word here is "significant." If you consider every person who makes a criticism "significant," you wind up with this. Because this is a sensitive BLP issue, I suggest that newspapers of record be the standard for what nasty labels may be applied to a living person, at least as far as the lede is concerned. There is no shortage of criticisms later in the article. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Dennis King and Chip Berlet, to list just two, are not significant critics? If not, then who are LaRouche's most significant critics? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Good example. Under WP:Reliable sources, Dennis King and Chip Berlet "should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities." --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I don't see either of them mentioned on that page. What's your point? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

To rate being included in the lede, I would say either a newspaper of record, as I mentioned above, or a person or insitution notable in his own right. Otherwise, it's undue weight to the opinion, even if the opinion has been published somewhere. The Heritage Foundation qualifies, for example. Dennis King and Chip Berlet would not. Perhaps they are particular favorites of yours, because they do make the claims you seek to include, and you have restored these claims 4 times now. I'd suggest that you be satisfied with the fact that their claims are well represented in the article. These claims may very well be defamatory. BLP says that "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." It also says that the burden of evidence "rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material," and that the 3RR rule does not apply to the removal of material that violates BLP. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Numerous people have made these assertions. BLP is not being violated to report what is said about the subject. NPOV requires that all significant points of view are included. What harm is possible be repeating that has been said dozens of times about a public figure by other public figures? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Appearance in a "newspapers of record" is not a standard for making assertions about BLPs. However, the NYT, which is undoubtedly a newspaper of record, said that LaRouche turned the movement away from Marxism and towards the extreme right and anti-semitism. See "U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy", October 7, 1979. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, it was not uncommon to see LaRouche called these things back in the late 70s- early 80s. The Washington Post did it also. However, both the Post and the Times have continued to cover LaRouche to the present day and no longer make these claims. I could see some mention that twentyfive-thirty years ago, these claims were made, but to imply that such views are widely held today is incorrect and damaging to the subject. May I ask, why are you so intent on including such claims? --Number OneNineEight (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it was common and that's why we need to include it in the lede. I don't believe the Times, the Post, or anyone else has retracted their comments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In light of the discussion at WP:BLPN, I've restored the information but changed the tense. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please simmer down and stop re-adding this material until it can be adequately discussed at the notice board. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not presenting any legitimate policy reasons for deleting this material repeatedly. The only response at the BLPN has been that it is correct to include the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been up there for a grand total of 24 hours, and so far, almost all the response has been from you. Relax. It won't kill you to wait a few days and see what others have to say. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This material has been here for a year or two, so I'm not sure I understand your insistence that it has to be removed immediately. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've restored Slimvirgin's edit from November 1. It is amply sourced, relevant, and gives due weight to the leading criticisms of the subject. A lengthy discussion at WP:BLPN did not reveal any violations of WP:BLP.   Will Beback  talk  19:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it revealed plenty. You chose to ignore it. But the thing that came through loud and clear in the discussion was that there was no consensus for these controversial edits to the lede, and under BLP, the burden of proof is on you to convince others. BLP instructs us to be conservative, and you are demanding license to be radical. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any consensus on the noticeboard that this material is inappropriate. Please quote the uninvolved editor who said so.   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The "198" account added some material, claiming a consensus that doens't seem to exist.[20] The material is inconsistent with the use of slef-published sources discussed at WP:BLP, which says they should not be used for unduly self-serving assertions. Suggesting that this subject is a politician in the mold of FDR and MLK is an extraordinary and self-serving claim. We have a 3rd-party source for followers believing that the subject is the greatest living economist. Let's try to find similar sources for this material too.   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you were the first to jump the gun on consensus. Clearly, this matter is not resolved. You now are claiming that LaRouche publications are not an appropriate source to find the views of LaRouche supporters, which is possibly the wildest claim yet. --Leatherstocking (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a self-serving claim. Please find a 3rd-party source. Meantime, please don't revert war. The material I added is neutral and well-sourced. For you to complain about using Berlet, et al, as sources and then to revert back to a version that uses them is inexplicable. Unless you have a complaint abnout the sources then please restore the improved version.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It can't be a "self-serving claim," because it is a description of how LaRouche is seen by his supporters. Using your logic, anything LaRouche's supporters say about him is "self-serving" and would have to be excluded. As far as the sources in the lede are concerned, I'll correct that now, but there is no consensus for calling LaRouche "fascist" without balancing info from his supporters. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate "balance" in this case would be the rebuttal, in which the subject and his followers reject several of those terms. There sources for those.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 presidential election

I'm curious as to why LaRouche didn't run in the 2008 election. I only did a quick Google search, but the only article I found even mentioning the thought of his candidacy was a Mother Jones article gloating that he wasn't running for the first time in 32 years. Does anyone know what happened? It would be great to include here if so. Narco (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

His age, he's 86 years old, is the factor he's mentioned. If he won he'd be 90 by the end of his term. I think I can find a source for him commenting on his decision to not run in 2008. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I came here curious about the cleanup tags and decided to look up LaRouche's views on Obama. He's apparently a stepping stone for Bloomberg, although considering how long ago that was, LaRouche's theory might have changed. More recently, he alleged that George Soros and the British are behind Obama's presidency, but was on Obama's side (I guess) when people associated with Soros criticized Obama's cabinet choices. Thompsontough (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The possibly misinterpreted reference to Obama as a racist and a monkey in a leaked memo got some attention too.[21][22] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Is LaRouche discussing Obama or himself here? I had to smile:

Obama is like a ticket machine. You know, you go to a machine, you punch a button, and a fortune-telling card comes out; you punch a button again, you get another fortune-telling card; you punch a button again, you get another fortune-telling card. He's nothing! He's empty. He's a babbler. There's no substance to him.

Anyway, thanks for the input/research. It sounds like the Mother Jones article was right about LaRouche fading into obscurity (more so than before, that is). Narco (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fringe

As an American i feel compelled to add the word fringe so that people from other countries know where this guy stands in mainstream culture. I was tempted to use the word obscure rather than fringe, but he did attract a moderate amount of attention at one time. He is to politics what Fred Phelps is to religion. Paliku (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How presumptuous of you to think that because you read the mighty American press you know more about LaRouche than people from other countries. We're not talking Britney Spears here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.215.90.216 (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone is undoing my editing, claiming that I am a "banned user." This is a crock. This person, "Will Beback," seems to have done biased editing on every single article about LaRouche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.215.91.131 (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP in question does appear to have been a banned user. That said, I agree that inserting "fringe" isn't necessary. LaRouche has never been regarded as more than an attention seeker - or at best a Ron Paul type figure for a brief time - in American politics; that said, let the facts speak for themselves. It's up to the reader to form an opinion of LaRouche and/or his movement.

Not to mention there are enough arguments over various words and phrases as-is. Thompsontough (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As I posted on WP:BLPN, both "fringe" and "extremist" are frequently used terms for the subject. There's sufficient overlap that there's no reason to use both, and "extremist" is more informative. I wouldn't compare Lyndon LaRouche to Ron Paul, for a number of reasons that we don't have to get into.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He's been called a lot of things. I was going by the example in the BLP guidelines about "So-and-so went through a messy divorce" vs "So-and-so divorced" - but it's not my battle. As for Ron Paul, I said "at best" in reference to his chances of actually being elected president even at the height of his notoriety. I meant no offense to Ron Paul. :) Thompsontough (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche and fascism

Numerous citations were put in on such points to answer the LaRouchian editors who kept deleting the statement. Then the citations were pared down to one on grounds they were excessive, giving the LaRouchians the excuse to delete the statement yet again. The citations here prove, overwhelmingly, the point that LaRouche is widely regarded as a fascist; I don't care if they all remain as long as the statement in the text remains.--Dking (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, the citations SHOULD remain, all of them, as insurance against further deletions of the well-documented fact that LaRouche is very widely regarded as a fascist, and to forestall attempts by the LaRouchians to argue over and over again a case they've already lost.--Dking (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:::You may have missed the discussion at the BLP noticeboard[23]. I am restoring the version that was agreed upon there. As for you, Dking, you shouldn't be anywhere near this article, because Wikipedia has clear rules about Conflict of Interest. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I read over the BLP noticeboard discussion. That discussion ended on Jan. 11. The deletion of the reference to LaRouche being widely regarded as a fascist was done on Jan. 16. I restored to what was on Jan. 11 and added references in response to the LaRouche editor's complaint that the single reference given as of Jan. 11 was not, in his opinion, adequate. As to the BLP discussion it did not settle anything and was merely more special pleading by LaRouche's tiny band of followers saying the same things they have said since 2004.--Dking (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't be editing this page. Let Will Beback select one credible source (not Manning Marable or the other fringe types) to replace the "Ottawa Citizen," which is not really adequate, for the reason that the deleting editor put in his summary (LaRouche saying he's not a fascist doesn't suffice.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, your tactic of calling every editor who disagrees with you a "LaRouchian" is getting really, really old. --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Leatherstocking, how can there be any doubt that you are a LaRouche follower? And I find it bizarre that a supporter of a group that believes that the Queen of England pushes drugs should call Manning Marable a "fringe" person. For the record, Dr. Marable is a professor of public affairs at Columbia University, author of a monumental forthcoming biography of Malcolm X, and a member of the New York State Legislature's Amistad Commission. He has also been an outspoken foe of REAL fringe persons such as Farrakhan, LaRouche and LaRouche's erstwhile running mate, James Bevel. Let's face it, in LaRouche's universe anyone who doesn't follow LaRouche is on the fringe. The trouble is, most of us don't inhabit that imaginary universe.--Dking (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the compromise version, but substituted the Houston Chronicle for the Ottawa Citizen in order to satisfy the concerns of 116.48.177.85 and Malay Agin. I also restored the COI tag, because Dennis King is up to his old tricks again. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Up to my "old tricks"??? In spite of your being a new user name here, it sounds like you're really an "old" editor whose been around this article for a long, long time under an ever-growing number of banned sock-puppet names. Old, indeed.--Dking (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

:::I know how to read. See "Rationale for COI tag," above. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation for Falklands War position

The citation we are using for Larouche's position on the Falklands War is a) a decade after the war and b) due to LaRouche's own organization. I'm not sure that the organization is a reliable source for what LaRouche thought a decade ago. Furthermore, I'm not sure that his position is notable if there are no independent sources which mention it. I seem to remember that there was a consensus that LaRouche views should only be mentioned if they have been covered elsewhere. Thoughts? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Good points. LaRouche has opinions on an extremely wide variety of topics. There's no way that Wikipedia can reasonably hold them all. It only makes sense to use secondary sources as our guide to their relative importance. Once they've passed that minor threshold, then we can consult the primary sources for quotes, context, or other details. A different problem exists for using LaRouche movement sources for LaRouche's past opinions. It's hard to evaluate in this case, but it would be characteristic for LaRouche to oppose British actions regarding the Falklands. Or maybe that is just post-hoc reasoning. I'll check newspaper archives from the time to see if they mention anything. Otherwise I agree that we should delete it. In any case, this article should stay focused on things that the subject actually did. The Views article is for his opinions.   Will Beback  talk  07:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked in the archives of the L.A. Times and N.Y. Times, plus a general archive. The only significant mention of LaRouche and the Falklands is in this article by Dennis King and Patricia Lynch in the Wall Street Journal:

• Another major source of money is from Mr. LaRouche's private political intelligence service. This apparatus -- a semi-covert extension of EIR's news staff (with bureaus in a dozen countries) -- performs research and intelligence-gathering tasks for foreign governments. Since the mid-1970s, say defectors, the LaRouchians have sold intelligence to South Africa, the shah's Iran, the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos, Iraq, Italy, Thailand, Mexico, Argentina during the Falklands War, and Taiwan. According to George Morris, they attempted to obtain funds from the Soviet Union, East Germany, Bulgaria and Libya in the mid-1970s, but without success.

The passing of intelligence to foreign governments might be worth adding, as I recall there are other sources for that too. It's worth mentioning that the L.A. Times has an article about a visit by Queen Elizabeth II to Los Angeles in 1983. It mentions that there some people were protesting the UK's Falklands War. Separately, it mentions that LaRouche followers were making a different protest: "Long before Hitler there was Britain. Mass murderers belong in prison." So when they had a good opportunity to protest the Falklands War they didn't take it.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the LA Times coverage, this claim about the Falklands is questionable at best and likely not notable. If there's no objection I'll remove it. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

:::I don't understand how the LA Times coverage can be taken to mean that LaRouche followers were not protesting the Falklands War. To say that "they had a good opportunity to protest the Falklands War they didn't take it" seems like speculation at best. The term mass murderers was applied by critics of the British conduct, including Labour MP Tam Dalyell to refer to the sinking of the General Belgrano.[24]

On the other hand, I can see how this topic would be more appropriately handled in the Views of LaRouche article. There are a number of other sections in this biography that probably should be moved to other articles such as LaRouche Movement. Color me Mauve (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we can't say exactly what the LaRouche followers were protesting beyond Britain becasue the paper didn't go into more detal. But since they did specifically mention other Falklands protesters it seems less likely that they wouldn't have mentioned the Falklands if the LaRouche followers had slogans about it. That leaves us with a lack of any contemporaneous, independent sources that document either protests by followers or statements by LaRouche himself. I do agree that we should move some of the material out of this article and into the "views" or "movement" articles so as to keep this one focsued on the actions and events of LaRouche himself.   Will Beback  talk  07:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

External links cleanup

This section was a bit of mess, and I have tried to bring it into compliance with links guidelines, bearing in mind that in Living Persons articles external links "must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles." On that basis I removed Pasadena City College's student newspaper, Sourcewatch (which is a Wiki,) Red Letter Press (self-published by a fringe political party,) LaRouche Watch (self-published,) and Justice for Jeremiah (self-published.) Book reviews of Dennis King's book I moved to Dennis King. There were also multiple links to the same websites, Political Research Associates and RickRoss.com -- one link per site ought to be sufficient. --Botox for bunnies (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you did, but you accidentally deleted all of the end material.[25] Will you fix that or shall I? Two other points: Red Letter Press appears to be a regular publishing house - what is the fringe political party that publishes it? Also, the Pasadena City College student newspaper is not necessarily inappropriate as a source, much less an external link. Is there a specific reason for deleting it?   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't appear to be online, so I'll add the end material back. You might check to make sure that's what you wanted.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

::Sorry about the glitch. I didn't mean to delete the "responses to critics" or "other" categories, so I restored them, except for love.rolf-witsche.com, which is self-published. Red Letter Press was actually identified in the links section as being the in-house for the Freedom Socialist Party. The Pasadena student paper didn't seem to measure up to the "higher standard" for Living Persons links, and we have others that do, such as the two Washington Post articles. --Botox for bunnies (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm checking on the Red Letter Press - apparently there was an FEC case. As for the PCC newspaper, it seems good enough for an external link, which doesn't have to meet the same standards as a source. Finally, I removed the two "response to critics" links because they were neither by nor about LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any source that specifically connects them, but the FSP site does have a prominent link to the RLP site.[26] Curiously, the FEC documents don't mention any connection.[27] Apparently the FSP is Trotskyist, as was LaRouche at one time.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The "response to critics" section was restored, but I don't see any discussion.   Will Beback  talk  03:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought my edit summary, "necessary for NPOV," was sufficient. This article showcases the opinions of Chip Berlet, Dennis King and company, so some rebuttal is necessary. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

External links don't help the NPOV of the article. Jeffrey Steinberg isn't Lyndon LaRouche. And merely attacking critics isn't rebuttal. If there are other viewpoints on issues in the article itself then we should include those in the article. This is an article on Lyndon LaRouche, not Chip Berlet and Baroness Symonds. So what specific viewpoints about Lyndon LaRouche are in those links that need to be in the article for NPOV?   Will Beback  talk  18:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Any reply?   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. NPOV applies to external links, just as BLP does. Since Berlet and Co. are so prominently featured in the article, it is appropriate to provide references which may provide more insight into who they are and what they represent. Having this in the external links seems more appropriate than incorporating rebuttal material into the body of this overly-long article. As far as the authorship of the articles is concerned, in other locations you have argued that views expressed by the LaRouche organization should be viewed as emanating from LaRouche himself. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV applies to the article. If we need to ad more views of LaRouche, then let's add them. Views of Berlet and Symonds are irrelevant to a biography of LaRouche. The place for rebuttals is right after the assertions being rebutted. Which assertions are those?   Will Beback  talk  08:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the links again. If there are specific assertions in the text of the article that need rebuttal to show other viewpoints then let's insert those directly into the text. Ad hominem attacks on the commentators are not appropriate rebuttals.   Will Beback  talk  06:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::I don't support the deletion. Of the two links, one is a specific response to two newspaper articles linked in the "critics" links section that immediately precedes it, so the logical place for it is where it is right now. The two linked articles are not simply ad hominem attacks, and if name-calling were a basis for exclusion, we'd have to further reduce the "critics" links. The NPOV policy is not explicit on the topic of links, but it says "articles and other encyclopedic content," so in a controversial bio, I think we should go the extra mile to be neutral. Finally, the external links policy indicates that material that is too long and detailed for inclusion in the article should be placed in the links. The arguments about Chip Berlet and the Ford Foundation are interesting, but too extensive for this already longish article. --Botox for bunnies (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you lok more carefully at the links. "The Bizarre Case of Baroness Symons" doesn't mention the articles that it's described here as rebutting. It would be better descibed as the LaRouche account of the events surrounding Jeremy Duggan's death. Below, see a thread in which an editor has deleted any mention of Duggan from the article. If we restore the summary of that incident, then we can easily include a sentence of reubuttal with that link as the source. Regarding "Chip Berlet and the Ford Zoo", it begins "John Foster "Chip" Berlet, a sewer creature ..." It is a possible violation of BLP to include a slanderous. The article doesn't rebut anything that Berlet says, it just attacks him. What arguments from it would we add to this article, even if we had room? I can't see any that would be relevant. Please point to what is worthwhile in that article.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the PCC Courier article. However that article is problably better suited for the Movement and WLYM articles, since it's not really about LaRouche, the man. But it certainly seems to be of high enough quality to use as a source. I also reorganized the links. The three links concerning Duggan should be deleted if we don't mention Duggan in the article. And if we do mention Duggan they'd be better used as sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

::I agree about the PCC Courier. I will move it as well as the three "Duggan" links to LaRouche movement. Color me Mauve (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've also restored Dennis King's LaRouche Watch website. He is a recognized authority on the subject and so is allowed under WP:EL.   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

::Dennis King may be an expert, but he needs an editor. WP:EL says "Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP or that are not fully compliant with this guideline," and King's own website is beyond the pale. There must be an established, non-self-published site that features his work, and I'd suggest that you link to that. --Botox for bunnies (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

King's work on LaRouche has been published by a number of respectable sources, including the Wall Street Journal and Doubleday. He's also been quoted in numerous press reports. That's what makes him a recognized authority. What is the specific problem with the website? "Beyond the pale" is vague. Considering that you're suggesting we need to link to a site that calls a living person a "sewer creature", I'm not sure we're using a consistent standard.   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The consistent standard is that material from fringe-type commentators appears only the articles about those commentators themselves. It would be appropriate to feature a link to King's personal site at Dennis King. As a specific problem, I nominate the photo-montage of LaRouche's image superimposed over that of Hitler. Will, in other locations you have insisted that you are "not promoting Dennis King." Considering how bitterly you fought to keep a quote from Justin Raimondo off the bio article about Chip Berlet, I would suggest you re-read WP:SAUCE and move on. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the source for calling King a "fringe-type commentator"? This isn't about a quote-it's about a link to a website that has useful information on the article subject from a recognized authority.   Will Beback  talk  02:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::It may be that King is a recognized authority, but his website has a bombastic style that evokes tabloid journalism. Again, "Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP or that are not fully compliant with this guideline." Since you say he was published in the Wall Street Journal, why not link to that? Problem solved. --Botox for bunnies (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why you are insisting we need to have "Chip Berlet and the Ford Zoo" but must not have "LaRouche Watch"? I don't understand your reasoning. I'm also looking for a source that impeaches King as a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

I did not delete "Jeremiah Duggan" and "Kenneth Kronberg," I moved them to LaRouche movement. I was using the criteria that you raised earlier in the discussion, i.e. "this article should stay focused on things that the subject actually did." --Color me Mauve (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The passage you quote concerns whether we should dicuss his views in this article while there is a special article devoted just to that topic. We do summarize his views here, and it's appropriate to treat other related articles inthe same way. These two incidents account for a considerable amount of the press coverage of the subject in the past decade. The full reporting belongs elsewhere, but asserting that the subject is not a part of the stories seems incorrect. It is appropriate to include short summaries and point readers to the main articles where they can get more details, per WP:SUMMARY   Will Beback  talk  01:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I'll restore the shortened versions of the summaries.   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

::Sorry, I had meant to respond to this. I think it is a mistake to try to include everything about LaRouche in every article, and then if you try to selectively include non-biographical info in this one, it's undue weight. For example, there is no mention of LaRouche Youth Movement in this article at present, and one could argue that it is notable. But I think it's better just to rely on the fact that you have a large template of links to related articles. The other thing I would mention, having looked over the two articles (Duggan and Kronberg,) is that the Kronberg case got almost no press coverage, only a couple of minor papers. Color me Mauve (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't original research to mention Duggan and Kronberg in LaRouche's biography. In the case of Duggan, his death has generated considerable attention from the press and government officials, all of which mention LaRouche. In the case of Kronberg, he was one of LaRouche's key supporters. I don't think we need extensive discussions, but we should certainly mention them per WP:SUMMARY. If the concern with Kronberg is that being mentioned in only a few papers then we would want to review the entire article to make sure we're only using reliable, 3rd-party sources of note, like the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc. But that would require cutting out a lot of material and I suggest we don't do that unless we're ready for a major project. As for the WLYM, I agree that we should mention that too. I'm not sure exactly what formal connection exists between LaRouche and the WLYM, but I think I've seen him described as its founder and I know he has spoken to them. But again, like with Duggan and Kronberg, most articles about the WLYM also mention LaRouche so there's enough of a connection to note it here.   Will Beback  talk  17:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

::::The deaths of Jeremiah Duggan and Ken Kronberg have been viciously exploited for propaganda purposes by a small group of people who found collaborators in the British press and apparently at Wikipedia also. Duggan had no connection with the Larouche movement other than to be a casual attendee at a conference. Ken Kronberg was a valued member who had a falling out with his wife, who is now one of the collaborators in the propaganda effort and who has solicited collaboration here at Wikipedia. --Keinehexen (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal opinions aren't helpful here. Every article on Duggan and Kronberg mentions LaRouche. Folks here aren't creating or imagining that connection.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Realizing that Keinehexen has been "X"-ed out as being a pseudopod for a banned editor, I still wonder, and here raise, an obvious question: How did/does Keinehexen know that Ken Kronberg "had a falling out with his wife"? Where is the documentation for that? It strikes me that that theory comes straight from internal documents of the LaRouche organization (which have found their way onto the Internet) in which LaRouche himself makes that claim, apparently to counter assertions that he bore some responsibility in Kronberg's death.Hexham (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

French Canadian

I restored "French Canadian" rather than quebecois. LaRouche has never used the latter term to my knowledge (although he has, when campaigning in New Hampshire, referred to himself as being a Franco-American) and is not a supporter of Quebec nationalism. Furthermore, the term French Canadian is almost universally used in the United States. If the two solitudes want to establish a politically correct terminology I suggest they get a consensus first on pages having to do with contemporary Canadian history.Dking (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet theater

I've struck through the latest postings by socks of Herschelkrustofsky. Obviously, this page is a magnet for him and so new accounts deserve special scrutiny in the future.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that by the ancient code of the Wiki, you have a right to take revenge upon banned editors by reverting their edits, and I am generally a great fan of such actions, even when the end result is that article quality suffers. That said, in this case I am restoring the deleted edits to this article under WP:IAR, because the reverted version is of much lower quality than the article as it was after the edits by the alleged socks (and on certain rare occasions, I think that article quality is more important to me as an editor than is the cherished spectacle of the WP:BATTLEGROUND.) I should add that I am always convinced that the accounts that Will bans are socks of Herschelkrustofsky, or Cognition, or Gnetwerker (although we don't talk about that one,) despite the fact that I never have and never will see any evidence to back up these allegations. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Banned user aren't allowed to edit here. What's so hard about that to understand? I am going to remove the edits again. If you want to restore any of them, please defend them on a case by case basis. The mere fact that they were done by Herschelkrustofsky is not enough, and we need to discus any contentious changes here, sockpuppets not invited. As for the latest accounts, they were identified and vblocked by a checkuser with no input from me. I hadn't even noticed some of the accounts.   Will Beback  talk  00:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

On my talk page, you accuse me of "disrupting the project" by "editing on behalf of a banned editor." Baloney, I say. You participated in discussions on this page, and you agreed to many of the edits you have now reverted twice, apparently out of spite. Here is my rationale for restoring them: the external links section is overgrown with spam, multiple links to pages within the same website (Chip Berlet, of course,) self-published fringey sites (including one site of that type which is actually Pro-LaRouche,) and generally way too many links. Then, there are the Jeremiah Duggan and Ken Kronberg sections which are decidedly non-biographical, and serve only as an excuse to provide a soapbox for Chip Berlet and his extended family. The article was looking much more neutral and encyclopedic before you restored all that crap, so I am removing it once again -- because in my opinion, it will benefit the article. Don't try to cast me as a meatpuppet of your favorite enemies. --Leatherstocking (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked you nicely not to blanket restore the changes by the banned user. My good faith and the consensus process that Wikipedia depends upon have been grossly abused by Herschelkrustofsky, for the 50th time. It's getting very tiresome and I don't like being played for a sucker, which HK apparently takes pleasure in doing since he keeps coming back where he're not welcome. There's no consensus for those edits (HK doesn't count).   Will Beback  talk  04:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, please do not ascribe bad faith to me, or accuse me of acting out of spite. I've never acted inappropriately regarding HK, unlike the dozens of fake accounts HK has created and used to skew consensus since he first started editing here almost five years ago, not to mention his off-wiki harassment. He has exhausted any conceivable good faith, yet time after time I've extended good faith to his socks. I don't appreciate you supprintg that disruptive behavior, and if there is behavior that meets the definiton of WP:MEAT then the matter will be forwarded to relevant noticeboards for enforcement. To repeat, I'm willing to discuss changes with good faith, non-sock accounts.   Will Beback  talk  04:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your threatening note on my talk page, yes I have read WP:BAN. I find this section relevant to this case: "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons." The material you reinstated was problematic in that regard. The policy also says with regard to edits made by banned users, "Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." As you can read above, I have taken responsibility and provided a thorough explanation for the material I reinstated, thank you very much. --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are taking responsibility for them then please discuss your edits individually, as I've requested before.   Will Beback  talk  18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have removed external links that are self-published, multiple page links to a single website, not up to BLP standards, or not appropriate to the article (which is to say, the numerous promotional links to reviews of Dennis King's book.)
• I have removed the sections on Jeremiah Duggan (whom LaRouche apparently never even met) and Kenneth Kronberg, on the grounds that they are non-biographical and belong in other articles (and because they were placed in this one as vehicles for Chip Berlet's POV.)
• I have restored minor edits made by editors other than the banned ones.
• I have restored your new formatting of the links section, done as a courtesy to you. If you no longer want it, I'll put it back the way it was. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the websites, I'm going to restore the link to LaRouchewatch, because it is run by an authority on the subejct. I'm going to remove the link to "Chip Berlet and the Ford Zoo," which is neither by nor about the subject, and contains derogatory information about a living person.
• I'm going to restore some of the information about Dugan and especially Kronberg. Both of the incidents brought attention to the subject, and no article about them omits mention of the subject.   Will Beback  talk  03:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I know that you and Dennis are buds, but his personal site is way too frantic to pass the BLP test. I would be surprised to learn that Dennis is considered an "authority" -- when was the last time he got himself published, anywhere, on any topic? But assuming that he really is an "authority," then there must be some WP:RS with fact checking and editorial oversight where his work is featured, and you can link to that. If you want to toss the Chip Berlet/Ford Zoo link, I'm OK with that. Your arguments for including Duggan and Kronberg are weak, for this reason: every source on every article on the celebrated LaRouche Template mentions LaRouche. For example, every source in Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität mentions LaRouche, but it's not necessary to include all that in the bio, because we have another article for that. The same applies to Duggan and Kronberg. There is no reason to put every quote from Chip, Dennis and Molly in every article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal comments like that are out of place on this page. I've never met or spoken to Dennis King and I'm not his "bud". As for King being an authority, how many times do we have to go over this? He's the author of the only full-length biography of the subject, a book that was widely and well-reviewed. He's been quoted in countless press reports on the subject. The exemption for including self-published websites by authorities is in the external links guideline, WP:EL.   Will Beback  talk  18:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I too thought this matter had been resolved already. "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP or that are not fully compliant with this guideline" (WP:EL.) It won't kill you to find a conventional reliable-source website that features Dennis' writings (if such a site exists.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

King's writings are available in the archives of many reliable sources, such as newspapers. That's one of the reasons he's considered an authority.   Will Beback  talk  01:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Link to one of those, then, and we're all set. --Leatherstocking (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The LaRouche Watch website has additional informaiton relevant to this subject.   Will Beback  talk  17:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Leatherstocking, please stop referring to me as "Dennis." You are not a friend of mine. You are a LaRouche follower lurking behind a cover name. Your use of my first name or Chip Berlet's first name or the first names of people on LaRouche's list of Symbolic Evil Jews, e.g., all those demented anti-Kissinger articles by LaRouche and others that referred to Dr. Kissinger simply as "Henry" or "fat Henry") is an old trick of your cult that helps its members to dehumanize targeted persons. The trick was also used under slavery and Jim Crow, when southern whites would always refer to blacks by their first names only. In the latter case, the trick made it psychologically easier to justify racial oppression. In the LaRouche organization, it makes it easier for cult members to justify to themselves their frequently sadistic attacks and smears on the enemy du jour.--Dking (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)