Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 21

Marcos

• He asserted that Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos had been deposed as a result of opposing him.

• Said former Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos was ousted because he didn't listen to LaRouche's advice. "For example, President Marcos was opposed to me, and he fell as a result," LaRouche said.
  • LaRouche says upset wins give right mandate; Houston Chronicle. Houston, Tex.: Apr 10, 1986. pg. 3

Per request.   Will Beback  talk  20:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why was the word "opposed" removed from the text?   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There's also a second source from a few days later:

• Ousted Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos "was opposed to me and he fell as a result."
  • IT'S ALL A PLOT -- AND ONLY LAROUCHE KNOWS IT Associated Press. Orlando Sentinel. Orlando, Fla.: Apr 13, 1986. pg. A.6

So the "was opposed to me and he fell as a result" phrase appears more significant quotation rather than the non-quote about not following adivce.   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no context provided in either quote, so it is impossible to know what LaRouche was talking about. If the context is unavailable, the quote shouldn't be used. Please provide as well some context for the other quotes you have selected for the section on the 1986 press conference. For example, what was in the omitted portion of "witch hunt carried out by ... a Boston Brahmin with high-level connections to the international drug mafia"? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The context is the press conference, perhaps the most notable press conference LaRouche ever held. LaRouche apparently covreed a wide variety of topics. The sources are all reliable.   Will Beback  talk  19:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't be coy. You have snipped odd fragments of quotes from the press coverage of this event, omitting what was said in the original articles. I'd like to know what was in the original articles. Please post a paragraph or two for each of the quotes I requested, the Marcos business and the "Boston Brahmin" quote. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll post it shortly, but there's no more to it. Those were comments at a press conference.   Will Beback  talk  16:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• There's another source with that quote here: [1], again just a listing of snippets, much like we have in the article. That demonstrates that this kind of presentation has been used in papers, but I think it would suit the encyclopedic format better to give a little more context. The cited Houston Chronicle provided such context ("ousted because he didn't listen to LaRouche's advice") and I've dropped it in; more context would be better. (Basically, papers don't have to subscribe to the principle of charity, good academic writing usually does.) I guess there isn't a transcript of the conference in any RS? JN466 21:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was unfamiliar with the principle of charity, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. It is unfortunate that BLPs about controversial persons wind up being dominated by press sources and/or bad academic writing. I think it would be appropriate for the principle of charity to be incorporated into WP:BLP, but I suppose that it would spoil all the fun. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A similar concept is expressed in Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression, a policy advice page, notably in the paragraph "Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability." JN466 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• • There are numerous reports of this press conference - that's why I say it appears to be the most notable one held by the subject. The only older press conferences I've ever seen that have complete transcripts available are those held by U.S. presidents. (Nowadays, transcripts seem a bit more common.) Here are more excerpts from the reporting:

He said Donald T. Regan, the White House chief of staff, had set up a "drug-money laundering operation" and ought to be in jail.

He said former Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos "was opposed to me and he fell as a result."

He said the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization that considers him an anti-Semite, has always "attacked me on behalf of the drug lobby."

He said the news media had been "intoxicated into believing its own lies" - that he is a Nazi and an anti-Semite; and he dismissed one question as the ravings of a "drug-pusher."

He said a woman in Loudoun County, Va., who led a campaign against plans by a LaRouche group to have a summer camp there was tied to "international terrorism" and had a "live-in woman lover."

The bottom line was that success has not changed LaRouche's view of the world or his approach to politics. He showed no signs of moderating his extremist opinions or abandoning his own distinctive vocabulary, a vocabulary not often used in American political discourse.

Throughout his hour-long appearance, the 63-year-old economist - flanked by two of his own security guards, who had agreed to leave their guns outside - attacked U.S. economic and foreign policy as "criminal" and "insane" while dismissing his critics as "idiots."

— LAROUCHE SPEAKS HIS MIND Larry Eichel. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Apr 10, 1986. pg. A.18

During the meeting with reporters, LaRouche:

Repeatedly contended that the Soviet government, the British government, drug dealers, members of the international financial community and American political officials are involved in conspiracies to destroy the Western world.

Said that he and two other men were placed on a Soviet assassination list in the late 1970s and the other targets have been killed.

Said he lives a nomadic and sparse existence because supporters shuttle him around to guard against attempts on his life.

Therefore, I have lived an anomalous existence from safe house to safe house in which I'm unable to maintain any residence or maintain any orderly personal life, he said.

Said the only way to stop drug dealing is to stop financial institutions that engaged in laundering illicit money and you have to jail the bankers who do that - like Donald Regan, presently chief of staff at the White House - put them in jail where they belong.

The White House later issued a statement in response saying, The charges are absolutely groundless and as outrageous as the source they come from.

Said the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, a Jewish organization interested in civil rights and combatting anti-Semitism, is engaged in drug lobbying.

Drug trafficking I couldn't prove, although they're associated with drug traffickers, LaRouche said.

He lives in a world of goblins, ghosts, spooks and nightmare visions, responded Nathan Perlmutter, national director of the ADL, in a telephone interview.

Perlmutter called LaRouche's charges insane.

Said former Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos was ousted because he didn't listen to LaRouche's advice.

For example, President Marcos was opposed to me, and he fell as a result, LaRouche said.

— LaRouche says upset wins give right mandate; [4 STAR Edition] Houston Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). Houston, Tex.: Apr 10, 1986. pg. 3

FWIW, the quotation: "(Philippine) President (Ferdinand) Marcos was opposed to me and he fell as a result", was repeated again in 1987 by USA Today.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please post the context for the "Boston Brahmin" quote, including what you omitted from the sentence you added. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You had me add quotes about Marcos, then requested more. Before we move on to another topic could you please indicate where we stand with the Marcos matter? Do you think I misstated the sources?   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had intended to respond but I was in a rush. I don't think that either of those newspaper articles is a particularly useful source for an encyclopedia article, because they are clearly intended to convey an impression of zaniness by quoting out of context. In other words, they deliberately violate the "principle of charity" that JN466 described. The only material that I see there that might belong in an encyclopedia article is the part from the Houston Chronicle about his nomadic existence in safehouses, the meaning of which is adequately clear, and the part about jailing bankers who launder money. Do you not have other newspapers that covered this press conference, perhaps in a more professional manner? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The "princicple of charity" is not a Wikipedia guideline or policy, and even if it were there's no reason to think that the LaRouche's words are misreported.   Will Beback  talk  19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether we are writing an article with the intention of informing the reader, or writing to further a POV agenda. A few words about Marcos, taken out of context so that no one has any idea what LaRouche was talking about, does not provide useful information to the reader, and we would be better off simply omitting them. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The context is clear: LaRouche held a press conference and gave his views on a variety of topics. This is well-sourced information, presented neutrally, and relevant to the subject's notability. It's not uncharacteristic for LaRouche to make such a remark. I really don't understand why you object to it.   Will Beback  talk  20:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean? What advice from LaRouche did Marcos not heed? How did he "oppose" LaRouche? If it's incomprehensible, it's not "presented neutrally." You said the press conference was widely covered. Have you no articles that present the material in a more substantial form, suitable for an encyclopedia article? --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a notable view of LaRouche, uttered in front of at least a hundred reporters and printed in multiple reliable sources. It's our job to summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view, but it's not our job to expain what LaRouche means. I'm not sure why it's hard to figure this out. Marcos is known to have been ousted in a popular coup. LaRouche is asserting that Marcos' was deposed because he opposed LaRouche, or didn't follow his advice. The nature of Marcos' opposition or LaRouche's advice isn't known, but that doesn't alter the fact that LaRouche made the assertion.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is our job to explain what LaRouche means, if there are sources available that explain it. There is some background on the Marcos story in King, citing a radio interview from around the same time: "When Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos's regime was disintegrating in the fall of 1985, FEF spokesman Uwe Parpart and LaRouche's security chief, Paul Goldstein, rushed over to Manila to advise him. They took along Peru's former Prime Minister General Edgardo Mercado Jarrin as the nominal head of their Schiller Institute delegation, and the meeting with Marcos was widely reported in the Philippine press. According to LaRouche in a 1986 radio interview, his aides warned Marcos: "They're going to coup you." LaRouche claimed that if Marcos "had taken the kinds of actions we'd recommended . . . he would not have been couped." I'm not sure the Marcos thing is important enough to mention in this BLP, but if it is, then it can be presented better.

The current presentation of disjointed snippets from the press conference, without context, is not pleasant to read, either. It reminds me a bit of those youtube videos, where some joker presents a 2-minute montage of all the swear words used in a film, with all intervening material cut out. --JN466 12:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we still don't know what the advice was. The conclusion, that LaRouche could have prevented Marcos from being deposed, is the same.   Will Beback  talk  17:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There is additional information on this topic at LaRouche movement#Asia, Middle East, and Africa. If this topic is indeed important enough to go into the LaRouche bio, which I doubt, we could import some of that material to clarify what LaRouche was talking about. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of copying the information here, it'd be better to link to it there.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If it'd settle this dispute (which I don't really understand anyway), I'd be willing to drop the Marcos mention from this article.   Will Beback  talk  05:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the info to the Movement article so we can have the coverage of the topic consolidated in one place.   Will Beback  talk  03:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

1959-60 LaRouche forecast

• In 1959-60 LaRouche forecast that a series of monetary shocks would lead to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, which did take place in 1971.
  • GG Pirogov, conference presentation to the Lebedev Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (FIAN), Russian Academy of Sciences website [2]

This is an extraordinary claim, and it's going to require better sourcing.   Will Beback  talk  17:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Russian Academy of Sciences is a scholarly source, and economic forecasting is an academic topic, which happens to be Pirogov's specialty. According to WP:RS, For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still a dubious assertion. There are Soviet Institutes that made all sorts so pseudoscientific claims back in the day. Is this the only source?   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll spend some time looking this weekend. However, we are not talking "back in the day," we are talking post-1995, and the Russian Academy of Sciences is the creme of the crop in Russia, a formidable scientific power. What is the basis for your claim that it is dubious?--Leatherstocking (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about a peer reviewed paper published by the RAS, we're talking about an unpublished paper presented at a conference of the Lebedev Institute of Physics. At a minimum, this needs a mainstream source. Per your assertion above that secondary sources which don't mesh with primary sources raise redflags, we should also see the original of this forecast.   Will Beback  talk  18:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no primary source which contradicts it. Nor is it surprising or out of character; the references to LaRouche that I have seen from China, Russia, the Arab world and South America all comment on his success as a forecaster. The material on your "sources" page looks like a collection of polemics against LaRouche by his opponents, combined with media coverage of polemics against LaRouche by his opponents -- reference to his role as an economist is neglible. I see no deficiency in the source; it is a scholarly presentation by an expert in the field. I am restoring the deleted material, and I would suggest that you take this up at WP:RSN. I will look for corroborating sources in the meantime, and I invite you to look as well. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Where do we find this forecast to confirm it?   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

tut.by

• http://news.tut.by/politics/131656.html

What is the nature of this source? Do we have any indication that it qualifies as a mainstream news source? There is a photo of an EIR reporter - id he write it? If not, who wrote it? In the Google translation, the author seems to refer to himself. Is it an editorial?   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The People's Newspaper of Belarus is a conventional daily print paper, founded in 1990 immediately after the fall of the USSR. It also has an online edition. [3][4] I don't know who the author is, but I'm sure it's not Steinberg. I don't know why they put his photo there. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That may all be true, but what does that have to do with tut.by? The page you've linked for the newspaper seems to be on online auction hosted by tut.by indicating the paper is for sale. I checked the second link, which is to a different domain entirely. There's an archive arranged by day, so I checked that date (March 13, 2009). I found this article, which is explicitly signed by Jeffrey Steinberg.[5] So what's going on?   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See also, this: [6]   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I was mistaken. If's clearly a guest column by Steinberg. Still a reliable source, though. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem with using these obscure foreign sources- it's hard to tell what they are. If this is just a "view" of Larouche it should go in that article.   Will Beback  talk  01:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Dennis King

The article on Dennis King has been deleted due to lack of notability. This suggests to me that we should reduce the dependence on King as a source in this and other articles. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We never cited King because he is notable. We've cited his book and his articles because they are reliable sources. The book is itself notable, and I'll get around to writing an article about it one of these days.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative draft wording for ego-stripping section

Current text

In the summer of 1973, as the violence of "Operation Mop-Up" was underway, LaRouche and the NCLC began using "ego-stripping" techniques against members they regarded as incompetent or disloyal. One former member, Christine Berl, described it as "pure psychological terror." Members would surround the target during a meeting, criticizing them, delving into their pasts and personal lives, and attacking their families. In Beyond Psychoanalysis, LaRouche wrote that members should strip new recruits of their egos, reduce them to a state that he called "little me," then begin the process of rebuilding their personalities. In "The Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party," he wrote that leftists must confront their sexual problems, such as their fear of, or desire for, their sadistic mothers.

One ego-stripping session was recorded—that of a 26-year-old British LaRouche member, Chris White—and the tape was sent to The New York Times by LaRouche activists, who said White had intended to kill LaRouche. According to the Times, "There are sounds of weeping, and vomiting on the tapes, and Mr. White complains of being deprived of sleep, food and cigarettes. At one point someone says 'raise the voltage,' but (LaRouche) says this was associated with the bright lights used in the questioning rather than an electric shock."

White had formed a romantic relationship with LaRouche's former partner, Carol Larrabee. The couple left the States and moved to England, where they tried to form an NCLC branch. In December 1973, LaRouche asked them to return to the U.S. to attend a conference. White knew he would be subjected to an ego-stripping session, and he reportedly broke down during the flight, shouting that the CIA was planning to kill Larrabee and LaRouche. The ego-stripping went ahead anyway, with LaRouche in attendance. LaRouche can be heard on the tape telling White that a pain he complained of in his arm was not real, but "part of the program." White reportedly ended up "confessing" that he had been tortured by the CIA and British intelligence, and had been programmed to kill Larrabee and set up LaRouche for assassination.

April Witt writes in The Washington Post that "brainwashing hysteria" spread throughout the movement. One activist said he attended meetings where members were writhing on the floor saying they needed de-programming. One activist, Alice Weitzman, expressed skepticism about the CIA claims. LaRouche sent six members to her apartment, where she was held captive and forced to listen to Beethoven at high volume, because LaRouche believed Beethoven's music could de-program people. Weitzman scribbled a plea for help on a piece of paper, and threw it out of her window. A passerby contacted the police, who released her, but she declined to press charges.

Proposed text

Will, Leatherstocking, Slim et al., I've had a go at a possible rewording of the ego-stripping session; see what you think:

In the summer of 1973, LaRouche and the NCLC began using confrontation therapy techniques. LaRouche told NCLC members that they had to face their psychosexual fears in order to become more effective. In The Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party, he declared that "sexual impotency is generally the causal root of Left political impotency."

In Beyond Psychoanalysis, LaRouche argued that bourgeois elements of a worker's persona had to be stripped away to arrive at a state he called "little me", from which it would be possible to build a new personality, centred on a socialist identity. In this "ego stripping" process, members would be subjected to verbal attacks and personal criticisms by the entire group, until they broke down. This, LaRouche argued, was the point at which an individual "abruptly 'breaks free' as if from a drugged state; a sudden personality change occurs, in which the group sees the real person come forth, assume control of himself, or herself, and bring the ego-state under control." LaRouche therefore viewed the process as "an act of social love."

LaRouche might pick a random candidate for an ego-stripping session, but as in other leftist groups, ego-stripping sessions were also sometimes used on workers who had failed to perform some task satisfactorily. One member who left the movement, Christine Berl, later described the experience as "pure psychological terror." In one session which LaRouche attended personally, Chris White, a 26-year-old British NCLC member, ended up claiming that he had been tortured by the CIA and British intelligence, and programmed, in the manner of The Manchurian Candidate, to set up LaRouche for assassination. LaRouche activists, convinced of the veracity of the confession, sent a tape of the deprogramming to The New York Times. Group members subsequently underwent training on how to detect other agents like White, and how to withstand the sort of torture they believed White had been subjected to. In the words of April Witt, writing in The Washington Post, "brainwashing hysteria" took hold of the movement. One activist said he attended meetings where members were writhing on the floor saying they needed de-programming.

Another activist, Alice Weitzman, expressed skepticism about the CIA claims. According to Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth, LaRouche sent six members to her apartment, where she was held captive and forced to listen to Beethoven at high volume, because LaRouche believed Beethoven's music could de-program agents. Weitzman scribbled a plea for help on a piece of paper, and threw it out of her window. A passer-by contacted the police, who freed her, but she declined to press charges.

Any good? --JN466 22:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely an improvement. However I think that it underplays the importance of the Chris White matter in LaRouche's own biography. The Royko article, which cites a Newsweek article, depicts the Chris White incident as a key event in LaRouche's life, while this draft makes it seem more like just an example of a typical deprogramming session. It doesn't mention that LaRouche's common-law wife, Carole Schnitzer/Larrabee/LaRouche/White, had left him to be with White. I've compiled and sorted in Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research#"Ego-stripping" and brainwashing the relevant sources cited in a previous section, but have omitted the King book (because those references are so voluminious) and the two relevant New York Times' articles (because I'd have to transcribe them). Have you had a chance to read all of that material? Another detail is that the NYT and King discusse the Weitzman kidpnapping, so attributing it just to Tourish and Wohlforth seems unnecessary. Those two issues could be fixed with relatively minor changes.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement that LaRouche's ego-stripping technique was derived from "New Age" movements should be deleted from the draft. First, I believe its unsourced (I don't recall ever seeing the claim anywhere), and even if a source can be found I would argue that it's sufficiently dubious to be left out. LaRouche more likely got the techniques from the Trotskyist movement; indeed, he talks about their use by Gerry Healey, leader of a British Trotskyist cult, but says he (LHL himself) was already wise to that game when he encountered Healey in 1965 (the quote is cited in my book). This statement by LaRouche strongly implies that his method emerged out of cadre development techniques he had observed in the SWP and various SWP splinters in the U.S. (certainly LaRouche would have gone nowhere near the criticism/self-criticism sessions of Maoist groups or the libertarian version of attack therapy practiced by Ayn Rand and Allen Greenspan in the 1950s). Also, LaRouche's "Beyond Psychoanalysis," the work which provided a theoretical justification for ego-stripping, reveals the influence of Freud as a starting point for LHL's own projective fantasies about pit creatures and evil mothers--but I never saw any evidence therein of New Age influences.--Dking (talk)

Hmm ... the sources are Tourish/Wohlforth p.73—"In the summer of 1973, learning from the confrontational therapy of the New Age psychology cults, LaRouche began holding 'ego-stripping' sessions. (See discussions of this same process as used by the Workers Revolutionary Party, the Democratic Workers Party and the New Alliance Party.)"—and King :)—"The ego stripping sessions were similar to the confrontational therapy practiced by psychological cults." I take your point that "derived" may be too strong a word, but I think it is worth mentioning that this type of confrontational therapy approach was part of the zeitgeist 35 years ago, as you pointed out yourself. (I've amended it above; I'd really like to say "Human Potential movement" rather than "New Age" movement, but that's not in the source.) --JN466 08:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Will, I appreciate the point about the potential personal element between White and LaRouche. Do propose a fix. Although if there are sources attributing such importance to this event (Dennis does too), then we could also think about covering it differently, i.e. as a section in its own right, and not as an example of ego stripping. If this comes after the ego stripping section, then the deprogramming session can be mentioned and the reader will already have had information to put it in context. Thanks for the pointer to the sources; I hadn't seen that page yet. JN466 08:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that it looks OK, except for "techniques similar to those used in some New Age movements," which I think is OR. I don't see that in the article, and I think that LaRouche is generally harshly critical of "New Age movements." What I do see in the article is that the approach seems to be inspired by the writings of Christian Ehrenfels, Wolfgang Koehler and Max Wertheimer, so I think it would be fair to say "derived from Gestalt psychology." --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing "gestalt" mentioned in regard to LaRouche before. Source?   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree the New Age has to go then (I've taken the whole thing out above). I think Leatherstocking is right in that the "hot seat" method that we describe does have origins or parallels in Gestalt therapy. But we'd need a source connecting Gestalt to LaRouche. Failing that, all we have right now is "psychological cults" in our two sources, and that's a very POV term. Perhaps it's best just to leave confrontation therapy (incidentally, group confrontation therapy is still used today, especially in substance abuse programs).

Fred Newman, who was an associate of LaRouche's around this time, appears to have had similar concepts in his social therapy: "Proletarian or revolutionary psychotherapy is a journey which begins with the rejection of our inadequacy and ends in the acceptance of our smallness; it is the overthrow of the rulers of the mind" (from our article on him). --JN466 11:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion was based on the "Beyond Psychoanalysis" article, where he refers to Christian Ehrenfels, Wolfgang Koehler, Max Wertheimer, and Gestalt psychology in framing his argument. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We have adequate secondary sources and should avoid trying to interpret a complicated primary source on our own.   Will Beback  talk  17:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Attack therapy specifically mentioned in a secondary source? This, too, may be OR. I think the safest course of action may be a direct quote from the primary source, to avoid both OR and misrepresentation. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Choosing which text to quote, out of several thousands words, is a problem that amounts to original research. Let's just stick with the secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  02:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Two sources (above) mention "confrontational therapy". Yesterday, I created redirects from confrontation therapy and confrontational therapy, which were redlinks, to attack therapy, as I found sources equating the two. The attack therapy article is currently very one-sided and negative; I've added some material, but it can still do with having balancing viewpoints added. --JN466 11:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've dropped the proposed text in, except for the section on White, where I retained the old text unchanged. Pls. review. --JN466 22:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks good,. Thanks for the effort.   Will Beback  talk  02:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Platform

Text

During each of the elections, according to the movement, LaRouche has campaigned for:

• a return to the 1950s Bretton Woods financial system;
• the replacement of central banking by national banking;
• a new and just world economic order and partnership among nation-states;
• an emphasis on the development of basic economic infrastructure, adequate food supplies, and the growth of per-capita productivity by investing in science and technology.

Discussion

This material, from an unsigned, undated webpage belonging to the Schiller Institute, is at odds with the material found in reliable 3rd-party sources, as collated here: Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche/sources#Platforms. For example, The New Bretton Woods proposal doesn't appear in sources until 1986. Further, several key planks, such as AIDS and SDI, aren't included. I suggest that this matter be left to the "Views" and "Presidential campaigns" articles, where we can spend more space discussing the various LaRouche platforms.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There are several fallacies in your presentation. First of all, the fact that something doesn't appear in third-party sources doesn't mean that it is "at odds" with them; it may simply mean that it was omitted. Secondly, in the Schiller Institute summary, the term "New Bretton Woods" is not used -- it simply says "a return to the 1950s Bretton Woods financial system." Based on what you have posted elsewhere, I suspect that you were searching for the term "New Bretton Woods", and LaRouche may have advocated the policies of the original Bretton Woods System for some time before coining that phrase. There is reason to believe this to be the case, because you have said elsewhere that you have found numerous references to LaRouche advocating a gold standard, and from what I have seen, the version that he advocates is the one associated with the Bretton Woods System, so the references you found will likely corroborate what is in the Schiller summary.

Issues such as AIDS and SDI were clearly important during particular years, but this purports to be a survey of issues that were common to all campaigns, an the survey is entirely plausible because LaRouche is first and foremost an economist and those seem to be his core economic policies. A big neutrality problem in the present version of this article is that it is slanted toward criticism and allegations of misconduct, with very little reference to the policies and goals that LaRouche advocates. Deleting this brief summary makes the problem worse. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Policies and goals have an article of their own - see Views of Lyndon LaRouche. This article is for events.

As for the source of the material itself, it's an unsigned, undated article. We have dozens of reliable third party sources for the political platforms of LaRouche, so quoting a low quality primary source is not necessary. I've begun to compile the sources into a summary, User:Will Beback/Sandbox. If you'd like to help I can move it out of my user space.   Will Beback  talk  16:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dennis King's "British = Jewish" theory

In this edit, Will Beback removed the rebuttal to Dennis King's theory, without removing the theory itself. The edit summary notes that the rebuttal is also in another article, without noting that the theory is also in both articles. I am restoring the rebuttal. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What text do we have that mentions King's theory?   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no further response, I'll again remove the King material and the rebuttals, which are now copied into the "Views" article.   Will Beback  talk  19:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you found the text which mentions King's theory. It should not be removed; it has generated more discussion in third-party sources than any of the other allegations. Also, now that the bio of King has been deleted, the readers need to know something of the controversy around his claims, since so much of the article is sourced to King. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The "View" article is devoted to this stuff. You yourself copied the material over there. There is no need to have it duplicated in both articles. You appear to be adding the material just in order to attack it. As for your edit summaries of " restore sourced material" - the mere fact that the material is sourced is not sufficient. As I know you're aware, there is plenty of material that we can source, but that doesn't mean we need to include it all in this article. The section on LaRouche anti-semiticism could fill an entire article on its own. Let's keep the section short and without redundancy, and have the main discussion in the "Views" article.   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• The material restored here seemed repetitive, saying the same thing several times. I've tried to put it more succinctly. --JN466 22:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the material is covered at length in Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Zionism, Jews, and the Holocaust, we should keep the section here as short as possible.   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

United States v. Campaign National Broadcasting Company Inc

• ... leading to a precedent-setting appeal that concerned the right of journalists to withhold unbroadcast interviews.
  • [218 F3d 282 Hurshel Ashcraft v. Conoco Incorporated Cory Reiss Kayo Oil Company] 218 F.3d 282 (4th Cir. 2000)

This is slightly interesting, but has really nothing to do with LaRouche. The sourcing isn't strong. Why are we adding this?   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the cited appeals case actually refers to another case, so it isn't a source for the assertion. Is there any sourece that says this case set a significant precedent?   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you added it. Based on the source, what you added seems accurate. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And I deleted it. You re-added it, so it's yours now. Please quote the text that supports the statement, because I don't see it. You may be confusing two separate cases.   Will Beback  talk  19:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Exclusion of Webster Tarpley

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

Unresolved neutrality issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a chapter from a book by Dr. Yuri Gromyko which would be a useful source: [7]. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Here is information about the book's publisher, and these [8][9] are about the book's author. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Taking the first link: when I click on "About the Institute" I'm taken to a page with a long essay written by Yuri Gromyko.[10] So is the institute under the control of Gromyko? If so, then the book would qualify as self-published. Checking another link, I see Gromyko described as a psychologist. Is he competent to discuss economic theories or weapons systems?   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This page apears to be an autobiography of Gromyko.[11] In it, he says,

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

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

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

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

I would question that too. [12] When it comes to LaRouche's involvement in SDI development, which seems to be the main topic addressed by the chapter, I believe we have more reliable sources closer to events in the US to draw on than this one. --JN466 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

FEF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kronberg

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

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

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

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

I tried to invert the chronology, but I coouldn't make it work in drafts so I simply trimmed the existing material instead.[13]. It's now reduced from 321 words to 229, by a rough count. I wouldn't mind cutting the last two sentences too: the tidbit about the attorney and even the LPAC view. That would cut it down to about 174 words.   Will Beback  talk  10:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change in lead

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

"Economist"

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

• Mr. LaRouche, an 80-year-old economist, has raised more than $3.7 million over the years, much of it through small donations and the Internet. -- "Washington: Solid Fund-Raising By Lyndon Larouche," New York Times, [15], May 3, 2003

"Leading economist" in Russia

• And, as indicated by many prominent scientists, such as L. LaRouche, GA Odum, MA Schlesser, and others, leads to a global monetary and financial collapse. -- Kuznetsov,Oleg L., Bolshakov, Boris E., Ryabkova, Svetlana, "The idea of Nursultan Nazarbayev - a democratic future designer,"[16], Interfax, October 17, 2009
• ...the greatest American economist --Shishov, Tatania, ""Globalization - Greatest Scam of the Twentieth Century," Russia Today[17], June 29, 2008
• ... the famous economist Lyndon LaRouche -- Voice of Russia, August 18, 2006[18]

"Founder of Physical Economics"

• In April 2006, of America once again came the voice of a well-known dissident and founder of the movement of physical economy Lyndon LaRouche -- Centrasia.ru, July 27, 2006[19]
• Lyndon H. LaRouche, the founder of physical economics -- the late Russian economist Pobisk Kuznetsov, paper available at his memorial site [[20]]
• The fact that the U.S. financial system moves toward a catastrophe, since the 1990's in a loud voice saying economists - the supporters of "physical economy", which are grouped around the Lyndon LaRouche. --KM.RU news, July 10, 2009 [21]
• The founder of a new direction in economic science, which he described as the physical economy.--Polar Star magazine, undated [22]

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

Just noting here that Leatherstocking tried to move this thread behind an older one. [23] He didn't say why. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Acquaintance of mine over on de:WP says he participates in Wikipedia because to him it beats watching soap operas on TV – Wikipedia is the soap opera he can be in himself. It looks like it is beginning to attract a viewing public: [24] The thing that is worrying is that the stuff we write today might still be here in ten or twenty years. Given that I cringe today at much of what I wrote twenty (or even three) years ago, quite possibly I'll cringe in twenty years at what I write today. On the other hand, it is unlikely I'll still cringe in 40 years. Perhaps the entertainment will continue for the Internet archaeologists of the future. "An analysis of early 21st-century cultural and intellectual values, based on archives from the founding decade of Wikipedia." --JN466 03:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Jay, i certainly love your view. I had the same idea some weeks ago, but i cannnot help but watching, reading and enjoying this for whats it worth. *hands over popcorn* 81.210.198.46 (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Platform

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

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

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

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

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

I see that most of the material is copied from this page.[25] It says:

• По материалам сайта www.larouchepub.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Let's take a step back and look at what is going on here. You have now reached the point of edit warring[26][27][28][29], in a biographical article, to exclude coverage of the presidential campaigns of a guy who ran for president 8 times. At the same time, you demand the inclusion of material like "Jeremiah Duggan," whom the subject never even met, and whose only connection to the subject is innuendo from LaRouche's critics. This is like Alice in Wonderland. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC);

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

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

It would be entirely appropriate to have LaRouche's campaign platforms mentioned in his BLP. But Will is right in that sources like zvezda.ru can't be it. Did no one in the US report on his campaign platforms? If there is really no American third-party source for them, did LaRouche not at least publish them himself at the time? --JN466 02:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The platform is mentioned in the article. It's the full discussion of the platforms (plural) that beloings on another article. Either Views of Lyndon LaRouche, or possible Presidential campaigns of Lyndon LaRouche (though thaty is complicated because many other people ran on those platforms too). There are numerous reliable sources in the U.S. that wrote about the platforms. See Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Campaign platforms. Using those, I've compiled a better sourced, more comprehensive list at Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Campaign platforms.   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks a lot more together, sourcing-wise. As a compromise, could we perhaps agree to mention a few additional representative points here in this BLP, so that in terms of space given to this aspect we meet somewhere in the middle between the two versions established by the to-and-fro edits? --JN466 03:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise, I added a summary of the platforms.[30] Some folks never seem to acknowledge compromises.   Will Beback  talk  04:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. The recent edit-warring I saw was between the one-sentence summary and the eight-bullet-point summary. [31]. Given that he's known as the perennial presidential candidate, the summary of his presidential platforms in his BLP could reasonably be expected to be a little longer than one sentence giving four policy examples, even while there may be no need to reproduce the full list as given in the subarticle. --JN466 04:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

For example, why not mention his opposition to gay rights, environmentalism and abortion? While we briefly quote one observer later on opining that LaRouche has shown "hostility" to gay rights and environmentalism, reporting the perception of such hostility, attributed to a single named commentator, is not quite as strong as reporting that LaRouche made opposition to these initiatives part of his campaign platform. --JN466 04:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Abortion, gay rights, and environmentalism haven't been the most prominent parts of the platforms, so that's why they aren't mentioned. AIDS, SDI, building nuclear power plants, etc - those are the more prominent planks. Have you read over the sources?   Will Beback  talk  05:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise even further, and expand the space to it. More than the space devoted to it the problem is the unbalanced material - it's not a common view of LaRouche's platforms. We can deal with more viewpoints on the "Views" page, but saying, for example, that he's had pro-Russian platforms when some of his platforms favored dramatically increased military spending in anticipation of imminent war with the USSR is "counterfactual". We don't need a big bullet pointed list either - a long sentence or two, or even three should suffice. We should also mention how those platforms have been described. But the first step is to drop zvezda.ru as the main source.   Will Beback  talk  07:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Presidential campaign platform info

Please provide a legitimate, policy-based rationale before deleting this material again. Will Beback gave the edit summary of "already covered in 'Views' article." If your argument is that it should only appear in one article, please explain why:

• The section on "Kenneth Kronberg," which had little to do with LaRouche's biography, is presently featured in four articles, including this one
• The section on "Operation Mop-up," which had little to do with LaRouche's biography, is presently featured in four articles, including this one
• The section on "Jeremiah Duggan," which had nothing to do with LaRouche's biography, is presently featured in four articles, including this one

Are you contending that LaRouche was less personally involved in his presidential campaigns than with these other episodes? --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The platform hasn't been deleted. Just the opposite: I've expanded it at Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Campaign platforms, leaving a short summary at this page. Let's discuss that short summary and make it better. Let's not keep adding unbalanced material based on a poor quality source.   Will Beback  talk  07:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

::Please don't evade my question above. The fact that platform information appears in "Views" is no reason to exclude it from this article, where it is extremely relevant. Of the issues which make LaRouche notable, as summarized in the lead, we have his criminal conviction, well covered in the article, accusations made by his critics, abundantly covered, and his presidential campaigns, virtually ignored in the article. What "unbalanced material based on a poor quality source" are you talking about? I count 16 sources in that section, most of which were added by yourself. If you are attacking "Polar Star," I provided information per your request at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Platform, and you did not respond to it. You're welcome to take it to RSN. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC);

Leatherstocking says that "Operation Mop-up had little to do with LaRouche's biography"????? This transformative event in the history of the LaRouche organization (the organization that has been LaRouche's lifework) is to be dismissed as something trivial? Anyone can go to the mainstream media from the period in question--or to the microfilm of LaRouche's New Solidarity from that period--and see that LaRouche was personally the instigator of Mop-up.

And Ken Kronberg had "little to do" with LaRouche?? Wait a minute, wasn't Kronberg the loyal follower who started a printing business and became responsible for printing most of the propaganda, books, magazines, etc. on which LaRouche's reputation (such as it is) was built over a thirty-year period?

And Jeremiah Duggan had "nothing" to do with LaRouche's bio? Hmmm...who set up the indoctrination/brainwashing program--and inculcated in his followers the Jew hatred and conspiratorial paranoia--that set in motion the events resulting in Duggan's death?

The above remarks by Leatherstocking show that he or she is not a serious person and is incapable of even a modicum of intellectual honesty. Why, then, is LS allowed to continue tyrannizing over this page, removing entire chunks at will when no one is looking, inserting all kinds of sly propaganda, and wasting other editors' time with constant administrative complaints? I suggest that LS and other LaRouche editors be treated like the cranks who try to turn Wiki science articles into a vehicle for their bugbears. Scientists on Wiki give short shrift to such interventions. It's time to start treating LS and the rest of the LaRouchians in the same way--as the equivalent of flat-earthers.--Dking (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Even fringe topics should be described with a neutral point of view. However articles on fringe topics should not give the impression that the topics are mainstream. See WP:FRINGE. We have great articles on Flat Earth and the Flat Earth Society.

I agree with the other points, that Mop up, Duggan, and Kronberg are relevant to this biography.   Will Beback  talk  19:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's terminology seems to be a problem. Describing something in a relatively even-toned, cool manner in an article is different from having a neutral "point of view." Should Wiki editors actually be "neutral" on the factual issue of whether or not the earth is flat, or whether or not the Holocaust took place? If so, Wiki would be way outside the bounds of mainstream scholarship, of science, or even of J-School "objectivity." I don't think this is what you meant, but Wiki needs to replace the term "point of view" with something more precise.--Dking (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

To Leatherstocking: The platform material hasn't been deleted. Just the opposite, it has been expanded in another article, with a summary left here. That's the right way to proceed, rather than duplicating long sections of material in both a parent and child article. Per the discussion above #Platform, we can improve that summary. However the material you keep restoring is not good. First, that Russian website is not the best source for the political platforms of an American politician. Second, the actual article that is being proopsed for a source is dubious, and you've never responded to my questions about it. Third, that article provides a very unbalanced catalog of the LaRouche platform's main points over the years. So let's leave a short, sentence or two-long summary at this page,and provide a complete explanation of the platforms at the "Views" article.   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise, and to improve the coverage of LaRouche's platforms, I've replaced the poorly sourced singhle listing with well-sourced text covering the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. While some planks were kept from decade to decade, there were other elements that were added or dropped so a single listing is less useful.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

::You have yet to explain what you found to be "poorly sourced" or "unbalanced" about the material you deleted."Polar Star" is a reliable source, and I do believe I answered your questions about it. If you have a problem with a specific assertion, say so, and we can take it to RSN. I found your material on the 1976 campaign to be useful, and I retained it. However, I disagree with your deletion and/or dispersal of the other material. It should be consolidated in one place to provide a coherent overview of LaRouche's policy outlook, which didn't change much from year to year as far as I can see. I have reconstituted it at the entry for the 1980 campaign. Your "dispersed" version of the platform information made it relatively incoherent, instead of presenting it in an organized form that the reader may assess. Please specify your objections, and we can discuss them. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC);

The material I added is well-sourced, and comprehensive. I don't see any reasons why three decades of platforms should be covered in one paragraph, or why if it is it should be a skewed version from a Russian source. WP:BLP calls on us to use the best sources, not the worst. Since you seem to be insistent that you have answered my questions about the Russian website, I'll post it agin here. Please answer them before restoring it again:

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

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

I see that most of the material is copied from this page.[32] It says:

• По материалам сайта www.larouchepub.com

In other words this material appears to have been copied off of a LaRouche website. If we're going to have platform information, please let's use reliable secondary sources and let's make sure it is reasonable comprehensive.   Will Beback  talk  04:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

::::The article clearly refers to LaRouche's platform; the preceding paragraphs address specifically, first, the inevitability of financial crisis as a "leitmotif" in his 1976, 1980 and 1984 campaigns; the next paragraph deals with scientific proposals during the same period; the paragraph after that, new developments in the 1988 and 2000 campaigns. The section which follows, which I summarized, is a survey of common elements from all of those campaigns. The fact that both "Polar Star" and "Spekulant" cite LaRouche publications as a source is not a bad or surprising thing; presumably all the US Press articles that you prefer as sources learned about LaRouche's campaign platform from LaRouche sources as well. As I recall, the reason you wanted secondary sources was to establish the notability of the material, and that standard has been met. I would also draw your attention to the material SlimVirgin added from Anthony Lerman, who, like Polar Star is not an American source -- if you read what he wrote about LaRouche, it is clearly nothing more than recycled Dennis King, whom he cites as his source. I hope I have now answered all your questions, and if you wish to contest Polar Star as a source, then we should go to RSN. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC);

The whole anti-semitism section is still due for an overhaul per a previous discussion, so I'd rather not get into that until we're ready to devote our attention to that.

It appears that the "Polar Star" profile is copied from the Spekulant article.   Will Beback  talk  05:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As a stopgap measure until we can agree on a final verion, I've copied in the material from "Views". Since we have that there, the material here should be a shorter summary of the material there. There are ample reliable, secondary, English language sources so let's use those first.   Will Beback  talk  07:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Villains and conspiracy theories

I restored the wording that the oligarchs are the "villains in LaRouche's conspiracy theory." "Villains" is really a quite mild word considering that LaRouche has called them an alien species outside the human race that is plotting to destroy the human race (Leatherstocking managed to quietly remove that quote from this article a couple of weeks ago). LaRouche has also said they are plotting to kill billions of people and bring about a dark age in which we'll all be their slaves. And that they are a hundred times worse than Hitler and make Hitler's deeds look like small mistakes. It is clear they are "villains" in his mind. As to "conspiracy theory," LaRouche has never denied that he believes in a conspiracy theory of history--his major essay on history is entitled "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites." Virtually every outsider who has written about him in any depth, whether in journalism or in academia, has defined him as a conspiracy theorist. It is the ONE thing about him on which there is almost no disagreement. Leatherstocking's attempt at censorship here is ludicrous.--Dking (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. The citations for all this are in the chapter notes to Chapters 6, 28 and 30 of Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism.

Also, Leatherstocking's wording gave the impression that LaRouche talks about "oligarchies" (plural). But in most LaRouchian writings there is only one oligarchy, dating back roughly to the days of the Babylonian Captivity and having headquarters in various urban locations before ending up in London and operating internationally through various puppets and tools--or embracing various subdivisions such as the "Black Guelph aristocracy" who could easily be confused for a separate oligarchy by a hasty reader. If you want a separate oligarchy apart from the Big One, you have to go back to LaRouche's crank theories about the Aryans at the North Pole, the evil dark-skinned Dravidians, the rulers of Lost Atlantis, etc. Somehow I don't think Leatherstocking wants to go there.--Dking (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If we're citing Goldwag then we should limit ourselves to what is in that source. If there are other sources with relevant assertions then we should cite them. While I agree that "villain" is an appropriate term in this context, it'd be best to use that term with support from a source.   Will Beback  talk  04:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick check of the reference archives finds these, all in reliable secondary sources:

• Another villain is Secretary of State George Shultz. The LaRouche newspaper, New Solidarity, recently advised, on the Nicaragua question: "Wouldn't it be more sensible - and a whole lot more fun - to 'support George Shultz' and his allies by organizing an old-fashioned necktie party on the steps of the State Department? There's no need to break the law, of course. Let's give Shultz a fair trial first - and then hang him."
• Its list of villains include the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Paul Volcker, David Rockefeller, the National Education Association, the Soviet Union, "drug banks," international cartels, gays, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, Henry Kissinger, the Eastern establishment, Aristotle, George Shultz, W. Averill Harriman, the State Department, "Religious Zionism," the Club of Rome, the Gramm-Rudman Act and Donald Regan. The heroes are a more select lot. Among them: Henry Clay, Pope John Paul, Plato, Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln - the latter two because they authorized deficit spending, which LaRouche people say government should do again. Plato is revered because he preached absolutes while Aristotle wallowed in relativism.
• Forrest Lee Fick, an FBI informant and former Ku Klux Klansman who used to handle security chores for LaRouche, told NBC News in April that some in the LaRouche organization also discussed killing Henry Kissinger, an arch-villain in the LaRouche world view.
• But the villainous Rees-Mogg is no more than an accomplice to the real Napoleon of Crime, otherwise known as Prince Philip. According to LaRouche, the royal family wants to terrorise the United States into becoming a British colony again, thus giving the House of Windsor a monopoly in the American cocaine market. The only person powerful enough to foil this plot was the Princess of Wales, which is why she had to be eliminated.
• Among the villains was Kissinger, said to be the servant of oligarchs "far worse than Hitler . . . nasty, evil."
• The Plot pamphlet was followed by The Deregulation Hoax: The Conspiracy to Destroy the Trucking Industry and the Teamsters, allegedly written to order for officials of the Southern Conference of Teamsters. Both pamphlets depicted Senator Edward Kennedy as a major villain.
• But it's the villains who get the most attention. The ravings are directed primarily against the Rockefellers. In the subterranean world of right-wing politics/ hatred of the Rockefellers has become a dangerous obsession.

So the term is used to refer to those whom LaRouche see as negative influences on civilization.   Will Beback  talk  08:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing

One of the problems I've always had with this article is the dense way in which unknown names are added to the mix, and left unexplained. One of the things I tried to do when I last copy edited was to remove these wherever possible, but I see they're returning. For example: "WerBell was a friend of Willis Carto and a member of the Liberty Lobby whose periodical The Spotlight ran pieces favorable to LaRouche." To people familiar with the material, this isn't a problem. To most of our readers, I suspect it's a turn-off. Does it really matter that Werbell was a friend of X, who was a member of Y, which ran a magazine Z? Sometimes clearly it will matter, but I think we should minimize as far as possible. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We also need to get the length down again. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I have to admit I'm part of the problem, since the subject matter is so intricate it's easy to keep adding more and more. One answer is to move material into subsidiary or related articles. We can create new ones if need be, which may be the case because some of the existing subsidiaries, like Views of Lyndon LaRouche and LaRouche movement, are also filling up. And details that are too small should be deleted, though with some care to make sure they are truly trivial.   Will Beback  talk  07:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There's so much out there about him that it's tempting to keep on adding more details, I agree. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A handy little tool that I just discovered: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Speculation vs. Argument

The verb "speculate" as used to describe my argument that LaRouche uses "British" to designate "Jewish" in certain contexts, is LaRouchian POV. My argument is backed up by solid research; see chapter 29 of Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism [33] which not only cites examples from LaRouche's propaganda but also traces the historical antecedents in earlier ultra-right movements including the Nazis. It would be difficult to interpret in any other way the notorious picture of Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David (flanked by Kissinger and Milton Friedman) that illustrated a LaRouche article in the late 1970s or the recent picture showing George Soros (LaRouche's latest symbolic evil Jew) with the Union Jack behind his head. Or LaRouche's use of the terms "British (Rothschild)" and "Zionist-British organism." As to the antecedents of this game, I have posted many of my research findings on Lyndon LaRouche Watch--and other examples can be found at LaRouche Planet [34] along with examples of such LaRouchian anti-Jewish code words as "Synarchist," "Venetian virus" and "locusts."

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

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

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

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

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

:::Dking has made hundreds of edits over time to this article, many of which have violated NPOV. However, the COI policy also refers to self-promotion, which has been a chronic problem with Dking. --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC);

Past problems aren't a reason to add a tag - only current problems. If there is a problem with his edit then discuss it.   Will Beback  talk  07:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::Allow me to refresh your memory on this topic, by referring you to the last ANI discussion: [35] As far as current problems are concerned, as an administrator, you ought to recognize that his recent comments on this talk page violate both WP:NPA and also WP:BLP, which applies to talk pages as well as articles. Then, there's also the matter of Dking removing his own COI tag, which is a mini-COI in its own right. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC);

I don't see how that linked disucssion is relevant. If there is a NPA/BLP problem then the COI tag isn't the way to solve it. Was there anything wrong with what Dking added to the article? If not then there's nothing left to discuss here.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't necessarily agree with every detail of your argument, but it may interest you to know that the general gist of it is pretty much reflected in Wikipedia:Randy_in_Boise. --JN466 03:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. King, remember, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we don't care if LaRouche is anti-Semitic, a holocaust denier, a gay-basher, or anything else. We're here to try to give every topic a fair, neutral treatment. You have just admitted that you cannot be neutral about LaRouche. So, I suggest that you no longer edit LaRouche-related topics. Instead, please choose and edit topics about which you can be neutral. It's Wikipedia policy, and non-negotiable. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Cla68, you haven't shown yourself to be neutral on this topic but that doesn't mean you can't edit. Many issues thrive with the involvement of partisans. Both you and Dking are welcome to edit this topic so long as the edits are in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Dking hasn't violated any of those policies that I know of.   Will Beback  talk  05:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing of this page

This situation is farcical. Leatherstocking is adding sources in Russian and in Arabic (e.g. [36]), and it's not clear where his translations are coming from, or that the sources are notable. I think we need to insist on English-language sources, or translations published in secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems with foreign sources is that it's so hard to tell which ones are reliable. Here in the U.S., the Philadelphia Inquirer is a well-respected news source while the similarly named National Enquirer is a gossip tabloid. WP:BLP calls on us to use the best sources, not the worst. Plus there's the problem that no one here speaks these languages so we're relying on Google translations.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I really think we need to remove the ones that aren't discussed in secondary sources, unless they're in publications that we recognize as notable, though that doesn't solve the translation issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A third, distinct-though-related problem is that it is hard to tell the real source of some of the foreign reports. It appears that in some cases, both in the Chinese and Russian online media, reporters are copying information or passing along assertions from the LaRouche movement uncritically. The best example of that is the claim that LaRouche has made just nine forecasts since 1959, every one of which has come true. But it also applies to other self-serving claims that appear in LaRouche sources. If these sources are simply translating English materials from LaRouche publications, does that automatically make the information reliable? Yet we can't easily show that the information is simply copied because the wording is obviously changed in translation. Thus they are being used as "secondary" sources to cite claims of the LaRouche movement though they may be just parroting those same claims.   Will Beback  talk  09:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's circular sourcing. They're relying on the LaRouche movement for their information, then the movement cites those articles as evidence that what movement is saying is right or highly thought of. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::I don't know whether your accusations are correct, but by the same token, many if not most of the newspaper articles the two of you have collected are simply recycled Chip Berlet or Dennis King. As Will is fond of saying, all we can do is summarize what is in reliable sources. --Leatherstocking (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC);

But that's the problem - are these sources actually reliable about this topic?   Will Beback  talk  17:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It took some work to find it, but it is as I suspected. http://www.zvezda.ru/dossier/13/profile_61.htm is copied from http://www.larouchepub.com/russian/pdf/valspek11.pdf. Considering what a gross error this is I am not going to accept any more foreign language sources that are not obviously reliable accoirding to Wikipedia standards. This is ridiculous.   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved the Pirogov sentence down to the "Russian" section in compliance with WP:V, which says that:

• English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available.

We have plenty of English-language sources for LaRouche's life history. The only thing this source is needed for is the author's opinion. He's Russian, and so it belongs with the views of other Russians.   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Leatherstocking, please stop adding bare URLs, Russian-language, Chinese-language, undated sources, and dead links. All you achieve is to add extra work for other editors, who have to check and then invariably remove them, either because no one knows what they say, or because the links are dead and they can't be saved because you didn't add a citation. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations

This is the bit I don't like. :) I'll go along with it if others want the Harvard refs to jump to the full citation, but ... yuck. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but those citation templates are out of the text so they're not as obtrusive. If you keep moving simplifying the inline citations, and moving the main cites to the citation list, then I'll do the conversion some time in the future. In the long term, I think that it'll really help bring the article to a higher level and encourage better citation standards.   Will Beback  talk  05:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. What I dislike about the templates in the References section is that, when you're adding new refs, scanning for the alphabetical position doesn't work, because they all begin with C. It's a small point, I know, but when you're adding lots of refs, it can be frustrating. But I'll go along with it. (Note: this is the first time in the history of WP I've agreed to citation templates; cue dark skies, forked lightening, screams emanating from the deserted castle on the hill). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, this article will someday achieve some stability and we won't be adding lots of refs anymore. I know that sounds unbelievable, but if SlimVirgin can agree to try citation templates then anything is possible.   Will Beback  talk  06:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)