Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 25

Source request

What is the source for this—"Renata Tebaldi and Piero Cappuccilli attended Schiller Institute conferences"—and what does it say exactly? I'm wondering whether a secondary source said they did attend, or whether the source reported that the Schiller Institute said they attended. There's a Richmond Times-Dispatch article cited, but I can't read it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is video footage of Piero Cappuccilli participating and performing at the Schiller Institute Conference. I recommend to listen to it, it is very beautiful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwNntY4BTdw 81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this material would be more relevant in the Schiller Institute article.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't see any indication that it was in the Schiller Institute. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a Schiller-Institute article about the entire event in Milan,1988 http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/1980s/conf_88_milan_tuning.html which reads "Piero Cappuccilli took the microphone at this point, and not only explained why high tuning is destroying all the original color and significance of Verdi's operas, but also gave two concrete examples which were clearer than any explanation: one from the opera Ernani and the other one from Il Trovatore in which the baritone is forced by high tuning to incorrectly pass the register before the E-natural, as a result of the effort on his vocal cords. He gave the two examples twice, first singing with the piano tuned to C=256, and not passing register, as Verdi wanted, and then with the piano tuned to A=440, indicating to the audience with his hand when the early passage occurred on E-flat ("Watch out for those E-flats," he said before singing it." and which corresponds exactly to what is happening in the video, Cappuccilli singing "Oh, de'verd'anni miei" from "Ernani" during a Schiller-Institute Conference. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• "But it took the Schiller Institute, headed by LaRouche's wife, Helga, to marshal the stars into an international campaign, says the latest issue of Opera Fanatic. It reports that a number of them - though not Sutherland, Domingo or Pavarotti - attended a conference launching the "Campaign to Lower the Tuning Pitch" hosted by the institute last year in Italy. [1]

• "Last year, at the Casa Giuseppe Verdi in Milan, the Schiller Institute, an organization that promotes a strong alliance between the United States and Western Europe, sponsored a conference promoting a return to the Verdi standard. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the institute, and the opera stars Renata Tebaldi and Piero Cappuccilli were featured speakers. As a result of the discussions, legislation modeled on the Schiller Institute petition and the Verdi legislation of 1884 is being debated in the Italian Parliament." [2]

These sources are cited, and you yourself have linked to them on this talk page, Slim. Please read the cited sources before questioning whether they say what they are cited for. The onus is not on me to read publicly available sources for you, although I will always be happy to provide you with a quote from sources that are not so available. --JN466 12:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the Schiller Institute ...

Slim, could I ask you to undo your insertion of "According to LaRouche's Schiller Institute" in "According to LaRouche's Schiller Institute, the initiative attracted support from opera stars such as Joan Sutherland, Placido Domingo and Luciano Pavarotti"? The source is not the Schiller Institute, but The Hour, quoting Opera Fanatic. [3] --JN466 15:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Does Opera Fanatic say they support it, or that the Schiller Institute says they do? Domingo, for example, simply signed a questionnaire and had no idea where it came from. He does not in any sense support LaRouche. So we have to word that very carefully. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The article already says "the initiative attracted support from opera stars such as Joan Sutherland, Placido Domingo and Luciano Pavarotti, who according to Opera Fanatic may or may not have been aware of LaRouche's politics; a spokesman for Domingo said Domingo had simply signed a questionnaire, had not been aware of its origins, and would not agree with LaRouche's politics." which I agree is a perfectly good wording. I wrote something much like it, yesterday, and you then tweaked it. The wording in the article is yours. It addresses your concern. What's wrong with it? Why are we still discussing Domingo? --JN466 22:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a documented history of the LaRouche movement pressuring people to sign petitions, for example concerning LaRouche's exoneration, without fully disclosing their affiliations or the background of the issues. I haven't seen anything about that in this case, but we do need to be careful about making too much of such assertions.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, these are conspiracy theories. We have reliable sources saying these singers backed the initiative, for musical reasons, and we even have a video of one of them singing at a Schiller Institute event. On the other hand, we have no source support at all for saying "According to the Schiller Institute." Can we please remove that now? --JN466 22:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jayen and second his request to remove the unsupported allegation. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thirded. We go with what the sources say, not your opinion on what is the truth. Silverseren^C 00:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Would "According to the gossip column in The Hour..." be more accurate?   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the "According to..." out, and added a citation to "Lyndon LaRouche's Pitch Battle; At Lisner, a Concert With A Verdi Special Difference" The Washington Post, May 27, 1989. This states,

"A list of those who have endorsed the bill reads like a "Who's Who" of opera singers. The Schiller Institute has collected more than 300 distinguished names, including Luciano Pavarotti, Placido Domingo, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Joan Sutherland, Peter Schreier, Montserrat Caballe', Marilyn Horne, Birgit Nilsson, Carlo Bergonzi, Sherrill Milnes, Christa Ludwig, Renata Tebaldi, Fedora Barbieri and Ruggero Raimondi. Some of the singers may agree with LaRouche's politics; Tebaldi and Barbieri are running for the European Parliament on his Patriots for Italy ticket, according to Zucker. But most seem simply interested in putting the high notes in easier reach."

This also has more background info on the whole thing. --JN466 01:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that other source. I don't think it's necessary to attribute information found in multiple sources.   Will Beback  talk  05:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Orchestras' pitches have risen since the 18th century, because a higher pitch produces a more brilliant orchestral sound, while imposing an additional strain on singers' voices. Giuseppe Verdi succeeded in 1884 in having legislation passed in Italy that fixed the reference pitch for A at 432 Hz, but in 1938, the international standard was raised to 440 Hz, with some major orchestras tuning as high as 450 Hz in recent times. For some background, see Abdella, Fred T. "As Pitch in Opera Rises, So Does Debate", The New York Times, August 13, 1989.

I propose moving this background material, now in a footnote, to Schiller Institute, where this initiative is already covered in great detail, and then providing a link there. The NYT article doesn't mention Lyndon LaRouche at all, thogh it does mention his wife, who is head of the Schiller. This article is already getting too overladen with the various initiatives and views of LaRouche. If we start trying to explain the background of them then the article could easily double in length.   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me; if we can lose a few bytes spent on tangential material, that's for the best. Part of this material is in Schiller_Institute#Music already, though uncited at present. --JN466 01:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We do have to stop expanding this, especially with material that's already alluded to elsewhere in the article. It was 8,500 words when I was last editing it, and I had intended to return to try to tighten it more. It's now 10,300, which is too long. That's especially true with all the citation templates. If we keep adding more, it will reach the point where readers won't be able to load it easily on certain kinds of devices. Also, LaRouche may do other things in future that will be worth adding, so we have to leave some space, as it were, for future developments. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates don't make the article any longer. If they're objectionable they can be replaced easily. But SV's overall point is valid. Ten thousand words is an upper limit for a readable article, in my opinion. We have a separate articles on the subject's movement and his views, so material on those topics should be kept to a minimum. This article should remain focused on the events connected to the subject life.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say ten thousand too as an upper limit. And I still haven't added the section I mentioned a while ago about his attitude to the British, which is key to much of his ideology. I can write a brief one by removing wordiness from elsewhere, and try to write it on those "borrowed" words. But I really hope we don't see any more expansion, unless they're absolutely key issues. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as the size of this following, it seems like we could just summarize the multiple sources by saying something like "the core membership has been between 500 and 2,000", and move the rest of the text to the movement article.   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved them to a footnote, but if you want to remove them entirely I don't mind. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've got the text back down under 10,000 words (9994), mostly by removing repetition and moving some quotes or lists into footnotes. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, please stop expanding the article. In particular, please don't copy material over from other articles, particularly not word for word. You're doing the same in the other direction. This will lead to you and others asking in future why there's repetition between the pages. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You yourself added 3,000 bytes between 15:03, 20 March 2011 and 03:17, 21 March 2011. The sentence on psywar techniques was one I had added to the other article myself, and I am perfectly entitled to use it here. Given that you have just created a section on attitudes of followers, it seems a worthwhile addition. Why do you object to my one sentence which I added? Do you have any objection to the wording? It is well sourced. --JN466 00:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

But I was tightening as I went along, so the article was no longer when I stopped editing than when I started, but it contained more information.

Yes, you're entitled to copy other people's work on WP word for word, and add it to every single article on LaRouche. But it's a poor editing practice, and it will bulk up this page unnecessarily, which is the last thing we need. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like that quote in the article, as it presents the LaRouche movement view, as described in an independent reliable secondary source. We give overwhelming room to critics otherwise in that section. Of course I see the problem with length, although we are still well within FA length territory. I'd also propose that we can drop "or as drug dealers, cretins, communists, traitors, and homosexuals" from the Attitude of followers section; we have almost exactly the same concatenation higher up in the article. (Or vice versa.) --JN466 00:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The LaRouche view is confirming the other view, so what does it add? The problem is that you're adding repetitive quotes and sentences, and sentences that don't really say anything, and the article is getting longer and longer. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It adds a bit more neutrality. I really like the way Johnson put that. Please allow me to restore it. Another sentence which we can lose from that section is the newly added, "Mintz writes that one of LaRouche's main themes is that the world is on the verge of destruction, and only LaRouche can save it, so long as he isn't assassinated first". We are making that point several times already. --JN466 00:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How does it add neutrality for them to acknowledge they're not "nice"? That's what the passage is saying. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the quote from the member that you wanted, [4] but it basically says the same as the quote directly after it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --JN466 01:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Platonism

Yes, but in Johnson's version it is them themselves who are saying it. It is interesting that they don't deny it.

Also, may I ask you, why do you keep turning the Platonism section back to front? [5] I have asked you to please use communicative edit summaries, but all you ever say is "tightened", "edited for flow", or "tidied". This makes it very hard indeed to follow your edits. Could you please be more communicative in your edit summaries?

The Platonism section is quite important. It is good practice to first state a view, and then to add critiques of it. The way you've turned the section around again does not follow that principle. --JN466 01:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, it's you who keeps turning it back to front. This is a recurring pattern. Something is in the article. You change it. Someone changes it back, or makes further tweaks to try to restore the sense or flow. You then ask them why they keep making changes, or say that they are doing a big rewrite. But it's you who is making the changes. :)

You keep removing who the oligarchs are, and adding sentences that have no content (e.g. that he's a conspiracy theorist and extremist, and that his view makes sense if you accept his premises, which is true of everything). The oligarchs have to start the section, because that's the whole point. There is a group in charge. They are bound by being Platonists (according to LaRouche's definition). They will take over entirely if LaRouche doesn't stop them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Well, you can't very well claim that, as it was me who first added this section. ;) You've deleted now for example (twice) Johnson's and George & Wilcox's assertion that the LaRouche world view is logically consistent once you accept its basic premise. Surely that is an interesting point in trying to understand the movement? Two reliable sources make that observation (while adding that it leads to paranoia, which you have also deleted). On the other hand, you retain things like George saying when "he wrote about LaRouche in The New York Times, LaRouche's followers denounced Johnson as part of a conspiracy of elitists that began in ancient Egypt." or long, long lists of all those supposed to be on the bad side in LaRouche's world. Now, to be clear, these sorts of statements and lists are not very weighty, they are more like one-liners or quips, are they not? They become tedious to read after a while, and are too much for the reader to take in. Do you see what I mean? --JN466 01:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Beginning with the oligarchs is back to front, because the whole theory of the oligarchs is based on the struggle between Platonism and Aristotelianism. If he didn't posit that dichotomy, he wouldn't have a logical basis for them, because, as he says, they are not a group, but disparate groups and individuals following the Aristotelian principle. --JN466 01:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It lacks content to say that LaRouche's view makes sense if you accept the premises: it makes sense if it makes sense, in other words. It's fluff.

It also isn't true that it's consistent. I tried to write about his attitude to philosophers but he keeps contradicting himself, and changing his mind about them (or just contradicting himself without noticing), so there really isn't anything consistent to hang onto. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The effect of the current presentation is to overwhelm the reader with tidbits, while failing to illuminate the underlying structure of his edifice. The reader is simply left shaking their head, thinking "What baloney". When I read Johnson, or George and Wilcox, it doesn't have that effect on me. I still don't agree with the philosophy, but I can see how it is constructed. Our article does not allow the reader that vision.

As for its lack of logical consistency, Johnson says "According to this logic, some of the weird juxtapositions in LaRouche's world view make their own kind of sense; George and Wilcox say, "This bizarre conspiracy theory applies to virtually every aspect of the world and is extended and twisted to apply to situations and examples that seem ridiculous on the surface but that make "sense" if one accepts LaRouchean premises. LaRouchean thinking is profoundly ideological." --JN466 01:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have started a thread at the content noticeboard to get some outside input on how best to present this aspect of the ideology: Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Lyndon_LaRouche_ideology_section --JN466 09:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed from the article

The following was commented out ("Making this invisible until a better source is found") and did not display. I don't know what the history of this material is, but if it doesn't display, it only adds bulk. I've removed it altogether.

New economic direction

Arthur Goldwag writes that, after the violent confrontations, LaRouche's economic ideas changed. He no longer described himself as a Marxist, but said his thinking was in "the tradition of what used to be known as the 'American System of political-economy'... typified by the policies of Benjamin Franklin,... U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, Philadelphia's Mathew and Henry Carey, Friedrich List, and President Abraham Lincoln." Goldwag writes that LaRouche talked about the struggle between "those forces which find their self-interest in national economy, such as farmers, industrial entrepreneurs, and operatives, against those oligarchical financial interests which loot the national economy through mechanisms of financial and analogous forms of usury."<ref>Goldwag, Arthur. [http://books.google.com/books?id=DDbM5GeMgXIC&pg=PA292 ''Cults, Conspiracies and Secret Societies: The Straight Scoop on Freemasons'']. Random House, 2009, p. 292.</ref> --JN466 21:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the source, it's more "Views"-type material. We should keep this article focused on chronological events.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think having it would add anything new, so I agree with your view. I've removed some more commented-out material to reduce article bulk: [6] --JN466 21:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Fick

I restored two deleted items, both well known. The Kissinger assassination allegation was the cause of a libel suit against NBC which was an important event in the subject's life. The SNL skit is famous.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added a balancing statement, from the same LA Times article.

The passage now reads:

(Added by Will:) In 1986, the Los Angeles Times writes, former security consultant Forrest Lee Fick told NBC that Paul Goldstein, a member of LaRouche's security team, had suggested killing Henry Kissinger. According to Fick, Goldstein said he had information about Kissinger's schedule and said they should place a bomb under his car. (Added by me:) [7] Goldstein denied the allegation; no such attack ever took place, and no charges were filed.

This is really quite a serious editing issue. If we have a source—

• quoting someone who alleges that Goldstein proposed murdering someone, and
• stating in the next sentence "Goldstein denied the accusations, no such attack was ever reported and no charges were filed."

then it is improper for us to report the allegation, but not report the fact that the allegation was denied, no crime was committed, and the person was not charged.

We had a similar case in the Operation Mop-up section; we reported that several LaRouche followers were arrested, but we did not report that none of them were convicted of any wrongdoing. We should be alert for cases like this, and edit conservatively.

As for the Goldstein passage itself, in my view it does not belong in LaRouche's BLP. Perhaps in LaRouche movement? It's unconfirmed hearsay about someone other than LaRouche. This is the sort of material we should look at jettisoning from this BLP if we want to keep its size manageable. --JN466 23:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions

I've just tried to clarify his election attempts in the lead; extended infobox a little; moved the elections to the start of the second para; made clear he wasn't connected to the Democratic Party; replaced the quote in the lead from his lawyer with a quote from him sourced to CBS; moved the Biological Task Force into position in 1973; added the detail about Legionnaire's disease; added King's book as the source of the lynching quote (as opposed to Berlet); some tidying for flow.

We're 54 words over 10,000, but I'm about to remove a para sourced only to LaRouche, so that will take us down again. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. [8] SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Looks good to me, except for the addition of the swine flu material; is this really necessary? It also doesn't quite summarise the source. You added:

"He issued a fact sheet on Legionnaires' disease that said it was swine flu, a link he said was being suppressed by several senators, including Edward Kennedy, Richard Schweiker, Jacob Javits, and Walter Mondale, as part of a "genocidal policy."

The source says:

Is the human spirit now sufficiently elevated that mysticism, xenophobia and prejudice are largely behind us? There are grounds for doubt. In late July 1976, a seemingly new disease appeared in persons attending the American Legion convention in Philadelphia. Legionnaires' disease was subsequently found to be caused by a newly discovered bacterium, and to have been around, unrecognized, for 20 years. In the six months between the outbreak at the Legion convention and isolation of Legionella pneumonophila, health authorities were deluged with theories of the disease's origin varying from the Jews (yet again) to eating infected pork.

Finally, the US Labour Party put out a two-page 'Fact Sheet' on the Philadelphia disease that was wholly bereft of facts. The Labour Party concluded that the malady was swine flu (which struck the United States that same year), and that this fact was being suppressed by Senator Edward Kennedy, and Senators Schweiker, Javits and Mondale, who had opposed the swine flu programme. The outbreak of 'swine flu' in Philadelphia would expose the Senators' position 'for the genocidal policy it in fact is'.

As a summary, this is too shorthand and misses important points; putting it right would add even more words. Can we agree to just drop it? I don't think it's essential. --JN466 23:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll do more research into this. LaRouche started talking in 1973 about epidemics that would wipe out humanity, and the Swine Flu thing was part of that. I'll do more reading to find out how it all fits in. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of my concerns: We don't say that Legionnaire's Disease was unknown to science, swine flu struck the US the same year, and that there were many theories at the time. We attribute this to LaRouche personally, while the source attributes it to the US Labour Party. Also, you asked me yesterday to stop adding new material to the article, but you go on adding new material yourself (while deleting material elsewhere). May I assume that this privilege extends to me, too? Otherwise it feels like a case of WP:OWN. --JN466 00:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In your edit, you also seem to have added the following:

and told reporters the party was "exploring every legal remedy to purge these bizarre and dangerous extremists from the Democratic ticket." A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee said it would have to do a better job of communicating to the electorate that LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee was unrelated to the Democratic Party.<ref>[http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=p54rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PvwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3574,4204889&dq=lyndon-larouche+perennial+candidate&hl=en "Win by LaRouche candidate shocks national Democrats"], Associated Press, March 20, 1986.</ref>

You re-added in the Ideology section:

after he wrote about LaRouche in The New York Times, LaRouche's followers denounced Johnson as part of a conspiracy of elitists that began in ancient Egypt.

Your edit summary was, "various; will list on talk shortly". Could I ask you again to use more informative edit summaries? The diffs are very hard and time-consuming to analyse.

As for Johnson's "ancient Egypt" quote, I don't think it is well placed in the Ideology section; I see it as a tangential one-liner. It does little to explain the ideology, and seems more apt to make it appear kooky. It seems, in fact, more like another instance of the movement's attacks on and denunciations of critics, which I would suggest are amply covered already. Could we please agree to drop this from the article, or at least the Ideology section? --JN466 00:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, please just read the diffs. That's what I do; I don't even look at edit summaries on an article like this. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this diff, it took me a half hour to figure out what exactly you had added, and I still may have missed some things. It's not necessary to edit this way; I would really appreciate it if you could help me out, as a fellow editor, and make your edits more transparent. --JN466 00:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I see this as arguing about nothing, Jayen, and I honestly can't keep up with the volume of posts. This diff is easy for me to read, and adding very detailed edit summaries listing everything wouldn't make it easier. Perhaps it's because I'm familiar with the content, or perhaps because I edit with more than one window open (one old and one new version, and one with diffs). But I do know that edit summaries are neither here nor there in this kind of situation.

The biggest obstacle for me is that it's taking nearly 30 seconds to load, and nearly 20 to see preview or diffs. Also, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't add my name to headers. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the same problem with slow loading. I've renamed the thread per your request. If you could respond to the points above, I'd appreciate it. --JN466 01:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please present an argument how the Johnson Egypt bit helps the reader understand the ideology, or allow me to delete it. If you would like to describe that LaRouche ascribes ancient roots to his ideology, then we could mention that he feels himself and his movement to be in the tradition of the philosopher-kings of Plato's Republic. Wouldn't that be more informative? The Egypt example, if you are really attached to having it in the article, could be used elsewhere, in one of the sections on denunciation of critics. --JN466 02:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fick (continued)

Jayen, have you read much about the Fick allegations on the NBC documentary about LaRouche? Are you familiar with the history of LaRouche's libel lawsuit against NBC? I would say that the allegation that the subject suggested assassinating public figures is not trivia. We can add numerous citations for this matter, everyone one of which is about LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Was either LaRouche or Goldstein ever charged and/or convicted in connection to this? Also, both the wording you inserted and the source you cite state that Goldstein was alleged to have suggested this. Goldstein is not the subject of this BLP. So I don't understand right now why you say the BLP subject was alleged to have suggested this. It's not supported in the source, from what I can see. What, if anything, am I missing here? --JN466 23:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We can reword it. I'll compile sources and see how best to phrase this. (BTW - I didn't actually write the text in question - I just restored it when you deleted it.)   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I see I was confusing the Kissinger assassination with the Carter assassination.

Fick was a close associate of Frankhouser. I think it'd make sense to put this material, leaving out Goldstein's name, in the pending Frankhouser section.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I note that both you and SlimVirgin are intent on expanding the article further. I hope you will both understand that I do not consider myself bound to heed requests to refrain from adding material myself because of the article's already large size.

Is it okay if I remove the Fick/Goldstein material for now? As written, it lacks a direct connection to the BLP subject. --JN466 01:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We discussed the Frankhouser issue previously, and I thought you said you agreed that it was important to the article. Frankhouser and Frick were close associates of LaRouche, and intimately involved in his financial and legal issues. I don't think the article should be longer, just that we need to make sure we include the most important events in his life, with each according to its appropriate weight.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As for overall length, we could move the entire large "Ideology" section to the "Views" article, leaving just a short summary behind. We can move most of the music stuff to the Schiller Institute.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see that moved. It's arguably the most important section. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's so important that we have an entire article devoted to it.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Slim here. I started the section because its absence was a glaring omission. It's fine to have a separate article devoted to it, but there should be an overview of it here. I agree that Frankhouser should be in the article, but the Goldstein snippet isn't it. I've removed it. No prejudice to reintroducing something about it, once there is surrounding material that makes it make sense to have it here. --JN466 02:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I started that section, Jayen. You moved it to the end, then you, Will and I expanded it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that section intended to be a summary of the "Views" article, per WP:SUMMARY? If so it's very incomplete.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the Views article rightly should contain many of his political and other views. These are distinct from his quasi-religious, Neoplatonist ideology, which should be the topic of this section. His views on the economy, politics and society crop up throughout the rest of the article. Does that make sense? --JN466 02:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a rather arbitrary distinction. If there weren't a problem with keeping the article under 10,000 words then it might not be an issue, but we're in a zero-sum situation. If we're going to include it let's make sure we're only including the most important aspects of his ideology, as determined by prominence in independent sources.   Will Beback  talk  02:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Neoplatonist philosophy underlies much of the rest; it is the basis to which the various conspiracy theories are anchored. Johnson devotes a whole chapter, 10 pages, to discussing it; George and Wilcox likewise devote significant room to it. Unlike LaRouche's views on specific political issues, it's not something that can be integrated in the timeline, as it requires a little room to give a comprehensible overview of. --JN466 04:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's such a notable topic then why don't we split it off into "Ideology of Lyndon LaRouche"? The concepts are so unusual and hard to describe that they'd benefit from having more space for development.   Will Beback  talk  05:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to Fick/Goldstein, research shows that Paul Goldstein was (and maybe still is) LaRouche's head of "Security Intelligence" and the Counterintelligence editor of EIR, and has been described as an "intimate" of LaRouche and one of his top aides. So he's not just a random follower or employee. There's quite a bit of info available about his activities on behalf of LaRouche. I'm still not sure how to best present the extensive material on Frankhouser, Fick, Goldstein, and the rest of the security team, or how much weight to devote to that topic, but I don't think we can say it's irrelevant to this bio or a coatrack. My guess is that a short-to-medium length paragraph in either "1984: NBC lawsuit" or "1986–1988: Raids, criminal conviction" would be suitable.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche, AIDS and scholarly research

Jayen added this to the article: "LaRouche associates proposed a program that would cost $100 billion per annum, which they said would have to be directed by LaRouche. Those opposing the program, like the World Health Organization, were accused of "viciously lying to the world", and of following a hidden genocidal agenda." Then:

Suggestions were also made that the HIV virus had been created in the Soviet Union, to destroy the United States. In the mid-1980s, some writings along these lines were accepted for publication in a number of respectable scholarly journals, lending a degree of scientific credibility to LaRouche's ideas. [9]

The source was Toumey, Christopher P. "Plague", Conjuring Science: Scientific Symbols and Cultural Meanings in American Life, Rutgers University Press, 1996, pp. 88, 188–189.

I can't see where Toumey says or implies that articles in scholarly journals lent scientific credibility to LaRouche's ideas. Jayen, can you post what the source says about that? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

John D. Seale, referenced in the Toume book, was apparently a follower of LaRouche before disavowing him.[10][11]   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Toumey makes clear here that Seale's publications were letters to the editor or speculative opinion pieces, and Seale is just one person.

Jayen's words implied that scientific papers had been published, and that there was more than one author: " ... some writings along these lines were accepted for publication in a number of respectable scholarly journals, lending a degree of scientific credibility to LaRouche's ideas." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the wording implies that more than one author was involved, but I'm happy to discuss how best to word this. The sentence "In the mid-1980s ..." was removed by another editor, and I discussed the passage with them yesterday on the editor's talk page.

The source says, "This line was developed in a series of papers by John R. Seale, MA, MD, MRCP, a London physician. Seale's explanation enjoyed a semblance of being hard science by virtue of the publication of his papers in very respectable scientific journals, including Nature and the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. On close examination, however, these papers turned out to be letters to the editor and highly speculative opinion pieces." Five publications are listed on pages 188–189 of the book (page 188 is available e.g. in amazon.com's Look Inside function, for those who have an amazon account); they include 2 letters to the editor, and 3 papers.

For reference, the papers were these:

• Pathogenesis and transmission of AIDS,
• Kuru, AIDS and aberrant social behaviour,
• Origins of the AIDS viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2: fact or fiction? Discussion paper.

Toumey asserts that these papers presented LaRouche's viewpoints concerning how infectious AIDS is, and the idea that it might have been artificially produced in the USSR, for discussion in mainstream journals. Toumey is a university press publication, and a highly reliable source for us to use.

So let's work on how to summarise what the source is saying. I would propose:

In the mid-1980s, some speculative writings along the aforementioned lines by a London physician were accepted for publication in a number of respectable scholarly journals, lending these ideas a "semblance of being hard science"

I notice that the section has been re-written since yesterday. It now mentions Toumey by name, attributing material to him, five times. I think for a university press publication, that is excessive. We should attribute statements where there are disparate views, but uncontested statements from high-quality sources can generally be stated as fact. For example, we don't say "According to Roderick, AIDS was a leading plank in LaRouche's platform during his 1988 presidential campaign." --JN466 13:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert (copied from DD2K's talk page) [12]

Hi, re this revert, the source says, "This line was developed in a series of papers by John R. Seale, MA, MD, MRCP, a London physician. Seale's explanation enjoyed a semblance of being hard science by virtue of the publication of his papers in very respectable scientific journals, including Nature and the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. On close examination, however, these papers turned out to be letters to the editor and highly speculative opinion pieces." Five publications are listed on pages 188–189 of the book; they include 2 letters to the editor, and 3 papers. A response to one of these can be seen here. Could we work on a better wording to summarise this? I would like to have this point in the article, following the reasoning of the cited source. Cheers, --JN466 15:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

For reference, the papers were these:

• Pathogenesis and transmission of AIDS,
• Kuru, AIDS and aberrant social behaviour,
• Origins of the AIDS viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2: fact or fiction? Discussion paper.

--JN466 15:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That is still one individual that is making claims that have been thoroughly debunked, in the very sources provided. I would liken it to Snopes or Factcheck.org citing Orly Taitz making claims about Obama's birth certificate. In any case, the wording I removed wasn't a revert, the text did not state what the source described. If something is added that does fit, I would guess it would be appropriate. Dave Dial (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the source is describing a historical situation; in the early 1980s much about AIDS was still very uncertain. Of course the claims did not hold up to scrutiny, but at the time, they were discussed. Here, to compare, is what I wrote, and what the source states:

• Me: "In the mid-1980s, some writings along the aforementioned lines were accepted for publication in a number of respectable scholarly journals, lending a degree of scientific credibility to LaRouche's ideas."
• Source: "This (LaRouche's) line was developed in a series of papers by John R. Seale, MA, MD, MRCP, a London physician. Seale's explanation enjoyed a semblance of being hard science by virtue of the publication of his papers in very respectable scientific journals, including Nature and the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. On close examination, however, these papers turned out to be letters to the editor and highly speculative opinion pieces."

I thought that was a reasonable paraphrase, given that the article states, three sentences further on: "The proposal was opposed by leading academics, who argued that it was 'based on patently inaccurate scientific information' and ran 'counter to all public health principles.'" We don't need to state that twice in close succession.

The best wording I can come up with to address your concern would be this:

• "In the mid-1980s, some speculative writings along the aforementioned lines were accepted for publication in a number of respectable scholarly journals, lending these ideas a superficial veneer of scientific credibility."

Would something like that do it? As a last resort, we could just quote the source: "a semblance of being hard science" --JN466 16:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would add anything about it, really. It was one person, Seale, who doesn't have an article here and doesn't seem notable. Not to mention any of the sources put forth are to either debunk Seale or criticize him. Dave Dial (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The LaRouche movement managed to get a referendum off the ground on this in California; this bit is part of the narrative in the source leading up to that. There was an agreement on the talk page that there should be more about the AIDS thing; this is what was in the source. <shrug> --JN466 19:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Could I ask that this discussion continue on the LaRouche talk page? That would mean others would see it and could join in. Also, does anyone object if I copy this there? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any problem at all with it being copied to the LaRouche talk page, it belongs there as a content dispute. Although I don't really have much more to say, the portion I removed was because it did not fit what the source stated. Dave Dial (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll copy it. You were right to remove it, because the source made clear these were not serious papers; it's being discussed on the talk page, so I'll add this there as a sub-section. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Letters to the editor and speculative opinion pieces

Jayen, can I ask you again to stop discussing this on multiple pages? There's no reason to talk to DD2K on his talk page instead of here.

Toumey made clear that there was just one author involved, and that he wrote only letters to the editor and highly speculative opinion pieces. You omitted that part, though it's clearly a key part. Can you say why you did that? The reason I ask is that LaRouche's ideas about AIDS receiving support in academic journals would be an extraordinary claim. See side-by-side comparison below. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Toumey 1996, p. 88 (emphasis added)

Jayen's edit

Furthermore, it was repeatedly suggested that HIV had been created in a Soviet laboratory, as part of a plot to destroy the United States. This line was developed in a series of papers by John R. Seale, M.A., M.D., M.R.C.P., a London physician. Seale's explanation enjoyed a semblance of being hard science by virtue of the publication of his papers in very respectable scientific journals, including Nature and the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. On close examination, however, these papers turned out to be letters to the editor and highly speculative opinion pieces.

Suggestions were also made that the HIV virus had been created in the Soviet Union, to destroy the United States. In the mid-1980s, some writings along the aforementioned lines were accepted for publication in a number of respectable scholarly journals, lending a degree of scientific credibility to LaRouche's ideas.

I am not aware of any policy or guideline forbidding editors to discuss an edit with an editor who made that edit on their talk page. If there is such a policy or guideline, please post it, and I'll abide by it. I considered mentioning Seale by name, and explaining that some of these writings were letters to the editor while others were papers, but I wanted to be brief. Basically, I did my best to summarise what the source says; if my summary can be improved, by all means let's do so. By the way, "This line" does not just refer to the immediate antecedent, but also the other points Toumey mentions before. That's apparent if you look at the papers in question. --JN466 18:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you live with the summary I offered above, in green? --JN466 19:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If someone reverts you this article, please discuss it with them on this talk page, not on a user talk page or noticeboards, then we can all join in. It's senseless to start multiple discussions.

I have to ask again: why did you omit the key part of the source material: " On close examination, however, these papers turned out to be letters to the editor and highly speculative opinion pieces"? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the section as it stood, it already contained information (also added by me) that these ideas were considered scientifically inaccurate by leading scholars. Basically, at the time this happened, there were widespread fears among the public about the infectiousness of AIDS. (Also mentioned in Toumey, two or three pages prior.) I remember people were afraid they might catch it off cups and glasses in restaurants, and scholars were afraid too just how infectious it might prove. It was in this climate that LaRouche's scaremongering found entry in reputable academic journals. Two of the pieces were letters to the editor, three were actual papers (linked above). Does the summary In the mid-1980s, some speculative writings along the aforementioned lines by a London physician were accepted for publication in a number of respectable scholarly journals, lending these ideas a "semblance of being hard science" address your concerns? --JN466 20:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You're still not saying why you omitted the most important sentence in that part of the source material, and you still want to omit it: that the "writings" were from one person, and were a letter to the editor and two speculative opinion pieces. They were not serious articles. I'm puzzled by your desire not to make that clear. And once it's made clear, there's no point in mentioning it in the first place. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Slim, they were two letters to the editor, and three papers, all of which were considered worth printing by these journals' editors. I linked the three papers above. I explained why I wrote it the way I did. I had made sure no reader could be left in any doubt about the scientific value of LaRouche's ideas, by including the sentence

'The proposal was opposed by leading academics, who argued that it was "based on patently inaccurate scientific information" and ran "counter to all public health principles."'

Do you have any outstanding objections to the wording In the mid-1980s, some speculative writings along the aforementioned lines by a London physician were accepted for publication in a number of respectable scholarly journals, lending these ideas a "semblance of being hard science"? --JN466 22:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I object to discussing peripheral issues. This is a biography of LaRouche, not a review of alternative theories of HIV. We have a whole article on LaRouche's views and initiatives. Let's keep this article focused on events.   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's no more peripheral than the fact that leading academics called the scientific basis of LaRouche's proposal patently inaccurate. What the source is pointing out is that these theories, however speculative, found entry and were discussed in top mainstream journals, which made them appear as though they were hard science ideas at the time. --JN466 03:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to say that specific facts about the papers being accepted into mainstream journals is unnecessary, then shouldn't that be true for the entire section? Shouldn't it all be moved to the Views article? Considering that the publishing of the papers was also an "event". Silverseren^C 03:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What papers are we talking about, precisely?   Will Beback  talk  05:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For reference, the papers were these. The second and third of these can be accessed in full online at the linked addresses.

Pathogenesis and transmission of AIDS,

Kuru, AIDS and aberrant social behaviour,

Origins of the AIDS viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2: fact or fiction? Discussion paper. --JN466 09:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And each of these mention Lyndon LaRouche by name? I don't see that. If they don't then how are they directly relevant to his biography? We have many, many available articles about LaRouche and AIDS, so if we want to expand the section we have more prominent sources we should use first.   Will Beback  talk  09:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, they don't mention LaRouche at all, and no one has proposed citing these papers. We are citing Toumey. --JN466 10:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There are all kinds of theories about the transmission of AIDS that used to go around. This article isn't about that topic. This is a biography of LaRouche. We have an entire article devoted to his views, which is where this kind of material is better suited. We even have an entire article devoted to his AIDS initiative. If we're going to have a a section as long as the weight deserves, let's keep it focused on what LaRouche did, rather than on what other people thought about AIDS. Toumey is an excellent source, but he's just one of many who have written about this topic.   Will Beback  talk  16:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As you know, Toumey raises this in the direct context of LaRouche's AIDS initiative. His account is the most complete and well-researched I have found. He gives a very good overview of how the initiative transpired, and considered this a relevant piece in the overall puzzle. We quote the other points he makes in that section; I see no valid reason to leave this one out. --JN466 16:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As I say, Toumey is a fine source and as long as we're summarizing him correctly there's no problem with adding his material to one or another article. Does anyone here mind having a 100,000 word long biography? If so then we need to be a bit judicious in what we add here versus what we add to the various related articles.   Will Beback  talk  17:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I see this as OR. The phrase in Jayen's proposed edit "along the aforementioned lines" suggests it was LaRouche's ideas that were being published (e.g. including that the IMF created HIV deliberately to wipe out "excess eaters"). If we're going to cite sources on these very contentious issues, we have to stick closely to what they say. But if we stick closely to what this source says about this doctor, it becomes clear there's no point in mentioning it, because it amounted to nothing; the doctor didn't refer to LaRouche; and there's no reason to believe he was thinking of LaRouche, or LaRouche of him. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Let us note that you inserted the "excess eaters" quote etc. in the middle of the Toumey material, well after the point in time when we had the "aforementioned" wording. The source refers to "this line", which is LaRouche's line.

If you like, we can put In the mid-1980s, some speculative writings by a London physician that followed LaRouche's line were accepted for publication in a number of respectable scholarly journals, lending these ideas a "semblance of being hard science"

In my view, it is important to note that LaRouche's ideas were aired in reputable journals. --JN466 19:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Which ideas of his exactly were aired in a scholarly journal? And by that I mean ideas that came from him, or that came to be closely associated with him, according to secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Toumey describes LaRouche's ideas on pp. 87–88. Of the papers he cites on page 88 as developing this line ("this line was developed")—

• This one states in its abstract, "It is already apparent that AIDS is the most lethal epidemic viral disease of humans known to medical science. Flaws in the generally accepted hypothesis that AIDS is a sexually transmitted infection are exposed. It has been, characteristically, a blood-borne infection in the early years of the epidemic. However, the AIDS virus is exceptionally unstable genetically and it is probable that means of transmission more efficient than through blood have already developed."
• This one argued that the AIDS virus was extremely perilous to mankind, the "ultimate virologial nightmare", that health authorities' responses to date had been bizarrely inadequate in stopping its spread, and advocated AIDS being declared a notifiable disease.
• This paper speculated that the AIDS epidemic in the US might have been started deliberately by a hostile power like the Soviet Union, as an act of biological warfare.

Those are indeed the "the main features of the LaRouche theory" that Toumey describes on pp. 87–88. --JN466 20:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to view footnote 33, it's here; it cites Seale 1984, 1986, 1987a, 1987b, 1988. --JN466 20:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If the "London physician" is Seale then we need to include his connection to the subject if we're going to mention him in this context.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear from the context that Toumey considered Seale a LaRouche associate, and you have identified separate sources stating so. I have no problem stating that. I think he is also mentioned in LaRouche publications. Seale actually authored a bunch of other papers along these lines: This one (1985), also in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, argued that AIDS could, like Hepatitis B, be spread through casual contact. This one, in the same publication, hints that AIDS might have been developed by the Soviet military, and this 1989 paper in the same journal likewise points out that AIDS has the hallmarks of a biological weapon. This is one of the letters to the editor Toumey identifies. --JN466 20:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, this is OR/SYN. You're assuming a relationship between LaRouche and the physician; and between the physician's ideas and LaRouche's, a connection not clearly stated by the source. I think we either have to repeat what the source says with very close paraphrasing: "Toumey writes that x and y," or leave it out entirely. And I can't see the point of repeating it because LaRouche's ideas were not, as a matter of fact, taken seriously by scientists. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Slim, my mentioning these other papers is a talk page post, comparing notes between editors. OR is if I were to put these papers in the article. Toumey is our source here. He says, "This line was developed in a series of papers by John R. Seale, M.A., M.D., M.R.C.P., a London physician. Seale's explanation enjoyed a semblance of being hard science by virtue of the publication of his papers in very respectable scientific journals, including Nature and the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. On close examination, however, these papers turned out to be letters to the editor and highly speculative opinion pieces." Toumey establishes the linkage between Seale's publications and LaRouche's ideas, not me. --JN466 21:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant your edit to the article was OR/SYN, personal opinion. It implied relationships not stated by the source. It implied LaRouche had some scientific backing. It omitted that the source made clear the writings were just letters to the editor and speculative opinion pieces. That was the key sentence, but you left it out entirely. It did not make clear the source was talking about one writer. All in all, not an accurate summary of the source material. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. Toumey said these paper developed LaRouche's ideas, lending them a semblance of being hard science. I even read the papers, and they did develop the precise LaRouche ideas which Toumey mentioned, and I then mentioned in the article. That these ideas were rejected as patently inaccurate science by leading scholars was stated explicitly in the rest of the section. --JN466 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You added the following to the article, and it was not what the source said or implied: "Suggestions were also made that the HIV virus had been created in the Soviet Union, to destroy the United States. In the mid-1980s, some writings along these lines were accepted for publication in a number of respectable scholarly journals, lending a degree of scientific credibility to LaRouche's ideas. [13]

Anyone reading the source, and reading your edit, would have noticed you left out the key sentence: "On close examination, however, these papers turned out to be letters to the editor and highly speculative opinion pieces." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the source, Slim: Furthermore, it was repeatedly suggested that HIV had been created in a Soviet laboratory, as part of a plot to destroy the United States. This line was developed in a series of papers by John R. Seale, M.A., M.D., M.R.C.P., a London physician. Seale's explanation enjoyed a semblance of being hard science by virtue of the publication of his papers in very respectable scientific journals, including Nature and the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. On close examination, however, these papers turned out to be letters to the editor and highly speculative opinion pieces. That's the exact same progression as I had in my edit, is it not? Followed by The proposal was opposed by leading academics, who argued that it was "based on patently inaccurate scientific information" and ran "counter to all public health principles.", which in the source comes on the following page, but made the point nicely, and clearly, that these ideas were nothing solid. Are you really going to tell me that by describing the ideas as "patently inaccurate scientific information" and running "counter to all public health principles" I left the reader insufficiently informed as to the value of these ideas? --JN466 22:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition, Seale specifically disavowed some of LaRouche's assertions on how HIV is spread in a 1986 press conference convened by LaRouche's associates.

• An English doctor said yesterday he supports the LaRouche AIDS initiative on the November 4 California ballot, but then disagreed with many of the key arguments in its favor. [..] For one thing, the doctor said he is around AIDS patients frequently and does not worry about catching the disease. Dr. John Seale, a specialist in venereal disease, disavowed LaRouche organization claims that the disease is easy to get, is spread by insects and has proven fatal to all those infected. [..] Seale said statements by LaRouche in a pro-Prop 64 brochure "are just wrong. They are exaggerations, but he's a politician, isn't he?" These include LaRouche allegations that "persons with AIDS-caused pneumonia can spread AIDS-infected droplets through the air in the same way that active tuberculosis is spread by droplets" and that "biting insects can carry AIDS from an infected person to another person." [..] Seale also said the political beliefs of LaRouche, who credits AIDS in part to conspiracies by international communism, Nazism, Zionism and the International Monetary Fund, "are rather odd." Evelyn Lantz, a member of PANIC and Seale's host at the press conference, had no comment on his less-than-total support for the measure's printed justifications. The pro-64 committee organized his visit to California, but Seale said he paid for it himself. He was presented as an expert on acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Seale said he has done no laboratory research into AIDS. He depends for his opinions on his reading of medical literature and on his experience in treating venereal disease and AIDS patients in a private practice in London. [..] Seale said he supports mandatory testing of virtually the entire population to determine who carries the virus. He said the anti-AIDS campaign is a war, and any infected people who are quarantined would be comparable to prisoners of war.
  • Doctor Supports Prop. 64 - Sort Of; Charles Petit, Science Correspondent. San Francisco Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). San Francisco, Calif.: Sep 30, 1986. pg. 8

So Seale was just a physician with no special knowledge of AIDS who disagreed with most of LaRouche's theories about AIDS, although he did agree with universal testing and the forced quarantine of all infected persons. In different article, it's reported that another presidential candidate, Pat Robertson, also used Seale as a source for information on AIDS.

• Pat Robertson, the Republican presidential candidate, has drawn some basic medical views on AIDS from a British doctor who says the virus can spread through the air. The physician, John Seale of London, also believes homosexual men are part of a "secret society," some members of which are intent on "destroying the rest of society." Robertson acknowledged in a telephone interview Thursday that he has repeated some of Seale's ideas. But he said he does not rely on Seale for his views on acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and that he had been unaware of the doctor's comments on homosexual men. "Don't tie me to some screwball who I never heard of in my life," he said, adding that he had read two pages of a Seale report that "somebody" had given him on an airplane. [..] Seale also has said that the AIDS virus might have been created in a US or Soviet biological warfare laboratory by adding a gene to a virus that attacks sheep, often fatally. [..] Seale says that AIDS can be spread when a carrier sneezes or coughs saliva, and that the virus can survive for long periods in mosquitoes, cockroaches and bedbugs. Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche backed this assertion on a lecture tour this year of the United States, including a stop before the Boston City Council in June. LaRouche, a Democratic presidential candidate, wants to quarantine people with the AIDS virus. Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and coordinator of the US goverment's AIDS research effort for the National Institutes of Health, said Seale's views are "preposterous." "There is no evidence whatever of the transmittal" of the AIDS virus "by that sort of salivary mechanism," Fauci said. He said more than five extensive studies of families who shared household items with AIDS victims disproved Seale's assertion.
  • TRACKING ROBERTSON ON AIDS BRITON IS SOURCE OF DISPUTED VIEWS; John Ellement, Globe Staff. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Dec 26, 1987. pg. 3

Robertson calls Seale "some screwball" and the head of a national institute called his ideas "preposterous". If we're going to refer to Seale's view we need to give a fuller picture. However I suggest that this material would be better in the PANIC article or the "Views" article than in this biography.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. There is a contradiction between those two; once he says it can't be spread through air, the other time he is quoted as saying it can. The LaRouche people did present him as an expert though, so he was part of their publicity machine, but he seems to have been wavering a bit. --JN466 21:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't an expert, and didn't publish any peer-reviewed material, and didn't clearly support LaRouche's ideas, so I'm unclear why we're discussing him in so much detail here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There's currently no mention of the Seale issue in the article.[14] Is anyone proposing re-adding it with the expanded context? If not then maybe we can mark this thread as resolved. If there is such a desire, could editors please post the draft text here so we can work on it?   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why we are discussing this at this length either. I thought it was an entirely uncontroversial edit, based on a good source. And I am mystified, Slim, how you can say that Seale has not published any peer-reviewed material. Really? When we have just discussed a half-dozen (speculative) papers of his in several peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, papers which according to Toumey developed LaRouche's line, and lent it a semblance of being hard science. Seale was a Consultant_(medicine) in venereology at The Middlesex and St Thomas' Hospitals, London. AIDS is to a substantial part a venereal disease. --JN466 23:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, is there any proposed text on the table? If not, let's mark this as resolved.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Will, I have proposed a text at least three times above, asking for feedback, and have never received any feedback on the wording I proposed. The most recent proposal was, In the mid-1980s, some speculative writings by a London physician that followed LaRouche's line were accepted for publication in a number of respectable scholarly journals, lending these ideas a "semblance of being hard science"

Will that do? I offer it as a basis for further fine-tuning.

If you wish to make clear that Seale was a LaRouche associate, based on a reliable source, then I have no objection to your doing so. Would you like to draft a corresponding addition? --JN466 23:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I oppose any text which fails to name the physician or explain his connections and disagreement with LaRouche. I've provided sources above. Can you please redraft your proposal to include that side of things?   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Toumey, some speculative writings by London physician John Seale which developed LaRouche's line on AIDS were accepted for publication in a number of prestigious scholarly journals in the mid-1980s, lending them a "semblance of being hard science". Seale was presented by PANIC as an AIDS expert and voiced his support for the Proposition, while stating that LaRouche's statements on how easy it was to catch AIDS were "wrong" and "exaggerated", and describing the group's political beliefs and conspiracy theories as "rather odd".

Cited to Johnson and SF Chronicle. To be added at the end of the first paragraph. Sound okay? --JN466 00:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to add this at all. And the wording you have been trying to add is particularly troubling. Most troubling is the repeated attempts at portraying Seale's one-man 'testimony' as being something it was not. Toumey was describing tactics, and when he wrote "enjoyed a semblance of being hard science by virtue of the publication of his papers in very respectful scientific journals", he continued with "On close examination, however, these papers turned out to be letters to the editor and highly speculative opinion pieces", that means it cancels out the first. Like saying, I gave you $200, but upon closer inspection it was monopoly money, would you write that I gave you $200? Cause that's what it seems like you are trying to do. Not to even mention the obvious weight factor here. One guy, who has been described as a 'screwball', and has been on record retracting almost everything you are claiming he wrote in these letters to the editor and opinion pieces. I mean, what the heck? Dave Dial (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Dave, LaRouche got 2 million people in California to vote for his proposal. Those people believed that mankind was under acute threat. These publications are part of how that happened. As for him being a "screwball", that was a comment made by someone on another continent who who by his own admission had "never heard of" the guy in his life. Seale has a string of publications in prestigious peer-reviewed journals and was an acknowledged expert and consultant in venereology. Being a consultant is a senior medical position in the UK.

The criticism of Seale's ideas that you say cancels them out was and is included: 'The proposal was opposed by leading academics, who argued that it was "based on patently inaccurate scientific information" and ran "counter to all public health principles."' Except now we don't have the first half, about how these ideas were spread in the first place to a point of such prominence where these top experts felt called upon to comment on them. --JN466 01:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayen's draft is an improvement. Here's an alternate draft:

• Some of LaRouche's views on AIDS were shared by John Seale, a Harley Street[15] physician who proposed that AIDS was created in a laboratory and could be spread through the air and whose writings, described as "highly speculative writings" by Toumey, were published in several prestigious medical journals. Presented as an AIDS expert at a press conference held by PANIC, Seale agreed with the LaRouche initiative but disagreed with several of LaRouche's theories, including that HIV can be spread by insects, saying those views were "wrong" and "exaggerated", and describing the group's political beliefs and conspiracy theories as "rather odd".

This devotes as much space to Seale as Toumey does. Toumey devotes about 15 pages to LaRouche's views of AIDS and his initiative. So we need to make this section about 10 times as long to bring it into balance. But this is a good start.   Will Beback  talk  03:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, here's another good source, though not as good as Toumey: "The Plague Mentality" new internationalist issue 169 - March 1987   Will Beback  talk  03:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Also: Private acts, social consequences: AIDS and the politics of public health Ronald Bayer Simon and Schuster, 1989   Will Beback  talk  04:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, we should try to summarize the sources at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/Sources on AIDS and gays. That'll help bring this material up to an appropriate length in comparison to the Verdi Tuning initiative.   Will Beback  talk  04:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a source saying LaRouche's views derive from Seale? Otherwise, fine, though a bit long. I had tried to be brief; for example, we probably need not state that the proposition involved "universal HIV testing and forced quarantine of infected persons", as that's already made clear in the section.--JN466 12:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd seen that in a source, but I can't find it now. I've changed it to "were shared by". I removed testing and quarantine, and replaced it with "the LaRouche initiative".   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the revision. Why don't we use "developed" rather than shared? That is the word Toumey uses. And I'm missing the "semblance of being hard science". Basically, Toumey's point is that people were duped. The ideas appeared as though they were scientific, even though they turned out to be quite erroneous. That is the point of mentioning the "semblance of being hard science". Apart from those two improvement suggestions, god job. --JN466 04:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Toumey isn't the only source, so we don't need to follow his choice of words slavishly. I suggest that fine points, like the idea that some people saw this as hard science at one point even though others thought it was preposterous, is too much for this article. We have a special article the LaRouche initiative and another one on LaRouche's views, including a long section on AIDS. Let's add that point to one or both of the the other articles, but leave it out of this article.   Will Beback  talk  04:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that we are presenting all the comments that emphasise LaRouche's eccentricity -- sometimes almost gratuitously so, through throw-away and out-of-context snippets like the "excess eaters" -- while we omit the one comment, from a very high-quality source, that points out the linkage between his ideas and discussions in mainstream scholarly discourse. That seems a little unfair to me, and therefore I would like to include this. --JN466 05:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We already say that Seale got papers published in respectable journals. If we add more about LaRouche's ideas then Toumey has a lot of other things to say about them. His overall take on LaRouche's views is not that they are in the mainstream. This isn't the only article about LaRouche. Rather than adding more here on the ideas, I'd rather see this material and the "excess eaters" moved to another article more specialized, and keep this article focused on events.   Will Beback  talk  05:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We're saying the other things Toumey says about these ideas, are we not? The opposition from leading scholars, the recurrent pattern of claiming superior knowledge, and how these ideas differed from the orthodox view. But Toumey does also say this, that they enjoyed a semblance of being hard science. It is not an appropriate reflection of the source to say the other things, but omit this. The overall thrust of the section will remain clear, just as it is in Toumey. --JN466 05:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a shortened version: Some of LaRouche's views on AIDS were developed by John Seale, a consultant in venereology who proposed that AIDS was created in a laboratory and could be spread through the air. Seale's highly speculative writings were published in several prestigious medical journals, lending these ideas an apparance of being hard science. Presented as an AIDS expert by PANIC, Seale supported the LaRouche initiative, but disagreed with several of LaRouche's views, including that HIV could be spread by insects, and described the group's political beliefs and conspiracy theories as "rather odd" Any objections? This content is well sourced, and adding it reflects the overall balance in the source. --JN466 12:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"a consultant in venereology"? He was a VD doctor. I think we can express that more simply and directly.

Seale specifically denied that HIV could be spread by air, didn't he? Seale said statements by LaRouche in a pro-Prop 64 brochure "are just wrong. They are exaggerations, but he's a politician, isn't he?" These include LaRouche allegations that "persons with AIDS-caused pneumonia can spread AIDS-infected droplets through the air in the same way that active tuberculosis is spread by droplets"... Let's leave it at "could be spread easily", or something more accurate like that.

But otherwise the material looks good, and a better length. Some of LaRouche's views on AIDS were developed by John Seale, a venereology physician who proposed that AIDS was created in a laboratory. Seale's highly speculative writings were published in three prestigious medical journals, lending these ideas some appearance of being hard science. Presented as an AIDS expert by PANIC, Seale supported the LaRouche initiative but disagreed with several of LaRouche's views, including that HIV could be spread by insects, and described the group's political beliefs and conspiracy theories as "rather odd" How's that?   Will Beback  talk  13:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and dropped in; pls check. I've changed one thing: I've put "British venereologist" rather than "venereology physician". Thanks, Will; good work. --JN466 15:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I added "physician", since that makes clear he wasn't a researcher.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Section on attitude to the British

Just posting a reminder here that I said weeks ago I wanted to add a brief section on LaRouche's attitude to the British, which seems to be key to his thinking. I'll do my best to write it on words "borrowed" from removing wordiness elsewhere, but I don't want to be accused of expanding after I've asked others not to, so I'm noting here that I bagsied it when we were still around 8,500 words. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As someone who's only on this talk page because I noticed the two rapid RfCs, I figured I'd stop by and mention that for those who are only peripherally aware of LaRouche's existence (like myself), bringing his name up in a conversation will probably elicit, "Oh, that guy from the '70s and '80s who thinks everything is a British conspiracy?" Given my scholarly, dispassionate analysis, I'll refrain from weighing in on anything else - but I definitely agree it's part of his notability. Gonfaloniere (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

is this WP:SYN?

I saw the mess over at the BLP noticeboard -- and I thought the Gavin Menzies article was contentious... Anyway, the following pair of sentences in the "attitude of his followers" section appears to be WP:SYN:

Alleged harassment has included death threats, pet killings and mutilations, protests outside homes and offices, disruption of academic lectures, anonymous phone calls, and false news stories.[142] The group defends its methods as necessary to shake people up; Johnson quotes a member saying: "We're not very nice, so we're hated. Why be nice? It's a cruel world. We're in a war and the human race is up for grabs."[143]

The second sentence appears to be an admission of the allegations made in the first sentence; but the two sentences cite different sources, and the source for the second sentence ante-dates all of the various sources for the first sentence, vitiating the impression given by the juxtaposition of sentences that the quote in the second sentence is responding to the allegations listed in the first sentence. (pause for breath) And that appears to be WP:SYN. Furthermore, almost all of these various sources (with one exception) are from the 1980s. And the only source from later (2004) relies on even older material; there is nothing more recent in that article that refers to the list of allegations in the first sentence. Perhaps the first sentence quoted above should be nuanced to reflect this. And LaRouche and his organization seem to have mutated a lot over the years. Perhaps this section would better be titled "attitude of followers in the 1970s and 1980s," unless there are reliably-sourced allegations that LaRouche's followers still do the same kind of thing. --Other Choices (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the text with the lengthy citations:

• Many critics, journalists, and academics have reported being harassed by LaRouche's associates and aides; an FBI agent testified in court that harassing critics was one of the jobs handled by LaRouche's security unit. Alleged harassment has included death threats, pet killings and mutilations, protests outside homes and offices, disruption of academic lectures, anonymous phone calls, and false news stories. The group defends its methods as necessary to shake people up; Johnson quotes a member saying: "We're not very nice, so we're hated. Why be nice? It's a cruel world. We're in a war and the human race is up for grabs."

As it happens, the quoted member is LaRouche's head of security, Paul Goldstein, the same person probably responsible for organizing some of the harassment. That lowers the potential synth problem somewhat. As for the age of the sources, there has been very little coverage of LaRouche in the past 20 years. The last short biography of him that I know of is from 1991. There has been some coverage of the anti-Obama protests, and other public disruptions by LaRouche followers. I don't recall any sources that describe the harassment as being limited to the '70s and '80s - making that assertion on our own would be something of a synth problem of its own.   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, here's a 2004 news story that rehashes some stories of harassment that took place in 1980:

• That 1980 campaign was littered with examples of legal squabbles and questionable practices. Voters complained that LaRouche campaign workers asked them to illegally apply for absentee ballots. LaRouche - leader of the National Caucus of Labor Committees - threatened reporters and politicians, and the police received complaints about LaRouche workers making harassing phone calls and hassling residents who failed to take campaign literature, according to news reports. The Associated Press obtained a list - with the heading "New Hampshire Target List" - found in the room of a LaRouche campaigner. The list included the names of Gardner, then-Attorney General Tom Rath and then-Gov. Hugh Gallen, among others, and stated, "these are the criminals to burn - we want calls coming into these fellow day and night." LaRouche also alleged that he was the target of an assassination plot, and that thousands of New Hampshire LaRouche votes were directed to other candidates. He traveled, according to news reports, with a troop of armed bodyguards.
  • Threats? Cops? Larouche? Now that was a recount! LAUREN R DORGAN, SARAH LIEBOWITZ. Concord Monitor. Concord, N.H.: Jan 20, 2008.

In 2003 Chip Berlet was quoted in regard to the death of Jeremiah Duggan:

• John[sic] Berlet, of Political Research Associates, an American think tank monitoring the far Right, says: 'The LaRouche network has a long history of violence, intimidation, harassment, psychological manipulation and emotional blackmail or brainwashing. Its anti- Semitism is hidden in convoluted conspiracy theories and obscure terminology, but its literature [talks of] a global and age-old conspiracy of "bad" Jews.
  • DID A SINISTER CULT OF GERMAN NAZIS DRIVE THIS BRILLIANT BRITISH STUDENT TO HIS DEATH? ; German police are refusing to reopen their investigation into the bizarre 'suicide' of a Jewish man despite strong evidence he was fleeing for his life when hit by a car SARAH OLIVER. Mail on Sunday. London (UK): Nov 9, 2003. pg. 62

Here's a letter to the editor recalling other past harassment (we wouldn't use this as a source, but it shows that it's still on people's minds).

• U.S. presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche claims that "eco-fascists are attempting to take over the world with a little help from their friends in the "New World Order." It is this opinion that is, in part, the reason LaRouche has a radical, anti-environmental stand. LaRouche's group, the National Caucus of Labor Committees, harassed anti-nuclear demonstrators in the '70s.
  • LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE; [Final Edition 3] Anchorage Daily News. Anchorage, Alaska: Mar 16, 1998. pg. B.7

Anyway, more grist for the mill.   Will Beback  talk  04:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem here is that there is no reliable source alleging "death threats, pet killings and mutilations, protests outside homes and offices, disruption of academic lectures, anonymous phone calls, and false news stories" at any time after the 1980s, although you do provide more general allegations of "harassment" from the 2000s. The entire "attitudes of followers" section is almost completely sourced with material from the 1980s, used to "document" the state of things today (the article repeatedly uses the present and present perfect tenses). Regarding the article on the Jeremiah Duggan case, while it is worth mentioning on its own, it has no mention of "death threats, pet killings and mutilations, protests outside homes and offices, disruption of academic lectures, anonymous phone calls, and false news stories."--Other Choices (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the past tense in "Alleged harassment has included ..." is clear. We could say something like, "Alleged harassment in the 1970s and 1980s included..." Would that be better?   Will Beback  talk  09:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I echo Other Choices' concern; I too found that long list over the top. Most (or all) of the individual types of incidents are mentioned in the body of the article, at the appropriate place in the timeline. --JN466 09:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that the way the quote is attached to the preceding sentence is unfortunate; I hadn't picked up on that, and thank Other Choices for pointing it out. I had originally added a longer segment in that section:

"The group itself refers to its methods of harassment and denunciation as "psywar techniques," and defends them as necessary to shake people up; Johnson has written that, believing the general population to be hopelessly indoctrinated by the mass media, they "fight back with words that stick in one's mind like shards of glass." He quotes a member saying: "We're not very nice, so we're hated. Why be nice? It's a cruel world. We're in a war and the human race is up for grabs."<ref>{{harvnb|Johnson|1983|pp=191–192}}.</ref>"

The first part of that addition was subsequently dropped from the article (see discussion at the end of the talk page section above, #According_to_the_Schiller_Institute_...), resulting in the present state of affairs. --JN466 11:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where Other Choices said the material is "over the top" - I thought his issue is with the appearance that it's ongoing behavior. In any case, it's all well-sourced and notable in regard to the subject. We can redistribute the material back to the chronology. I think most material should be chronological anyway. Some of the harassment material could be placed with the Goldstein/Fick/Frankhouser material, since we're quoting Goldstein anyway.   Will Beback  talk  11:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This material provides information on how LaRouche interacted with his critics and was added back when we had a "critics" section. That's gone now along with some of the other material it contained. If we don't mention his critics at all then we could trim the present text.(Some similar text may be appropriate elsewhere in the article.) Have we agreed to leave out the "critics" section or is there still a question about it?   Will Beback  talk  12:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done a review of related material that we currently have in the chronological part of the article. This may be useful to retain an overview of what the article covers.

• disinformation, "hate-filled" material about enemies, phony letters, intimidation, fake newspaper articles, and dirty tricks campaigns (in the 1971 section)
• Journalists and other publications the party saw as unfriendly were harassed, and it published a list of potential assassins, or what it called "terrorists," that it saw as a threat. (in the 1973 section)
• LaRouche was asked how he expected a party with a five-year record of harassment and threats to win the election; he did not deny the incidents, but replied, "We are only engaged in an open political attack. We just want to challenge them in debate. Chapman wrote that several public figures on the left reported threats and intimidation, and said those responsible had identified themselves as members of LaRouche's NCLC or U.S. Labor Party. The linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky was accused of working for the CIA and being a tool of the Rockefellers; meetings he addressed were disrupted, and threats were made. The philosopher Paul Kurtz, editor of The Humanist, received phone calls at 4 am, and was asked during his lectures at the State University of New York why he was practicing genocide. According to Chapman, sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, specialists on urban poverty, were followed around the country having their speaking tours disrupted, and Piven was almost pushed down a flight of stairs by someone calling her a fascist and CIA agent. Environmentalist Lester Brown was accused of genocide and told he would be hanged from a lamppost. (in the 1975-1976 section)
• LaRouche members harassed the opposition in Lima, Peru, in support of President Alan García. (in Meetings with world leaders section, 1980s)
• local people who opposed him for any reason were accused in LaRouche publications of being commies, homosexual, drug pushers, and terrorists. He reportedly accused the Leesburg Garden Club of being a nest of Soviet sympathizers, and a local lawyer who opposed LaRouche on a zoning matter went into hiding after threatening phone calls and a death threat. (in 1983 section)
• Lynch wrote that the reports included the allegation that "LaRouche was the leader of a violence-prone, anti-Semitic cult that smeared its opponents and sued its critics." ... After the broadcast, according to The Washington Post, LaRouche members picketed NBC's New York office carrying signs saying "Lynch Pat Lynch," and the NBC switchboard said it received a death threat against her. Another NBC researcher said someone placed fliers around her parents' neighborhood saying she was running a call-girl ring from her parents' home.[84] Lynch said LaRouche members began to impersonate her and her researchers in telephone calls, and called her "Fat Lynch" in their publications.[83] (in 1984 section)
• Members of his movement are known for their choral singing at protest events and for using satirical lyrics tailored to their targets ... LaRouche movement members have protested at performances of Richard Wagner's operas, and called a conductor "satanic" because he played contemporary music. (in 1989 section) --JN466 12:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the LaRouche and his movement are known for harassing their critics and perceived opponents, as shown in numerous sources.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

But once again, all of these sources are from the 1980s or before. I have deleted the "attitude of followers" subsection for the following reasons:

1) This material properly belongs in the "criticism" section of the "LaRouche Movement" article.

2) This subsection is misplaced in a section devoted to LaRouche's ideology.

3) This material deals with allegations of typical behavior from the 1970s and 1980s, and gives the misleading impression that this old stuff is representative of current practice.

4) The above-mentioned SYN problem (which is now the least of my objections to this material).

5) The on-going concern that this article is simply too long.

--Other Choices (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to delete all the things that his followers and friends have done, and limit this article solely to things done or said by LaRouche as an individual, then we can certainly make this article shorter. As far as Other Choices's issues are concerned:

1) Much of the material in this article could be better placed in other articles. There's a big disagreement about which.

2) The ideology section is one of those about which there's disagreement.

3) I've proposed how we could fix the issue of the chronology. It's frankly a bit odd to suggest that issues related to a certain time period don't belong in a bio.

4) Could you please explain your issue with SYN better? Or are you saying it isn't important anymore?

5) If an article is too long then splitting off material into child articles about notable topics is a good approach. Deleting sourced, neutral material is not.   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, if you want to place some of that material about the behavior of LaRouche's followers into the 1970s or 1980s section of the article, that seems reasonable, if other editors think that it fits properly into LaRouche's bio. (Perhaps the basic question here is: To what extent is LaRouche's movement an extension of himself?) Regarding SYN, to summarize: the quote from Goldstein is being used to imply admission of the allegations. I think that the task here is to find some other way to introduce the Goldstein quote, and THEN bring up the later allegations. But once again, I think that the list of allegations fits perfectly in the "criticism" section of the "LaRouche Movement" article, and the Goldstein quote properly fits in the "LaRouche movement" article too.--Other Choices (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

To what extent is LaRouche's movement an extension of himself?

That's a key question, and it'd simplify the editing of this article if we could all agree on an answer. What's your thought? We do have sources which say he closely oversees the movement and that his views are adopted unthinkingly by his followers. Clearly, a great deal of his notability derives from the activities of the movement. For example, the Obama=Hitler posters which appear on street corners and protests around the country are not carried by LaRouche personally, but by his followers. So how much of that do we include in this article?   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The basic principle is to split off an article section into a separate article when the original article gets too long, with a brief summary in the parent article. This seems to have been done repeatedly with this article, which shows every inclination to continue experiencing robust growth. For that reason, I think that allegations of habitual misbehavior of LaRouche's followers in the 1980s (beyond what the article already contains) naturally belong in the "LaRouche Movement" article.--Other Choices (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The "ideology" section is also quite long, longer than the section you deleted. Why keep one and delete the other?   Will Beback  talk  08:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the ideology section is currently far too long (and also skewed), as there is a separate article about LaRouche's personal views. The way I would revamp the ideology section is to go to the "views" article and use the table of contents as a template for a paragraph. I might come back and do that later if nobody else does, unless there are reasonable objections. Perhaps a couple of other sections could benefit from similar trimming, but I have to admit that in general, the article as it stands has a certain bizarre, almost awe-inspiring fascination to it.--Other Choices (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I share your concerns about the attitude of followers section. I believe the relevant acts by his followers are now all mentioned in the chronological section, at the appropriate places in the timeline. However, some of the other content you removed, such as the estimates of the size of his following, or the dynamics of LaRouche's charismatic authority, do belong in the article, even if they should not be in an Ideology section. Could we look at finding a home for those and reinstating them? Perhaps in a "Following" section?

Another point is that modelling the Ideology section on the current Views article would be inappropriate. The Views article is more unbalanced than this article. LaRouche's Neoplatonist philosophy, which is the intellectual foundation of his movement, is not even mentioned in the Views article at present, despite the fact that the 24-page chapter on LaRouche in George Johnson's Architects of Fear: conspiracy theories and paranoia in American politics for example devotes 9 of its 24 pages to a discussion of this philosophy. Many of LaRouche's political views, which have changed in focus and substance over the decades, can be reasonably well described in the chronological section of the article. His Neoplatonist philosophy, on the other hand, which underpins many of his views, is not so easily integrated. It's quite normal with fringe figures like LaRouche to have a chronological, biographical section, describing the events of their lives, followed by a section outlining their key ideas. The Views article needs substantial work; that is something that can be undertaken once this article is up to scratch and stable. --JN466 11:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The neo-platonist material should be added (back) to the "Views" article.

This article has several major child articles.

• Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement
• LaRouche movement
• LaRouche criminal trials
• Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns

Along with numerous minor articles on people, entities, and initiatives. Per WP:Summary, we should include summaries of at least the major child articles. We already have a reasonable summary of the criminal trials and the presidential bids are covered throughout. But maybe we should have a section each on the "Views" and the "Movement" to summarize those articles?   Will Beback  talk  11:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree we should have views and movement sections, but the views article in particular is seriously deficient right now, so summarising it in its present state here won't do. But we should start a movement section. --JN466 11:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If the "Views" article is a problem then let's fix it. I've never been satisfied with it and would be quite happy to engaging in yet another re-write, including the neo-platonist material you wrote. Even so, the "Views" article is not entirely useless in its present form. Let's create "Views" and "Movement" sections to replace the "Ideology" and "Followers" sections. We can come back and improve them as necessary.   Will Beback  talk  12:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay; though it means we have to work on both articles in parallel. --JN466 12:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles are works in progress. The "views" and "movement" and other child articles are extensions of this article. Janice Hart would not be notable if not for LaRouche, for example.   Will Beback  talk 

I'm going to step back from this article, for the time being at least, with some parting thoughts. First of all, I don't see anything wrong with using material I deleted in other sections, if the active editors on this page agree. Secondly, in general, if the "views" article is deficient, then the "ideology" section of the main LaRouche article is also likely to be deficient. Polishing the "ideology" section before fixing the "views" article seems to be putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion. Ideally, the two go together, hand in glove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Detailing my latest edit here:

• Tightened writing to get it down to 9,700 words.
• Merged some sub-sections, including short ones in 2000s.
• Added some links directly to the sources instead of Harvard refs, particularly where there were particular pages being cited. See refs in the lead for the difference.
• Removed titles from manual citations in the text; not finished, will do the rest.

• So instead of Mintz, John. "Loudoun Newcomer Lives On Heavily Guarded Estate", The Washington Post, January 13, 1985, it's now Mintz, January 13, 1985.

• Moved a few sentences into chronological order for flow.
• Restored Duggan, though not as a stand-alone section; explained the British/Jewish/Tavistock angle, which is the focus of the concerns, using W/Post as source. As there's disagreement about this, I'll formulate an RfC.
• Added famous Beatles quote to the music section.
• Copied citations that were missing into the References section, but not with templates (I don't want to add any more templates).
• Bundled some citations.
• Added an example of pet killings, per request on talk, with the year, in-text attribution, and ref.

Note: adding refs manually to the References section produces a different ref style (different order, different punctuation) from the citation templates, but the latter is (I believe) one that's unique to WP, so it's not clear that it's a good idea to use it anyway. But if people want that style, I can change the manual refs to copy it.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should Lyndon LaRouche contain a paragraph about Jeremiah Duggan?

Should the biography of Lyndon LaRouche contain a summary-style paragraph about the death in 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan? Duggan, a British student, died in disputed circumstances after running down a busy road, apparently while being recruited to LaRouche's organization. The High Court in London recently ordered a second inquest into the death.

The article has contained a paragraph about this for several years—currently the third paragraph in this section—but there are now objections to including any reference to it. Arguments against inclusion are that LaRouche is not personally involved in whatever happened to Duggan, and that BLPs must err on the side of caution. Arguments in favour are that multiple high-quality sources have linked the incident directly to LaRouche's ideas, and he has several times responded to the allegations personally. Uninvolved input would be particularly appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC posted to the NPOV, BLP, RS, and Fringe noticeboards. [16] [17] [18] [19] SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

(no threaded replies here, please)

• Support inclusion. The issue has attracted more media attention about LaRouche among high-quality sources—including The Times, the BBC, The Observer, The Independent, The Telegraph, and The Washington Post—than any other since he was convicted of fraud in 1988, and he has responded to the stories personally. In my view, it would be a violation of NPOV not to include the bare bones of it in this article. Examples of the source material: The Sunday Times, particularly p. 2, paras 14–16; The Washington Post, particularly p. 5; and BBC Newsnight. Some other sources here. BLP was never intended to keep out material about public figures that high-quality sources have written about, and which has been before two coroners' courts, judicial review in two countries, and has been discussed in the British and European parliaments, with cross-party support in the UK for an investigation.

The allegation is this: Duggan was attending a LaRouche conference in Weisbaden, Germany—LaRouche's European headquarters—where he was being recruited into the movement. LaRouche also attended the conference, though there is no indication that he had contact with Duggan. Duggan's family believe that, during the recruitment process—when the membership learned that he was British, Jewish, and had received counselling at the Tavistock Institute in London when he was a child—they put him through what LaRouche calls an "ego-stripping" session, where the membership rounds on a recruit to place psychological pressure on them; see this section of the article for the history of these sessions. In the view of the family and several journalists, they did this to Duggan because LaRouche has believed since 1973 that the British are planning to assassinate him using a brainwashed agent—see this story from the movement from 1999, as just one example—and that the Tavistock Institute is a British intelligence brainwashing center.

As the Berliner Zeitung put it: "Duggan may have had the misfortune to represent a combination LaRouche often warned his security teams about—British, Jewish, and linked to an institute LaRouche referred to as 'psychos.'" The family believes Duggan had a psychotic breakdown in response, and ran onto a busy road seeking help; or that he was beaten before he died. The High Court has ordered a second inquest, and the coroner has asked the British police to investigate.

The link to LaRouche, according to reliable sources, is (1) the ideas about British assassination teams and the Tavistock are his, and his alone; (2) LaRouche and his wife were at the conference Duggan attended, which heightened the membership's security concerns; (3) the day after Duggan's death, according to The Sunday Times (p. 2, para 15), LaRouche's wife told the membership in Wiesbaden that Duggan "could have been an agent sent from London to harm LaRouche"; and (4) LaRouche has responded personally to the allegations several times, calling them a "hoax." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• This issue has just been discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#.22Death_of_....22_sections_in_Lyndon_LaRouche_BLP, where outside editors felt it was inappropriate to cover here in LaRouche's BLP. I should mention that Duggan's death worked its way through the entire German court system, all the way to the German Supreme Court. The German authorities ruled the death a suicide, based on the testimony of multiple eye witnesses of the event who stated no one else was present. In light of this, the German Supreme Court ruled speculation from Duggan's family, whereby Duggan is supposed to have been killed elsewhere and then placed on the road to make it look like an accident, "absurd" ("abwegig"). (Decision) In addition, no source to my knowledge states that LaRouche was even aware of Duggan's presence at the event in Germany. Consensus of outside editors at BLPN was that mention in LaRouche's BLP was inappropriate, per WP:COATRACK, but that coverage in the article on the LaRouche movement (as well as the separate article we have on the event), was very appropriate. I broadly concur with that view, though a case could be made that this article should contain a mention of the resulting coverage the LaRouche movement received, especially in the British press. --JN466 16:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion in BLP, support inclusion in movement article The main point is that Duggen's death is significant for the LaRouche movement as a whole, but it is not something significant enough to LaRouche as a person in his own life that it deserves to be mentioned here. Perhaps if Duggen's death had been ruled a murder and then there were some allegations of charges against LaRouche, things would be different. But, as it is, Duggen is simply not important enough in LaRouche's life to be mentioned in his BLP. The relevant information should be covered in detail in the article on the LaRouche Movement, not here. Silverseren^C 17:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion This was asked and answered by several uninvolved editors at the BLP/N (myself included). Slimvirgin appears to refuse to accept that answer. How many times does this question need to be asked? The death of Duggan has no connection to LaRouche the person. Any notable connection to the movement can go into that separate entry LaRouche movement.Griswaldo (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion For the same reason as Griswaldo. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion for the reasons given in my comments at BLPN. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• oppose inclusion in BLP support inclusion in movement article per. Silverseren & Griswaldo.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion I cannot believe that such an accusation, not backed up with a guilty verdict, is even being considered for inclusion in a BLP. →StaniStani  01:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion Considering the sources cited and the fact that there is an LRM article and an article on the event where the tragedy took place I see no reason for it to be in this BLP .-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion as per my comment at the report at the BLPN and per User:Griswaldo's and User:Silver:Siren's comments above, support for something at the LaRouche movement. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Question: what was the outcome of the discussion at the BLPN? Can someone neutrally summarize it? Why was mention of this discussion omitted from this RFC? Doesn't that discussion obviate the need for this one? ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• The result of the BLPN discussion was exactly like the results of this RfC to date. All uninvolved editors agreed that the Duggan material did not belong in this entry, while most also agreed that mention of it was appropriate in the LaRouche movement entry. Very clear, very simple, very ignored.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• To answer your last two questions, since Griswaldo answered the first two. It wasn't mentioned at this RfC, most likely, because it would show that users have already voted against Slimvirgin and she wouldn't want to overtly show that to people voting here. As for your last question, yes, there shouldn't even be an RfC on this, but Slimvirgin refuses to give up this section. Just look at the rest of this talk page and I think you'll see what I mean. Silverseren^C 21:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed additions

I would like to add --

• In the allegations of anti-Semitism and racism section: that US civil rights figures Rosa Parks and Amelia Boynton Robinson signed the petition for LaRouche's exoneration;
• In the Musical interests section: that violinist Norbert Brainin and opera singer William Warfield signed the petition as well, and that Brainin played a benefit concert for LaRouche.

Sources: Washington Post for Brainin concert, sourcing from LaRouche criminal trials FA for the petition.

Are there any objections? --JN466 14:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends what the secondary sources say. Do they say all of the above? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Brainin source is here: "Fund-Raiser for LaRouche Draws Complaints at GU", from the Washington Post. Despite the Washington Post headline, the concert was not billed as a fund raiser for LaRouche, but as a fund raiser for the "Constitutional Defense Fund", which funded LaRouche's defense at his trial:

The concert playbill explained that the CDF, located in Upper Darby, Pa., "has taken on the commitment to funding numerous cases against the government's effort to destroy Lyndon LaRouche and the political movement he leads because these cases involve the blatant use of government power for the purpose of political persecution." Brainin, former first violinist with the Amadeus Quartet, introduced LaRouche as a "very good friend of mine" and said he wished to "pay homage to a great man and to bear witness to his stainless character," according to Scanlon, who was at the concert."

As for the petition, I haven't had sight of that source; we have to ask Will, who nominated that article for FA. Will? --JN466 17:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the source that is listed in the LaRouche criminal trials article for the signatories. Is that what you were looking for? Silverseren^C 18:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, can I ask again that you stop copying over material from other articles? It seems especially odd to do that when you haven't read the sources you're relying on. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole exoneration issue never succeeded, it's best left to the other article where it can be discussed more fully. It's sufficient for this article to say that the movement engaged in strenuous efforts to get LaRouche exonerated. We don't even have a secondary source for the assertion that these people signed. Could Jayen explain why he wishes to add this material to this article? The LaRouche criminal trials is full of material we could add here - why this poorly sourced material?   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Will, are you now describing your own FA as poorly sourced? This material was in the LaRouche criminal trials article on the day the article was promoted. Its neutrality and sourcing were scrutinised at FAC, and passed muster. The petition, with these names, appeared in reliable and widely distributed sources, including the Washington Post. That is a reliable source. It is a distortion to say nothing but "the movement engaged in strenuous efforts to get LaRouche exonerated", without mentioning support from such public figures as did support him. This is LaRouche's BLP, and the top Google hit for his name. What it says has a major effect on his reputation. Do you think it is neutral to give his attackers a voice, but airbrush his supporters out of history? --JN466 10:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, The Washington Post is not the cited source. Even if we had the newspaper in front of us, I'm not aware of any general consensus that an advertisement is a reliable source. Further, I am not responsible for everything in that article, though I helped bring it up to FA standards. The FA vetting process is helpful, but we all know that it does not necessarily ensure a flawless article. I'd be willing to swap out the exoneration petition for the Clark quotation, which takes up about 57 words currently. But there's a limit on how much "he wasn't guilty" material we should add to offset a guilty verdict which was affirmed by multiple appeals.   Will Beback  talk  11:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

To me it is not actually about saying or implying "he isn't guilty" of the things he was criminally convicted for. It's about the fact that he obviously has well-wishers who you wouldn't usually associate with racists. Any mention of Amelia Boynton Robinson for example has now been scrubbed out of the article; the woman is a civil-rights legend. So is Rosa Parks. Boynton Robinson goes round saying, in reliable sources, that she feels LaRouche carries on the work of Martin Luther King. You may scratch your head, but Boynton Robinson's civil-rights credentials are impeccable. That's part of his reception too. So it doesn't strike me as particularly fair to LaRouche to not present that in the article, when we give ample room to people who are accusing him of racism. --JN466 21:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

As for the advertisement, are you aware of any comment on it in secondary sources? --JN466 21:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Manning Marable says:

• From his prison cell, LaRouche launched his 1992 presidential campaign by selecting the Reverend James Bevel as his running mate. A surprising number of African American leaders endorsed the campaign; among the most prominent were the Reverend Hosea Williams, field director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and county commissioner of De Kalb County Georgia, and Amelia Boynton Robinson, a civil rights movement veteran and a 1990 recipient of the Martin Luther King Jr. Freedom Medal. In the LaRouche newspaper the New Federalist, African-American supporters of LaRouche stated: "It is time to secure the victories of the civil rights movement that was led by Dr. Martin Luther King, and guarantee the economic and moral future of our posterity For these reasons we hereby endorse the LaRouche-Bevel candidacy, and encourage all citizens to join our new movement and vote LaRouche-Bevel on Nov. 3." The endorsers of this statement included Joseph Dickson, publisher of the Birmingham World newspaper; the Reverend Floyd Rose, former editor of the Macon Reporter; and Mattie Harkness, former president of the Pickens County, Alabama, chapter of the NAACP.

A profile of Robinson in The Oakland Post, possibly based on a press release from Schiller but nominally reliable, says:

• She explained that when she met Lyndon LaRouche a dozen years ago, she decided to become a leader in his movement. She declared, on Iranian TV, June 22, "And though Dr. King is dead, his sermons that he preached, his objectives, are still living. And Lyndon LaRouche, who has picked up the broken pieces of Dr. King's movement, is carrying it forward, in an international way, with political as well as economic aims." Robinson serves as vice-president of the Schiller Institute, an arm of the LaRouche movement.

Since Robinson is not a legal expert, her views on the fraud trial are just those of a supporter. But that last comment would be within her field of expertise.

I'm not aware of any independent reference to the exoneration petition, but I'll keep looking.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

While I can't find any sources for Robinson and Parks signing one of the exoneration petitions, there are numerous sources about one or more petitions signed by legislators. Most of the sources contain material are along the lines of legislators saying "LaRouche who? I don't remember singing anything like that", "I don't support him, but I think the conviction should be reviewed", and "I only signed it to get those annoying people out of my office". It would be difficult to present a neutral account of those petitions so I think it's better to leave them out. That's what HK and I agreed to for the "trial" article, IIRC.   Will Beback  talk  02:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. --JN466 17:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for locating those. I've added a bit about Boynton Robinson, as well as Farrakhan, and have restored part of the material we had in Attitudes of followers section under the new header "Movement", per our discussion with Other Choices above. Please check. [20] --JN466 17:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Slim, please stop accusing me of things I have not done. It is uncivil. I have not just copied this material across, I have, bearing your earlier concern in mind, proposed here on this talk page that we mention notable people who supported the campaign for his exoneration. The reason is simple: we prominently feature accusations that LaRouche is racist. If we do so, then we should also, to be fair to LaRouche, mention that some of history's leading American civil rights activists, who risked their lives to fight against racism, signed a petition on his behalf. --JN466 10:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Musical interests

Slim, I note that as part of your extensive editing today, which added 10,000 bytes to the article, you reverted my creation of the "Musical interests" section in the "Ideology" section, returning that content to the 1989 section on the Verdi tuning initiative. [21] [22]

Could we please discuss this? First, we are presently citing sources ranging from 1989 to 2010 in this general discussion of LaRouche's views on music. As such, I feel that housing this in the 1989 section is not so fortuitous. Secondly, musical theory is a prominent part of LaRouche's philosophy, and I therefore think it is quite appropriate to discuss it as part of his ideology. Third, why did you delete the information I had added that LaRouche movement members protesting the Wagner performance denounced Wagner as an anti-semite who had found favour with the Nazis? This information was well-sourced; the source is here. You also deleted the link to that source which I had added, so present readers of the article can't verify it. --JN466 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

My edit removed a small number of words. Almost all my edits remove words, even if they increase the amount of information, because I remove wordiness. You, on the other hand, have added something like 3,000 words recently.

Wagner was not removed; he's still there. I don't know which source you think was removed. The music issues should stay together, in my view. I don't see the benefit of creating lots of short sections, and mentioning the Verdi initiative several sections before explaining he has an interest in music makes no sense in terms of narrative flow. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I see now what happened. The two Wagner bits had gotten separated from each other in your first edit; you spotted it and fixed it later. Thanks for restoring the link to the Los Angeles Times source. I still think the generic music paragraph is better off as a section in Ideology, because music plays an important part in that. It even ties into his his economic model, quite part from the extolling of figures like Beethoven. Would you mind if we moved it back to Ideology? --JN466 19:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, my preference is that the music sections stay together. Writing it your way is: "In 2011 Jayen started a campaign to regulate the use of the Muay Thai two-pronged boxing jab." Then seven sections later the explanation: "Jayen and his wife have an interest in boxing." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Then, clearly, the sections need to be reorganized, but a section on music that extends from 1989 to present day shouldn't be in a section devoted specifically to the year 1989. It makes little sense and doesn't flow when you go from 1989 to 2010 and then back to the 90's in the next section. Maybe Ideology should be before the history section instead? Silverseren^C 19:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no problem including musical context in the Verdi section, just because some of it comes later. I think it's only one sentence that comes later anyway, so remove that one, or find an older source for it. Or accept that just because the page is roughly chronological doesn't mean we have to be slaves to chronology in every section. It's a narrative, not a list. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SilverSeren here. If you, Slim, feel that talking about the Verdi pitch initiative without prior warning is too abrupt, we could preface it with the existing lead sentence, "LaRouche and his wife have an interest in classical music up to the period of Brahms." An even better possibility is to add a sentence about what the Schiller Institute does, in the 1984 section mentioning its founding. That way the reader will be aware that the LaRouches have a musical interest. Having a music section in the ideology part is useful, because it plays a big role in LaRouche's movement. --JN466 19:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you produce a secondary source who says that and explains it? The section as it stands is cherry-picked. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you feel it's cherry-picked, you have to take that up with Will, as he's the one who added most of this material to the Verdi section. As for secondary sources, right now i can offer,

• Johnson notes that LaRouche is "fascinated by physics, mathematics and musical theory" (p. 202), mentions followers' attempts to link musical scales to LaRouche's Neoplatonist model of economic development as well as the Lafayette Foundation, a LaRouche front that sponsors classical music concerts (p. 208), and notes LaRouche writing about an argument between Zarlino and Monteverdi concerning the well-tempered musical scale (jazz is Monteverdi's fault, p. 196). In the same vein, we presently have the sentence "LaRouche credits the abandonment of well-tempered tuning systems with the decline of the West." in our article, cited to "Divining the world via music and math" in the Boston Globe (an article I can't see). Inside Higher Ed mentions the issue as well, saying, "One central doctrine of the movement is that certain classical compositions (sung at the proper pitch) can transform both singer and listener in a golden-soulful way. Here, for example, is a video of Joseph Lieberman being subjected to LaRouchian bel canto yodeling."
• King mentions that LaRouche's Neoplatonism extends into every cultural sphere, including music (p.275) There is an article called "LYNDON LAROUCHE AND FOLLOWERS SEEKING MUSIC REFORM ACCORDING TO 'NATURAL LAW'" in the St. Louis Dispatch: [23] (needs a subscription though; it would be interesting to hear more about this "natural law"). Perhaps it's something to do with this: the article "International battle over pitch" in the Boston Globe stated that LaRouche 'believes that A/432 is consistent with the "harmony of the universe"'.
• LaRouche supporters' choral singing has been mentioned in several other media reports, like these NPR pieces [24] [25], one of these describes LaRouche as a "music lover".
• Like the Lafayette Foundation, the Schiller Institute has sponsored classical concerts, see e.g. [26]. Bakker mentions his conversations with LaRouche about music in his autobiography. There's at least enough to state that LaRouche has an interest in music and that it ties in with his philosophy. --JN466 23:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• The Verdi Initiative really doesn't deserve a section in this article. Of his various initiatives it is hardly the most significant. We already cover it in great detail at Schiller Institute, the LaRouche entity which promoted it. All we need here is a sentence with a link. Do any of the other biographers of LaRouche devote this much space to it, proportionately? Did LaRouche physically do anything about it, like attend rallies to promote it? Since he was in prison at the time, that seems unlikely. This is a silly dispute over a minor initiative. In any case, if we're going to list his musical initiatives then let's keep them together.   Will Beback  talk  20:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • LaRouche's Verdi initiative was covered in the The Economist, The New York Times, The Washington Post (several times), The New Yorker, The Boston Globe, The Hour, The Richmond Times, Opera Fanatic, Deseret News, St. Louis Post Dispatch, U.S. News & World Report, even the Piano Technician's Journal. It's got a paragraph in the LaRouche profile in Inside Higher Ed's piece on the LYM. --JN466 23:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • How many sources mention the Duggan issue? Yet you seem to think that it isn't suitable for this article. LaRouche is responsible for many initiatives, but his personal involvement in this one appears to be minimal. The McLemee article is not a profile of LaRouche - it's an article about "The LaRouche Youth Movement". However if you think that it's a good source for this biography, and a good template for what is important, then we can start adding more material sourced to it.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I was referring to the LaRouche profile in McLemee's piece on the LYM. I do think the Inside Higher Ed article is a useful piece. It has the added advantage of being quite recent. As for Duggan, I've said what I think above. --JN466 23:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
        • If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Verdi initiative must be included because it's referred to in several sources, and that the Duggan material must not be included despite being being referred to in several sources. Can you explain the difference?
        • I don't see a "LaRouche profile" in the McLemee article on LYM. But if we agree that the article is relevant to this biography, despite ostensibly being about another topic, then we can start adding material from it to this article.   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Actually, there's no point in comparing the Verdi initiative and Duggan. The former is something that LaRouche was personally involved in and has been a major part of his life. The latter is an event that brought a large amount of criticism to his movement, but really didn't affect his personal life at all, which is why it should be covered in the movement article. Remember that we're talking about his BLP here, not the subject of backlash against his worldwide movement. Silverseren^C 01:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
            • • Silver seren, which source says that the Verdi Initiative is a major part of LaRouche's life? What source describes his personal involvement in this issue? Since you write so confidently I'm sure you're quite familiar with the issue and the sources.   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
                • No, but I believe that Jayen knows what he is talking about when he says it is. And he does appear to know what he's talking about. Furthermore, I was mostly pointing out that there is no purpose in even mentioning Duggan on this talk page again, since the consensus above is quite clear that Duggan should have nothing to do with this BLP. Silverseren^C 03:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
                  • In the future, it'd help if you'd clarify whether you're speaking from your own knowledge, or are just supporting what another says without actually having any independent knowledge of the issue. I don't see where Jayen said that the Verdi Initiative is a major part of LaRouche's life - I think you misread his statements. Nor do I see where Jayen describes LaRouche's personal activity on behalf of this initiative. You do realize he was in prison from 1989 to 1994, the period when his initiative was being promoted? In other words, it was his movement and his followers who promoted this, not LaRouche himself. That being the case, doesn't it make more sense to include it in the article on the movement entity which was doing the promotion?   Will Beback  talk  03:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
                    • LaRouche was convicted on December 16 1988. A week later, The Economist wrote, on 24 December 1988: "In California Mr LaRouche has promoted measures to quarantine AIDS carriers. His campaign against international bankers has won some support in the depressed Midwest. Not much has recently been heard of his belief that Britain's Queen Elizabeth is linked to drug dealers. But during this year he surprised viewers of his television commercials by dedicating himself to a revolution in music; modern pitch, he believes, is too high, and is ruining all but the most gifted voices." (The Economist, "Victim of high-pitched tuning? (Lyndon LaRouche)", Dec 24 1988)
                    • The campaign began before his conviction, and was featured in his 1988 commercials. LaRouche remained politically active from behind bars; he spoke about this initiative on National Public Radio while in prison, and even ran for president. --JN466 09:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• So he spoke about it in his TV commercials. He also used those expensive platforms to address a number of other initiatives (including the colonization of Mars), to declare that Carter intended to initiate thermonuclear war of reelected, and to declare that Walter Mondale was an agent of Soviet influence. I'm not saying that it's inconsequential or shouldn't be included somewhere in the encyclopedia. I'm just saying that it in the scope of this biography it's a minor initiative. I've proposed before that we cover all his minor initiatives, like the Verdi tuning and the Mars colonization, in a single paragraph.   Will Beback  talk  11:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think it's okay where it is in the timeline. If we can find out when he first spoke about colonizing Mars, then we should mention that in the relevant part of the chronology, just like we already mention Carter and Mondale at the appropriate point in the timeline. --JN466 11:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• We don't actually mention the accusation about Carter. Like the Mondale accusation, it attracted attention.
• I agree with the policy of keep the article as chronological as possible.
• I can see that I won't convince you that the Verdi Tuning is a minor initiative unworthy of so much space. But I'm glad to see that you're willing to allow as much space for similar initiatives and noteworthy remarks.   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• "In interviews, former members of the movement gave details about their fundraising practices, and alleged that LaRouche had spoken about assassinating U.S. President Jimmy Carter." (1984 section) --JN466 14:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, but nothing about LaRouche's widely reported campaign claim that Carter would start thermonuclear war if he won re-election. That would go in a 1980-ish section. I'll find the sources and put in something.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• In English, this means "I'm so glad that you're willing to allow space for more of the crazy things LaRouche has supported and more remarks that make him look like a nutcase." I think that's a pretty good translation. We don't care about WP:BLP here, let's find all of the most horrible things about LaRouche that we can, are you with me? :D :D :D (/sarcasm...but only that last sentence.) Silverseren^C 21:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think that comments like that are helpful. WP:AGF is a policy. Sarcasm is probably better for off-wiki forums.   Will Beback  talk  02:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• • It is true that sometimes we seem to go out of our way to make him look kooky. Part of the problem here is a temptation to seize upon good one-liners in press sources rather than available books that present his ideas in context. Where more deeply researched analysis is available, we should use it. --JN466 21:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• LaRouche's attacks on Carter were not just off-hand one-liners: they were the basis for two of his presidential campaigns.   Will Beback  talk  02:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In many cases, I think reporters were simply mystified. For example, I came across one article from 1981 about LaRouche's surprising defense of a liberal congressman, Harrison A. Williams, caught selling influence in the Abscam sting. Criticizing the investigation and doubting that the Senate would have enough moral courage to exonerate Williams, LaRouche is quoted as writing:

• There are members of Congress on both sides of the aisle so degenerate or so swayed by political opportunism that they variously promote or condone policies more hideous in their consequences than those perpetrated by Albert Speer and others under Adolf Hitler.

That's an odd thing to for someone defending a Senator accused of bribery to write. I guess LaRouche's point may have been that mere bribery is mild compared to the indescribable, unnamed atrocities condoned by other congressmen.   Will Beback  talk  08:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• By all means do; I haven't got a problem with it. I am aware that we are practising a kind of division of labour here, where you seem to put in the more negative stuff, and I put in the more positive stuff. But that doesn't mean that I don't recognise and support that the more negative material, too, needs to be here to arrive at a neutral article. --JN466 21:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's all "stuff". What matters is that the stuff we're adding verifiably summarizes reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Zayed Center

This is based on self-published sources, except for the post-speech issues, which are sourced only to the ADL. I think we should find uninvolved secondary sources for both, but at the very least the self-published material can't support anything.

Also in 2002, in a speech to the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up, LaRouche discussed his proposal for a Eurasian Landbridge, a land transportation system that would include a tunnel under the Bering Strait. According to an online dossier on the Zayed Center compiled by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, LaRouche stated in a subsequent question-and-answer session at the event that the September 11 attacks could not have taken place without connivance from someone inside the Bush administration, pointing to the "'Zionist lobby,' 'Jewish gangsters,' and 'Christian Zionists' as forces that have sought to control U.S. policies towards Israel and have been 'bought by money, the so-called Zionist money, and the mega crowd in New York.'"

Sources:

• For LaRouche on his speech to the Zayed Center, see LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. "The Middle East as a Strategic Crossroad", Schiller Institute, June 2, 2002.
• For the post-speech material, see Anti-Defamation League 2003.
• For LaRouche's Eurasian Landbridge proposal, see "Bering Strait Conference in Moscow Hears From LaRouche and Gov. Hickel On War-Avoidance Through Economic Development", LaRouche Political Action Committe, April 24, 2007.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Book review

The Inside Higher Ed piece mentioned a review of LaRouche's 1975 book in the Journal of Political Economy; I've read it, and for reference, it is available here from JSTOR. McLemee's description of it in Inside Higher Ed is accurate. --JN466 18:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. McLemee doesn't seem to say much of anything about the review. It received exactly one notice in an academic publication: a review in The Journal of Political Economy by Martin Bronfenbrenner, a professor of economics at Brown University. Since some view LaRouche as an economist, should we summarize the review, in this article or in the "Views" article?   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you must have misread the source. McLemee actually devotes four paragraphs to the review, about an eighth of his piece overall. I added a chapter on the book to the Views article, but I don't propose doing so here. All we should do perhaps is mention the book. --JN466 13:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. He mentions it then goes onto talk about the publications in general and I hadn't realized he circles back to it. In any case, I've added a line about it to this article. BTW, it sounds like McLemee, now that i read it more carefully, is only addressing the review and did not read the book itself. Per Bronfenbrenner, it doesn't sound like light reading.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Publisher?

I'd like to propose that we do some research on whether there is a basis for describing LaRouche as a "writer and publisher" in the lead, in addition to the other terms we have. I just came across a passage in Johnson 1983, p. 190, which states that "most of the money comes from selling periodicals: the twice-weekly newspaper New Solidarity and the magazines Fusion, War on Drugs, Campaigner, Investigative Leads, and Executive Intelligence Review." If LaRouche makes his money (and a considerable amount of money at that) from his publications, then the article should note that. Is anyone aware of further sources commenting on this? --JN466 13:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

He certainly seems to write rather prolifically, if Google Books is any indication. Silverseren^C 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Are there sources which actually call LaRouche a publisher, or are we making that conclusion on our own? When Johnston refers to the money, whose money is it, the movement's or LaRouche's? IIRC, LaRouche filed an affidavit in one of his last presidential campaigns that declared only a small income from his job as editor of EIR. It'd be accurate to say that he is the leader of a movement which publishes books, pamphlets, and periodicals.   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That's precisely the question we ought to research. I can find RS references to him as the founder and contributing editor of the Executive Intelligence Review, not as its publisher though. Johnson's passage is not entirely clear, but probably refers to the organization. --JN466 22:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ramsey Clarke

The material about Ramsey Clarke was stable for many years now in the lead. I would like to know why Will thinks it does not belong in the lead anymore. The material is reliably sourced. Also i would like to know why i am being directed, twice, to talk pages which have no relevance to the content in discussion. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The material that was put there instead conveys the same information in the subject's own words. The Clark quote has only been in the lead for so long because socks of banned user HK have kept restoring it. for example: [27]. The Clark assertion is still in the body of the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I can understand the merits of both sides of this content dispute, that the opinion is notable and belongs in the lede, or that it isn't notable enough to mention outside the article body. I don't understand, however, why an edit war was necessary when discussion could have been conducted instead and much earlier. The battleground stuff associated with this article is very unfortunate and unhelpful and probably needs to end once and for all. Cla68 (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's unfortunate that HK has exhibited such strong ownership of this article, even long after he was blocked and banned.

The edit was discussed last month and there was no objection. Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 25#Recent additions.   Will Beback  talk  04:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If there was consensus to remove it, then why did revert it two times in quick succession instead of starting a discussion? The IP was the one who started the discussion, not you. Also, you appear to be calling the IP a HK sock. I just checked the block blog for the IP and it's clear. I'm seeing sketchy behavior here on both sides, do you disagree? Cla68 (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The material was changed as a result of a discussion, so it's reasonable to expect the editor wishing to change it to start another discussion.   Will Beback  talk  11:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The material was added by HK in 2006, and his socks reverted changes to it 24 times over a five week period in 2007.

• 23:08, August 5, 2006 172.190.24.93 -first addition

1. 21:08, May 31, 2007 Don't lose that number
2. 21:29, May 31, 2007 Don't lose that number
3. 22:55, May 31, 2007 MaplePorter
4. 02:28, June 1, 2007 NathanDW
5. 13:58, June 7, 2007 MaplePorter
6. 21:11, June 8, 2007 NathanDW
7. 21:35, June 8, 2007 Marvin Diode
8. 03:26, June 9, 2007 NathanDW
9. 21:08, June 9, 2007 Don't lose that number
10. 21:33, June 9, 2007 Marvin Diode
11. 15:49, June 10, 2007 MaplePorter
12. 16:59, June 23, 2007 NathanDW
13. 15:02, June 24, 2007 Don't lose that number
14. 18:09, June 24, 2007 NathanDW
15. 16:21, June 27, 2007 NathanDW
16. 21:50, June 27, 2007 Don't lose that number
17. 13:56, June 29, 2007 Don't lose that number
18. 19:16, June 29, 2007 NathanDW
19. 14:57, June 30, 2007 Don't lose that number
20. 02:19, July 2, 2007 NathanDW
21. 03:39, July 2, 2007 Don't lose that number
22. 00:36, July 3, 2007 Don't lose that number
23. 14:01, July 3, 2007 MaplePorter
24. 14:34, July 3, 2007 MaplePorter

The Wikipedia model is not intended to reward those with the most sock puppets or the greatest willingness to edit war.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

So let's have a discussion here and now about reference to Ramsey Clark in the lede. The previous "discussion" was a passing mention as part of an impressive generation of verbiage between two editors, which is now archived. Let's start over. Clark is a former U.S. Attorney General, and therefore an unimpeachable expert about how the American justice system really works. Lyndon LaRouche's notoriety is intimately associated with the fact that he is a convicted felon, which is justifiably mentioned in the lede. In a situation like this, LaRouche's own protestations of innocence are worth noting for the sake of balance, but tend to carry little weight in the mind of a reader. However, the word of a former U.S. Attorney General puts things in a totally different light. Should it be included in the lede? I think this question is really a question of what kind of first impression to give the reader of the article. It seems to me that this type of question is as "hot-button" as it gets here at wikipedia, as witnessed by the battle-zone atmosphere that it has evoked in the past.--Other Choices (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, everyone charged with a crime who pleads 'not guilty" asserts innocence. How many intros to other articles about felons include so much space rebutting their convictions?

The material we're talking about is for the intro, which should be a summary of the whole article. For an article this long, devoting too much space to any issue in the intro can unbalance it. The intro shouldn't devote undo weight to the unsuccessful appeals. We can say he appealed and sought exoneration, but quoting one of his lawyers is unnecessary detail. If we look at the article as a whole, the intro should include more other topics, not spend more weight on individual ones.

As for Clark, he is not an unimpeachable source. That's one of the problems with this material, one which has been raised repeatedly on this page.   Will Beback  talk  09:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

My point was to emphasize Clark(e)'s expertise about the federal justice system. I can think of no greater expert in that area than a U.S. Attorney General. The issue of whether this is worth mentioning in the lede, however, is another kettle of fish. I'm not saying that it should be mentioned, but I do think that it should be considered, specifically because Clark is a former U.S. Attorney General (not just "one of LaRouche's lawyers"). If I had my way, this question would be discussed by uninvolved editors without Will BeBack's participation. No offense intended Will, but I think you are too strongly involved in this article to help settle issues when the pot boils over. You've had your say, and I've had my say, so I'm going to try to set an example and back away completely from the "Ramsey Clark in the lede" question. I will let others decide it as they see fit.--Other Choices (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

First, your assessment of the expertise of political appointees is incorrect, in my opinion. I would assert that the recent history of Attorney Generals could be said to include a number who had a poor grasp of the federal justice system, or at least of the right standards for justice and legal activity. Clark, in particular, is not a typical politico, and has been at the forefront of various controversies.

Second, even if Mother Teresa vouched for him that wouldn't necessarily be worth including in the lead. The Clark view is still in the article, it's just down in the relevant section. Putting this kind of detail in the lead is too much. The intro should summarize the entire article. It doesn't do that well now and adding a quote from a defense lawyer won't help it.

Third, let's remember that this material is only in its current location due to the extremely dishonest activities of a partisan. There was never a consensus for this material - just one banned editor pushing to keep it in. Going forward let's keep our eye on the target, which is a writing an introduction which is a fair summary of the whole article.   Will Beback  talk  09:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• LaRouche's own allegations of government misconduct in his prosecution unquestionably carry less weight in the mind of the reader than the judgment of Clark, a fairly prominent attorney, to the point where LaRouche's own quote is hardly worth noting. On the other hand, Clark's comment did at one time seem to take up a fair bit of the lead. I wouldn't object to having a shorter version of Clark in the lead, e.g. "His attorney, Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. Attorney General, argued that LaRouche was denied a fair trial." --JN466 16:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with JN: Clarke is a specialist in politically targeted prosecutions. LaRouche is not simply a "typical felon," as Will suggests. SlimVirgin removed the material on March 23, 2011, after it had been there for 4 years, so all that stuff about 2007 isn't particularly relevant. Also, there has been no discussion about this point: SlimVirgin simply wrote, that she "replaced the quote in the lead from his lawyer with a quote from him sourced to CBS.The name of Clarke was not mentioned, thus one simply cannot speak of "consensus". However, I agree with JN's suggestion of how this should appear in the lead.81.210.206.223 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A quote is not appropriate for the lead, however for balance, a concise summary of Clark's statement seems appropriate.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

1) We have numerous sources for comments by the judges and prosecutors in these cases. We even have sources for comments by other defense lawyers. But for the comments by Clark the only sources we have are the LaRouche websites. These comments were reported nowhere else. That says something about their importance. Do we want to base this article on the best available sources or not?

2) While LaRouche and his lawyers may have insisted on his innocence, he was in fact convicted and his numerous appeals did not succeed. Giving so much space in the intro to claims of innocence, without adding equal or greater material on his guilt, seems like a distortion. NPOV instructs us to give views weight according to their prominence, and the view that LaRouche was unjustly convicted is clearly a fringe view.

3) There was never a true consensus for the Clark material in the intro. In 2007 a poll was started to decide which of two versions to include in the intro, one with and one without a reference to Clark. Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 14#Poll on Lead. Six editors voted for the version without Clark. None of those editors are blocked or banned. Seven accounts voted for the version with Clark. Six of those accounts were later found to be socks of HK, and the seventh was banned (by Jimmy Wales himself) for other reasons. The honest editors respected the outcome of the fraudulent poll, but that does not mean it has any standing as a consensus version.

4) The intro should summarize the article. Adding material on Clark, who was a minor player in the criminal trials, takes us further away from a balanced summary.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Re (1), Will seems to be in error. The other article version with the Clark comment on the fairness of the trial cites sources other than LaRouche publications: [28]. The quote in the Steiger et al. book checks out. Clark's views of the fairness of the trial were also noted in other sources, e.g. The Boston Globe [29], New York Times [30] [31], and others. --JN466 00:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, your suggestion of the short, one-sentence summary on Clark's opinion in the lede appears reasonable and appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --JN466 00:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That was quick.

I'm not sure that the Steiger book is the best source.

• Award-winning writer Brad Steiger has devoted himself to exploring and examining unusual, hidden, secret, and otherwise strange occurrences. He has written over 2,000 articles and more than 150 titles with inspirational and paranormal theme, including Real Ghosts, Restless Spirits, and Haunted Houses, Real Vampires, Night Stalkers, and Creatures from the Darkside, The Werewolf Book, and Conspiracies and Secret Societies. Brad is a veteran of broadcast news magazines ranging from Nightline to the NBC Nightly News. He is also a regular radio guest on Jeff Rense's Sightings, The Allan Handelman Show, Rob McConnell's X-Zone, and Coast to Coast with George Noory and Art Bell. [32]

If we were writing about vampires and zombies he'd be an excellent source.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing, Will, before we move on. Me, Jayen, Keithbob, and OtherChoices, and the IP editor all are, as far as I know, not socks of HK. Yet, we all agreed on adding the statement on Clarke's opinion. So, would you be willing to agree to stop labeling edits you disagree with as being the product of "HK socks" and just keep the discussion centered on the substance of the content itself? I think that would be more helpful. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I never called you an HK sock. The accounts which inserted and then edit-warred over the material have been identified and blocked as socks. If folks are going to assert that material should stay in the article because it had consensus then it's reasonable relevant to discuss the origin of the material and its supposed consensus.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Since we've added views from one side, wouldn't it be appropriate to add something about the views of the other side?   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Only appropriate if such an addition was supported by a consensus, which does not mean just a single editor such as yourself. →StaniStani  20:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. Consensus may not override NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

POV is determined also by consensus, so this argument is getting circular. Simple way to put it: If someone wants to represent a POV, they need to have a consensus for their edits. That means if you think something should go in because you think the POV is unbalanced, a significant number of editors working in good faith have to agree with your addition. →StaniStani  18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires the inclusion of all significant points of view. If a consensus of editors decide to exclude such a POV then perhaps there's something wrong with those editors and the broader community should get involved.   Will Beback  talk  20:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In a user-edited encylopedia, such problems arise. If one editor consistently edits against consensus then it's usually a case of WP:OWN. If that perception arises, and the lone editor decides to bring in editors on their 'side' then accusations of WP:CANVASS are often leveled and the whole thing degenerates into name-calling. I think this particular digression has traveled away from the article and into policy. Why don't you take it to the Village Pump? I'm done for the time being, as it's dinnertime. →StaniStani  23:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ownership by a banned user and his sock has been a significant problem. Off-Wiki canvassing by that same person may be a problem, but there's little we can do about it.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Very nice. You stuck the dismount. :) I'll take that as our understanding that article ownership is a Bad Thing then. See you at the next RFC. →StaniStani  16:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of sources

Will, why did you delete the Boston Globe and Richmond Times sources from the Clark sentence in the lead? --JN466 01:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How many sources do we need for a short sentence? The NYT article is freely available and contains the direct assertion we're making. Incidentally, the refs for Clark etc., in the "trials" section need fixing. One is broken and the other doesn't support the assertions. Obviously, we shouldn't use a self-published LaRouche site as a source for what a living person has written.   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The other two sources use the exact expression, "fair trial". The NYT does not. Free online availability is a secondary concern; we should use the sources that best support the material in the article. We ought to restore these sources in preference over the NYT, lest the article be accused at some later point of containing original research. --JN466 02:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The intro should just be a summary of the article anyway, so footnotes shouldn't even be necessary. Why don't we use those two other sources for the "Trials" sections, which needs better sources.   Will Beback  talk  02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback  talk  02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The two sources cited for the Clark quote were Robert (1995) and Clark (presumably Ramsey Clark himself?). Can you see Robert? And where did Clark's piece appear? The quote is also in Steiger & Steiger of course, but I am not sure if if that is a reliable-enough source. The Steigers write about UFOs as well. --JN466 03:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the outcome of Clark's appeal, and used the Richmond Times for that.   Will Beback  talk  03:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Ford 1995?

• Ford, Brian (August 20, 1995), "LaRouche Pushes For Exoneration", Tulsa World.

Yes, I can see it. But it doesn't mention either Clark or the appeals which are the other topic of the footnoted sentence. Instead, it discusses exoneration petitions. I'm trying to figure out when it was added - maybe there's been a mix-up in subsequent editing.   Will Beback  talk  08:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It used to say "Following the convictions, the LaRouche movement mounted failed attempts at exoneration." Apparently someone deleted the text but left the citation. I'm going to delete it.   Will Beback  talk  08:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche and Leo Strauss

I was recently browsing The truth about Leo Strauss: political philosophy and American democracy (University of Chicago Press, 2006) on Google Books, and I found some interesting references that might be of use in this article. In particular, the authors of this book contend that much of the liberal opposition to Strauss and Straussianism, and in particular its purported link to neoconservatism and the Iraq War, "began in the LaRouche camp and jumped from there to mainstream media — for the most part without attribution." (p. 12; see p. 8 and onward for background) Not sure if this is worth inserting, but it is one of the few sources that attributes to LaRouche any influence on mainstream politics. *** Crotalus *** 18:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seen similar assertions. Unless there's a very specific connection to LaRouche the person this article would not be the ideal location for the Strauss material. We cover it at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Leo Strauss. While we might not want to make that section much longer for weight reasons, the book looks like a good source which we should add to the mix. I've ordered a copy.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've looked that material and it's worthwhile. However the "views" article is probably going to be re-scoped tp purely political views so the Strauss issue wouldn't fit there any more, and it's too minor to include here in any detail either. Maybe we could include it in a compendium list of issues on which LaRouche has had influential views.   Will Beback  talk  09:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen similar assertions as well. --JN466 23:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-political views

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

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

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

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

Rejection by the DNC

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

An editor has removed two references to the fact that the Democratic National Committee issued a decision that LaRouche is not a member of the Democratic Party. It was contested by the LaRouche campaign and as a result the courts affirmed that political parties have a right to decide who is a member. Based on the editor's other activities,[35][36] these edits may have more to do with partisan political issues than with the subject's life history. I believe this fact is notable because it is perhaps unprecedented for a major political party to formally deny the membership of a candidate, and because of the court case, and it's relevant because it would give the wrong impression to imply that the subject campaigned as a Democrat Party member in good standing. I'll undo the edits unless there is a good reason to leave them out.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The original source, a New York Times profile from 1974, makes no effort to explain it. But they printed it and it was also quoted in King's biography.[37] So two authors writing about him have found it interesting enough to quote.   Will Beback  talk  07:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Satanism

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

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

Issues to be addressed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) We don't actually have a source for "Members of the LaRouche movement see LaRouche as a political leader in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt." It'd be good to cite that. Correction, it is cited, but Jayen466's weird citation scheme hid that fact. The commentators in question are Jeffrey Steinberg and Michele Steinberg.[38] We could go farther and describe them as "senior leaders" rather than mere members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) See [39]. It might be easier to find these things if all of the inline citations hadn't been reworked and placed at the ends of paragraphs. That unilateral change has made it much harder to verify and alter the article.

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

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

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

1) I'm emailing the Blum article to you. I don't see anything directly relevant in the other two citations. However I think you need to drop a note to SlimVirgin, as she added this material and she could best explain it.[40]

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

1) Thanks, Will.

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

3) That's pretty thin compared to the hundreds of references to him as a "a former member of the KKK and the ANP". The SWP infiltration was in the early 1960s, while his connections to the KKK and ANP were much more extensive and recent. Let's include both.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

4) I've added his involvement in the KKK and ANP, based on the NYT (thanks). The footnote text we discussed above didn't check out; it only mentioned that LaRouche called him a high-intelligence source. We could still add a sentence about LaRouche's interest in Frankhouser's intelligence ties. Cheers, --JN466 00:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete all of it? There's plenty more we could say about the connection between Frankhouser and LaRouche. Much of it is covered in greater depth at the criminal trials article - we might just add a section link here to the part of that article which talks about him.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Diff. I deleted the footnote text because it covered Frankhouser's activities related to the 1971 Pontiac bombing, which predate his association with LaRouche by several years, and are covered in his own biography, which is wikilinked. --JN466 00:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

1990's Largely Unresearched

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

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

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

Right-wing and left-wing groups

• The LaRouche organization believed Frankhouser to be a federal agent who had been assigned to infiltrate right-wing and left-wing groups, and that he had evidence that these groups were actually being manipulated or controlled by the FBI and other agencies.
  • EIR, July 17, 1975[41]

I see mentions in the citation of the KKK and Black September. I don't see any text about "right-wing and left-wing groups". It'd be more accurate just to list those two groups rather draw an unwarranted conclusion that these represented "right-wing and left-wing groups".   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is the reference to '"enemy" organizations', a description that corresponds to what persons within the normal political spectrum would call 'fringe' or 'anti-constitutional'. Nevard (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe one of those phrases would be more accurate and inclusive.   Will Beback  talk  04:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source that makes that point more explicit: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1974/eirv01n10-19740708/eirv01n10-19740708_016-the_busing_plot_cia_plans_fall_r.pdf Cheers, Waalkes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC).

That complicates the equation considerably. I, for one, had no idea that Frankhouser's interactions with LaRouche went back that far- July 1974. This 1975 document[42] seems to say that Frankhouser was threatened by the FBI, CIA, et al. with a lobotomy, etc, unless he provided them with incriminating evidence about LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party. That implies there was some significant existing or previous relationship by then.   Will Beback  talk  09:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest "extremist" groups in place of "right-wing and left-wing groups". Any other thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The LaRouche organization clearly wrote [43] that they thought both sides of the left-right equation were being manipulated to fight each other. To replace "left and right" with "extremists" would hide the actual point being made. Waalkes (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we are writing about what people believe and using their writings as sources, we need to use their words. If their terminology is questionable, then it should be in quotations. TFD (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but the source does not describe the KKK and Black September as "right-wing and left-wing groups". If there are objections to summarizing them as "extremist groups" then let's just name them. There are only two, so it won't take any more space.   Will Beback  talk  19:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Waalkes, if you have a different opinion could you please quote the text which specifically supports the added text?   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure: Let me call your attention (for the 3rd time) to the new source, which says this:

"...the CIA has coordinated the activities of its Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) police apparatus; the Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare; a plethora of local and national CIA-controlled right-wing paramilitary groups including the Minutemen and the Ku Klux Klan; and the leading CIA-controlled pseudo-left-wing groups, the Revolutionary Union and the Socialist Workers Party."

"This work accomplished, the two [Miles and Frankhauser] attempted to organize the ultimate CIA control set-up -- a united front between right and left countergangs." Waalkes (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - it's hard to know what's being referred to without explicit excerpts. The source doesn't talk about "left-wing groups", they're "pseudo left-wing groups". We should use the phrase that appears in the source.

If LaRouche thought he knew so much about Frankhouser it's hard to understand why he'd place so much trust in him.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)