Jump to content

Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Material about LaRouche's anti-Semitic theory of history should be restored

I note that Happy-melon, a Wiki administrator, has cut the guts out of the description of LaRouche's anti-Semitic theory of history on grounds of "BLP concern." What BLP? This is an article about LaRouche's ideological views--the heart of his ideology is his theory of a struggle of two elites, one of which (the evil one) he defines as being an alien species and which he persistently equates with Jewish names and with families that either are Jews, part-Jews, Jewish converts to Christianity, or folks who created the Jewish faith for cynical reasons.
LaRouche said these things--after months of debate his followers have been unable to establish otherwise and I thought the fight over this paragraph was over and done. Would Happy-melon please explain exactly what the BLP concern is that caused this excision of important and properly sourced information at a time when the article is blocked from editing by anyone except admins?--Dking (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not LaRouche's anti-Semitic theory of history, it's yours. Try reading the discussion, beginning with Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Request for edit by an administrator. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Lyndon LaRouche has been widely referred to as an "anti-semite". It's not something that Dennis King invented. We've been over this ground before. I suggest that we all just move on. This article is protected and we're not going to make any changes to it unless there's a consensus (barring admins dropping in and doing what they think necessary). Let's just accept that this article isn't perfect and find some even less perfect articles to work on instead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The relentless rewriting of history and fact to satisfy the mistaken application of BLP in a way that is a blatant apologia for antisemitism by the LaRouchites is not acceptable. Wikipedia has become a major international vehicle through which the LaRouchites promote the idea that LaRouche is not an antisemite. If Wikipedia is going to promote antisemitism through deletion in this entry, at the very least it needs a dispute flag. If Wikipedia chooses to accept historical revisionism to mask antisemitism, then at least it should indicate that there are a few editors who object to the lies.--Cberlet (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Who are you trying to kid? A few lines of clumsy, half-baked innuendo have been removed. There are still plenty left. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Cberlet, you may request a {POV} tag be applied to the article. Happy-melon might be willing to do so. However tags don't fix anything and POV tags are supposed to only be up so long as there's a active discussion going on. I don't know about you but I'm happier with the peace and quiet that the protection brings. There's already plenty on LaRouche's views on the role of Jews in history. I suggest again that we should just let this article stay where it is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to request a few edits by an administrator

In the section called "Jews and the Holocaust," there is a problem sentence: In 1978, the same year LaRouche's article cited The Protocols, the LaRouche group published Dope, Inc.: Britain’s Opium War against the U.S., which cited the Protocols and defended its authenticity, liking the "Elders of Zion" to the Rothschild banking family, the British Royal family, and the Italian Mafia, and the Israeli Mossad, General Pike, and the B'nai B'rith. First of all, the word "liking" should be "likening." Secondly there should be links to Wikipedia articles on the listed organizations and persons, especially "General Pike" who is Albert Pike, something that most readers probably would not know.

Also, I think that the title "Jews and the Holocaust" is misleading, because LaRouche's polemic was against Zionism, not Jews. Some people think that there is no difference, but LaRouche does, and to be neutral, the title should be something about Zionism.

Also, I see an undue weight problem with the very long section on Gays and Aids. That is not a major aspect of LaRouche's ideas, so giving it so much space is a distortion. It would be more appropriate, if very long quotes from LaRouche are in order, to feature the more central themes of his writing. --Polly Hedra (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

  • My guess is that the suggestions in the first paragraph are non-controversial. The suggestion in the second paragraph probably can be settled easily. The suggestions in the third paragraph would likely require considerable effort to achieve a fresh consensus for changes.
  • I'll make the changes in the first paragraph if there are no objections. Can folks propose a better heading for the the "Jews and the Holocaust"? Maybe "Jews, Zionism, and the Holocaust"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of something like "1970s campaign against Zionism, and response from critics." Also, one other thing: in the intro, it shouldn't just say he "moved to the right," because that belief is not universally shared. It should say something like "This is complicated by the fact that LaRouche's views have changed considerably over time, particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy. Some commentators say he moved towards the right.[1]" Or you could make it specific to the source that is quoted, although I guess that is not normally done in the intro. --Polly Hedra (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of something like "particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy and adopted blatant antisemitism and, some critics say, shifted to being a neofascist." That would be more accurate, don't you think?--Cberlet (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
(see Troll (Internet)) --Terrawatt (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I looked. My suggestions are not "irrelevant or off-topic messages." It is the majority POV in the real world outside of the handful of fawning supporters of a lunatic neofascist antisemite. So how can I possible be trying to "bait" a response? What bait can I possibly imagine worse than the simple facts? And facts are not bait, they are the whole meal.--Cberlet (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't sell yourself short Chip, you have a reputation as a master baiter. --Dental hygiene dilemna (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Always enjoy a good pun, it's so meaty that it stiffens my resolve to point out that we need to add more about LaRouche's concept of "Mothers' Fears" as "the principle source of impotence" and the psycho-sexual castration of revolutionary men by women. What a guy!--Cberlet (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
(As an aside, I nominate Cberlet's preceding post as the most awesome comeback in Wikipedia history. Carry on.) - Merzbow (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} — (☒N Not done, no consensus yet.  Sandstein  06:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for that. Are there any real, serious objections to:
  1. Modifying the intro so that it says "This is complicated by the fact that LaRouche's views have changed considerably over time, particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy. Some commentators say he moved towards the right.[1]"
  2. Changing the heading of the "Jews" section so that it reads "1970s campaign against Zionism, and response from critics"?
--Polly Hedra (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I object. It is typical of the relentless grinding away of criticism typical of LaRouche advocates on Wikipedia. Either we stand up against the sanitization of neofascist antisemitism, or we turn over Wikipedia to fanatics.--Cberlet (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Her proposed wording appears to be factually correct. Where is the "relentless grinding" and "sanitization"? --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Polly's proposals are non-controversial. Chip sees an opportunity here to soapbox, but he is not offering a substantive objection. See Troll (internet). --Terrawatt (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You may not like Cberlet, and may even like to insult him, but he is an editor in good standing and his opinion still counts for or against a consensus. Since there isn't a consensus for the edits it isn't appropriate to request an admin to make them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

<--------The requested changes are not superficial.

Current:"This is complicated by the fact that LaRouche's views have changed considerably over time, particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy, and moved towards the right.[1]"

Requested Change:"This is complicated by the fact that LaRouche's views have changed considerably over time, particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy. Some commentators say he moved towards the right.[1]"

This implies that there is a lack of consensus in the majority of published studies of LaRouche. There is not the case.

Current:"Jews and the Holocaust"

Requested Change:"1970s campaign against Zionism, and response from critics"

Nonsense, the man is a Holocaust denier and noted antisemite according to reputable published reports.

This is what I mean by the ongoing relentless sanitization of LaRouche articles.--Cberlet (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "moved toward the right," this is the sort of thing that, under BLP, should never be simply presented as fact. There should be some sort of attribution beyond a footnote to the Post.
I just re-read the "Jews and Holocaust" section, and the first thing that I notice is that the "holocaust denier" claim is completely unsourced. Unless a very reputable source can be found, it should be removed as OR.
One other thing that bothers me about this article is that there is a section called "Notes," which is all unlinked and non-specific references to material, mostly by King and Berlet. I have never seen a "Notes" section in another Wikipedia article, and I propose that these footnotes be re-done as standard refs to conform to Wikipedia practice. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I searched the web to see who accuses LaRouche of holocaust denial, and it's all Berlet and King. It seems clear that these two are using Wikipedia for self-promotion. --Polly Hedra (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That would be an improvement, because the section is mainly about LaRouche's opposition to Zionism and his claim that it is incompatible with Judaism. (Incidentally, I doubt that he still holds this view -- he began, in the '90s, to acknowledge factions within Zionism, some of which he came to support.) I think Marvin's point is valid -- the section proclaims twice that LaRouche has been accused of holocaust denial, but nowhere are his accusers identified. This is a problem. --Niels Gade (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that the change in heading would be an improvement. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, but with one important caveat. It should be changed for now to "Zionism and Jews," because under BLP the accusation of holocaust denial must be removed immediately until an adequate source is presented. Will, you know the rules. See WP:GRAPEVINE. --Terrawatt (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • To Terrawatt: WP:GRAPEVINE says:
    • Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research).
  • An Associated Press article from 1986 says:
    • Among other things, LaRouche says that the Queen of England is involved in drug trade and that the Holocaust was fictional.
  • So there is a source which meets the standards of WP:V. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Happy to supply multiple published cites about LaRouche as an antisemite, Holocaust denier, and "small-time Hitler." But then the objection will be that the sources are part of the vast conspiracy to smear LaRouche.--Cberlet (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
If the cites are all from you and Dennis King, that would more along the lines of a dinky conspiracy to smear LaRouche. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I made sure that all of those charges (above) could be cited to other authors before I posted the facts.--Cberlet (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there in fact a specific charge that LaRouche is a holocaust denier, that does not originate from someone like Berlet or King? Has he been called a holocaust denier in a reputable publication like the New York Times or Washington Post? --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
See my comment to Terrawatt, above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Associate Press is acceptable to me. So, I recommend that the cite be added and we go with "Zionism, Jews and the holocaust." --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Holocust is capitalized. The more appropriate title would be "Jews, Holocaust Denial, and anti-Zionism."--Cberlet (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Holocaust has an a in it. The title should reflect the amount of space and emphasis given to each topic in the section, therefore "Zionism, Jews and the Holocaust" is appropriate. --Niels Gade (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Which is why the entire section needs to be rewritten to reflect majority pubished views rather than a sad attempt by pro-LaRouche editors to frame the issue from the LaRouchite POV which minimizes the Holocaust Denial and antisemitism--trying to rpetend that it is mreely anti-Zionism, which is false and widely discussed as a ruse by the LaRouchites. "Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial posing as anti-Zionism," would be more accurate.--Cberlet (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Cberlet, I've been wading through these claims and counterclaims at Wikipedia for over a year now, and one thing that has become clear to me is that you never miss an opportunity to assert your personal view as authoritative, when from my experience, it seldom reflects mainstream opinion. This is why Wikipedia has core policies -- to protect articles, especially BLP articles, from agressive editors who seek to impose their individual POVs. I've never seen you actually work to achieve consensus -- you seem to go for maximum conflict, and then seize the opportunity to soapbox on talk pages. This is, as the saying goes, not helpful. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
What is the point of reaching consensus with a group of single issue fanatic supporters of a raging antisemite, fascist and lunatic? Arbcom has made a decision and refuses to enforce it. This about the credibilty of an encyclopedia in the face of a concerted effort by crackpots and syncophants. Please appeal to Arbcom if you disagee. Been there--done that. It is not my problem if Arbcom, Wikipedia's board, and Wales are spineless cowards.--Cberlet (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Chip has been blocked for 24 hrs to calm down following the uncivil edit above. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Change in headline

  • LaRouche talks about Zionism more than the other two. Does anyone object to "Zionism, Jews, and the Holocaust"? That formulation doesn't give his opinion of any of those; it just lists the topics that will be covered in the section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Endorse. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Fine. --Polly Hedra (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Endorse. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Endorse. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Will, enough time has elapsed that I suggest you go ahead and make this change. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Change in intro

Please don't forget about modifying the intro so that it says "This is complicated by the fact that LaRouche's views have changed considerably over time, particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy. Some commentators say he moved towards the right." --Polly Hedra (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that he has 'modified' his view of Jews et al? I think not.--Janeyryan (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You may be conflating two unrelated controversies here. The issue that Polly is raising in the previous post has to do with the lede, where it states that LaRouche "moved toward the right" in the '70s, which is the view of some, but not all, commentators (as can be seen in the body of the article.) As far as L's views on Jews, Judaism, Zionism, etc. etc., that is a separate and also hotly disputed topic, but the material in the body of the article suggests that his views did indeed change. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
My mistaken then. Apologies.--Janeyryan (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there'a a consensus for that change. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll support that change (i.e., "Some commentators say he moved towards the right.") Blanket assertions about living persons should never be made without some sort of attribution, especially in the lede. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Given that we all agree (?) that he was a Marxist(Trotskyist) in the 1960s and early '70s, does anyone disagree that his later political moves were to the right? What would be to the left of Marxism? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not our job to figure out where he moved. Some people (General Graham, for example,) claim he didn't move at all. The fact of the matter is, some commentators say he moved in a rightward direction. We can report that without proclaiming it to be revealed truth. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a different wording would get a consensus. In my opinion, saying that it's the opinion of "some commentators" appears to cast doubt on the statement. If only one person states a viewpoint that contradicts numerous sources then we shouldn't give that viewpoint excess weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Saying that LaRouche "moved toward the right" implies that he became a rightist. If that were true, he would have embraced laissez-faire, "limited government," "trickle-down economics," and so on, when in fact he continued to oppose them. My proposed solution is to simply say he abandoned Marxism, which is undisputed, and let it go at that. Or, say that his views defy categorization, which is the truth. --Terrawatt (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Moving towards the right" doesn't necessarily mean adopting a libertarian platform. He does not defy categorization - many people have categorized him. "Ultraconservative" is a frequent term used to describe his politics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Many people have categorized him, but they do not agree. Therefore, the obvious course of action, and the one, I might add, that is consistent with Wikipedia policy, is to directly attribute each categorization to a corresponding source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree believe that 'moved to the right' is correct.--Janeyryan (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Then this view could be attributed to you in the article, provided that you are a Reliable Source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
He did move, I am sure you would agree. What is your view of the direction? I don't think one can seriously dispute 'right.' No strike that. I don't think we want to become embroiled in a theoretical discussion. I think that the sourcing on 'right' as currently is sufficient.--Janeyryan (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is another from The Guardian, and there are many more: 'In fact, it was organised by the far-right Schiller Institute, which is inspired by Lyndon LaRouche, a US right-wing conspiracy theorist...' [1] While not explicitly stating what direction he 'moved,' it does indicate that it was generally accepted by 2007 that he was considered 'far' right. If there is a greater weight of reliable evidence stating that he moved to the 'left', please enlighten us.--Janeyryan (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It is probably more appropriate to present the debate over whether LaRouche is left, right or indifferent at the biographical article. But if it must be done here, rather than picking one side of the debate for endorsement, it were better to simply acknowledge that some commentators say right, others say left, and please identify the commentators. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
If there are significant reliable sources referring to him as, say, a Roosevelt liberal, please enlighten us.--Janeyryan (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
See the bio. General Daniel O. Graham called him an "unrepentant Marxist-Leninist" in the 1980s, and the Heritage Foundation seemed to think he was some sort of Soviet mole. The pattern appears to be that leftists call him a rightist, and vice versa. This strikes me as similar to the debate over at Robert Mugabe, where a group of editors wants to call him "de facto president." Opinions are fine, if they are attributed. I have a problem with presenting them as fact. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The source for the Graham quote is a Washington Post article, which also says:

  • The organization's ideology is hard to pin down. The NCLC started in the late 1960s as a left-wing Marxist sect and then shifted to the far right in the mid-1970s. Its philosophy now is a thick stew of political ingredients. Some people have publicly expressed doubts that the shift to the right was authentic and believe LaRouche is secretly still a Marxist. With the move from left to right, the group's perceived enemies shifted as well. But one fear remained constant: that LaRouche is branded for assassination. [...] In an interview, LaRouche denied that he had ever been a leftist, but he said that he had merely been opposed to senator Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin Republican who led an aggressive campaign against communists. But this assertion is contradicted by former associates and by dozens of the group's publications and internal reports explaining his beliefs of that time. [...]In the mid-1970s, LaRouche began to describe intricate plots against the group by the CIA, the Rockefellers and others, the group's publications show. Around that time, the group, by then better described as conspiracy-minded than left-wing, began making alliances with groups that shared its concern about supposed secret plots and conspiracies -- the radical right wing. The NCLC's turn to the political right "happened without most members realizing it," according to one former member. "It happened through this hysteria." One man with whom LaRouche and his group dealt in the mid-1970s was Willis Carto, the founder of the Liberty Lobby, according to LaRouche's deposition in a libel case last year and one by Carto in another lawsuit. The Liberty Lobby, a right-wing group, has said it was never allied with LaRouche. Carto said in his 1980 deposition that the Liberty Lobby never endorsed the NCLC but that he was "quite impressed" with its members and that his organization's newspaper, Spotlight, had praised it. [...] Despite the group's right-wing allies and conservative rhetoric, some critics say they doubt that the LaRouche organization truly abandoned its leftist principles and believe it merely faked a conversion to the right -- a point raised by NBC in the libel case. The Heritage Foundation said in a July report that despite LaRouche's appearance as a right-wing anticommunist, he takes political stands "which in the end advance Soviet foreign policy goals." Daniel Graham, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon's intelligence arm, and a longtime LaRouche critic, said he believes LaRouche is an "unrepentant Marxist-Leninist" who faked the move to the right "to suck conservatives into giving him money." Some other former high-ranking intelligence officials, mostly conservatives, said they join Graham in this belief. LaRouche and his associates deny these allegations, and several ex-members interviewed back them up. [...] Some of LaRouche's statements are obtuse and hard to follow. For example, in a deposition, LaRouche described himself as "a neo-Platonic democratic republican."[2]

Based on that article, it appears that the majority viewpoint is that LaRouche moved to the right, and there are a couple of dissenting opinions (or were in 1985). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The position that he is really a leftist in disguise can be presented as a minority view. I find it interesting.--Janeyryan (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Based on the section that Will quotes from the Post, the conclusion I would draw is that the shift to the right is the view of the Post, not necessarily the majority view, since they cite no sources. How about this text for the intro: This is complicated by the fact that LaRouche's views have changed considerably over time, particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy. According to the Washington Post, he moved to the right, although other commentators see it differently. Or alternatively, just say he abandoned Marxism, and leave the categorization of him to the biographical article as Niels Gade suggests. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit puzzled on who these 'other commentators' would be. Are they calling him a far-rightist, or a vicious neo-nazi, or are you simply referring to LaRouche allies who see him as the sole saviour of the world? John Nevard (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"According to the Washington Post" would give the incorrect impression that this is the view of one newspaper and not a wide perception.--Janeyryan (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Marvin's proposed text is unnecessarily wordy. Mine covers all the bases: "This is complicated by the fact that LaRouche's views have changed considerably over time, particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy. Some commentators say he moved towards the right." The the right-wingers who say LaRouche is a leftist are less numerous, and therefore not specifically mentioned. --Polly Hedra (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The "some commentators" language is needlessly mealy mouthed.--Janeyryan (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I would be inclined, then, to simply omit any left-right categorization. It seems highly subjective and, more importantly, unnecessary. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
That would be an abdication of responsibility. The encyclopedia's job is to state the facts, and the move to the right is a fact. Minority views do not cancel out majority views.--Janeyryan (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, the "move to the right" is disputed, so you don't report it as "fact," you report it as an attributed opinion. Secondly, the term "right" is too vague and subjective to be considered a "fact" under any circumstances. For reference, if you look at the introductory paragraph of the Wikipedia article Right-wing politics, you find a surprisingly complete list of all of the main ideologies that LaRouche attacks. --Terrawatt (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
'Move to the right' is not a value judgment, but a statement of fact by dispassionate reporters for major news operations. It also seems rather obvious, frankly. I can't see how it can be seriously disputed. Can you show me some significant and reliable sources that show Mr. LaRouche moving to port and not starboard?--Janeyryan (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Free trade

The article's Economics section has a too weak statement on LaRouche's opposition to free trade where it says: He believes that if governments do not play a strong role in directing national economies, the gap will be filled by several kinds of monopolies and cartels. It is because of this that LaRouche opposes Free Trade and globalism and supports protectionism.

I would like to expand that section to include the fact that his opposition goes as far as to liken free trade with nazi mass murder. The following LaRouche quote, repeated in his flyers since 1997 could be included:

"free trade, practiced against the nations of Southeast Asia, is simply a new form of colonialism, whose fruit is mass murder. In that sense, there is no difference, in effect on people, between free trade and Nazism."

WinTakeAll (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph which follows the line about Free Trade compares the IMF to Nazism, so I think that's already covered. --Polly Hedra (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Have any of the regular editors ever read Πολιτεία?

This, The political expression of Platonism is the republic, while the rival Aristotelean view is oligarchical. The republicans seek a form of society that cherishes the creative mental powers of the individual is nonsense. Plato's Republic was quite close to the world envisioned in Brave New World. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 00:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The sentence you quote is a summary of LaRouche's views, which are usually unorthodox. However, I have read the Republic, and based on my reading, I would say your views are unorthodox, also. Unless orthodoxy is defined by Karl Popper. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
A quick search of Google for ["Brave New World" plato] brings up evidence that it is a common viewpoint. See, for example, "Aldous Huxley’s City in Speech: Brave New World and the Republic of Plato". In any case, it's LaRouche's viewpoint and we're not here to argue over whether it's correct or not. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Add to the section on British theories

Perhaps someone could add his recent campaigns against George Soros, who Larouche claims in an agent for the British empire, despite being famous for "breaking the bank of England". Hectorguinness (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree that the Soros campaign is significant, but since LaRouche has opinions on countless topics it'd be best if we restrict ourselves to adding only those topics where his opinions have been discussed in 3rd-party sources. If we can find some reliable secondary sources on his views of Soros then it may be worth a paragraph. It could go in the 'The "British" conspiracy' section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The LaRouche campaign against Soros is not recent at all. It has received widespread attention over a lengthy period of time, and certainly needs to be mentioned. I believe The Nation had an article on this subject at one point.--Janeyryan (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A cursory search of the Internet reveals, in addition to his more recent accusations against Soros, this[3] from Slate in 2004, relating back to a LaRouche campaign in the previous year. That, in turn, had its origins in the early 1990s. While I admit that there are dangers in repeating libelous accusations such as this, they are so scurrilous that I do not believe that they constitute a serious BLP issue from the Soros perspective. --Janeyryan (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  • That appears sufficient to both establish the notability of the viewpoint and to provide material. There may be more 3rd party sources as well as the subject's own writings. Does anyone want to draft a short paragraph on LaRouche's views of Soros? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind taking a shot at it, if you don't mind waiting a day or two, so I have enough time to do it right. I believe that there is another 3rd party source -- the Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal jointly attacked LaRouche and Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohammad 10 years ago, for blaming the attacks on the Asian currencies on Soros.
Incidentally, despite what it says in the "Slate" article, LaRouche has primarily attacked Soros for giving money to drug legalizaton efforts, not receiving money from them. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be a good addition to the article.--Janeyryan (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a draft, which may be too long:

LaRouche vs. George Soros

A long term target of LaRouche's polemics has been the Hungarian/British financial speculator and political activist George Soros, whom LaRouche calls an agent of British interests. In April 1997 EIR published a special report entitled "The True Story of Soros the Golem," and in July 2008 LaRouche PAC published a mass-circulation pamphlet entitled "Your enemy, George Soros."[1] LaRouche charges that Soros' Hedge funds harmed Third world and Eastern European nations by the practice of currency speculation, particularly during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.[2] The September 19, 1997 Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal featured a front-page article entitled "Malaysia's Mahathir Finds Strange Source for Soros Campaign; Asian Country's Media Tap U.S. Conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche Jr." LaRouche has also criticized Soros for his financial support of campaigns to decriminalize or legalize recreational drugs, and has claimed that Soros, through his financial contributions, is the "key controller" of numerous politicians, including DNC Chairman Howard Dean,[3] and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.[4]

-- Niels Gade (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that this is a good addition. But shouldn't the material mentioned by Shafer be added?--Janeyryan (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Based only on the source that Niels provides, I would suggest that the last line be modified to read and the government of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I still can't for the life of me understand why Wikipedia devotes any space at all to a running log of every wackadoo theory emanating from this source, and indeed why an article on this individual's, ahem, "views" is perhaps the longest such article on the views of any individual written about in Wikipedia. The existence of this article and its sempiternal verbosity is perhaps the only thing more phantasmagorical than the actual wingnut theories themselves. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
His views are widely held and influential, fringe though they surely are.--Janeyryan (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh, no. Thomas Paine's views are widely held, but he doesn't even get a fork article on his views, like this ridiculous one. If Larouche's views were so "widely held" (got a source or two for that?), then 95% of the refs for the material this article wouldn't have to be culled (hello, OR calling, anybody home?) directly from Larouchite sources. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Better to have them in one article then spread across the encyclopedia. Which brings us back to George Soros. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is the alternative that non-notable fringe nonsense would need to be "spread across the encyclopedia"? By what earthly and/or Wiki criteria are these blatherings to be included at length at all? Same sort of tumescence as exists with Scientology articles, but when Larouche gets a couple of Hollywood stars and even a smidgen of the press and books that the auidtors have garnered, then maybe there's a possibility. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It finds its way into articles. See talk:George Soros#RfC: The "60 Minutes" interview. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, not seeing the Larouche connection from that link , specifically anything indicating LArouche's "views" on Soros have any notability. Unless I'm missing something, it looks like Larouchites are trying to promote something that was on "60 Minutes." Notability would imply 60 Minutes promoting Larouche theories, not vice versa? Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
They aren't promoting everything that Soros said in that interview, just the part that matches up with the LaRouche viewpoint. That's consistent with actions by LaRouche editors going back years, finding snippets of information that support the LaRouche world-view and adding them to articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I get that part--Larouchies are trying to infuse articles with their views. My question was, and remains: Why are Larouche's views on Soros (or anything) notable at all? Janeyryan sez "His views are widely held and influential." I'm asking for a source for that. ("His views are widely held and influential.[citation needed]" Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave it to Janeyryan to answer that one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, hopefully we can get an answer to that one. But it still leaves open the larger question--why is any of this stuff notable. I see no indication that his views hold sway with anyone short of the usual nonogenarian ex-councilmember or the occasional senile church figure that these types tend to meld with. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, according to the WSJ, LaRouche's anti-Soros views are appreciated by Mahathir and company. LaRouche appears to be supportive of various dictators and I expect they return the favor. Also, the EIR, 21st Century, and the Schiller Institute get cited by folks who may not be aware of their affiliations. Describing these views in a neutral manner is a service to readers. I am concerned though, that the article relies so heavily on LaRouche sources rather than 3rd parties. One of these days the article should get an overhaul. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Mahathir was the widely respected leader of one of the largest nations on earth for over 2 decades. Since BLP applies to talk pages, Will, I suggest that you retract your statement about "dictators." You know that if someone said something like that about Chip Berlet, you would be on the ceiling. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of Ferdinand Marcos, RIP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Right. But LaRouche is still alive, so please retract. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There are ample sources that show LaRouche supported Marcos policies and opposed his overthrow.[4][5] I don't see any BLP violation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't play cutesy, Will. The "supportive of dictators" line is your own, and does not come from the article you cite. LaRouche's view is straighforward: he doesn't believe the US has the right to impose regime change on other countries. By the same token, as much as he may despise George Bush, he would object if another country tried to depose him; that would be the job of Americans, not a foreign power. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

<---OK, in no particular order:

  • 1. And where is this supposed WSJ article? the only reference I find to it come from (suprise) a Larouche source. Does it (if it exists) contain hard evidence that Mahathir (that eternal fount of wisdom) acquired views from Larouche influence? Howzabout a quote or two?
  • 2 "LaRouche appears to be supportive of various dictators and I expect they return the favor." "Expecting" that they return the favor is quite a bit different from "they return the favor," no? Surely you understand the difference. Any hard evidence that they "return the favor?"
  • 3 "get cited by folks who may not be aware of their affiliations." Again, surely you grasp the difference between deception and actual influence. Yet again--any hard evidence of actual influence?
  • 4 "Describing these views in a neutral manner is a service to readers." Since when is that the job of an encyclopedia (leaving aside the wisdom of "describing" views that most people will never come across and most sane people will cross the street when confronted by). And when and where exactly is this "public service" commitment of Wikipedia chartered?
  • 5 It relies nearly entirely on Larouche sources, plus an occasional perfunctory mainstream press article (thr standard spotlight on a freakshow du jour sort of thing that is the regular fare of the media, and tends to have zero correlation with actual notability).
  • 6 "should get an overhaul." That one option. Article euthanasia seems more humane and encyclopedic. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
While I imagine that 'commiting euthanasia' on the views of this person may appeal to many, his views have been so widely published as to warrant in article in my opinion. The existance of this article does not preclude one from commencing a similar article on Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, or for that matter Richard Nixon or Dick Cheney. --Janeyryan (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Again--saying "his views have been so widely published" is different from demonstrating it. The reality is that this article is almost all direct quotes from Larouchie publications, and precious little in the way of an actual demonstration that "his views have been so widely published" (not counting, of course, the jabberings of the distinguished members Malaysian wingnut society below). So again, Janey, or whoever--where's the beef? Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Re #2 [6] etc etc. John Nevard (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
John--thanks for that. Interesting, and truly creepy if true. However, my point still holds. What that article demonstrates (if true, and lets assume it is) is that Larouche was pimping for a nasty former CIA asset dictator, and that there was indeed a mutually beneficial relationship (to what practical benefit, who knows). That does not have much or anything to do with the "Views of Lyndon Larouche," any more than the "views" of anyone pimping for a sleazeball dictator are necessarily important (in fact, its generally the case that the pimping in hopes of power/influence is the totality of the "views"--the criminal mind at work. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Excerpts from the WSJ article, taken from Proquest:

When Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad recently accused financier George Soros of leading speculative attacks on Southeast Asian currencies, Malaysia's pro-government press quickly cranked out articles vilifying the American billionaire.
Some of their vitriol apparently came from an unusual source: a publication run by Lyndon LaRouche Jr., an eccentric 75- year-old American who spins elaborate conspiracy theories, has run unsuccessfully for president five times and was convicted in 1989 of conspiracy charges in the U.S.
The editor in chief of Malaysia's New Straits Times newspaper, Abdul Kadir Jasin, in a commentary last month characterized Mr. Soros as "Hungarian born, of Hungarian-Jewish extraction, who according to several reports, spent the war years in Hungary with false documents and worked for the pro-Nazi government. His role, according to one report, was to identify and expropriate the properties of wealthy Jews." Datuk Kadir told his readers that the source of his research was "a lengthy report by a highly respected Washington-based organization," which he didn't name.
But for readers of Mr. LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Report, or EIR, Datuk Kadir's words would have rung a bell. In a document entitled "The True Story of Soros the Golem," published in April, EIR described Mr. Soros as "Hungarian-born, of Hungarian-Jewish extraction, who spent the war in Hungary living on false papers and working for the pro-Nazi government in identifying and expropriating the property of wealthy fellow Jews."
Mr. LaRouche has long been at odds with the U.S. political mainstream, which regards him as an extremist in his views about reforming the global financial system. But his theories receive a warmer reception in Malaysia, where the 60-page EIR report on Mr. Soros has been passed among Malaysian editors, intellectuals and politicians.
In recent remarks to a gathering of Malaysian Islamic scholars, Dr. Mahathir, echoing a phrase from EIR, said of Mr. Soros: "He's no Robin Hood. He takes from the poor and fills his own pockets."
It isn't clear whether Dr. Mahathir or other senior Malaysian officials have read the EIR report. The prime minister's office didn't respond to requests for comment. A spokesman for Deputy Premier Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim says "we know nothing" about the LaRouche document. A Malaysian embassy official in Washington says that the embassy has regularly dispatched EIR reports to Kuala Lumpur.
Some Malaysian journalists and intellectuals confirm that Mr. LaRouche's ideas are familiar to them. Datuk Kadir, the powerful New Straits Times editor, acknowledges that he drew on EIR's Soros report in his column and says his newspaper subscribes to EIR. "Obviously I don't buy the whole thing," says Datuk Kadir. "But for them to say that, they must have some reasons. . . . Otherwise they'd face all kinds of litigation."

A former opposition politician, Kassim Ahmad, has been a key figure in introducing Mr. LaRouche's ideas to Malaysians. Mr. Kassim, who espouses a blend of socialist and Islamic political ideals, calls the EIR a "news service like Reuters or anything else." He likens Mr. LaRouche to Abraham Lincoln.

Thanks for digging it up; I did find reference to it in the Singapore Straits Times. Still seems like flash in the pan opportunist kook quotes opportunist kook kinda thing, rather than "influential" in the conventional sense. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that a there is a set of very strange assumptions built into Wikipedia about the use of the News/Entertainment Media as sources. These assumptions include:
  • Major press are ipso facto reliable sources;
  • Lack of coverage means the subject is not notable;
  • Major press are free from bias;
  • Press coverage from outside the U.S., Europe, and Australia/New Zealand is irrelevant.
Having said that, I appreciate Will for digging up the WSJ story. It is somewhat remarkable for the American press to cover LaRouche with this much attention to factual detail (although evidently they did not run this story in the U.S. edition.) Here is some corroborating material:
Another intriguing question is the influence that eccentric American Lyndon LaRouche has on government planners. Dr Mahathir has reportedly cited LaRouche views in the past, and provided his Executive Intelligence Review with an exclusive interview in February. On 26 August Malaysia’s NEAC released an article from the latest edition of this journal praising Malaysia’s opposition to the IMF.[7]
I'll also point out, as I believe others have, that LaRouche has received substantial coverage in the Russian and Chinese press (it's cited in the LaRouche bio article.) --Niels Gade (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
See also these: [8],[9] --Terrawatt (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to Boodles

Clearly, Wikipedia devotes more space to LaRouche than a conventional encyclopedia would. However, isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? The amount of space devoted to LaRouche is tiny compared to the space devoted to rock bands and Pokemon characters. Also, I disagree in part with your assessment of LaRouche; if he were just a lonely crank blogging on the internet, he would not have gone to prison in such a blaze of publicity. Regardless of what you believe about his guilt or innocence, the government and media expended an enormous amount of money and effort going after him, far more than for a comparable "white collar criminal" who did what LaRouche was charged with doing.

Having said that, I agree that this article could be shortened. The section that strikes me as particularly over-long is the "Gays and AIDS" section, which is a long-winded POV essay by Cberlet. I have drafted a much shorter version of it at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/section draft, which I am submitting here for discussion. The article has been unprotected, but I suggest that any changes be discussed here first before being implemented. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Marvin--My point is slightly different. I'm not arguing that Larouche isn't a notable criminal, or that the criminal case wasn't notable, or that his biography isn't notable. I'm taking strong issue with having such an overblown "Views of Lyndon Laruoche." It's that (this) article that seems silly, given that there is scant evidence that his "views" are at all notable. He didn't go to jail for his views (as did, e.g., so many truly framed up political gadflys under Smith Acts and McCarthyism etc etc.) He went to jail because the prosecutors made a convincing case that he was engaged in a massive rip off. Views have nothing to do with it (although there of course are those no doubt who would like to make him out a martyr). Do we have a "Views of John Gotti"? And yes, there are what look like long-winded POV essays by Larouche's professional critics. But that's whats going to happen if you have a ridiculously overblown article on a non notable subject. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no shortage of notable individuals, including former heads of state, US congressmen, labor leaders, etc., who disagree with your personal assessment, i.e., they assert that LaRouche did in fact go to jail for his views. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Who for instance. I tend to see the usual senileish types who tend to gather around fringe characters. What notable views do they cite? Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Highlights and links available at United States v. LaRouche#Attempts at exoneration. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The Ramsey Clark letter is particularly telling on the credibility of those 'attempting exoneration'. In the early 1980's, when LaRouche's European puppets were displaying their abilities in slander and passive-aggressive assault-charge chicken against a European leftist, they were engaging in a "vicious campaign".[10][11] Once they were prosecuted for exploiting the elderly in the USA, it became a simple game of blame America first. John Nevard (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, hey now, no one told me that the former 1st Violinist of the Amadeus Quartet sprang to Larouche's defense...this changes everything..
But seriously now, I'm not denying that the prosecution is quite notable, and worthy of the article it has, nor that Larouche isn't notable; of course he is. I'm questioning (as I've been saying) the necessity, propriety, notability and the sanity of having such a humongous article dedicated to the screwball philosophies of this fella--views which no one seems to be able to demonstrate as being notable qua "views." David Berkowitz and Charles Manson are notable criminals who also have well defined and substantial Weltanschauung's. Should we compose lengthy article about those, derived entirely from their own writings? Sam the Dog deserves as much space as the Queen of England, dontcha think?
In any case, there was a rather heavy handed squishing of the Larouche operations, neough so that it did get the attention of Ramsay Clark and any number of people who signed letters and whatnot--strictly on civil libertarian grounds, NOT in support of the "ideas" (if indeed any of the signers even knew what those were. For sure, Larouche suddenly found himself on the losing end of the little game he was playing, and no doubt was drunk with whatever props he thought he got by finagling some meetings with State Dept types. But a minute later, when he ws no longer a useful idiot--kerplunk. Just goes to show ya you shouldn't be ripping off grannies for millions of bucks if your going to go up with the big boys. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Without exception, the persons named in the article were intimately familiar with LaRouche's ideas. Indeed, Norbert Brainin, whose presence on the list seems to have struck your funny-bone, has spent substantial amounts of time discussing with LaRouche his views on music.[12] --Niels Gade (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
More smoke and mirrors. Unsourced claims of persons being "intimately familiar" with these so-called ideas is a different animal than these ideas being notable and influential enough for an article (much less a lumbering monstrosity of an original research essay) in an encycopedia. Brainin case in point--the only vague hints are, yet again, solely culled from the self serving propaganda of Larouche publications. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
In 1995, hearings on the LaRouche case were held by a commission headed by former congressman James Robert Mann (South Carolina) and civil rights attorney J. L. Chestnut, in which many of the exoneration signers, including Ramsey Clark, spoke of their familiarity with LaRouche and his ideas. The hearings were videotaped and the videos and transcripts were released to the public. I've seen them, but they're not available on the internet, and I realize that Wikipedia is primarily oriented toward web-based sources. They were not, of course, covered in the self serving propaganda of the American corporate media. --Niels Gade (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Being "familiar" with someone and their ideas is quite a bit different than the ideas being notable and influential. Have any of these gents hit the lecture circuit expiounding on the importance of Larouche's "ideas"? Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus?

Are there objections to the inclusion of my paragraph on LaRouche vs. Soros, and Marvin's condensed version of "Gays and AIDS"? Note that these changes would represent a substantial net reduction in the size of the article. --Niels Gade (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are objections. It's largely original research. Maybe a sentence on the Malaysian government lifting a line from a nasty Larouchite attack on Soros, which has a reliable source. That would be about it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not original research. LaRouche is a legitimate source for information on his own views, which ought to be obvious, but it's also specified at WP:SELFPUB. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to SELFPUB. Let's review:

Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if:

  1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed
    • where is shown that this is relevant to Larouche's notability, whcih is mainly as a convicted felon?
  2. it is not contentious;
    • Let's ask Mr. Soros (who's covered by BLP) what he thinks
  3. it is not unduly self-serving;
    • Hmm, publishing views that otherwise would barely be taken note of...hmmm
  4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
    • See #2
  5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
    • Does Larouche have any connection to Mr Soros or the events in Mr Soros' life described in the claims? Take your time...
  6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
    • Gotta admit, he is an original
  7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
    • Speaks for itself.
Cheers, Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest that you try to take a step back from your own rather pronounced POV, and try to approach this as an encyclopedia editor. Some of your points have merit, but the claim that LaRouche is notable "mainly as a convicted felon" won't wash. He obviously has an international following, and it's not because people feel sorry for him because he went to jail. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Approaching this as an encyclopedia is what first convinced me that this monstrosity of an article should be deleted as one ungainly gelatinous glob of orginal research which merely seems to serve solely as a graffiti board for Larouche supporters and his self styled critics and literary assassins who parse his every utterance to the point of banality. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Although Boodle's overheated rhetoric is a bit of a distraction, I agree that "LaRouche vs. Soros" is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own section. I propose that a brief reference to the WSJ article on LaRouche/Mahathir be added to the "Economics" section. I endorse Marvin's re-write of "Gays and AIDS" -- that section is presently WP:UNDUE to the max, and it has its own article on Prop 64 to boot. I also think that "Psycho-sexuality and political organizing" should be discarded. It is tremendously obscure, non-notable, and of interest only to Berlet's legions of fans. --Terrawatt (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I support Terrawatt's proposals. The re-write is mentioned in the previous section "response to Boodles." It is Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/section draft. --Polly Hedra (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse. I'm not wedded to the LaRouche vs. Soros section -- I wrote it because other editors requested it. --Niels Gade (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • What does a sleazy Nazi baiting attack on Soros have to do with "economics?" The WSJ admits that its not clear if anyone even read the Larouche tome, other than to cull the slimey bits from it. And why is "Psycho-sexuality and political organizing" non-notable and "tremendously obscure", but "Operación Juárez", "New Bretton Woods", Eurasian Landbridge, LaRouche-Riemann Method, laughable theories on "physical science" [sic]--all sourced solely to Larouche publications that gather dust on dictator's shelves (after they cull the sleazy bits), and lacking an iota of recognition on in this general vicinity are somehow notable?! This is a hoot. And its mind boggling that its even being debated. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't have the impression that Boodles' questions are being asked seriously, but for the benefit of third parties, "Operación Juárez", "New Bretton Woods", Eurasian Landbridge, LaRouche-Riemann Method etc. are the basis for LaRouche's notability in the rest of the world. The U.S. media are operated by a corporate cartel that is bitterly opposed to these proposals, so one should not hold one's breath waiting for them to be discussed here. The best gauge for LaRouche's notability is coverage in China[13], Russia[14], various third world nations, and even European nations such as Denmark[15]. --Niels Gade (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Niels, have ya got any statistics of Larouche's name recognition in China or Russia? You guys have been milking these same two anomalous interviews forever now. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't imagine that they compile those sorts of statistics in China or Russia -- that's a bit too "Madison Avenue" for them. And the interviews are not anomalous. Here's a new one from today. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The "AIDS and Gays" draft

Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/section draft

What specifically are your objections? I am open to suggestion. I was mainly trying to get it down to a reasonable size. Much of the discussion of Prop. 64 is or should be in the article on that topic. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Please start a new thread to discuss it, and give your assessment of the problems with the existing text and how your proposal address those problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The existing text is far too long. It's "Undue Weight." It also contains a lot of material about the AIDs initiative which ought to go in the article about the AIDs initiative. These points have all been raised by a variety of editors over the past week or so. Marvin's draft addresses the problems to my satisfaction and has been endorsed by two other editors. So why don't we get to your specific objections, Will? Also, suggestions for how to improve it. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
    • What is the basis for saying the current material has "undue weight"? The AIDS campaigns were a major push by the LaRouche movement in the '80s and '90s. LaRouche's focus on sexuality extends back to the 1970s. It appears to me that this material is more important that his triple curve, for example, or several other topics included in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is substantially longer than any other section.
  2. It is peripheral to LaRouche's core message, which is the American System of economics vs. the British/globalization model, and his own theories about human creativity being the engine of economic progress. LaRouche made it clear that he saw AIDS as a symptom of economic collapse, not an evil in and of itself. I think you have read enough LaRouche web pages by now that you will get my point. Of course, you say that the AIDS issue appears to be more important than the triple curve, so we're clearly not on the same page. But the triple curve only takes up a fraction of the space devoted to AIDS.
  3. This is not an article about the LaRouche movement's campaigns, it is article about LaRouche's views. --Terrawatt (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
His views on gays and AIDS are just about the only views of his that have any relevance, precisely because they were tied to a rather visible campaign of hysterical homophobic hate. Triple curves, his ponyifications on science and all the other esoterica that have existence only in Larouche publications don't really deserve much of a mention at all. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of either Soros or LaRouche, but as far as I know, BLP applies to both of them. Your approach looks pretty lopsided to me. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
How so? Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You oppose the Nazi-baiting of Soros, and then you turn around and engage in the homophobe-baiting of LaRouche. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that it is 'homophobe baiting' to point out that Mr. LaRouche has taken the stance that he has. I further agree with Will's statement at the top of this section.--Janeyryan (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually could care less about the Nazi- baiting of Soros, whether its by Larouche or Peretz. What I oppose if putting that crap in Wikipedia. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The Soros issue and the LaRouche issue are equivalent. In both cases, the subject said something on the public record. The question is whether it is permissible under BLP to interpret or selectively emphasize the remarks. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
In both cases we should rely on reliable secondary sources as our guide to what is notable, and what is the correct interpretation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Will, tas you yourself have said umpteen times on these talk pages, the policy here is to focus on the edits, not the editors. After warning so many other people about personal attacks, you shouldn't turn around and launch them yourself. The links in your previous post don't seem to have any relevance to the discussion at hand. You asked for arguments on the WP:UNDUE issue, and when you get them, you refuse to respond. If you have a argument against my proposed re-write, please present it. --Marvin Diode (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm addressing the edits, pointing out its resemblance to edits sought by now-banned editors. This seems to be an effort to pursue the same POV. To take one example, where is the quote about bashing gays with baseball bats? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked, but I didn't see the resemblence. Regarding the quote about the baseball bats, I had BLP concerns about Berlet's interpretation. I'm not convinced that LaRouche was in any way advocating the use of baseball bats. Take a look at the reasoning you applied at Talk:George Soros where you argued against the use of the quote from "60 Minutes," and then see if the same reasoning doesn't apply in this case. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
We don't have to rely on your interpretation, or mine. We have reliable 3rd-party sources that characterize the meaning of the quotation. For example, Media, Culture, and the Religious Right By Linda Kintz, Julia Lesage, U of Minnesota Press, 1998. ISBN 0816630852.[22] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Take a closer look -- that quote is from none other than Chip Berlet. And it's classic Berlet, too. He uses the technique of innuendo to stop just short of outright lying lie with plausible deniability, should someone call him on it: he describes the initiatives as "measures that essentially called for firings and quarantines with signs of AIDS." He claims "LaRouche even obliquely suggested murder as a tactic." Not a reliable source. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Its printed by the U of Minnesota Press. On what grounds is a scholarly publication not reliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
On what grounds does being printed by the U of Minnesota Press make it a "scholarly publication"? We're talking Chip Berlet here. --Terrawatt (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
We're talking reliable source here, doesn't matter if it was Chip Douglas. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, editors should have the skill to spot obvious propaganda, and the integrity to resist the temptation to use it to push POV. --Niels Gade (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what the old man would think about this apparent obsession with linking homosexuality and baseball bats. I know sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but this seems to be a recurring motif. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate Boodlesthecat's attempts at humor, because otherwise a discussion of whether to accuse the subject of a BLP article of inciting murder could seem oppressively serious. I would say that this is a clear case of WP:REDFLAG (exceptional claims require exceptional sources.) This is not to say that Chip Berlet is not, er, exceptional in his own way. But if the objective here is to accuse LaRouche of incitement to murder, and the only source you have is Chip, that doesn't satisfy REDFLAG or BLP. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Will, please be serious. You want to add a claim that LaRouche advocated "murder as a tactic," based on a highly conjectural interpretation sourced solely to Chip Berlet? Please re-read your own comments at Talk:George Soros, then re-read BLP, and note that the ArbCom stated, in an amendment to "LaRouche 2," that "the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement." --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't proposed adding anything. You are proposing removing something. There is no debate that the LaRouche made the statement, which was printed in EIR. The statement has been commented on in one or more reliable sources. What is the BLP violation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If folks want to look at improving this section then there are things we should add. We have a number of statements credited to LaRouche or his movement about gays and AIDS that are not included but that should be if we want to give the full picture. The importance of the matter is seen by the fact that AIDS was his leading issue in 1986 and 1988. For example:
    • Increasing the anti-homosexual rhetoric from Lyndon LaRouche supporters, a newspaper tied to LaRouche said this weekend that communist gangs of the "lower sexual classes" controlled by the major parties are opposing Proposition 64, the AIDS measure on the California ballot. The latest issue of New Solidarity, a newspaper that is the most widely read of several publications that espouse LaRouche's extremist political views, included the slur in a story about gay activists who picketed LaRouche's Los Angeles headquarters to protest the initiative. LaRouche supporters placed the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot. [...] But the new attacks on gays lend credence to critics who contend that LaRouche and his followers are motivated by a long-standing hatred of homosexuals. LaRouche and his supporters also frequently attack people they consider enemies by labeling them as homosexuals in print, often in vulgar slang terms. In his 1984 presidential campaign platform, LaRouche broke from prevailing medical opinion and said homosexuality is a disease whose spread can only be stopped by law. When he declared a year ago that he would be a candidate for the presidency in 1988, LaRouche wrote about the recruitment of "millions of Americans into the ranks of AIDS-riddled homosexuality."
      • "Paper Tied to LaRouche Attacks Gay Movement;" KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 6, 1986. pg. 21
    • AIDS was presented as the leading plank of the LaRouche platform for 1988, and also as the political issue that will allow LaRouche to win the favor of more voters than he has wooed the three times he has run for President before. AIDS, the book predicts, will be the "last straw" for voters who believe the nation has gone into moral and educational decay. AIDS is the best issue to use to get Americans aroused politically because they fear for their families, the book says. "The AIDS epidemic and the growing signs of a government cover-up are beginning to move the majority of the citizens to a mood of political revolt," LaRouche wrote in a personal message included in the book. "Those citizens, set into motion by the AIDS crisis, are . . . a political army on the move." The "silent majority," as LaRouche called them, will also rally behind him because they are fed up with the Democrats' catering to gays. Homosexuality, the book said, is a "filthy and immoral practice" and people have come to resent gays for spreading the deadly disease.
      • "LaRouche Wrote of Using AIDS to Win Presidency" KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 17, 1986. pg. 3
  • I don't think we've fully covered the topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Then what I would recommend is that you compose a draft for a new version of this section and submit it for discussion. It should be roughly the same length as the other sections of the article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Researching and drafting the material would be time consuming, and I don't see it as a priority. The points that I think the section needs to cover better are LaRouche's comments on gays, including his characterizations of them. Also, the movement's use of homosexual smears against opponents, such as Dennis King and Henry Kissinger, should be included. The coverage of homosexuality should probably dovetail with LaRouche's view of sexuality in general, which is somewhat covered in the "Psycho-sexuality and political organizing" section. The coverage of AIDS should do a better job of showing how it relates to LaRouche's viewpoints on depopulation. It should cover more of his conspiracy theories regarding the disease, and of his use of the issue in his political campaigns. Finally, the lengthy quotations should be trimmed and summarized. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This essay, "Are homosexuals a security risk?", seems to give a full account of the subject's views of homosexuality, at least as of 1987. Some summary of its main points should be included. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Will, with the amount of effort you expended in objecting to Marvin's re-write, you could have produced one yourself. I would be willing to try my hand at this in a few days, but I am concerned that I would run up against the same wall of objections. So why don't you present the version you would like to see, and streamline the whole process. --Niels Gade (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Before we draft text we should assemble sources. Why don't we work together on finding everything we can that LaRouche has written or said on the topic, along with as many secondary sources as we can find. Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources. Once we've got the sources then we can summarize them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sponsored by a Lyndon LaRouche organization called PANIC (the Prevent AIDS Now Initiative Committee), Proposition 64 embodies all of the deepest fears about AIDS in one cold legislative package. PANIC, based in Los Angeles, had no trouble getting 683,000 California voters to sign the petition that put Proposition 64 on the ballot.... Calling for "An emergency war plan to fight AIDS and other pandemics," the 138- page report raises the spectre of mosquitoes spreading AIDS willy-nilly like "flying syringes," an idea flatly rejected by essentially every reputable epidemiologist who has studied AIDS. It says the threat of AIDS "is potentially far deadlier than even a full-scale thermonuclear war." Incorporating political theories expounded by LaRouche for 15 years, it declares that AIDS and other lethal contagions were "deliberately created" by the International Monetary Fund, that Henry Kissinger and Zionism somehow played a role by curtailing U.S. biological warfare abilities and helped open the door to AIDS, and that U.S. policy on AIDS is dictated by the Soviet government via the World Health Organization. At the same time, the article reflects a careful reading of scientific literature on AIDS, and is larded with graphs, charts, and diagrams, many taken from generally accepted publications, to accurately show the known structure of the AIDS virus, its effects on AIDS victims, and to summarize tests used to detect it. The ballot measure that voters will see, however, "masks its real intention," said Scott Shafer, a San Francisco organizer of the No On 64 campaign. "It doesn't refer specifically to the fact that it will require mandatory testing of millions of people, and that it compels local health officials to take such actions as quarantining those who test positive." He added, "the numbers are pretty large. We find it particularly frightening, in that the test currently available is inaccu- rate at least 1% of the time." -California to Vote on AIDS Proposition, Charles Petit, Science, New Series, Vol. 234, No. 4774 (Oct. 17, 1986), pp. 277-278. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The above would be a suitable source for the article California Proposition 64 (1986), but not for this one. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
If I read the other sources correctly, the pamphlet referenced above was printed by other LaRouche organizations rather than by PANIC, which was just distributing them. The parts about the theory of AIDS origins and transmission, along with the the predictions of the epidemic and the recommended response, are all appropriate here. I don't how anyone could argue successfully that the LaRouche movement holds any views which aren't LaRouche's views. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
"An emergency war plan to fight AIDS and other pandemics" was a Larouche publication. Note also

The accuracy of AIDS information presents perhaps the greatest challenge to evaluation. In spite of epidemiologic data to the contrary, mosquito transmission of AIDS was strongly suggested in the mid-1980s (EIR Biological Holocaust Task Force, 1986). David S. Ginn. The Development of Specialized Biomedical Information. Library Trends, v42 n1 p180-95 Sum 1993.

Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Elsewhere, "An emergency war plan to fight AIDS and other pandemics" is listed as a special report of EIR,[23] of which LaRouche was and is Edior in Chief. Further the Biological Holocaust Task Force was founded in 1973, long before the creation of PANIC or even the AIDS epidemic itself. So it would be incorrect to say these concepts were not longstanding parts of the LaRouche worldview. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The "Emergency War Plan" report was in fact a LaRouche publication. I may have a copy of it stashed away -- I'll try to find it, because some of the claims in that cited article look like misrepresentations to me. Meanwhile, I did a google search of all main LaRouche websites, i.e., LaRouche PAC, EIR, Schiller Institute and WLYM. What I found was no pronouncements at all about homosexuality, but many on AIDS. Here are two noteworthy from last year: The IMF spreads AIDS in Africa (mainly an endorsement of a report by Medecins sans Frontieres,) and Access to AIDS Drugs: A Universal Right. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You may have missed some if you searched only on "homosexuals". Using terms like "gays" and "faggots" will turn up more hits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Not on the LaRouche sites. --Niels Gade (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Which is why the LaRouche sites aren't even reliably comprehensive sources for the writings of LaRouche. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick smapling from a quick search:

  • He [Larouche] says people who lynch homosexuals are "the only force acting to save the human species from extinction" and that wealthy Jews encourage homosexuality as a way of undermining Western civilisation. Cult gears up for poll drive. Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) 6/10/2001.
  • Labor also gets the party's attention. The United Auto Workers is claiming that the NCLC harassed UAW members by calling their homes 30 or 40 times a day and accusing relatives of homosexuality. Business Week. The U.S. Labor Party's radical crusade. October 2, 1978.
  • In the middle-class community of Ventura, LaRouche supporters have set up tables outside post offices and supermarkets with their petitions denouncing homosexuals. One local minister who refused to sign was called 'a queer' and his mother a 'lesbian'. California extremist whips up Aids crusade / US public health debate stirred up by controversial politician Lyndon LaRouche. The Times/London. November 1 1986.
  • Los Angeles City Councilman Joel Wachs, an advocate of anti-discrimination protections for homosexuals, said the initiative "almost gives a license to go out and discriminate. It would be a tremendous deprivation of people's rights." Like other critics, he noted that LaRouche's theories on AIDS suggest the disease is being spread as part of a Soviet conspiracy and that elected officials supported by homosexuals are attempting to cover up the epidemic. PANIC fuels AIDS initiative, UPI, 8/4/86.
  • Last spring, the man who has accused a host of public figures of being drug dealers, homosexuals or agents of influence of the Soviet Union, burst into the national spotlight when Hart and Fairchild won the Illinois primary. United Press International. November 5, 1986.
  • Later, LaRouche married Helga Zepp, another group member whom he had first met in West Germany. Even so, the organization sunk to ever-darker paranoid depths. Roy Palmer says LaRouche began to purge members and put others in "sick bays" where leaders "psychoanalyzed" them "to find out what your mother did to you when you were three years old." There were "ego stripping" sessions where members were forced to reveal intimate details of their lives. LaRouche -- defectors say -- would accuse indecisive people of being homosexual or sexually impotent, and others were pressured to divorce spouses who were not members of the group. Newsweek. April 7, 1986. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The Melbourne paper has clearly just taken the Chip Berlet hoax and sexed it up a bit. The second cite is slimey gossip from LaRouche opponents, treated as if it were serious. The Joel Wachs statement is legit, for whatever that it worth. I've never heard of "Roy Palmer." The idea that the infotainment media are supposed to be "reliable sources" has always baffled me. --Terrawatt (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The Sunday Herald Sun, Business Week, The Times of London, UPI, and Newsweek are all reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've copied these and the ones above to Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:·
Since this article (as opposed to California Proposition 64 (1986)) is supposed to be about the views of LaRouche, I would suggest that anything attributed to LaRouche be verified by checking it against LaRouche's own writings. I say this because, having had a chance to read the original "baseball bats" comments, I think it would be irresponsible in the extreme to simply repeat the interpretation by Chip Berlet, which is apparently also the source for the Melbourne paper. I'll also point out that "LaRouche planet" is not suitable for linking, since it violates the provision about CopyVio (among others) in WP:EL. If there are uncontested quotes from EIR, EIR could be cited as the source. Perhaps Niels can locate hard copies. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If you have evidence that the Sunday Herald Sun should not be considered a reliable, maninstream newspaper go ahead and provide it. By all appearances, it qualifies as a reliable source. The PANIC article is about a particular pair of initiatives and their proponents, etc. This article is about LaRouche's viewpoints, even those viewpoints that involve AIDS. Potentially we could start a section in the LaRouche movement article to hold things that didn't come out of the mouth of LaRouche, but I'm not sure there's much difference between his views and those of his followers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
How about the Sunday Herald Sun lying about LaRouche's views? Would that be evidence of "unreliability"? --Terrawatt (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Proof? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Another draft, and some observations about sources

I have made a tentative effort at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/section draft#Niels Gade version. I used some of the material assembled by Will and Boodles. Please note the "LaRouche Planet" is not a primary source. I took the "National Security Risk" article at face value because it reads like LaRouche (I don't have access to that issue of EIR) -- other material from "LaRouche Planet" fails WP:V. I don't have a copy of the "Emergency War Plan" report, but I did dig up a similar report that was issued in 1988, "AIDS Global Showdown." I cite it briefly. Much of the material on Will's Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources page is not very useful, because it simply includes a reference to homosexuals without making a relevant pronouncement. I noted allegations by the press rather than reporting them as fact; there's a game that gets played about "what is a reliable source" (see Wikipedia:WINNER) and my sense is that BLP trumps it: if a newspaper claims that LaRouche says one thing, and a primary source contradicts it, it's a BLP violation to go ahead and say in the article that LaRouche believes such-and-such, when LaRouche himself says otherwise. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a large variety of secondary sources on that page (61 by last count), and you're welcome to add more. Many of them do directly address LaRouche's views on homosexuality or homosexuals. To satisfy NPOV, a draft will need to include all significant viewpoints, especially those included in multiple reliable secondary sources. For example, the use of "homosexual' or equivalent terms as a smear on his enemies is notable. Let's keep finding more sources, I don't think we've exhausted the field. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The claim that LaRouche brands his enemies as homosexuals seems to be mainly the same source, Kevin Roderick of the L.A. Times, repeated over and over. No example is ever given -- it is simply an unsourced assertion by Roderick. Also, I think that Marvin's re-write is marginally better than Niels' by virtue of staying more on-topic. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That is an incorrect assessment. Many writers make that assertion, and there are specific examples. For example, the Leesburg neighbor, Kissinger, King, members of the press, Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr., "critics of LaRouche ", "a Catholic priest in Camarillo" and his mother, relatives of UAW members, and indecisive members of the movement. Did you actually read the sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I see specific allegations, but I don't see examples. One article says that one Will Wertz said that Jerry Brown was homosexual, but it doesn't say when or where, whether it appeared in print, etc. It seems to mainly be a rumor campaign. However, I will update my draft to take note of the allegations. --Niels Gade (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Those are reports. They report that LaRouche called Kissnger a "faggot". Are yuou denying that he did so? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That draft is wildly incorrect. Do you bother to do any research outside of the ASP library? It wasn't just the newspapers who "alleged" that Prop. 64 would require quarantine. The Secretary of State, March Fong Eu, specifically rewrote the ballot language to reflect the reality of the law, as previously identified by multiple authorities, that it would require quarantine. That draft is a mischaracterization of the verifiable facts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide a source for that? What else about the draft is "wildly incorrect"? You were asked to provide your own draft for discussion, but you said it was a low priority for you. If you are still unwilling to do that, please make your contributions to the discussion as constructive as possible. BTW, I think the draft should include reference to LaRouche's unorthodox theories about the transmission of AIDS. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I was a little off, but not by much. See the sources page for more info. I am making a positive contribution by providing hours of research. As I said before, we should do the research first, then summarize what we've found. Some editors appear to prefer to write off the top of the head without reference to verifiable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked up the text of the initiave at WikiSource.[24] It would make AIDS and the condition of being a carrier "subject to quarantine and isolation statutes and regulations." In trying to find information on what that might entail, I wound up at this page, where it says that "If health officials think you may have had contact with a contagious disease, they can order you to stay away from others." It does not say that they must do so. Does anyone have any info on how many diseases are presently "subject to quarantine and isolation statutes and regulations"? I doubt that there are any uniform rules for how the health department treats them -- I suspect that it is generally up to the discretion of health officials. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's stick with secondary sources. Interpreting primary documents, such as legal documents, is outside of our job description. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I know that the motto here is Verifiability, not truth, but I think that in a case this controversial if wouldn't hurt to have some of each. When dealing with Living Persons and where there may be an intent to defame, let's raise the bar a bit as far as what merits inclusion in the article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If we stick with what reliable sources say, and use good editorial judgment, then we'll be fine. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This giant wad of press clippings provides just about zero information on LaRouche's views. They are mainly accusations pointed at the LaRouche movement, not LaRouche himself, and if any of the accusations are true, they are about tactics, not "views." I think most of this discussion belongs in a different article. --Polly Hedra (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's press clippings that show a person is notable. And if you read them closely you'll find a lot of information on the views of LaRouche and his followers. Please add any sources that you can. Once it's complete we can summarize the information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime, would you be so kind as to identify the wild inaccuracies in my draft? --Niels Gade (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
No. I think the draft is a waste of time. It omits important material, it is poorly organized, and it doesn't properly summarize the reliable sources we have on the topic. I there are no more sources to be found I'll start writing a fresh draft. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to attack my draft in this way, common courtesy requires that you provide some specific bases for your attacks. --Niels Gade (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that as a productive activity. We have a wealth of sources that were never consulted in the the drafting of previous versions and If we're going to fix this let's fix it right by going back to the sources and summarizing what they say. ·:· Will Beback ·:·`
Furthermore, I just came across another source, one that includes a notable quotation from LaRouche.[25] That tells me we haven't finished our research yet. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I found a source, but I don't know where to put it on the other page. Will, please clean up your formatting. "LaRouche Planet" is not a primary source -- it is an anonymous website, probably run by Dennis King, and everything on there is suspect. Here is a quote which actually does come from a primary source, i.e. EIR:

1975, he [LaRouche] convened a task force to study the potential for a “biological holocaust” to result, if economic breakdown were allowed to occur from the policy-implementation of globalization, so-called free trade, and deindustrialization. By the mid-1980s, aspects of just this danger became evident: HIV-AIDS outbreaks were identified, and spreading. During the same decade came the bovine spongiform encephalopathy/vCJD outbreak. Today’s potential impact of a virulent avian flu pandemic, is likewise part of the dynamics of economic breakdown.

This has been shown in many specific sitations. For example, for HIV-AIDS, in 1985, in the town of Belle Glade, near the Florida Everglades, the work of Dr. Mark Whiteside showed the interaction disease threat from poverty, HIV infection, tuberculosis, and lack of public health measures to control mosquitoes, and other vectors.

Today’s holocaust situation of Africa is the continent-wide example of the dynamics of poverty-induced collapse,lack of infrastructure, and disease. From the 1970s, LaRouche warned that conditions were being created for a deadly pandemic to arise — which stormed out of Africa as incurable HIV-AIDS. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AIDS Global Showdown has lots of material along those lines, including an interview with Mark Whiteside. But I thought that the idea was to be brief. The main point which is made throughout the report is that establishment policy was dictated by cost-cutting priorities. --Niels Gade (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The idea is to be comprehensive with an approprate overal length. Until we've finished our research we don't know all there is to know, and once we're done we can start assembling the information. I'll add this to the sources page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, a primary source is a primary source regarldess of where it is reprinted. There's no evidence that LaRoucheplanet is an inaccurate transcriber or republisher of primary sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but there's no evidence that LaRoucheplanet is an accurate transcriber or republisher of primary sources. We have no idea who LaRoucheplanet is. See WP:PROVEIT. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
There is evidence, on their own pages, in the forms of scans of original documents. I don't see any instances in which the transcriptions vary significantly from the originals. In any case, they are only an intermediate provider of copies of primary sources. Which particular citations do you and Niels assert are incorrectly transcribed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no way of knowing whether some of the documents they claim to be scanning or transcribing were actually published by the LaRouche organization. It's a moot point, anyway, because LaRoucheplanet can't be linked to per WP:ELNEVER. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't need to link to sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
But whatever we use must be veriable. Anyone can set up an anonymous website, type up a statement, scan it, and then claim that it is an internal document from whatever organization. I don't trust a website as a source where the identities of the responsible partie[s] are kept hidden. With respect to the authenticity of quotes from EIR or other periodicals known to be put out by LaRouche, I would defer to Niels' judgment in cases where the issue in question is not available online.
By the way, why are you suddenly so liberal about the inclusion of off-beat sources? I recall you being very cautious about that on other occasions. --Marvin Diode (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
At the moment these are just potential sources. It's not until we use them to verify statements that they become sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere? If not, I'll get back to work on my draft. --Niels Gade (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Do as you please. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have substantially re-worked Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/section draft#Niels Gade version. Specific suggestions on how to improve it would be most welcome. --Niels Gade (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you summarize your changes? What's different? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Terrawatt had criticized my draft for going off-topic, so I replaced the EIR Report quote with a summary and added material from a televised speech by LaRouche. Included in the latter is a quote on claims of insect bite transmission, which you had requested. Beyond that, I added a lot of source citations from your source page. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Any comments? Any objections? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Still unacceptable, for the reasons previously outlined: It doesn't summarize the available source fully or correctly, it is poorly organized, and it omits important informaiton. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I looked it over, and I can't see the basis for these objections. What specific important information is is omitted? What specific source is summarized incorrectly? --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we've completed our research yet. I still haven't gone throught the King book to see what it has on the topic. Does anyone lese know of any further sources to consult? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
You've made nasty comments about Niels' efforts twice now, and when asked for specifics you change the subject. A dose of WP:CIVIL is in order. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
"Nasty comments"? What nasty comments? I haven't chnaged the topic, I've said that we should start from scratched based on complete research. Do you object to doing research? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

It looks like Will's project may take quite a long time. Therefore I propose that my re-write be added to the article as an interim measure. My re-write can doubtless be improved, and while we're waiting for Will's research, interested parties can edit my re-write at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/section draft#Niels Gade version and if the changes gain consensus, they can be added to the article. What say you? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The version you've posted s not an improvement on the existing text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
What do others think? --Niels Gade (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
It's an improvement on the existing text. --Terrawatt (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. Will says it omits material, but unless he can tell us what is omitted so that it can be added, I see no reason not to go ahead with it. --Marvin Diode (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You guys agree with each other? Ohmygod! I can't believe it! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You can make a constructive contribution by explaining what you think is left out. Or, you can make useless snide comments. --Marvin Diode (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The versions on the draft page are fatally flawed, and once we've completed assembling research we can begin to draft a new version that properly summarizes all of the significant viewpoints and information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I find it odd that you use expressions like "fatally flawed," and yet are unable to come up with an example of something you find wrong with the drafts, after all this time. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I've said over and over what's wrong with it. It doesn't draw upon a full review of the avaialble literature, it is poorly organized, and it omits important information. I've also said over and over again that it is a waste of time to try and fix it up. Some might compare such an effort to "putting lipstick on a pig". I'm not going to get into a debate over which color of lipstick is most attractive on a hog. Let's assemble the research and then summarize it, starting from scratch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm asking you for one specific example of an error or omission which would justify your vehement denunciation of Niels' effort. I have looked it over thoroughly and it looks fine to me. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no discernible advantage to the revised draft, and don't think it adds value or should replace the current verion.--Janeyryan (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is about half the size of the current version. That in and of itself is a major achievement. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That is an argument against, not an argument in concurrence.
On the contrary, Janeyryan, WP:UNDUE is a common reason for shortening a bloated section. Compare the edit you just made at Chip Berlet. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see this draft as curing an UNDUE problem, as I don't see an UNDUE problem to begin with.--Janeyryan (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of these editors have now been blocked as socks. Regarding the rewrite of the "AIDS and Gays" section that they were seeking, I'm sure that we could improve the material if we wanted to. I didn't see it as a priority before, and I still don't. The whole article needs help but the amount research that would be required to do a proper re-write is daunting. I just got the King bio and some other relevant books from the library. I'll probably add some more to the "sources" page in case anyone gets interested in pursuing this. Otherwise I suggest we just leave the article as-is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I've now copied into the sources page most of the material from the King bio about AIDS and gays. The only other reference that I know which might be important is an EIR special report on AIDS that compiles many articles by LaRouche and others. I have it in hardcopy, but I'll try to transcribe some material from it. While I haven't considered this rewrite a priority (it was repeatedly demanded by the HK socks), now that I've done the research I would like to see it through. There is also a sense on the current AfD that the article should be trimmed, with which I agree. So this may be just one of many major revisions. Aside from cutting the length, I'm sure we can improve the organization and sourcing. A good place to start would be with archiving this talk page. I'll do so tomorrow and suggest a plan for moving forward. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of views

  • split from above
It seems to me that the only thing this "views" article should contain is material taken from reliable sources such as the above. His AIDS/gay views are notable because they are a part of the overall notability of the twice failed homophobic referendums. Land bridges, economic blatherings to an audience of the converted and the like have no encyclopedic value in and of themselves (perhaps a short mention in the main article, as they are the stuff his followers follow). Oddly enough, the attempts by Larouche's critics here have left some articles with what appear to be BLP violations; ie, ehavy handd criticisms in opening sentences and whatnot. The zeal of the critics appears to have been problematic in this respect, as well as the contributing role these critics have played in puffing up non-notable theories (sourced to Larouche pubs, or minor sources, since they receive no real world recognition). It's a WP:OR mess. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to quantify these things precisely, but from an outside perspective it appears to me that the AIDS initiatives (which were almost always characterized as being connected with LaRouche) are roughly the 3rd most noted topic about him, following his presidential campaigns and his criminal convictions. When it comes to his viewpoints, most commentators repeat a short list (probably just copying the list from other writers) that typically includes the labelling of public figures as dope dealers, Soviet agents of influence, tools of an oligarchy, or homosexuals. While it's possible that otherwise reliable secondary sources have mischaracterized these views, nonetheless those sources should serve as our guide for which views are notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That seems about right. therefore, it seems that
  • 1.3 LaRouche-Riemann Method
  • 1.4 Triple Curve
  • 1.5 Physical science
  1. 2 Notable proposals
  • 2.1 "Operación Juárez"
  • 2.2 New Bretton Woods
  • 2.3 Eurasian Landbridge
among others ("Video games? C'mon) have roughly zero notability (despite the misnomer of "Notable proposals" in section 2). Why are these even covered? Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a legitimate concern. I see that, for example, citations 13-41 are all from LaRouche movement sources. Those citations cover the above listed sections. That brings into question how notable that material really is. I suggest that editors seek 3rd-party sources for the material otherwise it's likely to be seen as non-notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks like 90%+ of the stuff comes from Larouche sources. I'd suggest ditching anything that doesn't have 3rd party sources that demonstrate the view's notability. Otherwise, the article looks a bit like spoof page that was taken over by the Larouche movement. A Wackipedia of sorts. (Didnt they once put out a fake issue of the Washington Post?) Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've started a section where we can list any sources for this topic. Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources#Economics. Is suppose we have enough primary sources in the article already, though new ones may be of interest. So far the ones I've found specifically say the concepts aren't notable. Let's see what we can find and then decide what to do. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI, "LaRouche-Riemann Model" only gets 79 Google hits, and of those the only two that are really 3rd-party reliable sources just say it's not notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Commment -- this line of argument comes straight out of Franz Kafka. LaRouche has an adversarial relationship with the media. We know of cases where there were actual planning sessions on how to disseminate maliciously false coverage of LaRouche and his views.[26] So, if you want to continue to call this article "Views of Lyndon LaRouche," you are forced to rely upon primary sources. Boodles has argued that LaRouche's views themselves are not notable, in which case the appropriate course of action is to file an AfD (you could free up space on Wikipedia's computers for more articles like Oops (Oh My).) However, if LaRouche's ideas are notable, it is because he has a world-wide following, and he has that following despite media coverage of his ideas, not because of it. If he actually believed what is attributed to him, no one would take any interest. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well oops and oh my Terawatt, it seems your own reasoning is actually more evocative of the great master K, if not a more current one. So let me see if I'm following your reasoning (which is far more sophisticated than those silly rappers): Larouche's conspiracy theories are notable, but all the relevant institutions that endow a subject with notability are part of the conspiracy against him, so no one (except the handful in the "world wide movement") are aware of the notability. Sounds like the classic win-win reasoning the typical demagogue imparts to his followers, but I wouldn't know, being just a poor slob who got a substandard edumacation being subjected to "a crazed, unwashed, and usually foreign man with an unintelligible accent stand at the front of the lecture hall, scribbling miles of incomprehensible formulas" (name that quote!). Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean you are going to file an AfD for this article, or are you just going to continue to soapbox on its talk page? --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
For the moment I'm just going to continue to soapbbox on the talk page. That seems to be the lingua franca in this venue. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Criticizing the large amounts of fluff on this page is a hell of a lot more constructive than complaining about reliable sourcing policy on the wrong page. It's actually a proper use of the article talk page, for a start. John Nevard (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In what appears to be LaRouche's official bio,[27], it claims that His most significant professional achievement has been a 1948-1952 research project resulting in the discovery of what became known later as the "LaRouche-Riemann method" in economics. The section should be retained on that basis alone. If you want to put in a disclaimer saying that this is LaRouche's personal view, fine -- this is an article about LaRouche's personal views. Until such time as the article is re-titled, please don't try to make it about some other topic. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the argument that each of LaRouche's views must be endorsed by third parties to be considered notable is a specious one. This is not the typical practice at Wikipedia.

For example, Future Shock is entirely unsourced, from which I assume that the source for the article is Toffler's book. The Gödel's incompleteness theorems article is almost entirely unsourced, from which I assume that the principal source is Gödel's own writing. The article Marshall McLuhan has several sections on his views, all sourced only to his own writings. Therefore I submit that the issue is not whether individual editors like or dislike particular theories of LaRouche, and therefore must battle it out at googling. The issue is whether the article itself is notable. If not, the remedy is deletion, and the procedure is well known. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

One could find thousands of reliable 3rd party sources attesting to the notability of Toffler, Godel, and McLuhan's views. Hardly compares to the self published puffery you cited. Got a single 3rd party source that indicates this "method" is in any way shape or form notable? Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Marvin's point is clear enough. If the subject is notable enough to have an article on his views, then you have an article on his views, not 3rd party accounts or Berlet-style parodies of his views. Articles of this sort are routinely sourced to primary sources. You may argue that LaRouche's views don't warrant an article, but don't try to pick and choose which views you like. The proper criterion for what views go in the article should be the degree of emphasis they receive in LaRouche's writings, with the secondary criterion being the amount of controversy they generate. Incidentally, "Psycho-sexuality and political organizing" is minor from either standpoint, yet you and Will seem anxious to retain that one. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I should add that the "LaRouche-Riemann method" was specifically the basis for LaRouche's election to the Universal Ecological Academy of Moscow in 1994. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Source? As for "Psycho-sexuality and political organizing", I don't see where that's been mentioned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The only mention I see of Larouche and this Universal Ecological Academy is a book edited by a weird Holocaust denier that contains a Moscow Press conference of Larouche's. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As for sources, it's always better to use secondary sources for interpretation. Primary sources should only be used with care, and without interpretation. See WP:PSTS. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I have read WP:PSTS, and I agree that it should guide our approach to this article. However, I believe that this article must rely on the careful use of primary sources, because we lack reliable secondary sources. Dennis King and Chip Berlet are not reliable secondary sources, because they contain malicious misrepresentations of LaRouche's views. Some of the press accounts you mention are simply cribbed from King and Berlet, such as the Melbourne paper example. --Niels Gade (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
And how do you know that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
By their fruits ye shall know them. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha. Very funny, but it doesn't change the policy on reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Removed weasel language from the first paragraph. LaRouche didn't moved "towards" the right he moved TO the right. I also took out the phrase about controversy between his critics and his "supporters" since that implies an equivalence of weight of opinion between the two groupings. LaRouche's critics can point to a vast literature in legitimate publications and books published by recognized publishers that is strongly critical of LaRouche; these criticisms have stood the test of court challenges from LaRouche, in which he lost big (as when a federal jury in 1984 found it was not libelous to call him a "small-time Hitler"). By contrast, LaRouche's supporters can cite only opinions in publications controlled by LaRouche himself. Since these opinions are not citable, why should they be given an inflated weight in the opening paragraph? They should be mentioned only to establish the fact that LaRouche has a loyal following.--Dking (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I would caution against making major changes without first seeking consensus. Otherwise, there is an excellent possibility that this article will be returned to long-term protection. --Marvin Diode (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

For the record, it's been proven by Checkuser that the major LaRouche editors are all socks, mostly and perhaps entirely traceable to banned user Herschelkrustofsky. Banned users are not allowed to edit the project in any way. All of us engaged in writing this and other LaRouche-related articles have wasted considerable time and effort trying to find consensus with a lying zealot. Going forward, there is no need to give deference to the views of a banned user. While the articles must remain neutral, that does not mean that they must be sympathetic to fringe viewpoints. I propose that we overhaul this article and the LaRouche bio, perhaps even going back to stub versions and recreating them based on research and 3rd-party sources. I've posted the links to some previous efforts that were made to improve the article which were blocked by HK. HK recently made requests to improve the "AIDS and Gays" section. I'd forgotten it, but considerable effort was made in drafting several improvements, none of which were adopted. I'm going to put in one of the more evolved versions as a stop-gap until we re-write the whole article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 

1 Overview 
  1.1 Theory of history as a conflict between elites
  1.2 Economics
  1.3 LaRouche-Riemann Method
  1.4 Triple Curve
  1.5 Physical science
2 Notable proposals 
  2.1 "Operación Juárez"
  2.2 New Bretton Woods
  2.3 Eurasian Landbridge
3 LaRouche vs. the media
4 Marxist roots
5 Fascism
6 Conspiracy theories 
  6.1 The "British" conspiracy
  6.2 Children of Satan
  6.3 Social engineering
  6.4 Conspiracies directed at himself
7 Culture and identity 
  7.1 Zionism, Jews, and the Holocaust
  7.2 Psycho-sexuality and political organizing
  7.3 Gays and AIDS
  7.4 Cultural outlook
  7.5 Video games

If I understand the talk page archives correctly, this structure was partly the result of mediation back in 2004. The first several sections are devoted to issues that HK wanted to promote, while the remaining sections are cover topics that other eidtors thought important. While that compromise may have solved a dispute, it didn't necessarily result in the best article. It's inevitable that this article will have to reference LaRouche's writings but we should be using 3rd-party sources as our guide to what is notable. The section title "Notable proposals" includes items that I doubt have ever been noted in any detail. Another organizational problem is that the article jumps around. I propose that we find a couple of sources that have discussions of LaRouche's views and use those as our foundation. Though it's a bit old, I've found George Johnson's Architects of Fear (1983 ISBN 0874772753) to be a good, compact overview. With another, hopefully newer, reference we can create a better blueprint for this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article requires an overhaul.--Janeyryan (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what is wrong with the present structure, other than perhaps "Notable Proposals" could be renamed to "Political Proposals". It seems while there's no doubt been some conflict on this page, its the product of many editors over several years, and a readable overview of a wide-ranging topic its very difficult to find a neutral treatment of. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
More than just conflict has taken place. Rather it was a systematic effort to slant the article and waste the time of all concerned. That is why dramatic surgery is necessary.--Janeyryan (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Most of those voting to keep the article at the recently closed AfD wrote that the article needed rewriting. Among the key problems are overall length, excessively long quotations, undue weight for minor issues, and repetitiveness. I think it would do well with a total rewrite, but I'm not willing to do the enormous amount of research required. There are a number of secondary, 3rd-party sources that discuss LaRouche's ideas, and I think we should rely on those for the bulk of the article. A good place to start may be the "overview" section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Shall it be reduced to a stub version in the interim? I for one am not going to take responsibility for such a dramatic action.--Janeyryan (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
It'd be great to re-write this article from scratch, but I don't think anyone is willing or eager to devote that kind of time and energy. I suggest that we can reduce the bulk by cutting long quotations down to aline or two and by re-writing from scratch (or nearly) the "overview" section. After that, we might review the rest of the article to see where we can reduce duplication, unnecesary detail, unsourced material, and other obvious problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
It is always easier to improve an article from the bottom up, by strengthening each individual section, rather than trying to rewrite the whole thing. Certainly we shouldn't stubify; that would only be the case if the article was hopeless. Maybe this article isn't perfect, but it is a viable article.
Now maybe some of the numbered sections should be split further or recategorized, but is anybody not in agreement that the article should very roughly look like:
  • Basic philosophy. "Conflict between elites". Plato vs. Aristotle.
  • Economic theories. Explain concepts such as "triple curve".
  • Political proposals. New Bretton Woods, etc. The "miscellaneous" bullet points from "Overview" could be moved down here.
  • A section on where he fits into the U.S. left-right political spectrum. The "Marxist roots" section would go here. Views on "fascism" would go here. A discussion on shift to the political right. A discussion on populism.
  • Conspiracy theories. Basically all the numbered sections in the present article.
  • Views on different social groups
  • Views on culture. This would include classical music, video games, physical science, and the counterculture.
Also, is anyone contending that any of the present numbered sections aren't important enough to include? Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I disagree, at least for the time being. What you've laid out is pretty much the existing outline of the article. It's my impression that the article currently places too much emphasis on his economic theories and political proposals, to which no one outside the movement pays much attention. Because there are so few secondary sources that clearly explain those concepts and proposals, we're left interpreting the primary documents. LaRouche is famously obtuse, so that's dangerous ground.
As a provisional concept I think that we should start with a brief description of his early Marxist/Trotskyist days and the transition to his current belief system. Then describe his views chronologically, more or less. That would take us through topics like Plato vs. Aristotle, the Jews and the Middle Ages, Venice, Britain, the American System, Marx, Roosevelt, labor unions, Rockefeller, SDI, AIDS, euthanasia, and the computer/internet age. Then cover other any concepts or proposals that can't be fit into a logical chronology, or that have their own chronology, like the conspiracies concerning himself.
A full rewrite may be unnecessary, but a full overhaul is. Like all Wikipedia articles we should start with research. I looked over the references in this article and found that they are extensive but a bit haphazard. Some of HK's socks were here proposing revisions to one section, and so I started collecting excerpted sources on the topic in a subpage, Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources. As a byproduct of some previous dispute, Cberlet began a page of sources at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research, most of which are directly applicable to this article, and I've been adding to it with sources that I've found. Everyone's welcome to consult or contribute to them. Those sources, especially the secondary sources, should be our guide. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a rough draft for a revised outline. Ideally, each of these sections would be short. Some might be so short that they could be combined.

  • Overview
    • Shift in ideology
  • Outline of theories regarding historical or contemporary people and movements
    • Plato v Aristotle
      • Children of Satan
    • Jews and the Middle Ages
    • Venice
    • Britain,
      • Oligarchy
    • Riemann
      • Triple Curve, LaRouche-Riemann Method
    • the American System,
      • Physical economy, infrastructure, landbridge
    • Marx
    • Fascism
    • Roosevelt,
    • Holocaust
    • Soviet Union
    • labor unions
    • Rockefeller,
    • SDI,
    • AIDS
      • biological warfare and depopulation
    • euthanasia,
      • right-to-die, Earl Spring case
    • computer/internet age.
      • video games, Myspace
    • Climate change
  • Leftovers
    • Culture
    • Gays
    • Psycho-sexuality and political organizing
    • Media
    • LaRouche-centered conspiracies

I know we've done made previous draft in sandboxes before, and perhaps this should be moved to such a page for revision and elaboration. Does anyone have any thoughts about this concept of organizing the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, how is that better? That has everything under the sun grouped under "historical or contemporary people and movements". While I could see putting the economics section within a section on "views on philosophers, economists, and scientists", the second proposal looks very hard to navigate. I understand that there may be an objection that the present version makes LLR sound very mainstream, but Wikipedia, especially biographies on Wikipedia, should tend towards understatement and a neutral point of view. My take is the article should be written for the college student writing a paper on political science, who wants to know whether he's more a Republican or a Democrat and what the controversies around him are. Or the journalist who picks up a copy of EIR for the first time, and want to know why there's so many mentions of Aristotle and Buckminster Fuller. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, most things that have been under the sun are now historical. ;) The "college student" issues, the description of his place in the political spectrum, should be covered in the intro or overview. The truth is that LaRouche holds an wide variety of views that cover so much ground, it's not easy to find a way to group them. There are threads and those are why I sugggest rranging them chronologically may be the most logical plan. Some of his views are notable and some aren't. For example, there has been wide coverage of his views of Nelson Rockefeller, of the Earl Sprng case, and of unions that were the basis of actual campaigns by the LaRouche movement. On the other hand, there are many views that don't appear in any secondary sources. I don't think we should devote space to obscure ideas that no one beyond his movement have discussed. To that end we need to gather as much research as we can. Perhaps a better organizational plan will become apparent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. I suppose a chronological order is one way of doing it, but it still seems like giving up on the idea of an outline. How about something like this:
  • Overview. Basic information on where he fits into the U.S. left-right political spectrum.
  • Politics. The "Marxist roots" section would go here. Views on "fascism" would go here. A discussion on shift to the political right. Discussions on populism, infrastructure, and the labor movement. A subsection on political proposals such as New Bretton Woods.
  • Basic philosophy. The whole Plato vs. Aristotle concept. Its pretty much the underpinning for both the theories about British elites, etc, as well as the views on other philosophers.
  • Conspiracy theories
  • Criticism of British elites. Writings alleging British links to Aristotle would be useful here.
  • Criticism of Israel and Zionism
  • Other philosophers. This can include the mathematicians Riemann and Newton. Subsection on philosophical concepts unique to the LR movement, such as the material on human cognition and the "noosphere".
  • Views on "hot button" issues, from gay marriage to global warming.
  • Views on culture, especially classical vs. counterculture. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a possible way of arranging the material. Do we have any secondary sources for items like the noosphere and human cognition? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
As posted above, this is complex material. But no matter how difficult it is we can rely on the same principle used throughout Wikipedia, that of verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view.
Even though the views of LaRouche on Plato and Aristotle are foundational they aren't necessarily notable or worthy of much space in a reasonably-long article. (While foundations are foundational they aren't necessarily notable. How much space is devoted to them in articles on architecture?) The topics that are most notable are, by and large, those that have been most noted. I have the great privilege of having read so many thousands of words of/by/about LaRouche in the last few years that it may exceed a million. Outside of the movement, nobody much writes about this group's philosophic foundation. Sure, we should try to describe it, but obscure topics should be kept short.
Another factor affecting how we weigh the topics is how much the movement invests in them. There are some topics for which press releases are issued, and others where there is more active intervention. Beyond publishing a few articles, what is the relevance of the triple curve to the movement? By comparison and for example, the movement has apparently devoted actual (and considerable) resources to the climate change controversy. When the movement devotes resources to an issue, as shown in secondary sources, that's an indication that it deserves weight in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am baffled by how you say that his economic theories and proposals are unimportant. They are the reason he is famous. Right now he is getting more genuine press coverage all over the world than ever before, for the simple reason that his oft-repeated and very controversial warning that the banking system was going insolvent turned out to be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.225.52 (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The outline by "Squidfryerchef" would essentially give us an article on LaRouche's views structured around the LaRouche movement's own presentation of their leader's worldview. Among other things, any outline that avoids the word "anti-Semitism" is suspect. The supposed Aristotle-Plato dichotomy is not at the core of LaRouche's ideology, but only at the core of attempts to cover up his anti-Semitism. The oligarchical elite of LaRouche's conspiracy theory predates classical Greek philosophy by at least 500 years (and when LaRouche gets going on the subjects of lost Atlantis, the Aryan homeland at the North Pole, and the struggle of the "Olympians" and the "Titans" in prehistoric Morocco, it goes back several thousand years more). The essence of it in his own writings is an elite that practices usury and tax farming, that cooked up the "hoax" known as the Old Testament (thus synthetically constituting itself as the Jewish people) and that is described in much the way that anti-Semites have described Jews ever since the emergence of modern anti-Semitism. The oligarchical elite, to LaRouche, is an alien species outside the human race--which is Lysenkoist quack biology, not a matter of philosophical differences between two ancient philosophers whom LaRouche almost certainly has never read. Furthermore, for every time LaRouche talks about Plato and Aristotle I can cite 50 times in which he lashes out at his mythical financial oligarchy and its agents such as Felix Rohatyn, the Goldsmith brothers, the Rothschilds, George Soros, Henry Kissinger, Benjamin Disraeli, the Warburgs, the "Venetians," the "Synarchists," etc. Let's get real here.--Dking (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Step right up! It's the battle of the tin foil hats. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
No doubt about it. Lyn and Helga LaRouche's fancied battle between the Olympians and Titans circa 12,000 BC could definitely be described as a war of tin foil hats (assuming, that is, that these proto-Aryans and proto-Semites had discovered the uses of tin).--Dking (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Er, right. I suppose that there is a remote possibility that you actually did not understand my point. --15:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leatherstocking (talk • contribs)

Some interesting points were raised:

  • Do we have sources for the material on the "noosphere" and human cognition? I hope so, I'd like to see an explanation of the "human cognition" material myself. Apparently though he's not the only one to use the term noosphere; we even have an article about it. ( That article could use a little more context though ). Perhaps somebody wrote an article about his concepts in an academic journal of philosophy.
  • Plato and Aristotle: Even brief accounts of LLR's worldview explain how the Platonists were the "good guys" and the Aristotleans were the bad guys. A good example of that is in a 1989 NYT review of King's book LaRouche and the New American Fascism.[28]Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • At any rate, we should get the "official" story of the good vs. bad philosophers out of the way before we move on to the interpretations. It's just like if we were writing an article on Hamlet, we'd do a brief plot summary first and then we'd work on the symbolism.
  • I imagined there would be several subheadings under "Criticism of Israel and Zionism", that would cover alleged links to the British, criticism of AIPAC and the ADL, and the allegations of a "coded" ideology.

Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The article you link is actually a review of King's LaRouche and the New American Fascism written by George Johnson, author of Architects of Fear, an earlier book that has a substantial chapter on LaRouche's views. Johnson and King have different perspectives on LaRouche, but they're both good enough sources and are among the few that address the views in depth. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Good catch. This Architects book may be useful for a NPOV intro to LaRouche's views. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Corriere della Sera article [29] can be very useful here, because it provides an overview of LaRouche's policies, it's not 20 years out of date, and it's not an obvious hatchet job. The problem is with translating it. The Google translation is clearly garbled in part. Does anyone here read Italian? --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be used as a source for how he's received in Italy. But the focus appears to be on what Tremonti thinks of one of LaRouche's economic ideas, rather than on LaRouche himself. The fact that the writer makes at least one factual error ("was pardoned by President Bill Clinton") lessens the credibility of the article. As for the Architects book, many of the views of LaRouche appear to have been consistent going back to the mid-1970s. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

::I did not think we were here to judge the "credibility of the article", but rather whether it is a reliable source or not. Surely we can't substitute our judgments for an author's credibility, even based on a single factual error (which might indeed be a mis-translation). Am I mistaken about this? Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Decisions on whether a source is reliable depend on a number of factors. Obvious mistakes lessen the reliability or credibility of a source. Sure, it could be a translating error. If we don't have a reliable translation of it then why would we use it at all? Until we get such a translation, I don't see much point in discussing its contents. If we do get a real translation then it appears like it could be useful for a description of how LaRouche is regarded among some Italian politicians. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
(Though we'd need a complete translation, an Italian-English dictionary says that "graziato" translates as "pardon".[30]) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

::::If that's the case, then it is a factual error. However, factual errors about LaRouche are almost routine in the U.S. press. I recall "Time" referring to LaRouche not once, but twice as the candidate of the Libertarian party. How do we go about impeaching the credibility of a mainstream media source, especially when the maxim is "verifiability, not truth?" Also, when quoting the U.S. press, our articles do not stipulate that these sources reflect "how LaRouche is received in the U.S.", so why would we treat the Italian press any differently? This particular article is useful for our purposes because it does present (from the author of the article, not Tremonti) an overview of LaRouche's policies which is up-to-date and neutral. I will point out, however, that Tremonti does comment on LaRouche's ideas beyond the specific policy that he supports. --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the piece is probably a reliable source for the views of Tremonti. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::In response to the edit of Boodlesthecat, there were at least two versions of a "New Bretton Woods" proposed at the EU meeting. Gordon Brown's version seems to be more or less the opposite of LaRouche's. Tremonti's use of the term predates Gordon Howard's. BTW, the LaRouche group has prepared its own translation of the Corriere article[31], which we can use as a reference for discussion even if you are skeptical of their translations. They place a "(sic)" after the word "pardoned." --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Mahathir ha utilizzato nella polemica i veleni disseminati da un singolare iper - reazionario americano, Lyndon LaRouche, che non perde occasione per riciclare la teoria del complotto giudaico - massonico. Questa volta ha accusato Soros di aver collaborato, nonostante fosse ebreo, con i nazisti che occupavano l'Ungheria, suo paese di origine. E la stampa malese ci ha ricamato sopra. [32]
  • Mahathir has used the controversy poisons spread by a singular hyper - reactionary American Lyndon LaRouche, who loses no opportunity to strip the Jewish conspiracy theory - Masonic. This time, Soros was accused of having collaborated, despite being jew, with which the Nazis occupied Hungary, his country of origin. [33]

I know that some editors have complained we don't use enough non-U.S. sources. This one calls LaRouche "hyper-reactionary" and says he loses no opportunity to recycle the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy theory. When we get around to re-writing this article I suppose we can consider including this too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/06/16/your-enemy-george-soros.html
  2. ^ Press release, The Record: Why You Don't Want to Take George Soro's Money, EIR, October 28, 2003
  3. ^ Your Enemy, George Soros, EIR, July 4, 2008
  4. ^ LaRouche: Putin Was Right, He Acted to Prevent World War III, LaRouche PAC release, August 12, 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement/Archive_7&oldid=1142782281"