Talk:Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement/Archive 2

Links

In this edit [1], Will Beback says that it is impermissible to remove external links from self-published or anonymous attack sites. Is there any criterion at all for what constitutes an acceptable external link? --NathanDW 23:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:EL. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nathan: Please state how you feel the links violate WP:BLP or WP:EL. Will: Your response in turn would be appreciated. This is in response to a request on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard [2]for monitoring of this article. Thanks. Edison 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nathan has been banned. There's an active discussion about this at the bottom of the page though. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and balance on this page

This page needs to describe who LaRouche is, and it is not proper to ghettoize all criticism near the bottom of the page. Please discuss suggested changes to wording rather than just deleting.--Cberlet 21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is being "ghettoized"? My, what a hyperbolic turn of the phrase. Please stop spamming your POV in these articles. The issue is being debated at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche, where so far the only person to endorse your proposal is yourself. Wait for consensus before initiating new edit wars. --Don't lose that number 21:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The quote from McLemee is also misleading. He misrepresents quotes from LaRouche ---the actual quotes are available for inspection at Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. I think that this quote from McLemee should be removed. --Gelsomina 00:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This claim is false. LaRouche has indeed made claims about the Queen of England being involved in the drug trade. This is a settled question. It is based on the transcript of an NBC News interview.--Cberlet 02:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The obscure quote which is used by Berlet and others to back up this claim is the following: "As the head of the gang that is pushing drugs, she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it." To say that what LaRouche really meant is that she is "involved in drug trafficking" is disingenuous. Likewise, LaRouche did not call Kissinger a "KGB agent" -- he called him a "Soviet agent of influence," which is an entirely different thing (see Agent of influence.) Finally, LaRouche did not call for AIDS carriers to be quarantined -- he called for AIDS to be considered a communicable disease under public health law. Public health officials may quarantine for any number of diseases at their discretion, and this came up recently in the controversy over the guy with drug-resistant TB. However, there is nothing mandatory about it, and LaRouche did not propose that it should be.

To take a quote which may be controversial, and then "adjust" a little bit to make it seem more implausible or to ridicule it, is a tactic of propaganda. --Don't lose that number 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Where was the adjustment? It looks like the quote was made verbatim. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no quotes per se in the section recently added by Cberlet. There are comic paraphrases. If you will examine the first paragraph of my previous post, I compare each paraphrase to what LaRouche actually said. --Don't lose that number 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting quotes from reputable published sources. McLemee is a very well-known author.--Cberlet 00:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He's not that well known -- do you have a source for his notability? -- and what is more, the deleted comments are demonstrably false. BLP applies here. --Don't lose that number 00:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest, if you are hot to find more negative material to add to this article, try the Washington Post. You won't get any dispute over its notability as a main-stream source, and it has plenty of bad things to say about the LYM. --Don't lose that number 00:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

On what basis are you claiming that the McLemee article is not acceptable under BLP? Where does BLP talk about "notability" of authors? Are you suggesting the "Inside Higher Education" is not reputable? --Cberlet 01:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

From [http://www.insidehighered.com Inside Higher Education}:

• Scott McLemee, Essayist at Large, writes the Intellectual Affairs column. In 2004, the National Book Critics Circle honored Scott with its annual Nona Balakian Citation for Excellence in Reviewing, for his work appearing in Bookforum, The Common Review, Newsday, and The Washington Post. He writes frequently for The American Prospect and The New York Times Book Review. From 2001-5, Scott wrote for the The Chronicle of Higher Education, covering developments in the humanities. His work included long features on scholarly trends and profiles of important figures. Previously he was a contributing editor for Lingua Franca. In 2000, the editors named “Invisible, Inc.” (his article on Thomas Pynchon scholarship) one of the top 10 articles it had published over the previous 10 years....

Reputable publication with notable author.--Cberlet 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a quote of McLemee, not a quote of LaRouche. We have no way of knowing whether his interpretation of LaRouche is correct or not. That isn't our job anyway. Our job is to reliably summarize verifiable sources using the neutral point of view. The "Chronicle of Higher Education" is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

— WP:BLP

The fact of the matter is, we do know whether his interpretation is correct. LaRouche has explicitly rebutted his interpretation, on all three points if memory serves. Now, we can add an entirely new paragraph of rebuttal to McLemee's silly and disingenuous crap, or we could do something which ought to be just common sense: use a more mainstream source that makes a less contentious claim. The two of you, Cberlet and Will Beback, continually defend the practice of combing the net for obscure sources that make wild claims about LaRouche. The responsible thing to do, and the most helpful to the project, is simply to use the widely available mainstream sources. Cberlet has said that he wishes to see far more negative material about LaRouche in these articles. Whether that is a responsible approach to editing may be open to debate, but I am suggesting that there is no shortage of negative material in the Washington Post, and you will not get a quarrel from me about its acceptability as a source. --Don't lose that number 06:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We can't really call the "Chronicle of Higher Education" a "tabloid" or "scandal sheet". Is it disreputable? I haven't heard that. Is there any proof of this? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Inside Higher Education is a separate publication, but it is very mainstream and reputable. The LaRouche quote about the Queen is from the transcript of the NBC News program filed in the case for defamation filed by LaRouche. [NBC News, "Leader LaRouche, Part 1", segment on First Camera, (news feature program) broadcast March 4, 1984, transcript provided by NBC News, pages not numbered, sequential page 2: "LaROUCHE: Of course she's pushing drugs...that is in the sense of a responsibility: the head of a gang that is pushing drugs; she knows it is happening and she isn't stopping it." ] It is LaRouche being interviewd, and it is his words. It is a reliable source. Denying he said what he said is standard LaRouchite practice, but the ttranscript speaks for itself and for him. The continued denial of the fact of the quote and LaRouche's longstanding conspiracy theory about the British Royal Family is another reason why LaRouchite claims are not reliable.--Cberlet 12:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you will examine the discussion a few posts back, I cite exactly the same NBC interview to demonstrate that McLemee is taking liberties in his characterization of LaRouche's ideas. --Don't lose that number 13:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you value your opinion, but it is POV and OR, so it does not change the fact of the publication of McLemee's words, and the ability of Wiki editors to use that text.--Cberlet 14:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The question in my mind is this: are the anti-LaRouche editors trying to "game the system" to produce biased articles? DTLN is making a simple request: use main-stream sources, avoid contentious and fringe claims, and there will be fewer content disputes. --NathanDW 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

<---This is standing reality on its head. LaRouche is fringe, a felon, and a conspiracy theorist, whose work appears in self-published serials, books, and websites. The Wiki editors and sources you pro-LaRouche folks are seeking to decribe as fringe, non-notable, and mot reliable are award-winnig journalists who publish in major daily newspapers, scholarly journal, and popular magazines. Join the mediation and we can discuss this in a proper manner and settle the question with a mediator.--Cberlet 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If editors could identify which claims they consider to be "fringe" I'm sure we can add more sources to support them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To get us started, here are what some newspapers have said about LaRouche's platform:

• Williams says their victories weren't because Democratic voters supported LaRouche's political platform - the forced quarantine of all AIDS patients, a call for drug charges against Henry Kissinger and Queen Elizabeth, and bizarre rants that often included harsh criticisms of Jews. Daily Herald. Arlington Heights, Ill.: Mar 21, 2006.
• He considers himself a "Roosevelt Democrat" and believes the country needs another New Deal - this time to move it from a consumer-based economy back to a manufacturing one. Some of his past proposals have included a quarantine of AIDS victims and the colonization of Mars. He has charged that Queen Elizabeth II is a drug dealer, and that Henry Kissinger and Walter Mondale are Soviet agents. The Record. Bergen County, N.J.: Jan 2, 2004.
• Of course anyone is free to vote for the LaRouche candidates. Just know what you are voting for: a group whose leader just finished serving a sentence for fraud; a group that wants to colonize Mars, test everyone for AIDS and quarantine those who test positive; a group that believes the Holocaust is a myth, the National Education Association and United Nations are conspiring to brainwash children and the Queen of England heads an international drug trafficking ring. Pantagraph. Bloomington, Ill.: Feb 21, 1994.
• No newcomer to the Impossible Dream Derby, LaRouche has sought the White House four other times. He wants to quarantine AIDS patients, stake a claim for Earthlings on the planet Mars, and investigate Queen Elizabeth II, who he claims is a drug dealer. Policies aside, LaRouche, an independent, is at a considerable disadvantage this time around. He is in the Rochester, Minn., federal penitentiary serving 15 years for fraud. He is on the ballot in at least 17 states. Newsday. Long Island, N.Y.: Oct 19, 1992.
• LaRouche is serving a 15-year sentence for fraud in federal prison in Rochester, Minn. A perennial candidate, he has run for president four times. He has promoted a quarantine of AIDS victims and has maintained that the virus is transmitted much like any other virus and that most medical warnings about how it is spread are "an outright lie." He also has stated that the International Monetary Fund is "engaged in mass murder" by spreading AIDS through its economic policies and he's accused Queen Elizabeth II of England of being a drug dealer. In 1988, LaRouche detailed a plan to colonize Mars. A spokesperson for LaRouche said he expects the candidate to be certified in 21 states by November. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Aug 30, 1992
• Saying he is a ``close associate of political extremist LaRouche, [Harley] Schlanger said he does not embrace LaRouche's extremist views. LaRouche, in prison for conspiracy and mail fraud, has called for a quarantine of AIDS patients and has urged basing U.S. currency on the gold standard. Houston Chronicle: Mar 14, 1990.
• LaRouche, who has run for President four times, is known for his extreme views, including support for a quarantine of AIDS victims and allegations that Britain's Queen Elizabeth is involved in drug trafficking. Los Angeles Times. Jan 29, 1989.
• And yet, there is something disconcerting about LaRouche, and it's not simply his bizarre track record of intimidating those who disagree with his stances; of being labeled everything from a racist to an anti-Semite to a homophobe; of accusing Walter Mondale of being a KGB agent and Queen Elizabeth of smuggling drugs. Newsday. Long Island, N.Y.: Sep 23, 2003.
• According to LaRouche, the royal family wants to terrorise the United States into becoming a British colony again, thus giving the House of Windsor a monopoly in the American cocaine market. The only person powerful enough to foil this plot was the Princess of Wales, which is why she had to be eliminated. After the bombing of the US embassy in Nairobi last summer, LaRouche instantly detected the Duke of Edinburgh's fingerprints. `If Satan considered his darling, Adolf Hitler, to be relatively a wimp, Satan must be gloating over his selection of Prince Philip as Hitler's successor. As I shall demonstrate, this view of Prince Philip as quite literally a satanic figure is no hyperbole. . .' LaRouche's latest pamphlet, The Pure Evil of Al Gore, adds that the American vice-president is a secret agent of the Windsors, committed to `the British monarchy's longer-range strategic policy for the planet as a whole'. The Guardian. London (UK): May 19, 1999.
• Extremist Lyndon LaRouche, who has served five years in an American prison for mail fraud and tax evasion, has an ideology that combines anti-Semitism and bizarre conspiracy theories, such as the claim that former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger worked for the Soviet KGB. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. New York: Jun 26, 1996.

I could add more, but it's clear that the claims made by McLemee are the same claims made routinely by mainstream newspapers. I propose that instead of quoting McLemee, we summarize the statements and provide additional sources for any that are still challenged. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The place to do this would be at Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, because these stories are loaded with false claims and would need to be extensively rebutted. Just to pick a serendipitous example, Will, you are aware, because you have just spent two weeks Googling info on LaRouche's trial, that he was not charged with tax evasion, and yet this is blithely reported as fact in one of the selections you reproduce above. I think you are probably aware of other obvious misrepresentations. But, I know the argument: "Under Wikipedia rules, we are free to add information that we know to be false, provided a published source can be found that has presented the same falsehoods." --Don't lose that number 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that LaRouche's conspiracy to defraud the IRS was, essentially, tax evasion since the result was to evade taxes. As for rebuttal, we can't rebut the fact that these things are said of LaRouche, all we can do is add material where he says that the things said about him aren't true. What sources do we have for him denying that Kissinger was acting as a Soviet agent? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, while we could move all of the cultural and political issues to the "Political views" article, I think it would make this article much less interesting, and would make this article less informative. However we should keep the material short. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"LaRouche also was convicted of conspiring to hide his personal income since 1979, the last year he filed a tax return." Caryle Murphy, LaRouche Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison, Washington Post, 1/28/89. Easy to find. What "obvious misrepresentations" are being alleged here?--Cberlet 02:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the points of contention appears to be about LaRouche's disucssion of Kissinger and the KGB. I found this Washington Post interview, which muddies the waters a bit:

• Jabbing and chopping the air to make his points during a rare two-hour interview Nov. 10, LaRouche showed little modesty about his station in life. "I'm probably the best economist in the world today," he said. "I'm also one of the best-informed people in the world. We have influence on governments." Walter F. Mondale, he said, is an "agent of influence" of the KGB, the Soviet secret police. So are Kissinger and McGeorge Bundy, the former Ford Foundation president and presidential adviser, he said, all "totally witting." They are agents of influence rather than regular agents, he said, because they are "working with the KGB, not for the KGB." "Some Are Out to Kill Me, LaRouche Says" Washington Post, January 13, 1985 [3]

So apparently rather than saying they were "KGB agents", LaRouche was saying that Mondale, Kissinger, and Bundy were "agents of influence" working "with the KGB". That appears to me to be a distinction without a difference. The two concepts are close enough that I wouldn't fault journalists who use the shorthand version. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In spy jargon, the person who works for the CIA is a case officer, the people recruited through the case officer are agents. But both terms are used popularly as synonymns.--Cberlet 12:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Will, it is your personal view that "agent" as opposed to "agent of influence" is "a distinction without a difference." Wikipedia clearly makes the distinction, and so does LaRouche. In my view, LaRouche gets to decide what his actual views are, and if he feels they are being misrepresented, that should be mentioned (in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, where I am adding a short section to which we can link when issues like this come up.) --Don't lose that number 13:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

<-----On Wikipedia, OR and POV do not trump what has appeared in print in reputable published sources. Cite LaRouche complaining he has been misquoted in this instance, or a LaRouchite publication, or it does not belong in an entry.--Cberlet 13:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Puff piece must go

This page is little more than an unveriufied advertisement for the LYM. I will begin to add important details. Criticism needs to be mentioned in lead.--Cberlet 19:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I urge you not to spam your own opinions into these articles, under that pretext of "adding important details." Your summary of Benton's article goes considerably beyond Benton's own comments; for example, Benton notes that the putative document was written by Tony Papert, not LaRouche, and is much more careful about drawing inferences than you are. I would like to reiterate the request that I placed on your talk page, with particular emphasis on WP:SOAP. --Don't lose that number 21:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Not my opinion. Majority opinion of reputable published sources. Benton article was appropriate. The suicide was tragic and directly related to the LYM friction. Do you dispute the article is properly cited?--Cberlet 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, your edit takes liberties with what is in the cited article. --Don't lose that number 22:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So the solution is for you to offer an alternative summary, rather than just deleting the matieral that I assert is accurate. In the meantime I have restored my version.--Cberlet 00:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Benton's paper is self-published and obscure. WP:BLP says the following: "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article." 'Nuff said. --NathanDW 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. --Marvin Diode 22:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed a bit of violent opinion from Cberlet in the discussion above -- please do not restore it. I also removed the sentence from the article, which includes this very weasily formulation: "one former LaRouche member charges that the LaRouchite leadership has suggested that unless the "Boomers" shape up, they should kill themselves..." Adding the Washington Post cite does not improve it at all, because this claim appears nowhere in the Post article, so please don't pretend that it does. I agree that the Benton paper is unsuitable as a source under BLP. --Marvin Diode 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Is there a debate that major daily newspapers and major magazines consider )and have put in writing) that the LaRouche movement is an "antisemitic cult?" Is there any dispute over the Kronberg suicide and what a local Virginia newspaper reported?--Cberlet 23:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP bans unsourced (or poorly sourced) material on living people. We can easily source claims the LaRouche is an anti-semite, we can even source the libel case LaRouche lost over the matter. The references are all in the "Views" article, but we can source them here as well if there's a dispute. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The newspaper cited is distributed in the Leesburg area, and is not "self-published." The suicide of an older LaRouche member as part of a power struggle between age groups is significant. The issue of antisemitism is easily found in numerous reputable published sources. Is anyone disputing that the LaRouche group has been called a cult repeatedly in numerous reputable published sources? If it were just me, I would use the phrase (all easily sourced) that "critics of LaRouche point out he is a convicted felon for fundraising and tax frauds, and a vicious neonazi antisemite who leads a cult of personality built around his lunatic conspiracy theories." All of this is easily cited to reputable published sources, so I am already compromising with what I posted.--Cberlet 02:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's go back to the drawing board to find a neutral, verifiable summary of the most common terms used to describe LaRouche. As for Kronberg, I'm not sure we should make the link between the statement and the suicide. Mentioning them side by side may be sufficient. Let's take our time to get it right. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, there are three BLP issues here:

1. The claim that LaRouche used mind control of some sort to force Kenneth Kronberg to commit suicide comes from a source that is unacceptable under BLP.
2. Cberlet's soapboxing on the talk page is another violation, in addition to being needlessly provocative and juvenile.
3. The third issue is that various editors continually re-add the external link to "Cults on campus," which is an anonymous site. No one has made even a pretense of justifying this -- it's just tendentious and disruptive.

I think that there are also significant WP:COATRACK issues here. Cberlet appears to be pursuing a policy of trying to turn any article that mentions LaRouche into an essay for his POV. --MaplePorter 06:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

3. "Cults on Campus" is not anonymous. http://www.cultsoncampus.com/aboutsite.html

2. We're here to discuss the article, not the editors. Discussing the article isn't "soapboxing".

1. While I don't think the proposed text is ideal, I don't think it says that LaRouche did anything, much less use "mind control". Further, I still don't see any legitimate objection to the newspaper as a source. By ll means, let's proceed carefully here and find text we can all agree on and that complies with best practices. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Benton's paper is a small, weekly paper, owned and edited by the same guy. Please give me some evidence that it is not "self-published." --MaplePorter 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. The Falls Church News-Press is published in both print and online editons with a staff of five and numerous advertisers.

Nicholas F. Benton - Owner and Editor in Chief

Jody Fellows - Managing Editor

Mike Hume - Sports Editor

Blackwekk Hawthorne - Ad director

Joe Fridling - Sales Representative

Founded in 1991, it is currently publishing Vol 17, No. 19

Thanks for asking. All of this information is clearly available from the newspaper's website.--Cberlet 02:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that you have presented here suggests that the paper is anything but a vehicle for Benton's personal views. Is there even one other press source that has echoed that allegations about LaRouche that Benton makes? The Washington Post, no friend of LaRouche, makes no such charges (despite that fact that anti-LaRouche editors keep inserting it in the article as a source for them.) --MaplePorter 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thumbnail sentence identifying LaRouche on numerous pages

This is carried over from discussions on several LaRouche related pages. The phrase "controversial American political figure Lyndon LaRouche" avoids the obvious question, why is he controversial? It is a weasel phrase. This is a phrase agreed on for the Lyndon LaRouche page after much discussion. I propose we add it here and on other pages.

• "His supporters regard him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas his critics see him as a conspiracy theorist, and anti-Semite."

Comments?--Cberlet 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we ever agreed on it - the conversation got sidetracked. Personally, I don't like that formulation. LaRouche is so widely-known as a conspiracy theorist, etc, that I don't think we should limit the opinion to "critics". Plus, I think it understates the admiration of the followers and omits his campaigns and prison term. How about something like this:

• LaRouche campaigned for U.S. President eight times and served five years in prison for mail fraud and tax evasion. He and his followers assert that he is the greatest living economist and deny that he is anti-semitic or a conspiracy theorist.

I realize it's significantly longer, but if we're trying to cover the main points in a neutral fashion we'll need at least two sentences. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't believe that he or his followers actually deny that he is a conspiracy theorist (see Political Views.) Secondly, the claim that he is anti-Semitic is a fringe view. Aside from King and Berlet, who make the claim verily noisily, there are few who repeat this allegation, and furthermore, when you examine the arguments of those that do, it is invariably weasel-logic, such as the King-Berlet claims that LaRouche's supposed anti-Semitism is "coded," "masked," "euphemistic," etc. Therefore, while I would acknowledge that these claims must be discussed in the two main articles (LaRouche bio and Views,) I reject the idea that they are notable enough to appear in some sort of "boilerplate," or in any intros for that matter. Also, Will, in your list of articles (above) which attribute all sorts of nonsense to LaRouche, the common denominator is that they are all old. I think that the Wikipedia articles should acknowledge that some of the goofier allegations against LaRouche are primarily of interest to historians. --MaplePorter 00:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• "the claim that he is anti-Semitic is a fringe view. Aside from King and Berlet, who make the claim verily noisily, there are few who repeat this allegation."

This is such an outrageous falsehood that it must be challenged forcefully. Total baloney. The New York Times, the Anti-Defamation League, the Washington Post, the Encyclopedia Judaica are "fringe"? This is an outlandish example of tendentious and disruptive activity. A diversionary waste of time.--Cberlet 02:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• First, since I am not an anti-Semite, as some have suggested, reporting of the assertion that I am anti-Semitic tarnishes the publication, such as your own. "I'm not anti-Semite, Larouche says" The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Jan 30, 1995. pg. B.2
• It was actually a meeting organized by the far-right Schiller Institute, and Duggan found himself involved with followers of Lyndon LaRouche, an American millionaire and convicted fraudster with virulent anti-Semitic views. "UK Parliament discusses suspicious death of Jewish student in Germany" JONNY PAUL, Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Mar 27, 2007. pg. 07
• Unknown to him at the time, the paper is published by an organisation, run by US millionaire and anti-semitic conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, with whom Jerry would spent his final days. "Was this British student killed by a sinister political CULT? ; EXCLUSIVE One terrified phone call to his mother.. then Jerry was found dead on a German motorway; " VICTORIA BONE. The Daily Mirror. London (UK): Dec 9, 2006. pg. 29
• The family believe Mr Duggan's involvement with the Wiesbaden- based followers of Lyndon LaRouche, a right-wing American millionaire and conspiracy theorist who has been accused of running a political cult with anti-Semitic views, holds the key to his death. "Fresh inquiry into student's death rejected"; Terry Kirby Chief Reporter. The Independent. London (UK): Apr 9, 2005. pg. 20
• [Erica Duggan] could have found the Anti-Defamation League Web site, which charges that LaRouche is anti-Semitic and has ties to radical right Islamic groups. She might have stumbled across a LaRouche campaign press release, which lambastes its critics. "They say things like LaRouche is a leader of a cult or that he is anti-Semitic, or some other vile epithet", the release says. "Don't be fooled by these rumors and lies." They originate from Gestapo-style "thought police," and the families of the financial oligarchy who "exert control over politics in the U.S., through the top-down management of 'approved' popular beliefs, and religions, just as the oligarchy of the Roman Empire administered political control through the approved pantheon of pagan gods." "No Joke; Eight-time presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche may be a punchline on 'The Simpsons,' but his organization -- and the effect it has on young recruits -- is dead serious;" April Witt. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Oct 24, 2004. pg. W.12
• Not to rain on Mr. Lasn's parade, but if he would trouble himself to Google "Jewish neoconservatives" into his browser, he'd find hundreds of commentators who have also "tackled the issue head on", amongst them the extreme-right wing (and indisputably anti-Semitic) Lyndon LaRouche and Pat Buchanan. Jews know the danger of appeasing evil; Barbara Kay. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Mar 31, 2004. pg. A.18
• Oh, yes, one more thing: Tony Papert's article originally appeared in the April 18, 2003, issue of Executive Intelligence Review, a magazine published by none other than Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., that well-known millionaire crackpot and purveyor of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. "Embedded Inanity" erry Teachout. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Mar 16, 2004. pg. A.20
• Known in the past for his anti-Semitic views and outlandish conspiracy theories, LaRouche has toned down his rhetoric in recent years. But many of his current goals are not priorities shared by other Democrats. "Democrats fear LaRouche takeover ; Followers of fringe candidate seek seats on Alameda County Democratic Central Committee" Matt Carter, STAFF WRITER. Oakland Tribune. Oakland, Calif.: Feb 23, 2004. pg. 1
• In a Dec. 11 letter to Dunn, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe said LaRouche was not a legitimate Democrat because of expressed political beliefs "which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic." "Democrats bar LaRouche from Utah primary", Dan Harrie. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Jan 8, 2004. pg. B.
• THE Schiller Institute was set up in 1984 by the American far-right extremist Lyndon LaRouche and his German wife Helga to propagate his increasingly wild anti-Semitic conspiracy theories...Anti-Semitism is at the core of LaRouche's conspiracy theories, which he adapts to modern events -most recently the war in Iraq. ""Blame the jews"" Roger Boyes. The Times. London (UK): Nov 7, 2003.
• Don Fowler, former national Democratic Party chairman, said LaRouche's political views do not represent the party's philosophy. Fowler points out that LaRouche isn't registered to vote, a party requirement for candidates. "Not only is he not a registered voter, but he has an extensive written record of racist and anti-Semitic opinions," Fowler said. LaRouche spokesman Bruce Director said LaRouche hasn't made any racist or anti-Semitic remarks. "LaRouche" SHARON THEIMER. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee, Wis.: May 4, 2003. pg. 14.
• Past Zayed speakers include: former President Jimmy Carter, former Vice President Al Gore, former U.N. Secretary-General (and one-time loyal Nazi) Kurt Waldheim, Jew-hating right-wing presidential wannabe Lyndon LaRouche and French author Theirry Meyssan, who claims 9/11 was masterminded by . . . Americans. "SAUDI-FUNDED SLANDER" New York Post. New York, N.Y.: Apr 20, 2003. pg. 022
• For 10 years, Mr. Murawiec, had worked as the German-based correspondent of Mr. LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review, an anti-Semitic potpourri of disinformation, factoids, rumor, gossip, loony tunes and an occasional fact. "Thinking the unthinkable" Arnaud de Borchgrave, THE WASHINGTON TIMES. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.: Aug 27, 2002. pg. A.15

Here are numerous press clippings from four countries within the past decade. Each either describes LaRouche as being anti-semitic, or includes a denial of anti-semiticism. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that LaRouce is commonly described as "anti-semitic", which is denied by LaRouche and his spokesman. It may be the case that he's never denied being a conspiracy theorist, though I recall that some editors here have denied it. We can say something like, "Known as a conspiracy theorist, LaRouche and his followers deny he's anti-semitic." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That formula is like saying "Jones and his followers deny he beats his wife" without explicitly referring to a citation from a reliable and independent source that says he does beat his wife. Edison 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

True. True. How about:

• "Seen as a brilliant and original thinker by followers, LaRouche is criticized as a conspiracy theorist and antisemite."--Cberlet 18:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That formula implies that he actually is an anti-Semite, and is criticized for being so. Unacceptable.

Will, I notice that not one of your press clippings actually presents evidence that LaRouche is now or has ever been anti-Semitic. It is all simply the repeating of either gossip or slander, and it reminds me of the allegations by Robert Welch that Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist. --MaplePorter 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

<------------------ Antisemitism from LaRouche and LaRouche publications

"Before Christianity, there were established some very vicious Oriental cults in the area near Babylon. These cults led to the various manifestations of a particular form of cult called Manichaenism. The cult was spread by Venetian bankers...This pseudo- alchemic cult later called Freemasonic."

"The laws of Moses and related materials in the Old Testament are not part of Israelite religious tradition, but the product of international counterinsurgency operations in sixth and fifth century BC Babylon."

"Although A.D. Judaism is an outgrowth of the development of Christianity there was a preceding Hebrew faith OF SORTS [emphasis in the original].The earlier, Hebrew doctrine is itself a syncretic hodge-podge of chiefly Mesopotamian legends. [Rabbi] Ezra"s Persian version of Hebrewism was, in turn, significantly influenced by an earlier, pre-Pentateuch version created in conformity with Babylonian edicts."

"From Ezra onwards, and even before, Hebrewism was an assimilationist doctrine developed to provide special juridical status (and ideological self-image) for a caste of merchant-userers within a pre- capitalist society."

"Judaism is not a true religion, but only a half-religion, a curious appendage and sub-species of Christianity."

"Judaism is ideological abstraction of the secular life of Christianity's Jew, the Roman merchant-userer who had not yet evolved to the state of Papal enlightenment, a half-Christian, who had not developed a Christian conscience."

"Judaism is the religion of a caste of subjects of Christianity, entirely molded by ingenious rabbis to fit into the ideological and secular life of Christianity. In short, a self- sustaining Judaism never existed and never could exist. As for Jewish culture otherwise, it is merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim."

Are the pro-LaRouche editors suggesting the ADL never did any research? Or is ADL a "fringe" source? Then, of course, there is the Holocaust Denial. Are the pro-LaRouche editors planning on engaging in "Holocaust Denial Denial" as well?--Cberlet 21:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As Norman G. Finkelstein has documented, the ADL is quick to label critics of the Israeli Right Wing, including LaRouche, as anti-Semitic. --MaplePorter 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

MP - It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to prove that anyone is anything. Our job is simply to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. The point of this text is to convey in the briefest way possible the nature of the controversies surrounding LaRouche. We are not trying to say that LaRouche is an "anti-semite", only that he is frequently called an "anti-semite" and that he denies it. Note that a broad range of journalists, including editors for the diametrically opposed Washington Post and Washington Times, use the term, not just a single fringe politician as with the Eisenhower case you mention. When almost every article about LaRouche in the mainstream press mentions the allegations of anti-semitism, we'd be remiss not to include those allegations as part of a description of the controversies about LaRouche. In fact, many of the press clippings, including some I've quoted, do catalog the reasons why LaRouche is called an "anti-semite" but the point here is only that he is called that, not that he is one, so I didn't quote that material. How would you suggest summarizing the press claims and his denial on this issue? Also, I favor also adding his campaigns and conviction, as those are the actions for which he is best known to general public. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's try a different approach. How about this?

• LaRouche campaigned for U.S. President eight times and served five years in prison for mail fraud and tax evasion. Seen as a brilliant and original thinker by followers, LaRouche is criticized for his conspiracy theories involving the British royal family, zionism, the KGB, and other sinister forces.

That leaves out the allegations (and denials) of anti-semitism. It includes some of the more famous details of his theories. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How about:

• LaRouche campaigned for U.S. President eight times and served five years in prison for mail fraud and tax evasion. Seen as a brilliant and original thinker by followers, LaRouche is criticized for his conspiracy theories involving the British royal family, zionism, the KGB, and other allegedly sinister forces.

Just one more word.--Cberlet 01:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. If we can find a formula that avoids "alleged" that be even better, but I can't think of one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Perceived, purported, supposed, claimed, targeted, etc.--Cberlet 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, any of those would suffice but I was hoping to avoid needing to qualify the statement. However since LaRouche's perception of the agents of the conspiracies is so different from the general public's perception, I don't see how we can avoid qualifying that LaRouche's view is that these groups are "sinister". ("Satanic" or "beastly" would be accurate too but those terms might not seem serious to a casual reader.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? First, a correction: I believe that LaRouche was convicted strictly on conspiracy charges, not mail fraud and tax evasion per se. There is a difference and it is legally significant. Secondly, LaRouche's conspiracies always involve the existence of an "oligarchy" as well as the financial community (Synarchism.) So how about this:

• LaRouche campaigned for U.S. President eight times and served five years in prison for various conspiracy charges. Seen as a brilliant and original thinker by followers, LaRouche is criticized for his conspiracy theories involving a sinister oligarchy, which allegedly has involved the British royal family, Zionism, the KGB, and prominent financial houses. --Gelsomina 06:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We're getting there. I think we need to say what the nature of the conspiracy was, so at the cost of a few more words we can add that. Also let me move some other words around.

• LaRouche campaigned for U.S. President eight times and served five years in prison for mail fraud conpiracy and tax evasion conspiracy. Seen as a brilliant and original thinker by followers, LaRouche is criticized for his conspiracy theories that allege a sinister oligarchy involving the British royal family, Zionism, the KGB, prominent financial houses, among others.

I like "prominent financial houses", and added "others" because the list is far from complete. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Further suggestions: from the US v. LaRouche article, I think a more precise and compact way to describe the charges would be "five years in prison for conspiracies to commit mail fraud and mislead the IRS." Also, I would use the past tense for the part about the oligarchy, because it appears that his emphasis has shifted from time to time:

• LaRouche campaigned for U.S. President eight times and served five years in prison for conpiracies to commit mail fraud and mislead the IRS. Seen as a brilliant and original thinker by followers, LaRouche is criticized for his conspiracy theories that allege a sinister oligarchy, which has involved at one time or another the British royal family, Zionism, the KGB, and prominent financial houses, among others. --Marvin Diode 13:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Too wordy and vague.

• LaRouche, an eight-time U.S. Presidential candidate, served five years in prison for conpiracies to commit fundraising fraud and failure to pay taxes. Seen as a brilliant original thinker by followers, LaRouche is criticized for his conspiracy theories alleging a sinister oligarchy involving, among others over time, the British royal family, Zionism, synarchists, the KGB, and prominent financial houses."

Same length - more information.--Cberlet 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

These recent version are more unobjectionable, but as I understand it, it is factually incorrect to say that LaRouche was convicted of a conspiracy to "fail to pay taxes." To my knowledge he was convicted only of "Klein conspiracy," which according to FindLaw "involves manipulating funds to conceal the true nature of financial transactions from the IRS."[4] So, "conspiracy to mislead the IRS" is in fact accurate. --MaplePorter 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche was convicted on not paying the taxes he legitimately owed. His technique was "manipulating funds to conceal the true nature of financial transactions," so actually "tax cheat" would be accurate, as would "tax dodger."--Cberlet 21:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And your source is? --MaplePorter 21:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, what's your source for the crime being a "Klein conspiracy"? I'd looked earlier and the only place I found it mentioned was an article by LaRouche. I'd say "tax evasion" is concise and accurate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tax evasion is the simplist and most NPOV accurate term.--Cberlet 21:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the actual charges were: "conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service".[5] This is just from a brief or paper, but we can find a better source if there's a question. Since one of the counts was for actual mail fraud, not just conspiracy, I'd say that "mail fraud and tax evasion" would be short and correct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But "mail fraud" is meaningless to the average reader. Almost all the specific charges were related to fundraising violations involving credit cards and the illegal solicitation of loans. So "fundraising fraud" is actually more accurate and clear.--Cberlet 21:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Fundraising fraud" is fine with me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "synarchists and prominent financial houses" a redundancy? I think it would be best to omit "synarchists" anyway because it is such an obscure term. --Marvin Diode 06:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The only people who think that "synarchists and prominent financial houses" are equivlaent are followers of LaRouche's crackpot theories and antisemitic conspiracy theorists--which in fact would be a redundancy.--Cberlet 17:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't helpful to the averge reader. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotes from Nicholas Benton

After reading WP:RSN#www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org, I have removed the Benton quotes because they are self published. --Polly Hedra (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Benton quotes are not self-published. We have already determined this in other discussions. Please do your homework. Plus, any more unverified assertions from the pages of the LaRouche cult need to be balanced with more material from the real world.--Cberlet (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow the link. The discussion at the noticeboard determined that the Benton quotes are self-published. --Marvin Diode (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The input from uninvolved editors seems to concern BLP issues. The way the quote is used in this article doesn't involve any BLP issues that I can see. Also, you reverted and restored a large chunk of text sourced solely to LaRouche sites. Is there an explanation for that revert? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I restored it.--Cberlet (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Eponymous organizations are subject to BLP. --Marvin Diode (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The "large chunk of text sourced soley to LaRouche sites" appears to be accounts of LaRouche Youth activity in Argentina and the Philippines, and it is appropriate under policy to include it in this article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the "eponymous organization" exemption is well-established. However, I restored only the quote, which Klein and Benton agree on. I added a sentence about Klein's view of the "boomer" issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Critique of LaRouche in lead?

It seems that the following should be moved (if it is not already there) to an article on Lyndon LaRouche, and not on this group:

“ Seen as a brilliant original thinker by followers, LaRouche is criticized for his conspiracy theories alleging a sinister oligarchy involving, among others over time, the British royal family, Zionism, the KGB, and prominent financial houses. ”

That's all I have to say. TableManners (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion on this page? We spent a considerable amount of time discussing that text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the ongoing discussion could only benefit from the arrival of an outside party who may have a more Neutral Point of View. --Marvin Diode 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that the several single-issue editors who primarily edit LaRouche-related pages to insert pro-LaRouche material or to delete critcisms of LaRouche will back off for a few weeks? I think the text should be restored.--Cberlet 15:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for coming in like a bull dozer. But I still wonder why the lead paragraph should delve into a defense and critique of LaRouche when the article is about the LaRouche Youth Movement. Maybe a section on LaRcouche with this critique and a link to the main article on LaRouche would be more appropriate. Or maybe this article is about LaRouche, and not the LYM, as I initially thought. TableManners 17:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Naw, you have every right to raise the question, but there is a complicated history with the LaRouche related pages, which in number and length outweigh Wiki entries on Sir Isaac Newton. See the template above.--Cberlet 17:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why the campaign against MySpace and violent games is notable

"The Noosphere vs. the Blogosphere" is the first LaRouche pamphlet to be written entirely by the LYM, and they are distributing 500,000 copies on campuses right now. So, it is noteworthy for this article. --Polly Hedra (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Chairman?

Who is the head or chairman of this organization? I've looked on their website but can't find any information on its governance. I have found some that call Cody Jones the founder. Is that corect? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Virginia State Corporation Commission has a listing for "LaRouche Youth, LLC", (S166093-7), date of filling 09/22/2005, address: 2 CARDINAL PARK DR UNIT 104A, LEESBURG , VA 20175-0000. The "registered agent" is Bruce Director. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knows? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism allegation

• From 2006 to 2007 a LYM team produced an extensive set of computer animations described as a pedagogical tour through Johannes Kepler's New Astronomy and "Harmony of the World", plus another set on the discovery of the orbit of Ceres. They then charged that an anonymous website had been set up called "Kepler's discovery" which plagiarized their work, in an inferior form.[6]

The first sentence appears reasonable, though not particularly notable. The second sentence is problematic. Nowhere does the source (larouchepac.com) say that the people who created the animations went on to accuse NASA of plagiarism. Instead, the unnamed author of the LPAC article accuses NASA of plagiarism. I'm not sure why a self-published article on the LPAC website would be a reliable source for two third parties - WLYM and NASA. Self-published sites should only be used as sources for material about themselves. Has WLYM ever directly commented on the matter? If so then we should use their commentary, not LPAC's. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many strange assertions in your post. No one is accusing NASA of plagiarism. The accusation of plagiarism is made against the anonymous person(s) who set up the "Kepler's Discovery" website. And WLYM is the youth division of LPAC -- they are not two competing groups. --Polly Hedra (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the source implies but doesn't state that NASA was resonsible. Do you have a source for the WLYM being the "youth division of LPAC"? And for the authorship of the LPAC article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that anything is implied about NASA. --Niels Gade (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the other points? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the second sentence would be more accurate if it said:

• An unsigned notice posted on the website of the LaRouche Polticial Action Committee charged that an anonymous website had been set up which plagiarized, in an inferior form, the Kepler animations created by WLYM members.

Is that right? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: Is this the team responsible for creating the WLYM animations? Megan Beets, Chris Landry, Michelle Lerner, Vinson Milligan, Riana St.Clasis[7] Since we're reporting that the other site is anonymous we should also report on the non-anonymity of the WLYM site. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks all right to me. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is by one of the team, and covers the same ground.[8] If we use it as the main source then we can say:

• An article written by a team member charged that an anonymous website had been set up which plagiarized, in an inferior form, the team's Kepler animations.

However I think it would be better in sequential order.

• After an anonymous website appeared with similar material and animations, a WLYM team member asserted that it was plagiarized and inferior.

I think that reads better. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This, too, looks all right. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Do we have to have another discussion about what are reliable sources when it comes to coverage of LaRouche? Been there, done that. It is tendentious and disruptive to re-launch the same arguments over and over on page after page tied to the LaRouche cult.--Cberlet (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I see no need to have another discussion. The relevant discussions are to be found atWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Is an article by a newspaper owner self-published? and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org. These are particularly useful because there are contributions from uninvolved parties, i.e. not Cberlet, Dking, Will Beback, Niels Gade or Terrawatt. And the dominant viewpoint among these uninvolved parties is that Nicholas Benton, writing in the newspaper that he himself owns, is a self-published source, and should not be used for any controversial claims, particularly those that bear upon WP:BLP. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A notice board is not anything other than a comment. It has no merit as an argument. I will be happy to take this to mediation. Do you agree to mediate?--Cberlet (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind mediation. But I would add that it's not a question of who agreed on the noticeboard -- it's a question of what Wikipedia policy says, and the policy is clear (see WP:REDFLAG and WP:RS.) --Terrawatt (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be either/or. The editors that comment on those noticeboards often have useful knowledge of Wikipedia policy. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this is a total distortion of policy. I am going to ask for comments.--Cberlet (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Is a Community Newspaper Self Published?

Is a Community Newspaper Self Published?

This is some information about the newspaper in question:

Falls Church News-Press

website

entry

Nicholas F. Benton - Owner and Editor in Chief

Jody Fellows - Managing Editor

Mike Hume - Sports Editor

Blackwekk Hawthorne - Ad director

Joe Fridling - Sales Representative

Founded in 1991, it is currently publishing Vol 17, No. 19--Cberlet (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The paper is not published by "the community." It is published, edited, and in the case of the cite that is under discussion, written by the same individual. Under WP:REDFLAG, controversial and potentially defamatory material relating to living persons must come from sources above reproach. Nick Benton's paper is not such a source. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is a community paper in the traditonal sense of the term.--Cberlet (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I note, Terrawatt, that almost all of your edits are pro-LaROuche edits. Why are you allowed to edit these LaRouche-related pages? I thought Arbcom had ruled that pro-LaRouche editors could not edit LaRouche-related pages.--Cberlet (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cberlet, have you ever actually read the ArbCom decisions? --Marvin Diode (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is some confusion, I suggest we take it back to arbcom and ask for a ruling. Anyone else think that is a good idea. What I see here and on other LaRouche-related pages is a tiny group of single-issue POV-warrior LaRouche advocates continuosly seeking to remove legitimate published criticisms and add dubious claims of LaRouche-related events. So let's ask arbcom?

I don't recall seeing any articles published by the Falls Church News-Press about the WLYM. What is it that we want to use it for in this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

FCNP articles by Benton:

• In the morning just hours prior to the Kronberg suicide on April 11, a daily internal document, the “morning briefing” circulated among members of the LaRouche entities, lashed out, in a paraphrase of LaRouche, at what it called the failures of the “baby boom” generation, including among the entities’ own members, and singled out “the print shop” as “among the worst.” It then went on to state, speaking to the younger generation, “the Boomers will be scared into becoming human, because you’re the real world, and they’re not. Unless they want to commit suicide.”

• The “morning briefing” is considered authoritative within all the LaRouche entities that many, including many former participants, contend operate collectively like a cult. The April 11 version, written by Tony Papert of LaRouche’s inner leadership circle, his National Executive Committee, appears to assert that the only way the “baby boom” generation, ostensibly including those among LaRouche’s own associates, can be in the “real world” is through suicide.

• Kronberg was among the long-term associates of LaRouche, dating back to the early 1970s, that LaRouche has been claiming in a series of recent statements are responsible, by being typical of the so-called “baby boom” generation, for the ineffectiveness of his movement, despite their decades of personal sacrifices in support of his cause. His appeal has been to the new leadership potential of his so-called “LaRouche Youth Movement.”

• Ex-LaRouche associates, commenting on an on-line list serve, have expressed outrage and deep dismay at the suicide, speaking about years of pressure, demands and abuse from within the LaRouche circle, including what they contend has been a systematic lack of regard for the personal needs of members.

• “This insidious cult, sect, whatever you want to call it has harmed people for decades,” one wrote. “There is no remorse from LHL (LaRouche-ed.) and many of the scum there today…I do not know Ken (Kronberg-ed.) but view him as a tragic victim of this monstrosity. No matter how much pain he inflicted on people by bowing to LHL, it was not enough. No matter that a whole business was being sucked dry, it was not enough. Thirty-five years of your life is now reduced to a memo where you are told that you’re worthless and should kill yourself.” [9]

• But just as LaRouche told us in 1973 our parents were society’s problem, he’s now telling a new generation that their parents, and all baby boomers, even those who brought their heartfelt passions for justice and peace to associate with him, are society’s bane.[10]

I think a summary of this material belongs on the page.--Cberlet (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of that material doesn't appear to be relvant to this article. The last bit, where Benton speaks about generational issues, may be relevant, but it'd depend on how it's placed in context. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In the context mentioned here:

• LaRouche explicitly created his youth movement to address what he calls the "baby-boomer problem" among his membership and more generally among the US population. LaRouche writes of "a new quality of youth movement in the U.S.A., a new youth ferment whose existence reflected a certain special quality of opposition to the cultural legacy and life-style of their "Baby Boomer" parents' generation."[4] Avi Klein of the Washington Monthly describes this as an element of a campaign LaRouche created to blame the "first generation" of his own movement for fundraising failures, and to appeal to young members by channelling "the rage new acolytes felt toward their parents at a nearby, internal enemy".[5]

So the suicide of Kronberg is directly related to the creation of tensions between members of the Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement (LYMers) and the Boomers. As is the mysterious death of Jeremiah Duggan at a conference designed to recruit members for the Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement. --Cberlet (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No one questions, I think, that the Washington Monthly is a reliable source. I don't see what you're seeking to quote from the Benton piece. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Benton actually broke the story, and currently there is no mention of the Kronberg suicide being related directly to the LYM/Boomer dynamic.--Cberlet (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because it is speculative and probably libelous. Avi Klein's article is nasty, but not that reckless. The Benton stuff is out, self-published, end of story. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cberlet, Klein says plenty about the Youth Movement. I'm not sure what more we want to say on the matter, but Klein could possibly be the source for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cberlet revision of lede

Cberlet's efforts to revise the lede, to include his view that the LaRouche Movement is neofascist, are inappropriate. This view is a fringe viewpoint, held by Berlet and others of his network, but not reflected in mainstream sources. And if that were not enough, the sources Cberlet wishes to cite all predate the formation of the LYM, so these edits are doubly inappropriate. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)