Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 13

message: Is Totse.com a reliable source?  -Will Beback · † · 07:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not actually the source. It quotes a speech made at a LaRouche conference. That speech has appeared on other websites, too, that I found cached on Google. --ManEatingDonut 08:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The relevant assertions in the speech are confirmed also in [this Washington Post article,] although without the dates of the meetings. --ManEatingDonut 08:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean you consider the Washington Post a reliable source on LaRouche? -Will Beback · † · 10:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? --ManEatingDonut 15:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  totse.com 

message: Does Wikipedia consider the Executive Intelligence Review a reliable source?  Is my understanding of how an unreliable source is dealt with correct?
-Mgunn November 23, 2006
:A: 1) Not on your nelly. 2) If your understanding is "shot on sight", probably yes. --Calton | Talk 07:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LaRouche sources may be considered relaible sources for the opinions of LaRouche. They are not reliable sources for the opinions of others, or for other facts. -Will Beback · † · 20:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My question:

message: We need a non-LaRouche source for the following:
:"Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark charged that his case "involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge."
Otherwise, we should say that it's according to a LaRouche movement website. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source request

message: This is a POV essay:
::*Note on biography	
:::Determining the accuracy of LaRouche's biography is made difficult by the barrage of conflicting accounts generated by the LaRouche movement and its critics. LaRouche writes in his autobiography that he developed his ideas in the 1950s and has advocated them consistently ever since. His followers say he is a world-renowned economist and philosopher. LaRouche himself says he has pioneered such ideas as the International Development Bank and the Strategic Defense Initiative He also says that he was used by the Reagan administration as a back-channel for negotiations with the Soviet Union. These claims are disputed by LaRouche's critics.
:::The only substantial biography of LaRouche is Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism by Dennis King (1989). It is not a biography in the conventional sense, however; the author employs a technique of "decoding" phrases and images that appear in LaRouche publications, to advance his theory that LaRouche is in fact a fascist with a "dream of world conquest." 
Is there anything worth saving?--Cberlet 16:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I do use the technique of "decoding" I also analyze the elusive and elliptical (and often ironic) phrasing in which LaRouche couches many ideas with or without code language. This artful language parallels similar formulations in Yockey's Imperium (and also in various Renaissance writers whom LaRouche professes to admire and whom he cited when openly articulating his own theory of elliptical and coded discourse in the late 1970s). And it was widely used by far-rightists in Germany in the decades immediately following World War Two (see Kurt Tauber's monumental work of scholarship on this, Beyond Eagle and Swastika.) And I point out many, many instances in which LaRouche directly expresses fascist ideas and hatred of an oligarchical "species" (Felix Rohatyn, Henry Kissinger, the Rothschilds, et al) which he describes as the sworn enemy of the "human" species. LaRouche discusses his fascist theory of the state (the dictatorship of industrial capitalism over finance capital in which criminal "thoughts" as well as criminal deeds are outlawed) pretty openly in The Case of Walter Lippmann (see my explication of this at http://dennisking.org/dictator.htm). And what was one supposed to think when LaRouche discussed in 1978 marching east to wipe out the Russians with "ABC" (atomic, bacteriological and chemical) warfare, or when in the early? mid? 1980s he gave a talk to the Bavarian Defense Contractors Association about ruling the world through the development of microwave weapons? As to the "decoding" of political discourse, this has become an extremely common procedure in the years since my book was published. Major newspaper and magazine columnists now point to "code language" all the time; even George W. Bush mentioned code words in a recent interview. I claim no influence on this; it's just that code words are so damned useful in today's polarized electoral climate that everyone is using them more and more. Does this make LaRouche the godfather of Karl Rove?--Dking 01:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: King's "analysis" reminds me of how the fundamentalists read the Bible, finding the most outlandish things in there because they want to, whilst obscuring the actual message. The fact is, LaRouche is a humanitarian. It's simple. His writings are not simple, but if a reader makes a fairly serious commitment to understanding them, it can be done. There are no coded meanings. There are people out there who know a humanitarian when they see one, people like all the veterans of Martin Luther King's movement who signed the ads for LaRouche's exoneration -- of course, Dennis King will portray these people as dupes who are not as clever as he. But the Civil Rights veterans have had a lot of experience with paid slanderers like Dennis King, back in the day, and they never backed down in the face of slander and defamation. --209.247.5.137 04:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that "decoding" is a kind of speculation that is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also, if Kings allegations were true, you would expect that LaRouche's ideas would be extremely unwelcome in Russia. Instead, they seem to regard him as one of the few American leaders that is not trying to screw them. --Tsunami Butler 15:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WHICH Russians "seem (!) to regard" LaRouche as "one of the few American leaders" not out to screw them? And since when has LaRouche become an "American leader"? And how does this fit with LaRouche's claims in past decades that the Soviet Russian leaders (the evil Third Rome magicians and their control officers on Mount Athos) were plotting to kill him? As to my view on LaRouche's code language, this is perfectly valid for inclusion in Wiki since it is the viewpoint of a recognized expert and it is not the only viewpoint presented. Tsunami ignores the fact that LaRouche himself has stated unequivocally that "decoding" is not just speculation but a necessary part of understanding political discourse. Read your own leader's comments on this, Tsunami--you'll find the citations in my book. 
--Dking 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on biography

message: Does anybody mind if I delete the Ramsey Clark quote?  It seems kind of misleading and irrelevant to me, considering that Clark is also a supporter of Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein and at this point is much better known as an activist than as a former attorney general. P4k 04:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is misleading to call Ramsey Clark a "supporter" of Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. He takes their cases because he is an authority on political prosecutions, which is why he is especially noteworthy for this article. --Tsunami Butler 15:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also reverted the criticism of Clark you included in the intro. To balance it, we would have to say that Daniel Graham and the Heritage Foundation are regarded by many as right-wing fanatics, and I think that we would be better off discussing that at their respective articles. --Tsunami Butler 15:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I call him a "supporter" of those people because he's made statements outside of court in support of them--eg saying that history would show Milosevic was right.  But his support for those people isn't that important here and I probably shouldn't have brought it up.  I don't think that Clark's wikipedia article bears out the idea that he's "an authority on political prosecutions" (or even says anything about it)--he's defended a lot of controversial people but there's no evidence that he's recognized in the legal field as an authority on political prisoners (that's what you're saying, right?).  If that's the only reason to include his statement, it should be deleted.  As far as my edits go, I don't think calling Clark a "left-wing activist" or an "advocate of controversial causes" is "criticism" (well, maybe the second one is implicitly critical, but it's still true); activism is simply his occupation right now.  If you want to say that the Heritage Foundation is "right-wing" that's fine too, it would probably improve the article by giving more context for their criticism of LaRouche (I didn't say that Clark is a "fanatic" so you're stacking the deck there).  The Heritage Foundation describes itself as "Conservative," it's not "criticism" to call them that.  I don't think that Clark deserves to be in this article at all but if he's going to remain there's really no reason not to describe him as a left-wing activist. P4k 18:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a few days, I'm restoring the "left-wing activist" thing. P4k 08:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it belongs, and I have removed it. The place to debate the merits of Ramsey Clark is the Ramsey Clark article. He is certainly notable in the context of this article so he belongs in the intro, but I think a lot of back-and-forth, criticism and rebuttal, about the commentators in the intro would muddy it. If other editors have strong opinions, please speak up. --Tsunami Butler 16:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, calling him an activist isn't critism, it's just describing his occupation.  If you want to remove it, it's kind of your responsibility to come up with some reason the points I'm making are invalid, which you still haven't done. 22:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, "left-wing activist" is not an occupation. Clark is an attorney who specializes in politically controversial clients. He is already described as a former Attorney General, which is what makes his opinion about the LaRouche case notable. To also call him a "left-wing activist" serves only to signify that conservatives or right-wingers disapprove of him, so I consider it criticism. As I mentioned earlier, liberals or left-wingers disapprove of Daniel Graham and the Heritage Foundation (or ought to, if they don't,) and we could also clutter up the intro by taking note of that. But this is an article about LaRouche (of whom it seems that both left-wingers and right-wingers disapprove,) and I think there are more important things to debate about the intro as soon as the mediation cabal checks in. --Tsunami Butler 07:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe "occupation" is a poor choice of words; what I mean is that activism (and defending controversial clients, which is closely related) is what Ramsey Clark spends most of his time doing, so it's appropriate to note that.  Being a former Attorney General is what makes Clark's opinion notable, but that doesn't mean that describing him solely as a former Attorney General gives the reader a useful idea of who he is. If you're worried about clutter then that's understandable, but all that really needs to be done is to add two words to the sentence: "and activist."  And if you're really worried about clutter, then just delete the sentence!  If Ramsey Clark is important enough to deserve a two-line quotation in the intro to this article, then he's important enough to deserve a slightly more full and accurate description of who he is.  As far as the "mediation cabal" goes this is the first I've heard of it, if you want to continue this argument in a month or something then that's fine. P4k 08:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ramsey Clark

message: :Category:Conspiracy theorists removed per WP:BIO and th charter of the category: the article must clearly state which exactly conspicacy theories the person authored or supported. The article says  only that "some critics called him so" Name calling is not valid reason for cathegorizing. `'mikkanarxi 02:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that these categories should be dealt with carefully (for example cult leader category was removed because that's POV), but I think conspiracy theorist category is quite factually supported.  I think this is neither a positive claim nor a derogatory claim, just a factual claim.  I can easilly see your perspective here, but I think if you review a bit more of the views of Lyndon LaRouche and outside evidence, you'll agree this is not a POV claim (and I don't think it is particularly disputed by LaRouche supporters).  A plethora of sources such as http://www.schillerinstitute.org/lar_related/2004/jan-march/kill_me.html amply support the conspiracy theorist designation.Mgunn 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You are missing my point. I don't care about Larouche. Never heard about him before, if you believe me. It just sits in my watch list because exactly 2 years ago I routinely fixed a Russia-related wikilink. At last I decided to look into it and noticed that the category  is not supported by text. Plain and simple. I don't want to do any off-wikipedia investigations, it is the job of experts in larouchism to write the article in a fully compliant way. `'mikkanarxi 01:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The conspiracy theorist designation does not say whether the conspiracy is true or not, but only that the individual believes in a number of conspiracies.  (Larouche supporters will likely say the conspiracies are true while critics will say they are obvious hogwash).Mgunn 02:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. that's basically what I wrote: "the article must clearly state which exactly conspicacy theories the person authored or supported", no more, but no less either. BTW how a conspiracy theory can be true? :-) `'mikkanarxi 01:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This link http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2002/2901zbig_sept11.html documents belief in a September 11th conspiracy theory.  This is a valid reason to categorize an individual a conspiracy theorist according to the charter of category:conspiracy theorists.Mgunn 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that most of the subject's beliefs have been moved to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. Several conspriaracy theories are covered there, including Holocaust denial. -Will Beback · † · 05:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. That's it, then, fine with me. Still, since he is categorized so, a sentence into the article is quite due; WP:BIO, you know. `'mikkanarxi 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I think you're probably right on that last one. Mgunn 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, LaRouche is the author of "Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites," a lengthy essay published in The Campaigner in 1978, and he authorized the publication that same year of the book Dope, Inc. by three of his followers. These are both indisputably, by anyone's standards, works of conspiracy theory.--Dking 04:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Conspiracy theorists 

message: LaRouche has been pretty scrupulous about his war record, so I am sure he would appreciate it if his followers would pin down the paragraph on World War Two. He did say he could hear guns off aways, which could have been on the India-Burma border or deep inside Burma depending on what month he arrived in the theater. LaRouche's statements on his war service stand in sharp contrast with those of his former disciple, social therapy cult leader Fred Newman, who has claimed to be a "Korean war veteran" even though he did not arrive in Korea until months after the Armistice.--Dking 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your edit summary, I found a copy of the 1988 autobiography at a library, and he says he did go to Burma. --Tsunami Butler 07:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LaRouche's war record

message: The LaRouche people put out a very interesting book about this back in the early 90s called Travesty (I think it was actually called Travesty: A True Crime Story.) The book was made entirely of the transcripts of recordings made by a former Loudon County Sheriff's Deputy who was working undercover for the FBI, wearing a wire. He was infiltrating the Cult Awareness Network team that kidnapped the Du Pont family member to deprogram him. I believe that some sort of criminal charges were filed against the CAN people. I tried to find it on the web, and found only a few references to it. --172.194.167.223 03:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "private eye" was Galen Kelly, who is described on the website of the "new", Scientology-controlled CAN as the "chief of security" for the "old" CAN. --172.193.204.176 01:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for Du Pont family kidnapping story

message: I played no role in the 1968 community control of schools battle and made no anti-Semitic statements regarding it. LaRouche has zero documentation that I did so, this is just one of his organization's hundreds of off-the-cuff remarks about me over the years in which I have been called a drug dealer, drug user, drug lobbyist, CIA agent, FBI agent, Cuban agent, British agent, flying saucer buff, occultist, and just about every label they could come up with. Two years before the Columbia strike I was arrested at the gates to Columbia while leading a demonstration that stopped Nazi leader George Lincoln Rockwell from speaking on campus to spread his plan for a new Holocaust. I am removing the section of the LaRouche quote that defames me and I strongly question the motives and integrity of the person who inserted this.--Dking 01:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the person whose motives and integrity you wish to question (see WP:AGF.) I am reading LHL's 1988 biography to find material that might balance this article, and his reference to you establishes something that I think is important: that you have been his political opponent for over 35 years (as you acknowledge in your edit summary.) This article represents you simply as "a biographer," which I think is misleading. As far as "off-the-cuff remarks about you" are concerned, my ex-husband had a subscription to EIR, and whenever I saw your name mentioned, which was seldom, it was always with the same charge: that you accepted funding from the right-wing Smith-Richardson Foundation to write your book. Your book itself strikes me as highly fanciful, essentially a conspiracy theory, with lots of "off-the-cuff remarks" about LaRouche, so this may be a case of pot and kettle. --Tsunami Butler 13:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Tsunami. I misread the article history list and thought the LaRouche quip about me had been inserted by an anonymous troll. I have debated with you on this site over the past few weeks and have no reason to think that you aren't sincere in your beliefs. I must say I am puzzled why you make such a big thing about the Smith-Richardson Foundation when I received help of various sorts from the entire range of American political life (as listed in the Acknowledgements to my book and exemplified by the people I quote). I know that the LaRouche group has claimed that Smith-Richardson is a front for various nefarious forces. I have never seen any facts that would persuade me of this. (And what about the Stern Fund, which also helped me out? Or Doubleday, which gave me a book advance?) At any rate, peace to you for the holiday season.--Dking 21:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not necessarily making a big thing about Smith-Richardson -- what I said was, that when you are criticized in EIR, that is what they focus on, not the other things that you mentioned. --Tsunami Butler 22:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Teachers Strike in 1968

message: Dking, I would like to request that you carefully review WP:COI and especially WP:COI#Citing_oneself. Also, I would request that you log in when citing yourself, rather than doing it anonymously. --Tsunami Butler 01:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-added this information. I am not Dennis King, and so can cite him happily. Phil Sandifer 04:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-citation

message: Dking has done a major re-write of the criticism section. Please note the template at the top of this page:
I have changed this: "Although LaRouche has made a point of seeming to denounce the economic and other policies of Mussolini and Hitler" -- to this: "Although LaRouche has deonounced the economic and other policies of Mussolini and Hitler." The first sentence suggests that the editor who inserted it can read LaRouche's mind, and knows that LaRouche doesn't really mean what he says. This is speculation and un-encyclopediac.
Similarly, I have changed "LaRouche made several attempts to squelch the criticism through libel suits" to "LaRouche filed several libel suits." Please don't dress up the facts with innuendo.
There were also numerous formatting problems. If you want to include the entire title of the article you wrote when you cite it in Wikipedia, you should use the "ref" format.
There are some other, very strange things in there, like claiming that LaRouche has ideas that are modeled on the Nazis, and then adding these footnotes:   where LaRouche denounces Nazism and fascism. It is unclear what you are trying to prove with this.
But these things should be discussed in advance, so they don't become edit wars. --Tsunami Butler 16:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One other thing: is it realistic to talk of "Our Town" as being "widely circulated"? What is the actual circulation of "Our Town"? Does it even meet the specs for WP:RS? --Tsunami Butler 16:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly more widely circulated than LaRouche's writings. Phil Sandifer 18:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You think? It's the first weekly paper I ever heard of that didn't have a Wikipedia entry. --Tsunami Butler 15:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to bringing chronological and logical order to a section that was a confused mishmash but I seem to have created new problems as well. I agree with Tsunami's toning down of two phrases where indeed I was being POV (New Year's resolution: Keep POV on the discussion page only!). As to the LaRouche citations, they were already in the article and ended up in the wrong place because I added to the sentence before them rather than starting a new sentence with its own citations. I'll correct this. As to Our Town (which had a free distribution of about 100,000) being "widely circulated," I meant to say that my LaRouche series was widely circulated outside the Our Town distribution area and indeed around the country. But that is original research, so I am removing the phrase. Finally, on whether or not Our Town is a legitimate Wikipedia source, it was an important vehicle for investigative journalism in New York in the 1970s and 80s and won dozens of awards; my own series won the New York Public Relations Society public service award and was runner-up for the Columbia University School of Journalism's Paul Tobenkin Award. In a 1986 speech, U.S. Senator Daniel P. Moynihan suggested that the series had deserved a Pulitzer Prize. Although I personally think this was overstating the case, it does help to establish that my writings in Our Town (upon which my book and my later writings for national publications were to a substantial degree based) can and should be cited as Wikipedia sources.--Dking 15:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Propangandistic writing

message: In the "LaRouche in Popular Culture" section, someone has inserted a quote from humorist Dave Barry. The quote is a statement of political opinion about LaRouche rather than an example of popular humor or satire. As such it really doesn't seem to belong in this section. Should it be moved? Removed altogether?--Dking 15:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there is relatively little discussion of LaRouche's actual political activity, I can't see the point of devoting so much space to this stuff. --NathanDW 16:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. First, there is a great deal of discussion of LaRouche's political activity scattered over this article and a half-dozen other LaRouche-related articles (including the one on his political theories). Second, LaRouche is a public figure who has run for U.S. President every election year since 1976, has spent tens of millions of dollars on TV infomercials and over 100 million dollars on publishing enterprises to spread his world view. Thus it is important to see the effect his efforts have had on the world of popular culture. Indeed, LaRouche himself has taken pains in his historical writings to point out the links between popular culture and politics--and how popular culture is used by the evil Venetian oligarchy to manipulate the donkey-like masses (his rhetoric, not mine).--Dking 17:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LaRouche in Popular Culture

message: The article currently quotes Dean Andromidas, a longtime LaRouche follower writing for EIR, as stating that a former East German agent, Herbert Brehmer, had claimed that the STASI or the KGB had maliciously concocted a story that LaRouche was behind the assassination of Palme. This may be true (but even if it is, it doesn't necessarily absolve LaRouche because Swedish police had other reasons to be suspicious of the EAP and Victor Gunnarsson, regardless of what the STASI may or may not have said). Yet given the murkiness of so much information coming from retired East European spooks nowadays, I think we need a better source for this information than Andromidas and EIR citing an alleged Swedish radio broadcast. Did Brehmer make the allegation in his book? If so, how credible is Brehmer in the eyes of mainstream German journalists? Was Brehmer's radio allegation reported in the mainstream Swedish or German print media? If so, it should definitely be included. Note that I do not intend to remove the Andromidas allegation myself; I'm just raising questions.--Dking 22:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Palme Assassination

message: I thought that journalists in most jurisdictions are protected by a shield law from having to name confidential sources, so the failure to name sources in the LaRouche case would not have been an unusual feature of a libel trial. Also, I question the relevance of the information Tsunami has inserted to helping us understand the outcome of the trial, since the issues were (a) the truthfulness of the allegations, (b) whether or not NBC acted with malice, and (c) whether or not LaRouche lost income as a result of the broadcast. If libel attorneys say otherwise, I stand corrected.--Dking 23:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Journalists should be protected from naming sources in most cases, for example to protect whisteblowers. But to extend the concept to libel cases is ridiculous -- it's just a free pass for corrupt journalists who want to slander someone, and then blame it on an imaginary playmate. --MaplePorter 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I found the LaRouche vs. NBC case cited as a precedent in this memo, on the subject of "whether to compel a person who has been sued for libel (or on some other basis) to identify the anonymous sources upon which the defendant relied in making the statements that are at issue in that case." It was on the basis of this memo that I used the expression "anonymous sources" in my edit, which Will Beback evidently thought was inappropriate. I think I might add this to the article unless someone strongly objects. It seems to me that there is a pattern of this sort of thing in the LaRouche legal cases, where LaRouche has been prevented from fully responding to the charges against him. I think that was gist of Ramsey Clark's objections. --Tsunami Butler 23:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your research effort, but I think it would take a lawyer familiar with the Eastern District of Virginia to figure out if the Jane Doe case is relevant to LaRouche v. NBC et al. Also, Ramsey Clark's points were directed to federal criminal law rather than federal civil law and thus may not be as relevant as you think. Why not select a brief quote made by LaRouche or his attorney to a mainstream Virginia paper after the jury verdict was announced as the best way to get across LaRouche's response to the verdict?--Dking 23:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another case which cites LaRouche vs NBC and which mentions the "three-part LaRouche test", though what each of the three prongs are isn't clear.  -Will Beback · † · 23:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear from this case that LaRouche failed to meet the three-part test while the plaintiff in the more recent case (ED of North Carolina) did meet the test. None of us are lawyers (or are we?). And few of the Wikipedia readers of this article are likely to be. I have no intention of depriving LaRouche's supporters of the opportunity to present their leader's response to the outcome of a heavily publicized trial. But I think the need for balance is best met by selecting a quote from the press clips rather than from murky case law.--Dking 00:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with that. The case law is too murky to quote directly. -Will Beback · † · 00:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My point was that the case did set a precedent of sorts, or else there would not be something called a "LaRouche test." As to Dking's suggestion, from what I have seen, the press is generally not eager to give LaRouche an opportunity to tell his side of any story. --Tsunami Butler 01:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NBC libel trial

message: Will Beback, with all due respect, you seem to be going into editing contortions to draw attention away from the fact that this looking for symbolism in science photos cannot be described as anything other than weird, IMO. King acknowleges on this talk page that he uses "decoding," so I don't see why you deleted that term. I think that it is fair to point out that this technique is "unorthodox," another term you deleted. It is certainly the case that more orthodox critics of LaRouche do not point at space photos and conclude that he is a Nazi. There are other features of that article that seem equally wacky to me. I wouldn't think it appropriate to list them all. My original intent was just to say "decoding" and refer the reader to the article.
This section I removed: 
:King also describes LaRouche's dealing with former Nazi scientists and officers, including Arthur Rudolph, Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Adolf Busemann, Karl-Adolf Zenker, and Paul-Albert Scherer, and quotes LaRouche claiming that whoever has directed energy weapons can "dominate this planet."
If you follow the links that aren't red, you find no evidence that Busemann or Ehricke were Nazis, and in the case of Rudolph, it was contested and evidently he prevailed over those who accused him. Consequently, these references must be seen as slanderous. And since the topic of the paragraph was King's decoding or "unorthodox techniques," the inclusion of this material seems to be a diversionary tactic, anyway.
I think it would be appropriate to discuss LaRouche's support for space research elsewhere in the article, including his relationship with these scientists (mainly Krafft Ehricke and Scherer-- did he actually know any of those others?) I find the old tactic of insinuating that anyone who was German must be a Nazi to be repugnant. I certainly wouldn't want to be thought of as pro-Bush just because I am American. --Tsunami Butler 00:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't these space researchers previously work for the Nazi regime? If there's a better way of expressing their connection to fascism, which is the point, then let's fix it. If you read the sourced document those connections account for much more of the article then the interpetation of imagery, and omitting them gives a false impression of his thesis. Regarding that interpretation, "unorthodox" and "weird" are POV statements, do we have sources for them? We should not make that judgment on our own. -Will Beback · † · 00:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "German scientists who served under the Nazi regime"? Would that be an acceptable description of the rocket scientists? -Will Beback · † · 08:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it's a diversion, and I still think that no matter how you parse it, it's an attempt at guilt by association. Do you still oppose the use of the term "decoding"? --Tsunami Butler 15:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a source for the term then we can use it. As for the scientists, from what is it a diversion? If you read the article you'll see that it's mostly about LaRouche's association with former participants in the fascist German war-machine, not about imagery.  "Guilt by association" is an accurate description. Since you don't object to the phrasing I suggested above I'll add it. -Will Beback · † · 18:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited some of this section yesterday. I think that readers should know that Dennis King is trying to build a case that LaRouche is a fascist, not by demonstrating that he has endorsed fascism, or any idea or policy that could be construed as fascist, but through some sort of "free association" about spirals and so forth. I will add another quote from King so that this becomes clear. As far as the German scientists are concerned, they are completely irrelevant. They weren't facist. And as far as the beam weapons are concerned, take a look at the history. LaRouche never advocated them as a means toward "world domination." He proposed that they be shared with the Russians. He did warn, however, that the USSR might try to get world domination if they had a monopoly on the technology. --MaplePorter 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to summarize sources. I didn't add the King reference, but if we're going to have it in the article then we should summarize it properly. The section is on criticism, and King criticizes LaRouche for the imagery, the associations, and the discssion of weaponry. If the LaRouche camp has a rebuttal then we can include that. But we shouldn't skew the description of King's article. -Will Beback · † · 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Science Photo Imagery and "decoding"

message: To put LaRouche in this category implies that he has gone back to being a conscientious objector, or at the very least a person who is generally opposed to war. He has made it clear in his writings that this is not the case. He has the option, however, of opposing wars that he believes to be immoral or ill-conceived. So he is an anti-Iraq War activist. Whether or not he opposed Vietnam and other wars is irrelevant. If there are categories for opposing Vietnam and those other wars, by all means put him in. --Tsunami Butler 01:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category: Anti-war activist

message: If a subject of a Wiki biography initiated a lawsuit that resulted in a significant contribution to case law named after that plaintiff, then this fact certainly belongs in the plaintiff's biography. However, here the information is cited to LaRouche publications, which is not acceptable. I suggest the following: that the report on this court ruling be cited to the National Law Journal or other legal journal, and that the mention of the "LaRouche test" also be followed by the correct legal citation (which can probably be found in the North Carolina ruling cited by Will Beback or the legal memorandum cited by Tsunami Butler).--Dking 20:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on three-prong test

message: Implanted in this article is a picture of an FBI memo re LaRouche and the Communist Party from October 1973. The article quotes LaRouche as giving a certain interpretation of the FBI memo that is not warranted by the actual text of the memo or by its timing.  Since the text of the memo has been included in the article, I think it is not original research to point out that LaRouche's interpretation of the memo is far-fetched. The LaRouchians have had some success on the internet in spreading the urban myth that the FBI and its supposed agents inside the CP plotted to kill LaRouche in 1973 (although LaRouche shortly thereafter began informing on his leftist opponents to Red Squads all over the country as well as to the FBI and the CIA; see King, chapter 24 ). This goes hand in hand with the other urban myth--that LaRouche's felony conviction for swindling old ladies, and his reputation for Jew hatred, are all the result of a conspiracy emanating from the apartment of a Manhattan investment banker named John Train. Since urban legends concocted by LaRouche are a part of his life story, I suppose they should be mentioned; but it is incumbent on Wikipedia to make clear that these allegations are of extremely dubious provenance.--Dking 20:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another LaRouchian urban myth

message: LaRouche supporters have shamelessly misrepresented (and attempted to trivialize) my arguments as to why I think LaRouche is best classified as a fascist. I rewrote the paragraphs of this article that mischaracterized my ideas, following closely the text of the actual chapter of my book that had been distorted. If LaRouche's folks think there's now too much Dennis King in this article, they have no one to blame but themselves. I also moved text into chronological order, correcting confusion over dates and approximate time periods that have long plagued this article (but are NOT the result of any conspiracy).--Dking 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to make the observation that your arguments are based on the flimsiest sort of circumstantial evidence, i.e. LaRouche once discussed space colonization with a scientist who once lived in Germany when Hitler was running it, so therefore LaRouche should be considered a fascist. You would think that we should open an investigation of anyone who ever owned a spirograph. If LaRouche were really a fascist, he would advocate policies that were fascist in character, and he doesn't. Plus, the people that you are defending, the neoconservatives, embrace the entire fascist agenda. That's the irony that I see here. --MaplePorter 01:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misrepresentation of King's argument that LaRouche is a fascist

message: In the section on LaRouche's childhood it says he grew up speaking French and German. I have never heard this before. Although I can see how he may have picked up some Quebec French in childhood from his father or paternal grandparents, where would he have learned to speak German as a youngster? I'm not saying the statement is false, just that it should be checked and a citation should be provided. Also, was it LaRouche's father who was a Quebec immigrant--or his grandfather? I can't remember.-- Dking 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In his autobiography, the 1988 one, he says his paternal grandfather came from Quebec by way of Paris. I don't find anything about him speaking French or German. I wonder about some of the unsourced childhood stuff in this article. I also think that there should be more detail about his activities after he began to run for President, which are what make him actually notable. --Tsunami Butler 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Biographies of major figures should cover their youth, education, and personal lives, at least in passing, even if those are not what make the person notable. However in this case there is a lack of sources for particulars of the subject's youth. The subject's biographical claims should be included, though uncorroborated claims that are contentious or self-serving should be attributed. -Will Beback · † · 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsunami, thanks for clarifying about LaRouche's grandfather being the immigrant. I will change it if you haven't already done so. I'll leave the stuff about French and German for the time being in case someone else comes up with a cite. I presented yet another version of the stuff about EMW weapons. The phrase you added was placed after a quote from my book in such a way that it seems to be an extension of the quote, which it isn't. I added a separate sentence giving it as the interpretation of LaRouche supporters. See what you think. As to the shortening of the LaRouche quote on Mop Up, I have no objection to you restoring the full quote, but I still think the first sentence was irrelevant, since in my study of New Solidarity issues during the Mop Up period I never saw any reference to clashes with Rudd and the New Left as being motivating forces. However, I have no doubt that such clashes occurred, since all the SDS factions ended up in violent or subviolent clashes in 1968-69.--Dking 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the quotes from LaRouche on WMD, I think it is ill advised to speculate about what "his followers" think, or to speculate about what LaRouche really meant, which it seems to me is what you are doing, although you are trying to word it cleverly so it seems that you are simply reporting his views. Would you mind reproducing, on this page, his actual remarks, in context? --Tsunami Butler 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LaRouche's childhood

message: This page takes a long time to load on my computer. Does anyone mind if I archive the parts before Sept 27, 2006? --Tsunami Butler 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: Pro-LaRouche editors on this page have repeatedly made insertions to make it appear that LaRouche's 1987 statement in Munich on dominating the planet through microwave weapons was merely a warning against Soviet machinations. I have reviewed the text of LaRouche's speech as published in EIR, plus an accompanying news artice, "Seminar in Munich looks at radio-frequency weapons," plus a bibliography of previous EIR articles on the weapons technology in question (also accompanying the text of the speech). I have also read over a Feb. 22, 1985 article from New Solidarity on "microwave bombs" (illustrated by one of nutty Professor Bostick's plasmoid "swastikas"). It is clear that prior to LaRouche's Munich speech he and his organization had engaged in a concerted effort to whip up support for a massive crash program to develop such weapons in the United States and Germany. They exaggerated Soviet work in the field and LaRouche himself made two claims in his Munich speech that are now known to be (like most of his predictions) false: First, that perestroika was nothing but a trick to lull the West into inaction; and second, that in "four to five years" a huge revolution in warfare "more awesome than that which exploded over Hiroshima" would be underway, with microwave weapons dominating the "arenas of strategic and tactical conflict." LaRouche discussed both the defensive and offensive capabilities of such weapons (but in apocalyptic terms that almost rendered the difference between offense and defense mute). A statement from his speech now quoted in the text of the Wiki LaRouche bio makes quite clear that he was urging the development of these weapons by Germany and/or by Germany and the United States, not just describing some effort by the Soviets. The quote now says "dominate the world" rather than "dominate the planet." This is not because I misquoted LaRouche in my book, but because LaRouche talked about dominating the "planet" at the beginning of the speech and then repeated himself using the word "world" near the end. Apparently, he wanted to make sure that any aging revanchists in the audience would get the point even if they had snoozed off during part of the proceedings.--Dking 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Post the context on this page, then. I am unwilling to take your word for these things, as I find that your characterizations of LaRouche's ideas are seldom supported by what you cite as "evidence." --Tsunami Butler 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LaRouche's Munich speech on death rays

message: Dking, you changed MaplePorter's edit, referring to "LaRouche's opposition to the policies of the neo-conservatives," and replaced it with "LaRouche's attacks on the neo-conservatives." This is propagandistic, in two ways: first of all, because you are using the "Orwellian semantic trick" of hiding the fact that LaRouche does in fact oppose the policies of the neo-cons, because then you can insinuate that he opposes them for some reason unrelated to policy. Secondly, when you criticize LaRouche, you call it "criticism," but when LaRouche criticizes someone else, you call it an "attack." This is an encyclopedia, and you have a responsibility to at least make the effort to be neutral and objective. --Tsunami Butler 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When LaRouche and his followers rave about "Children of Satan" and a separate "species" outside the human race--and use wildly abusive personal language against individual neocons (suggesting they are traitors and Israeli spies)--that constitutes a published "attack," not  a "policy criticism." --Dking 23:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dking, you seem to forget that I have actually read some books by LaRouche, including "Children of Satan." It appears to me that the title refers to the moral ambivalence of the philosophy of Leo Strauss, whom LaRouche depicts as the mentor of the neo-cons in the Bush DOD. I suspect that LaRouche is also ribbing the Christian fundamentalists, who ironically, wind up following a gang of atheists. But please don't resort to the sort of wild allegations you make in your previous post. You are supposed to be some sort of scholar. You don't seem to be above the use of "wildly abusive personal language" yourself. --Tsunami Butler 00:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A fascist isn't the same as a Neo-nazi. How do we know the image was photoshopped? -Will Beback · † · 07:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to throw a few points out there... Neo-conservative means new conservative (liberals that are now conservative).  Bill Crystal, Paul Wolfowitz, along with any neoconservative I can think of does NOT advocate torture.   Supposedly, the wiretap progamming involved the intercept of calls between the United States and overseas involving suspected Al Qaeda members.  Challenges to the Terrorist Surveillance Program are working their way through the courts.  If it explicitly only pertains to Al Qaeda, there are strong legal arguments that it is legal and the power implicitly flows from prior congressional authorization and if they did keep congress informed, they very likely might win.  If the administration took some overly broad position, they might lose.  You might disagree with these policies, but calling them "Hitlerian" is hysterical and incorrect.  Mgunn 12:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please avoid propagandistic language

message: Dking, you have now made hundreds of edits to this article, and I think that you have been careless about following Wikipedia policies, including in particular WP:COI#Citing_oneself and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Also, the notice which appears twice on this page, that this is a controversial topic and major changes should be discussed before being applied to the article. All of this has a bearing as well upon WP:BLP, which has recently become a particular priority at Wikipedia. I am re-posting this, which I think is highly relevant:
From WP:LIVING:
===Biased or malicious content===
Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.
--Tsunami Butler 03:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please follow the relevant Wikipedia policy guidelines

message: Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.
--Tsunami Butler 03:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased or malicious content

message: Tsunami says that I have inserted "hundreds" of edits in this article. The overwhelming majority of my edits (which are not as many as T claims) have involved format, chronology, chaotic and repetitious organization of information, typos, citations, and noncontroversial or relatively low-controversy factual matters--or simple stylistic retooling on the few really controversial inserts. It is true that I have disputed some points fiercely, mostly relating to the efforts of LaRouche's followers to misrepresent my work in the paragraph they inserted in this article (although it really belongs in the article on LaRouche's political views) regarding code language, symbolic imagery, etc. As I have said previously on this discussion page, the self-citations I have made (and my adding of a section on LaRouche's relations to former Nazi scientists etc.) were necessitated by the distortions introduced by followers of LaRouche. Here is why I strongly object to MaplePorter's (MP's) version: 
1. MP makes it seem that my arguments about LaRouche's anti-Semitism are based solely or primarily on code language. In fact, I base my analysis solidly on the many undisputed examples of anti-Semitism in LaRouche's writings, and on the many instances of transparent euphemisms such as "Zionist" (used with terms such as "nauseating"), "Zionist-British organism", Israelis "a hundred times worse than Hitler," "folks who cooked up the hoax known as the Old Testament", etc. that any reasonable person who is not either a  bigot or a programmed ideologue would instantly recognize as anti-Semitic.
2. MP suggests that the paragraph about coded discourse should somehow exist behind a Chinese wall with no discussion of open anti-Semitism and the interpenetration of open and code antiSemitism in the writings of the LaRouche movement. In fact, open, lightly coded and more esoterically coded discourse almost always coexist in the self-styled "classics" of the LaRouche movement; you cannot analyze one without the other.
3. MP attempts to trivialize my analysis of LaRouche's military and political fantasies by (a) conflating them with my remarks on symbolic imagery in LaRouche publications (and with a citation only to Chapter 10 ("Old Nazis and New Dreams")) and (b) suggesting that my analysis is based on using a decoding method. In fact, (a) my analysis of LaRouche's military and political fantasies are primarily contained in an entirely different chapter (Chapter 7, "The Grand Design") albeit with a brief reference to "Thule" symbolism; (b) LaRouche's adolescent fantasy of conquering the world is right out in the open, not in code language at all, although it is frequently wrapped in turgid phraseology. (The only thing he "codes" is the identity of the object of his extermination campaign--international Jewry. If he had not coded this he would never have gotten entre to the Reagan administration or even to many of the Third World cocaine dictators his followers love to hobnob with.)
My reference to a four-pronged plasmoid glowing with light was explicitly described in Chapter 10 as symbolizing LaRouche's attempt to form an alliance with former Nazi scientists and military officers to defend Nazi war criminals and to demonize Nazis hunters such as Eli Rosenbaum as KGB agents, traitors and worse. (And I carefully pointed out in Chap. 10 the image's provenance as a Lawrence Livermore photo, noting however that LaRouche was using it in a political context in political propaganda journals; I also noted that LaRouche himself was enamored with cosmic spirals, which is a somewhat different obsession.) 
4. MP included a quote from Daniel Pipes saying he disagrees with me about the meaning of "British" in LaRouche's writings. Fine, I'm sure there are many other people who don't agree with me on this (or only agree privately, like the late Irwin Suall, who came around after reading Richard Hofstader's account of how Anglophobia and anti-Semitism were merged in the propaganda of American anti-Semites beginning in the late 19th century). But the paragraph as originally written by a LaRouche follower also refers to my analysis of LaRouche's world domination fantasies, while the version I wrote adds that LaRouche's code language is an extension of his open anti-Semitism. So it is necessary to point out that (a) Pipes agrees LaRouche is anti-Semitic and (b) Pipes agrees that LaRouche has military fantasies about total war (which Pipes could see were phrased openly in the sense of total war against Britain).
The underlying problem here is that LaRouche's followers, with all their obvious sincerity, are simply not capable of describing my ideas and analyses accurately. They are programmed not to see what is clearly in front of their eyes. I am reverting MP's version of the disputed subsection once again.--Dking 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous paragraph amply airs your charges of overt anti-Semitism, but none of them are "undisputed." You are very careless with language. Also, LaRouche has often used the phrase "100 times worse than Hitler" to describe the policies of the IMF toward the 3rd World, but never to describe the Israelis -- is your memory bad, or are you misleading us? --MaplePorter 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I consider these theories of yours to be hallucinatory. It is worth mentioning in the article that you have such theories, but aside from Chip Berlet, no one else comes up with this sort of nonsense, and it is not notable enough for a big explication in the article. As others have noted, there are plenty of links to your website, for people who like to read that sort of thing. --MaplePorter 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MaplePorter, please do not insert your comments in the middle of what I have written. I have moved your comment to underneath my posting; you might want to re-identify it in terms of the numbered paragraph in my posting to which it refers.--Dking 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this line: "In addition to making allegations of conventional anti-Semitism,"  -- because I have never seen Dennis King make "allegations of conventional anti-Semitism." "Conventional anti-Semitism" would mean that LaRouche attacks Judaism and Jews generally. King can show examples of LaRouche attacking individual Jews, but what does that prove? LaRouche also attacks individual Christians and Muslims. King can show examples of LaRouche attacking Zionism, but that is not the same as attacking Judaism. So if King claims these things are anti-Semitic, what he is really claiming is other kinds of "coded" anti-Semitism, not conventional anti-Semitism. --172.191.190.144 07:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the quotes from Daniel Pipes have nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It is quite possible to criticize the ADL without being anti-Semitic. See Norman Finkelstein. What LaRouche says may be a conspiracy theory, but that's a separate issue. --172.191.190.144 07:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the coded discourse paragraph

message: Mgunn, if you would be so kind as to simply start here and read to the end of the page, I think you will understand what the dispute is about. I asked Dking, "Please don't dress up the facts with innuendo." He can't seem to help himself. In the edit that he keeps reverting (with your assistance,) he refers to "LaRouche's highly imaginative fantasies about conquering the world" as if it were a fact. He attempts, through creative writing, to make his assertings about a "glowing, four pronged object" more believable, when in fact, he is describing a barred spiral galaxy and a fusion experiment, appearing in science articles, and those are the facts of the matter (that he looks at these things and sees swastikas tells us more about himself than about LaRouche.) I have on numerous occasions asked Dking to observe in particular WP:COI#Citing_oneself and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, and he seems nonetheless bent on transforming this article into a POV essay. 
Not all of his edits have been of this type, but too many have, and he should content himself with the fact that there is at least one external link to his website. I say "at least one," because I am not convinced that we need as many as we presently have. --Tsunami Butler 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recap of editing dispute

message: I was cited in this article for quotes from LaRouche's 1979 autobiography. It seems to me that there is no reason not to directly quote the subject of a Wiki biography's own autobiography, as long as one makes clear if there is published evidence that refutes a particular statement and as long as the autobiographer's claim is not outlandish. So I have directly cited LaRouche and in the course of doing so have found a quote (about his imaginary conversations in his head with great philosophers) that I think both his critics and supporters will find fascinating. I wish I hadn't missed this one when writing my book on LaRouche.--Dking 23:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You signed your post as an IP number. Do we know you as someone else? --MaplePorter 22:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LaRouche's early years

message: As the recipient of several swings of these weapons during Operation Mop-up, and as a Martial Artist myself, I want to state they are NOT Korean as indicated in the article. Nunchucks are Okinawan, where most of Japan's hand weapons (but not the Katana) originaed from. When they unlock this article, please correct the error.
216.203.27.99 11:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nunchucks

message: I am the author of one of the two disputed versions of "Coded discourse," so I have written a compromise version which I hope will break the deadlock. Here are the changes I made:
*I have restored "In addition to providing examples of what he claims is conventional anti-Semitism in LaRouche's writings," since it is true that King makes such claims. Whether they are valid is for the reader to decide.
*I have restored the word "partially" to "LaRouche's published attacks on the neo-conservatives include a partially disguised form of anti-Semitism," which is a compromise because I see no evidence to support the claim.
*I have restored King's description of a plasmoid as "a four-pronged object, glowing with light." I did not restore the allegations about Nazi scientists, because King has inserted an entire new section on that in the article, and there's no need for the claims to be made twice.
*I added that Daniel Pipes has criticized LaRouche as a conspiracy theorist, because he has in fact done so. I did not couch it in terms that makes it look like he agrees with King on coded discourse, because he does not.
If Dking will provide a quote in context from LaRouche where LaRouche says he has a plot for "conquering the world," that "centers on eliminating a Jewish banking oligarchy," I will elimate the word "secretly." I have read plenty of LaRouche, and even at his most abstruse I have never seen him even hint at such a thing. 
I hope that this compromise version will get us all out of the revert loop:
:In addition to providing examples of what he claims is conventional anti-Semitism in LaRouche's writings,King, Chapter 6, "The Jewish Question," pp. 38-46  Dennis King also claims to have found what he terms "euphemisms,"King, Chapter 29  "semantic tricks,"King, Chapter 6, pp. 43-46  and examples of "symbolic scapegoating" King, Chapter 17, pp. 146-147  in LaRouche's writings which he claims contradict LaRouche's published condemnations of Anti-Semitism. For example, King claims that LaRouche's published attacks on the neo-conservatives include a partially disguised form of anti-Semitism. King further says these examples bolster his argument (which also references certain images used in LaRouche publications) that LaRouche is a fascist whose world view secretly centers on anti-Semitism and includes a "dream of world conquest." He claims that certain photos of barred spiral galaxies and of a Lawrence Livermore Laboratory plasmoid experiments (which King describes as "a four-pronged object, glowing with light") which appeared in LaRouche's New Solidarity newspaper and Fusion magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika" and of the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest."  See King, chapter 10, p. 76  He also points to a 1978 illustration in New Solidarity of Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David -- and certain headlines (in more recent LaRouche publications) such as "How the Venetian Virus Infected and Took Over England" -- to bolster his argument that LaRouche's attacks on a "British" oligarchy are often coded attacks on international Jewry. Dennis King, "Nazis Without Swastikas" (pamphlet), New York: League for Industrial Democracy, 1982, citing and reproducing illustration in LaRouche, "Micky Mouse & Pluto Move to Washingtion, New Solidarity, October 17, 1978   This latter claim is disputed by author Daniel Pipes, who writes: "Dennis King insists that [LaRouche's] references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really `code language' to refer to Jews. In fact, these are references to the British."  Pipes, Daniel, Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From, Simon & Schuster (Free Press), 1997, p. 142 However, Pipes also criticizes LaRouche for being a conspiracy theoristPipes, Chapter 1, "Conspiracy Theories Everywhere.".
--MaplePorter 06:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maple Porter, rather than answering MGunn's questions, you merely came up with a "compromise" which is basically still your misleading and unsubstantiated version of this article. This is apparently intended to disguise the fact that you cannot substantiate your version to anyone except your fellow LaRouche followers. And I note the veiled threat in your remarks--either go with your version or endure a continuation of the edit war you have been waging. Compromise rejected, threats of further edit war discounted, LaRouche propaganda changes reverted once again.--Dking 21:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would be willing to accept the compromise, although I think that the inclusion of the bit about a "glowing four pronged object" is silly and not notable. I agree with Will Beback on one point, which is that it would be better to err on the side of being less long-winded. --NathanDW 01:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop the games, NathanDW. You are pretending that you are just another Wiki editor who happens to agree with MP's so-called compromise, when in fact the two of you are both LaRouche followers who have been working in tandem for weeks to give this article a pro-LaRouche spin in defiance of the public record, which clearly shows he is a convicted felon, an anti-Semite, and, as Dr. Teller said, a man with "fantastic conceptions."--Dking 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dking, can you propose any text which might be acceptable to NDW and MP? -Will Beback · † · 03:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise version

message: I read LaRouche, and see echoes of Hitler and Mussolini. Why believe the claims of a crank and convicted felon?--Cberlet 01:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral articles don't require neutral editors. We have a neutral article about Adolf Hitler, even though most of the editors of that article probably have a negative view of the subject. We have neutral articles about all kinds of people that the editors believe are convicted felons or cranks. Let's focus n keeping the article neutral, not on policing the personal views of editors. Will Beback · † · 03:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never even met the guy??? Both Berlet and I spent a week of our lives sitting six feet away from LaRouche at a conference table during his 1984 deposition in LaRouche v. NBC, listening to him try to explain why he hadn't paid any income taxes in over a decade even though he lived in a mansion. We also heard him complain that Berlet and I were plotting to kill him, that Henry Kissinger was a Soviet agent, that he didn't know where the food in his refrigerator came from, and that he was confused about which universe of discourse the deposition was taking place in. An entire week of this! I can't say LaRouche is an old buddy but I have definitely met the man, and I can say for certain that he is one clever fox at running out the clock on an expensive deposition in a room full of corporate lawyers.--Dking 04:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the borderline of biased? 

message: I can see that there has been a long debate about this issue in this discussion group, and it seems that the main person arguing in favor of Dennis King is Dennis King himself, which seems sort of inappropriate. I would like to add my thoughts:
I have read some of King's stuff, and I have often wondered whether he really believes what he writes. He takes about 1% of LaRouche's writings and quotes it out of context to support his claims, which are readily refuted by the other 99% of LaRouche's writings (ignored by King.) In my opinion, the matter is simple: the policies that LaRouche advocates establish him as an anti-fascist. He uses as a reference point the constitution's commitment to the General Welfare, which is the opposite of fascism.
This enclopedia article should provide a balanced view of LaRouche, and it seems that a too-high percentage of the article is devoted to King's claims. 
I realize that at the moment the article is protected from editing, but I would like to point out that in the last edit made by King, there are logical fallacies. It is true that LaRouche is anti-British, but how does that make him pro-fascist? It is true that LaRouche claims Hitler was playing footsie with the Brits (others have similar theories,) but how does that make him pro-fascist? I think King is wrong in what he says about the figures on the holocaust, because LaRouche was making a point that most people were worked to death (not simply exterminated) under the slave labor policy, which is often ignored by popular histories that cover up that fact. It's beside the point, though, because either way it does not prove that LaRouche is pro-fascist. And as far as I'm concerned, LaRouche's attacks on "various public figures in post-war Britain and America" is proof that he is anti-fascist, not pro-fascist -- look at the current leadership of those two countries! 
Also, the section called "LaRouche's 1980s alliance with former Peenemunde V-2 scientists" contains misleading statements. King refers to John Demjanjuk as "Ivan the Terrible" when in fact he was acquitted of that charge in Israeli court, and the OSI admitted that it had forged documents to back the charge. Don't tell me that King didn't know that when he wrote it. The other two guys, Linnas and Soobzokov, were both killed before they could stand trial, so the presumption of guilt on King's part is wrong -- I suspect that King knows this too. Of course, LaRouche had no political connection to these three men -- he merely joined the chorus of voices who protested the star chamber tactics of the OSI. And this whole section is not an especially notable part of LaRouche's bio -- he was involved in all sorts of "alliances," with farm activists, civil rights leaders, union groups, and so on. King cherry picks events from LaRouche's life to back up his claims. This article should be a bio, not an article about King's claims. --HonourableSchoolboy 01:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mgunn, please respect Wikipedia policy. This article was protected for 12 days. During that time you could have participated in discussion on this talk page. The announcement above says that this is a controversial article, and that changes should be discussed before being made. They were discussed, and you didn't participate. In the future, please raise the issues, as I did, before making your edits. --HonourableSchoolboy 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't respond to any of the above discussion points either.  You simply made an ad hominem attack on King and then take  as grounds to remove any material that is cited to King that you disagree with.  What you have done in no way conforms to Wikipedia policy.  If you think King is wrong, produce REAL, observable evidence on the talk page of the mistake, and I'll go along with you.  What is totally bogus though is various editors saying "I don't like King" and then removing anything King says.  King is the only published author on LaRouche and as such, it's not particularly surprising that his material is disproportionately represented in this article.  -- Mgunn 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have problem with a specific passage.  (1) Quote the passage on the talk page.  (2) Describe why it's wrong. and (3) Cite evidence to show why it's wrong.  King's book counts as a Wikipedia source and material is valid to include unless you can show it's wrong.  Unless you can do that, you're going to be reverted.  -- Mgunn 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using your above reasoning, Wikipedia ought to reproduce Dennis King's entire book. We are certainly headed in that direction. I am reverting your edit on the grounds of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. I think that King's views are already reasonably represented, and I don't think HonourableSchoolboy's comments are an "ad hominem attack." --Tsunami Butler 00:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the debate is over the inclusion of the Dking material please don't engage in reverts that include other material as well. Blanket reverts are counter-productive. -Will Beback · † · 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If these reverts continue we'll have to reprotect the article. -Will Beback · † · 01:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact that LaRouche said only 1.5 million Jews died in the Holocaust is interesting and relevant.  I'm going to reinsert cited material and if you have objections, please state them clearly on the talk page rather than giving a blanket, "too much King" and then removing whatever random material you don't like.   Mgunn 01:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that HonourableSchoolboy's objections were quite specific, including what he said about allegations of holocaust denial. I would also point out that those allegations are in the "political views" article. There is an appropriate link to the article. King, however, is attempting to spin the material he refers to. It's a POV essay. H.Schoolboy analyzes both the "criticism" section and the "rocket scientist" section, which are the areas that I am now going to revert. --NathanDW 02:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On the importance, or lack of importance, of Dennis King as a critic of LaRouche

message: This page has been reprotected, since the edit warring started right after it was uprotected.  This is kind of ridiculous; we are all mature editors, we should be able to work out our disagreements through discussion.  Please take this opportunity to remember that it pays to discuss before editing, for hopefully then the page can stay unprotected and stable. -- Natalya 15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page reprotected 

message: My thinking is that Dking's accusations should be presented in list form, in the criticism section, without turning it into a essay. Then there should be a link to "political views of Lyndon LaRouche." King's accusations are all there already, but with appropriate rebuttals from LaRouche. There is no reason to replicate the whole thing in the bio article, when we have another article which is a (slightly) more appropriate forum for presenting King's theories about LaRouche's hidden agenda, coded messages, and so forth. --Tsunami Butler 15:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think part of the latest issue was that there was a sourced line saying LaRouche had denounced anti-semitism, and King, as well as several other editors, thought that that statement should be challenged/put in context. -- Mgunn 20:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is a sourced line saying that LaRouche had denounced Nazism and fascism. Dking tried to "qualify" LaRouche's opposition to Hitler and Mussolini with a bunch of stuff about the British. I tried to point out that LaRouche being anti-British, or LaRouche charging that the British had deals under the table with the Nazis, is entirely irrelevant to LaRouche denouncing fascism. It is not "putting it in context." It is obfuscation. --HonourableSchoolboy 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about LaRouche saying that only 1.5 million died in the Holocaust.  Is that obfuscation? -- Mgunn 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Different controversy. But I would suggest that you take a look at Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#Jews_and_the_Holocaust, where what he said, and the context in which he said it, is gone over in some depth. The issue of whether LaRouche is an anti-Semite has been debated all over. The New York Times book review of King's book said that this was one issue where King was unconvincing. I have no problem with the criticism section saying that there are allegations of anti-Semitism -- it presently says that. I have a definite problem with Dking turning that section into a POV essay. There should be a link to "political views," and of course, the 20+ links to the Dennis King website, and that ought to be sufficient. --Tsunami Butler 07:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Hi, I am here from the Cabal to mediate. Due to the fact that this page is enormous, I have created /medcab06-07 to discuss on. This will allow easier review by parties. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the main points of contention have to do with Dking's edits. Geo. Talk to me 03:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mediation request I saw listed me first among the problem users. Dking seems to only be the latest complaint. -Will Beback · † · 05:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: The LaRouche editors are attempting to create a red herring. They say that the issue is an attempt by myself to aggressively "dominate" this article. I think any fair minded person who goes back and reviews the record of my edits on this article over the past several weeks will see that I have been concerned with proper sourcing, have made many corrections of a factual nature, have raised questions about particular points in hopes others would make the corrections, have attempted to organize some sections in a more logical fashion, and have provided detailed explanations of contested edits. I have aggressively opposed attempts by LaRouche editors to misrepresent my work (for instance, the canard that I provide no examples of direct LaRouchian anti-Semitism), as any author would do. It should be noted that this article has been under dispute for about three years and the LaRouchians earlier tried, unsuccessfully, to make me the issue. (I was not at the time editing on this article and only began to do so at the end of 2006.) The issue is not Dennis King--the issue is that properly sourced and factually accurate material is being removed from this article and replaced by improperly sourced and factually inaccurate material, and that this is being done by at least four supporters of LaRouche acting together with a clear agenda of sanitizing the biography of a convicted felon whose political extremism and anti-Semitism are well documented by a variety of respected sources on both the right and the left.--Dking 18:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you join the discussion. Geo. Talk to me 00:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresentations by LaRouche supporters