Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 14

message: I'm not interested in unblocking this page for yet another edit war, but I noticed a couple of annoying errors about LaRouche's life pre-NCLC that should be changed. If we can all agree, I'd like to get permission to change them.
1. The article now reads: "His wife left him in 1963 (they had a son, born in 1956) and, in the late 1960s, Janice Neuberger LaRouche became a leader of the New York City branch of the National Organization for Women." I propose that this be changed to: "He and Janice separated in 1963, with Janice retaining custody of their son, born in 1956." First, Janice didn't leave: she kept the apartment on Central Park West. Second, the addition of the fact that Janice later became an activist with NOW bears the imputation that Lyndon led her to it. This is absurd--she had been a socialist since the 1950s and a close friend of the formidable Myra Tanner Weiss and Myra's equally formidable husband Murray, who were both advocates of feminism as well as socialism. She didn't need any negative experiences with Lyndon to propel her into what was an obviously appropriate vehicle for social protest for a woman of her ideological background in the late 1960s. In my researches in past decades, I interviewed Janice as well as Myra, Murray and other people who knew the LaRouche couple in the 1950s and early 1960s; I never received any impression that Lyndon was abusive to Janice or that their divorce was an unusually messy one. Also, Janice's life after separating from Lyndon is irrelevant to this article.
2. The description of Carol Schnitzer as LaRouche's "common-law wife" in the 1960s should be changed simply to his "partner," which is the term that is almost universally used nowadays. Also, "common-law wife" is an inappropriate term from a legal standpoint, since Lyndon and Carol lived together exclusively in New York State, which does not recognize common law marriages.--Dking 19:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are extremely minor points. We can worry about them later. Dking, I would like to repeat the question that has been put to you, let's see, three times without receiving an answer, so here comes number four: can you, or can you not, supply a quote from LaRouche in context to document your claim that LaRouche says he has a plot for "conquering the world," that "centers on eliminating a Jewish banking oligarchy." I think that claim of yours was the pivotal issue in the revert war that caused protection of the article. It will have to be resolved in order to get unprotection. --NathanDW 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is cited properly to the book by King, published by a major reputable outlet.--Cberlet 03:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Inquiring minds still want to know whether LaRouche ever said anything remotely like it. --Tsunami Butler 06:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for consensus on two non-controversial changes 

message: In the "Alleged Coded Discourse" section, the last two paragraphs (the one about Children of Satan and the following one) repeat. There's also a cutoff sentence at the end of one of them. Someone who has the power to do so, please take a look and fix it.
:Fixed. Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Typo 

message: This page is protected due to protracted conflicts over content. It is inappropriate to archive the relevant discussion until the issues have been resolved. Please restore the recent discussion, or provide me with a good reason why I should not do so. --Tsunami Butler 16:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And given the circumstances, why on earth would you remove the NPOV tag? --Tsunami Butler 16:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The page was too long; the threads were inactive; and the tag has been there for ages for no obvious reason. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is obvious -- because there are serious disputes about the neutrality of the article. The discussion is going on at the Mediation Cabal. And is it permissible under Wikipedia policy for you to remove that tag while the article is protected? Particularly when you are a party to the content disputes? --NathanDW 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is it going on at the mediation cabal? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I didn't notice it was protected. I've reverted myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please restore material on this page 

message: See Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/medcab06-07 and Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/archive13. There have been protracted disputes over the content of this article. --Tsunami Butler 14:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In case anyone is wondering why this article is protected 

message: I have moved this section, re-inserted today by Dking, to "Criticism," and significantly shortened it, on grounds of WP:UNDUE. It was disproportionately long in terms of its importance to a biographical article, and was mainly a POV vehicle for Dking to make Guilt by Association insinuations. I removed the "Liberty Lobby" reference as a more blatant form of guilt by association. --Tsunami Butler 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to repeat what I said when I first posted here, even though it got me harassed by Will Beback: 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. Frankly, now that Dking has inserted the whole mess again, I think it should just be reverted, but I don't want to see the article go back to full edit war and protection again. --HonourableSchoolboy 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I've never harassed you, and I never objected to your assertion about John Demanjuk. Please keep personal comments (especially untrue ones) off of article talk pages. -Will Beback · † · 20:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LaRouche and German scientists 

message: Information was recently added regarding the "Mann-Chestnut hearings". As far as I can tell, these hearings were a product of the Schiller Institute. These hearings apparently investigated several issues. The only part that would be applicable to this article is the exoneration of LaRouche, though even it might be more appropriate in United States v. LaRouche. The bulk of the material should probably be in our article on the Schiller Institute. -Will Beback · † · 02:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it earlier because the section didn't explain what it was about. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It explains the LaRouche organization's interest in the OSI cases, about which Dking has contributed a lot conspiracy theorizing earlier in the article (and on this talk page.) --Tsunami Butler 14:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't about the LaRouche organization, it's about the person Lyndon LaRouche. So only those things directly related to the person shold be included. We have several articles on the organization, and most of this material belongs in one of them. Since the Schiller Institute conducted the hearings, that article would be the best place. -Will Beback · † · 18:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The LaRouche organization generally reflects the interests of LaRouche the person, hence the name. I've noticed that whenever SlimVirgin discovers a new piece of criticism against LaRouche, she tends to spam it to as many articles as possible (not that I am advocating this.) By the way, LaRouche's interest in DOJ corruption didn't just begin with his own trial. He was big on that topic at least since the '70s, when the FBI-CPUSA collaboration against him came to light. --Don't lose that number 21:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no question that LaRouche's organization reflects his interests. That isn't the issue. The issue is which place in our encyclopedia is most suitable for this information. Except for perhaps a short mention of his testimony, the bulk of it should go into the article about the organization that actually comnducted the hearing. -Will Beback · † · 00:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same argument applies to all of Dking's theorizing about German scientists. It was the organization, not LaRouche personally, that criticized the OSI. So I don't mind moving Mann-Chestnut if Dking's German scientist section goes with it. To have one without the other violates NPOV. --Tsunami Butler 14:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wrong again, Tsunami. It's not just the "organization." LaRouche has personally criticized the OSI in very harsh language. How can you deny this? I provided a quote above with a link to a page image of a 1988 article in which LaRouche raved about OSI prosecutors spitting in the face of God by deporting death camp commandante Karl Linnas (and there are other comments LaRouche has personally made along these lines). His personal support for Nazi war criminals extended over at least a 15-year period and is an important theme of his political activities both as an individual and as the leader of a movement. LaRouche personally identified with these guys, like when he'd have his newspaper print his picture together with those of Demjanjuk and Kurl Waldheim, suggesting all three were joint victims of the same conspiracy.--Dking 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mann-Chestnut hearings are not related to the German scientists, so let's deal with them separately. -Will Beback · † · 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are related to the allegations of corruption by the OSI, which plays a big part in the new stuff added by Dking (Demjanjuk, Linnas, etc.) The point is, LaRouche & Co. were interested in all sorts of issues where they saw DOJ persecution. The hearings also touched upon Waco and Ruby Ridge, I think. --Don't lose that number 22:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we put in here everything that LaRouche is interested in or is related to things in this article it'll be 10,000 pages long. The hearings were conducted by the Schiller Institute so that's where the bulk of the coverage belongs. -Will Beback · † · 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mann-Chestnut hearings 

message: Over three months ago, I requested that the LaRouchian editors provide a proper citation for the hearsay statement by Dean Andromidas, writing in a LaRouche publication, that a former Stasi agent once said on Swedish radio that the Stasi had run a propaganda campaign to blame the murder of Palme on the LaRouche movement. No citation to a legitimate print publication has been forthcoming and therefore I am removing the paragraph. If in fact a proper citation exists, by all means restore the information.--Dking 01:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olof Palme 

message: The fact that Willis Carto supported Arthur Rudolph is not notable. This is Dennis King, deliberately violating WP:UNDUE in order to slant the article toward his fringe theory. I refer you to the article Arthur Rudolph, where it lists his supporters in this way: "These included retired Major General John Medaris (former commander of ABMA), officials of the city of Huntsville, the American Legion and former associates at NASA." This strikes me as neutral. I am replacing the shorter version of this in the LaRouche article, unless someone thinks this longer version is better. It is also the case that Rudolph was supported by all the NASA scientists in Huntsville, not just the "Operation Paperclip" scientists. This again is deliberately misleading editing on the part of Dking. Also misleading is the edit summary, "Stop trying to censor facts about LaRouche's life" -- these are not "facts about LaRouche's life," they are incidental to his life, but Dking is trying to play the Association fallacy game. --Don't lose that number 21:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am restoring the material because it is properly sourced. The primary force in defending Rudolph in Huntsville was the community of Operation Paperclip old timers. I quoted Linda Hunt, the chief expert on this, in my book: "In 1985, the old-timers held their fortieth reunion at the Alabama Space and Rocket Museum beneath a giant picture of [SS general] von Braun. Linda Hunt, a former Cable Network News reporter, recalled a darkened auditorium full of aging Nazis eagerly watching a slide show of the latest laser-beam weapon. She said that when the lights went on, the [Fusion Energy Foundation's] Marsha Freeman went to the front and delivered a tirade against the OSI to heavy applause." (p. 80) (The Fusion Energy Foundation was a LaRouche front; Freeman was a longtime LaRouche operative.) Much of the activism of the old Nazis was due to a false rumor spread by the LaRouchians that the OSI was planning to round up and deport hundreds of former Nazi scientists (this was false--the OSI was only after Rudolph). The old-timers may have fallen for the rumor because many of them had guilty consciences and were worried that someone had found out about their secret crimes. As to the Liberty Lobby's support for Rudolph being "not notable", the fact is that the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight had a much larger circulation than LaRouche's New Solidarity and the Liberty lobby had a radio program on a very large number of stations around the country; its role was at least as significant as LaRouche's.--Dking 23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be notable to an article about the Liberty Lobby, possibly even the article about Rudolph, but not a biography of LaRouche. You are attempting to insert it for purposes of Association fallacy. --Don't lose that number 15:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Liberty Lobby not relevant??? I guess you weren't around when NCLC members were writing for Spotlight, and Lyn and Helga were meeting with Carto. Or when they hired Liberty Lobby supporter Mitch WerBell as LaRouche's security consultant. The NCLC in the mid to late 1970s lifted whole-hog all kinds of conspiracy theories about Jews straight out of Spotlight and continue to promote those theories to this day. The participation of Liberty Lobby in the save-Rudolph-from-his-just-desserts campaign is significant because it shows just how deep LaRouche was involved in the pro-Nazi rightwing. Everything reverted by Don't Lose That New Sockpuppet User Name is properly sourced and I am restoring the paragraph once again.--Dking 17:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a quote from Hunt linking LaRouche to the Liberty Lobby directly, not just by agreeing on a particular issue. Otherwise it is OR. --NathanDW 19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthur Rudolph 

message: NathanDW added to the section about Kronberg that the article about his death was written by a former LaRouche activist, Nicholas Benton, offering as evidence this link, which appears to amount to OR. The link shows that Benton gave $200 to a LaRouche campaign in 1979. It doesn't show that he was an "activist," so I've removed the claim for now. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Dennis King, Nick Benton was affiliated with the LaRouche publication EIR. --Don't lose that number 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nicholas Benton" sounds like it could be a common name. I would worry that if we're searching primary sources we could get the wrong one by mistake. -Will Beback · † · 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that Dennis King or Chip Berlet have something in their files that could settle this. Meanwhile, Benton's comments seem a bit catty or bloggy. They don't seem appropriate under BLP, and the Falls Church News-Press is not exactly a major-league source. --Don't lose that number 14:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benton 

message: If he was on the ballot, he was a candidate. The adjective "self-styled" adds no important information and only lets off the hook the Democratic Party leaders who allowed the "LaRouche Democrats" to invade the party with little or no opposition (or even welcomed them in, as former NY Mayor Ed Koch did and as certain members of the Congressional Black Caucus have tried to do more recently). Also to be consistent in using "self-styled," one would have to clutter the article with references to self-styled economist, self-styled philosopher, self-styled music critic, etc. etc.--Dking 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fair point. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-styled candidate 

message: I am opposed to the Kronberg suicide material being moved to the LaRouche Movement page. The Lyndon LaRouche biography page is clearly the most visited of the LaRouche-related pages on Wikipedia. The previous editor in effect was trying to bury the news on Kronberg in a place where it would do the minimum damage to LaRouche's reputation. --Dking 22:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that there is a revert war over the above comment by Dennis King. Parts of it clearly violated BLP. I have removed only those parts and left the remainder. I'm surprised that SlimVirgin didn't catch this, because she is normally very vigilant. --NathanDW 01:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anyone able to explain what these morning briefings are, and what their relationship is to LaRouche? Does he write them, or how does it work? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NathanDW, you are perfectly aware of the distinction between editing an article and making comments on a discussion page. You have no right to censor my remarks on the discussion page, and indeed this is a new escalation of your tactics. I didn't censor those of your comrades even when you called me a drug dealer, so hands off! P.S. What I said that you removed was said in print in Nick Benton's article.--Dking 23:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ken Kronberg 

message: I was asked to clarify the BLP issues.
Wikipedia doesn't publish allegations about living persons based on material from questionable sources, either in articles or on talk pages. A questionable source includes any third-party self-published sources (e.g. a personal website written by someone other than the subject of the BLP). LaRouche publications, although not self-published, are not subject to any editorial oversight, and for that reason have been ruled as questionable sources by the ArbCom.
What this means is that LaRouche's publications can be used as a source about LaRouche, but not anyone else; and Dennis King's website can be used as a source about Dennis King, but not anyone else.
Therefore, a dispute between the two that is taking place only on their websites or their own offline publications, or on discussion boards, can't be reported by us until a third-party reliable publication writes about it.
Don't lose that number asked me to confirm that BLP applies to talk pages. Yes, it does. Any unsourced contentious material about a living person can and should be removed from talk pages. In fact, even if reliably sourced it can be removed from talk pages if it has been added gratuitiously. Talk pages are here only to discuss the article, and shouldn't be used to attack people. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP and self-published sources 

message: Question to Will Beback: is there any documentation that Ramsey Clark was "hired to defend LaRouche"? He could have been working pro bono. --MaplePorter 15:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We just removed his name from the LaRouche Movement because he was decided to be a hired professional. If Clark worked pro-bono that would be worth noting. Have you got a source for it?  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 17:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All we actually know is that he was LaRouche's attorney, and that he made a number of statements on the record about LaRouche's case. We don't know that he was hired. We don't know that he is a supporter of LaRouche's ideas. We should stick with what can be documented, and avoid speculation. --NathanDW 20:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clark also had ties to the International Progress Organization, which intervened on behalf of LaRouche in his legal cases. But I have never seen any documentation as to who, if anyone, paid Clark for his services, so I am removing "hired." --Don't lose that number 14:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ramsey Clark hired" 

message: NathanDW just reverted my compromise edit without any discussion.  Given the long pattern established here, I propose that NathanDW be banned from editing this and other LaRouche-related pages. Discussion?--Cberlet 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been trying to insert your fringe POV into the intro of a controversial article. You have already been reverted by numerous editors including myself. NathanDW probably didn't think additional discussion was necessary. --Don't lose that number 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying to make the lead NPOV. Additional discussion is always appropriate, and in this case needed. Much of the lead is framed to minimize criticism of LaRouche, and give the impression that LaRouche is the victim of a government conspiracy. Let's take it a sentence at a time.--Cberlet 16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose Banning of [[User:NathanDW|NathanDW]] 

message: It looks like some editors are proposing a big re-write of the lead. This could be a lot of work, and the present lead is the result of many compromises, some of them bad ones in my opinion. I am going to list some points that have been raised and provide my "take" on the matter:
1. Cberlet appears to want to re-cast the entire lead to make it more negative toward LaRouche, since he considers the present lead an "apologia." My view of this proposal is that it is unacceptable POV pushing. The present lead, while not perfect, is relatively balanced.
2. Will Beback says he would like to eliminate quotes. I'm not sure exactly what this is intended to accomplish -- WP:LEAD doesn't say that quotes are bad, but it does say that the lead should provide a summary. Nadav1 seems to be saying that quotes are inconsistent with a summary -- I can see his point, but in the case of such an unusually controversial subject, perhaps the best way of providing a summary is to provide contrasting quotes which illustrate the range of opinion. The section which contrasts the Heritage Foundation with Norman Bailey is an example of what I mean.
3. Don't Lose That Number says that he thinks the most notable feature of LaRouche is that, in Ramsey Clark's opinion, he was the target of an unprecendented legal assault. I don't think that this is LaRouche's actual "claim to fame," although it is an indication of his notability. I would like to see something in the lead about LaRouche's international activity. There was something there before about his standing in Russia and China, that was eliminated in an earlier bout of controversy. Since that time, much better evidence is available from LaRouche's recent trips to Russia and Italy. I would favor saying something like the following: "Although coverage of LaRouche in the Western media is generally sparse and negative in tone, he receives far more positive coverage in Russia, China, and many Third World nations, where his campaign to change US policy toward the rest of the world is viewed sympathetically." It might be appropriate to mention LaRouche's meetings with various heads of state and other dignitaries in this context, since this is also an important indication of his notability. --MaplePorter 11:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our objectives for rewriting the lead are to make it NPOV and conform to standard Wiki policies.  End of discussion. Please avoid personal attacks, even when couched in civility.--Cberlet 13:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What are our options and objectives for re-writing the lead?

message: This article was stable and undisputed for a long time. The recent kerfuffle began when Cberlet decided to add to the intro the characterization of LaRouche as "neofascist." That didn't last long, so he tried another disruptive tack -- censoring the view of Ramsey Clark. Cberlet has made it abundantly clear that he simply doesn't like Clark's opinion. Chip Berlet and his POV twin Dennis King were major cheerleaders of the LaRouche prosecution, back when the foundation grants were rolling in, back in the 1980s. The two of them resent any aspersions cast on the legitimacy of the trial, so Cberlet has launched an attempt to remove Clark's quote here, while King has launched a parallel effort to censor the opinion of Von der Heydte at United States v. LaRouche.
So, let's cut the pretense and wiki-lawyering. This is simply POV censorship. In response to questions raised above, the following is clear as day:
1. It is completely acceptable under both the LaRouche1 arbcom enforcement  and the Tsunami Butler request for appeal  to use LaRouche sites are sources for the Clark and Von der Heydte quotes. These were both open letters, released to the public, and these two individuals may be seen as LaRouche supporters, so they may be cited to LaRouche publications.
2. It is bogus to complain that too much space is being devoted to the rather brief quotes from these credentialed experts, particularly when much more space is devoted to quotes from Chip Berlet and Dennis King, whose claim to fame is that they both finished high school.
(unsigned, but posted by NathanDW)
:Please avoid future personal attacks, NathanDW.  Please focus on editing text using Wikipedia guidelines.--Cberlet 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidently, I have many more proposed changes to this entry and others. I just thought it polite to deal with one matter at a time.  Next I intend to pursue the fact that the cited sources for the critics of LaRouche use the term "fascist," and it is POV to delete that from the list of criticisms, especially when the term is used in the titles.--Cberlet 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: LaRouche and his publications have detailed numerous conspiracy claims for decades. To suggest otherwise is outlandish. How ridiculous will this discussion get before the Arbcom sanctions are invoked?--Cberlet 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NathanDW has reverted without discussion repeatedly. That is easy to demonstrate. How ridiculous will this discussion get before the Arbcom sanctions are invoked?--Cberlet 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I would like some response to my proposal that LaRouche's relationship to Russia, China and the Third World be mentioned in the lead. --MaplePorter 22:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What relationship? Outside the lunatic assertions of LaRouche conspiracy fanatics there is no reputable published source to confirm these absurd claims. That's the proper response. How ridiculous will this discussion get before the Arbcom sanctions are invoked?--Cberlet 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's cut the pretense, shall we? 

message: Agree
# --Cberlet 20:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Washington Post'' is a valid source for this entry

message: I think the more salient issue is that PRA publications and perhaps even some mainstream newspaper articles may fall under advocacy journalism or other provisions of BLP.  However with the removal of the worst terms like "crackpot" this is largely remedied.  I am still deeply concerned by the "coded disclosure" section which really does not seem more credible than any other conspiracy theory.  It doesn't strike me as credible research to speculate what someone really believes without concrete evidence.  If there were a letter, a former associate, etc. who would lend some credibility to it that would be one thing, but this seems to be raw advocacy journalism and defamatory speculation.  Also the section about Nazi scientists - keeping mind that the US government employed these people and von Braun led the space program for quite a while, this also seems to not entirely credible and just an attempt at guilt by association.  These materials are all questionable in a BLP article I think.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "coded discourse" should be included precisely from the BLP standpoint, because it sheds some light on the methodology of those that insinuate that LaRouche is anti-Semitic. The inclusion of this section helps balance the insinuations. On the "German scientists" issue I agree with you. --Don't lose that number 15:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, we could look at it and say: obviously these are not reliable sources and should not be included anywhere in the article.  I definitely see what you're saying though, didn't think of it that way - makes good sense. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 18:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advocacy 

message: I'm not going to start another poll, but I would like to point out that there are four options (by my count) on the table here:
#The original version with exact quote from Ramsey Clark. I have just re-read WP:LEAD and I see nothing there that would prohibit such a quote.
#The version that is in place as of this writing, with paraphrase of the Clark quote.
#The Cberlet version, with no mention of anyone outside the LaRouche movement being interested in his legal case.
#this version, which was presented as a compromise -- no mention of Clark, but general reference to "elected officials and legal experts." --Marvin Diode 00:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but this is in my view a biased and misleading summary of the available options and the ongoing vote above. Give the poll a few days before launching another discussion please. There are other recent editors of this page who have not indicated a preference.--Cberlet 01:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth is "biased and misleading" about it? Did he leave out an option? Point it out, and it can be added to the list. Otherwise, please refrain from such accusations. --NathanDW 01:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four options 

message: This long-standing dispute is being aggravated by biased, self-serving, misleading and propagandistic edit summaries. Please chill out on this. --Don't lose that number 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please do so. I agree.--Cberlet 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summaries 

message: I just added my vote in the poll (see above) on the side of Berlet, sanity and the American way.--Dking 03:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, is that what the poll is really about? --Gelsomina 13:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone know how to make the poll count work with comments? Also, I was assuming that only those editors involved in editing this page during 2007 would be taking part in the poll.--Cberlet 12:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another vote in the poll 

message: Will, I recall that the amount of damages that LaRouche had to pay to NBC was reduced by Judge Cacheris, the trial judge, not by an appeals court. Your phrase "reduced on appeal" means, in legalese, that it was reduced by an appeals court. My memory may be wrong, but please check your reference.--Dking 00:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBC libel trial 

message: There's apparently a fresh profile of LaRouche in the 07/02/07 issue of The National Review. The entire text isn't available online, but some excerpts are posted here: . Judging by the title, "Odd Man Out: The loony who's staying home: Lyndon LaRouche", it is probably an unsympathetic piece.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TNR profile 

message: I have never deleted the Clark quote on political conviction, and yet the actual text based on what LaRouche claims has been repeatedly deleted by the pro-LaRouche editors. This is not fair and has become tendentious and disruptive. Here is the text:
*LaRouche and his defenders claim the prosecution was a politically motivated conspiracy involving government officials, numerous others, and a mass media brainwashing campaign. [ref]: "Have the Mass Media Brainwashed your Neighbor about Lyndon LaRouche?" .
Is there any question whether or not this is factual or not properly cited? If not, please stop deleting it without discusion.--Cberlet 14:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that it is the LaRouchites who use the term "brainwashing." It is not the job of Wiki editors to rewrite LaRouchite claims to make them appear less crackpot.  There is too much of that going on already.--Cberlet 14:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim of political conviction? 

message: See discussion on this page.--Cberlet 18:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thumbnail sentence identifying LaRouche on numerous pages 

message: I don't know much about LaRouche, but from what I have read, he doesn't strike me as a major intellectual figure, yet this article is longer than most Prime Minsters, President, heads of state and towering figures of history - it's as long as Napoleon Bonaparte's article! 'And' he has a separate, extensive page dedicated to his view: Views of Lyndon LaRouche, which is fully protected from editing. Unbelievable. Interesting, amusing stuff, but just way too much when one takes the objective view. 
Proof Reader 01:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a ridiculously bloated article!