Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 3

message: The previous version of the article on LaRouche, which is referred to in the discussion, is available here.
Nota bene: I argued in favor of the previous article, on the grounds that it had fewer egregious POV problems than the livid rant that is presently found at the Lyndon LaRouche page. However, I agree with John's assessment that the previous article is a somewhat incoherent patchwork quilt, having been rewritten and edited so many times. I withdraw my support from that article, in favor of the new one that I have written at Lyndon LaRouche/draft, and invite comment on that article. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

message: Although, since the late 1960s, LaRouche and his movement have been under continual attack from both Rightists and Leftists, LaRouche has enjoyed strong support from the veterans of the American Civil Rights Movement of Martin Luther King, Jr. In the early 1990s, while LaRouche was in prison (see below), full page advertisements, calling for LaRouche to be exonerated, appeared in papers such as the New York Times and Washington Post. Among the signators were Civil Rights leaders such as Amelia Boynton Robinson (the heroine of Bloody Sunday), Rev. Hosea Williams, Dr. Wyatt Tee Walker, James Bevel, Rosa Parks, and Benjamin Chavis. Additionally, Amelia Boynton Robinson became co-founder and Vice-Chairperson of the Schiller Institute, and James Bevel became LaRouche's running mate in the 1992 Presidential campaign, in which LaRouche ran from prison.  
:Surely this gives a false impression - perhaps these individuals have expressed support for LaRouche, but the basic fact is that LaRouche has no "Support from the Civil Rights Movement" and no mainstream civil rights organization has had any truck with LaRouche.  john k 20:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to see the entire list of signators? I can provide a link. but regardless of how many there are, or what organization they belong to, the ones that I put in the article are sufficiently prominent that hiding their names is certainly more apt to provide a false impression, than providing them.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually fine with listing people who signed that petition - but you are repeatedly using this same single act (signing a petition about the prosecution of LaRouche) in different places in the article, to give the impression of widespread support for LaRouche.  Listing these people once, in the part of the article about LaRouche's trial, would be sufficient. john k 01:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Additionally, Amelia Boynton Robinson became co-founder and Vice-Chairperson of the Schiller Institute, and James Bevel became LaRouche's running mate in the 1992 Presidential campaign, in which LaRouche ran from prison." That indicates support beyond signing the petition (actually, they were full-page ads in WaPo and NYT), and ought to be included.--Herschelkrustofsky 10:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Support from the Civil Rights Movement

message: (I did not write this part, but did extensive editing on the previous version)
In December of 1988, LaRouche was convicted of conspiracy and mail fraud in regards to the methods used by his organization to solicit in the alleged amount of $294,000 of unrepaid loans.  The alleged conspiracy, was a conspiracy to obtain the loans, with no intention to repay. 
:You should look up "comma usage" somewhere... john k 20:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but so what?  LaRouche was still found guilty.  Putting a whole paragraph about this, and then almost entirely ignoring the actual stuff against him, again gives a false impression. john k 20:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case the article is intended to inform the reader, rather than reinforce  the prejudices of the author, it were useful to make it known that this case was extremely controversial. For example -- I could have included this in the now-suppressed version of the article -- the amicus curae brief filed with the appeals was the second largest, in number of signators, in U.S. history (after the Chicago 7 trial). This makes the fact that the appeal was never heard all the more remarkable.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, this should be discussed.  But the charges against LaRouche should be discussed in more detail, as well. john k 01:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Clark is a fringe figure.  Why so much attention to him? john k 20:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether you like him, he is a former Attorney General of the United States.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So what?  He's progressively lost whatever credibility he may have once had over the last 35 years.  At any rate, a mention of his support for LaRouche in his court case should be sufficient. john k 01:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your POV. In my view, and I am not alone, his credentials as an human rights expert are certainly better than, say, Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, and his open letter to Janet Reno should certainly not be suppressed. I am struck by your apparent willingness to entertain the admission of gossip and innuendo from Dennis King, who has no stature of any sort, while laboring to exclude the views of persons who are internationally prominent, because you evidently have a disagreement with them. Remember, this is Wikipedia, not your USENET post.--Herschelkrustofsky 10:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Again, you may not like Ben Chavis, or Ramsay Clark, or Indira Gandhi, or Rosa Parks, but it were certainly more faithful to the spirit of Wikipedia to let the reader know, and judge for himself. Regarding the Requests for comment,I would be more likely to believe that this is not all some sort of ploy on your part, if BOTH versions of the article were available on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It says in Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution: "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." You and Adam didn't improve the edits on the previous article; you suppressed it altogether -- even to the point of freezing edits on the new version, which I assume means that you are a Wikipedia adminstrator, or you know one. If you want to demonstrate Good faith, make both versions of the article available, protect both from editing, and post them on Wikipedia:Requests for comment.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:04, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I would say, by all means, list every head of state, or cabinet level official, who ever said that Lyndon LaRouche is a crank, or a dangerous lunatic, or a common criminal, as well. And explore their motives for saying so.--Herschelkrustofsky 10:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Criminal record

message: Herschel, would you be willing to try to improve the current version of the article to make it more NPOV?  This would, I assume, be a rather bumpy process, given our current disagreements, but I think it's far more likely to move us towards consensus than constant reversion wars.  I'd be willing to sit back, for at least a while, and see what you're doing, and I'd explain any specific reversions/changes to your edits, if you'd be willing to do this.  This would let us unprotect the article and get back to editing it, too. john k 01:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See "Straw Man" section, below. I am still trying to figure out how you can say that the decision to protect Adam's article, as opposed to the long-standing one which was only partially written by me, was made by someone other than you and Adam.--Herschelkrustofsky 10:38, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: :Sorry for prematurely doing a bit of copy editing. Anyway, if the article is largely or partly based on Dennis King's book as a source it should be listed as such eg Source: King, Dennis. Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. New York: Doubleday, 1989. 415 pages.   This would deal with Herschell's concern's about plagiarism. AndyL 03:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not accusing you of plagiarism - as has been stated it's an absurd accusation to make in regards to an encyclopedia. I'm just pointing out to Herschell that there's nothing wrong with using source material and that his concerns can be dealt with through a citation rather than by removing anything that is based on King's research. AndyL 04:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: By all means, use that speech. It's a powerful indictment of anti-Semitism. But don't try to pull a slice-and-dice, cut-and-paste job á la Dennis King.--Herschelkrustofsky 10:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing sources

message: The typical approach to slandering a public figure (and the Adam Carr/Dennis King approach is only a particularly extreme and egregious example) is to attempt to create a "Straw Man", a semi-fictitious accounting of that individual, which the writer then proceeds to attack. Simultaneously, the technique requires that the actual motive for the attack be kept obscure; the attacker piously condemns the attackee, while avoiding any discussion of what the object of the attack has actually done to arouse his hostility. To the perceptive reader, this often leads to a paradox: in the case of LaRouche, whom the attacker paints as an obscure, unimportant figure with no influence or impact upon the world at large, why is it necessary to go to such great lengths to vilify him and ultimately jail him? If the worst that was alleged is true -- that LaRouche conspired with others to fail to repay $294,000 in loans (note: Adam Carr, following Dennis King, omits this figure, and slyly inserts "Assistant U.S. Attorney Kent Robinson presented evidence that LaRouche's organisation had solicited US$34 million in loans since 1983" --failing to inform the reader that only $294,000 was not repaid due to the alleged conspiracy. This is transparent propaganda), LaRouche would hardly be newsworthy, compared to the stupendous scams, of say, Michael Milken, who gets a relatively respectful write-up in Wikipedia.
My point is, an article on LaRouche should:
* acknowledge that LaRouche has been under attack from all sides, while properly identifying the attackers;
* acknowledge that LaRouche has in fact played a significant role in politics, having consulted with a dozen or more heads of state, and put forth original ideas that have changed the face of politics and science, thus drawing the ire of other powerful individuals and entities, who initiated the attacks. John and Adam are somewhat hysterical in attempting to deny that LaRouche has done anything beyond spout conspiracy theories; this denial, methinks, is dishonest, because if LaRouche were such a trivial person, why are John and Adam so exercised about him?
If I were to remove the scurrilous and undocumented allegations, and the innuendo, from Adam's article, only about a paragraph would remain. I would like the input from others on the previous version, which was the product of many writers and editors; John and Adam have complained strenuously about it, but only in the most vague of terms.--Herschelkrustofsky 11:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Myself I'd like to see a merger of the two. Sam [Spade] 14:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I could live with that. I would also be in favor of trimming the previous version of the article. I didn't see the point of dwelling on all the minutiae regarding who was who in the Left during the 1950s -- but I left it intact out of respect for the previous writers. I was under the naive assumption that that was always the way things are done around here.--Herschelkrustofsky 15:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, respect for others doesn't seem to be part of the wiki-experience ;) Sam [Spade] 15:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "[[Straw_man#Rhetorical_use|Straw Man]]" technique 

message: I'm sick of these constant ad hominem attacks. The old version of the page is impossible to work with in large part because it's the product of so many cooks - it's an incoherent mess, and since Adam has been kind enough to start the whole process over again by writing a new article, I think we should take the opportunity to have a cleaner article. As I've repeatedly said, I'd be happy for Herschel to go over the article and help us come to a consensus that everybody can agree to. What I strongly do not want is for us to not base our work from a version of the article with statements such as 
*To his admirers, who are more visible outside the U.S., he is the last remaining American statesman in the anti-colonial tradition of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and particularly in Russia (where LaRouche has often addressed the Duma and the Russian Academy of Sciences in the past decade), he is celebrated as one of the greatest scientific minds that the U.S. has produced. 
 
*This claim [that the US tried to frame LaRouche for the murder of Olof Palme] was corroborated on Swedish national radio in August of 1992, by a leading former East German Stasi officer, Dr. Herbert Brehmer. 
::You strongly do not want them, but that doesn't make them untrue. I can provide quotes, if you like, from leading members of the Russian Academy of Sciences (should I expect you to denounce that institution now?). And I cited the month, year and channel of the broadcast where Brehmer spoke -- you want the transcript in Swedish? On the other hand, you would be pleased as punch if someone were to post the article which Brehmer planted in the Danish press, which started the whole hoopla about LaRouche being a suspect in the Palme assassination (the story was a lead item on NBC news within 24 hours). I think that you should just fess up, John, that you are entirely indifferent to the truth here -- you are just maniacally committed, for reasons known only to yourself, to seeing a slander of LaRouche posted on Wikipedia. I find it ironic that you entitled this section "Ad Hominem," because Adam's article is just one prolonged ad hominem attack, lifted from a professional character assassin.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am deeply unconvinced that articles written by a single editor are necessarilly superior in quality to those produced by many editors. You would seem to be philosophically opposed to the group editing process? Sam [Spade] 15:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: LaRouche maintains that the U.S. has abandoned its historic mission, and become increasingly like the British Empire against which it originally rebelled, because of an organized subversion, involving particularly Wall Street-based financial circles of what he has characterized as a "synarchist" political movement of the oligarchy. He also asserts that this faction has taken rather extraordinary measures to eliminate him and his political movement from the scene: a typical claim is that the government of East Germany-- with the complicity of U.S. government and private organizations! -- attempted to frame him for the murder of Swedish prime minister Olof Palme. This claim was corroborated on Swedish national radio in August of 1992, by a leading former East German Stasi officer, Dr. Herbert Brehmer.
Beyond the fact that the beginning part assumes the existence of "the oligarchy", not the bizarre shift in tone from the second to the third sentence.  The first part is basically saying LaRouche is crazy -- to the extent of including an interjection ended by an exclamation point! The next sentence says that this claim, which was brutally mocked as recently as the sentence before, was corroborated - that is, that it is credible.  And this kind of schizophrenia is to be found throughout the old article.  So this is not based on any kind of opposition to the collective editing process as a whole.  And I'm certainly not saying that articles should be written by a single person.  I am saying that occasionally, articles on certain topics (particularly ones where people have strong opinions) get so garbled that it is better to recommence from the beginning than it is to try to work with the mess that is present. john k 16:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: ah, ok. Sam [Spade] 21:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ad hominem

message: I see that my archive has been undone. Is this beneficial to anyone, or would someone mind re-archiving it for me? I suspect if I did it again it would be similarly reverted. Sam [Spade] 21:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should it be archived?  It's discussion from yesterday, and the page isn't especially long. john k 21:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: If one checks this article and looks at the sidebar on the right there are a series of Washington Post articles we can use as source material. AndyL 03:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In the NBC libel case, which was a very interesting case, the court found that NBC was not responsible for assessing the truth or falsehood of the material they broadcast, that it were sufficient to rely upon sources that need not be disclosed. This set a precedent, certainly in the case of LaRouche, that pursuing a libel case for a political figure in the U.S. is an uphill fight. Ironically, I recall that Henry Kissinger subsequently filed a libel in Britain rather than in the U.S., because Britain was regarded as a more favorable environment to pursue such a case. Needless to say, LaRouche abandoned libel suits as a counter-tactic, and the press, including emphatically the Post, was not constrained by the threat of libel suits. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Again, John, you put words in my mouth. LaRouche's contact with mainstream figures doesn't "validate" him; it does, however, call into question the repeated assertion that his ideas have had no political impact, and it raises questions about the repeated assertion that he is universally despised in the world of politics. My main point is that these contacts should be reported in the article, so that the reader may draw his own conclusions.--Herschelkrustofsky 13:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Either way I think we need to have a mention of them in the article. His friendships w world leaders doesn't get nearly enough attention in the current article. Sam [Spade] 04:49, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Post as source 

message: There was an editorial in the Post, in 1971, that I am trying to find to add to this discussion. As I recall, the gist of it was that there should be an agreement among all the American press, never to discuss LaRouche's ideas, because his ideas were dangerous. Discussion of LaRouche ought to be limited to attacks on him which avoid discussion of his ideas. The Post has stuck to this policy ever since. I'll let you know if I can dredge up a hard copy. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:09, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the year wrong. Here we go: On September 24, 1976, Stephen Rosenfeld wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post titled "NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace," in which he set out a media policy for dealing with LaRouche: "We of the press should be chary of offering them print or air time. There is no reason to be too delicate about it: Every day we decide whose voices to relay. A duplicitous violence prone group with fascistic proclivities should not be presented to the public unless there is reason to present it in those terms."--Herschelkrustofsky 20:02, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: September 24, 1976, Stephen Rosenfeld writes an op-ed in the Washington Post titled "NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace," in which he sets out a media policy for dealing with LaRouche: "We of the press should be chary of offering them print or air time. There is no reason to be too delicate about it: Every day we decide whose voices to relay. A duplicitous violence prone group with fascistic proclivities should not be presented to the public unless there is reason to present it in those terms. . . . The government should be encouraged to take all legal steps to keep the NCLC from violating the political rights of other Americans."
This was written when LaRouche was running for President in 1976 and seems to be part of a debate on giving fringe parties any coverage, particularly wacky violent fringe parties Perhaps we can pull up the full article in order to get the context but in any case I don't see how this is relevent to articles written about LaRouche a decade later or how it changes the fact that the articles passed muster with Post fact checkers and lawyers and were not challenged by LaRouche in a libel suit. AndyL 06:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: If you make the argument that we must accept the word of any publication that has not been successfully sued for libel, then you must extend that courtesy to all of the LaRouche-affiliated publications as well. They have never been sued for libel, despite the fact that their meager financial resources, and LaRouche's pariah status, would make them especially vulnerable to such suits. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:59, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: That is not my position. Use them to your heart's content, but recognize that they, too, have a POV -- The Post was gung-ho for the recent invasion of Iraq, which LaRouche vociferously opposed, and led the drive to shut down D.C. General Hospital, which LaRouche vociferously defended.--Herschelkrustofsky 22:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Note that as per Andy's suggestion, I have submitted a new article at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/draft, and everyone can now commence opining about that one. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I've moved your article over to Lyndon LaRouche/draft, so that we can discuss the draft on the talk page for it, rather than here, which is more awkward. john k 05:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: (This guy makes Nixon look like a Quaker.)
Oddly enough Nixon and Larouche were both  Quakers (or at least raised as Quakers) ;) AndyL 05:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington Post series on  LaRouche