Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 12

message: "he counts members of state legislatures among his followers" Can we have some names to substantiate this claim? Adam 05:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can get any sources for it that meet the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources then those facts might go into the article. JoshuaZ 03:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Followers

message: I changed one of the section titles because there is nothing about 1947. What happened in that year? 194.200.237.219 12:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing for 1947 

message: Hi, I cut this line from the header section - it didn't fit very well. If it is to be added to an article I think it should be in the LaRouche Movement or LaRouche Youth Movement articles, but can some substantiation be added first?
*In the city of Boston, many BU students have been accosted by LaRouche supporters who go dorm-to-dorm.
Thanks, Dilaudid 16:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged followers actions at Boston University 

message: I'm going to add a dispute tag back to this article, and sub-articles, because I think it's very dishonest to pretend that there isn't a dispute about what's presented here, and really about most any information available concerning LaRouche beyond some basic place-and-date facts.
Most LaRouche information seems to come from his supporters, because for whatever reason LaRouche is not a major part of the American political consciousness, and so has not been the subject of scrutiny that both supporters and detractors can agree is objective. His supporters will argue that he once had some greater degree of clout, but that he has been marginalized by a "conspiracy" against him, and his detractors will argue that this is exaggerated, and that his "cult" was merely "exposed." Surely, if nothing else, everyone can see the kind of polarizing language used on both sides, and how this might indicate why so little can be agreed upon. I challenge anyone to point me to a disinterested judgement about this man. I'm pretty sure there is none. We have only zealotry and its traditional response, skepticism. Usually a good standard for attaining a disinterested judgement is a criminal trial, where, despite ubiquitous media depictions to the contrary, the prosecution's burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not something to be scoffed at, but I see that in this case even multiple criminal and civil trials were unsatisfactory, and, if the scope of the supposed conspiracy is to be believed, perhaps rightly so.
Example of bias:
"LaRouche was widely judged to have won the debate decisively." (Lyndon_LaRouche#1971.E2.80.931979)
By whom, exactly? And where does the quote that follows come from? I doubt it's fair to say that it was "widely" judged at all; the only person who has edited the article about this debate is User:Cognition, who on his user page calls LaRouche "the modern-day Socrates" and who has uploaded an image  to Wikipedia that apparently attempts to associate LaRouche with the civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
In the article about the criminal trials, there appears the sentence "Judge Bryan also granted a motion in limine, which barred the defense from presenting the material they had presented in the Boston trial", as though it was a bit of arbitrary meanness on the part of the judge. Judges have to provide reasons for things like this, and anyway the prosecution certainly had a reason for filing the motion, but not any of this explanation is given by whoever wrote the article, people who apparently have an intimate knowledge of the trial's proceedings.
The tone of these articles goes on and on like this, to the point of reading like propaganda with some sentences of thrown-in rebuttal. I don't see how this can ever be resolved, because a common set of facts does not appear forthcoming. Furthermore, I think that more than just a neutrality tag is appropriate in this case. I think that perhaps the article should be prefaced with the caveat that explains the nature of the controversy surrounding the various claims made on both sides about most of the information on LaRouche. Or perhaps even each section could be subdivided to allow LaRouche supporters to give their version of events, and then separately the "mainstream" (that is, government-and-mass-media-endorsed) interpretation.  --Aratuk 06:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the article is POV - both sides seem represented, it is not critical of LaRouche but it explains what criticisms have been made of him. The article is too long though, so any unsubstantiated claims should be cut. Looks like the debate has already been questioned in Archive4 and seems a prime candidate for removal - but for some reason it's still in the article. For further talk see: Talk:Lerner-LaRouche_debate. Can anyone substantiate the claim that Sydney Hook acknowledged that Lyndon had won the debate? Does it even matter if he did - it is completely unrelated to the rest of the article, and it's importance seems to be based on what LaRouche interpreted it to mean (???) Dilaudid 00:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: I'll get back to my above more general complaint soon, but I had to change the caption for this FBI letter because, having read the letter, the old caption was ludicrous. The implication that the FBI called for the "elimination" (in the cartoonish mobster sense) of LaRouche in that letter is unfounded. Someone within the FBI was noting that the Communist Party USA was doing a background check on LaRouche, wanting to "eliminate" him, with no reason to believe that the word "eliminate" was meant in any other than the usual political sense, i.e. "marginalize" or "make a pariah of." And it is notable that the FBI wished to provide information to the Communist Party to aid it in this purpose (keeping in mind that this was during the cold war), but it's untrue to state that the FBI "called for" very much, in the way of action. Aratuk 17:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FBI letter

message: I agree with Dilaudid that this is article is vastly longer than the intrinsic importance of its subject merits, particularly when we remember that there is a whole other article on the Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche is a fringe crank who is of no real significance in US politics or anything else. Yet he has two long articles. Compare them with the much shorter articles on, for example, David Duke, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and Pat Buchanan, also fringe politicians, but much more important than LaRouche. The reason this has happened is the long edit war between two or three LaRouchite editors (Herschel Krustofsky, Weed Harper and more recently Cognition - who may well all be the same person for all I know), and various anti-LaRouche editors including me, Chip Berlet and others. Each round of edit warring has led to more and more argument, assertion, counter argument and counter assertion being dragged into the article/s. Perhaps the time has now come to (a) re-amalgamate this article with Political views of Lyndon LaRouche and (b) cut it to about a third of its present length. I am willing to undertake this, on condition that I am protected from LaRouchite attacks and that the article is not allowed thereafter to bloat out again. Other opinions are welcome. Adam 06:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that trimming the article extensively would be the best approach. I've not done a thorough read through of this one (been at "Political Views..." for a while) but it seems absurdly long. I'll help however I can.--Sean|Black 06:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I would tend to agree that yes, the biographical article is far longer than the subject warrants; on the other hand, the separate Political views of Lyndon LaRouche article (which could use some trimming, I suppose) serves the purpose of answering the question, "Who the hell are these people passing out the pamphlets and magazines on the campus quad?" I certainly could have used the immediate info when *I* had that question back in college. I am loath to see that info buried in a potted biography. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "political views.." is fine (mostly) the way it is, but that this article contains some duplicate and unnecessary content. There's just far too much stuff here.--Sean|Black 06:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As the editor who composed most of this particular version, I should be offended by that remark. However I agree entirely. It should be cut down to the bare biographical details, with politics, etc, moved to other articles. We should aim to have a great article. Thanks to those with sharp red pencils.  Cheers, -Willmcw 22:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we have a source for this, please? "[He] has been labelled an "unrepentant Marxist-Leninist" by U.S. intelligence officials and both far-right and far-left by the American media ..." I've removed it in the meantime. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article documents the charges that he falsely claimed to have converted from Marxism, made by high-ranking U.S. intelligence officials, and, along with many other articles, also calls him "far-right." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/main.htm I recall seeing an article, I believe it may have been from CBS, made during last year's election campaign, which described both the LaRouche movement and the Socialist Workers Party as "far-left," and documented their clash over the Nader campaign (LaRouche opposing it in support of Kerry and the SWP giving support to it). I will try to find the URL before adding that information back. KING KONG BUNDY 08:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, KKB. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with this article

message: In the discussion at User talk:Adam Carr/Documents2, the banned LaRouchist Herschel Krustofsky raises the issue of NPOV at this article. I agree there is a problem here. Virtually everyone outside the LaRouche cult, including Berlet and King, the only writers to have published widely on LaRouche, agrees that LaRouche is a crank and that his theories are nonsense. The article naturally reflects that view. How then are the objections of the LaRouchists to be dealt with so as to avoid another long edit war? I don't think NPOV requires that half the article be given over to LaRouchists, any more that it requires that half the Hitler article be written by Nazis. Nor am I in favour of the article including slabs of LaRouche's own rants. Opinions? Adam 00:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That LaRouche disagrees with the characterization that he is a crank seems to me a given. LaRouche's protracted smear campaigns against Berlet and King are well documented, and render most of his counterclaims against Berlet and King so suspect as to be unprintable without massive qualification. The result being that I think the article is pretty well NPOV. Phil Sandifer 02:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV at this article

message: I have looked over a number of the LaRouche articles on Wikipedia. It seems that there are more of them than necessary. It also seems that they are dominated by a small number of editors, who have something of a jihad against LaRouche. These editors seem to have done a bit of bullying toward newcomers. I think that those of you who belong to this group should have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and allow these articles to become a bit more neutral. LaRouche is controversial and a bit of a weirdo -- just quote him, let his words speak for themselves, don't feel that you have to strengthen your case by a lot of theorizing and speculation about what he really means. --BirdsOfFire 20:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nonsense. Please go and read some of the extensive disputes (listed in the box on this page) that have resulted in the text of the current pages related to LaRouche. You have some obligation to do some howmwork on this matter.--Cberlet 20:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Spamming the identical message to multiple talk pages is not good form. -Willmcw 23:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IMHO

message: Applying WP:BOLD I edited the intro. I don't like the first title "Fame" So what should the sub intro stuff be? A good intro should be two or three sentences not paragraphs. :-) Dominick (TALK) 22:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was shocked to see that kind of criticism in the lead introduction. I changed it to something NPoV, lets at least say what the person did, or why they are notable, before we start complaining about what they did. I mean the Hitler article has a less PoV lead than the one that was offered! Dominick (TALK) 00:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Dominick. It is not normal for there to be criticism in the intro of a Wikipedia biography article. However, if other editors insist on putting the criticism back in, it should definately not be anonymous criticism, so I am going back to the earlier version where critics are properly identified. The LaRouche case is complicated -- his left-wing critics call him right-wing, and his right-wing critics call him left-wing. We should not oversimplify, especially by implying that everyone agrees with Chip Berlet. --NathanDW 01:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether one calls him left or right wing, the vast majority of people who have actually heard of him do call him a complete nutter - thus some version of that fact ought appear in the lead. Phil Sandifer 01:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is normal and appropriate to include mention of criticism of a subject in the introduction without mentioning the specific critic. It should not go into the first paragraph of the intro, though. The whole intro was significantly re-worked recently, and perhaps it should be reverted. -Will Beback 01:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have reverted the text to this version  from 1/14, before user:Dominick relabelled most of the intro "Fame", which was later deleted. That earlier version had a consensus for a long time, and I don't think there was a consensus for change. -Will Beback 01:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Lyndon LaRouche is more known as a nutjob than as anything else. He should be identified for his most notable accomplishment, which is being crazy. Phil Sandifer 02:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may well be true, but it would be hard to verify. -Will Beback 02:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True - my bad. His most notable accomplishment is being considered crazy by almost everyone who has ever heard of him. Phil Sandifer 02:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Back to why the intro was changed, I was trying to shorten the lead. I felt a lead should be more than defining a guy as a nutjob. Maybe I swung back a little hard. Regardless, in reading it, every other line was how wrong he was, rather than who he is. I mean, everyone has done something sane once in thier life. A lead of three or four statements should at least say why he is notable, that he is reviled, and that he has some sort of occupation. Being a nut doesn't pay.  After that in the next section, we can refer to anything else that is published on him that describes him. Dominick (TALK) 02:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that an introduction should only be three sentences. However the first paragraph should be sympathetic, and the 2nd graf can introdcue the criticisms. As for his occupation, nobody is sure what he does for work, but he has the title of editor-in-chief of the EIR. Perhaps that should be moved up.  I don't think all the citations should be in the intro, but there are there because some editors demanded them. -Will Beback 03:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not bury the criticsm, however. The details of his election history are less important.--Cberlet 03:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I just read this article completely and I must say that there is some room for improvement. I hardly knew anything about LaRouche (other than he was a fringe Pres candidate). Some comments:
*The intro was a little agressive in attacking - continued edits there a good thing
*Too much trivia included in the article
*Too much verifiability by using articles from LaRouchepub.com 
*I still, after reading the article, don't understand why some would follow him - what is the hook?
*All the joining, abandoning, creating, joining, working with is not easy to follow given the current presentation - not sure this can be fixed given its complexity
Just some quick thoughts. Trödel•talk 05:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Outstanding, the dielectic of wikipedia! Dominick (TALK) 12:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of trivia, there is a lot of opinion from Tim Wohlforth. He may have known LaRouche, but is there anything that makes him notable as an expert opinion? --NathanDW 01:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. And attempts to sanitize this page are not in the spirit of good faith and NPOV.--Cberlet 02:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Issues 

message: One of the key problems with this article, and particularly the introduction, is that there is no NPOV way of describing LaRouche's views. A "normal" article might begin: "Mary Smith (born 1 January 1950) is an American political activist who believes the world is flat and argues that people should live in igloos and worship a giant turtle. Her followers believe she is the Messiah, while her critics describe her as a deluded and dangerous cultist." Or something like that. I challenge anyone to come up with a one or two-sentence characterisation of LaRouche's opinions which both Chip Berlet and a LaRouchist editor would find acceptably "NPOV". His "policies" are so bizarre and his "views" so incoherent and contradictory (in my opinion quite deliberately so, since I think LaRouche is above all a narcissist and attention-seeker), that it is an impossible task. Adam 03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For all true Wikipedians, the NPOV is a sacrament. (Ooops... It that verifiable?). However, the ambition to come up with a one or two-sentence characterisation of LaRouche's opinions which both Chip Berlet and a LaRouchist editor would find acceptably "NPOV" is probably not so easy to fulfil. For instance, what do the Larouchians say today about their shift from leftism to rightism? In Sweden - where this is written - their leftist 70s it is rubbed out from their minds, thereby being a non-event. So, if one strived for the writings acceptable to both parties, that is the least common divisor, one would probably end up with only saying that LLR was born in 1922. Everything else is disputable. Philosophical implication: As soon as a person considers a text not to be NPOV, is it thereby true that the text really isn't NPOV? Can the term NPOV be given a proper definition? Astor Piazzolla 09:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with intro para

message: Yeah, uh, can someone tell me whether or not Larouche is a looney or not? I need a truthful response. I mean, I first heard about him about two years ago in a philosophy class (I am a philosophy major) from a professor I greatly respect. Some of the philosophy was work by Larouche, and we read about one half of "So, You Wish To Learn About Economics." I was greatly impressed with what I read, finally getting some substantive economic theory unlike those wacko economists (see: Milton Friedman and Malthus). I began researching him a great deal, and I read about half of the 1988 edition of The Power of Reason. But then I started reading some of his cultural theories, espcially "The Real History of Satanism" and I just think its (pardon my French) fucking ridiculous. He weaves ludicrous conspiracy theories out of thin air. There were a couple iotas of truth in that work but the rest was fundamentally insane. But then I saw a web-cast of his in which he recgnized the gigantic influence of the United States on other countries during the 19th Century; saw the United States as an ideal form for how other countries could be run, in effect, many other nations attempted to model their political system upon ours. 
I sincerely do not think Larouche is a fascist in the sense that he is completely against negative social reproduction (if you have never been introduced to the concept of social reproduction, you owe your mind some time to get acquainted with it), in fact supporting a rigorous system of positive social reproduction in re-tooling the entire financial system to square with the system of physical economy. I'm just looking for some very well-informed hypotheses as to whether or not Larouche is a looney, because the whole thing has got me quite confused. Feel free to post any comments on my user page. Matthew 10:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LaRouche wrote some interesting material many years ago, but then shifted into a mode of conspiracy thinking and whacko theories. He still has moments where he makes a good point, but those are drowned in a sea of conspiracist nutiness. As for being a fascist, it depends on the definition one uses. Fascists are revolutionaries when in the stage of being a movement seeking state power. Thus they claim to want to challenge the system of social reproduction that benefits the ruling elite. Once in power (or as part of a deal to gain power) they forge an alliance with a sector of the ruling elites.--Cberlet 16:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looney? 

message: SlimVirgin, unless you can demonstrate that there is general agreement that LaRouche is a cult leader, then you putting him in that Wikipedia category is just you, trying to smear him. --BirdsOfFire 16:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reputable sources have called the LaRouche movement a cult e.g. Scotland Yard wrote a report calling the movement a "political cult with sinister and dangerous connections."  SlimVirgin (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that does not mean this is universally accepted. It can be noted in the article, but putting him in that category is POV. That has not historically been in the article, it is recent. If you and El C insist on putting it there, I will put up the NPOV tag. --BirdsOfFire 16:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Things don't have to be "universally accepted" before being added to a category. If that were the case, nothing could go in any category because there's always someone who might object. The cult status of the LaRouche movement is accepted by reputable media sources in the UK and U.S. (and so far as I know, in Australia too), and is accepted by the police in the UK. That is good enough for Wikipedia. If you add the NPOV tag, it will be reverted, because the tag may only be used in relation to changes actionable within our policies, whereas the addition of this category is completely consistent with our policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cult leader category applies because LaRouche is the acknowledged leader of what is widely regarded as a cult. -Will Beback 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By who? That is a personal attack not productive talk. --IAMthatIAM 16:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: categories

message: To whoever removed my new introduction- Your actions were egregious to the point of being on par with the holocaust, how could you make such an ill-informed and hurtful edit.  Allow me to expose your foolishness by showing our fellow readers just one of many obvious truths that you deleted- 
"He is without a doubt the greatest American in the history of the nation's existence, and probably the greatest sentient being to emerge from this universe." 
As anyone can plainly see this is not only common knowledge and therefore does not need a source, but is also quite essential that it be included in the introduction just in case some poor ignoranamous does not already know this (I hope god is as understanding as I am when this poor soul faces judgement). 
I also see that you committed this awful and hateful edit behind the presumed anonymity of a nameless and androgynous IP address, unfortunetly for you your disguise will not fool Jesus.  If you show humilty and apoligize for your slight upon Jesus's only son and the last Zion Lyndon Larouge then you might be able to look forward to purgatory instead of eternity in Hell.-  Larougite 07:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg has edited the previous zany comment by User:Larougite. Are they the same person? This looks like a fake comment, put in as a parody of a pro-LaRouche POV. It looks like this person or persons has also editied the article with anti-Jewish comments. I smell a rat-- some kind of sockpuppet abuse, designed to make it look like Larouche backers are antisemites. --BirdsOfFire 16:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion of Justified additions 

message: I have reverted to a more accurate and less POV version. The flaws in the previous version are many, including using Political Research Associates which does not meet the Alexa test. --IAMthatIAM 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More accurate version

message: Someone inserted {fact} in the article about the anti-gay rights claim.  The cite is here, taken from the Political views of Lyndon LaRouche article: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "The End of the Age of Aquarius?" EIR (Executive Intelligence Review), January 10, 1986, p. 40.  I'm not sure how to insert it appropriately, so hopefully someone can do that.  Thanks.  Deleuze 11:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried to insert this and another cite. Looks OK, but does anyone know why there are so many different citation formats? These new reference formats are mind boggling.--Cberlet 12:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Homophobia cite

message: I am putting the neutrality notice back, it seems fair to me. It is the same format as on the Chip Berlet article. I think that Berlet should be entitled to complain that there is too much stuff from David Horowitz on his page, and by the same token, LaRouche should be entitled to complain about too much stuff from Berlet and Dennis King. --NathanDW 15:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  There's only about three or four sentences about Berlet in the main body of the article.  Half of them aren't criticism, just explaining events that took place between the two.  Deleuze 16:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, to my knowledge, LaRouche isn't editing Wikipedia. And even if he were, the fact of his complaint would not be what made the complaint valid, the evidence he presented to back it up would be. So far, I've not seen that evidence. Phil Sandifer 16:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the tag's inappropriate. I've removed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The notice is fair

message: Howard, you need to supply reliable sources for the edits you're making; and the edit about what gays may or may not have thought isn't allowed, because it's not about LaRouche. It might help you to read our content policies before editing any further: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Does anyone know why the images that are supposed to appear in this article do not appear? --ManEatingDonut 14:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: This page increasingly is being edited to remove cited material and include dubious assertions that serve to sanitize the published material critical of LaRouche.  This page needs to be NPOV, not a blog for people who are upset by published criticism of LaRouche.--Cberlet 03:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, it is customary to be specific when making a POV complaint, citing both the offending edits and the relevant Wikipedia policy. --ManEatingDonut 07:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost everything in the "1994–present" section consists of fawning plugs for LaRouche and his groups. Most of it should simply be deleted. It reads like a badly written flyer for LaRouche rather than an encyclopedia entry.  I have moved similar fawning material away from the intro and into a lower section.--Cberlet 13:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." In principle, I agree that the intro should be substantially pared down to a simple generic statement, acknowledging that LaRouche is controversial and has admirers and detractors. However, it is not acceptable to me to remove Eugene McCarthy, Ramsay Clark and the China Peoples Daily, while leaving the name-calling by Chip Berlet and his friends. In the real world, Berlet and his friends are considerably less notable than McCarthy, Clark and the People's Daily. I think a minimal intro would be best. Meanwhile, Cberlet, be mindful of WP:OWN. --NathanDW 15:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually think that the most recent version of the intro, by Gazpacho, is good. It manages to present a balanced selection of viewpoints in a fairly neutral way. Everyone knows that LaRouche is surrounded by controversy, so might as well get the key viewpoints out right away. --ManEatingDonut 21:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost everything in the section "1994–present" is puffery. It deserves about two or three paragraphs.  If it is not summarized, I will be happy to trim it. The alternative is opening up the arbcom decision about LaRouche supporters piling up laudatory material onto Wikipedia.--Cberlet 17:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You are the wrong person for the job. Your bias is probably the most extreme of anyone who edits this article, as demonstrated by the insulting language you use to describe other people's edits. Note that this is designated a "controversial topic, which may be under dispute." I recommend that you prepare a list of proposed changes and submit them for discussion. Also, I think it would be more appropriate to trim the earlier sections: 1922–1947 Early life, and 1948–1968 LaRouche and Trotskyism, because I think that the average encyclopedia user would find the more contemporary information more useful. It is clear to me that LaRouche has greater influence and notability today than he did between 1922 and 1968, so I would be interested in knowing why you want to reduce the information from 1994-present, which seems adequately documented and notable. I am not saying that it could not be improved. --ManEatingDonut 03:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: trimming. As a biography this article should include well-rounded coverage of all notable aspects of its subject's life. As it happens this appears to be the most complete biography available online, so I hope that we are not over-zealous about trimming. -Will Beback 10:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV edits

message: If you take a look at the material that Will Beback put back in, none of the cited sources actually mention LaRouche, except this one:  which is a personal website, and includes a photoshopped photo of LaRouche posing with Hitler. This is not a source that belongs in Wikipedia. --ManEatingDonut 21:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source references a Quaker history project run out of Brown University. I don't see anythig inappropriate about it. -Will Beback 21:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A) Do we have a copy of the "unaltered" version, or are we jumping to a conclusion that it has been altered? B) Even if a photo has been altered to draw a comparison, that image does not invalidate unrelated findings from the Quaker archives. C) There is no reason to think that the researcher is trying to "fool" the reader. D) This link also mentions LaRouche . E) The NEYM no longer carries its former archive. We can drop the mention of it, which seems ancilliary anyway. -Will Beback 09:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: The image in question doesn't appear much different from the cover of Children of Satan IV, as depicted on this page. -Will Beback 17:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would venture to guess that if Children of Satan IV were used as a source for edits on the Dick Cheney biography, you might raise some objections. This falls under WP:RS (and WP:LIVING). --ManEatingDonut 14:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has already decided that LaRouche publications were not reliable sources but I'm surprised to hear you say so as well. In any case, there's nothing wrong with the source. Including an image does not invalidate a source. -Will Beback 21:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you miss my point, perhaps you don't. A publication that shows that degree of hostility toward its subject is probably not a suitable source under WP:LIVING. This goes for both examples. --ManEatingDonut 21:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more a matter of humor than hostility. -Will Beback 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Quaker material

message: This case has been raised for mediation and I've responded. --GoodIntentionstalk 05:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The categories of :category:Cults, :category:Alleged cults, :category:Cult leaders, and :category:Leaders of alleged cults all exist. If they exist they should be applied to the relevant articles. The LaRouche Movement is widely described by reliable sources as a "cult" or "political cult". We have not seen any sources which contradict that view. Lyndon LaRouche is the undisputed leader of the movement. Therefore it seems reasonable to categorize the article subject as either a "leader of an alleged cult" or "leader of a political cult". If others feel that the categories are POV then they are POV for all articles and should be deleted. However the categories have survived previous CfDs. But we should not use the categories only for movements that don't have Wikipedia editors. -Will Beback 05:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I have seen, the "cult" accusations come from parties that are hostile to LaRouche's political agenda. Those sources that are not hostile don't address it. They cover LaRouche's ideas and activity without adding "by the way, his organization is not a cult." I think that the editors who are so insistent on using the category should ask themselves whether they are doing it solely in the interests of providing a neutral, objective encyclopedia article. --ManEatingDonut 15:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a difficult issue: I gave a response on the mediation case page. --GoodIntentionstalk 01:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This is absurd. Gay rights organization consider LaRouche to be a vicious homophobe. This is just wasting out time here.--Cberlet 20:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: I received this message on my talk page from User:SlimVirgin:
:"Regarding this edit, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors who repeatedly try to use LaRouche publications inappropriately (which means to use them as a source on anything other than the LaRouche organization) may be blocked from editing, as they are not regarded as reliable sources. This is particularly important when dealing with claims about living persons. See WP:BLP, which is policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not allowed to use LaRouche publications for anything other than LaRouche. Yes, you're in danger of being blocked if you add it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is this external link being used for something "other than LaRouche?" --NathanDW 20:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think SlimVirgin has it wrong. It is permissible to use LaRouche publications as sources for LaRouche and LaRouche related topics. However, this article is not a source for anything about LaRouche, but rather is a smear on one of his critics. It no more belongs here than the LaRouche publications attacks on Cheney, et al. This article is about LaRouche, not Berlet. -Will Beback 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy Question

message: The best source for the debate disruption appears to be a local paper that charges for its archives. This is still up, though it requires free registration. 
*The debate was ..ultimately delayed, twice, by the singing supporters of a guy who's not even in the race - the perennial presidential also-ran Lyndon LaRouche. Lieberman, a three-term Democrat who is running as an independent after losing this summer's primary to Lamont, was already being booed by some in the crowd as he answered a question about distorting campaign charges, alleging that Lamont had twisted his record. The senator raised a finger to his lips to quiet the crowd, when a small clutch of people - who later said they were supporters of LaRouche - stood and began to sing to the senator, over the increasingly angry complaints of the rest of the crowd. All three candidates, who had been largely exchanging familiar jabs at each others' campaign stances up to that point, seemed stunned. Lamont, seemingly bewildered, called out to the group to stop, while the debate's moderator - George Stephanopoulos of ABC News - announced that the singing was only detracting from the time allotted the candidates. There was also a second disruption from the group, who passed out LaRouche campaign literature and performed their song (one audible phrases identified Vice President Dick Cheney as a “fat-ass Nazi”) for passersby. 
The Lamont campaign blog is not as good a source. -Will Beback 04:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connecticut debate 

message: I made a small change on this section, because it strikes me as somewhat unbalanced. Clearly, General Paul-Albert Scherer thinks LaRouche played a role in SDI, and General Daniel Graham thinks he did not. It appears to me that they held pretty much identical posts in their respective countries, and therefore, their opinions would carry equal weight. However, the moment someone says something about LaRouche that is not an accusation of wrong-doing, Chip Berlet classifies him as a "LaRouche supporter," and therefore his views are discounted. I don't think that this is appropriate for an encyclopedia. You could just as well discount Gen. Graham's views, because he claims credit for SDI himself. I say, report the facts, and let the reader draw his own conclusions. --ManEatingDonut 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did Scherer say this? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the article, taken from here:. -Will Beback 22:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A LaRouche publication, which does indeed mean there is no independent verification. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It says "Press Conference at the National Press Club, Washington, DC., May 6, 1992." Perhaps the LaRouche people are lying, and no such press conference took place, in which case I imagine there might be lawsuits. Or if the press conference did take place, and no press other than LaRouche press covered it, what does that say about the American press? The former chief of West German military intelligence making some very controversial statements about US policy, and no coverage? At any rate, I suggest that Scherer is professionally qualified to have an opinion on the topic, so unless you are arguing that he never made the statement attributed to him, it does represent "independent verification" of LaRouche's claims, regardless of where it was published. The formulation that SlimVirgin put back in does in fact imply that no one outside of LaRouche's movement believes he played a role in SDI, and it appears to me that this is simply not true. --ManEatingDonut 07:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the section is that writing a biography about LaRouche is difficult due to sharply different accounts of events. It's a note that might well be added to many articles. However I've never seen another like it, even among other figures about whom there are equal or greater disputes. There must be a more concise way of saying that "differences exist". We already have a sentense in the intro that describes the difering views of the subject. Perhaps the point should be made throughout the article. -Will Beback 08:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: True. I guess the reason these LaRouche articles bug me so much is that on Wikipedia, LaRouche is more controversial than other controversial people. Another observation I would make about this section is that it says that LaRouche claims to have come up with these ideas, and that is disputed. When LaRouche comes up with an idea, he puts out a pamphlet, and there is a paper trail. You can debate whether anyone listens to the idea, but it is odd to debate whether he had the idea. The one exception is the claim that he was used as a back-channel, which would for obvious reasons be hard to verify because it is more or less covert. However, this generally unfriendly Washington Post article  would seem to lend some credence to the claim. --ManEatingDonut 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lyndon_LaRouche#Note_on_biography]] 

message: I've tried to do a copy edit, but it's not easy. There's a lot of unsourced material, and where there are sources, often no page numbers and no context offered to explain the material. In places, it just seems like a list of things LaRouche has said or done, with no connecting narrative. There's also too much detail. Not sure what to do about it though.
I've removed the ref tags from simple URLs without citations, as there's no point in making the reader go to the bottom of the page only to find a URL. We'll have to get round to writing out the full citations at some point, which will be a long and tedious job. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy edit