Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 20

Reverts

Leatherstocking, this article needs to be fixed, so please stop reverting. What is your objection to the edits to the lead, bearing in mind that we have to stick to policy; see WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already made the same request to you, to stop edit warring. I edit for only brief periods of the day, whereas you seem to edit non-stop, so it seems unreasonable for you to ask me to get out of the way and let you do all the editing. We may both agree that the article needs to be fixed, but neither party ought to be dictating their preferred version to the other. With respect to the lead, Antony Lerman is not sufficiently notable that his opinion should dominate the lead. His book has no noteworthy research; the section on LaRouche merely summarizes Dennis King. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you restore this? (a) It is sourced only to LaRouche, and we are removing material sourced only to LaRouche with no mention elsewhere; and (b) because it claims to be about 1994, but the source is from 2002. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not sourced to LaRouche, only translated by LaRouche. It's a transcript of the minutes of the relevant city council meeting. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

But it said the meeting took place in 2002, not 1994. And it's anyway of no importance.

Let me ask you this: do you accept that the NPOV policy, particularly UNDUE, means we can't treat LaRouche sources as being on a par with mainstream sources, and that this article must reflect what mainstream sources say, not what LaRouche says? Do you accept that? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unclear paragraphs

I've made this invisible, because it's not clear:

He remained in the SWP until his expulsion in 1965. He maintains that he was soon disillusioned with Marxism, dropped out of the SWP in the mid-1950s, and resumed his activism only at the prompting of the FBI. In an interview on the Pacifica Radio network, LaRouche said he returned to the SWP because he believed that only the Left was likely to combat what he called the "utopian" danger coming from the Right, typified by the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam War. His ex-wife and other SWP members from that time dispute this. During these years, LaRouche developed an interest in economics, cybernetics, psychoanalysis, business management, and other subjects.

1. When did he resume?
2. What is the FBI connection?
3. His ex-wife disputes what?
4. Why was he expelled?

And I removed this for now, because we don't say anything else about it:

In 1981, Berlet, King, and a Detroit journalist, Russ Bellant, released a set of documents that they said revealed a pattern of potentially illegal activity by LaRouche and his followers, and called for the government to investigate.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable editing

This is a violation of the ArbCom cases. Leatherstocking removes LaRouche's commercial interests as listed by the New York Times; reduces the detail about the training camps his members were sent to; and adds that the story, what he calls "the Times operation" was part of a worldwide defamation campaign etc etc.

Leatherstocking, please do not add any more material from LaRouche. It is a policy violation, because unduly self-serving, not to mention absurd. Please read the policies I outlined above. And do not remove any more material that is sourced to mainstream sources.

If you would just allow this article to be worked on, you might find you will like the overall result, because I've been removing poor sources that are critical of LaRouche too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1. There is already a separate article for U.S. Labor Party, which would be the appropriate location for an extended summary of a newspaper article about that organization. However, even at that article, I don't believe that it is necessary to include every minor detail, such as how much the alleged training costs per day, in which states it allegedly took place, or that U.S. Labor Party members were employed at a company that allegedly printed high school newspapers. For readers who are interested in such minutiae, we have external links.

2. You have been blithely deleting all sorts of well-sourced material that didn't suit your fancy, and when I have objected, you dismissed my objections by saying that the article was too long.

3. The LaRouche 2 arbcom case, to which you were a party, specifically allows the use of LaRouche sources in "LaRouche articles." In a case where inflammatory allegations are made against LaRouche, I would argue that it's not only appropriate to note LaRouche's response to the allegations, but might even be necessary under WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. It appears to me that you are recasting this article as an attack article; please recall that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Post-decision motion passed emphasizes that WP:BLP applies to LaRouche.

I have one further request for you, and that is that you make certain that your edit summaries are accurate. For example, I had restored Laird Wilcox's skeptical comment about Dennis King's "conspiracy-mongering,"[1] and you immediately deleted it[2], but your edit summary does not in any way reflect that. In fact, you have deleted it numerous times wi thout explanation, and not once has your edit summary acknowledged that you are doing it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't about Dennis King, it's about LaRouche. We have the New York Times commenting on King's view; we have Pipes commenting on the British=Jews view in general. What does the Wilcox source add beyond that? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wilcox quote makes explicit what is only implicit in the Daniel Pipes and NYT quotes: that Dennis King uses "conspiracist" methodology in his "decoding" speculations. This is quite significant in light of repeated accusations of "conspiracism" against LaRouche, and should not be covered up. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: using LaRouche as a source, please read the content policies, particularly UNDUE and SPS. He can't be used if his views are unduly self-serving, which they almost invariably are, or if they involve third parties, which they almost always do, or if they're about issues he was not directly involved in, which they often are. In addition, please read NOR, the section about not relying on primary sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

My 06:02, September 7, 2009 edits

I've been continuing to edit this at User:SlimVirgin/LL, and I'll add the new material to this article when it's unprotected; please see the user subpage for individual diffs. I've added a section on ego stripping, because it's discussed by several mainstream sources, and the previous version had only one sentence on it. I'm going to rewrite the Chris White section, as it's currently unclear. Regarding the Quakers section, it seems it was the father who was expelled, not LaRouche, so I've fixed that, and I reduced the size of it, because it's not about him directly. I've made some of the headers more descriptive of the section contents, added some more material from mainstream sources, removed or made invisible paragraphs that aren't clear, or that didn't seem to add anything. I also removed a few sentences copied word for word from King's book.

I've tidied the references, though there's more to be done, and I've removed a couple of LaRouche sources that contained BLP violations. I've started moving references not being used as sources into FR. I've created a separate section for the LaRouche sources, so we can see at a glance how many are used. I would say at the moment that he provides about a third of the sourcing, which I would say is too much. What I think we should do is re-source the LaRouche material to secondary sources. So, for example, instead of citing or quoting LaRouche directly, we should cite the W/Post citing or quoting him. That way, we know that we're only including material that secondary sources deem important, and we will also know that we're not citing BLP violations, as much of his material includes contentious claims about living people.

An exception to the above could be made for his early life, or personal life in general, where he's discussing his schooling, feelings of alienation, the things he studied, and so on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Huffington Post

The WP:RSN postings I looked at seemed to agree that the Huffington Post is not a reliable source. Anyone who thinks differently needs to make a case for its reliability.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You just deleted a reference to the Huff Post over at "Views" -- did you intend to post this on the "Views" talk page? --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes.   Will Beback  talk  02:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"October Surprise"

"October Surprise": Sources

Congressional leaders should be thankful. They have been handed an opportunity to avoid looking silly. Two national magazines have shot down a crazy rumor that Congress has been preparing to investigate.

Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that the leadership will have the good sense to call off the investigation.

The crazy rumor has to do with what some people call the October surprise. The allegation is that emissaries of the Reagan presidential campaign in 1980 conspired with Iran to keep American hostages in captivity. The alleged purpose was to hurt Jimmy Carter's re-election chances by keeping the embassy hostage crisis going until after the election.

Newsweek and The New Republic investigated the rumor. Their findings leave little to be done by congressional investigators.

[..]

One of the more disturbing revelations came in the Newsweek story. The magazine, in trying to trace the rumors back to their origins, encountered the tracks of political extremist Lyndon LaRouche.

The LaRouche organization, which uses bizarre conspiracy theories to frighten gullible people and solicit funds, published a story in 1980 alleging that Henry Kissinger had tried to make a secret deal with Iran. The LaRouche people gave the story, without the Kissinger angle, another push in 1983 when almost no one else was talking about an October surprise.

Eventually the rumors worked their way into other publications, and the likes of Bani-Sadr and others began to tell ever more fanciful stories.

Some people, regrettably, are so gullible or mean-spirited that they will swallow any allegation about a public figure, no matter how cruel or improbable. The fact that such people exist places a greater duty on responsible public officials and journalists to stand up for what is true and right. Newsweek and The New Republic have done so, to their credit.

— Congress Gets a Way Out; Crazy Rumor Shot Down; Omaha World - Herald. Omaha, Neb.: Nov 8, 1991. pg. 20

Note: the preceding editorial was read into the Congressional Record. [3]

One of the more distressing aspects of the October surprise story is that it didn't die a natural death years ago.

The story has no credible witnesses, no body of facts to support it. Investigative reporters demonstrated that major elements of the story were fiction. Journalists who tried to trace the rumors to their origins came upon the tracks of Lyndon LaRouche's conspiracy theorists - a sure sign that skepticism is called for.

Furthermore, the story's plot, which holds that Ronald Reagan's people cut a deal with Iran to help Reagan win the 1980 election, is too farfetched to be believed. It takes a cynical person indeed to accept as plausible the undocumented insinuation that emissaries of a soon-to-be U.S. president would deal away the freedom of American hostages for political gain.

However, the story stayed alive through the 1980s, incubating in the dark places where conspiracy theories hatch into character assassination.

— 'October Surprise' Rumors Remained Alive Too Long; Omaha World - Herald. Omaha, Neb.: Nov 25, 1992. pg. 16

What of Mr. [Richard] Brenneke? He was uncovered in The Village Voice by former ABC producer Frank Snepp, who found credit card receipts placing Mr. Brenneke in Portland, Ore., at the time he claimed to be in Paris. So where did this whole conspiracy nonsense begin anyway? The answer was provided by Newsweek's John Barry, who traced its origin to an article in the Dec. 2, 1980, Executive Intelligence Review, published by Lyndon LaRouche.

[..]

Mr. Emerson, a former correspondent for U.S. News & World Report and now an occasional contributor to this page, said it best. The "October Surprise" theory is "probably one of the largest hoaxes and fabrications in modern American journalism. . . . None of [the sources] had any documentation whatsoever. So I still question why major American journalistic institutions accepted on face value the statements of these fabricated sources."

— Scandals and the press. Commentary. Bozell, L Brent III. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jul 22, 1996. pg. A14, 3 pgs Mr. Bozell is chairman of the Media Research Center.

There was a delightful press conference on Capitol Hill that spring, featuring [Gary] Sick, a rogue's gallery of left-wing journalists, Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.), assassination buffs, even a chorus of supporters for Lyndon LaRouche. Congress must investigate, the assemblage concluded. Even Thomas Winship, retired editor of The Boston Globe, told Bill Moyers that the October Surprise was the most important story not covered by the press.

— October Surprisegate. Editorial. PHILIP TERZIAN. Providence Journal. Providence, R.I.: Jan 31, 1993. pg. D-08

"October Surprise": Discussion

• Steven Emerson writes that, in the early 1980s, ...

Emerson is actually reviewing reporting done "in the fall of 1991 by John Barry in Newsweek and Frank Snepp in the Village Voice". Here's the Newsweek story: "Making Of A Myth". It's also covered in two different publications by Daniel Pipes.[4][5] I think it would be better to broaden the sources and attribution.   Will Beback  talk  04:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've also added some things from the newspaper archive in a section above.   Will Beback  talk  04:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If this turns out to be lengthy, the appropriate place to put it would be Executive Intelligence Review, which apparently was just recently created. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was mostly interested in removing the specific attribution, which makes it appear that only one reporter made this connection. If it gets much longer we can move it and leave a summary.   Will Beback  talk  16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

What happened to this section? was here last week.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.69.73 (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The danger with a subject like this is that the criticism (and rebutals) could overwhelm the article. General criticism of his views is better handled in the article titled "Views of Lyndon LaRouche". Some of the criticisms of specific actions have been incorporated into the article, for example Lyndon LaRouche#Criticism of the U.S. Labor Party.   Will Beback  talk  17:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Questionable reference to "orthodox Marxism"

I don't plan on making edits with this account but I just thought I'd note a glaring error in the text of this article that I hope someone can correct.

"The ideas he began teaching in the late 1960s differed from orthodox Marxism, in that he supplemented the doctrine of class struggle with a strong emphasis on the dangers of a supposedly parasitical finance capital, as opposed to industrial capital."

I'm not sure who made this edit and I don't feel like taking the time to sort through the article history to the extent necessary to discover this, but this seems like a very strange thing to say. Is "orthodox Marxism" a reference to Marxism-Leninism? Is the author trying to claim that Marxists merely talked about "class struggle" but did not emphasize finance capital or did not refer to it as parasitic -- or that they didn't see this as the more powerful force above industrial capital?

A thorough reading of V.I. Lenin's Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism would dispel this strange notion, but for those with little time on their hands even without a thorough reading I'd imagine a glance at the chapter titles would do.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm One Who Watches (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That is an old edit that has been in the article since 2004 or earlier. I actually removed it during my recent edits, but then thought better of it and put it back until we can find a source. But if we think it's unattributable, it should come out entirely. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was added (or maybe re-added) 00:29, December 25, 2006, presumably by Dking editing without logging in.   Will Beback  talk  04:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That link reminds me of one of the things that has annoyed me about this article over the years. During my recent edits, I removed a large chunk (perhaps all, I forget) of the antisemitism material from King, because it seemed too non-specific e.g. members left because of the antisemitism, but no names, no examples. But in that diff, you can see that examples were indeed added. But then, because of all the reverting back and forth, things get lost, and the article becomes diluted and generalized, so that anyone doing a copy edit just removes it entirely. At some point, we may have to start the job of going through old diffs and resurrecting material that was lost. Perhaps we could start a talk page for "outtakes," in case we want to add them later. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this article was first (and later) drafted we've found many more secondary sources. Let's make the best use of those we can. If material is unsourced or poorly sourced let's leave it out or edit it "mercilessly".   Will Beback  talk  07:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A recent thread on LaRouche's ideological journey has already been archived, so I'll just add this citation here. I think it may be useful for the article:

• His group first appeared in 1968 at Columbia University as the National Caucus of Labor Committees, a name it bore until 1972. It offered a purportedly Marxist view that the Soviet Union and the United States were joined in a conspiracy against workers. But then Mr. LaRouche returned from a trip to West Germany with a new vision, and turned his party to the extreme right and to anti-Semitism.
  • FROM THE LEFT TO FAR RIGHT New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Mar 20, 1986. pg. A.18

It clarifies his position regarding the Soviet Union and his shift in views, though it is incorrect about the NCLC only being used until 1972.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

New Internationalist

In the further reading section, somebody has included an article from New Internationalist magazine by a chap who writes under the pseudonym Chip Berlet. There are two major problems with this.

1. How well known is the magazine? The link seems a little promotional if you ask me. I live in Melbourne, where Radio New Internationalist is produced,[6] and nobody I know has ever mentioned the magazine or the radio show.

2. The article itself is mostly detail, and has very little explanation of LaRouche's methods.

Ottre 05:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the magazine is well-known, but Chip Berlet is a frequently cited researcher on LaRouche who's been published in many sources. As for your second point, this article is intended to be a pure biography of the events of LaRouche's life. His movement is covered in LaRouche movement, and his views are in Views of Lyndon LaRouche. Beyond those, I'm not sure what "methods" are left unaddressed.   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have waited 4 days to give SlimVirgin an opportunity to respond to the objections I raised (below.) Since she did not respond, I have now proceed to clean them up. I propose that we adopt this as a method to resolve disputes: raise objections on the talk page, then allow time for a response before reverting or changing. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable edits

• In this edit, SlimVirgn deletes without explanation the reference to the LaRouche interview on Vremya, sourced to the Channel One (Russia) website. The edit summary is also deceptive.

• In this edit, SlimVirgin removes the definition of COINTELPRO that I imported from COINTELPRO (a series of covert, and often illegal, FBI projects aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States) and replaces it with the innocent-sounding, but factually incorrect a series of covert FBI investigations into dissident political organizations in the United States. There is no basis in any reliable source for this editorial change, and it seems intended to minimize the significance of a remarkable collaboration between the FBI and the Communist Party against LaRouche.

• Also in this edit, SlimVirgin systematically strips all attribution from allegations made against LaRouche (ex. "according to Dennis King," etc.), which has the effect of presenting these allegations as undisputed fact. In reality, I suspect that the LaRouche organization vigorously disputes these allegations, and under BLP I think we have an obligation to acknowledge that.

• In this edit SlimVirgin "tidied" the following: A co-counsel for Kronberg is John Markham, one of the federal prosecutors who investigated and prosecuted LaRouche in the 1980s by removing the words "and prosecuted." This has the effect of minimizing the significance of this rather startling fact, that after complaining that LaRouche has accused her of collaborating with the prosecution, Molly Kronberg hires a member of the prosectution to represent her.

• In this edit, SlimVirgin deleted sourced material from the Russian Rosbalt news agency, with the misleading edit summary "removed repetion." This material is particularly important because it contradicts the Dennis King/Antony Lerman theory that LaRouche became an ultra-rightist, saying instead that he adopted an "American System"/New Deal approach. From the standpoint of both NPOV and BLP, this absolutely should not have been deleted.

Also in the same edit, SlimVirgin deleted Steinberg's rebuttal to the inflammatory Dennis King/Lerman allegations. The rebuttal should absolutely be included per BLP. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin has edit-warred to add a quote from Antiony Lerman to the lead.[7][8][9][10] Antony Lerman is in fact an obscure individual, who had no bio at Wikipedia until SlimVirgin authored it[11], shortly after adding multiple references to him at Lyndon LaRouche. Lerman consequently does not have the wild-eyed public image that Dennis King has. However, his contribution on LaRouche to the anthology that SlimVirgin is citing as a source is all of 4 pages long, and consists simply of an uncritical summary of the material in Dennis King's conspiracy-laden tome. Lerman's quote in the lead adds no new information, serving simply to amplify the already-existing "extremist" claim. WP:BLP#Criticism and praise states that criticism must be written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides. In demanding this change to the lead, SlimVirgin also ignored extensive discussions by the community[12] which were referenced on the article talk page. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand Leatherstocking's point about Lerman being an "obscure individual" because he didn't have a WP bio before one was created. The intro contained a quote from Bailey long before he had a bio, ditto for Menshikov et alia. The Lerman quote is worthwhile not because it is written by Lerman but because it expresses succinctly a view that is stated by many. That said, I think we should avoid quotations in the intro.   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that Lerman was obscure "because he didn't have a WP bio." You are misunderstanding someone else's point. Lerman is obscure, period. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So? Most journalists are obscure, but that isn't a reason to avoid using them as sources.   Will Beback  talk  16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct. However, featuring them in the lead is an entirely different matter. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• In this edit, SlimVirgin changes the date of "LaRouche on financial crisis" to 2008, despite the fact that the cited sources indicate that his forecast was made in 2007. Presumably this was done to minimize the significance of the forecast. Incidentally, in looking at Russian press coverage of LaRouche, there is a lot more material available on this topic. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know of anyone who refers to it as the "2007 financial crisis". So far as I can tell, LaRouche started predicting it at least 20 years ago, though the predicted date of the crisis kept changing. The Russian material concerns LaRouche's views, not his actions, so it's more suitable in the "Views" article, whedre it's already covered extensively.   Will Beback  talk  16:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the financial crisis is entitled financial crisis of 2007–2010. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

See Category: Late 2000s global financial crisis for numerous other article titles. I don't think any of them are relevant to this editing decision though.   Will Beback  talk  18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Honorary citizen of São Paulo

I'm going to remove the "Honorary citizen of São Paulo" pending a reliable, 3rd-party source.   Will Beback  talk  16:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree.SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The material in the source did not originate with EIR, it was translated by EIR. Is it your contention that it is fraudulent? I found Portugese-language blogs that comment on the honorary citizenship, and they are hostile to LaRouche, so they can be trusted, right? --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If the incident is notable we should be able to find it in reliable, 3rd-party sources. Blogs don't qualify. Sources that can only be found in EIR reprints are not ideal either.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not ideal, but permissible. Unless you are contending that it never occurred, it is a noteworthy thing to report in the article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked again, and I couldn't find where it had ever been published besides EIR. Since it's self-serving, we'd definitely a 3rd-party source.   Will Beback  talk  01:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotations in refs

The terms cited in the lead are all well-sources, and I think it's unproductive to add more and more quotations, so I've removed them and just left the simple citations. Those are sufficient. If anyone challenges one we can discuss it here rather than filling up the references with pro and con statements.   Will Beback  talk  17:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Common courtesy

It is only common courtesy not to do bulk or "sterile" reverts. I have explained every single change that I have made on the talk page, and I see no reason why others cannot do the same. I have restored material that was bulk-deleted without explanation. I did not restore the "honorary citizenship" section, because a reasonable objection was made by Will Beback. I think that section should be restored, but we should discuss it. Otherwise, please, SlimVirgin, follow the same procedure that any mature, experienced editor is expected to follow. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a lot of reverting. Which material do you think needs to be changed?   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am asking that each individual change be discussed on this page before an edit is made, as I am doing ([13].) Bulk or "sterile" reverts (example,) with no explanation offered, are simply disruptive. I think it is also highly discourteous of SlimVirgin to continue to edit this article without deigning to respond to my questions on the talk page. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Question1 for Leatherstocking

1. Why do you keep adding Laird Wilcox as a source? We have other, better sources on the same point (New York Times, for example) and the Wilcox quote you're using doesn't say anything the text doesn't already say. Yet you keep adding it, both here and to other articles.

As I wrote in my reply the last time you asked, it's because he makes explicit the conspiracism in King's theory. That is exactly what the text doesn't already say, and there is no reason Wilcox can't be included along with the other sources. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Why do you keep adding King as attribution when we already have sources? For example, here. The criticism of the NCLC stems from journalists writing in that period -- 1974 and onwards e.g. Paul Montgomery. How a Radical-Left Group Moved Toward Savagery; Progression to Violence, The New York Times, Jan 20, 1974. Yet you want to add "according to Dennis King," even though King published his book in 1989. You then add Wilcox to make King look bad, and edit war to keep that material in. But there was no need to use King as in-text attribution in the first place, though it's fine to add him in a footnote as a second source. This is how you are slanting the article, but when challenged you shout, "SlimVirgin's removing the source!"

If King is not the source, then a source should be provided. It is an inflammatory allegation, and the reader should have the opportunity to evaluate the source. This is a BLP matter. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Also, please don't keep removing Lerman. He is a scholarly writer, exactly what's needed in this article, and the view he expresses is the mainstream, majority view. It is attributed so that we know a respectable writer said it, but the view is a very widespread one, as you know.SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All the views expressed in the summary are widespread, including the positive views, which are prevalent in Russia -- I can cite you dozens of press examples. However, you are taking a person who has no particular notability as a LaRouche critic and using him to amplify a view that you particularly like. If we are to do that, then we should re-add the Stanislav Menshikov quote that was there earlier -- Menshikov being a scholarly writer, exactly what's need in this article. There is no consensus for adding Lerman -- even Will Beback doesn't support it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This morning I made what I believe to be a very reasonable proposal for dispute resolution here. In this edit you say in your edit summary that you "restored removed material, kept most of Leatherstocking's changes, but not changes to timeline, and not the Russian/Chinese press additions, which is fluff." This is completely deceptive. One can see what you actually did by comparing the article before I edited it, with how it looks now: [14] -- virtually every change has simply been reverted. This is edit warring, not collaboration. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I should add that with the exception of a one-sentence quote from Lerman in the lead, there was no "removed material" to "restore." Note that every edit I made was to one individual section, and there were no "fake-'em-out" edit summaries. This is common editing courtesy, and I would ask that you follow suit. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• If Wilcox has something significant to say about LaRouche, then it should be included in this article. If he has somethng to say about King that should be included in the King article. IOf we include comments about people who have written about LaRouche this article could triple in size and go seriously off-topic. LaRouche is the subject of this article. Let's keep the focus on the subject.   Will Beback  talk  08:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is now more dominated by criticism than I have ever seen it before. An important component of the criticism is conspiracy theories, which originate with King but have been adopted by Lerman, Berlet and others, about hidden meanings or coded messages in LaRouche's utterances. Since several third party commentators have written on this, it certainly is relevant to a discussion of LaRouche, and to present the conspiracy theories about him without acknowledging the skepticism of these third parties would be a BLP problem, big time. Regarding the Dennis King article, SlimVirgin just deleted all criticism from that article, claiming that an arbcom decision gives her permission to do so. Until this is clarified by the arbcom, there's no point in discussing it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The premise that all descriptions of LaRouche as a conspiracy theorist originate with King is unprovable and likely false. As for the criticism of King's views, I believe those belong in the King article. A balanced treatment of both positive and negative reviews should be included there.   Will Beback  talk  17:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the premise that LaRouche is a conspiracy theorist, which as far as I know is undisputed. I'm talking about Dennis King's own conspiracy theory about coded messages in LaRouche's writings, a theory which does originate with King. If this conspiracy theory is going to be included in the LaRouche bio, the fact that notable commentators oppose it should be included as well. If you believe that criticism should be included at Dennis King, you might want to do something about this --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If "coded messages" is a marginal view, then let's just leave it out entirely. If it's such a significant view that we need to analyze it then let's make sure we're adding all views about it, not just critical ones. But I still think that's more relevant to the King article, not this one. You appear to be the only one pushing to include it.   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes, Laird Wilcox and the New York Times have all in varying ways commented on it, so it is a LaRouche-related controversy of some note and belongs in the article. Let me point out that each of the comments you deleted specifically mentions LaRouche. If you want to hunt up some commentators who support King's theory, I sure you are quite capable of finding any that may exist. Clearly Lerman supports it. In the meantime, I am restoring this sourced material. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The text you added implies that Johnson is talking about "coded language" where in reality he appears to be talking about LaRouche as "a would-be Fuhrer". If we're going to quote Johnson criticizing King's book we should also quote the much more extensive praise by that author.   Will Beback  talk  19:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A proper treatment of King's book would be better placed in the King bio. I propose moving the Johnson quote there, and expanding it to include a more balanced summary.   Will Beback  talk  19:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

1986 press conference

The 1986 press conference was so well-attended, and LaRouche's comments so widely reported, that it merits significant coverage. In some respects, coming after the success of PANIC and the Illinois candidates and before the October raid, it represents a high point for LaRouche. Except for quotes from the AP and White House, it's all LaRouche, as quoted by reliable 3rd-party sources. Leatherstocking was complaining about the lack of coverage of LaRouche's political activism - hopefully this addition will help address that complaint.   Will Beback  talk  11:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche vs. Kelley

Please don't move the Clarence Kelley remarks off into a separate section. First, it look s like an effort to spam criticism throughout the article. Secondly, it is clearly directly related to "Mop Up," a controversy which was not limited to the year 1973. I found a list of FOIA requests on the web, and the FOIA request that produced the FBI document was made to Kelley. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You were the one who moved them from their original location. The remarks were made in 1975. What is FOIA link you're talking about?   Will Beback  talk  17:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

LaROUCHE, Lyndon H., Jr., et al. v. Kelley, et al., D. N.Y., Civil Action No. 75 Civ. 6010. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the connection? How is that relevant?   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked for the link, I provided it. It establishes a clear connection between Kelley and the "Mop up" material. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the connection. The link you provided doesn't really seem to mention anything about "Mop Up".   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving right along -- questions for SlimVirgin

I'd like to point out that I have responded to every question directed to me by SlimVirgin, while she has ignored all questions directed to her. It is important that the following specific issues be addressed, so that we may move on to broader issues of NPOV and BLP in the article. I would also like to request, once again, that there be no blanket or "sterile" reverts, and that edit summaries be specific and truthful. Note that in my edits on Saturday morning, I adhered strictly to those guidelines.

SlimVirgin, please explain these edits:

• In this edit, SlimVirgn deletes without explanation the reference to the LaRouche interview on Vremya, sourced to the Channel One (Russia) website. The edit summary is also deceptive.

Why is the Vremya TV interview so important? LaRouche has held countless interviews. Is this one mentioned in 3rd-party sources?   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• In this edit, SlimVirgin changes the date of "LaRouche on financial crisis" to 2008, despite the fact that the cited sources indicate that his forecast was made in 2007. Presumably this was done to minimize the significance of the forecast. Incidentally, in looking at Russian press coverage of LaRouche, there is a lot more material available on this topic. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC
  • I don't know of anyone who refers to it as the "2007 financial crisis". S o far as I can tell, LaRouche started predicting it at least 20 years ago, though the predicted date of the crisis kept changing. The Russian material concerns LaRouche's views, not his actions, so it's more suitable in the "Views" article, whedre it's already covered extensively.   Will Beback  talk  16:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the financial crisis is entitled financial crisis of 2007–2010. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There are also articles titled Global financial crisis of 2008–2009 and Late-2000s recession. Wikipedia is not a reference for this article. What does LaRouche call it?   Will Beback  talk  17:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• In this bulk-revert, SlimVirgin deletes the following: Stanislav Menshikov writes that on July 25, 2007, at a point where first signs of disorder in the mortgage sector were appearing, LaRouche was the first to conclude that it was the beginning of a a major financial crisis. LaRouche then proposed legislation to protect homeowners and banks ( the "Homeowners and Banks Protection Act of 2007,") which, in Menshikov's view, could have prevented the crisis had it been enacted. Menshikov referred to LaRouche as "one of those few economists who look at the root cause,20and therefore see what others cannot."(Menshikov, Stanislav, "The crisis is galloping on the planet,"[15], Slovo, October 17, 2008) This forecast is significant from a biographical standpoint, and has been recognized by numerous commentators from around the world (other comments on this event by Mexican and Chilean sources were removed earlier.) Also, Menshikov is a scholarly writer, which according to SlimVirgin is "exactly what is needed in this article."

This should also be included because it describes a political policy campaign waged by LaRouche. This sort of thing is way under-represented in the article. According to the LaRouche site, over 100 cities and several states have passed resolutions supporting this bill.[16] --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Did we ever find out if Slovo is a reliable source? I left a question at the "views" talk page about it.   Will Beback  talk  02:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that I don't speak Russian, and I have been getting the knack of using Google Translate. Slovo ("Word") is a weekly "social-political" newspaper. On their masthead they feature this endorsement: "Over the years," the Word "rightfully earned a reputation as one of the most competent media, marked the high stamp of professionalism, skill and unfailing taste ...." In every room of your newspaper you can find information, filled with love for Russia, its people and its spiritual roots . Newspaper features state patriotism, value judgments, the high level of copyright enforcement. -- Chairman of the Federation Council SM Mironov. An interview with Slovo's founder and editor-in-chief, Viktor Linnik, may be found in the English-language "Russia Today,"[17] and here's another in English from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation [18].--Leatherstocking (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Slovo.   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Leatherstocking, have you now learned Russian? I see you replaced the Google translation with your own. Maybe it would be better to paraphrase it rather than put quotation marks around your own translation?   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I went back and found the version that used to be in the lead. It's obviously the same idea, just gramatically correct. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Who did that translation?   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If we don't know the source of the translation then I think it'd be better to either paraphrase the Google translation or simply omit it.   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It clearly is a paraphrase of the Google translate, except with intelligible grammar. Please don't nit-pick. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's a paraphrase written by a Wikipedia editor it shoulnd't be in quotation marks.   Will Beback  talk  02:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The content is identical to the Google translation; only the syntax was changed. However, I have removed the quote marks until an in-house Russian speaker can review it. Would you be making such a fuss if it were a quote from an opponent of LaRouche? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We need to be careful with all of the foreign language sources. We don't re-write quotations to correct their grammar. We still don't know who wrote the text you're fighting over.   Will Beback  talk  17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• In this bulk-revert, SlimVirgin deletes the honorary citizenship given to LaRouche by the city of São Paulo. This is of biographical interest; it actually happened to LaRouche personally, unlike much of the new material SlimVirgin has added, which ought to go in other articles like LaRouche movement. And São Paulo is actually quite a large city in Brazil, not a village in Mexico as SlimVirgin intimated at the ANI board.

This is being discussed at #Honorary citizen of São Paulo, below.   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• In this bulk-revert, SlimVirgin re-introduces a factual error, that Daniel Pipes "argues against Lerman." Not true. He argues against Dennis King, who originated the conspiracist "secret coded messages" theory about LaRouche's writing. The exact quote from Pipes is "Dennis King insists that [LaRouche's] references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really `code language' to refer to Jews. In fact, these are references to the British." It looks to me that SlimVirgin is "laundering" King's theories by quoting the presumably less controversial Lerman's summary of same. Lerman appears to have actually written very little about LaRouche; his brief article in the book SlimVirgin cites is simply a summary of King's conspiracy theories.

Discussed at #Question1 for Leatherstocking, above.   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• The question of adding a quote from Lerman to the lead remains unresolved. I believed the lead to be well-balanced without it, and Will Beback says that "we should avoid quotations in the intro." However, as a compromise, I would suggest that if SlimVirgin absolutely must have Lerman in the lead, we balance it by adding the Menshikov quote, that LaRouche is "one of those few economists who look at the root cause, and therefore see what others cannot."

Discussed at #Lerman in the lead, below.   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to know why SlimVirgin has eliminated all the links in the references, so that the reader is unable to verify content. Considering the controversial nature of the subject, I would think that verifiability of these sources would be of high importance. Why hide the sources? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lerman in the lead

• Antony Lerman writes that his ideology is so extreme and bizarre that it is difficult to categorize.

Lerman is used here as a source for three assertions.

That LaRouche's ideology is extreme.

That it is bizarre.

That is is difficult to categorize.

I have seen each of those assertions in multiple 3rd-party sources, and taken together it is probably a significant point of view. Indeed, it is probably the mainstream, majority view. I suggest that we retain the assertions, add additional sources, and either drop or broaden attribution.   Will Beback  talk  17:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to go along with whatever you think best, though personally I like to see these things attributed, in part so we know where it's coming from, and in part for plagiarism reasons. I also liked the "best intelligence service" quote, though that's less mainstream.

But if you don't want in-text attribution, it could be rewritten as:

"LaRouche's ideology is widely regarded as extreme, bizarre, and difficult to categorize, and as a result it provokes sharply contrasting views." Etc. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds correct. I've posted several citations for the word "bizarre" at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research#"Bizarre", and could add many more. There are also ample citations available for "extreme" and "hard to categorize".   Will Beback  talk  18:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Except for "hard to categorize," this is redundant. These formulations already exist in the pre-Lerman lead. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything about "bizarre" or "extremist" in the lead. Could you please quote the text which covers those terms?   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right -- "extremist" was in the lead not so long ago, but evidently has been removed. Since you still have "fascist," which is not a majority view, you should also add "communist" [19][20][21][22]. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're not serious about using those as sources. We have LaRouche's own words that he was briefly in the Communist Party, and a reliable source that he sought a merger between the SCPUSA and the USLP in the 1970s. As for the "fascist" assertion, it's widely held as demonstrated already at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've added some citations for "extremism" to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research. Of particular relevance are two that say LaRouche is widely seen as an extremist.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Leatherstocking could say here why he keeps removing the Lerman description in the lead, which is a completely mainstream view from a scholar, but doesn't remove any of the other opinions. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The pre-Lerman lead had a balanced survey of opinions, without any of them being quotes. As I said before on this matter, quoting Lerman only serves to emphasize a particular opinion that one editor likes. It adds no content. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The NSC man was quoted, and you didn't remove that, yet he has no WP article, and when you tried to create one it was deleted. Plus, the view he was espousing is a minority one. Yet you retained him, and removed Lerman, saying Lerman wasn't notable enough, though Lerman has an article, and the view he is espousing is a majority one. Could you say why you treated them differently? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. The Bailey quote characterized LaRouche's staff, not LaRouche personally, and was balanced by a negative assessment by the Heritage Foundation. However, I see that both were removed by Will Beback in this edit. Was that intentional? If so, what was the reason? By the way, the NSC man does have an article, Norman Bailey (government official), which used to be much longer until it was speedy-deleted by Will Beback, in a manner which I consider to be improper. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't knowingly delete anything from the text of the article - just quotations that were in the references, as I explained above.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are we quoting Bailey in the lead?   Will Beback  talk  17:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bailey's been in the lead as far back as I can remember. You said that you had not intended to delete it, so I restored it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. Why are we quoting Bailey in the lead? Note that we have the same quote in the lead of LaRouche movement, where it makes more sense since it refers to his movement, not to himself.   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Any other comments?   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Bailey quote is relevant to LaRouche's stated profession, i.e. founder and editor-in-chief of EIR. However, if you want to remove both it and the Heritage Foundation quote, I won't object. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

General neutrality issues

Ego stripping

At this point, the article has been recast in such a way that it is LaRouche as told from the POV of his critics. The biographical information as such has been minimized. Among the longest sections in the article are "ego-stripping" which is a WP:WEIGHT problem,) "allegations," and "criticism of the US Labor Party" (which probably doesn't belong in this article at all.) This shift in the article clearly violates WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. What is missing is an account of LaRouche's political activities. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Whenever someone says that a topic has "undue weight" I ask, "What is the due weight, and why?" Larouche's political activities are mostly covered in different articles: Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns, LaRouche movement, Views of Lyndon LaRouche, National Caucus of Labor Committees, U.S. Labor Party, and Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement. Combined, those articles have over 25,000 words, which is plenty of weight. (5,294 + 1,977 + 10,940 + 2,904 +2,087 +1,809) By comparison, this article is only 8,000 words.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I had never heard of "ego stripping" until SlimVirgin added the new section. WP:WEIGHT says An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. After all your Googling, can you honestly claim that "ego stripping" is one of the most noteworthy aspects of LaRouche's life, deserving of one of the longest sectons in his bio? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would your personal knowledge be considered a standard for what we include in Wikipedia articles? There are numerous reliable sources that refer to various forms of psychological pressure placed on LaRouche followers, though they don't all use that term.   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The section covers other several important events: Chris White, Carole Larabee, and Alice Weitzman. It seems like reasonable weight.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My personal knowledge is irrelevant. The policy says An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Can you justify the amount of weight given to "ego-stripping," given its lack of prominence in published coverage of LaRouche? The policy cautions us to Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Chris White, Carole Larabee, and Alice Weitzman incidents are all key incidents. The general info on "ego stripping" has just one paragraph. The issues of "ego stripping", brainwashing, deprogramming, and mind control appear in numerous publications about the LaRouche movement, especially of the 1970s. See for example, Charles M. Young, "Mind Control, Political Violence & Sexual Warfare: Inside the NCLC," Crawdaddy, June 1976, p. 48-56. I think it's proper weight.   Will Beback  talk  20:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Crawdaddy" bills itself as "the first US magazine of rock music criticism." Not an impressive source. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is also a rock magazine. Both have good reputations for their reporting. It's typical that counterculture outfits like the 1970s NCLC are covered in counterculture media. I don't recall pro-LaRouche accounts accepting the legitimacy of any sources that are negative.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence of the importance of the "Beyond Psychoanalysis" article to the movement is the apparent fact that the WLYM lists nine separate talks on the topic given in a 14-month period.[23]   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. I would like to see some quotes from the original texts to substantiate the charges made by newspaper writers in the "ego-stripping" section. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The article can be found online.[24].   Will Beback  talk  02:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I find nothing in that document to verify the claim that is attributed to it, LaRouche wrote that members should strip new recruits of their egos, reduce them to a state that he called "little me," then begin the process of rebuilding their personalities. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is something akin to that in section 9 of the document ("The Psychology of Mass Organizing"). Witt's Washington Post article mentions it too. On the whole though, I find the ego-stripping section rather fails NPOV. There is no mention that the "ego-stripping" was a copy of a confrontational therapy method used in new age therapies (King), and there is no presentation of the emic interpretation of the practice as "social love" (also available in King). The section is also confusingly structured at the moment: we begin by talking about keeping old hands in line by stripping their egos, then move to the treatment of recruits, then make a quick detour to leftists' sexual problems and their sadistic mothers, and back again to the (mis)treatment of existing members. The overall effect is that of a somewhat disjointed kaleidoscope presenting all the worst bits. I'd say there should be a lot less "He said ...", "She said ..." detail in this section, in favour of an overview, which should cover the method's origin and how it was interpreted within the movement, and a summary of subsequent criticism of the method by former members and/or outsiders. --JN466 00:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayen is correct that the "Campaigner" article discusses stripping away the personalilty of would-be organizers in order to rebuild them. In addition to Witt, several other sources mention "ego-stripping". The "New American Fascism" devotes considerable space to it. An article in the WSJ co-written by King and Patricia Lynch, an NBC news producer, says:

• "Carl Mingo," who left the national office staff in 1984, described a "militarized" atmosphere in the fundraising office. "There'd be a roll call in the morning. You were given these gargantuan quotas, and you were expected to work from 9 a.m. until you met the quota, even if that was 11 or 12 at night." Mr. Mingo said that the openly acknowledged policy was to "get loans at any cost and not pay them back -- unless the victim was politically important or threatened to sue." He described intense psychological pressures to meet the quotas: "If you didn't, you'd be an object of ridicule, or they wouldn't give you a day off, or your relationship with your spouse would become the subject of an all-night ego-stripping session."

A 2001 Anti-Defamation Commission (Australia) briefing papers says:

• The LaRouchian cult-style ego-stripping mind-control techniques involve recruits being probed for sexual peccadilloes, especially their sexual relationship with their mother.xv The "Witch Mother" or her surrogate is blamed for a recruit's neuroses and is hunted down for exorcism: by a recruit denouncing the "Witch Mother", recruiting his wife to the cause, or leaving his wife and family, he will be declared "unblocked", "potent" and a "beautiful" person.xvi There have been several documented cases of recruits severing ties with their families as a result of the ego-stripping sessions.xvii National Secretary Craig Isherwood also apparently uses the techniques to unmask "threats" from within the CEC and then devises strategies to counter them, thereby promoting himself as the organisation's "dragon slayer".xviii

Other sources mention similar incidents, without using the term "ego stripping". Witt mentions reports by a former member who witnessed what he called "wolf packs" - when members would gang up on someone in order to triuger an emotional breakdown.

Regardless of the matter of "ego-stripping", the section in question includes several important events in the history of LaRouche and his movement, namely the Chris White, Carole Larabee, and Alice Weitzman incidents. We can change the heading name, but the contents all appear appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  01:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Also:

As an example, there is an article about LaRouche in this week's issue of Newsweek magazine, which will be read by millions.

The article digs into LaRouche's past and pinpoints a period of his life when former followers say he underwent a severe personality change. And why.

It seems that sometime in the 1960s, he and his first wife split. This was after LaRouche had been a Marxist, a Socialist and a follower of various left-wing philosophies.

It's not clear exactly where on the political spectrum he was wandering at that time. But after his wife left him, he began living with one of his female followers.

Apparently his magnetism was lost on her because eventually she went away with another man.

Ah, the pain of rejection. That, according to Newsweek, is when LaRouche became even more unhinged, brooding in his apartment while surrounded by canned goods and bodyguards.

After that, he became even more extreme and began playing "ego- stripping" head games with members of his cult, whose heads weren't screwed on too securely to begin with.

So it appears that the trauma of being dumped by a girlfriend may have sent LaRouche lurching into his present political dream world. Until recently, though, few knew or cared.

— LIGHT OF PUBLICITY LAROUCHE'S RUIN; [SPORTS FINAL, C Edition] Mike Royko. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext). Chicago, Ill.: Apr 2, 1986. pg. 3

Apparently it was covered in a Newsweek profile from 1986.   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether LaRouche's critics make this claim, but whether views attributed to LaRouche in SlimVirgin's rewrite can be verified from the primary sources that are cited. Is there an online source for the "Puerto Rican Socialist Party" article? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If only there were a way of searching the Internet.  ;)

Witt says:

• During this period, LaRouche wrote about psychological techniques for transforming recruits into faithful organizers. In one treatise, "Beyond Psychoanalysis," he wrote that organizers should strip recruits of their egos and reduce them to a state called "little me," in order to rebuild their personalities around a new socialist identity. LaRouche opined in another manifesto, "The Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party," that "Sexual impotency is generally the causal root of Left political impotency." To become politically potent, he said, leftists must confront their sexual problems, such as their fear of and desire for their sadistic mothers.

Our text says:

• In "The Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party," he wrote that leftists must confront their sexual problems, such as their fear of, or desire for, their sadistic mothers.

We should simply cite Witt.   Will Beback  talk  17:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And, it turns out, we already do.   Will Beback  talk  17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If Witt's claims don't jibe with what is in the primary sources she cites, then we have a WP:REDFLAG situation. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"If". However I don't see any evidence of that.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what we have in the article there --

In Beyond Psychoanalysis, LaRouche wrote that members should strip new recruits of their egos, reduce them to a state that he called "little me," then begin the process of rebuilding their personalities. In "The Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party," he wrote that leftists must confront their sexual problems, such as their fear of, or desire for, their sadistic mothers."

is so similar to Witt quoted above as to fall foul of WP:PLAGIARISM, especially as the connection between recruiting and Puerto Ricans is not an obvious one; it is Witt who sees and draws a parallel here. It would have been better to explicitly attribute this to her in the text and mark direct quotations as such ... As for her quote, it matches LaRouche's text as reproduced here, where he says: "Let it be clear here: we are not speaking merely of parallels between sexual and political impotency. We insist that there is a direct, causal connection, such that sexual impotency is generally the causal root of Left political impotency." There's sadistic mothers in there as well. But of course these snippets don't really do justice to the guy's analysis of machismo and the Hispanic male ego. You could make Freud or any psychoanalytical writer sound just as weird by quoting a sentence without context. Aren't there better sources summarising these views? --JN466 04:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A close paraphrase.

"The LaRouche Organization As An Extremist Movement" by Matthew Feldman.[25] It has a long section titled "Fear-Mongering and Psychological Coercion". Dennis King mentions the matter a few times in his book. There's also these (discussion continued after the excerpts:

In documents from the early days of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, LaRouche talks about the wideranging role he plays in members' lives.

He warned members in 1973 that devotion to him would involve some stress. "In respect of the mental processes, absolutely nothing is secret; there is merely blindness. . . . In Germany I am Der Abscheulicher (the abominable one); I shall soon be regarded similarly here," he said The beginnings of his U.S. movement in place, LaRouche wrote in a confidential message to organizers in 1973, titled, "The Politics of Male Impotence," that he had set up a European base "on the premise that our growing importance in the world would close borders to me very soon."

He also predicted seizure of world power within the decade-through curing the sexual impotence of his followers.

"The principal source of impotence, both male and female, is the mother. . . . If you are sexually impotent-as most of our members inevitably are-then you are impotent as political organizers," he wrote. Sexual performance and motherhood were common themes in LaRouche's early essays.

"All Germany is a heaving mass of sexual impotence," he writes. Latin machismo "is nothing but the fear of homosexuality, of male impotence in the extreme." Blacks have a special problem, he said: "Can we imagine anything much more viciously sadistic than the black ghetto mother?"

In a 1981 memo, wired "highest priority" to all points, LaRouche declared that democratic rule of the group was unacceptable.

"I do not wish to hear, ever again, that I must wait until our legal council (sic) has assessed the wisdom of one of my decisions or that some members personal sensitivities must be taken into account. . . .

"I promise you that I shall function, unrestrained, as a commanding general of a combat organization. Anyone who opposes my orders will, in the moral sense, be shot on the spot for insubordination."

His single-minded view has not always proven popular to followers. Two long-time members of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, Donald and Alice Roth, protested to the National Executive Committee in 1981 about LaRouche spreading the claim that Hitler oversaw the extermination of far fewer Jews than commonly believed.

"That . . . was the sign of a mind which has become dangerously ill. . . , " the Roths said in a resignation letter. But by all accounts, the members feel great affection for LaRouche, who was born a Quaker in New Hampshire.

— Authorities See Pattern of Threats, Plots Dark Side of LaRouche Empire Surfaces; KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 14, 1986. pg. 1

According to court records, the LaRouche organization used heavy-handed tactics to raise money. Mr. LaRouche and Mr. Wertz, who was in charge of raising money, set high goals for fund-raisers. Mr. LaRouche was said to have blamed inadequacies of his fund-raisers on sexual impotence.

— Appeals Court Upholds Convictions of LaRouche and Four Others. New York Times January 23, 1990:A.21.

As for the Latino community, again, LaRouche demonstrated elemental racism in a 1973 essay of his own called "The Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party." In this extended polemic, LaRouche attacked the PSP with racial stereotypes: "...the political life of the PSP is the principle of the sexual impotence of the 'Machismo' extended into the domain of political commedia ... all Latin politics is permeated with the same pathetic, self-defeating quality." The cult boss then analyzes "the psychological truth which every Latin [emphasis added] can recognize in his own personal thoughts as the essence of 'Machismo' as sexual impotence." LaRouche .doesn't neglect Latin women, referring to their "frigidity, their sadistic semi-bestiality, and selfbestialization as potential 'mothers.' " He ridicules Puerto Rican popular culture as "garbage," a "poor imitation culture of whatever refuse decaying Spanish heritage or Yanqui imports have discarded into the streets." Island independence is "a degrading mythos," and Latin music is "psychopathological."

— The Racist Roots of Mad Melvin, Joe Conason, Village Voice, 9/28/82.

During the same period, LaRouche also propounded ideas which were widely perceived to represent outright racism. LaRouche, for instance, offended the Hispanic community in a November, 1973 essay (published in both English and Spanish) titled "The Male Impotence of the Puerto-Rican Socialist Party." An internal memo by LaRouche asked "Can we imagine anything more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?" He described the majority of the Chinese people as "approximating the lower animal species" by manifesting a "paranoid personality....a parallel general form of fundamental distinction from actual human personalities." As early as the spring of 1973 LaRouche had begun to articulate a psychosexual theory of political organizing and began descending into a paranoid style of historical analysis that stressed not Marxist dialectical materialism and class analysis, but macabre conspiracy theories and a subjective egocentric analysis. LaRouche warned of a global plot by the CIA/KGB to kidnap and program his membership to assassinate him. His homophobia became a central theme of the organization's conspiracy theories. He said women's feelings of degradation in modern society could be traced to the physical placement of sexual organs near the anus which caused them to confuse sex with excretion.

A September, 1973 editorial in the NCLC ideological journal <Campaigner> charged that "Concretely, all across the USA., there are workers who are prepared to fight. that "Concretely, all across the USA., there are workers who are prepared to fight. They are held back, most immediately, by pressure from their wives...." Writing in an August, 1973 memo, LaRouche propounded the startling and sexist psychological theory that "the principle source of impotence, both male and female, is the mother." LaRouche claimed only he could cure the political and sexual impotence of his followers. NCLC members were forced into what was called psychological therapy and "deprogramming" but were what former members call "brainwashing" and "egostripping" sessions. The NCLC rapidly became totalitarian in style, with a peculiar obsession with sexuality and homophobia used as a weapon against internal dissent." To the extent that my physical powers do not prevent me," LaRouche told his followers in August, 1973, "I am now confident and capable of ending your political--and sexualimpotence; the two are interconnected aspects of the same problem."

— Clouds Blur the Rainbow, Chip Berlet, 1987 by Political Research Associates

What happened to cause this dramatic shift? Some say it was a dramatic incident in LaRouche's personal life. In 1972 LaRouche's common-law wife, Carol Schnitzer, left him for a young member of the London NCLC chapter named Christopher White, whom she eventually married. For LaRouche, it was a crushing blow. His first wife Janice had similarly walked out on him a decade earlier, taking with her the couple's young son. This personal event apparently triggered LaRouche's political metamorphosis. LaRouche went into seclusion in Europe, and defectors tell of his suffering a possible nervous breakdown. In the spring of 1973, he returned. His previous conspiratorial inclinations had now grown into a bizarre tapestry weaving together classical conspiracy theories of the 19th century and post-Marxian economics. He began articulating a `psycho-sexual' theory of political organizing.

Sexism and homophobia became central themes of the organization's theories. A September 1973 editorial in the NCLC ideological journal Campaigner charged that "Concretely, all across the U.S.A., there are workers who are prepared to fight. They are held back, most immediately, by pressure from their wives. . . ." The problem with making the revolution, LaRouche apparently had concluded, was that women are castrating bitches. One former member left in disgust when she was told women's feelings of degradation in modern society could be traced to the physical placement of female sexual organs near the anus which caused women to confuse sex with excretion.

In an August 16, 1973 internal memo, "The Politics of Male Impotence," LaRouche told his followers:

"The principle source of impotence, both male and female, is the mother. . . .to the extent that my physical powers do not prevent me, I am now confident and capable of ending your political--and sexual-- impotence; the two are interconnected aspects of the same problem. . . . I am going to make you organizers--by taking your bedrooms away from you until you make the step to being effective organizers. What I shall do is to expose to you the cruel fact of your sexual impotence, male and female. . . .I shall destroy your sense of safety in the place to which you ordinarily imagine you can flee. I shall not pull you back from fleeing, but rather destroy the place to which you would attempt to flee."

In a cruel sense, LaRouche was true to his twisted words, those members who challenge the increasingly macabre political and social theories expounded by their leader were confronted by loyalists as politically and sexually inadequate traitors to the cause. LaRouche also developed a fevered, comprehensive paranoid fantasy about the importance of his role in history--and a militant, new-found resolve to act upon it, wiping out all opposition to his leadership of the U.S. revolutionary movement. The result was Operation Mop-Up. Lyndon LaRouche took his sexual identity crisis into the streets.

— Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag, by Chip Berlet and Joel Bellman March 10th, 1989, Political Research Associates

At this time, LaRouche still identified himself as a Marxist, and he blamed all the problems of the Left on women. In one lengthy 1973 article he described it thus: Capitalist ideology within the individual is primarily matrilocal and matrilineal…

Mother’s magic, perpetuated as fantasy through the dependency of Ego-identity on the internalized voice of the superstitious mother-image, is the basis for the hostility to “theory” among workers, the bitter invective against Marxist “elites”…and the general hostility to revolutionary socialism generally. “Who do you think you are to imagine you can go against the system?” mother’s voice warns.20

In this treatise, LaRouche also says that witches are real in the sense of being the subconscious image children have of their sadistic and dominating mothers, making them apt symbols of the feminist movement:

The witch image is the associated quality of the female Ego otherwise identified with female sexual impotence and its correlated forms of social impotence generally. Hence, the clinical significance of the acronym, WITCH, for the cited radical feminist group. Such variety of “radical feminism,” as distinct from its sane bitter factional opponent, Women’s Liberation efforts, is essentially an outbreak of the most pathetic, most sadistic form of lesbianism. The method of indoctrination used by groups such as WITCH, so-called “consciousnessraising sessions”…represented the…most efficient means for turning a merely intensely neurotic young woman into a virtual psychotic. …A woman reduced to this psychotic state, must tend to become a prostitute, or a lesbian, or both.21

(WITCH, the Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell, was a New York City group founded on Halloween 1968 by feminist author Robin Morgan and others. It conducted theatrical feminist actions such as putting a “hex” on Wall Street to oppose the Vietnam War and capitalist war profiteers.) In 1973, LaRouche also published an extensive psychosexual diatribe against the Puerto Rican Socialist Party. Women were to blame, LaRouche said, for the supposed impotence and emasculation of men in Latin culture:

The oppressor is the mother-image, an internalized monster within the mind of the child, a monster based not on the existent woman, the mother, but the mother’s bourgeois- family relationship to her husband and children… The woman who is banalized and otherwise degraded by capitalist culture is stripped of every possible power over society except the role of the female sadist. Until she is confronted with her real oppression—her banality—and her real oppressor—her internalized mother image, and unless she is also offered a real alternative, human role in society, she will cling with rage and terror to the one power—female sadism—bourgeois society offers her.22

Since these glory days, LaRouche gives the impression of having pulled himself together on the woman issue, at least publicly. Many of his supporters and leading cadre are women. Searching LaRouche’s websites for the term “women,” “feminism,” and “abortion” turned up only a few times where he revealed himself.

— Lyndon Larouche: Fascism Restyled for the New Millennium, by Helen Gilbert 2003 ISBN 0932323219

LaRouche and Wertz set high fundraising goals for the organization, for each office, and for each individual fundraiser. LaRouche was said to have blamed the fundraisers' inadequacy on "sexual impotence." Wertz and regional fundraising supervisors reacted angrily to fundraising shortfalls and the individual fundraisers, when failing to meet established quotas, became hysterical, distraught, and depressed.

— 896 F.2d 815 UNITED STATES v. Lyndon H. LAROUCHE, No. 89-5518. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied Feb. 16, 1990.

Like many cult leaders, LaRouche has developed a highly effective arsenal of mind-control techniques based on his self-proclaimed "groundbreaking" psychological discoveries. Those who question his reported assassination plots are diagnosed as "paranoid." Politicial doubts are ascribed to a "mother complex," homosexuality or sexual impotence. Dependence is enforced not only in group therapy sessions, during which LaRouche explains the worthlessness of each member without the organization but also in private, one-on-one sessions. "The people who were the leaders and movers and shakers were all psychologically crushed, broken almost physically sometimes," says an ex-member. "They were locked in a room and ego-stripped for days." Another member recalls that the most brilliant members of the organization were "psychologicaly castrated" and then "assigned for rehabilitation to write reports, and locally, to sell newspapers."

— Donner, Frank, and Randall Rothenberg (August 16-23, 1980). "The Strange Odyssey of Lyndon LaRouche", The Nation, pp. 142-147.

In 1973, LaRouche started writing long essays on the interrelation of political and sexual impotence. He also began the lengthy and belittling sessions of his followers that are said to continue even today. "He took an ideology and overlaid it with psychological conditioning," Berlet said.

Such sessions, according to the government's trial brief in the LaRouche case, are now even a part of his organizations' fund-raising tactics. The indictment describes relentless fund-raising quotas that individuals were required to meet and the consequences if they did not:

"Those having failed were accused of disloyalty and told to stay at the chapter all night to catch up. They were ridiculed in front of other members. . . . They were taunted publicly that their sex life had obviously failed and would continue to do so if their fund-raising did not improve. They were berated as homosexuals, lesbians, drunks or prostitutes, all in front of their peers."

— LAROUCHE TRIAL TO OPEN TOMORROW Susan Levine. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Oct 19, 1987. pg. A.9

It was around that time that [ Fred Newman ] fell under the spell of another, more powerful ideologue working at the intersection of psychology and politics: Lyndon LaRouche. Though once a figure respected on the left, by the early '70s LaRouche had descended into a gothic world of conspiracy theories, a place where the CIA was brainwashing his security guards to kill him and where only he had the power to end "your political-and sexual-impotence." To maintain total command over the hundreds of disciples he sent out onto the streets to assault rival political parties with lead pipes and brass knuckles, he forced them into psychological therapy sessions, called "deprogramming."

In 1974, when most of the left was quite literally running from LaRouche, Newman led nearly 40 of his followers into an official alliance with LaRouche's National Caucus of Labor Committees. For several weeks, the two groups held joint forums and political meetings. It is unclear how much the Newmanites participated in the LaRoucheans' more militant activities. But, according to Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, which has tracked both groups, Newman used the interaction as an apprenticeship, a way to learn how to control a mass organization. It was then, Berlet says, that Newman mastered "ego-stripping group-therapy sessions"to discipline his rank and file. He also developed his ideology, a crude form of Marxism, which contended that the United States was ruled by a handful of moneyed elites-- most notably the Jews, whom Newman decried, despite his upbringing, as "dirty," "self-righteous dehumanize[s]," and "the storm troopers of decadent capitalism."

IT DIDN'T TAKE long, however, before apprentice and mentor fell into a fierce rivalry. "There was room for only one charismatic leader," says Berlet. And, after just a few months, Newman walked out with most of his original followers forming his own breakaway faction: the International Workers Party (IWP).

Operating through Leninist-style cadres and explicitly committed to a workers' revolution, the IWP adopted LaRouchean elements such as a cult of personality. But at its core was Newman's evolving theory of "social therapy," which many say encourages the patient to reject almost everything he has been taught by society and cede to the therapist enormous power over every facet ofhis life: hisjob, his friends, his family, even his sexual partners. Though many participants speak effusively of its success-"Fred saved my life," enthused one-early on there were reports of abuse. Several former IWP members said that, as part of their salvation, they were persuaded to hand over all their assets. IWP members told a local New York reporter, Dennis King, that Newman broke up at least two marriages because the relationships were too "bourgeois"-an allegation Newman denies. Others have said Newman encouraged them to participate in what he called "friendosexuality" a practice that Newman cheerfully recommends in his book Let's Develop.

Ironically, it was the LaRoucheans who first circulated documents stating that the Newmanites were too bizarre. One 30-cent leaflet complained indignantly of the IWP's "totally destructive social relations" and "methods of brainwashing. " Newman, in turn, charged that LaRouche's members were even worse-"mindfucked not brainwashed." ("[A]n organization based on ... mindfucking cannot lead the class;" he wrote. "It will destroy itself.")

— Coming soon to a presidential campaign near you David Grann. The New Republic. Washington: Dec 13, 1999. Vol. 221, Iss. 24; pg. 20, 6 pgs

Jayen, would you care to summarize these?   Will Beback  talk  05:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So, I guess that would be a "no," in response to "Aren't there better sources summarising these views?" Perhaps you could make your answers a bit more concise. Chip Berlet and his crowd make April Witt look pretty neutral by comparison. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think you don't like any U.S. or U.K. sources.   Will Beback  talk  19:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

These characterizations, attributed to writings of LaRouche, are questionable: In Beyond Psychoanalysis, LaRouche wrote that members should strip new recruits of their egos, reduce them to a state that he called "little me," then begin the process of rebuilding their personalities. In "The Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party," he wrote that leftists must confront their sexual problems, such as their fear of, or desire for, their sadistic mothers. We should either:

• Find text in the cited primary sources to verify that he actually wrote these things;
• Find a scholarly, as opposed to "advocacy journalism" source, that says it is permissible to interpret his writings in this way; or
• Omit these claims per WP:REDFLAG. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the two articles in question?   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I read "Beyond Psychoanalysis." The article says that Socialist organizing is directed to the mobilization of workers around a new sense of social identity replacing the "little me," a new sense of identity which the propagandist and organizer must synthesize, which is done by a partial stripping away of the persona. The persona is not the ego; a persona is generally regarded as an artificial form of identity that is worn like a mask for public consumption. If I understand LaRouche correctly, he uses the term "ego" to refer to the real self. Therefore, as far as I understand what LaRouche is writing, Witt's claim is false. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying if you disagree with a report in the Washington Post we should delete it? That your interpetation is more valid than anyone elses?   Will Beback  talk  03:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"International reception."

In an attempt to offset the non-neutrality of the new "all-criticism" version of this article, I have updated the "China/Russia" section with additional material, including from the Arabic press, and renamed it "International reception." --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There is less criticism in the article then ever before. Why are we devoting 139 words to a quote from an obscure Araqb journalist? And who did the translation?   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Good one. Regarding the Arab article, it provides useful biographical information about LaRouche, discussing what makes him notable outside of the U.S. The translation is by Google. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to quote it? If this is a reliable source we should integrate it into the article. His views on Palestinians and Israel are probably worth including in the "Views" section.   Will Beback  talk  17:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the obviously appropriate location for "Criticism of the U.S. Labor Party" would be U.S. Labor Party. Is there a reasoned objection to moving it there? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem was with the title.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The title was quite accurate. However, the new title is also accurate, "New York Times Article," so then the question becomes why are we devoting 4 paragraphs of space to a newspaper article? What makes this article so much more notable than other articles? Do we have secondary sources that say this article deserves this kind of weight? Also, is there a page where you have assembled the quotes from coverage of the 1986 press conference? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"[I]t provides useful biographical information about LaRouche, discussing what makes him notable". There's no press conference quotes page.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to make an analogy between a 2 sentence quote, favorable to LaRouche, from the Arabic-language daily Asharq Al-Awsat, and an entire 4 paragraph section devoted to a hostile article in the New York Times. The amount of weight is not equivalent, so I would appreciate it if you would just go ahead and answer my question about what justifies the weight given to the Times article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Howard Blum article has been discussed in at least four books.[26]. (and cited in several more.) How many books discuss the Asharq Al-Awsat article? Does that publication have a reputation comparable to the New York Times? More generally, the man and the movement are inseparable, we have two quotes about the movement in the lead, for example. While we have articles on U.S. Labor Party and on the LaRouche movement, we can't exclude information about those topics from here. While we're on the topic, I'm concerned about the quote we use from an unsigned Schiller Institute page characterizing the USLP. I've read a fair bit about the party, and I don't recall any contemporary descriptions like that. I suggest we rely on what can be found in 3rd-party sources instead.   Will Beback  talk  22:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Schiller Institute page is LaRouche's official biography. I think that, properly attributed, an official biography is an invaluable source for this article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Schiller Institute page is LaRouche's official biography." Evidence?   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was mistaken. There are a total of two biographies on the LaRouche sites.[27][28] The Schiller Institute version is longer and more detailed. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, why do you call it an "official biography"? Just reading a little of it it seems absurdly inaccurate. [I'll agree to ccategorize it as an "official biography", since it seems to be the same across at least two (maybe three) websites.] While we usually allow self-published assertions about a person, I don't think this is a reliable source for information about the U.S. Labor Party or other details of the subject's life. It's only usable as a source for his opinion of himself (or more accurately, for the anonymous author's opinion of LaRouche's life).   Will Beback  talk  03:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You have consistently argued that LaRouche's views are identical to those of the organizations he heads. Why would this case be any different? SPS certainly permits an organization or person to describe its own views. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of who wrote it, it's not a reliable account.   Will Beback  talk  17:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion, or do you have something more substantial to base it on? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm not disparaging the Times as a source. I am questioning why any single newspaper article, regardless of how prestigious, should be allocated that much space in the article. My understanding is that we are to summarize what is in sources, not repeat them in toto. For readers who want to explore the fine points of the article, we can include it in the external links. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are we devoting so much space to a quote from an obscure newspaper owned by a prince in a small, authoritarian Arabian country? At least the NYT material is summarized, rather than quoted verbatim.   Will Beback  talk  00:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the many disruptive features of SlimVirgin's re-write was the deletion of all hyperlinks from the references, making the article essentially a giant mass of dead links. This has already caused some problems, and I'm sure it will cause more. Although it will be a huge task, I think we should begin restoring the hyperlinks. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the hyperlinks- those still exist in the bottom section but its harder to find them and the other bibliographic information. With this current system it's a bit tricky to find a source. There's a great system of citations using template:harvnb, which keeps the footnates in the text short, but still links everything.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Norman Bailey, formerly with the National Security Council, described LaRouche's staff in 1984 as one of the best private intelligence services in the world, ...
• Blum wrote that, from 1976 onwards, party members were transmitting intelligence reports on left-wing members to the FBI and local police. In 1977, he wrote, commercial reports on U.S. anti-apartheid groups were prepared by LaRouche members for the South African government, student dissidents were reported to the Shah of Iran's Savak secret police, and the anti-nuclear movement was investigated on behalf of power companies. He also wrote that LaRouche was telling his membership several times a year that he was being targeted for assassination, including by the Queen, "big-time Zionist mobsters," the Council on Foreign Relations, the Justice Department, and the Mossad.[33] Blum alleged that U.S. Labor Party members were exchanging almost daily information with Roy Frankhouser, who had been an informant for the ATF and other law enforcement agencies, and became a security consultant for LaRouche after convincing him that he was actively connected to U.S. intelligence agencies.[50][51]

The first sentence is in the lead, and it could be considered to summarize the more extended description in the text.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The "New York Times article" section covers several points: an overview of the movement in 1979, weapons training, corporate involvements, intelligence activities, and Frankhouser. There's material in multiple sources on all of those topics. A better title would be something like "1976-1979". I'll work on fleshing it out.   Will Beback  talk  07:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The "NYT" series (two articles and an editorial) is indeed notable, having been referred to in multiple sources (not counting footnotes):

• Despite investigative reports on the U.S.L.P. in The New York Times and in a New York City community shopper called Our Town, the real story of the group is...
  • Donner, Frank, and Randall Rothenberg (August 16-23, 1980). "The Strange Odyssey of Lyndon LaRouche", The Nation, pp. 142-147.
• Late last year, the New York Times published a series of articles stating that members of the US Labor Party, which LaRouche founded, have "initiated gang assaults at rivals' meetings, taken courses in the use of knives and rifles at an anti-terrorist school and produced private intelligence reports on antiapartheid groups in the United States for the Bureau of State Security of South Africa." The Times series also branded LaRouche as an anti-Semite. LaRouche has denied the Times' charges and says he has filed a $100- million libel suit against the newspaper. Laura Cohen, LaRouche's campaign press secretary, called the Times stories "ugly crap." She said the series was intended "to set up a credible climate for an assassination hit."
  • FRINGE CANDIDATE OR A THREAT?; ; THE LYNDON LAROUCHE CAMPAIGN Charles Kenney Globe Staff. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Feb 17, 1980. pg. 1
• The New York Times, after an investigation, published a series of stories last fall which concluded that, under LaRouche, the U.S. Labor Party was a cult-like organization. The Times quoted former members as saying all members' savings and possessions are at the service of the party. Psychological pressures are exerted, the Times reported, to make members become dependent on the party and to keep them from quitting.
  • LaRouche: a former Marxist seeks the presidency, AP, The Sunday Herald February 17,1980 - Page 9

• "By most American standards, the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche are repulsive in ideology, frightening in their manipulative power over his adherents and hallucinatory in their theories of conspiracy," The New York Times said in an editorial the same year [1979].
  • UNITED STATES Oddball tycoon wins some battles JOHN KING. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Jan 26, 1984. pg. P.8
• LaRouche's proof for the story was his tapes of the deprogramming. But New York Times reporter Paul Montgomery listened to them and gathered only that White was emotionally distraught. "There are sounds of weeping and vomiting," Montgomery wrote. "Mr. White complains of being deprived of sleep, food and cigarettes . . . . There is also what appears to be an attempt to hypnotize Mr. White." Montgomery wrote that at one point, after White failed to contradict one of LaRouche’s suggestions, LaRouche exclaimed, "Now do you see Carol? Do you believe?" At another point, White complained of a pain in his arm. When LaRouche said the pain was merely part of the "program," White suddenly shouted: "The pain is real . . . I have to tell you what's real and stop this crazy fantasy world. Because it's not my fantasy."
  • King (1989) Ch. 4
• Things began to unravel when New England newspapers picked up on a New York Times series about LaRouche's anti-Semitism and links to the Ku Klux Klan. Most articles reported this information in a low-key manner and without much detail.
  • King (1989) Ch. 11
• But LaRouche's troubles in the outside world were by no means squelched. The New York Times echoed Our Town’s findings in a frontpage series, and the story spread to newspapers in New Hampshire, where LaRouche was making his Democratic primary presidential bid. [..] In 1979 a New York Times editorial had urged a probe of his nonprofit Fusion Energy Foundation.
  • King (1989) Ch. 26
• For instance, from the beginning of LaRouche's rise most major newspapers shied away from analyzing his organization in any but the most superficial terms. They avoided the terms "fascist" and "neo-Nazi," which alone could adequately express his aims and methods. The New York Times in its 1979 series on LaRouche at least kept the concept, expressing it through euphemisms and vivid examples, but soon even the euphemisms were dropped.
  • King (1989) Afterword
• Based on tape-recordings offered by NCLC members as "proof," the New York Times later carried a harrowing account of this so-called "deprogramming" session.
  • "Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag" Chip Berlet and Joel Bellman , March 10th, 1989 Political Research Associates

Is any article or series about LaRouche more noted?   Will Beback  talk  06:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche charges here and here that Blum, Montgomery and King collaborated in the preparation of the article, so it isn't a big surprise that King promotes it in his book, nor that it is promoted by Berlet, who seems to say everything that King does. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that LaRouche has responded to the article repeatedly is additional evidence of its notability.   Will Beback  talk  17:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)