Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 11

Berlet/Bellman report is published
This text has been deleted by pro-LaRouche editors:


 * "Chip Berlet and Joel Bellman claim that the shift in the NCLC's politics and the change in its internal regime was prompted by a personal crisis in LaRouche's life which led to his having an emotional crisis: + - + - : 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. "

This text appears in a published report. It represents material similar to that by several other writers of published material critical of LaRouche. It is not a minority view, it is the majority view. It should not be deleted. We can discuss modifying it here in the discussion page, but unilateral deletions by pro-LaRouche editors is not acceptable behavior in a collective editing process.

Once again I ask that we all stop editing this page and focus on the Political views of Lyndon LaRouche page which is currently locked. Otherwise this page should be locked. --Cberlet 18:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You say that this theory is the "majority view." Then, produce a quote from someone else. This article is becoming a compendium of quotes from Chip Berlet. Weed Harper 21:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Weed's latest deletion
Weed, I have reverted your delete of Cberlet's addition. If you read Cite sources, you'll see that Wikipedia editors are allowed to quote themselves if two conditions apply: (a) they are recognized experts in the field, and (b) they are quoting in the third person from their own publications. And then (c), as always, the publisher must be a reputable one.

Cberlet is a recognized expert. He is quoting from something he wrote in, as I recall, 1999. And Political Research Associates, whether you like them or not, are regarded as reputable. It might interest you to know that I had this confirmed today. I wrote to a respected researcher at the suggestion of another editor (someone not involved in the LaRouche pages) to ask about information on reputable published resources on LaRouche. The answer came back that Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates are highly regarded, and that Dennis King's book is a respected resource too. I had not asked about Berlet, by the way. Weed, may I remind you that you are not allowed to act in a way that suggests promotion of Lyndon LaRouche or his movement.

I agree with Chip and Will that we should concentrate on Political views of, or else ask for unprotection. SlimVirgin 21:38, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, similar claims are made by King in his book: pages 26-31. I would be happy if a quote from King was substituted, or if the claim was summarized. --Cberlet 21:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I notice that Slim does not name the "respected researcher." King and Berlet are a team, so if their theories resemble one another, no big surprise. Either way, the theory that LaRouche's political views are all the result of a divorce fails the "original research" test:

"A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is:
 * It introduces a theory or method of solution, or
 * It introduces original ideas, or
 * It defines new terms, or
 * It provides new definitions of old terms, or
 * It purports to refute another idea, or
 * It introduces neologisms.

However all of the above may be acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape. A few examples of this include:
 * The ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal; or
 * The ideas have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story)."

Weed Harper 22:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And Chip Berlet's writing HAS been peer-reviewed, which is why he's been interviewed on network television and published in mainstream newspapers. Political Research Associates is also regarded as a reputable outlet. It therefore does not count as original research. Dennis King's book has become "a permanent feature of the public landscape." The only reason I'm not naming the researcher who spoke highly of Chip Berlet is that I don't want that person to become a target of the Lyndon LaRouche movement. The name was recommended by an experienced editor who has never edited this page. SlimVirgin 22:25, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Since Berlet's attacks on LaRouche died out in the major press after serving their purpose 15 years ago, I am sure that the LaRouche movement has little interest in him, viewing him only as a mild annoyance. He is, however, a major annoyance to Wikipedia if he is going to attempt to transform encyclopedia articles into essays propounding his idiosyncratic theories. And, it does not impress anyone that you quote anonymous sources in a desperate attempt to boost his credibility. --HK 15:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The source isn't anonymous. It's just you, Weed Harper and C Colden who won't be told. SlimVirgin 15:53, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Weed Harper: Please do not make major deletions without discussion. You have been asked to focus on the Political Views page so that it can be unlocked. Please try to cooperate with the group process of editing. --Cberlet 03:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Weed and HK--I tried to fix as much as I could after I restored Weed's deletion, but Weed so thoroughly botched up a series of edits that it was almost impossible (using the "history" function) to figure out what typos and red links he had fixed. I did find and fix two names that had garbled leters. I was not trying to undo the legitimate editing of Weed. --Cberlet 17:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Berlet quoting Berlet
I will accept quotes from Berlet that have appeared in a "mainstream" publication. On the other hand, if Wikipedia readers want to read Berlet's website, there are abundant links to it in all the LaRouche articles. There is no need to reproduce Berlet's website here. --HK 16:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Many of the article on the official PRA website (not my personal website) are available as printed reports published by PRA.--Cberlet 17:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Presumably, there is no ambiguity in what is meant by "'mainstream' publication." --HK 01:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure there is plenty of ambiguity. What is a 'mainstream' publication in your mind? Are any LaRouche publications mainstream? What about "Time" magazine, which LaRouche might say was created by an "avid" LSD user and fascist? What about the "Washington Times" run by Moonies, or the Washington Post, once run by the Graham who masterminded LaRouche's arrest? The "New York Times"? Or are they controlled by the ADL? Frankly, it's hard to guess what you might consider to be a "mainstream" publication. (PS, it's not a matter of you "accepting" anything unilaterally - we're all in this together.) -Willmcw 05:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will not remove any quote from Berlet that has appeared in Time, the Washington Times, the Washington Post, or the New York Times. --HK 16:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rewriting to check balance and NPOV
I have rewritten this page to make it clearer what is material that originates from LaRouche publications and supporters. In a realistic article, claims from the LaRouche group need to be respected and included, but the entire article should reflect that their view of themselves and reality is a tiny minority view. --Cberlet 04:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of "Cooked Quotes"
The issue of "cooked quotes" is essential to the question of whether Berlet's web site should be considered a reputable source. I have assembled the evidence on a special page: Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence of "cooked quotes". I have edited for clarity some material contributed by Herschel. Weed Harper 07:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * There are no cooked quotes. This has been discussed repeatedly. The pro-LaRouche views are a tiny minority. Stop deleting legitimate, sourced, reputable, majority-view material in favor of the biased pro-LaRouche viewpoint.--Cberlet 15:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's stop editing this page and concentrate on the Views page
HK and Weed: I have asked repeatedly that we stop editing this page and focus on the Political views of Lyndon LaRouche page. You have refused. As long as you edit this page, I will edit this page. As a compromise, you can remove 50% of my edits you previously deleted.--Cberlet 16:42, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You always make this request just after you have added some outrageous crap, like "support for classical culture = bigotry." You leave the page as it is, and I won't edit it any more. The page was stable and undisputed until you started importing chunks of your web page. Weed Harper 21:19, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * WH, I reverted your deletions - you cut out lots of material. If you really want to edit this page, let's concetrate on it and discuss the edits. If there is a problem with specific sections, please tell us what they are and we can go over them one at a time. -Willmcw 21:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

//You cut one another's comments on a page like this?! Fascism is alive and well and living in American culture ... Ward's insight is totally awesome.//

The fact is, Will, that Berlet is attempting a general re-write of this article, to incorporate the theories that he propounds in his articles at PRA. Each time he makes a sally in this direction, he then calls for everyone to stop editing this article. He is also attempting to introduce material into this article that belongs in "political views", if it belongs anywhere at all. I have put it back to the last version by Weed, and I am making the following proposal: --HK 16:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alas, the last version by Weed cut off 2/3 of the article. But it is much more brisk. So I added back the recent events and links, and I think it reads much better!--Cberlet 18:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A proposal concerning the issue of Chip Berlet and original research
Chip Berlet AKA User:Cberlet has been systematically loading both Lyndon LaRouche and Political views of Lyndon LaRouche with quotes from articles that he has written. Between quotes from Chip and quotes from his siamese twin Dennis King, the articles resemble more and more an essay promoting their shared, idiosyncratic theories. The Slim 'n' Chip team has often attempted to justify CBerlet's edits by claiming that Berlet's material has appeared in "mainstream" publications.

Fine, then. As I indicate to Will above, I will not remove any quotes from Chip that have appeared in "mainstream", read "mass circulation" publications. That would include the publications Will asked about as examples: Time, the Washington Times, Washington Post, or New York Times. It would not include some publications that have served as a venue for the King/Berlet theories, such as High Times. It emphatically would not include leftist conspiracy-theory blog sites that are cloned from PRA.

In this way, the mass-circulation press can serve as sort of a "filter" to determine which of the King/Berlet theories are "mainstream", and which are esoteric, arcane, idiosyncratic, and generally unacceptable in Wikipedia under the No original research guidelines. --HK 16:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not what the NPOV page describes as the standard criteria.--Cberlet 18:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New drafts of LaRouche articles
How about leaving this page alone for a bit and work on the new drafts?--Cberlet 18:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here are the first "sandbox" drafts of three pages, and their associated links:

Lyndon LaRouche


 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche


 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

Political views of Lyndon LaRouche


 * Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche


 * Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

United States v. LaRouche


 * Talk:United States v. LaRouche


 * Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox

Very little material actually deleted--much duplication eliminated.--Cberlet 18:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If you try to replace Wikipedia articles with Chip Berlet articles, rest assured they will be reverted. --64.30.208.48 18:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear anonymous user. It was the pro-LaRouche editor HK who deleted most of the article. I actually reinserted material. So I will restore my last edit and take out some of my quotes and replace them with others.--Cberlet 21:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschel's request for page protection
As Herschelkrustofsky, who is a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche, has just requested page protection, any admin responding to the request might wish to take the following into account. A recent request to the developers for information regarding the user accounts User:Herschelkrustofsky, User:Weed Harper and User:C Colden received the following response: "On technical evidence, combined with similarity in posting patterns, Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper can be considered to be operated by the same person. C Colden is either the same person or working in coordination with them, but is not *firmly* established to be the same person." Also, the anonymous IP address 64.30.208.48 posting above is one that is used by the Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper account, as was established once when s/he forgot to log on. Based on all of the above, it would appear that support for Herschelkrustofsky's position is weaker than it seems. A request for page protection may therefore be an abuse of the protection mechanism, as other editors would like to edit this page so that it conforms to NPOV standards. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 03:30, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule
Slim, you should familiarize yourself with Three-revert rule, since you just violated it. --HK 03:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I have reverted three times, and a fourth edit shows that I only corrected a typo. But I have to laugh. Look at how often you/Weed Harper have reverted in the last few days. SlimVirgin 03:42, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * And, in fact, you've just violated 3RR using only the Herschel account. SlimVirgin 03:46, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Internal Memo is Verifiable
LaRouche has written: "Can we imagine anything more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?" (Internal memo - Lyndon H. LaRouche, NCLC 1973).

This internal memo is available from a variety of sources. It is in the Tamiment Library archive in New York at NYU. I received a copy from a former member. Others, including Dennis King, have copies of this memo from former members.--Cberlet 04:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you have a scanner or digital camera? I imagine that a legible photo of it would be sufficient proof to allow the editors to verify it. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Will, you need to apply the same rules to the pro-LaRouche editors and me. I have already posted numerous image files. Every one of my quotes has been shown to be accurate.  The memo is referenced in King's book.  It is in a library in NYC. 50% of the pro-LaRouche material on a dozen pages is unverified and without proper citation.  You are not being fair. Can you point to a single quote I posted that was not accurate and not presented in a way that reasonable people would consider at least a defensible interpretation? Name one. Then go back and look at the numerous false, innacurate, and unsourced claims by the pro-LaRouche editors. Shall I go in and delete all the unsourced material on all the LaRouche pages now?  I await your response--Cberlet 05:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The memo is quoted in the Washington Post:


 * "LaRouche said that only he could help his followers, and many begged to have sessions with him, former members said. Members were gripped with a "virtual religious hysteria" when they saw these criticisms as insights, one former associate said.


 * "LaRouche outlined his therapy in a 1973 memo to members. He wrote that he was "taking your bedrooms away from you until you make the step to being effective organizers . . . . Your pathetic impotence in your sexual life" is a political matter, he wrote. "I will take away from you all hope that you can flee the terrors of politics to the safety of 'personal life.' "


 * "LaRouche also said in the memo that the mother is "the principle source of impotence . . . . Can we imagine anything much more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?" "


 * Ideological Odyssey: From Old Left to Far Right, By John Mintz. Washington Post Staff Writer, January 14, 1985.


 * That should suffice.--Cberlet 05:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CB - That's great. Looks like a good source to me. Yes, I have asked other editors for the same info. The often-quoted Brainin, which is not only unverifiable but also obviously edited. HK asked for a reprieve so that he could edit the Poltical Views, but I suppose it is time to insist. I will delete the Brainin quotes unless a verifiable copy can be provided to show the context. -Willmcw 05:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Confused
Herschelkrustofsky has reverted so many times in the last 24 hours that I've lost track. Has anyone else managed to keep track of which parts have been deleted, and which remain? SlimVirgin 05:15, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Core articles in LaRouche series - Outline
Lyndon LaRouche
 * 1 Early life
 * 2 LaRouche and Trotskyism
 * 3 LaRouche, NCLC, and Conflict with the Left
 * 4 New policy directions
 * 5 LaRouche and Classical Culture
 * 6 Biographical issues
 * 6.1 Dennis King and Chip Berlet
 * 6.2 LaRouche and the press
 * 7 Presidential bids
 * 8 Criminal conviction
 * 9 Recent events
 * 10 Books about Lyndon LaRouche and his movement
 * 11 External links

Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns
 * External links

Political views of Lyndon LaRouche
 * 1 Core beliefs of LaRouche
 * 1.1 LaRouche on economics
 * 1.2 Political philosophy
 * 1.2.1 Fascism
 * 2 Controversial Views of LaRouche
 * 2.1 LaRouche and Marxism
 * 2.2 LaRouche's conspiracy theories
 * 2.3 LaRouche and feminism
 * 2.4 LaRouche and gay people
 * 2.5 Criticism of LaRouche's economics
 * 2.6 LaRouche and the Jews
 * 2.7 Is LaRouche a fascist?
 * 3 LaRouche's critics
 * 3.1 John Train Salon
 * 4 External links

United States v. LaRouche
 * 1 The First Trial
 * 2 The Second Trial
 * 3 Attempts at exoneration
 * 4 External links

National Caucus of Labor Committees
 * Electoral politics
 * International work
 * External links

Schiller Institute
 * 1 Connection with LaRouche
 * 2 Political Activity
 * 3 Cultural Activity
 * 3.1 Music
 * 3.2 Drama and Poetry
 * 4 Death of Jeremiah Duggan
 * 5 Conferences
 * 6 References
 * 7 External links

LaRouche Youth Movement
 * External links

Helga Zepp-LaRouche
 * External links

Here are the titles and section headings of the major articles in the LaRouche series. The section headings do not necessarily reflect the content of the articles. I've compiled them together so that editors can glance over them and see if there are any significant omissions, duplications, or mistakes in emphasis that might be indicated from these headings. I've left out the defunct groups and minor figures. -Willmcw 08:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * A significant omission for me is a description of how the LaRouche movement functions: how people are recruited and retained; what work they're expected to do for the movement; where they live (collective housing? is that true?); are they able to leave easily; how many members there are; which countries; average ages. There are a couple of references to this in Washington Post articles, and there's a book written by a former Schiller member, which I'm currently trying to find, but it's in German. In my view, this information belongs in Lyndon LaRouche, but if others would rather it went elsewhere, that's fine, but I feel it should at least be linked to in Lyndon LaRouche. We also lack information regarding how the Schiller Institute is regarded in Germany, where the far-right is closely watched. Again, this will involve looking for German articles. I feel that to have the section "LaRouche critics" in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche makes it look as though the description of LaRouche's views prior to this is accepted by all but a few critics. That's all I can think of for now. I'll look around to see whether there are good sources on the nature of the movement/membership. Also, there's the recent move toward establishing a relationship with the Nation of Islam; perhaps that's mentioned somewhere already. SlimVirgin 09:03, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely. Maybe a separate article on the "Larouche movement" or "organization"? I'd like to see more on the relationships between all the groups, and of course something on where the money comes from and and goes. There's a (bloated) disambiguation page which has some content that could serve as a nucleus. Regarding the critics, at least some of that should probably be in the bio article. LaRouche's "theories about conspiracies" is another area which I believe is under-covered, and which doesn't belong exactly where it is in the outline. The theories are so central to his message, and there are so many of them, some of which contradict or overlap, that they may require an article of their own. -Willmcw 09:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes! Another two breakaway articles. This is fast becoming LaRouchipedia. ;-) You're right about the theories about conspiracies. It's what he's known for and has thrived on all his political life, so it should be central to the bio article and the Political views. When I mentioned the critics thing in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche or Lyndon LaRouche, I was thinking criticism should be woven throughout rather than relegated to a special section, though that makes it harder to write. Anyway, they're improving. Thanks for doing so much work on these. SlimVirgin 09:43, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we can use the Political Views sandbox page as a place to put non-essential material from the Lyndon LaRouche and United States v. LaRouche pages, and then see how big it is with the additional material suggested by Slim. Then think about condensing or spinning off another article. I do worry that there is really just too much on the subject...--Cberlet 13:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox
 * Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox
 * Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox

Thank you to you, too, Chip, for all the work you're putting into this. The articles are definitely improving. I'm sorry I'm not pulling my weight with edits, but I feel somewhat bewildered by the latest reverts and deletions, and by the sheer volume of material and the way it straddles multiple pages. I think I need deprogramming. SlimVirgin 17:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is very confusing to try to edit across three pages when one is protected and cannot be changed, and the other two are constantly being rewritten and edited by the pro-LaRouche editors. Either we should open all three, or close all three and work in the sandbox version until they are acceptable and then replace the existing ones and unprotect them all.  There is a tremendous amount of duplicate material and lots of material that should be condensed or simpy referenced in a link. And on top of this, the pro-LaRouche editors are determined to block any serious editing.--Cberlet 19:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * We could ask for unprotection of Political views of, if you like, or as you say continue to edit in the sandbox. The latter would be the quieter option. I don't think the admins will allow the other two to be protected unless we're in the middle of an edit war. The problem with these articles is that they're fatally flawed by having been written by or under the influence of the LaRouchies, in that their complaints determined the structure, and forced other articles to spin off from the mother-article. There's nothing to stop us starting from scratch - the Wikipedia motto, after all, is "Be bold." On the other hand, that's a lot of work. I think we're all agreed that there is too much information. I suggest that we start working in the sandboxes and forget the real articles for the time being. We can revert any outrageous deletions Herschel-Weed makes but otherwise ignore him/her. How does that sound?


 * I agree, but we really need to interest Will in this idea. Will? Knock, Knock (hitting display with index finger)...--Cberlet 20:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Count me in. The main bio and Political View could both use fresh re-writes. -Willmcw 20:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Another set of information which would help make this series comprehensive would be a list of publications and a list of organizations (perhaps broken down into closely and loosely related). Maybe also a list of prominent people in the movement. Those would go with an overview of the movement. There are so many names of groups, magazines, spokesmen, etc, that some factual listings would help keep everything straight.


 * Regarding the bio in particular, would it be helpful to move towards a more chronological format? So much of the LaRouche material is thematically arranged that it makes it hard to follow the flow of events. Would a timeline or a list of important dates help? -Willmcw 23:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet's Propaganda Flourishes
Chip Berlet's edits read like retro-Joe McCarthy. A headline like "Classical Culture, or Bigotry?" might have been pure gold at High Times (remember the header on Chip's article about LaRouche: "They Want to Take Your Drugs Away"), but it is an embarassment to Wikipedia. Weed Harper 16:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The majority view among published articles about LaRouche is that "What LaRouche supporters see as praising classic culture, LaRouche critics see as a bias against non-White, non-European, non-patriarchal, non-heterosexual cultures and identities." We should include both views, but should not sweep the majority criticism under the rug just because a tiny handful of ardent pro-LaRouche editors keep complaining. And, as most people who know journalism already know, I didn't write the headline, subheadline, or kicker subheadline anyway--that's what editors do at a magazine.--Cberlet 16:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * A tiny handful containing one, perhaps. SlimVirgin 17:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Brainin quote
WeedHopper, thanks for providing the partial context for the Brainin quote. However, we still haven't seen what was deleted after the ellipsis. And we still don't have a verifiable source for it. Can you scan or photograph the pamphlet? That'd be great. Thanks. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This hidden version of the quote really is so good that I'd hate to see it disappear in the editing, so I'm posting it here to make it visisble. It's almost worth creating a section on the sycophancy of LaRouche followers in order to use it there. I hope we can get the verification for it. -Willmcw 00:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC):
 * Full quote [sic]: "I am writing as a European who has been an artist all his life, a musician steeped in the world of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and Brahms, who is also concerned with the history of the freedoms and aspirations of people in general. Looking at the present world situation on is very worried about the U.S.A. with regard to Europe in particular and the world at large -- all the more since there seems to be nobody at all in the U.S. to be capable of dealing with the dangerous crisis there; nobody, except one: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., who by his training as a historian, economist, philosopher and musician, by his complete grasp of any given situation, has repeatedly proved his powers to anticipate history and suggest the correct remedies, which, unfortunately, nobody has put into effect so far. He is the only person in the whole wide world, who has the power of intellect, the heart, the knowledge, the vision, the wisdom and the method to deal with this acute crisis -- qualities which seem essential in a President of the United States and which are sadly lacking in the present incumbent of this high office. Perhaps LaRouche's greatest quality is his passion for seeking the truth and fighting for it even if it means going to prison..." -Brainin

Oberstleutnant Dr. Friedrich-August Freiherr Von Der Heydte?
Oh, Von Der Heydte is real. He taught law. The LaRouche folk generally leave off the fact that he fought for Hitler, rising to the rank of Oberstleutnant. After the war he promoted right-wing nationalist policies in Germany, and denounced democracy. According to Russ Bellant:


 * "Heydte, whose family was close to the exiled Hohenzollen monarch, [f-108] was reported to have written in 1953 that "democracy is linked with collapse, defeat and foreign uniforms stalking German soil," and that "democracy was brought by the victorious enemy together with the army of occupation." [f-109] Von der Heydte was a co-founder and ideological leader of the Christian Democratic Union, a party that brought a variety of Nazi elements into its fold after the first post-war German elections. [f-110]"

Go ahead and quote Von Der Heydte, and then add his baggage.--Cberlet 21:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The "Christian Democratic Union" (CDU) was the ruling party of postwar Germany the first 20 years and so the first chanclers of Germany, Adenauer and Erhard were also chaimrmen of the CDU. The CDU ist definetly not nazi, if teh sources says otehrwise that makes the whole source and quote very suspicious (makes it sound ultra leftwing). pseudo-sig - 08:11, July 19, 2005 user:84.56.8.250]]


 * Yes, I saw he was regarded as a war hero. There's a website selling plastic models of him in various poses: driving a tank, standing firm with a gun. I also read that he had taught law, but couldn't find any reference to him at the University of Mainz, and when the LaRouche newspaper thing came out in 1990, Heyde would have been, I believe, 83, so was probably not, at that time, a law professor. We can say former law professor but how should we sum up the political background? SlimVirgin 21:15, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Heydte was the author of some international law articles.
 * For other views, see also:
 * http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=American_Security_Council
 * Anyway, as with other quotations, we need a verifiable source including context. -Willmcw 21:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyway, as with other quotations, we need a verifiable source including context. -Willmcw 21:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * OMG! Not Alex Constantine! Anyway, the Disinfopedia cite tracks back to the Russ Bellant book that I posted the text from (above). Forgot the cite:


 * Bellant, Russ. (1991 [1988]). Old Nazis, the New Right and the Reagan Administration: The Role of Domestic Fascist Networks in the Republican Party and Their Effect on U.S. Cold War Policies. Boston, Mass.: South End Press and Political Research Associates.


 * OMG! I helped edit that book for PRA. It's a conspiracy!!!


 * Honestly, let's give them the Heydte quote for a week and focus on sifting the sanbox.--Cberlet 23:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Internal Memo is Verifiable
I will accept the "internal memo", but with some stipulations. It should be noted that the document is unpublished, and that therefore the person representing it as authentic, whether King, Berlet, or Mintz, should be named. Secondly, since Chip says he has a copy, there should be no problem providing a context. I am not asking for a photostat, simply several sentences before and after the cited sentence, so that we can establish that the quote is not "cooked." Thirdly, what has this got to do with "classical culture"? It should be in the "political views" article, where, if you want to put forward the theory of "critics" that LaRouche is some sort of racist, I would be most happy to rebut. --HK 15:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The memo was published in the Washington Post  -Willmcw 20:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Right to Vote
The page states, "LaRouche entered the primary elections for the Democratic Party's nomination in 2004, even though as a convicted felon he is not permitted to vote."

Most states--though not all--strip felons of the right to vote while incarcerated; some states continue to deny the right to vote to ex-felons, but not all. Is it known for certain that LaRouche falls in that category? -Stismail 13:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * In Virginia, where LaRouche resides, felons can get their vote restored with the approval of the governor. There is no indication that LaRouche has applied for or received re-enfranchisement.  -Willmcw 18:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Welcome new editors
Some of us crusty old editors on this article have been playing at a new draft of this article in a sandbox: Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox. As one of the sandbuilders, I've been trying to cut out a lot of material that is in the present edition, and move some to other articles (and move some in from others too). The general aim is to make this into a succinct, yet comprehensive, chronological biography. You are all welcome to make comments in the sandbox too. By all means keep editing here (or there) and we'll sort it all out later. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's funny, you know: a lot of people don't like the LaRouche editor(s), and my own politics could hardly be more different, but we now have a great and growing collection of LaRouche-related articles. POV disputes get a bad rap: sometimes, after much anxiety, the end result is vastly improved content. Everyking 10:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You are quite right. Every writer benefits from having an editor, even if that editor doesn't agree with the material. A good tendency in Wiki "edit wars" is the piling on facts, one to offset another. That kind of informational one-upsmanship is good for the encyclopedia. (And sometimes the opposite is needed, shoveling efforts to excavate the essential details from piles of overlying manure, as in the case of the Stygian Stables.) I think that, even now, the LaRouche articles are among the best sources on the web on the topic and I know they'll get better. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Y'know, I'm hesitant to edit anything on any of the LaRouche pages - looks like way too much of a mess and I'm not really conversant in LaRouche matters. But there are two things that caught my eye: "Distinguished historian Richard Hofstadter" and "Teamster hoodlums". Actually Hosfstadter *is* a distinguished historian, but in the particular context of discussion of 19th century U.S. populism, Hofstadter's POV isn't exactly universally accepted. As for "Teamster hoodlums", there has to be a better way of wording that so it doesn't look like a (probably inadvertant) injection of anti-union POV into the article. I'm going to make a couple of small edits. Kaibabsquirrel 08:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox version
I am going to replace the existing version of this article with the copy that some editors have been working on at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox. That version is more chronological and somewhat shorter than the present copy. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, I moved the article Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/HK draft from Lyndon LaRouche/draft. In the former location it was in the name space and appeared in searches. It is now a redirect to the talk page draft. -Willmcw 08:40, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Anon deletion
In case it ever matters, today's anon IP deletion of the brainwashing claim was from 4.28.244.206, which belongs to Level 3 Communications Inc, Los Angeles. SlimVirgin 04:30, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

What About Fusion Energy Research?
I remember the Fusion magazine produced by LaRouche in the mid-1970s. You have a mention here in the timeline, but no text. Does anyone know if he or his organization still supports this concept? --Blainster 12:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe they do. The science arm of the LaRouche movement is now "Twenty First Century Science and Technology", at http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/ Cheers, -Willmcw 16:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Falklands-Malvinas
Bletch and Snowspinner, I don't agree with changing Falklands-Malvinas to Falklands, simply in the interests of compromise and NPOV. The term Falklands-Malvinas does exist, and gets between 12,000 and 26,000 hits on Google depending on how you enter it, many of which seem not to be Wikipedia mirror sites, so it is a legitimate term. SlimVirgin 23:09, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute that it's a common term. It just doesn't seem like the most common term. I guess I just want a reason why it should link to something other than the article title in this case. (Did LaRouche call it Falklands-Malvinas, for instance?) Snowspinner 23:11, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * LaRouche calls it the "Malvinas War". -Willmcw 23:26, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Good enough for me. Snowspinner 23:26, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict: written before I read the above.


 * I don't know what LaRouche called it: probably the Malvinas War, but there's no reason to use his vocabulary. You're right about it being odd to call it something other than the article title, so as a compromise, I added in brackets that it's known in Argentina as the Malvinas War. Google has 120,000 for the Falklands War and only 6,000 for Malvinas War, so Falklands is certainly the more popular. I'm only trying to think of NPOV, but take it out if you don't like it. SlimVirgin 23:28, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * LaRouche called it Malvinas because he was explicitly taking the Argentinian side. This is something like the two sides of the Israel-Palestine issue each refusing to acknowledge the other side's name for the country.  --AStanhope 23:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed; that's why I preferred Falklands-Malvinas War, even though it was a bit of a construction. SlimVirgin 23:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * My opinion pretty much echos that of Snowspinner. That said, the fact that LaRouche called it by the Argentine name seems to be an interesting piece of trivia in and of itself.  I think that I'll add that; if anyone has issues with the exact wording, edit away.  --Bletch 00:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't mind it. You're right that it adds information to point out that LaRouche used Malvinas. SlimVirgin 00:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nicely done, Bletch. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:59, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Quaker info
I came across a minor biography of LaRouche and would invite others to help decide the suitability of this material as a source. http://www.kouroo.info/page3.html, and in particular, The disownment of Lyndon LaRouche, a PDF file. It gives details of the "disownment" (removal) of LaRouche from his congregation in 1941. The original charges were, apparently quoting meeting minutes:


 * We believe Lyndon H. LaRouche is guilty of stirring up discord in this meeting; that he is responsible for circulating material injurious to the reputation of valued Christian workers; and believe that his conduct brings the Christian religion into public disrepute.

The source seems to be a Quaker history project. The later period of LaRouche's life in this bio is filled out with, ahem, familiar material. ;). In a too-long biography I hate to add more, but if this story seems to be credible then perhaps it can be summarized in a couple of sentences. Thoughts? Should we could correspond with the author and ask for his sources?  -Willmcw 06:49, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hearing no objection, I will incorporate this into the article. The source appears to be someone without a POV in this matter who is apparently in a quasi-scholarly role. The lack of a proper bibliography and the apparent plagiarism are distressing, but no source is perfect. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Washington Post quote
Hi Dkostic, I reverted your change of "chary" to "wary" in the 1976 WP quote, as "chary" was the word used, I believe. Do you know that it was "wary"? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:01, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Tag
Hi El Poder, to use the NPOV tag correctly, you have to make specific, actionable suggestions for change that would lead to the tag being removed, and the suggestions must be actionable within our policies, as well as within two arbitration cases that ruled editors are not allowed to promote the views of Lyndon LaRouche. If you can't do that, the tag ought not to be used. Let me know what your plan is. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Because you cover him as a cult leader, not the economist, philosopher, world leader, and scientific thinker that he **really** is. El Poder de la Razón 15:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, El Poder. We've had two arbitration cases about this, and the rulings have been that the views of LaRouche supporters are not allowed to take precedence in these articles. You may want to read our policies, particularly No original research and Neutral point of view. What these say jointly is that WP must represent majority and significant-minority views, but not tiny-minority ones. The view that LaRouche is an economist, philosopher, and world leader is a tiny-minority view. The policies also state that everything in WP must already have been published by credible, reputable publications. LaRouche publications are not regarded as credible or reputable by Wikipedia (an arbitration case has ruled that they count as "original research"), and may only be used as primary-source material &mdash; that is, to show what the organization says about itself, or to illustrate its views on certain issues &mdash; but may not be used to suggest that LaRouche's ideas are correct or widely believed. What this means in practical terms is that, if you want the article to state or imply that Larouche is an "economist, philosopher, world leader, and scientific thinker," you'll need to produce a reputable, third-party source that backs up that view. If you don't have specific suggestions that are actionable within our policies, the tag ought to come down. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Economist?
I've been having fun butting heads with Cognition over his instance on including the claim that LL is a bona fide economist. Cognition claims that since CBS/AP calls him an economist, he's obviously an economist then. Digging through a number of LL bios, including his official bio on his website, not only can I find no evidence of LL receiving any degree in economics, but it seems he never matriculated from college; certainly a point worthy of note in the article. Back to point, from both the professional and academic perspectives, self-appointed "economists"; those lacking an imprimatur from a recognized institution, are almost always not considered not entitled to claim the title 'economist' or viewed as bona fide economists. Unless Cognition can provide support less flimsy than the AP for claiming LL warrants the title of economist, it should remain out of the article. FeloniousMonk 2 July 2005 07:25 (UTC)
 * In your opinion one has to have a degree to be called an economist, but until you have a source more credible than the AP, we have nothing more than your POV and your original research. Cognition 2 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)
 * Hardly just my opinion. Don't believe me? I suggest you try slapping 'economist' on your resume and start submitting it to open positions for economists and see how much credibility you garner. Just don't quit your real job beforehand. FeloniousMonk 2 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
 * I might do that if I had written a groundbreaking textbook on economics like LaRouche. But unlike him I am not an economist. Cognition 2 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)
 * Ah, but unlike LaRouche, I do have a degree in economics, and am well aware of what constitutes an actual economist, and LL is no economist. So what exactly are the specifics that justify his alleged bona fides? This groundbreaking textbook on economics? We must have missed that one in school... Was it written before or after he became an 'economist'? FeloniousMonk 2 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)
 * This is quite ridiculous. There are physical sciences and then there are social (so-called) sciences.  "Economics" (which in more honest days was called political economy) is a social science.  A physicist is a physicist - when the allies took over Germany in WWII, everyone tried to get a hold of the top Nazi physicists - the US and USSR.  There was no such mad rush for Nazi economists.  While a Nazi physicist is the same as a communist physicist is the same as a capitalist physicist, a Nazi economist is completely different than a capitalist economist is completely different than a communist economist.  Just as Goebbels is not a Russian commissar, nor is he the sort who writes articles for Foreign Affairs.  Saying an unorthodox economist in the US is unable to get a job is more like saying Goebbels or someone writing for Pravda can't get a job than saying a physicist can't get one.  The Economic Policy Institute employs liberal economists, the Heritage Foundation hires conservative economists, they both contradict each other almost completely, and have for decades.  I can't think of anything comparable for a real physical science, like physics.  Please - the more a field is based on hype, the more people talk of credentials and such.  Albert Einstein was a patent clerk when he wrote a paper he later won a Nobel prize for.  Economists like to claim there is a Nobel prize for there field, but of course, there isn't one, not really. Ruy Lopez 6 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)

It is true that LaRouche is a college dropout and cannot describe himself as an econimist by training or qualification. But economics is not a discipline like medicine which one cannot legally practise without qualifications. There are many self-educated economists, and while they may not be able to gain employment in the field their economic comments are probably as valid as anyone else's given that economics is far from an exact science. The last time I edited this article it noted that LaRouche had no qualifications, but I think with that caveat it is not unreasonable to call him an economist, albeit a crack-pot one. Adam 2 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)


 * "their (those who practice economics without qualifications) economic comments are probably as valid as anyone else's given that economics is far from an exact science." Gosh, and all those years I spent studying Weber and Veblen... for what? Just so I can be just as wrong as Joe Lunchbucket. Wait till Alan Greenspan finds out his imprimatur is worthless... Sorry, I don't agree. The market finds value in economists with actual bona fides, and values them accordingly. FeloniousMonk 2 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)
 * With all your degrees, you people did not do too good of a job predicting the economic collapse occurring after the end of the Bretton Woods System. Cognition 2 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)
 * The question is whether he is notable enough to be called an economist in the lead sentence as the very first description; i.e. " Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. (born September 8, 1922) is an American economist " That's the 1st sentence, without any qaulifications, either. El_C 2 July 2005 08:13 (UTC)

That's not what it said the last time I edited it. I agree that he can't be described like that. Adam 2 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)

Right, I am comfortable with your version which correctly qualifies the lack of qualification on LaRouche's part. El_C 2 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)

New LaRouchy editor
Editors should be aware that the LaRouchies have returned to the fray on this and other LaRouche articles, under the guise of User:Cognition. Extra vigilance will be required to prevent them from re-propagandising this article. The misleading caption on the Reagan-LaRouche photo is a typical piece of LaRouchy dishonesty. Adam 5 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's tiresome. I'm currently trying to work out whether to go back to the arbcom for a more extensive ruling to cover this person and all future reincarnations; whether to ask for a more limited ruling to cover only this Cognition account; or whether to handle it differently. I've already blocked him for 24 hours for disruption, but I'm limited to short(ish) blocks (I think up to a month) unless evidence emerges that it's Herschel/Weed Harper/C Colden, and I can't block on any article I've edited. He's almost certainly connected to Herschel, as he shows too much knowledge of WP to be new, and Herschel/Weed/Colden is the only LaRouche editor we've had, apart from 24-hour ones. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 04:21 (UTC)
 * And you guys call LaRouche a "conspiracy theorist." I am not Herschel, have nothing to do with him, and don't even know who he is, although, from reading the archives, his treatment doesn't at all surprise me, considering the way I have been persecuted for my political views. Cognition 5 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)
 * I agree that Adam Carr is persecuting you for your political views. He does not want to discuss facts, he doesn't care that the Associated Press says LaRouche is an economist, he is just doing his usual routine - don't discuss facts, just throw mud at the other person.  You're a "LaRouchy", in a "cult" which "really is a conspiracy" and you are "programmed" to say this.  What a load of baloney.  Adam Carr is renowned for ad hominem attacks, he is trying to do anything to get away from the facts, what the AP says (they're probably all "LaRouchies" in the "cult", I mean the "conspiracy", as well) and he just throws mud, tries to get people lined up against you and so forth.  He'll probably attack me in a reply, since he is all about ad hominem attacks, and mud throwing, and never wants to discuss facts in the article. Ruy Lopez 6 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)


 * Actually, the A.P. was a leading part of the conspiracy that put LaRouche in jail, according to LaRouche's own "testimony". Given their conspiracy against him I don't know if we'd want to use them as a source for calling LaRouche an "economist". It may be part of their plot. -Willmcw July 6, 2005 07:23 (UTC)

The difference is that the LaRouche cult really is a conspiracy - a group of people who conspire together. You may or may not be the same person as Herschel et al, but it doesn't really matter since you are all programmed to say the same thing. Adam 5 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)
 * Insofar as we are "programmed" to say what is rational, yes, we are programmed to say the same thing. Our beliefs can be summed up as love of truth and reason-- what it means to be human. Cognition 5 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)


 * I've asked you three times whether you're C Colden, and you keep answering by saying you're not Herschelkrustofksy. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 07:56 (UTC)
 * I AM NOT C COLDEN OR WEED HARPER EITHER. GOT IT? Cognition 5 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)

Ok, Mr Truth-and-Reason, let's have some evidence for the disgusting slanders of various people on your own User page. Let's have one piece of evidence that Leo Strauss (a Jewish refugee from Nazism) was a fascist, for example. Since Strauss's views were largely based on Plato, and since your own User page proclaims Plato to be the founder of European culture etc, it would follow that you are a fascist also. Adam 5 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)

Strauss' views were not based on Plato; they were really based on the outright philosophical fascism of Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. If you want to do some real reading on this topic, see "The Essential Fraud of Leo Strauss" Cognition 5 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)


 * Hi. As a sensible philosophical type, I feel obliged to point out that the article you linked to is the biggest pile of steaming pseudo-philosophical crap that I have ever had the misfortune to read, and that if you try to put anything like that in any article on this project I'll revert you so fast that your head will spin. Hope you're having a lovely evening, and my best wishes for your future in following a two-bit huckster with an incoherent political philosophy and a knack for conspiracy theories. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 23:57 (UTC)
 * It's only incoherent to people who are too stupid to understand it. Cognition 6 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)
 * Riiight. Would you like to explain, then, how Gauss's proof disproves what Eulter and d'Alembert (Not LaGrange, actually - that's just a flat-out factual error) did with the fundamental theorem of algebra? Or how Arendt can reasonably be described as fascist. Inf act, why don't you do both. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 00:36 (UTC)
 * Good Lord. Civility, please, Phil. Everyking 6 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)
 * Yes! Let us be remarkably civil to our POV pushers who come here to push cult agendas. Because that will solve everything. The question of the status of LaRouche publications has been settled repeatedly - by the arbcom, and, from what I recall, by Jimbo himself. They are not credible sources for anything. Believe me. I played the civil "let's mediate and compromise" game with the Laroucheys before. It was a disaster, and I still don't feel like I've apologized to Adam and Slim enough for it. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 05:22 (UTC)

A pity ol' Lyndon didn't take more advantage of the prison library while he was doing time for defrauding old ladies. Adam 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche/temp (from Wikinfo)
I was pleasantly surprised to find a neutral article on Lyndon LaRouche by its competitor, Wikinfo. I am proposing that Wikipedia scrap its existing article and replace it with the far superior Wikinfo one, so I created this temp page. (Since Wikinfo borrows much of its material from Wikipedia, we also are free to borrow Wikinfo content and post it on Wikipedia. See licensing info below on the temp page.) Cognition 9 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)


 * That's just a 2004 version of this article. We've come a long way since then. Cheers, -Willmcw July 9, 2005 09:09 (UTC)

It's nice to know that LaRouchies have a sense of humour. Adam 9 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)
 * Please see No personal attacks. You have been using the term "LaRouchies" in a derogatory fashion to refer to your fellow editors. Cognition 9 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)
 * Nah, just to the Wikipedia's most recent POV-pusher, one of a long line. --Calton | Talk 9 July 2005 09:26 (UTC)
 * You might want to read up on that policy page too. Cognition 9 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)

I thought you were proud to be a follower of the Great Fraudster? Adam 9 July 2005 10:00 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about. Great Fraudster? I never followed Dick Cheney and his made-up case to wage war on Iraq. Cognition 9 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)

No, you follow an octogenarian crackpot who did five years in the pen for defrauding old ladies and who thinks the Queen is a drug dealer and the Jews rule the world. Chacun a son gout. Adam 9 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)
 * I support Lyndon LaRouche, who does not defraud old ladies and think that the Jews rule the world. LaRouche points out the influence of Ventian, Anglo-Dutch, and Anglo-American financiers over time, not a Jewish conspiracy. You will need to get the facts right when interacting with someone who wasn't gulliable enough to fall for the case of the Bonapartist war on Iraq of Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, John Howard, Michael Danby, et al. Cognition 9 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
 * ...said the pot. --WikiFan04Talk 11:14, 18 Jul 2005 (CDT)

Sandbox versions of articles, like Cognition's suggestion, do not belong in the article space. I am moving it to a subpage of this talk page, talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Cognition. -Willmcw 22:29, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

how long has this page's neutrality been disputed?
is that the same as being contorversial? Kzzl