Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 16

Terrawatt's combined version
After a couple of tries to fix it in situ, I've reverted Terawatt's change to the criticism section. It was worse than what we had before. If folks want to organize the criticism by topic or by critic, both have their advantages, but the version pasted in did neither, and repeated the same same topics and critics throughout. I propose that we agree on a format for the criticism section and base our writing on that structure. Since other editors appear to prefer organizing by critic, I'll agree with that if it makes the process easier. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I abandoned my attempt at organizing by critic, and went instead with organizing by topic, because I understood that to be what you wanted. I even put in a special section on fascism allegations, because I thought you wanted that. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it didn't work in the end. Antisemiticism was mentioned over and over again, and other important criticisms were omitted or barely mentioned. I don't think that having two editors go off and work on a version of their own was a good procedure. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't follow your argument here. I don't think it is possible to make rigid distinctions as to formatting by critic versus formatting by topic, since there is overlap -- some critics weigh in on numerous topics. I think that the Niels Gade/Terrawatt effort is in fact a big improvement over what you reverted to, which is all over the map. I'm putting it back. Niels responded to all the criticisms that were made during the time the article was protected. If there are additional objections or suggestions now, you should list them here, rather than reverting his work. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The work is stil in progress. Let's agree on the text here before adding it to the article to avoid getting into an edit war. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Then please list your objections. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I already did. For starters, antisemitism was mentioned over and over again, and other important criticisms were omitted or barely mentioned. Is the intent to give an overview of all significant criticisms of the subject, or just to cover criticisms in a couple of defined areas? I think it's more logical to do the former. I think we should first agree on a structure and scope, and then follow that plan.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Terawatt's edit was an amazing example of a biased POV propaganda text. It should be enshrined as an example of misdirection and slanted construction. It is not possible to fix it. It violates NPOV in almost every paragraph. Just look at how criticisms of LaRouche are encapsulated in efforts to discredit those criticisms.--Cberlet (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Terrawatt's edit is simply a combination of your material, and mine. You refused to comment on mine during the time-out, and I find your above comments to be unproductive. Please make specific complaints on this talk page. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. Terrawatt's edit was biased and propagandistic. See section on Sockpupptes and Metpuppets below.--Cberlet (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to say that I am very disappointed with what has gone on here. Marvin presented a detailed list of objections to Will Beback's version, which were addressed and the version was improved. If Chip Berlet and his followers would follow suit, instead of just throwing insults, the process could move forward. The article was locked up for several days, and now we seem to be back to square one. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We may need to lock the article again if folks insist on adding and fighting over material that doesn't have consensus. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and Meatpuppets
I think it is appropriate to point out that everytime a pro-LaRouche sockpuppet or meatpuppet is banned, another one magically appears. How long should Wikipedia put up with this? The LaRouchites have an endless supply. This is clearly a problem. --Cberlet (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It must be especially enraging for you to realize that LaRouche's ideas are winning the support of actual young people, who will be going strong long after LaRouche's baby boomer opponents have finished their rapid descent into senility. --Polly Hedra (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep its raining LaRouchites from the sky....It's the End of the World as We Know It! -- arkalochori undefined  01:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a rain, more like a steady drizzle. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Herschelkrustofsky, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Herschelkrustofsky. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you need a citation for the "cult" thing you can just tell our readers to compare this comment to the Washington Monthly discussion of LaRouche's recent generation-war obsession. Kind of scary actually Shii (tock) 05:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There do appear to be new pro-LaRouche accounts, but I can also think of at least two recent WP:SPAs that edit with the King-Berlet-Beback team. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Marvin Diode, Can you please stop insulting me and Assume Good Faith? Thank you. --Hardindr (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Current version being discussed
Let's not get sidetracked. There is a version of the King section under discussion. I have broken it down into smaller chunks so we can address issues in a related way. Here is the last revision of the text:


 * 1 ''Dennis King asserts that anti-Semitic writings by LaRouche trace back to the early 1970s, although the Rockefellers were the main target at the time.


 * 2 King says that LaRouche made connections with neo-Nazi and fringe ultra-conservatives, including Willis Carto, and Ken Duggan, which were the main reason that, acording to King, LaRouche shifted his focus to the Jews in the mid-1970s. King asserts that some Jewish members quit the movement due to anti-Semitic jokes, Holocause denial, and a perceived resemblance between LaRouche's writings and Mein Kampf.


 * 3 To placate others, King asserts, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew": " To be a real Jew, he suggested, one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community."


 * 4 King compares LaRouches' writings with various Nazi and other anti-Semitic tracts going back to the 1890s and finds a common themes of connecting Jewish power with the British Empire. King points to what he says are assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families.


 * 5 Daniel Pipes has contradicted some of King's assertions, writing: "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." [ref Pipes, Daniel, Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From, Simon & Schuster (Free Press), 1997, p. 142] Pipes also notes, however, that "LaRouche places a British-Jewish alliance at the center of his conspiracism."[Pipes, p. 137]''

I think this is an excellent version. It is NPOV and accurate. I suggest we place it in the article.--Cberlet (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no need to discuss this further. This has already been settled, and in fact it was already placed in the article by Terrawatt, and then reverted by you and your followers. I would hope you would stop being so arrogant and enter into an honest discussion about the work that I did, which was also discussed by others, entered by Terrawatt, and reverted by you and your followers. You have yet to present any concrete objections to it, and I am replacing it now to jog your memory. --Niels Gade (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not familiar with Wikipedia. There is always a need to discuss matters to get consensus. There is no consensus for the major revision. Let's keep discussing it until we find consensus, and until then let's leave in the text that had been here for a long time without complaint. Also, please don't refer to me as a "follower" of Cberlet. Please read No personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 06:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, let's continue the discusion of the proposed material. Does Niels Gade or anyone else object to the material proposed above? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Will, you are misrepresenting the history of this dispute. The version of the text that had been here for a long time without complaint is this one, and it was Cberlet who first attempted a major revision without consensus in this edit. Regarding personal attacks, you have historically argued that if it doesn't mention a name, it's not a personal attack -- not that I necessarily agree. What do you think of Cberlet's diatribe about sockpuppets and meatpuppets, above? Is there a personal attack there? --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest we stick with discussing content. Do you have any objections to the text posted above? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can live with it. It has been thoroughly discussed, and it's in the presently protected version of the article, and as far as I know, no one is disputing it. It's the rest of the criticism section that is under dispute, so we should roll up our sleeves and get to work on that. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. Once the other editors agree we can post it and move on to the other parts. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The one thing I changed, because Marvin suggested it, was in line 2 about Willis Carto etc. I added the quote from Laird Wilcox and John George which disputes the significance of the so-called "connections." Cberlet seems to be saying above that it is wrong to include rebuttals to the criticisms against LaRouche, but I see at Chip_Berlet that that is exactly the way criticism is handled at that article, so I see no reason to object to it here. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should separate out the (alleged) association of LaRouche with far-right figures. Obviously the relationship with Frankhouser is important. But regarding Carto, this is an example of where we cover the same ground twice:
 * Rose also alleged that LaRouche at this time was in contact with Soviet diplomats, while also linking up with ultrarightists such as Willis Carto of the Liberty Lobby and Pennsylvania Ku Klux Klan grand dragon Roy Frankhouser.[44]
 *  King says that LaRouche made connections with neo-Nazi and fringe ultra-conservatives, including Willis Carto, and Ken Duggan, which were the main reason that, acording to King, LaRouche shifted his focus to the Jews in the mid-1970s (Authors Laird Wilcox and John George dispute this assertion: "Although the transient relationship is frequently mentioned to illustrate "links" and "ties" between LaRouche and the extreme right, it was brief and fleeting. Given their respective personalities, a union of LaRouche and Carto would be a miracle under any circumstances."[49])
 * Anyway, it sounds like the text printed above is acceptable to everyone, with the addition of the Laird Wilcox comment. Can we now move on to the fundamental question of how to organize this material? The two modes that have been suggested are by topic and by critic. Right now we do neither. A third way, which I don't think is practical, would be to organize criticisms by date. Because LaRouche had more publicity in the 1980s than before or since it would end to lump the criticism into that one period, but some views think that it's better to distribute criticism throughout an article rather than grouping it together as we're doing. I think that it would be simplest to organize the criticism by critic. That way we can list the main points by each critic, which it is tidy and simple. If we want to do it by topic, then we ned to decide what the signifcnat criticism are first, which will be more time consuming. Some criticisms may not fall into any neat categories and so would have to be included in a "misc" section. Any other thoughts? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent(?)] Here is the reasoning that I used to organize the current version: first I started with the high-profile critics, Washington Post, New York Times, National Review, etc., assuming that they would be of primary interest to the reader. Their criticisms do not fit into a particular topic well. For the remainder of the section, I organized it by topic. When Terrawatt added in the section written by Will Beback, he created an additional topic, "allegations of anti-Semitism," which was obviously the correct thing to do. Some critics appear in more than one topic. I think that if you try to organize it by critic, there will be battles over which critics are more notable, who gets "top billing," etc., especially since two of those critics are editors here. I have some questions about whether Tim Wohlforth is important enough to be quoted or even mentioned.

The other thing that concerns me is what is to prevent Chip Berlet from doing what he did last time the article was locked: refuse to participate in the discussion, and then go revert-crazy after unlocking. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cberlet was active in discussing revisions on this page. Proposed material that had no consensus was added to the article as soo as it was unprotected. I suggest that we achieve consensus before adding controversial material. It is unfair to say that Cberlet went "revert-crazy" unless you apply that term to yourself as well: he reverted no more than you did.
 * It sounds like organization by critics will be the simplest. I agree that we'll have to decide which critics to include. I don't think it matters much what order they're arranged in. Major media and organizations are probably better handled separately from individual writers. I agree that Wohlforth would probably near the end if included at all. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that it sounds like organization by critics will be simplest. There are more critics than there are criticisms -- plus there are a number of critics who have virtually identical views, meaning King, Berlet, and some of their friends. It makes more sense, from the standpoint of the convenience of the reader and lack of repetition, to organize by topic.


 * Having said that, I am generally satisfied by the hybrid version that was posted by Terrawatt. However, I do have a few specific objections/suggestions which I will list, and I suggest that others do the same.
 * I agree with Will's comment that the "links and ties" to right-wingers should be consolidated.
 * In the section about Linda Hunt and Dennis King and their views on LaRouche and German scientists -- is there a quote that makes clear what they are insinuating? Or is this another case of "links and ties"? Also, the areas of collaboration between LaRouche and the scientists should be specified: space colonization, fusion, SDI, and whatever else.
 * I also agree about Wohlforth/Tourish being too obscure, plus Linda Ray as well. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the hybrid version, but I'd be willing to organize the criticism by topic instead. If we want to organize do that then we need to decide which criticisms count as major and which are minor. The major criticisms are probably worth a paragraph or subsection each, while the minor criticisms may be consoliated into a single paragraph. Here's a list of some major criticism: anti-Semite, cult leader, "nutball" (various synonyms are used), fascist, fraudster. Are there others? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with the hybrid version. I would include conspiracy theorist and neofascist in the list of major criticisms of LaRouche.--Cberlet (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are all covered in the hybrid version, except "nutball" which is an epithet, not a criticism. Please list your objections to the hybrid version. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My objections have been posted before. The "hybrid" version is poorly-organized and repetitive. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As we search for sources I think we'll be able to refine "nutball" or it may be combined with "extremist", "fringe", etc. Let's base it on what we find in the sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Then let me re-phrase my request. Please list some suggestions that will allow us to improve it, as I did with your version of the Dennis King section. It appears that we agree that the "links and ties" material should be consolidated. Perhaps it should be omitted altogether, on the grounds of guilt by association. But please make some specific suggestions that will enable us to improve the article, instead of vague complaints. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should work it over further, I think we should start from scratch with a clear organization and good research. Are there ny other major criticisms you'd like to add to the list? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is Marvin Diode who keeps raising the issue of code language here. Now he says the quote from Linda Rae, who wrote directly about this issue from personal experience, is too "obscure." He also claims that Linda Hunt (the expert on Operation Paperclip) and I "insinuate" things about LaRouche and the "German scientists." There is no insinuation--we both wrote openly and bluntly and cited names, dates and events for LaRouche's alliance with former Nazi scientists to defend the indefensible war criminal Arthur Rudolph and to glorify the heritage of Nazi science (a heritage, I might add that includes not only V-2 rockets but the likes of Dr. Mengele). And why should we be allowing the LaRouchians to impose on this article polite terms like "German V-2 scientist"--the Germans who worked on the V-2 program were then and have been since then commonly referred to as "Nazi scientists" and "former Nazi scientists." They worked for Hitler and for the Nazis to kill the enemies of Nazism, and by doing so were each of them responsible in some degree for the Holocaust and for the even larger number of people killed through German military aggression against its neighbors. Many were in the Nazi party. Some, like Werner von Braun, were SS members. Wikipedia should use the blunt common-sense term "former Nazi scientists" for these people (as is used in media not subject to incessant censorship by LaRouche followers operating under pseudonyms).--Dking (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)P.S. Even the LaRouchians on occasion used the term "Nazi" for these scientists before concocting their Wiki spin. Remember the article from Fusion (I think it was) back in the 1980s entitled "Lessons of Nazi Jet Aircraft Development"?--Dking (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, we get the guilt by association thing. The question is, what exactly are you alleging about LaRouche? Do you claim that he supports Nazism? -- because he says he opposes it. What exactly is "Nazi science," and how does it differ from everyone else's science? Are you saying (as you appear to say above) that LaRouche supports Dr. Mengele? It is unclear whether you are making such claims, or as Marvin says, merely insinuating. Do you plan to go to Wikipedia articles such as Werner von Braun and re-write them, in order to cast these scientists as passionate pro-Nazis?


 * On the subject of "links" and "ties" or "connectos," it should be noted that this is a standard tactic of Conspiracy theory. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not get bogged down with specifics. While I appreciate that Dking thinks the association with scientists who work with the Nazi regime is important, that isn't a common criticism of LaRouche and may be better handled by presenting it as factual part of the biography rather than as criticism. Regarding "links and ties", we can include that under the "conspiracy theorist" part of the criticism section, if we can find a source for it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the "links and ties" in King's attacks on LaRouche, as mentioned in the article by George and Wilcox. --Terrawatt (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like fine material for the Dennis King article. For this article rebuttals from LaRouche and associates would be appropriate. I believe that there are many comments about King from LaRouche, so there shouldn't be a lack of balance. As for our work here I don't see anyone else suggesting additions to the list of major criticisms. I propose that we take them individually, see what sources we can find, and then compose text to summarize the sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I put a lot of work into the material which is in the present version, and the categories of criticism which I included seem to correspond to what you are proposing. You seem strangely unwilling to state your objections to simply refining the present version. I don't see the point of starting from scratch. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you've spent some time on improving the old version that was in the article, but I don't think that just reworking the same old material is really helpful because there are fundamental problems with the organization and lack of careful research that predate your editing. The best way to write encyclopedia is to just summarize the sources. I assume you don't object to going back to the sources and see what they say. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Will, why don't you prepare an alternate version then, and post it for discussion at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/criticismdraft? Then possibly it could be merged with Niels' work, as was done by Terrawatt last time around. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Marvin, why don't you agree to follow Will Beback's suggestions? I am very tired of having this discussion go in circles in a way that diverts us from editing text in a constructive and collaborative way. The version by Niels Gade was constructed in a way that dismissed and diminished the criticisms of LaRouche, trivialized the seriousness of the criticisms, and create an impression of LaROuceh that is only believed by a tiny handful of his followers. Not suitable for a real encyclopedia.  Not worth attempting to integrate. This relentless effort to use the flawed and POV work of Niels Gade is tendentious and disruptive in a passive agressive way. Perhaps that is hard to see from where you sit, but from where I sit it is painfully obvious. Note that Niels Gade is drawn from the name of a Danish compoer of the type favored by LaRouche, and used by a new editor who appeared after another pro-LaRouche editor was blocked. Niels Gade has devoted the bulk of edits to a single issue: promoting LaRouche. There is no reason to pursue an attempt to revise the work of Niels Gade on this page. None.  A waste of time. Move on.--Cberlet (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeez, do you guys have to make a conspiracy theory out of everything? Niels Gade is my given name, and my parents did not intentionally name me after the composer. But what if they had? It's not like being named after someone evil like John Foster Dulles. And LaRouche has never, to my knowledge, shown any interest in Gade the composer. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than starting by preparing an alternate version, I think it would be more helpful to start by assembling research. Once we have all the relevant source material picked out, it's easier to write the actual text. I'll start up a page at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research with headings for the major categories of criticism that we've identified. We can all add either citations or short quotations from reliable sources criticizing the subject, along with whatever rebuttals from the subject or his supporters that we can find. Once the research seems complete we can draft a neutral, consensus version that's well organized, gives proper to the issues, and correctly summarizes sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: An obvious place to start is with the citations we alreay have in the article. I'll move those in tonight or tomorrow unless someone else does first. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

minor correction
"Readings of Marx and Lenin were off the reading list of LaRouche's followers" should read "Marx and Lenin were off the reading list for LaRouche's followers" —Jemmytc 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tha seems like a proper and minor correction, so I've gone ahead and made it. Thanks for pointing it out. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Will, it should be "Marx and Rosa Luxemburg were off the reading list." Works by Lenin were never on the list to any significant extent.--Dking 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While LaRouche's Marxist roots are mentioned in many sources, I don't recall (my memory is bad) any mention of Luxemburg. Is that in New American Fascism? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The LaRouche organization published its own translation of The Industrial Development of Poland and LaRouche often referred to the ideas of Luxemburg. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then if no one objects I'll make the change. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche on Wikipedia
I strongly recommend that the administrators or whoever is in charge here include in LaRouche's Current Activties section quotes from the press release that appeared on the LaRouche PAC website today. It has intrinsic interest, particularly for a Wikipedia entry.



The entire press release reads as follows:

Are You a Wikipediaphile? December 11, 2007 (LPAC)--"What I want to emphasize," Lyndon LaRouche said this morning, "is that I am very serious about Wikipediaphiles." What you are dealing with, is a drastic shortening of attention-span among victims of MySpace, Facebook, and the like. "Which is again, the same thing that you are getting with the shooters, on the killer games. What you are getting here, especially in the 14-18 age group, but also some older people,-- you are getting an extremely abbreviated attention span, which has crippling effects now. I think they have trouble getting from one end of a short sentence to the other.

"You get scrambled, not just fragmented sentences. Wikipedia, with Jimmy Wales and company, and all the people who are behind this,--" LaRouche continued, "Wikipedia is the H.G. Wells program. You have something which everybody cites, essentially. It's on the internet, and it's the dictionary. You Google. And when you Google, you go to Wikipedia. This becomes truth. And you find that Wikipedia changes its definitions of references as it evolves. It eliminates what it said before, and it says something different. The opposite thing, or something different."

So therefore, this is the synthetic history idea, which is H.G. Wells. Wells called it the "Permanent World Encyclopedia." [link to pamphlet] Now you call it, "Wikipediaphiles!"

Remember George Orwell's 1984. The job of Winston Smith, the protagonist, was to change history, by changing old newspaper records to match the new truth as decided by the Party.

"Remember that George Orwell was the guy, who, together with the two crazy brothers--Aldous and Julian Huxley--the three of them were the guys who took the Kool-Aid, in this case, LSD. They took the natural Kool-Aid, LSD, and they were all conditioned under the direction of the patronage of Wells, who was their patron, but under the direction of Alistair Crowley. So it's a Satanic cult."

"The problem we have, to combat that, is, how do you combat an absolute idiot on the question of an argument?", LaRouche asked. "So therefore, you have to make the idiocy of this thing, the issue. And thus, you say, `Oh, you poor idiot. You're a Wikipediaphile.' Hoo Hoo. Don't you Google! Don't you Google at me! Who are you, Barney Google?"

I think this gives useful insight into the mind of Lyndon LaRouche.Hexham (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is interesting. We're developing material in the Views of Lyndon LaRouche article to cover this new campaign. So far it doesn't appear to be particularly notable because it's barely been mentioned in 3rd-party sources. This article is focused on the actions of the man, rather than his various proposals and theories. More appropriate would be a long sentence just updating his current priorites (Anti-Clinton, mortgage reform, anti-social networking, anti-global warming, still pro-nuclear, etc). ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * None of that makes any sense. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anti-Clinton?! --Polly Hedra (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anti-Hilary Clinton. At least that's my impression. I haven't fully researched his opinions on the 2008 election. I recall that in some past elections he's been slow to support his party's nominees. Anyway the point being that we should summarize briefly his most current issues, and expound on them in the "views" article as sources allow.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your impression is mistaken. LaRouche issued an open letter to Hilary this summer, advising her that if she came out for the impeachment of Cheney, she could win the White House in a landslide. She hasn't done that, of course. LaRouche has also said that as it presently stands, none of the available candidates is adequate for the present crisis.


 * I'd like to point out that since the September 24, 1976 op-ed in the Washington Post, LaRouche simply does not get covered in U.S. 3rd party sources, for the reasons hinted at in that editorial. Instead, there are occasional canned slanders of the sort that King and Berlet specialize in. I saw the debate at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche about whether LaRouche should be considered "right" or "left," and I thought it was very funny that Will Beback found all these sources that said he was "right," but not one of them provided any evidence for the claim. It's just the media "party line." If you want 3rd party coverage of LaRouche, you need to go to the Chinese or Russian press. The recent Xinhua release would be appropriate for use in Wikipedia. --Terrawatt (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * LaRouche has had fairly extensive coverage over the years. I've read hundreds of archived newspaper articles on him, there's been a whole book written about him, plus lengthy coverage in a couple of other books. Just a month or so ago a magazine did a long article on him and the movement. That's not to mention the blogs that cover his more recent activities, which we don't usually use for sources. The blogs mention the social networking campaign, but I haven't seen much yet in "reliable sources". Did the Xinhua relaese mention it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You may have missed my comments about "canned slanders" above. The Xinhua release focusses on his role as an economist, which in a sanely-edited Wikipedia article would be the central topic. --Terrawatt (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh right, I forget that every one out of scores of newspapers and magazines that writes about him in the U.S., the U.K., Canadam and Australia is in a conspiracy to denigrate Lyndon LaRouche. And that the only countries with strong governments and state-sponsored news services, like Russia and China, have fair coverage of him. And that LaRouche is the world's greatest economic forecaster.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I was talking about on the other page, where I raised the issue of systemic bias (WP:BIAS.) It is easy for me to imagine how the Chinese or Russians view the US media: they probably see it as controlled by corrupt and ruthless robber barons, who have enough money to purchase Fox News and the Wall Street Journal and use them for their own purposes (yes, I'm using Rupert Murdoch as an example.) It is true that China has a state-sponsored news service, but I'm not going to automatically accept that this is somehow different than what we have in the US, where the media went meekly along with all the BS about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And to dismissively refer to China and Russia as "strong governments" is to ignore the shameful fact that the present US administration has tortured, wiretapped, and renditioned with no significant opposition from any American institutions. --Terrawatt (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember now. You were saying that the WSJ was no longer reliable because of Murdoch, even though the sale hasn't gone through yet. Anyway, this article isn't about the media conglomerates, even if everybody does love to hate them. The issue here and now are whether a few articles deserve a mention in LaRouche's biography. Since the articles have not attracted attention from the press (in any country) they don't appear notable and I think we should only mention them in passing in a brief summary of LaRouche's current opinions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Will, I think you're evading Terrawatt's point. He's not making assertions about the reliability of the WSJ as a source, he's pointing out that the Chinese may very well view the US press with the same skepticism that you view the Chinese press. And it appears to me that you place a lot of emphasis on a minor publication, the Washington Monthly, because it is congenial to your POV, while at the same time you dismiss a major wire service, Xinhua, because it is inconvenient to your POV. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't dismissed Xinhua, I simply said that if they haven't talked about LaRouche's campaign against social networkng sites/Wikipedia/cyberspace then they aren't relevant to this discussion. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The campaign against social networking sites is notable, but there is broader point to be made here. The fact of the matter is, LaRouche has been accurate in his forecasting, and that, in an NPOV article, would be central to his notability. The Chinese and Russians recognize that, and they are interested in LaRouche's ideas because both of those countries have big economic problems which they wish to solve. And yes, there is a policy (as opposed to a "conspiracy") in the media of "the U.S., the U.K., Canadam and Australia"(sic) to denigrate LaRouche, just as there was a policy to uncritically report about the terrible threat posed by the Iraqi WMDs. People in "the U.S., the U.K., Canadam and Australia" are far too smug about their alleged freedom of the press and "reliable sources." --Terrawatt (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * LaRouche has the same track record of accuracy in his predictions as an auto-repeating taped message claiming economic collpase weekly for 30 years. As such, it is non-notable, absurd, and ridiculous. Not proper for a real encyclopedia.--Cberlet (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, obviously he was way off on that one. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The campaign is notable if it's been noted. Per this discussion, it doesn't seem to have been noted, except in one article that you think is of poor quality. Regarding economic predictions, those too appear non-notable. Do you have a 3rd-party source for this "policy" shared by every newspaper in the English-speaking world? Is there a policy document? How is this policy disseminated and enforced? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a 3rd-party source for a policy decision on the part of the American press to parrot the fake alarm from the Bush administration about Iraqi WMDs? Probably not, but I think that it was still a policy. I was told once by a journalist that the big papers, WaPo, NYT, and the wire services hold conference calls to decide how certain topics would be covered, and the lesser publications just follow their lead. I found this believable. According to an article by Jeff Steinberg, On Sept. 24, 1976, almost a decade, to the day, before the Leesburg raid, editorial writer and leading neo-conservative Stephen Rosenfeld, speaking for Graham and the Lazard Freres-centered financial interests, wrote a signed editorial [in the WaPo] titled “NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace,” demanding that the entire U.S. media adopt a uniform policy of blacking LaRouche's name out of the media, or of publishing slanders, aimed at blunting his growing political support. I find this believable also. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have ready access to the cited article, but I'd be surprised if it actually admonishes the media to publish slanders. In any case, it's hard to imagine how a single editorial 29-years ago determined the coverage by every newspaper in the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Australia for decades. Is it your belief that editors around the world read the Washington Post for instructions on how to cover minor American political figures? Is that how Murdoch and NBC get their marching orders? It's certainly possible, just as it's possible that Mondale and Kissinger were agents of influence of the Soviets. Anyway, I think WP covers these theories sufficiently in the articles. We can't assume that they're true, as that would violate NPOV, but neither should we ridicule them. You and many folks out there believe these things are true and we should simply report that in a neutral fashion. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

<--- I don't se any evidence given in this thread that proves "this is the main initiative of the LYM at present". It is a mischaracteriztion to say so. Is there any independent or even internal source that says so? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Spring case
Here's a noteworthy incident that should be included inthe artilce someday. It was a right to die case, similar to those of Karen Ann Quinlan, Terri Schiavo, etc. We can add research here and write a summary later on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The widow of Earle Spring, who became the focus of a celebrated case about involuntary removal of life-support systems, today filed an $80- million lawsuit against a Holyoke nursing home and others, charging they violated her husband's right to privacy. Named as defendants were: the Holyoke Geriatric and Convalesent Center; two administrators; four nurses and four nurses' aides; Lyndon LaRouche, a former US Labor Party presidential candidate; and Donna McDonough of Hartford, Conn., and Dr. Nelson Gillet of Brookline, who opposed the removal of life-support systems.
 * "SPRING'S WIDOW FILES $80M SUIT;" Associated Press. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Jul 30, 1980. pg. 1


 * Some of those activists, including Nurse McDonough, held a press conference yesterday outside the office of Atty. Gen. Francis X. Bellotti, saying that they were "trying to stop the murder of Earle Spring." Among the group were Joseph McDonough, the nurse's husband and Connecticut campaign chairman for Lyndon LaRouche of New Hampshire, a splinter-group candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination; and Larry Sherman of Dorchester, LaRouche's Massachusetts campaign chairman.
 * "SPRING'S GUARDIAN ASKS NEW HEARINGS". Richard A. Knox Globe Staff (Contributing to this article were Globe reporters Jean Caldwell and Joseph M. Harvey.). Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Jan 23, 1980. pg. 1


 * COL-founder Lyndon LaRouche in 1980 already had the beginnings of such a policy in the United States noted. At the time, the case of Earle Spring 70jährigen big stir. His family was on the grounds that Springsteen wanted to die, to a breakdown in vital dialysis treatment crowded, while the nurses who used Spring, say that he wanted to continue. The Club of Life took up this debate at the national and international level and called for the right to life movement, to take a clear position, in order not complicit in the so losgetretenen euthanasia movement. In fact, we succeeded to a significant change in the right to life debate in the United States.[Google machine translation from German]
 * "From the New solidarity No 43/2002 "Unser Kampf gegen Kulturpessimismus und Euthanasie" (Our struggle against cultural pessimism and euthanasia).


 * During the public comment session, Stephanie Ezrol of Lyndon Larouche's National Democratic Policy Committee read from the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and said that legalizing "euthanasia" is tantamount to murder.
 * "Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment: Appendices"

I've seen more coverage of LaRouche's involvement which I hope ot find again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Qn
Looked in on this article after a long time, following a puzzling email to the mailing list. Question: There's an enormous list of people who have 'accused' LLaR of anti-semitism according to that section. I don't, however see citations for even one. No doubt those are forthcoming? I'd like to see a couple of actual quotes, also. Remember also we aren't concerned just about LLaR's reputation, but that of the people we're paraphrasing. Relata refero (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See above for quotes and sources. I thought we'd added the sources, but for the time being the article is protected.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less in this particular case, but the obvious product of a lexis search on larouche+antisemitic being put front and centre in an article is precisely why WP can be so incredibly crappy sometimes. If there's a nuanced peer-reviewed article that discusses his attitude, it should be in there, and its conclusions quoted; but instead we have a bunch of people who happen to have used the word antisemitic in this context once, with no indication of how representative that statement was of their overall view, or of what agenda they might have had at that point, or of whom else they have called anti-semitic, to indicate their reliability. Instead, there's inept original research through quote-mining. Whatever. Thanks for answering, anyway. You'd best put the references, and the original quotes in footnotes when you can so the occasional reader who bothers can come to the correct conclusions about the assertions in the main text. Relata refero (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The "correct conclusion" is that the subject is frequently called "anti-semitic". The relevatn editing history of this material is that some editors, who apparently favor the subject, added a line indicating that two people call the subject "anti-Semitic", when in fact he has been called that by a number of noteworthy individuals and organizations. I think that listing the individuals is preferable to saying vaguely that the subject "has often been called 'anti-semitic'". It's not original research, much less inept original research. If you'd like to provide a link to an article you've researched to show us how to do it better I'd be happy to learn from your example. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd love to provide that link, but am afraid that its impossible for reasons of privacy.
 * I see, however, that you haven't quite understood here, so am willing to explain further: We, as editors, are not supposed to state the conclusion that "the subject is frequently called anti-semitic" in the absence of a few sources of unimpeachable reliability saying so. In other words, we need a reliable academic or three to come to that conclusion on seeing the evidence, and then we can quote it. A reliable academic may review this evidence, placing it in context, and saying "Oh, Terry McAuliffe had X reason, and the ADL calls Mahatma Gandhi anti-semitic, so their statements of belief are irrelevant", or something. For us to take on the role of coming to that conclusion based on an analysis of primary sources is pretty much definitional OR. Browsing around for a few quotes and then using those to support a conclusion is also, I'm afraid, a little inept. Relata refero (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? What reasons of privacy keep you from providing an example of how you perform good research?
 * You seem to be saying that biographies can only make assertions based on three academic sources. I'm not aware of any biography that meets that standard.
 * Regarding this biography and this assertion, LaRouche has been called "anti-semitic" by the most reliable source we have, a full-length biography published by a major publisher. He's also been called "anti-semitic" by a varietry of notable figures whose statements have been reported in reliable secondary sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On your first point, I'm a returning editor. You already know this, it was mentioned at WT:SOCK some time ago. In any case, we are not discussing my ability to conduct research, we are discussing how not to conduct it.
 * 'Biographies' do not need to make assertions based on three academic sources. Peer-reviewed studies of the of the man are free to make assertions based on whatever sources they find. (I do not know what full-length bio you mean. Was it peer-reviewed? Considered reliable? What are the academic reviews? the reviews in the political press?) If you can't find an statement in a few review articles that he is "frequently called anti-semitic" than it is OR to take a few instances of his being described as anti-semitic and convert it into "frequently called ant-semitic". So much for your "variety of notable figures" and "reliable secondary sources". Unless the RSSes report that LaRouche is frequently called anti-semitic, its still OR by synthesis.
 * Frankly, in this case the individual almost certainly is anti-semitic, based on my cursory reading over the past few minues. That's not an excuse for this sort of shoddy work in a BLP. Relata refero (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, so there's nothing of your own that you can point to as an example of good research? Not even under your new account? You pointed me back to a thread I'd forgotten about where I see that your old account isn't a secret at all.
 * How many peer-reviewed, academic biographies are available for this or 99% of WP biography subjects? As for the matter of "frequently called anti-semitic", that text isn't in the article.
 * I'd appreciate it if you'd stop calling my research "shoddy" and "inept". Every statement you're complaining about is referenced to a reliable secondary source. If you can improve the sourcing then go for it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am awfully sorry if in my view the current approach is inept. I do not intend to impugn your abilities as a writer, merely to indicate that the approach you currently favour is inappropriate.
 * (On a personal note, as mentioned there and elsewhere, I do not wish to discuss my previous accounts; as I mention on that thread, it is a secret, for good reasons. And finally, thats bloody irrelevant to this article and how its written. Cease talking about it now.)
 * Peer-reviewed academic biographies are not available for this individual? Fine. He is presumably the subject of several neutral peer-reviewed papers? If his anti-semitism in particular is not discussed except in passing in a book that appears to be written by someone notable mainly as a critic of this man, and in several statements that you have conflated, then it is not notable enough. If it is discussed in any manner other than as a random adjective in a couple of secondary sources, please bring that to the table now.
 * Finally, if you are unable to understand my point, please do not belabour yours. "Every statement is referenced to a reliable secondary source". No, it isn't. They're referenced to primary sources. For the last time: what indication do you have that McAuliffe mentioning on one occasion that LLaR is "a racist antisemitic bigot whos not a Democrat" or whatever is in any way notable enough? Has this statement been mentioned elsewhere in mainstream reporting? Ditto for the others? Or has someone merely quote-mined secondary sources for the name and the phrase? Because the latter is the definition of inept, shoddy, original research. Relata refero (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So this is your ideal of proper research? One non-peer-reviewed article, in a vaguely partisan newspaper, is enough to support an assertion of "considerable attention"? Yet you call multiple newspaper citations  "inept, shoddy research"?  I don't see the distinction.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Repeat this slowly: "Not About The Editor." Not once, but several times, until you get the message.
 * Taking your pointless little point anyway, Starkry is a not particularly prominent figure; in terms of how much attention he has received in the press, this latest bit of attention-seeking is fairly major; If the DT is fairly major, people were free to replace it with any of the 99 other sources; indeed, someone added the guardian bare hours afterwards, without changing my text; I had, of course, read several articles on the subject before deciding the incident seemed notable enough. Relata refero (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

McAuliffe
"For the last time: what indication do you have that McAuliffe mentioning on one occasion that LLaR is "a racist antisemitic bigot whos not a Democrat" or whatever is in any way notable enough? Has this statement been mentioned elsewhere in mainstream reporting?" Relata refero (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe has determined LaRouche is not a "bona fide" Democrat, according to a letter sent to Texas Democratic Chairman Charles Soechting. "This determination is based on Mr. LaRouche's expressed political beliefs, including beliefs which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic, and otherwise utterly contrary to the fundamental beliefs, values and tenets of the Democratic Party," it said.
 * "LaRouche set to be on ballot for state Democratic primary;" POLLY ROSS HUGHES, Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau. Houston Chronicle. Houston, Tex.: Dec 21, 2003. pg. 39


 * In a Dec. 11 letter to Dunn, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe said LaRouche was not a legitimate Democrat because of expressed political beliefs "which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic."
 * "Democrats bar LaRouche from Utah primary" Dan Harrie. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Jan 8, 2004. pg. B.6


 * The Anti-Defamation League maintains he is anti-Semitic, and when LaRouche sought to get on the Democrats' presidential primary ballot in Texas in 2003, Terry McAuliffe, then the national party chairman, said LaRouche is not a "bona fide" Democrat. "This determination is based on Mr. LaRouche's expressed political beliefs, including beliefs which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic, and otherwise utterly contrary to the fundamental beliefs, values and tenets of the Democratic Party," McAuliffe said in a letter to Texas party officials.
 * "Lawmaker's donations blasted ; Recipient of funds called anti-Semitic". JOSEPH AX, STAFF WRITER. The Record. Bergen County, N.J.: Oct 26, 2007. pg. L.01


 * "Despite the attempts of the DNC and Terry McAuliffe, we are not operating outside of the party. We're not on the fringe. In fact, we actually are inside it, shaping the Democratic Party," declared West Coast LYM leader Cody Jones, who asked LYM members from the Los Angeles area, the Oakland/Bay Area, and Houston, Texas, who are also elected officials of the Democratic Party, to stand.
 * "LaRouche Youth Movement, Dem Leaders Demand Open Convention"


 * In an open letter to McAuliffe, LaRouche accused his party's chairman of making "fraudulent allegations" against him and that McAuliffe has made "offenses against the intent of our Federal Constitution" in terms of the process of selecting presidential candidates. LaRouche charged that McAuliffe, who was hand-picked by former President Bill Clinton, had sent a letter to Democratic state party officers attacking him personally and calling him an anti-Semite.
 * "LaRouche: McAuliffe is Nuts, Kerry is Incompetent". By Charles Mahaleris. Talon News April 2, 2004

"Has this statement been mentioned elsewhere in mainstream reporting?"="Has this statement achieved notability out of the narrow context of LaRouche being banned from a particular local election by the Democratic party?" Relata refero (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the convention is so unotable, why was LaRouche trying to attend it?--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't the vaguest. My point stands, and I'd like a reply from Will. To repeat, has this statement achieved notability out of the narrow context of LaRouche being banned from a particular local election by the Democratic party? Relata refero (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your question. This was the national DNC chairman sending letters to two (and maybe more) state party chairman. A presidential primary isn't exactly a "particular local election". The fact that LaRouche has been essentially banned from the party is indeed notable, especially in his biography but also in the general history of party politics and presidential elections. It's part of a dispute between LaRouche and his supporters and the Democratic Party which is so lengthy, complicated, and well-covered that we could write on entire article about it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"full length bio"

 * The "full length bio" he's talking about is by Dennis King, who is not a reliable source on anything. --Leatherstocking (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The King book was published by a major publishing house. It's been widely reviewed. I'm not aware of anybody unaffiliated with the LaRoche movement who has raised doubts about the reliability of the factual content. However, it is not used as a source for the material being discussed. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:American military personnel of World War II
As a non combatent member of the army, LaRouche counts as having military service, can somebody please add Category:American military personnel of World War II.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought these huge WWII-veteran categories had been deleted. Anyway, this seems non-controversial. Any objections? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is non-controversial. --Marvin Diode (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

SNL Weekend Update Sketch (may have precipitated Lyndon LaRouche theatre)
There's no mention of the Saturday Night Live Weekend Update update sketch from the 80s where Al Franken did a Lyndon LaRouche impression. If I find sources for it, can we add that to the article?--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's already there:
 * Saturday Night Live in the mid-1980s had a series of skits called "Lyndon LaRouche Theatre", satirizing his national TV ads by casting them as a parody of Masterpiece Theatre (LaRouche typically spoke from an armchair in a library.) For example, one skit shows Queen Elizabeth II as a drug dealer.
 * Isn't that it, under "LaRouche in popular culture"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's correct. It wasn't an "update" sketch. The above text is correct and complete, except it doesn't mention that LaRouche was played by Franken. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Did not know about Lyndon LaRouche Theatre. It was probably also Franken. I know for a fact he also did LaRouche on week end update in 1988. I'll find some sources.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is gonna be a hard one to source... the week end update was around the time that news articles first started depicting LaRouche as insane... Franken came on... gave a conspiracy theory esq. speech about the facist conspiracy and then said they are now promoting the biggest Lie of all, "That I, Lyndon LaRouche... am insane". He did it with a bunch of creepy pauses and called people like Bush Sr. (and some democrats too) "in bred" and other big words like "nefarious". At one point he drank form a glass of water, his hand shaking insanly with a glaze in his eyes. Dammit I can't find a source!... not even something on Youtube (which admittedly wouldn't be acceptable anyway). Can anybody help me out.. .at least give me a time frame... I though it was around the time of the 88 presidential election but I may be wrong about that.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't recall the scenes you mention, but the SNL episodes are pretty-well documented so if you persist then you can probably find a source. I checked ProQuest newspaper archive and didn't find anything about Franken and LaRouche there. However I was reminded that Franken made news in 2004 when he wrestled to the floor a LaRouche follower who was heckling a campaign appearance by Howard Dean. If we mention Franken did the spoof then it may be worth mentioning the 2004 incident too. As for SNL in general, here's the only cite I can find in ProQuest.
 * ...LaRouche was even parodied last weekend on "Saturday Night Live."
 * "EX-LAROUCHE 'SUCKER' FEELS VINDICATED" Rex Springston. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Apr 23, 1986. pg. 1
 * There's at least one book on SNL, or you might try asking around on the SNL talk pages here on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You might also check the SNL Transcripts. I see only one passing mention of LaRouche during a WU segment, but I may have missed something or the databse may be incomplete.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I checked the SNL DB too and couldn't find it. If I find some time between other projects I'll do some more research. I remember this well because it was the first time I ever heard of Lyndon LaRouche.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The present reference to this is already sufficiently detailed. This is a long article that doesn't need more trivia. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request
editprotected I've received a request to add Category:American military personnel of World War II on my talk page. I'm relisting it here to be sure that if somebody wants to oppose it, they can do so. If any other admin is around here, feel free to add it yourself, otherwise I'll do it tomorrow. Best regards,  Snowolf How can I help? 00:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Already done. See above.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:·  —Preceding comment was added at 01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooops.  Snowolf How can I help? 01:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess I should've only put it here on this page. sorry.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, just didn't spotted the one up :) My fault ;-)  Snowolf How can I help? 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Chip Berlet
Many offensive self-published unrelianbe sources that are also self promotion of User:Cberlet are violotion of WP:BLP where is written Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. --Ravelhave (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Which work of Berlet's is self-published? The organization that he works for has editorial oversight sufficient to make it a reliable source, and he doesn't have a blog or similar self-published site. What are you specifically referring to? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I do post to my own blog, as well as several other blogsites, but I do not cite to any of those sources here on Wikipedia. How many times a year do we have to have this debate about PRA being a reliable source?--Cberlet (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue does come up often. Perhaps you could clarify specifically what kind of editorial oversight and/or peer review exists at Political Research Associates. Specifically, does Chip Berlet have the authority to put articles on the PRA web site or have books published through the PRA press on his own initiative, or does someone else have to go over them first? *** Crotalus *** 04:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not have any unilateral authority to publish anything except my own blog entries at various websites. Much of my online activity off the website at PRA is done on my own time. Everything published in print by PRA has been edited by at least two other members of the staff and/or outside reviewers. Outside reviewers include experts in an area of study, sometimes scholarly and sometimes other journalists and writers, depending on the scope of the article. All articles on the website authored by anyone on the staff are reviewed by at least two other sets of eye. Nothing published by PRA is allowed in print or online without editorial revisions, sometimes extensive. --Cberlet (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Who are these outside reviewers? Which articles have been reviewed outside and which by members of staff? Relata refero (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam in external links
Why are there so many extraneous links -- mostly spam -- in the external links sections? For examples: a Philippine site, a youth web site, etc. I propose to remove them ASAP. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be referring to various organizations founded by LaRouche or his supporters, and I think that those are appropriate links for this article. --Niels Gade (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since we have an article on the movement that may be be the better place for links to related organizations. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP citation needed
editprotected Change: In 1978, he sued the ADL; a New York State Supreme Court judge ruled that it was "fair comment" to describe LaRouche as an anti-Semite.

To: In 1978, he sued the ADL; a New York State Supreme Court judge ruled that it was "fair comment" to describe LaRouche as an anti-Semite.

Thanks. CM (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * done. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CM (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In October 1980, a New York State Supreme Court justice dismissed a defamation suit the NCLC had filed against the Anti-Defamation League and ruled that calling the NCLC anti-Semitic is merely "fair comment" or a matter of opinion.
 * "Ideological Odyssey: From Old Left to Far Right" By John Mintz, Washington Post, January 14, 1985


 * ''He is a Holocaust denier, and the New York State Supreme Court ruled that it is "fair comment" to call LaRouche an anti-Semite."
 * On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left By Dennis Tourish, Tim Wohlforth, M.E. Sharpe 2000.


 * Plaintiffs [LaRouche group] have linked prominent Jews and Jewish organizations both in this country and abroad with the rise of Hitler, Nazis and Fascism, the international drug uade, and a myriad of purported conspiracies that have bedeviled the United States and the world at large, including a conspiracy to assassinate the U.S.L.P. leader, Lyndon LaRouche. At a minimum, under the fair comment docuine, the facts of this case reasonably give rise to an inference upon which the A.D.L. can form an honest opinion that the plaintiffs are anti-Semitic. (p. A-13)
 * U.S. Labor Party et al. v. Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, No. 79-11470 (N.Y. App. Div., 1980). Quoted from Secret Agenda - The United States Government, Nazi Scientists and Project Paperclip, 1945 to 1990 by Linda Hunt (1990); pp. 149

Any of these would be reliable sources for the assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I love the .... or a matter of opinion. Please note that that the NY Supreme Court did not rule on whether it was a notable opinion.... Relata refero (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not part of the court's job, so far as I'm aware. The ADL is a fairly well-known organization and this court case itself made the comment more notable (the irony of a libel lawsuit). It's been reported in countless newspaper articles on LaRouche. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm Congress For Cultural Freedom image?
I think whoever's responsible for monitoring this page overlooked a vandalism incidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.80.75.250 (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? CM (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. That's actually the title.  I truly thought it was a joke.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by

156.80.75.250 (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a joke, but it's LaRouche's. --Niels Gade (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia
I removed some minor material from the trivia section of Lyndon LaRouche, per Protection policy. I took out only the truly unverifiable parts. The other factoids can be sourced sooner or later, and to delete an entire section would be a "significant change", so I kept those in. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good call, there was too much trivia there, and the article is long. --Niels Gade (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be good to remove these, but I'm puzzled at the claim that they are not verifiable since the Sliders and the Flagg one's both give the basic citation info within them. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a content dispute?
Is there a content dispute? I understand that there may be. If not, I am going to declare the content dispute over. If so, let's work it out. CM (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If declarations were all that we needed to end conetent disputes then editing Wikipedia would be much simpler. In this case, the protection was requested most recently by Marvin Diode. The protecting admin decided, due to the repetitive editing disputes, to set the expiration date as 2037. The page had been unprotected just days earlier, after having been protected on Marvin Duiode's initiative. As I recall, the unusual long-term protection was discussed and endorsed by the community. Is there some particualr edit you want to make? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For discussion of the protection of a related article, see Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive316 ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems strange that rather than deal with WP:TE, the article is locked. I just think wikipedia articles should not be locked, especally when there is no edit warring going on.  And if they are locked, why do admins get to edit the articles.  Seems strange.  Also, I still don't see an edit war.  Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche is interesting (and governing).

If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche.
 * The article should be unlocked. I can do an Rfc to see what the community thinks if necessary.  Editors who edit war to push a POV or to include WP:OR can be dealth with individually.  This talk page has 0 recent discussion as far as I can tell on recent content disputes/edit warring.  In fact, I really still do not see the edit warring.  The article should be unlocked (again).  CM (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no edit warring because the article is protected. Check the revision history before the protection and you'll see plenty of edit warring. Further admins can't edit the article in the normal sense. They may only make minor, non-controversial edits, usually in response to a request. Is there some special reason you're so interested in having the article unprotected? Is there an edit you'd like to make? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. CM (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you propose it here? If it's non-controversial then it can be done, and if it's controverisal it should be discussed first anyway. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. My edits may or may not be controversial, but if they are, they will be reverted.  I would prefer to use the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle instead of the Timid, discuss cycle.  CM (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the header at the top of this talk page, which says:
 * Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
 * Again I ask, what edits do you want to make to the article? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I decline to timidly submit any edits I might make for your approval. Please see WP:BRD.  CM (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * BRD iis just an essay, while WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. I assume good faith on your part, but if you're not willing to discuss your edits with other users then you might want to find a different project. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I will discuss my edits *if* they are reverted per WP:BRD. You might also want to take a look at WP:OWN.

If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so.
 * Thanks. CM (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So you're seeking to have me banned from editing this article, and you refuse to discuss the edits you want to make to it. That doesn't seem like a good approach to collegial, consensus-based editing. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, sorry Will, I do not wish to have you banned from the article. But unless you're an admin, you are already banned from the article.  I am seeking to have the vast majority of wikipedians who have not participated in content disputes in this article have the right to edit it restored.  Also, in the below Rfc, you can propose something different, e.g., anybody can edit except on the specific content in dispute. CM (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what your wishes are, but your proposal is to have me and a handful of other editors banned on account of being interested editors. Yet you refuse to even discuss your edits or your own interest in this article. That just doesn't seem helpful.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This editor is under no compulsion to declare a POV. He may not actually have one, and just think that this article and the warring is a disgrace. That is a not uncommon view. Relata refero (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When a brand-new account of an obviously seasoned editor pops in on an article that has a hsitory of sockpuppet abuse and demands that I and other editors be banned I think it's a fair question to ask why he's suddenly become involved. If you'd like to discuss exactly how this article is a disgrace that would be helpful, though we should start a new thread. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I seek no change from your current ability to edit this article. I seek a change for the overwhelming majority of wikipedians who did not participate in the content dispute. If you do not feel you should be included, or have some other proposals, please comment in the Rfc below. Or not. Your opinion that my suggestions are naive have already been duly noted. The fact that the article is protected is a disruption. CM (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You haven't shown that the edits you want to make aren't part of the previous edit disputes. If the edits you want to make are non-controversial, then I'm sure that folks won't oppose the change. If they are contrverisal, they should be discussed ahead of time. Your refusal to say what changes you want to make doesn't appear to be a good-faith action, and your repetition of WP:BRD is much like than wikilawyering - pointing to an essay rather than giving a straight answer. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Last time I will say this, but I decline to timidly submit any edits I might make for your approval. I will discuss my edits *if* they are reverted per WP:BRD.  Any controversial edit, previously made or novel, would be reverted, and discussed.  CM (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course you have to get the approval of myself and other editors to make a change. That's the same as for every Wikipedia article. W{:BRD is an essay that carries no weight. WP:CONSENSUS is a core policy. It is standard operating procedure for controversial topics to ask editors to discuss controversial changes before making them so as to avoid edit wars. I think it's ironic that you are willing to set off a new edit war while complaining about the after-effects of the last one. You are welcome to create a sandbox version and make the edits you want. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you describing future edits I would make as "controversial changes"? Please retract that.  Thanks. CM (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Judging by this thread, there's already a dispute about them. If you'd like to show that your intended edits are non-controversial then that'd be very helpful. I've created an unprotected version of the article here: Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/CM version. Feel free to make all of the changes you want. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Unprotect Lyndon LaRouche
Some contributors were engaged in a content dispute on or about Nov. 21-22, 2007 (see below), which lead to the Lyndon LaRouche article being protected until 2037 on November 22, 2007. The purpose of this Rfc is to discuss solutions to open the article up for editing on content not in dispute. Content disputing contributors who participated in the edits that lead to locking should be barred from editing article until 2037. Not the entire community. If the contributors in question come to Consensus, allow them to edit the article. 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The following series of edits shows and characterizes the content dispute (excluding talk page discussions):

Proposal 1
comment - The following contirbutors who participated in the content dispute that lead to article protection should not edit the article until their dispute is resolved. Meanwhile, the article should be unlocked to allow other disinterested contributors to edit the article.

Proposal 1: None of the above editors or edits can be inserted into the article until the parties come to a consensus on the talk page. Meanwhile, the article can be unlocked for other disinterested editors to contribute. CM (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an unhelpful proposal. It ignores the fact that numerous pro-LaRouche sock puppets have edited the article, and that new socks could be expected to circumvent any such ban. It would be helpful if you'd explain why you (a disinterested editor?) have so much interest in the protection of this article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sock puppets are coverd by "None of the above editors or edits ..." clause of the proposal. I admit it could be worded better, but I think the idea is clear.  CM (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you propose to decide which accounts are sock puppets? Have you read the file on this article and the ArbCom cases associated with it? These suggestions just seem very naive. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't even take the care to include all of the editors who were engaged in the previous edit dispute. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: The precedent for long-term/permanent protection was Views of Lyndon LaRouche. I objected strenuously at the time, even going to the Administrators' Noticeboard to complain about the admin who did it. However, I have had second thoughts about it, and I now fully support it for that article, this article, and others. I'm sure that I see it differently than Will does, but I agree that it is for the best. There are two editors, Cberlet and Dking, who in my view consistently edit tendentiously, and Will Beback who generally defends them from criticism. I tried to take this to the ArbCom but it was not accepted. I understand that there have been sockpuppets on the pro-LaRouche side, and I can also think of at least two sock- or meatpuppets on the Berlet/King side. I have watched these LaRouche articles for a while, and in my opinion they are generally very complete -- there are plenty of questionable POV edits from both sides, but oddly enough, I think they more or less balance out at the end of the day. So I believe that it is best for the project that they remain protected, in order to avoid more grueling and fanatical POV battles. Non-controversial edits can and do get made using the process you see above. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Okay, thanks for your comments. I will dig and think further.  Meanwhile, I hope others share their views (pro or con) or make alternative proposals.  CM (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't believe this is a reasonable proposal, for the simple reason that the edits in the diffs are reasonable ones.--Onlyjusthisonetime (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Rfc is not an Rfc on the edits. It is an Rfc on stopping the disruption that protecting the article causes any other wikipedian who may want to edit it.  CM (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand. I don't believe that specific edits need to be singled out in the manner that you propose.--Onlyjusthisonetime (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I certainly think that this article needs some new eyes. However, I am not sure an RfC of this sort will be sufficient in keeping these various tendentious editors off this page. Relata refero (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Proposal 2: No editor may add content subject to the above dispute, regardless of whether or not they were involved in the dispute; but the article should be unlocked for other non-controversial edits per WP:BRD. 00:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:BRD is an essay. The most recent edit dispute was one of many. Addressing that single point doesn't solve the problem of ongoing edit disputes. Rather than these sweeping proposals the editor is invited to propose any edit he wants and if it's non-controversial then the consensus of editors will most likely agree to it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article." CM (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: there is no "above dispute" that can be easily identified. Will is right about this. The basic dispute (according to my reading) is that one team keeps trying to find clever ways to sneak around the WP:BLP policy, generally by self-citing, while the other team plays defense. Protection would be unnecessary if we had an admin who was particularly sensitive to BLP and COI issues and was willing to watchdog the article{s) -- but we don't. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: it seems to me that there ought to be some way to deter the use of Wikipedia for defamation campaigns, short of permanently locking the article. --Terrawatt (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I see no reason to take that action.--Onlyjusthisonetime (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Works
editprotected Please replace the entire "works" section with the following:

Lyndon LaRouche has written hundreds of articles, pamphlets, and books published mostly by his own press such as: Thanks. CM (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Case of Walter Lippmann (1976)
 * Now, Do You Sleep With One Eye Open? Inoculate the U.S. Against the Cult Epidemic(1978)
 * Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites (1979)
 * The Power of Reason: A Kind of An Autobiography (1979)
 * Poetry Must Begin to Supersede Mathematics in Physics (1982)
 * So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? A Text on Elementary Mathematical Economics (1984)
 * There Are No Limits to Growth (1983)
 * The Power of Reason (1988)
 * The Science of Christian Economy, and other prison writings (1991)
 * The Road to Recovery (1999)
 * The Economics of the Noosphere (2001)
 * Beneath the Waters of Chappaquiddick
 * Why Jimmy Carter Is Not a Christian
 * Bush Demands His Own Impeachment.
 * Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy


 * I suggest that rather than saying, "published mostly by his own press", which is hard to verify, that we simply say that all of the listed works were printed by publishers associated with his movement. I also suggest placing them in chronological order. Lastly, I'm checking WorldCat, and they list 168 entries with LaRouche as an author, though some are duplicates and some are pamphlets. Let's compile a full list if we can. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's work on this in Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/works. I've compiled a list from worldCat. We can organize it and cross reference it with the list you have. It seems worthwile to include pamphlets - the distinction between a long pamphlet and a short book isn't well-defined. He's also written some introductions, which are another matter. They could be short or long. Anyway, it's a long list. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added through 1986, and will add the rest later. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've posted the rest now. I think most of his works in foreign languages are translations rather than original works, so those titles might be omitted, though we could say that many of this works have been translated, some into multiple languages. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Drawing from several sources, here's a better list of book by LaRouche. These are all of his English-language books of over 100 pages that have been assigned an ISBN. Articles, pamphlets, collections of pamphlets, EIR special reports, etc., are not included.
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. Dialectical Economics An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy. Lexington, Mass: Heath, 1975. ISBN 0669853089
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. The Case of Walter Lippmann A Presidential Strategy. New York: Campaigner Publications, 1977. ISBN 0918388066
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. How to Defeat Liberalism and William F. Buckley 1980 Campaign Policy. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Pub. Co, 1979. ISBN 0933488033
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. The Power of Reason A Kind of Autobiography. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Pub. House, 1979. ISBN 0933488017
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. Will the Soviets Rule During the 1980 ' s. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Pub. Co, 1979. ISBN 0933488025
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. Basic Economics for Conservative Democrats. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Pub. Co, 1980. ISBN 0933488041
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. What Every Conservative Should Know About Communism. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Pub. Co, 1980. ISBN 0933488068
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. Why Revival of "SALT" Won't Stop War. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Pub. Co, 1980. ISBN 0933488084
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H., and David P. Goldman. The Ugly Truth About Milton Friedman. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1980. ISBN 0933488092
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. There Are No Limits to Growth. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1983. ISBN 0933488319
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? A Text on Elementary Mathematical Economics. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984. ISBN 0943235138
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. Imperialism The Final Stage of Bolshevism. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984. ISBN 0933488335
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. The Power of Reason, 1988 An Autobiography. Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1987.ISBN 0943235006
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. In Defense of Common Sense. Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1989. ISBN 0962109533
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. The Science of Christian Economy. Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1991. ISBN 0962109568
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H., and Paul Gallager. Cold Fusion: A Challenge to U.S. Science Policy. Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1992. ISBN 0962109576
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. Now, Are You Ready to Learn About Economics? Washington, D.C.: EIR News Service, 2000. ISBN 0943235189
 * LaRouche, Lyndon H. The Economics of the Nöosphere Washington, D.C.: EIR News Service, 2001. ISBN 0943235200

Regarding the text about publishers, I think it would be accurate to say that "All of his books except for his first have been published by his movement" or something to that effect. A listing of his other writings would be too long include in the article. We might summarize it by estimating the numbers of articles (over 150). We can also say that his books have been tranlated into several languages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lyndon LaRouche has written hundreds of articles, pamphlets, and books All but the first of his books were published by the LaRouche movement. His works have been translated into several languages. 
 * I think so. But your list omits LaRouche's most recent and comprehensive book, The Economics of the Nöosphere. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the ISBN of that book? How long is it? Did he write the whole thing or just the lead article? It's not listed in either Amazon or WorldCat. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just found it in Amazon (.) ISBN is 0943235200. LaRouche is sole author. I just realized that you also have omitted Earth's Next Fifty Years (ISBN B000BR4JTU), which is actually the most recent. --Niels Gade (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great - we can add the The Economics of the Nöosphere. "B000BR4JTU" isn't an ISBN. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Any progress being made here? CM (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we've put together an accurate, verifiable list of his books. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, then some admin should take action on the edit protected, or if that has already been done, the edit protected tag should be removed. CM (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections I'll replace the current "works" section with this list. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment
The first section called Early life needs copy edit and should be made shorter. The stuff about conflicts with the Quakers is relatively unimportant and should be condensed. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? The material appears well-sourced, neutral, and relevant to the subject's life. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying get rid of it, I'm saying condense it. As with any public figure, there is plenty of well-documented minutiae in LaRouche's bio. Much of it is more interesting and notable than the stuff about the Quakers. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, but it's not quite right. There isn't much biographical info on LaRouche's younger years. It's best to look at this article as part of a series on the subject. In addition to this article on his basic life story we have an entire articles devoted to his beliefs and views, to his movement, to his presidential campaigns, and to his criminal trials. Therefore it makes sense to keep this article focused on exclusively biographical information that isn't covered in those articles. I think that a large chunk of info under "Criticism" concerns his views and would be better placed in the "Views" article if it isn't there already. The criminal conviction might be compressed a little, but moreover should be re-written to better summarize the material. The "Recent activity" section has a lot of low value stuff that could be dropped. An unsourced tour of India hardly seems worthwhile, for example. Letters to the editor don't seem noteworthy either. This article could use a "rebalancing", but I doubt that anyone would agree oon how to do it. So, we're left with what we've got.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are sources for LaRouche's recent India tours: --Niels Gade (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If there's no 3rd-party coverage it probably wasn't a notable tour. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You really should try Google. . Relata refero (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks like a good cite. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Will, could you kindly add those sources to the relevant sentence in the article? --Niels Gade (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Any objections? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Adding a source citation is non-controversial. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as we are citing The Hindu, can we also cite to this article? Quote: "Lyndon LaRouche is the American demagogue who in 1989 received a 15-year sentence for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax-code violations. He has claimed that the British royal family is running an international drugs syndicate, that Henry Kissinger is a communist agent, that the British government is controlled by Jewish bankers, and that modern science is a conspiracy against human potential." Cite to "Sourcing junk science sources" by George Monbiot.--Cberlet (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Berlet's cite is not news coverage, it is an opinion piece by George Monbiot, who looks like he is simply citing Berlet for an Ad hominem attack. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Where do you get the idea, Niels Gade, that Monbiot needs to cite me to conclude based on published reports that LaRouche is a batshit lunatic?--Cberlet (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See Spoor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.28.162 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Berlet's, er, comment qualifies as an objection.

undefined

Please add the following sources to the end of the first sentence in the section entitled "India, Russia, and China":. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hearing no objection to the edit in question, I've gone ahead and added it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Under "Early Life," in the eighth paragraph (which begins "LaRouche enrolled at Northeastern University, but ..."), the reference to "Civilian Public Service" should be hyperlinked to the Wikipedia article on Civilian Public Service, for those of us who never heard of the Civilian Public Service before reading this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.52.222 (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology
The article on the Scientology "e-meter" states that "Scientology minister Lyndon LaRouche" was the first to use it. A different Lyndon LaRouche? I don't see anything about Scientology in this article. Proxy User (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good catch. It appears to have been vandalism. I've removed it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be "Iran-Contra scandal", not "Irangate"
"In 1995, he wrote to a Swedish newspaper declaring that Olof Palme was assassinated because of his knowledge of the Irangate scandal."

Could someone change "Irangate" to "Iran-Contra"? I recall neither a gate nor fence-like material of any kind being involved during that scandal.

But seriously, adding a "-gate" suffix to refer to a scandal is just irritating journalistic laziness and improper use of a noun--what do gates have to do with scandals?

Torgman1 (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Presidential candidate
"Category:United States presidential candidates" has been disambiguated to candidates per election between 1789 and 2008. I have been unable to add the appropriate categories for LaRouche as this page is protected. Could an administrator make the necessary changes? Dimadick (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That turns one category into eight, but it's worse for Harold Stassen. Seeing no objection I've made the edit. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is not sufficient detailed
The criticisms of LaRouche in reputable published sources are not adequately represented on this page. I would like to add a flag that the page fails the NPOV test. --Cberlet (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Mop-Up
The dubious FBI accusations at the end of the section are supported by a (poor) reference to a defunct LaRouche website. They should be deleted. John Nevard (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor copy edit suggestion
Someone with the power to do so should place a period after the word "cult" in the second sentence of the second paragraph of this article, before the reference tags. I'd do so myself, but the protection level here prevents me, lowly regular user, from doing so. Adlerschloß (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you also add ? --172.193.62.190 (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Any objections? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Other than granting him an importance he in no way deserves -- it's not as if any of his works are best-sellers, widely read, or influential -- no, not really. --Calton | Talk 07:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No objection -- make it so. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I appears that Calton already objected. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you will re-read his statement, in response to your question, "Any objections?" he concludes with "no, not really." I don't object, either -- it seems straightforward to me. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked Calton to clarofy and he responded on my talk page that he does object. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Are any of his writings published outside the movement? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why, is that a criterion for inclusion in the category? --Terrawatt (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Would we add folks whose writings on foreign policy only appear on their blogs? I don't think so. Has anyone called the subject a "foreign policy writer"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If we look at the 74 subcategories of Category:American non-fiction writers, the subject would have just as much justification to be in half of those. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The category is there to organize American foreign-policy writers. LaRouche is about as much a foreign policy writer as Robert Welch. He's not known as a foreign policy writer, he wouldn't be recognized by foreign policy writers as a fellow foreign policy writer (if he was recognized as a 'academic topic' writer at all). Lyndon LaRouche writes, whether you like it or not, solely for the consumption of the LaRouche movement. John Nevard (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Russian publication "RP Monitor" described LaRouche as a "world class social philosopher, colorful public policy figure, enthusiast for scientific and technological progress, denouncer of world oligarchy, and the author of many bold economic development projects." There are similar discussions in the Chinese press. Of course, they're not white and they don't speak English, so what would they know? --Terrawatt (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL! Stop, you are killing me. This is a joke, yes?--Cberlet (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is for the benefit of any editors who may be participating in this discussion in good faith: the May, 2008 issue of the Italian magazine Bergaeconomia is devoted to LaRouche and his New Bretton Woods proposal. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:American criminals
Speaking of categories, Category:American criminals has recently had its criteria tightened to include only felons. I'm not sure why this article isn't in that category. One of the subcategories might be more appropriate, Category:American fraudsters, but since he was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, rather than mail fraud itself, perhaps the parent category is more appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose we should all consider ourselves lucky that there are no tendentious editors here. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason not to add the category? It's pretty straightforward. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I too am glad that there are no editors here who have edited outside a LaRouche topic, or only on topics recently covered by LaRouche articles, or on topics edited by editors they are wikistalking only once. John Nevard (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If no one has a logical reason to deny inclusion in the category, I'll ask a 3rd-party to make the edit. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * He fits the category, so I don't know why he wouldn't belong there. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I dispute it, for the same reasons enumerated at Talk:Michael Billington (activist). Because the inclusion in the category implies guilt, and the there is considerable controversy over the legitimacy of the trial, adding him to the category is contentious (and, I might add, tendentious.) --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, numerous times, and the subject didn't win any of the appeals. Many people who are convicted of crimes feel their convictions were unfair. Perhaps we can create an additional category for such situations. But there's no question that the subject was convicted of felonies. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If he was found guilty in an American court of law of committing a felony in this country, he meets the barest definition of "American criminal." Any (doubtful) controversy over the legitimacy of the trial would have been settled by the Supreme Court. There is no higher appeal and so there is no reason to postpone or dispute a listing in that category. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, every political prisoner has been found guilty beyond the point of appeal. I suggest that you add both categories, "American criminals" and "Political prisoners and victims," which would give you some semblance of NPOV. Or else drop the matter, because it is obviously motivated by POV pushing. I don't see any neutral parties promoting this action. --Terrawatt (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, political prisoner or not, he meets the definition of the term "American criminal" since he has been convicted of crimes in America. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, he's not currently incarcerated so I doubt "political prisoner" would be a good fit for that. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The actual name is Category:Political prisoners and victims. Having spent 5 years in the pen as a political prisoner, he still qualifies as a "victim." --Terrawatt (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, categories apply to people who were ever in the situation. So we'd still categorize someone as "People from Rhode Island" even after they'd left the state. More directly, we still categorize Nelson Mandela as a political prisoner, even though he was released prior to his death. The problem with that category is that it's entirely subjective. It's little different from "people unfairly imprisoned". While there are undoubtedly such people, it's hard to objectively categorize them. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)