Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 23

Arthur Goldwag
I disagree with making the Arthur Goldwag material invisible. You are asserting that there is some sort of inaccuracy in what he says, and I don't know that there is, but on the whole I found his description of LaRouche to be accurate and unusually neutral. Plus, as I understand it, the standard is "verifiability, not truth" -- Dennis King's book is riddled with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods, but it is still used as a source throughout this article, presumably because it is published and falls under "verifiability, not truth." I will continue to look for sources -- the CYD also describes the ideological shift -- but I think we should keep Goldwag for now. Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * He's not a good source for this. If you want to write about the change of economic direction, it's a good idea, but you need a secondary source who writes about what happened then, not a tertiary source who uses quotes from a current website to describe how LaRouche saw things in the 1970s. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 05:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it appears in a secondary source (is there such a thing as a "tertiary" source?) should establish it as something worthy of inclusion. And again, Dennis King quotes and misquotes LaRouche when it serves his purposes, and there seems to be no objection to using King as a source. I thought that WP:V was the ultimate guideline. Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Per V and NOR, you need a good secondary source, though you can augment it with a primary source (LaRouche) within reason. Goldwag is a tertiary source, and he has mixed and matched his timeframes, so the section made no sense. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 08:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your view is debatable. I also don't see how Goldwag has "mixed and matched his timeframes" -- that seems to be your personal interpretation. Goldwag merely provides a concise description of LaRouche's orientation from the early 70s to the present. Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Childhood anecdotes
What criteria are you using to decide which details about his childhood go into the article? It seems highly subjective and perhaps intended to build some sort of OR psychoanalytic theory. Considering the length of the article, I have difficulty understanding why accounts of his childhood are necessary or appropriate. Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * He has written about it, as have others, so it clearly mattered to him, and it's normal to start biographies with the early years. It's odd that you would object to it, because it humanizes him, makes him interesting. I'm about to add to it some descriptions of how he came across to others. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 08:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You have removed as much as you have added. Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Angel, LaRouche's Myopia may provide the key element for understanding his affinity for long term forecasts and his historical explanations: He simply compensates for his short-sightedness by looking "metaphorically" into the future or into the past. It is so simple. (or am i kidding?) Cheers! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Lebedev Institute

 * What evidence do we have that the Pirogov source is reliable? How do we know what it really says?   Will Beback    talk    05:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See . It appears that the publication was a result of workshops conducted jointly with the Schiller Institute. One of the issues includes an article by Rachel Douglas, who is not known as a scholar in English or Russian. What do we know about Pirogov? Since these are foreign sources, it's hard to know what we're looking at. The burden is on whoever wants to add this to establish that it's a reliable, noteworthy, and independent source.   Will Beback    talk    06:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added something; it's more or less what Angel's flight wrote, though I've tightened it; see here. I included Pirogov, but it's not clear that it's appropriate, and I still can't see where he says those things on this page. Can someone point it out to me? Also, what is the citation date? SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 07:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, this is a Schiller Institute conference. It's not appropriate to present that as though it's an independent source. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 07:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You both seem to be arguing that the Russian Academy of Sciences has become a self-published organ of the LaRouche movement, because one or more LaRouche-affiliated researchers spoke at a seminar there. This is an extremely novel and POV-driven interpretation of policy (and reality.) This controversy has come up before at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. It might be appropriate to take this to the RS noticeboard. Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC) :::The partial-sentence quote which you removed may be found at the very beginning of Pirogov's essay here:Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/russian. Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The source you want to cite is listed here in English, the GG Pies (Piragov) paper from the Methodological seminar LPI, number 2, part 2. It appears be part of a Schiller Institute (LaRouche movement in Germany) conference; see here in English, Methodological seminar LPI, number 3. It's therefore not appropriate to cite material about LaRouche from there as though it's an entirely independent source. And I still can't see where the source material is on that page. I can see the title, but not the paper. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If your computer doesn't have enough RAM to load the entire translation, trying scrolling down to the last section (with headline "ЛИНДОН ЛАРУШ И ЕГО ФИЗИЧЕСКАЯ ЭКОНОМИКА") and paste that section into your Google Translate box. However, you need not do that, because I did it for you here: Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/russian. I found a LaRouche site which provides some information on the seminars here:. Please cite a Wikipedia policy that says that the presence of LaRouche researchers at the seminar makes the transcript unreliable. The hosting site is the Russian Press Agency NETDA on behalf of the Lebedev Institute Physics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. I think it would be nice to hear from some credentialed experts in a article that is otherwise dominated by a bunch of aging New Left types that were fighting LaRouche back in the 70s. If you think that the Lebedev Institute is somehow tainted by LaRouche contact, then we should take this to the noticeboard. Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You want to use as a source—for a contentious (albeit positive) claim in a BLP—a Google machine translation of a speech, unpublished except on a conference website, by an unknown person at an overseas conference that was funded in whole or in part by the LaRouche movement. And not only use it, you want to present it as an entirely independent academic source. I can't imagine any experienced editor supporting you in that. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 08:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * SV, please leave the well unpoisoned.Thanks. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The burden is on those who wish to use a source to prove that it is reliable and significant. Using non-LaRouche sources, what do we know about the author of this source, Pirogov, or the seminar that published the material? It does not appear that the Lebedev Institute was the sole or even the primary publisher, and it's unclear what the role was of the Schiller Institute in the seminar. We need more information to evaluate this obscure, foreign language source, and to establish its prominence. Even if it is somehow reliable, it may be too unimportant to devote any significant space. We only report significant points of view, not everything ever published.  Will Beback   talk    21:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert J Alexander, a former Socialist Party, LID and SDUSA activist who admittedly became a university prof... it seems more the case that we are reporting opposing points of view, not necessarily "significant" ones. I have opened a thread at WP:RSN. Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Will, this is the same argument type as SV and it has come up a dozen times by now. There have been tons of Gigabytes of information already provided, but still you deny their existance. And please, IF we would report ONLY "significant" points of view, then what is the childhood anecdote about Larouches Myopia about? Significant, Indeed!81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you please recap the info about the Pirogov paper? You seem to be more familiar with this talk page than I am.    Will Beback    talk    00:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * After a discussion on WP:RSN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lebedev_Institute_of_Physics_of_the_Russian_Academy_of_Sciences_.28FIAN.29_.2F_Russian_.D0.9D.D0.95.D0.A2.D0.94.D0.90_.28.22NETDA.22.29_news_agency

it was established, that G.G. Pirogov was, confirmation pending, a "Political scientist, specialist in research on socio-economic and political processes, the challenges of globalization. Author of several monographs, including two-volume monograph entitled "Globalization and civilizational diversity of the world" (2002). Member of the Scientific Editorial Board of the multi-volume edition of "World economic thought. Through the prism of the ages. " In 5 volumes (2004-2005). The author of the translation into Russian of two books (as well as the notes thereto) of the Nobel Prize for Economics Dzh.Stiglitsa."

One can thus safely say, that Pirogov is more than qualified to assess the value of economic analyses and thus can be considered a reliable source. It was furthermore established, that the translation in question was factual and correct. I thus see no more reason to further delay the reintroduction of the Pirogov-material. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're overlooking the editors who said that seminar presentations are not reliable sources, especially for a BLP. Furthermore, the material that you want to add is an extraordinary claim not found in any mainstream source. Per WP:REDFLAG, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources.   Will Beback    talk    19:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What WB calls an "extraordinary claim" is in fact called by competent people, a "Long Term economic forecast". They are the life blood of most Think Tanks, universities and economic institutions. They are NOT "extraordinary", they are daily routine. As for the editors saying seminar presentations are not reliable, i (as well as another editor) say they are, and indeed they are in most cases the only way new knowledge is promulgated.81.210.206.223 (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Predicting a currency collapse 11 years in advance is exceptional. How many other "economic forecasters" have done so? If you can show that it is a routine activity then I'll revise my opinion.
 * Seminar presentations are primary sources: one person's view without the oversight of an editorial board.   Will Beback    talk    20:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Predicting a currency collapse 11 years in advance is exceptional" (This is an opinion)

"How many other "economic forecasters" have done so?" (This is irrelevant) "If you can show that it is a routine activity then I'll revise my opinion." =(This is a mix-up of 2 arguments, i said economic forecasting is routine, i however did not say, that forecasts of financial/monetary collapses are routine, this is your invention. Forecasts of this type are, albeit seldomly, made by futurologists or senior economists like Gerald Celente. Anyway, DO i have to convince WB? Is this an attempt to WP:OWN this article? 81.210.206.223 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia operates by consensus.
 * The assertion that the subject correctly predicted the currency collapse eleven years prior is a remarkable claim. If it weren't remarkable we wouldn't be discussing its inclusion. (Nobody cares if the weatherman correctly predicts tomorrow's rain.) A remarkable prediction like that should have independent sources. We don't even know when or how this alleged forecast was made.   Will Beback    talk    21:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Query
From what I saw at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, the main basis for whatever support LaRouche enjoys here and overseas is his economic theories, proposals and forecasts. I have looked in this article for coverage of them, and found the following: cursory mentions of an Oasis Plan 1975, a three step program in 1976, a brief summary of programs under "National Democratic Policy Committee," Eurasian Landbridge proposal in 2002, and an economic forecast in 2007. Is it really the case that among all the sources that were used to compose this article, that is all we have? Delia Peabody (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 
 * Delia, would a subheading "Economic Proposals" for each decade 1960-2010 solve the problem?81.210.206.223 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is about the life of the individual. The "Views" article is about the views of the individual and his movement. Let's avoid muddying the waters.   Will Beback    talk    21:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Much of it is gossipy speculation about the internal affairs of LaRouche-related groups, or the nonsense about another member marrying LaRouche's former girlfriend. Since LaRouche is a political activist, is it not safe to assume that he engaged in specific political campaigns while all this is going on? Inquiring minds want to know. Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * His political campaigns are covered in Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns   Will Beback    talk    02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean campaigns for things like legislation that he authored, or someone else's legislation that he sought to defeat. What were the issues of the day that occupied his and his organization's time? Other than scandals, real or alleged? Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * His proposals are covered in the "Views" article.   Will Beback    talk    02:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not about the "views" and by the way, the article has long ago left the sphere of being about the "life of the individual". You know it, everyone knows it. Right now, proposals are mixed into THIS article with no consistent principle. A special subheading might help. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If too much material about views, proposals, etc is in the article now the remedy would be to move that material to the more appropriate article, not to add more.   Will Beback    talk    00:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not say that there was "too much" material in here, that is what you said.Please stop putting words into my mouth. I am asking for a principled way to structure the proposals.

If you want an article about a politician that mentions no views and/or proposals you might also want an article about a horse that does not mention its legs. Cheers! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If the material on horse's legs grows so long that it is sufficient for a standalone article then it's no longer to devote much space to them in the main article.   Will Beback    talk    00:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that analogy works, because it fails to take into account how WP:NPOV (and WP:BLP) applies here in a manner that it wouldn't there. Excluding or minimizing LaRouche's own views might have the effect of giving undue weight to his opponents. In this manner, a separate article on his views could become a de facto POV fork in disguise. *** Crotalus *** 16:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This article includes significant coverage of LaRouche's views of himself, the topic of the article. LaRouche's view on other topics are covered in the other article.   Will Beback    talk    19:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As for structure, the article follows a straightforward chronological structure.   Will Beback    talk    00:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Books
The lead actually isn't as bad as I thought it would be. The rest of the article, I didn't really have the patience to plow through. Regardless, as I mentioned on one previous occasion, the biggest problem with the LaRouche articles is the lack of any reliable, neutral academic sources on LaRouche and his movement. We have a bunch of newspaper articles, and one polemical anti-LaRouche book, but no scholars of political science (or new religious movements) seem to have published anything much on this topical area. Even on a controversial new religious movement ("cult") like Scientology, we have unbiased material from professors of comparative religion. There is nothing like that here, and I wonder if writing an article that meets both WP:NPOV and WP:V might simply be impossible. *** Crotalus *** 21:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A search on Google Books turns up a title called "Lyndon LaRouche: A Study in Political Extremism" by Carol M. Riggs (George Mason University, 1996). Unfortunately, I could not find this on Amazon, nor is an ISBN listed on Google Books. Has anyone seen this book or knows what it contains? If published by a university, it might serve as a reliable source on this article. *** Crotalus *** 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Riggs book is in FR, but I've not seen it. There are good sections about LaRouche in several books, e.g. George Johnson's Architects of Fear, which is quite detailed, and which I've been using here. Also see Robins, Robert S. and Post, Jerrold M. Political Paranoia: The Psychopolitics of Hatred. Yale University Press, 1997. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Worldcat, Riggs' work is an MA thesis for George Mason University. Doctoral dissertations are regarded as reliable sources, but i don't think masters theses are awarded the same status.   Will Beback    talk    23:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The best recent scholarly biography of LaRouche is a fairly long entry in Robert J. Alexander's International Trotskyism 1929-1985 Duke University Press, 1991 ISBN 9780822310662.   Will Beback    talk    03:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, I recently obtained photocopies of the relevant pages. I'll add citations to it soon.   Will Beback    talk    03:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Alexander is a good find, thank you. I've added it. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't able to read the whole section on LaRouche in Alexander on Google Books. How heavily does Alexander rely on Berlet and King as sources? I see a reference to King on p.947 and 949 in the Google Books preview, which is troubling; to what extent is Alexander independent of the two keystone anti-LaRouche authors? What I was hoping to find was something similar to the academic sources by comparative-religion scholars on New Religious Movements, which avoid pejorative terms and instead describe what their subjects believe. Even the most widely criticized religions usually have a sympathetic ear in academic sources, but it appears that this is not true for LaRouche. *** Crotalus *** 16:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A) The King book is a reliable source in and of itself so citing is is not a problem, whether we do it directly or whether it's cited by a book we cite.
 * B) According to whom were the Socialist Party, LID and SDUSA "bitterly opposed" to LaRouche in the 1970s?
 * C) The Alexander book is published by a university press, and thus is among the highest quality sources available.
 * D) No source is entirely neutral. If we had to rely on 100% neutral sources throughout Wikipedia it would be a much smaller encyclopedia. We would certainly have to exclude all self-published sources.
 * E) If editors think the Alexander book is unreliable then they are invited to make their case at RSN.   Will Beback    talk    19:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Crotalus, none of the reliable sources has anything positive to say about LaRouche that I've been able to find, because his organization is highly troubling. The newspapers of record are The New York Times and The Washington Post, because he used to live in New York and now lives in Virginia. The academics base their work on the output of those newspapers, and on what LaRouche himself has said, which is consistent with the newspaper reports; he often boasts about the issues that others find problematic.

Some articles if you're interested in reading about the mainstream perception of his movement. I've added one book (George Johnson) that looks more closely at the ideas, and you can read a fair bit of it on Amazon:


 * Montgomery, Paul L. "How a Radical-Left Group Moved Toward Savagery", The New York Times, January 20, 1974.
 * Blum, Howard. "U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy", The New York Times, October 7, 1979.
 * Johnson, George. "The 'New Dark Ages' Conspiracy," [ http://www.amazon.com/Architects-Fear-George-Johnson/dp/0874772753/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1297838802&sr=8-3#reader_0874772753 Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics]. J.P Tarcher, 1983, chapter 10, p. 187ff.
 * Mintz, John. "Ideological Odyssey: From Old Left to Far Right", The Washington Post, January 14, 1985.
 * Lynch, Pat. "Is Lyndon LaRouche using your name? How the LaRouchians masquerade as journalists to gain information", Columbia Journalism Review, March/April 1985.
 * Witt, April. "No Joke", The Washington Post, October 24, 2004.

SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 07:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * More mainstream sources:
 * Time magazine
 * Politics From the Twilight Zone By Richard Stengel;Lee Griggs/Chicago Monday, Mar. 31, 1986
 * Larouche's Tangled Web Monday, Jun. 09, 1986
 * Card Tricks: Uncovering a LaRouche scam By Anne Constable Oct 20, 1986''
 * Others:
 * ''Publish and Perish: The mysterious death of Lyndon LaRouche's printer By Avi Klein Washington Monthly, November 2007
 * ''Odd Man Out; The loony who's staying home: Lyndon LaRouche. July 2, 2007 The New Republic
 * ''Beast-man politics February 2004 by James Bowman
 * There are more articles behind firewalls, but the tone is the same in those. Overall, the subject has received far less attention in the past twenty years than in the prior twenty.   Will Beback    talk    10:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, my perusal of Google Books indicates that most of the material on LaRouche by third-party sources is negative in tone. That isn't surprising. What did surprise me is that there were seemingly no third-party sources that took a sympathetic or neutral view of the LaRouche movement. It may be true, as SlimVirgin states, that "his organization is highly troubling," but Scientology is probably more so, and has far more influence today (how many A-list Hollywood celebrities are LaRouche followers?) And despite that, there have been third-party accounts written by scholars such as James W. Lewis that are studiously neutral, focusing on the beliefs of the group and how they affect their daily lives, not on whether those beliefs are perceived as threatening by others. It seems like this might be an interesting opportunity for a sociologist to do some research that apparently has not yet been conducted. Of course, on Wikipedia there probably isn't much we can do about this situation; but I still wonder how we can best balance our responsibilities under WP:V (especially regarding third-party sources) with those of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. It would be like trying to write an article on Scientology where the only third-party sources in existence were some newspaper and magazine articles, some articles published by Tilman Hausherr through a think tank or research committee, and an anti-Scientology book written by Andreas Heldal-Lund. If that was all we had, neutrality would be a very difficult task. *** Crotalus *** 14:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You make some very good points. But let's remember that we're not trying to write a neutral article, but rather an article which follows the neutral point of view policy. That does not require that we balance "good" and "bad" in equal measures, but simply that we report all significant points of view with weight according to their prominence in independent sources without favoring any of them. So we report that the subject is viewed as a genius by his followers and something else by other observers, etc. Lewis is a tertiary source who has only written a very short summary of other sources. Tertiary sources can sometimes be helpful in assessing weight, but his book isn't much help beyond that. Here is even shorter entry is from the same publisher, with a different focus: World fascism: a historical encyclopedia, Volume 1 By Cyprian Blamires I certainly agree that there is fodder for sociologists here. Most of the scholarly treatments are from the political side.   Will Beback    talk    12:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

An older book from Germany is Deckname Schiller : die Deutschen Patrioten des Lyndon LaRouche, by Helmut Lorscheid; Leo A Müller. Rowohlt, 1986. Rowohlt is a major publisher and the book probably qualifies are reliable. It's a bit hard to find and it is, of course, in German, but there are excerpts here:. More recent is a long entry in Jahrbuch Extremismus und Demokratie, 7th ed., 1995, written by Matthias Mletzko. I can't find an untranslated version, but a translated copy is floating around which can be found here:. A 16-year member of the German organization wrote Verirrt : mein Leben in einer radikalen Politorganisation in 1994 which was published by a reputable publishing house, Verlag_Herder.[ISBN 9783451042782]   Will Beback    talk    09:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Recap of neutrality dispute
Over the past weeks I've taken a much closer look at this article, so I am posting an updated survey of neutrality issues, and a summary of observations made by myself and others. During this same period the article has been rewritten in parts by SlimVirgin, and I would say that most of the changes have been for the better, but problems remain.
 * There are substantial unresolved "weight" issues, which were the original reason for the neutrality dispute. Responses by the two editors who control the article have been indicative of the problem:
 * When the question is raised about the long and detailed discussion of unproven allegations by LaRouche's opponents from the 70s, it is argued that anything from a published source on these topics is appropriate and necessary for inclusion. On the other hand, when there is a request for greater coverage of LaRouche's political or economic intiatives, it is argued that "We only report significant points of view, not everything ever published." As Crotalus put it, "Excluding or minimizing LaRouche's own views might have the effect of giving undue weight to his opponents."
 * Then there is the question of what belongs in this article as opposed to other LaRouche-related articles. When the original attempt was made to move criticism of the NCLC and US Labor Party to National Caucus of Labor Committees and US Labor Party, it was rebuffed, with the argument that "It's appropriate for a biography to discuss a subject's activities and the public responses to them." When a proposal is made for greater coverage of LaRouche's political activities (as oppposed to real or alleged scandals,) the response is that we have other articles for those topics.
 * Events which would be of obvious biographical interest are given short shrift. For example, why did LaRouche meet with Mexican President Lopez Portillo and Indian President Indira Gandhi? Surely they were not just a social calls.
 * Other problems:
 * ASF says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Some of SlimVirgin's recent edits are retrogressive in this regard. For example,  He joined the next year, adopting the pseudonym Lyn Marcus for his political work; King writes that this was to avoid problems with employers or the FBI was changed to He returned to Lynn in 1948, and the next year joined the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), adopting the pseudonym Lyn Marcus for his political work to avoid problems with employers or the FBI. Dennis King's book contains many errors and fabrications; his claims, if they must be included, should be attributed without exception.
 * WP:BLP says that biographies should avoid having a tabloid quality. For example, the speculation sourced to Paul L. Montgomery that LaRouche changed political direction because his ex-girlfriend married another member of the movement is pure TMZ. The very old and never-proven allegations about "ego-stripping" and brainwashing receive extremely lengthy and detailed treatment in the article. BLP says "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Also, WP:NOTSCANDAL says to avoid "Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." I would not say that this article is written purely to attack LaRouche's reputation, but I would say that it is written primarily to do so. Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 *  Dennis King's book contains many errors and fabrications...
 * I'm not aware of any determination that King's book is inaccurate. Can you provide evidence of this charge?   Will Beback    talk    20:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche frequently characterized his opponents during the 70s as "proto-fascist," despite their claim to be leftists. He mocked their supposed opposition to fascism in an article called “Solving the Machiavellian Problem Today,” (New Solidarity, July 7, 1978), saying "It is not necessary to wear brown shirts to be a fascist….It is not necessary to wear a swastika to be a fascist….It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist to be a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one!" Dennis King slyly takes this quote out of context and implies that LaRouche was in fact recommending that his readers become fascists. This is a clumsy and malicious trick, and King is still so pleased with it that he features it on the opening page of the online version of his book on his own website. In case anyone may think that this is merely a careless oversight by King and not a deliberate misrepresentation, King reveals the truth toward the end of his book, saying "As LaRouche, referring to his enemies, said in a 1978 speech: 'It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist to be a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one.'" Now that I have provided a typical example at your request, would you mind responding to the substantive issues I raise above? Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for examples, I asked for evidence. This is the same stuff that the LaRouche accounts keep repeating. There's no indication that any independent observer consider the King book to be full of "errors and fabrications". If you don't think this is a substantive issue and want to drop it then that's fine.   Will Beback    talk    02:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, please don't refer to other editors here as "LaRouche accounts". I've asked two other editors on this page to be more careful about following WP:NPA, and they appear to be trying to comply.  I expect the same of you.  If you are unable or unwilling to do so, then I invite you to leave this content discussion.  Now, Angel flight, I would really like to see the NPOV tag ultimately removed from this article, because I think this article is comprehensive enough to have a chance at FA.  Why don't we discuss your objections one at a time?  Please list the first one, and let's try to get it resolved. Cla68 (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cla68, you frequently ask non-LaRouche editors to leave this topic, but I've never seen you ask one of the LaRouche accounts to leave. You're not a neutral participant here, though you're just a welcome as any other editor in good standing.   Will Beback    talk    05:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should address Cla's substantive remarks instead of casting aspersions. You're not exactly neutral either, and your input doesn't seem all that helpful to me. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Friends of HK" committee is welcome to post here, but supporting banned users is unhelpful. But I'm not going to give postings by socks of HK any attention. HK has violated this project's policies countless times in order to promote a fringe cause, and uses WR as a platform for attacking WP editors. Since you two are not the subject of his attacks you might find it amusing, but I don't. Nor do I appreciate having to waste time dealing over and over with a person who has been barred from this website for good cause. I am certainly not going to leave this topic for HK to rewrite according to the dictates of the LaRouche movement. Is that what you want?   Will Beback    talk    22:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(out) "Friends of HK"??... assumes facts not in evidence. I think some of your sock allegations are not particularly well founded. You seem to trot them out whenever you're losing arguments on merits. That may be a false perception but it does seem that way to me. HK is not the sole source of everything about LaRouche you disagree with. As I said, this approach is less than helpful. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're not friends of HK, and if you are friend of this project, then maybe you could ask him to stop attacking WP editors and sneaking back here under assumed names. As for socks, HK has used several dozen of them on this site that have been identified, and probably some that haven't been. After that many socks, and so few new accounts here that haven't been socks, it's logical to lower the good faith granted new editors who appear and push the same POVs as HK. This particular sock uses an IP registered to a small LaRouche HQ.   Will Beback    talk    04:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Since Lar raised the issue of identifying socks, let's take a look at the "many Irish heroes and heroines of antiquity". Joyce's Ulysses includes a list of these heroes, conveniently excerpted here: listed at Accounts were created using those names, one after another, in sequence, over about a half a year. It defies probability that they could have been created by different people in that order by sheer chance. It was clearly the work of one editor. Does anyone here dispute that those were socks?  Will Beback   talk    08:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for a remedy
I don't see any way to avoid the problem that Crotalus points out, that the article relies on LaRouche's opponents for content. This may not be an optimal situation, but I think that enlightened editing could produce a neutral article that does not become a platform for the opponents' views.

BLP says that articles should be written "conservatively," and in a highly controversial article such as this one I think we should take that seriously and then it should be possible to keep conflict to a minimum. The standard that I used in working on the "Views of LaRouche" article was RS. When we are relying on LaRouche's opponents for source material, I think the biggest problem area is going to be when these opponents are attributing views to LaRouche but framing them in such a way as to discredit him. I also think that it is undesirable to include allegations by opponents about the internal workings of the organization, because it is hearsay and likely to be biased information. The "conservative" course of action is to write an article based on information in the public record -- I think this is what makes the "LaRouche Criminal Trials" article successful, because it is very factual and does not rely upon anything that cannot be verified.

I went on Amazon and looked at the George Johnson book and found it to be a mixture of biographical information and sardonic commentary. I think a neutral BLP could be crafted by emphasizing the biographical information and de-emphasizing that which is contentious. In the case of the Johnson book, for example, I would omit that comment where LaRouche's followers "denounced him as part of a conspiracy of elitists that began in ancient Egypt," since I'm pretty sure the LaRouche people would take exception to how that is worded, and I am also skeptical of Johnson's commentary about the "briefings." I also think that perhaps Johnson's analysis of LaRouche's views belongs in the "LaRouche's views" article, but that's a different issue. On the other hand, I saw a lot of non-contentious, useful content, and Johnson provides at least a partial answer to the question that was raised about why LaRouche met with the Mexican President.

I can only see snippets of the Jackson book but I suspect that it might also be possible to glean solid biographical information from it without adopting the author's polemical tone. Delia Peabody (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 


 * Why did you remove that he had formed relationships with Ku Klux Klan supporters? The source (Johnson, New York Times, p. 2) says: "By promoting this abstruse ideology Mr. LaRouche has developed alliances with farmers, nuclear engineers, Black Muslims, Teamsters, pro-lifers and followers of the Ku Klux Klan." You removed the Ku Klux Klan from that list, and placed it instead in his list of foes.  Can you explain? It's an odd thing to remove given that his former head of security was a Klansman.


 * He may have made statements against the Klan itself, of course, if you want to clarify that (it's hard to find a group he hasn't made statements against at some point). SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

So I guess it's both. However, following the link to the Klansman I think you mean, Roy Frankhouser, he is not described as "former head of security" for LaRouche, but only a consultant. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 


 * I believe he was described by the police or courts as head of security, or former head (I forget which), when LaRouche was arrested. I've tweaked your Klan edit for flow. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Any political commentator has "likes" and "dislikes," but I think that lumping disparate targets together in a list like this is a method of "framing" by LaRouche's opponents that is intended to seem comical. It isn't necessary to include it in the article, in my opinion, or if it is necessary, it should go in "Views of LaRouche." Delia Peabody (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 


 * The article is currently slanted toward LaRouche, because we don't include a great deal of the criticism, and barely mention it in the lead. It's not for us to decide what's appropriate. The reliable sources decide that. We highlight what they highlight, so long as the quality is good. You can't claim that all the reliable sources are "opponents." SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche considers almost everyone an opponent, including the mainstream press. We should not tailor the article to exclude those whom LaRouche has attacked, or who have criticized LaRouche or the movement. We're here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.  Will Beback   talk    22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ...the article relies on LaRouche's opponents for content. 

C'est la vie. I must respectfully disagree with what SlimVirgin says about "highlighting". When a Wikipedia editor extracts 5 or 6 lines from a 400-page book in order to use them in the article, this is an entirely independent editorial decision, not dictated by the book's author. I am proposing some guidelines for how those decisions might be better made, to create a more neutral article, adhere to BLP, and lessen the tendency toward disputes among editors. Do you disagree with my suggestions? I'm asking that they be discussed. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 
 * No, I don't agree with your suggestions, which are based on speculation and your own personal views. Wikipedia has a procedure for identifying reliable sources. We don't need a special set of rules for this page.   Will Beback    talk    21:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The rules for identifying reliable sources are not at issue here. The problems with this article, in my opinion, are problems of NPOV and BLP, both of which govern how reliable sources are used in articles. I don't advocate any "special rules" for this page. I am suggesting that we agree on an approach for the application of NPOV and BLP, because it seems that quite a few editors have expressed concerns about this article coming up short with regard to those policies. Delia Peabody (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but your suggestions seems to be that you will determine which reliable sources are "opponents", and then we will treat those sources differently. If so, I object to that. If there is an objective determination that some sources are unreliable, then that's a different matter.   Will Beback    talk    22:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the suggestions I am making about how to better conform to NPOV and BLP should be applied to all reliable sources, and in my opinion, this article will be substantially improved as a result. I'd like to request that you respond to the suggestions themselves, which I will re-state without any reference to "opponents": ''BLP says that articles should be written "conservatively," and in a highly controversial article such as this one I think we should take that seriously and then it should be possible to keep conflict to a minimum. The standard that I used in working on the "Views of LaRouche" article was RS, and I propose that views attributed to LaRouche, whether directly quoted or not, be verifiable from original sources. I also think that it is undesirable to include any allegations about the internal workings of the organization, because it is hearsay and likely to be biased information. The "conservative" course of action is to write an article based on information in the public record -- I think this is what makes the "LaRouche Criminal Trials" article successful, because it is very factual and does not rely upon anything that cannot be verified. Delia Peabody (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) ''
 * I am very content to follow WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. You are creating new rules which I do not accept. You are making assertions with no basis, such as saying that all sources which discuss the movement's inner workings are likely biased and rely on hearsay. "Hearsay" seem to be a derogatory term for common reporting. If a source is reliable then we should use it, if not then not.
 * I assume there are specific sources or assertion that you're concerned with. Rather than creating new rules in the abstract, it'd be more productive if you specified anything in the article that violates the core Wikipedia policies so we can address them directly.   Will Beback    talk    00:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to encourage a conceptual discussion of what BLP means when it says "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively." I don't think this article is written "conservatively," compared to other BLPs of controversial individuals. If I need to break it down sentence by sentence, I can do that, but I thought it might be useful to approach it more generally first. Delia Peabody (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 
 * "Conservative" isn't defined in the policy, but in the context it seems to mean "carefully". However you are suggesting additional rules, such as arbitrarily deciding that some sources are from opponents and that sources that describe the internal working as are likely to be biased. None of that is in the policies. I think we'll be fine if we follow them as written.   Will Beback    talk    00:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the King and Berlet books are reliable sources, but also appear to be works of opinion. The issue is that since this is a BLP, we try to give the subject the benefit of the doubt.  In my opinion, this means that criticism can be applied more liberally to the "LaRouche movement" article than here.  This article, in my opinion, según Delia's suggestion, should be more of a dry recital of the events of LaRouche's life and platform, and the contrary opinions of his actions should be contained, for the present, in the articles that focus on his politics of his and his followers. Cla68 (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. This may mean the introduction of a sentence in the introduction that shows how the Larouche article are forked, like in "This article is about the views of Lyndon LaRouche. For an overview of his organization, see LaRouche movement, and for the man himself, see Lyndon LaRouche", likewise "This article is about Lyndon LaRouche. For an overview of his organization, see LaRouche movement, and for the Larouche criminal trial, see "LArouche criminal trials". 81.210.206.223 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The King book doesn't appear to be any more a work of opinion than most biographies. It was widely and favorably reviewed when it was published, and since then it has been cited by most other writers on LaRouche. The fact that LaRouche and HK seem to hate King should not affect our use of it. I don't know what Berlet book you're referring to, but if we use a Berlet source we can do so appropriately. Again, this all seems rather abstract. If someone wants to propose an edit that'd be fine, but I don't see how this hypothetical discussion helps anything.     Will Beback    talk    11:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember that the "King Book" is not a "biography" by any standards. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sez who? Every library and database I see calls it a biography.   Will Beback    talk    22:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I dare to call it, respectfully, an "UFO on its flight of fancy from LaRouche to secret Nazi bases below the polar ice". Seriously, how did those UFOs end up in a "Biography"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.206.223 (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources and structure
A couple of people have asked about the sourcing for the article, so I'm describing it here for future reference.
 * Sources

LaRouche lived all his adult life in either New York (1953–1983) or Virginia (1983–present). That means the two newspapers of record for information about him are The New York Times and The Washington Post. We are lucky in that regard, because they are two of the most authoritative newspapers in the world, and they have both written extensively about him, including several major investigative and analysis pieces from the 1970s onwards. They have a tendency to be somewhat understated in their writing, the Times in particular, which is helpful here. Their articles provide the backbone and focus of much of this article—in the sense that we highlight what they highlight—augmented by academic and other writers, and on occasion by LaRouche himself.

Their archives on LaRouche can be accessed here:


 * The New York Times, before 1981.
 * The New York Times, 1981–present.
 * The Washington Post, before 1987.
 * The Washington Post, 1987–present.
 * Mintz, John. "The Cult Controversy", The Washington Post, includes a series on LaRouche.

In addition to the above, the main books we use—books about him, or with chapters or significant sections on him—are listed here in the References section.

The content policies (V, NOR, and NPOV) say we should reflect the views of reliable secondary sources, and should highlight issues in rough proportion to their inclusion in those sources. Primary sources may be used to augment secondary sources with caution, though not for anything contentious; see PTST and BLPPRIMARY. Self-published sources by LaRouche may also be used with caution for anything non-contentious to augment secondary ones, subject to BLPSPS. Looking at each section in these terms:
 * Content policies

The current lead is arguably a violation of NPOV and LEAD in that it leans in favour of LaRouche, doesn't adequately reflect the views of the best sources, and omits several significant controversies. We do mention the cult issue, the antisemitism, and the fascism concerns, but only in passing. It's obviously difficult to write about these issues, because they inevitably look entirely negative, which explains the lead's current approach.
 * The lead

This relies on some of LaRouche's own writings, but the issues aren't contentious, so it seems fine to do that.
 * 1960s

The 1970s reflects the mainstream coverage well, except that we don't touch on the distinctive language he's known for, which is an issue we should consider developing (succinctly) in future. We should also develop the concerns about his relationship with the Soviet Union, and perhaps add something more (very briefly) about his philosophy.
 * 1970s and 1980s

The 1980s is okay too, except that the section on the Strategic Defense Initiative is sourced mostly to LaRouche, so that should be re-sourced. The NBC lawsuit section could perhaps be developed, because it was pivotal in a number of ways. His relationship with Bailey wasn't as straightforward as we portray it (he sued them, or they sued him, I forget which), so we should tidy that up, and make sure we're not lifting what he said about LaRouche out of context.

LaRouche was most active until his imprisonment in 1989, when he was 67. He has been less active since then, so has been written about less during the 1990s and 2000s. We include a few things in the 2000s that secondary sources haven't covered, which isn't ideal. The most coverage was triggered by Jeremiah Duggan's death and the Obama healthcare issues. If I were writing this alone, I don't think I'd split the 2000s into five sections, but I'd have to look through the newspaper archives again for ideas about how best to structure it. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS
 * 1990s and 2000s


 * The Orlando Sentinel is unusual in that they make most of their archives available without a paywall. OTOH, they don't have a good way of searching for them as their archive search goes to a paywall site. Luckily, they're searchable through Google. Many of them are wire reports originating from other sources.     Will Beback    talk    01:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * I have come across some biographies by now, good, bad and really bad ones. Bad biographies usually are prone to fall into many traps, like psychoanalytical fancy, or they highlight minor episodes and cover up major events.

I stated earlier that I agree with Cla68's point that a biography should be a "dry recital of the events in a person's life". If we decide what to exclude or include, what to highlight and what to neglect, this decision is not entirely onto us and may not be based upon our personal preference. I thus cannot agree that LaRouche is known for a "distinctive language". What does that mean? I am totally at a loss here. Also, where does the claim that LaRouche was "less active since 1989" come from?
 * What does "active" mean in this context? Did the output of published papers decline since 1989? Where there less campaigns going on? What is the source for that particular claim? I would also claim that from 2000 to the present the Duggan Case has received attention from the media, but was it a major event for the subject of the biography? What about the [approx] 2001- campaign against the Neoconservatives? What about 2002? This Schiller-Institute Website "International Interventions" lists many activities of LaRouche in 2002. Same here for 2003  What about his 2004 presidential campaign? Activities in 2005:, 2006: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/lar_related/2006/lar_list_2006.html, 2007: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/lar_related/2007/lar_list_2007.html, 2008:http://www.schillerinstitute.org/lar_related/2008/lar_list.html. What about Kesha Rogers in 2010? Now, I do not claim that ALL those events and campaigns have equal importance, but they have been, albeit partially, covered and received recognition in the mainstream media. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think "less active" is accurate. However he received much less attention in secondary sources after his conviction than before it. The lists that 81.210.206.223 posts are all from the Schiller Institute, which is not a secondary source for LaRouche. Per WP:DUE, prominence in secondary sources is how we determine how much weight to give topics within an article.   Will Beback    talk    22:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." So the question regarding Jeremiah Duggan may be how significant Jeremiah Duggan is to the subject of this article, not whether LaRouche is significant to the subject of the Jeremiah Duggan article. Also, I have a question for Slim and Will -- can you give me an example of any other BLP article in which a similar percentage of space is given to the opinions of critics? Delia Peabody (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 
 * According to whom are the sources we use in this article critics?
 * Google hits are too crude a measure to use as a standard. A passing mention gets the same weight as an in-depth profile.   Will Beback    talk    00:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And i WILL press it...81.210.206.223 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what means you are using to calculate the relative "prominence in secondary sources" of individual topics under WP:DUE? And is it the case that you see nothing in this article that you would consider "criticism" or "the opinions of critics"? Delia Peabody (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 
 * King is a critic, but also the best available source. However even that source is only use twelve times, out of more than 120 citations, or fewer than one tenth. Since King is so widely cited by other reliable sources, we could use that book much more without giving it undue weight. Regarding DUE, it's pretty clear in the policy: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.  By extension, if 200 sources mention LaRouche's presidential campaigns then those should get more space than his congressional campaign mentioned in only a couple of sources.   Will Beback    talk    02:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since King is so widely cited by other reliable source ... Would those all be critics too? After all it wouldn't be surprising to find critics of any particular subject referencing each other now would it. John lilburne (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One can imagine all sorts of scenarios, but doing so doesn't help us build an encyclopedia. Our aim is to use the best possible sources, and one common measure of a source's reputation is how often it's cited by other authors. But we've already discussed the King book a few dozen times on this page. It's been established as a reliable source.   Will Beback    talk    08:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not a question of the King book but whether by quoting other critics that are in effect simply referencing King, one isn't in effect a acting a bit like the grocer with his thumb on the scales. John lilburne (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback    talk    21:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That may be hard to do if one is stuck in a feedback loop, and just as an observation some seem to be complaining that it is so strong there is a perceptible squeal emanating from the articles. From what I read here the impression is that he is more loopy-lou than most American politicians, definitely into lala land, are there no redeeming features? John lilburne (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said above, this article is kinder to him than the sources are, in that we've left out or minimized some of the significant controversies. The normally understated New York Times had an article about him on its front page in 1974 with the word "savagery" in the headline, and it's been downhill from there.


 * This has little if anything to do with Dennis King. We could remove everything sourced directly or indirectly to him, and the substance of the article would be the same. And in any event, his book is widely regarded as reliable. It's only the LaRouche movement that has started the unreliability meme, but they smear everyone who criticizes them, so it would be unwise to take that seriously without an independent source. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. So as with King John a total rotter with no redeeming features at all. John lilburne (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All we can do here is go by the reliable sources, and make sure they're high quality for anything contentious, which is what we've done. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not one redeeming feature at all? Amazing even a stopped clock is right at least once a day. But it seems that here we have disproved the old adage that something cannot be sliced so thinly it only has one side. BTW what was the result of the earlier questions regarding reliability of foreign language sources? John lilburne (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the purpose of Wikipedia articles to specifically seek out damning or redeeming qualities in biography subjects. As I wrote above, we just summarize reliable sources. If there are sufficient sources which say that the subject loves dogs and bunnies, or donates to African orphans, then we can add that.
 * The preponderance of views at RSN seem to say that the Pirogov seminar paper is not a reliable source for a BLP.   Will Beback    talk    00:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of purpose, having made 600+ edits over 5 years to this article have you really not come across a single article, fact, comment or whatever, from a RS that wasn't negative in some way? John lilburne (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * John, this page is here so we can discuss the contents of the article, and specifically the source material. If you want to discuss it, the sources do have to be read. We can't read them for you. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There appear to be 120 sources used in the article, it has been edited on and off by two people over a 5 to 6 year process, and they have both been instrumental on deciding what is or is not a RS concerning the article. Now after all of that time there is a neutrality tag on the article. Rather than ferreting through 6 years of arguments in diverse places, it seems reasonably to ask those two people, that are the undoubted experts on the matter, whether there have ever been any positive RS concerning this guy, that are incorporated into the article. So far neither of the article experts have been able to point to a source that presents this person in a favourable light at all. One doesn't need to read 100s of sources, and the minutia of discussion going back 6 years to conclude that a process that over 6 years has not discovered a single positive feature about a person is truly remarkable. John lilburne (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What's a "positive RS"? What's a "positive feature"? Can you give examples?     Will Beback    talk    11:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Playin' stupid is not helpful WB, on the contrary.81.210.206.223 (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose I have my answer as to why this article has a neutrality tag plastered all over it. But good grief fellow, is it really the case that the editor of a BLP page, of five years standing, and having made 600+ edits to the page, countless talk page contributions and battled through a number of notice boards, is incapable of recognising when a source is making a positive comment about someone, or when the subject of the article they edit is said to have been right about something, anything at all. John lilburne (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't know why you're even asking the question about "positive RS" and "positive features". The article is full of both. We frequently cite the subject's autobiography. If that isn't a "positive RS" then what is? As for "positive features", we mention all kinds of achievements that most people would consider positive, like meeting foreign leaders, running for political office, proposing legislation, and so on. So if that's what you're looking for then re-read the article and you'll see it's already there.   Will Beback    talk    21:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * shrug** None of what you mention are achievements or particularly positive. We've all met foreign leaders. My wife's sat on a podium with Putin, I've shook hands with the Queen of England - I have a super8 film of my sister talking with her mother, and the Yippies nominated a pig for President. John lilburne (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So then I have to ask again: what are you looking for that isn't in the article? Please be more specific than just "positive".   Will Beback    talk    23:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That presupposes that I actually give damn about the minutia of this article - News I don't, and even if I did why would I want to spend time battling over it across numerous notice and incident boards? My sole interest was why this article is incapable of balance, and you have adequately answered that in the above discussion, thanks. John lilburne (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. You haven't read the article and you don't care about it. Yet you have a strong opinion about it. You asked about positive material and sources, I pointed you to some, but I didn't respond quickly enough or those aren't what you meant by positive, so therefore you understand fully the problems with the article. Thank you for participating in this volunteer project where everyone is welcome.   Will Beback    talk    09:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe there was some recent discussion about using some non-English sources to add some neutral or positive content to the article? Cla68 (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only recent discussion of a foreign source concerned Pirogov, and the preponderance of input at RSN was that the seminar paper is not a reliable source.   Will Beback    talk    03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not how I remember it. Ah, here's the discussion from three weeks ago, it appears to have been archived.  There was an Arabic and Chinese source.  Are these two sources currently used in the article?  Also, the discussion on the Pirogov source at the RS Noticeboard was split as to whether it was reliable or not, which means we have to decide amongst ourselves here whether we use it or not. Cla68 (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many sources that we don't cite. We could write an article several times this long and still not use them all. We should rely mainly on the best available sources.
 * How do you figure the RSN discussion of Pirogov was split? Almost all of the uninvolved editors seemed to say that the seminar paper wasn't appropriate.   Will Beback    talk    05:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of facts are hard to describe as negative or positive. The subject met with world leaders. The subject sponsored a state initiative on AIDS. The subject ran for president. Are these positive or negative? They're neither. They're just facts.   Will Beback    talk    02:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted the main newspaper archives above. The only way to learn about him is to read the articles. It's a lot of reading, but there's no unfortunately no shortcut if you want the information (independently of this article) and a sense of the scale and flavour of the coverage. I didn't see your earlier question, sorry. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I'm intending to remove this, unless an editor not associated with the LaRouche movement gives very specific examples of how NPOV is being violated, examples that are actionable within the policies. The tag was added recently because someone wanted the Russian/Chinese section to be restored, and it was, bar one source that didn't gain consensus here or on the RSN. Even that material arguably shouldn't have been added, but it's there now.

The tag has been used inappropriately for years by various LaRouche accounts as a bargaining chip, and it's not something we should be encouraging. Discussions can always continue without tagging. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 13:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I attempted unsuccessfully to address them in the "suggested remedy" section above. I will summarize what seems to me to be problematic:
 * The original issue was higher weight given to the 1970s than the recent decades. It is said that there is less coverage of recent decades in secondary sources. At the risk of raising a sensitive issue, an 8-part interview in the main Chinese government paper was probably read by more people than all other sources combined. Also, as has been pointed out, there is no coverage of the Kesha Rogers primary win, which got significant coverage including at least one in-depth write-up in the U.S. (Time magazine.) I think there needs to be some transparency here in examining the criteria for giving "weight" to sources.
 * It seems to me that there is more space in this BLP devoted to criticism than in any other BLP I have looked at. Put aside for a moment the controversy over whether the sources cited are called "critics." Criticism can come from non-"critics", and more importantly, factual information as opposed to opinion can come from "critics." My suggestions above, boiled down to essentials, were that this article could be brought better into conformity with BLP by reducing the ratio of opinion to factual information in the article.
 * I think it is important that these issues be resolved and I support keeping the tag until such time as that has been accomplished. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 


 * Let me ask you to address this from another starting point. Which criticism of LaRouche in this article do you think is legitimate, well-sourced, and appropriate for this article? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

An allegation that unnamed members of the NCLC attacked an unnamed paraplegic member of the SWP with clubs is sourced to an opinion piece in the Washington Post, which in turn attributes the story to Crawdaddy!, a rock and roll magazine. In my opinion, that's too weak a source for an exceptional claim. For "legitimate" and "appropriate", I think the allegations of anti-Semitism under "Ideology: Plato, Aristotle, allegations of fascism, anti-Semitism" qualify, and I would retain a significantly shortened version of the Blum/Montgomery allegations which I think presently receive undue weight. I am concerned about the number of unsubstantiated allegations in the article. I am also concerned about numerous characterizations of LaRouche's views - my first reaction is that they belong in the "views" article, and secondly, I would want to check them against original sources for accuracy. I must say on the question of Dennis King that I found the example of misquoting that was given by Angel Flight to be disturbing. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 


 * I'll look at the Washington Post paraplegic point again.


 * Which allegations are unsubstantiated (in the sense of unsourced or poorly sourced)?


 * You're welcome to add any primary sources to footnotes to augment the secondary sources, but you have to be careful you don't engage in OR. If the Post says LaRouche said "X," and you find in a primary source that he said "sort of X," you may not be looking at the material the Post looked at.


 * I don't understand your point about King. That quote isn't in the article, and very little in the article, and nothing contentious, relies on King.


 * The Blum/Montgomery material is important. It was a major, two-part investigation in the New York Times, introduced by an editorial written (as I recall) by the editor-in-chief, and it appears to have caused or contributed to the demise of the U.S. Labor Party.


 * Montgomery and Blum. "U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy", The New York Times, October 7, 1979.


 * Montgomery, Paul L. and Blum, Howard. "One Man Leads U.S. Labor Party on Its Erratic Path", The New York Times, October 8, 1979; courtesy copy here.


 * The New York Times. "The Cult of LaRouche", editorial, October 10, 1979, courtesy copy here.


 * Also see Montgomery, Paul L. "How a Radical-Left Group Moved Toward Savagery", The New York Times, January 20, 1974.


 * To argue that our coverage of it is UNDUE is wrong-headed. We highlight what the good sources highlight. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The paraplegic allegation: this is about a period in the 1970s in which LaRouche and his followers were physically assaulting left-wing activists in the streets and during meetings with bats and clubs. This is not denied by LaRouche, though he says he was not the instigator. Several arrests were made in the New York and Philadelphia areas, and it stopped. One of the victims was reportedly disabled.


 * Our article says: "Writing in The Washington Post that year [1976], Stephen Rosenfeld said LaRouche's ideas belonged to the radical right, neo-Nazi fringe, and that his main interests lay in disruption and disinformation. The NCLC had been terrorizing a number of people on the left, he wrote, including Noam Chomsky, Marcus Raskin, and Lester Brown, and had attacked SWP Party members in Detroit with clubs, reportedly including a paraplegic member."


 * The source is Rosenfeld, Stephen S. "NCLC: 'A Domestic Political Menace'", The Washington Post, September 24, 1976. Here is information about Rosenfeld.


 * The source says:


 * "For a long time I thought the NCLC (LaRouche) was just a bunch of harmless left crazies who phoned a bit too often to report that the Rockefellers were cannibalizing the world. Not until Washington Post reporter Bill Chapman's story of September 12 did I realize that for some years the NCLC has been terrorizied a broad center-left band of the political spectrum: Noam Chomsky, Marcus Raskin, Frances Fox Piven, Lester Brown, the Community Party, United Auto Workers, and so on. Then I found two other factual accounts worth reading, Charles Young's 'Mind Control, Political Violence and Sexual Warfare: Inside the NCLC' in the June Crawdaddy ... In a typical detail, reported by Young, NCLC goons in an attack on a Socialist Workers party meeting in Detroit 'beat a paraplegic with clubs.'"


 * The Crawdaddy feature was Young, Charles M. "Mind Control, Political Violence & Sexual Warfare: Inside the NCLC," Crawdaddy, June 1976, pp. 48–56, and it said:

"Incidents are too numerous to mention, but among the choicer ones were disruption of a Martin Luther King Coalition meeting in Buffalo where they beat a women who was seven months pregnant; a riot at Columbia where about 60 NCLCers stormed a stage during a mayoral debate in a failed attempt to assault the CP candidate, and an attack on an SWP meeting in Detroit where they beat a paraplegic with clubs."

There's also Hyatt, James C. Hyatt, "A Communist Group Uses Fists and Epithets To Battle U.S. Unions," Wall Street Journal, October 7, 1975.

It would be worth getting hold of these. And also William Chapman's Post story. In the meantime, we can add in-text attribution to our article. It might be worth looking to see whether Chomsky has ever written about this. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I have a copy of "U.S. Labor Party: Far to the Left Of the Far Left" by William Chapman, The Washington Post, September 12, 1976. It's a bad copy of a scratched microfilm, but mostly legible. It includes a substantial amount of material on violence and verbal attacks by LaRouche's movement against unions and leftist groups, as well as other background.
 * Regarding HK/Angel's flight's assertion of a misused quote, I don't see it. While King did quote a line without giving extensive context, that isn't necessarily an error. He didn't assign any specific meaning to it and readers can interpret it for themselves. It's not an example that proves the book unreliable.
 * As for charges of anti-semitism, they are so commonly made that they deserve some discussion.
 * The New York Times material is important and cited by many other authors. We can add more citations for much of that material, which isn't exclusive to the Times.   Will Beback    talk    00:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: The claim from Crawdaddy! is a good example of what I mean by "unsubstantiated allegations." The alleged attackers are not named, the alleged victims are not named, the persons making the allegations are not named, and of course, there are no arrest or court records. BLP says "Be wary of sources... that attribute material to anonymous sources." When you say "Several arrests were made in the New York and Philadelphia areas, and it stopped," you are quoting Dennis King, but when I followed the link to King's book, I also found no specifics, and significantly, no mention of any convictions. I think that it might be appropriate to mention that there were many allegations, coming from both sides, but even if they were published in a reliable source (not Crawdaddy!) I would still think that under BLP, it would be neither legitimate nor appropriate to give anonymous allegations weight beyond just that.

On the question of UNDUE, you say once more that "We highlight what the good sources highlight." You make it sound like the source comes with instructions as to which sentences or paragraphs are to be inserted in Wikipedia, and the editor does not need to use any personal discretion or judgment at all. I find this very difficult to accept. From the Blum/Montogomery articles we have a very lengthy section which says basically that LaRouche was paranoid about being assassinated and had armed bodyguards. I find this to be very unremarkable. It was probably true of a majority of militant leaders at the time -- and possibly with good reason, when you consider how many activists actually were assassinated, including even minor figures like Fred Hampton. Giving such a long and detailed account makes it look like LaRouche must have been far more gun-crazy than other militants (many of which liked to have themselves photographed holding firearms.) It's an example of something I think could be UNDUE. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 


 * I've seen Chapman's article in the Washington Post now, and added details from it. We had those details (Chomsky et al being threatened) sourced before to Stephen Rosenfeld, who was referring back to the Chapman article. I also added in-text attribution for the material Rosenfeld cited from Crawdaddy. Delia, when the Washington Post publishes serious allegations in this way, we follow suit because it's a high-quality news source. We can't start dissecting whether their journalists got things right, or whether they ought to have cited other organizations.


 * The majority of militant leaders didn't believe the CIA, KGB, and British royal family were plotting to kill them over a period of 30 years plus. And now that you mention it, did someone remove from the article that he recently accused the royal family of wanting to assassinate him? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of these allegations don't even directly name LaRouche -- you have one that only says "Piven was almost pushed down a flight of stairs by someone calling her a fascist and CIA agent." You have also gone on to use Crawdaddy as a source, which I think is very ill-advised. Don't you think it would be appropriate to look for consensus before making an edit like that? It's certainly not likely to help resolve the neutrality dispute. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 


 * Once again—they appeared in the Washington Post, they do name LaRouche and his followers, and they're consistent with stories that appeared in many publications, including other high-quality ones. The director of the FBI even confirmed the violence issue personally, and LaRouche did not deny it. Our article can't make light of it because the LaRouche movement is objecting.


 * I added this because you felt the Rosenfeld story alone wasn't good enough. So I added another. Now you complain about the second. But, as you know, there are lots of articles about this, written by good, independent journalists. Almost every major press story about LaRouche around that time focused on, or alluded to, these issues. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A few weeks ago, there was a discusssion on WP:RSN whether a published seminar paper by academic G.G. Pirogov (senior politologist, leading researcher at the Lebedev Institute), in which he gave an introduction to L.Larouche's philosophy and accomplishments. This source was initially termed "obscure" and "exotic" and not regarded as as "reliable". Now comes "Crawdaddy!", 25 cent countercultural rag and is being pushed as a "reliable source" because "high-quality" sources have used it? What does that say about the "high-quality sources"? Why is there some much haste in putting in a rocknroll tabloid and rejecting a scientific presentation?81.210.206.223 (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It was in the Washington Post. Had the Post or any other reliable publication chosen to highlight what Pirogov said, we would have used it too. Please read the policy, WP:SOURCES. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now, the article is violating NPOV even more than ever.If a purported "biographical article about a living person" is found to contain the information, that "someone was nearly pushed down a stair" then i truly wonder what this has to do with the subject of the biografy. I hope for a sincere effort to resolve this and other severe breaches of neutrality.81.210.206.223 (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Crawdaddy! is itself a reliable source, even it was "countercultural".   Will Beback    talk    02:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit
Unlike the reports that LaRouche had bodyguards, which I don't think are very notable, I think the meetings with foreign leaders are quite notable. I am not aware of any other radical leader from the US who managed to do that, and I am surprised that the sources presently in use in this article have so little to say about it. The chronology for this section is presently wrong, because Gandhi died in 1984, so LaRouche did not meet with her in 1985. I would like to propose that it be moved and expanded as follows:

LaRouche and his wife Helga met with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and Mexican President José López Portillo in 1982. LaRouche continuted to have frequent contacts with Indira Gandhi up until she was assassinated in 1984. LaRouche met with López Portillo to warn him about attempts by international bankers to wreck Mexico's economy. A Mexican official told The New York Times that LaRouche had arranged the meeting with Portillo by representing himself as a Democratic Party official. However, Portillo continued to maintain a relationship with LaRouche, appearing with Zepp-LaRouche in Mexico in 1998, and endorsed LaRouche's candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1999, according to the LaRouche movement in 2004. LaRouche also met with Argentine President Raúl Alfonsín during this period. Turkish Prime Minister Turgut Özal reportedly met with LaRouche in 1987, then reprimanded his aides who had mistaken LaRouche for the Democratic Presidential candidate.

I think that these meetings should probably be given even more weight than this. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 


 * I was concerned about this part that's already in the article; it will have to be confirmed or removed. "However, Portillo continued to maintain a relationship with LaRouche ... and endorsed LaRouche's candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1999, according to the LaRouche movement in 2004." Sourced to Executive Intelligence Review, February 27, 2004.


 * LaRouche published this after Portillo died. We need an independent source that said Portillo maintained a relationship with LaRouche and endorsed him. Self-published sources by the author of a BLP subject are allowed, so long as they don't mention third parties and aren't unduly self-serving. See WP:SPS.


 * I have no problem with the bits you want to add that appear in independent sources. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with SV that the info from the LaRouche publication is a little shaky. Perhaps it could be worded as, "After Portillo's death a LaRouche organization publication, Executive Intelligence Review, stated that LaRouche and Portillo had maintained a relationship and claimed that Portillo had endorsed LaRouche's presidential candidacy."  The article is long enough that it wouldn't be UNDUE to include the claim, but I can also understand other editors saying that inclusion of the claim is unnecessary. Cla68 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It can be restored if there is consensus. Delia Peabody (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 


 * You've included material that's sourced only to LaRouche. The problem is not only that we're not allowed to do that (see WP:SPS), but also, using common sense, if the meetings or statements were notable, or occurred in the way described, someone else would have reported them too. So it's best to use that someone else as a source. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 13:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources for the edit
Before adding anything, you need to make sure it relies on independent secondary sources. LaRouche sources can be used to augment, so long as they don't mention other people:

"LaRouche and his wife Helga met with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and Mexican President José López Portillo in 1982. LaRouche continuted to have frequent contacts with Indira Gandhi up until she was assassinated in 1984. LaRouche met with López Portillo later that year to warn him about attempts by international bankers to wreck Mexico's economy. He advised the Mexican President to suspend debt payments, to implement exchange controls and to nationalize the banks. A Mexican official told The New York Times that LaRouche had arranged the meeting with Portillo by representing himself as a Democratic Party official. However, Portillo continued to maintain a relationship with LaRouche, making a joint appearance with Zepp-LaRouche in Mexico in 1998. LaRouche also met with Argentine President Raúl Alfonsín in 1984. Turkish Prime Minister Turgut Özal reportedly met with LaRouche in 1987, then reprimanded his aides who had mistaken LaRouche for the Democratic Presidential candidate."


 * Sources

I started checking this and the first thing I saw is that Mintz, January 13, 1985 is used as a source for the first point, but Mintz doesn't mention those meetings. Now, that was probably a mistake with the Harvard referencing; perhaps you intended to link it to another Mintz story in January 1985 (I will look at what the others say shortly). But could we write a version here on talk first that very clearly doesn't rely on LaRouche publications at all, and where everything in the edit is definitely in a good secondary source? SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 13:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article already says:


 * Sources for the above:


 * Checking new paragraph's sources
 * "LaRouche and his wife Helga met with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and Mexican President José López Portillo in 1982."
 * Secondary source: Mintz, John. "Some Officials Find Intelligence Network 'Useful'", The Washington Post, January 15, 1985:
 * "LaRouche himself has had private meetings with Jose Lopez Portillo when he was Mexico's president, Argentine President Raul Alfonsin and the late Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi."


 * "LaRouche continued to have frequent contacts with Indira Gandhi up until she was assassinated in 1984."
 * Secondary source: Singh, Jasjit. Indo-US relations in a changing world: proceedings of the Indo-US Strategic Symposium, Lancer Publishers in association with Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, 1992, p. 84:
 * "America, Israel, Pakistan and Britain were the states alleged to have an eye on Cokambo(?); it may have been a coincidence, but the American political cultist, Lyndon LaRouche, had earlier grouped these four states together in a cabal to encircle and weaken India. LaRouche had frequent contacts with Indira Gandhi before her assassination and his own subsequent imprisonment for tax fraud."


 * "LaRouche met with López Portillo later that year [1984?] to warn him about attempts by international bankers to wreck Mexico's economy."
 * Secondary source: Johnson, George. Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics. Tarcher, 1983, p. 208:
 * "In June 1982, LaRouche flew to Mexico City, under the auspices of his National Democratic Policy Committee, and gained an audience with Mexican president Jose Lopez Portillo, to warn him about attempts by international bankers to wreck the Mexican economy. Both the American Embassy and the Democratic Party issued disclaimers. LaRouche, they said, was not an important American figure, as the Mexican newspapers apparently assumed. He just acted as though he were one. Earlier that year, LaRouche met with India's prime minister, Indira Gandhi. LaRouche believes developing countries, such as India, are especially vulnerable to the oligarch's plot."


 * "He advised the Mexican President to suspend debt payments, to implement exchange controls and to nationalize the banks."
 * Secondary source: Rodrguez, Martin, Iluminados y malditos, Noticias Urbanas, December 5, 2008:
 * "Two years earlier [1982], LaRouche had met with Mexico's President José López Portillo and advised him to suspend debt payments, to declare a change control and nationalize the banks." Not clear whether this is a reliable source; and is it Argentinian? It would make more sense to use an American or Mexican source for the Mexican president meeting an American politician."


 * "A Mexican official told The New York Times that LaRouche had arranged the meeting with Portillo by representing himself as a Democratic Party official."
 * Secondary source: Toner, Robin. "LaRouche savors fame that may ruin him", The New York Times, April 4, 1986:
 * I can't see what this says.


 * "However, Portillo continued to maintain a relationship with LaRouche, making a joint appearance with Zepp-LaRouche in Mexico in 1998."
 * Secondary source: An interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Antonio, Cerda Ardura. Beast in agony", Siempre!, December 10, 1998:
 * It won't let me read the whole thing, so I can't see what it says that supports this sentence. You also added a LaRouche source, but we can't support the edit with that.


 * "LaRouche also met with Argentine President Raúl Alfonsín in 1984."
 * Secondary source: Rodriguez, Martin, Iluminados y malditos, Noticias Urbanas, December 5, 2008:
 * But we don't need this, because we already have the Post (see above).


 * Turkish Prime Minister Turgut Özal reportedly met with LaRouche in 1987, then reprimanded his aides who had mistaken LaRouche for the Democratic Presidential candidate.
 * Secondary source: "Turkish Leader Meets LaRouche By Mistake," San Francisco Chronicle, July 30, 1987, p. 13:
 * I can't see what this says.

It looks as if the material confirmed by secondary sources is roughly what's already in the article. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It had the dates wrong. It didn't mention LaRouche's wife being at the meetings, or her subsequent public appearance with Lopez Portillo. Siempre! says "La presidenta del Instituto Schiller Internacional y esposa del político estadounidense Lyndon LaRouche (expreso político en su país, quien sostiene que la oligarquía británica es la principal causante del actual caos económico mundial), estuvo en México para dictar, el 30 de noviembre, una conferencia magistral en la Academia de Economía de la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografía, la cual fue comentada por el expresidente José López Portillo," which means "The president of the International Schiller Institute and wife of American politician Lyndon LaRouche (former political prisoner in his country, who argues that the British oligarchy is the principal cause of current global economic chaos), was in Mexico to present, on 30 November, a conference lecture at the Academy of Economics of the Mexican Society of Geography, followed by comments by the ex-president Jose Lopez Portillo." I have no idea why you think an American source would be better than an Argentine source on the topic of Mexico. I hope you will be so kind as to restore the material now. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 

Addition
So I restored the edit to the article, leaving out the self-published sources, and the interview in Siempre! that didn't seem to support the edit (if it did, it would help if you could post below what it says). Also left out Rodriguez, Martin, Iluminados y malditos, Noticias Urbanas, December 5, 2008, because it's not clear what the source is, but we also don't need it because we have other sources for the Portillo meeting. The paragraph now says:

SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)




 * My reason was that I couldn't see whether the source was appropriate; do you have a Mexican or American newspaper reporting on this? I also can't see why it's significant; we already have sources for the LaRouche-Portillo meeting. And I couldn't see what Siempre! said, as I told you. Can you post the relevant sentences here?


 * We can't use self-published sources for information about third parties. Please see WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS, which are policy. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be what Delia wants to add to the section:

"Noticias Urbanas, a publication in Argentina, wrote that LaRouche advised Portillo to suspend debt payments, implement exchange controls, and nationalize the banks."

It's not a good use of our time to have to keep discussing publications where we're not even sure what they are, in countries not related to the events we're discussing, and which rely entirely on interviews given by the LaRouche movement. The last point wouldn't matter if the secondary source were a good one, and it would matter less if this were about Argentina, but the three things jointly aren't really what we mean by a reliable (and appropriate) source. Delia, can you not look for more mainstream sources for your edits? SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My Spanish isn't very good, and Google's is even worse. I'm trying to figure out the meaning of the last two paragraphs of the Noticias Urbanas article.

Los antecedentes de este hombre indican que fue quien prologó en 1993 junto al carapintada Mohamed Alí Seineldín el libro "El complot para aniquilar a las Fuerzas Armadas y a las naciones de Iberoamérica", donde se critica explícitamente al juicio a las juntas bajo el argumento de que "los integrantes de la junta militar, y por ende toda la institución castrense, fueron enjuiciados por osar enfrentarse a los británicos y por librar la guerra contra la subversión comunista". Las presuntas vinculaciones de LaRouche no terminan ahí. Se lo asocia a una red de apoyo solidaria con el militar argentino Jorge Olivera, denunciado por delitos de lesa humanidad, el cual logró eludir a la Justicia italiana.

Andino no duda en calificar esa información de "imprecisa". Y al finalizar, el dirigente señala que el movimiento larouchista, más que social, es un movimiento de ideas, que en lugar de buscar la masividad intenta mantener la calidad: la conformación de cuadros para el mundo que viene.
 * It sounds like someone has asserted that LaRouche is associated with General Jorge Carlos Olivera Róvere, who was "Vice-Chief of the 1st Army Corps during the military dictatorship". But it also seems to say that the source is imprecise or inaccurate. Does anyone here have a better idea of what it says?   Will Beback    talk    23:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Google translation says: "The alleged links of LaRouche does not end there. It is associated with a support network in solidarity with the Argentine military Jorge Olivera, accused of crimes against humanity, which eluded the Italian justice. Andino [of the LaRouche Youth Movement; the article is an interview with him] not hesitate to describe this information 'inaccurate.'" SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see that EIR ran a piece on Olvera in 2000, though it's not available online: "The British Empire Retaliates Against Argentine Lawyer". The case of Argentine lawyer and retired Army Maj. Jorge Olivera, who tried to bring Britain's Margaret Thatcher to account for war crimes. So it does appear that LaRouche is pro-Olivera, FWIW.   Will Beback    talk    00:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There's an article from 1989 which gives a more detailed account of LaRouche's involvements in Latin American politics: "The Americas: Lyndon LaRouche's Latin American Connection" By Sergio Sarmiento. Wall Street Journal. New York, N.Y.: Sep 1, 1989. pg. 1. I can send a copy to anyone who wants it. It's a about 1000 words long, and written by "Mr. Sarmiento, Spanish-language editor of Encyclopaedia Britannica Publishers Inc., is also a newspaper columnist and radio commentator based in Mexico."   Will Beback    talk    23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see a copy of that if it's no trouble. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sent.   Will Beback    talk    00:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are two articles from Página/12 that mention the Olivera-LaRouche connection: La abuela June 29, 2008, and Con amigos así, quién necesita enemigos February 27, 2004. The archives apparently include several more on LaRouche.   Will Beback    talk    00:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is especially focused on LaRouche. "Chapita internacional" Horacio Verbitsky July 14, 2002    Will Beback    talk    06:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There's some connection between LaRouche and Mohamed Alí Seineldín, "an Argentine army colonel who participated in two failed uprisings against the democratically elected governments". Here are more articles from Argentina:    Will Beback    talk    07:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * From EIR: ...it spotlights imprisoned Argentine military hero and LaRouche collaborator, Col. Mohammed Alí Seineldín, as the only national leader not discredited by Argentina's economic disasters and corruption of the past decade. [..] LaRouche has said repeatedly that the leader capable of steering Argentina away from genocide is former Army Colonel, Mohamed Alí Seineldín. The Malvinas War hero, who has endorsed LaRouche's New Bretton Woods proposal, has been locked up in jail for 11 years, a political prisoner of an Anglo-American oligarchy terrified that his nationalist principles and broad appeal, extending well beyond military circles, could rally Argentines around a program to rebuild the shattered nation.
 * Here's another: Mohamed Alí Seineldín y el fascismo conspiranoico May 10, 2002 Fabian Fernández
 * I can't tell if this is a blog or what, but it has a long article on LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche y la “Nueva Amenaza Roja” 01/12/2002 Wilson García Mérida
 * Seineldín's website has a number of articles about LaRouche. There's a list at the bottom left of the page. He calls LaRouche the "amigo y pensador de la humanidad". This article might be interesting too. "¿Quienes calumnian a Seineldín y LaRouche?"
 * Last but not least, Dennis King has a page devoted to the connection, thankfully in English.LAROUCHISM IN ARGENTINA: THE SEINELDIN CONNECTION   Will Beback    talk    11:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How close together are the contractions? Pachuco cadaver (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 


 * Please don't post trolling messages. If you have something to say to improve this article, then fine. But that's just pointless.   Will Beback    talk    20:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like LaRouche's "collaborations" with Seineldín and Olivera have received as much or more attention in the Latin American press as his friendship with Portillo. I think they would merit a sentence each in the "World leaders" paragraph.   Will Beback    talk    20:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's an older one from El Tiempo (Colombia) with a brief mention of LaRouche: ADVIERTEN GESTACIÓN DE UNA INTERNACIONAL CARAPINTADA June 8, 1993 AFP
 * Here's a long piece on LaRouche in Brazil, in A Nova Democracia Nova Democracia: Outro grupo fascista do USA se infiltra no Brasil August 2003 Rosa Bond. Much of it is cribbed from King, but the parts about Brazil are obviously original.
 * LaRouche is mentioned in the The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism report on Columbia because of the book El Complot para aniquilar a las Fuerzas Armadas y a las Naciones de Iberoamérica, to which both LaRouche and Seineldín contributed. He's also mentioned in their reports on Venezuela and Mexico 97 Mexico 98, in addition to other countries.    Will Beback    talk    20:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you realize that your automatic response to a neutrality dispute is to frantically search for more negative material? Push, Will, Push! Pachuco cadaver (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 


 * One of the sources borrows background material from King, but the rest of the material in the article is obviously not taken from that book. I've been searching on two terms: "Jorge Olivera" and "Mohamed Alí Seineldín". Both of those are mentioned on LaRouche websites, so the connections are not "allegations" that the LaRouche movement perceives as negative. They are proud of the connections, and apparently view them as a positive. Am I wrong about that?   Will Beback    talk    22:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Meetings with World Leaders
I am starting a new section because the old one went off-topic. I think that the meetings with various sitting presidents would have to be considered exceptionally significant events in the subject's life, but we don't have anything in the article about why they took place. SlimVirgin, you declared that Noticias Urbanas was a "poor source," and that it "relies entirely on interviews given by the LaRouche movement," but I see no evidence to back up either claim. In any event the sentence sourced to it is non-controversial: "LaRouche advised Portillo to suspend debt payments, implement exchange controls, and nationalize the banks." If you don't like Noticias Urbanas, I see no reason why we couldn't use a primary source for that, because it doesn't involve third parties. I think it would be important also to find out why LaRouche met with Gandhi as well, since we know that that relatonship too was an on-going one. You also removed the material from Siempre!. You asked for the relevant section to be translated, and I provided it. Here is is again: La presidenta del Instituto Schiller Internacional y esposa del político estadounidense Lyndon LaRouche (expreso político en su país, quien sostiene que la oligarquía británica es la principal causante del actual caos económico mundial), estuvo en México para dictar, el 30 de noviembre, una conferencia magistral en la Academia de Economía de la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografía, la cual fue comentada por el expresidente José López Portillo ("The president of the International Schiller Institute and wife of American politician Lyndon LaRouche (former political prisoner in his country, who argues that the British oligarchy is the principal cause of current global economic chaos), was in Mexico to present, on 30 November, a conference lecture at the Academy of Economics of the Mexican Society of Geography, followed by comments by the ex-president Jose Lopez Portillo.") That establishes that the relationship continued from 1982 until 1998, which I think is significant and belongs in the article. The fact that the rest of the article is not available on the website doesn't matter, because a useful fact has been established. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 

A few specific proposals that may help resolve the dispute
I think it is possible that arguments from me and other editors about undue weight are being misunderstood. It is not a question of whether the Washington Post is a reliable source or not. WP:DUE says "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." In the case of this article, I would say that "depth of detail" and "quantity of text" both apply.
 * I believe that we should reduce -- not expand -- the number of anonymous allegations in the article. BLP says "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." An example of "weasel words" would be that someone received an anonymous phone call that could have been from LaRouche activists, or was harassed by someone who used similar verbiage to that of LaRouche activists -- these don't belong in the article, regardless of the source. Multiple sources making anonymous allegations doesn't make them any less anonymous. I suggest that the appropriate way to handle it is to briefly note that allegations have been made without detailing them or otherwise giving them undue weight.
 * The section on "briefings" is pure opinion. I would say from reading it that these are simply persons who disagree with LaRouche's viewpoints, so they call the briefings "flights of fancy," "hate-filled," etc. This I find inappropriate for an encyclopedia, at least not in such extended length and detail. We need more factual information, less opinion.
 * Condense the sections about LaRouche having armed bodyguards and LaRouche-affiliated activists having verbal or physical clashes with opponents. The elaborate detail in these sections is undue weight.
 * Some topics are getting insufficient weight. I would expand the section about LaRouche forecasting the financial crash 2007 - 2008. His forecasts apparently received international recognition -- I found it in the People's Daily interviews, for example. I think some of you have access to news archives. Could you check on this article?
 * Add a section on Kesha Rogers' primary election win, which was covered extensively in Time and other reliable sources. Delia Peabody (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 


 * Delia, I'd like to ask again that you read the content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. They work together, so they need to be read together. The problem we're having on this page is that some editors either aren't reading the policies, or aren't reading the sources, so to some extent we keep talking past each other. If we all do two things: (a) use only reliable secondary sources, and (b) stick closely to the content policies, then almost all disagreements will be resolved easily.


 * Material published in, say, The Washington Post is regarded by us as reliable. There's no point in continuing to argue that they didn't name their sources; or that they did and their sources weren't good enough. They saw fit to publish it, and that's all we go by. It would help a lot if you would stop arguing that we ought to remove material from these news organizations, because it means we just go round in circles. UNDUE very clearly doesn't apply to this, because several good newspapers (e.g. Post and NTY) covered these issues extensively, with front page articles, long investigative pieces, analysis pieces, and editorials written by the editor-in-chief or the editorial board, and these not just once or twice, but many times over a decade or longer.


 * If you want to expand something by all means post the sources for it, in case we've left out things (e.g. Kesha Rogers) that the reliable sources cover. I tried to look at this Russian article as you asked, but I'm afraid I can't see it. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a section on Kesha Rogers, as you suggested we should. See here. It's based on Time magazine, The Washington Post, The Economist, and a video of her speaking that the Post links to. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I am suggesting that with a concise summary ("tightening") you can satisfy all the different policies at the same time. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)  ::::"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article." Allegations made by anonymous parties are by nature not well-documented. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)  sock of banned user   Will Beback    talk    07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 
 * See part of BLP - WP:WELLKNOWN, which gives this example:  A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source. That seems directly analogous.   Will Beback    talk    22:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)