Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 26

Misinformation in lead?
I have a question about this edit:. The syntax makes it appear that the Washington Post and the New York Times have called LaRouche a fascist. I don't believe that is the case. I think only the followers of Dennis King have said that. Either some source should be cited (not an opinion piece,) or it should be removed. Waalkes (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording of that sentence has been discussed extensively. Numerous notable people, scholars, and writers have called the subject or his movement "fascist" or "neo-fascist". We can add more sources if two seem too few. Who are the "followers of Dennis King"?   Will Beback    talk    23:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The allegations of fascism do appear to be supported by the sources, but the only part of the article that explores it in detail is this small section. So, I'm not sure it should be mentioned in the lede. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hardly a small section. I recently came across additional sources, so we could expand it if anyone thinks it's too short.   Will Beback    talk    23:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the lede here, Will. In fact, I think the milestones in LaRouche's life should be expanded in the lede, because most of the article focuses on the events in his life, and the third paragraph needs to be drastically rewritten or deleted, as it appears to focus on negative or pejorative opinions of the guy. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is common for an intro to describe what a person is known for, not jkust for the events in their lives. For example, Ron Paul: " Paul has been characterized as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement.[3][4] He has become well known for his libertarian ideas on many political issues, often differing from both Republican and Democratic Party stances." The sentence in question was put into its present form by user:Jayen466. If folks want to add more events from his life to the intro we can discuss that.   Will Beback    talk    00:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course we can discuss it since this page doesn't belong to anyone in particular (or isn't supposed to, anyway). We have stated our opinions and welcome additional input. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's one newly discovered source:

Basically, he was called a "neo-fascist", sued for libel, and lost. This is similar to a libel case in the US that the article mentions. That'd problably be best included in the chronology, since the case was an event.

The other source, more recent, makes a very categorical statement:

That'd be more suitable to the "Allegations of fascism, anti-Semitism, and racism" section, but it'd also be a fine reference to the material in the intro.  Will Beback   talk    01:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the lead is written in such a way that it makes it look like this claim is endorsed by the Washington Post and the New York Times. But I see no evidence that this true. Other sources are cited, but nothing from those two papers. Endorsement by those papers would give the claim much more weight than just little old Dennis King and his followers. Unless those two papers have actually called LaRouche a fascist, the present wording is misleading. Waalkes (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Who are the followers of Dennis King? Is there a King movement? As for the text, we can add a couple of words to clarify.   Will Beback    talk    02:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been a day and we haven't received any more input. So, we seem to have a narrow consensus of two editors for removing the material from the lede v one against.  Based, on that, and absent any further opposition, I would say we could go ahead and remove the sentence(s) in question from the lede.  As far as Will Beback's proposed addition of more material to the political classification section, I guess that dicussion is ongoing. Cla68 (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the problem has been resolved.   Will Beback    talk    04:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it hasnt't. Waalkes (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I googled references to LaRouche in the Washington Post and New York Times. I found instances where they report that LaRouche's opponents call him antisemitic, but they do not report it in their own voice as objective fact, so I have changed the lead accordingly. Also, I think the lead should reflect the fact that in recent years LaRouche has become known for accurately forecasting the financial crisis of 2007 (yes, I know you don't think he did, but the standard is verifiability, not truth.) In addition to the sources already present in the article, I found these from Russia: [ http://www.spekulant.ru/archive/2002_11_st01.html ][ http://www.rabkor.ru/authored/4357.html ][ http://www.stringer.ru/publication.mhtml?Part=50&PubID=11617 ] Waalkes (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't say or imply that the WP or NYT called him a fascist, in the respective paper's own voice, unless we can show they did. -- J N  466  03:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Article is now more biased
This edit introduces a strong element of bias. By replacing the relative neutral word "contacts" with "alliances," it declares in Wikipedia's voice that one group of sources has the right POV, while the other group of sources that says these contacts were transitory or illusory has the wrong POV. Waalkes (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is based on several sources which use the word. Alliances can be transitory or even illusory.   Will Beback    talk    23:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What does this tag mean: "not specific enough to verify". How much more specific can it be?   Will Beback    talk    23:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Contact" does seem to be a more neutral word. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which sources use that term?   Will Beback    talk    04:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Will, in answer to your question, words like "ties" and "alliance" reveal nothing specific about LaRouche's contacts with the right-wing groups. They are chosen to insinuate some sort of shared ideology or agenda. In fact, many of the sources cited in this section debunk the idea of an "alliance." Why, then, would you select out only the ones that claim an "alliance" existed, and present only their conclusions in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution? Remember, you referred to attribution as "superfluous."[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=477155596&oldid=476764170 ] Please don't reply to my question with another question, I'd really like to know the answer to my question. Waalkes (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I also expanded the explanation of the shared interests with the Liberty Lobby to give it more specificity about the shared agenda. We could add yet more, though at some point we'd be placing undue weight on the matter. Three sources use the term "alliances": Chanes, Johnson, and Hamilton. I'm not aware of any sources which directly debunk the existence of alliances. Please quote the text you're thinking of. As for the attribution issue, it's often good to attribute a view or assertion made by a single source. But when it's made by numerous sources then attribution would be silly. "According to Johnson, Boyer, Spiro, Chanes, Michael, and Hamilton..." Some of those are scholarly sources.   Will Beback    talk    08:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You may think attribution is silly, but why would you instead choose to take a minority view and present it as fact in Wikipedia's voice? "Alliance" implies agreement, which clearly did not exist. "Contact" is a more accurate term. Waalkes (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Johnson, in the "Strange alliances" chapter (pp. 207ff.), speaks of LaRouche's "flirtations with right-wingers", noting that "In the late 1970s, after failing to recruit either Soviets or right-wingers for his fight against the conspiracy, LaRouche's followers began trying for a more mainstream image."


 * George and Wilcox similarly speak of a "brief involvement of the far-right Liberty Lobby with the LaRouche operation" and add, "In retrospect, we now know that LaRouche was definitely not a Soviet agent and also went nowhere with either the conservatives or the radical right." They also mention that


 * ''Carto acknowledged some exploratory talks with LaRouche, particularly concerning his proposal that LaRouche
 * ''"assist us in fighting the IRS, pushing for legislation against the IRS and putting his organization in a more populist stance, and they refused that. Their derivations are entirely different from ours. They've never dropped their basic socialist positions. Every socialist likes high taxes and every populist hates high taxes. There's a fundamental difference there. I think they've gone very far afield by, for instance, their support of Alexander Hamilton.That's an anomaly. I just can't feature that. Alexander Hamilton was a royalist, he was a pro-aristocrat, he was for a central bank. For Christ's sake, this is anathema as far as I'm concerned. We are pro-Jackson and pro-Thomas Jefferson. To us central banking is really the core of the evil so I can't go along with that." 14


 * The LaRouche memo mentioned in the article is quoted as follows by George and Wilcox:


 * ''Right-wing organizations offer four opportunities: 1) sources for fund-raising (especially related to our organizing); 2) political contacts to circulate our perspective in anti‐ Rocky political-financial-military circles; 3) opportunity to expose and discredit Rocky's Buckley-FBI-CIA penetration of the Right; 4) potential USLP members and periphery. Cadres should be firmly fixed on the politics underlying this move: the real enemy is Rocky's fascism with a democratic face, the liberals, and social fascists. We can cooperate with the right to defeat this common enemy. Once we have won this battle, eliminating our right-wing opposition will be comparatively easy.9

All in all, the weight of Johnson and George/Wilcox seems to be that talks were held over a relatively short period, but failed to get anywhere, leading LaRouche to switch tactics and launch an attempt to find allies in more mainstream circles (partially successful in the 1980s, with his approchement to Reagan). -- J N  466  03:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Johnson and George/Wilcox aren't the only reliable sources on this topic, but even Johson uses the term: That's enough to show that it is not a "minority" view. This is, in fact, a common description and therefore should be reflected in the text.  Will Beback   talk    06:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * "A MENANCE OR JUST A CRANK?" GEORGE JOHNSON The New York Times June 18, 1989,
 * In LaRouche’s scenario, all political opposition would be purged by the police, and Jews would be expelled from the country. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith accused him of injecting anti-Semitic poison into the American political bloodstream.” To further his plan, LaRouche allied with the Ku Klux Klan. Michigan Klan leader Robert Miles praised him for “exposing the neo-atheist materialism of [secretary of state Henry] Kissinger.”
 * Although the LaRouche organization and Liberty Lobby both shared a penchant for conspiracy theories implicating plutocrats, such as the Rockefellers, members of Liberty Lobby were eventually disillusioned by LaRouche’s relative softness on Zionists and Jews. For their part, LaRouchites tended to view members of Liberty Lobby as “rednecks” and “idiots.” Liberty Lobby defended its alliance with the seemingly leftist organization by asserting that the U.S. Labor Party had done more than any other group “to confuse, disorient, and disunify the Left.”
 * Lyndon H. LaRouche is the founder of a far-right political cult that over the years has crisscrossed ideologically from the far left to the far right, seeking alliances, advocating conspiracy theories, and bizarre agendas—such as using soldier-citizens to colonialize Mars.
 * LaRouche’s National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) was founded in the late 1960s and drew its initial support from former members of various left-wing groups such as Students for a Democratic Society and the Progressive Labor Party. LaRouche quickly moved to the right, establishing alliances with organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and the Liberty Lobby. He set up dozens_pf front groups in the United States, Latin America, and Europe—all of them dedicated to promoting elaborate conspiracy theories and LaRouche’s peculiar brand of antisemitic, neofascist ideology.
 * ''Mr. LaRouche is a one-time Marxist who more recently has allied himself with the ultra-right. His group, formerly known as the National Caucus of Labor Committees and the U.S. Labor Party, has a history of harassing public figures and is currently under investigation by federal and state officials for credit-card fraud and other activities.
 * "LaRouche Group, Long on the Political Fringe Gets, Mainstream Scrutiny After Illinois Primary" By Ellen Hume The Wall Street Journal 28 March 1986
 * ''By the mid-1970s LaRouche was talking less about revolution and more about the conspiracies arrayed against him, from the Rockefellers to the Queen of England to Jewish bankers. Soon the group entered into alliances with far-right groups that shared his conspiratorial view of the world, including some anti-Semites and neo-Nazis.
 * "Inside the Weird World of Lyndon LaRouche" John Mintz The Washington Post September 20, 1987
 * In 1985 African-American leader Julian Bond accused LaRouche of "using the elderly and the politically unsophisticated to promote his brand of right-wing totalitarianism, his alliance with Nazis and the Klan, his support for the white supremacists in South Africa, and for President Reagan's `Star Wars' Program."
 * "Black fundamentalism" Manning Marable. Dissent. New York: Spring 1998. Vol. 45, Iss. 2; pg. 69, 8 pgs
 * In the mid-1970s, LaRouche began to describe intricate plots against the group by the CIA, the Rockefellers and others, the group's publications show. Around that time, the group, by then better described as conspiracy-minded than left-wing, began making alliances with groups that shared its concern about supposed secret plots and conspiracies -- the radical right wing. The NCLC's turn to the political right "happened without most members realizing it," according to one former member. "It happened through this hysteria." One man with whom LaRouche and his group dealt in the mid-1970s was Willis Carto, the founder of the Liberty Lobby, according to LaRouche's deposition in a libel case last year and one by Carto in another lawsuit. The Liberty Lobby, a right-wing group, has said it was never allied with LaRouche. Carto said in his 1980 deposition that the Liberty Lobby never endorsed the NCLC but that he was "quite impressed" with its members and that his organization's newspaper, Spotlight, had praised it. [..] Despite the group's right-wing allies and conservative rhetoric, some critics say they doubt that the LaRouche organization truly abandoned its leftist principles and believe it merely faked a conversion to the right -- a point raised by NBC in the libel case.
 * "Presidential Candidate's Ideological Odyssey; From Old Left to Far Right" By John Mintz, The Washington Post January 14, 1985
 * By the mid-1970's, the devoted hard-core members still remaining in the cult were ready to follow wherever LaRouche led. That proved to be away from Marxism and toward an alliance with the neofascist and anti-Semitic Right. Arguing that the main enemy of mankind was the Rockefeller family, LaRouche was soon also denouncing Zionists and meeting with Willis Carto of the anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby.
 * "The Extremist", HARVEY KLEHR COMMENTARY AUGUST 1989 p. 56
 * King returns to solid ground when he examines those mainstream politicians and policy-makers who formed alliances with the hate-monger, either accidentally or by design.
 * "Lvndon Who?" DAVID CORN The Nation. June 26,1989 p 898
 * ''LaRouche’s efforts to develop reinforcements and support in the ultraright have met with mixed success. Overtures to Willis Carto’s Liberty Lobby, the most influential of the ultras, and to Col. Tom McCrary, the spokesman for the remnants of the George Wallace movement, the American Independent Party, have borne fruit in alliance. In its efforts to consolidate a right-wing constituency the U.S.L.P. has not spurned the likes of J. B. Stoner, the notorious Ku Klux Klan leader. Indeed, the party’s racism is blatant enough to warm the hearts of many Klansmen.
 * " The Strange Odyssey of Lyndon LaRouche" FRANK DONNER and RANDALL ROTHENBERG August 16-23, I980 The Nation. 14
 * A more recent "Whig Coalition" development has been a growing alliance between the NCLC/USLP and Colonel Thomas A. McCrarv's National Coalition of Independents on Issues.( McCrary is a leader of the Independent Party of Georgia.) Georgia.) A September 27, 1977 New' Solidarity article suggests a motive behind this alliance which goes beyond mere "discussion of issues":...
 * Rose, Gregory F. "The Swarmy Life and Times of the NCLC", National Review, March 30, 1979.
 * ''LaRouche’s efforts to develop reinforcements and support in the ultraright have met with mixed success. Overtures to Willis Carto’s Liberty Lobby, the most influential of the ultras, and to Col. Tom McCrary, the spokesman for the remnants of the George Wallace movement, the American Independent Party, have borne fruit in alliance. In its efforts to consolidate a right-wing constituency the U.S.L.P. has not spurned the likes of J. B. Stoner, the notorious Ku Klux Klan leader. Indeed, the party’s racism is blatant enough to warm the hearts of many Klansmen.
 * " The Strange Odyssey of Lyndon LaRouche" FRANK DONNER and RANDALL ROTHENBERG August 16-23, I980 The Nation. 14
 * A more recent "Whig Coalition" development has been a growing alliance between the NCLC/USLP and Colonel Thomas A. McCrarv's National Coalition of Independents on Issues.( McCrary is a leader of the Independent Party of Georgia.) Georgia.) A September 27, 1977 New' Solidarity article suggests a motive behind this alliance which goes beyond mere "discussion of issues":...
 * Rose, Gregory F. "The Swarmy Life and Times of the NCLC", National Review, March 30, 1979.

"Alliances" has these 13 reliable sources, but a number of sources use other terms so the more general "contact" can be used to encompass those. (Even hitting someone on the head requires contact.) Nine of the sources indicate that the subject was the developer of these ties. Are there any other sources to consider? The best way to summarize this material, and to compromise, may be to say something like, "LaRouche sought contacts or alliances with..." How's that?  Will Beback   talk    08:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of those cites are just tertiary sources which are recycling Dennis King. Waalkes (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just your speculation. A couple of these are written by scholars and published by academic presses, which are usually considered the most reliable sources. Others have been published by the leading periodicals in the country. And if some of them think King is a reliable source then it's not up to us to second-guess them. We don't check the sources of the sources. If you think these are unreliable sources then say so. But it isn't an exceptional claim.   Will Beback    talk    19:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just pointing out what I think is a weakness in the approach of doing an internet search for a propaganda buzzword, counting the number of times it appears in print, and then using that as the basis for deciding how to shape a BLP article. Having said that, I think the section is better than it was. Waalkes (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * According to whom is this material the product of an internet search? And why would that be invalid, if the sources themselves are reliable? The way BLPs, and all articles, should be shaped is based on reliable sources, such as these. You can't just ignore them because you disagree with them.   Will Beback    talk    19:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A Very Complex Subject
Lyndon LaRouche is one hell of a challenging topic when neutrality and objectivity are called for. It's not enough to just decide which extravagant claims, and which dismissive denunciations, should be deleted or left in. LaRouche is a minefield of contradictions, and objectivity requires somehow offering the reader a fair and accurate assessment of the whole works.

This has been categorised [below] as a "Low-Importance Political Article". I strongly disagree. The fact that someone is almost universally regarded as fringe wacko does not mean they have no historical significance, or that their wild ideas and convoluted analyses have no validity and no significant influence.

Validity? Yes, validity; and some of what comes out of LaRouche's brain has not only a strong semblance of truth but also astonishing depth and rarified beauty. The same could be said of the utterances of any intelligent schizophrenic, but that doesn't mean it's rubbish. If conspiracy theories were a recognised art form, LaRouche would be their Michelangelo or Beethoven.

I'll offer some specific examples of validity and influence shortly. Let's give credit where credit is due. But not where it isn't —

The article's first paragraph as now written contains a real howler: "LaRouche has been credited in many parts of the world for correctly forecasting that unrestricted financial speculation would cause the late-2000s financial crisis." The footnoted source is in Chinese, but it's undoubtedly correct since he's spent decades finding at least a few loyal followers in "many parts of the world" who would gladly give him credit for predicting the sun will come up. If you say the sun is just about to rise every fifteen minutes, starting at dusk, eventually, like a stopped clock, you'll be correct. Any long-time LaRouche hobbyist will know that this financial crisis was supposed to happen in 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, and every other year without exception until it finally struck in 2008. (For this a footnote could legitimately reference every issue of every LaRouche-connected publication, and the predicted doomsdays might go back earlier.) Capitalism requires periodic crises—it's remarkable this one didn't come a lot sooner and that it hasn't (yet) been as severe as LaRouche imagined. On the other hand, LaRouche's stubborn insistence that economies must be built on the solid foundations of infrastructure and industry, rather than conjured out of empty number-games, looks to have been on the right track all along (even though his would-be visionary proposals combine Jules Verne and Joe Stalin, without a trace of Steve Jobs). LaRouche doesn't amount to much as a prophet or visionary, but what he is good at is probably more important: sniffing out hidden rot, seeing the emperor's new clothes, digging up unlikely facts, and getting the word out. in late 1972, I read in a LaRouche paper called New Solidarity a long article claiming that Robert McNamara as head of the World Bank was engaged in a global scheme to systematically reduce the living standards of the Third World's poorest, to uproot subsistence farms and rural communities, in order to promote export agriculture—to produce cash, a.k.a. foreign exchange, so governments could try to repay their World Bank loans. The tone of the article was utterly rabid, as if it were just far-fetched lunacy. But the underlying logic seemed sound. And then a few years later, the gentle, wise and very sane Frances Moore Lappé (of Diet for a Small Planet fame) was saying essentially the same thing in her book Food First, and it was presented (and accepted) as ground-breaking new research. Eventually I think the World Bank (maybe even McNamara himself) more or less admitted that's what they'd been doing, and sort of acknowledged it was evil. I read more LaRouche publications from time to time over the years and some (well, maybe all) of the most absurd assertions turned out to be either true or surprisingly credible —despite that barking mad prose style. I was relieved when I finally found one that was obvious nonsense: the Hare Krishna cult, claimed LaRouche, are involved in gun-running and drug-smuggling. But a year or two later, it was in the news. And as for the Queen of England running the global drug trade from Buckingham Palace — well, it wouldn't be unprecedented. Remember the Opium Wars? With all that royal cash to invest, QE2 must have a pretty special relationship with the banking industry, and don't all major banks set up branches on the Cayman Islands to launder drug money? Not quite so far-fetched, when you think about it.

What really won my grudging respect was LaRouche's analysis of environmentalism, his claim that it's a weapon in the oligarchy's class war against the rest of us. I knew he was right because I had already independently arrived at exactly the same conclusion myself, on the basis of my own observations and experiences—and I was coming at it from exactly the opposite direction, as a life-long tree-hugger whose near-religious convictions about ecology, nature and wilderness have never wavered. My friends and allies were often unwitting tools of the oligarchy's strategies, refusing to see the real agenda within a lot of the global thoughts and local actions of so-called "environmentalism". Blaming the poor for their own hunger and advocating a massive die-off as a solution to their problems is a position that I've twice seen overtly stated in print, coming from the most conservative and the most radical organisations, and oddly enough international bankers were involved in both statements. At the local level, I heard "green" arguments shouted passionately when low-income housing was proposed, but barely whispered when new mansions and golf courses devastated our last ecosystems. Before I read one word from LaRouche on the subject, it had occurred to me that aristocratic British "visionaries" hailing the dawn of "post-industrial society" circa 1970 were simply justifying and sugar-coating the effects of post-imperialist austerity. And now that the once-proud and well-organized industrial proletariat is reduced to "yobs" and "chavs" while the oligarchs play financial roulette, the oligarchy is free to dismantle both the remnants of the welfare state and Britain's environmental protections. LaRouche is dead right about environmentalism. [Please note that my use of the terms "oligarchy" and "international banker" are not intended to be coded references to "the Jews" — LaRouche's "oligarchy" has served that purpose, says the Afterward to Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism.]

But he's dead wrong about ecology — that is, about nature, wilderness, plants and animals living their own lives on their own terms. His pathological contempt for the biosphere seems to be rooted in a dread of everything erotic, juicy, and uncontrollable—he once put out a series of weird wordless posters equating sexual love (or maybe it was maternal love) with swarming rats. (In 1973, three LaRouche followers separately told me how their leader had convinced them their insides were 97% shit and 3% human; the third time I heard this I asked how human are you now? He replied with radiantly goofy grin, Oh I'm 6 or 7% human now!—and then a shadow fell over his face as he seemed to realise how depraved he sounded.) That "rarified beauty" I mentioned of some of LaRouche's ideas is the flip side of his bio-phobia, a yearning for an ideal Platonic (or Reimannian) realm of mathematics, geometry, and the music of the spheres. He writes of such abstractions with the kind of passion and reverence most people might associate with the love of another person's body and soul. [After writing the above I found an article about the extreme pressure on couples in the organisation to terminate all pregnancies. "We were told that Plato didn't believe in generating children of the body, but children of the mind." The same article reports that LaRouche encouraged husbands to give their wives severe beatings, "considered a mark of a psychological breakthrough." http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-abortion2.htm]

And this brings us to LaRouche's influence on American politics. The incredibly arrogant, abrasive, robotic tone of his publications became the voice of right-wing talk radio. And the content is similar, as well as the style. Everything erotic and natural is equated with shit and rats; wilderness is there for the taking and just gets in the way if it's not used up. I believe his influence on the prevailing anti-nature ideology reached the populist right through Dixy Lee Ray, whose books and general attitude seemed steeped in LaRouchism; she was regarded a heroic iconoclast by Rosh Limbaugh. Before LaRouche moved in on the right wing, the broadcast voice of American conservatives was William F. Buckley—civilised, genteel, a bit smarmy, either engaging his guests in an actual dialogue or debating them with more or less reasonable arguments. It's unprovable speculation, but I'm inclined to believe it was LaRouche's influence that set the precedent for the right wing's rants against the Establishment, substituting name-calling for discussion, and taking on the role of embattled outsider locked in mortal combat with intolerable, threatening enemies. McCarthyism could have been a precedent, but that was twenty years gone. Goldwater, Reagan, even George Wallace were relatively friendly and level-headed. LaRouche was reaching a lot of people in the late 1970s. and he was having an effect; my landlady decided to vote against Jimmy Carter in 1976 because she heard LaRouche in a nationally televised New Hampshire debate saying Carter would inevitably launch a nuclear war if he won.

LaRouche was in New Hampshire again in 1980, and this may have been when his influence was actually decisive in American political history. George Bush, the Establishment insider, was expected to breeze through to the nomination, while Ronald Reagan was supposed to be barely relevant. But then it all went haywire; Bush lost New Hampshire and Reagan went on to become president. Why? A major factor, and if not the main factor, was that Bush's membership in David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission became a major issue. It wasn't just LaRouche talking about it; if my memory is right, the Governor and the editor of the biggest newspaper were both associated with the John Birch Society. LaRouche, however, was probably the most forceful and relentless critic of the Trilateral project, as well as the most informed and analytical; his style didn't inspire much confidence in his own candidacy but it was well-suited to undermining confidence in others. It also wouldn't have mattered that LaRouche was supposedly running within the Democratic Party, since Bush represented everything LaRouche was campaigning against. Chelydra (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Far too long - especially since there are so many related articles.
See Joseph Widney now and before. Gist remains, useless stuff not actually helping any readers removed. Objections? Collect (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I would start by shortening the sections that duplicate material from other articles such as US Labor Party. The material that is not duplicated in other articles tends to be the material covering recent decades. However, I would like to point out that although the "Strategic Defense Initiative" section says "Main article: Fusion Energy Foundation," that article does not cover that topic (the FEF article is generally a bad article, needs a clean up.) I think that the SDI section should actually be expanded a bit. I think LaRouche has claimed that his work on SDI is what caused him to be sent to prison. Waalkes (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Go to it. One editor has officially accused me of killing another editor. (Yes, you killed your opposition)  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I object to your recent removal of sourced descriptors of LaRouche. Some changes might be an improvement to the article, but your removal of some of the information seems to have a certain tilt to it. Many of these issues have been discussed on this Talk page for many months, and consensus has been reached in the article content. So, we should take each of your suggestions for the article and either reach a new consensus before adding/removing material, or not perform such additions/removals. Dave Dial (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. If you wish to discuss any of the edits, do so. If you wish to add properly sourced claims, do so.  The purpose of any editor should be to improve the article, and I trust you noted the changes at Joseph Widney.  The nastyness of LaRouche remains in the article, superfluous stuff does not belong in the BLP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Cult
It is a sourced fact that his movement has been characterized as a cult - cf. ,. This apparently cannot be included in the article for a reason that I am having a hard time divining. Perhaps someone can explain it to me. Hipocrite (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that a single use of "cult" being removed is not "systematically remov(ing)" anything. What is is, is acting in accord with WP:BLP and with the various ArbCom dicta concerning labeling of groups as "cults." Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's systematic, when you remove it 3 times, discuss it zero times, and then revert the pov tag. I'm not sure what arbcom case you refer that prevents us from using information gleaned directly from reliable sources. Please point it out. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The pov tag generally requires the person inserting it to start a talk page discussion on precisely what the pov problem is. I am sure you knew that.
 * The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor
 * I did not see you start any such discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What is this, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Lots of movements are called "cults" by people who disagree with them (for example the Teaparty movement or the discipln of Anthropology). It is up to a discussion on the talkpage whether the viewpoint is sufficiently notable to be in the lead. My own feeling without having looked in depth at sources is that is a minority viewpoint that could be mentioned in the body of the article but which doesn't merit mention in the lead.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The Washington Post includes its LaRouche archives under a banner that says "Cult Controversy." Review . You can find this archive by going to the 1980's section of their Cult Controversy subsite. Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WaPo specifically and carefully uses "sect" when making any claims of its own, and does not call the group a "cult". Thabks for proving the point.  BTW, the "banner" does not make the claim about LaRouche's groups.   I gather you need to read WP:V.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are corect. I have updated the article, which might have been read to insinuate this, to make it clear who stated it was a cult. Please attempt to be less rude - everyone here is well versed in policy. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the entire sentence in the lead that mentions cults, should be removed. I also feel the sentence about the financial crisis is likewise out of place in the lead. Both sentences use the term "some", seem weasel-ish and create undue weight, spoiling an otherwise fair sounding, lead paragraph.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 14:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd accept that as a compromise, but I suspect you will shortly get pushback on the financial crisis argument. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Compromise lede
My attempted compromise lede is a "take it or leave it" offer - I'm fine if some don't like it, but editing it to return statements about his writing on all kinds of topics, his alleged correct predictions about global collapse, or what not should also be accompanied by a return of the cult, appeals court and "strangest political groups in American history" statements. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Take it or leave it" is not found in WP:CONSENSUS that I can find. Perhaps you can show us the policy which gives you such a right? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:IAR. I'm trying to find something everyone can agree with - which means that I get something, and you get something. If you take my attempt at compromise and use it to get everything you want, then there's no success in compromising, and we should go back to the status quo. I am not agreeing to remove cult from the lede. I am being pragmatic and offering to make a better lede in my opinion, but not the best lede, by removing some content I think should stay and also removing some content I think should go in an attempt to reach consensus. I realize that you'll use this as part of stage 2 (focus on behavior, not on content), as part of the obvious future attempt to get me blocked, but hopefully my attempts to cut the Gordian knot will be appreciated by others. Hipocrite (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We are allowed to and should mention that Larouche's organization has been called a cult, provided it has been called a cult and this represents a significant opinion. {WP:NPOV|Neutrality]] does not mean we balance mainstream opinions with how Larouche sees the world, but that we balance mainstream opinions with one another.  Considering how mainstream this view is, it may even be a violation of neutrality to say that it has been called a cult, rather than saying it is a cult.  TFD (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Cult" has now been excised entirely from the lede, while all of the lunatic positives (He writes about everything! He predicted the great recession! It's the strongest political movement EVAR!) remains in. Shocker! Hipocrite (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Few care about what these publications think of
It is not notable what think about Mr. LaRouche and the US economic crisis. These are just cherry-picked references to try to make some point. Few care what these sources think about this. I have deleted this twice, only to see it restored without an explanation why this is not so. A naked assertion is not an explanation. Someone keeps putting it in here. Please explain. Why them and not the Financial Times, WSJ, Forbes, Fortune, NY Times, Wash Post, etc.  --Javaweb (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * I very much agree. The China Youth Daily "is the official newspaper of Communist Youth League of China". I've never heard of "Spekulant". The Corriere Della Sera is a reliable source, but in the very same article it e.g. points out that LaRouche has no degree in economics and calls him a guru. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "These are just cherry-picked references to try to make some point." Certainly true. Tom Harrison Talk 23:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Mr. LaRouche gets more positive press outside the US than he often does inside it. In particularly in the PRC and Russia.  Chinese and Russian newspapers are reliable sources, and I have used them in other articles including the Senkaku Islands dispute and Eurasian Land Bridge.  LaRouche did accurately predict the economic downturn and fortunately for this article, a Chinese newspaper noted his accurate prediction. Cla68 (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Still looking for a preponderance of evidence that most readers or editors will give a hoot what they say about economic predictions. Mr. LaRouche must have made an unbelievable fortune from investments he made based on his ESP. Do you see any huge increase in his wealth from this? --Javaweb (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * "Outside the US" is a lot bigger place that inside, so it's not surprising if anything gets more coverage outside the US than in. But if you cast your net that wide, you must keep all the fish. See confirmation bias. "Chinese and Russian newspapers are reliable sources" is plain wrong, just like "US newspapers are reliable sources" would be (think "National Enquirer"). Quality newspapers are usually reliable sources, no matter where they are from. But do you really think that the official newspaper of the Communist Youth League of China is a reliable source for an economic evaluation? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's better writing to leave it out; but out or in, ultimately I don't think "The China Youth Daily, Spekulant, and the Corriere della Sera credited LaRouche with forecasting..." will misinform anyone who is able to read it. Tom Harrison Talk 13:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It does actually, because it puts the words of 鞠辉 into the mouth of The China Youth Daily. 鞠辉 is a foreign correspondent, not a scholarly economist; and the article isn't an editorial by The China Youth Daily.  鞠辉's opinion isn't weighty or significant. Fifelfoo (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That sources like this are the best that can be found to say something positive about Mr. LaRouche tells the reader something. It would be better to leave it out, but if it's to stay in the article it needs to correctly attribute the opinion. My language skills aren't up to that, so I'll defer to you. Tom Harrison Talk 11:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

From a global perspective, this is what LaRouche is known for. Javaweb and others turns up their noses at the opinions of the non-English speaking world, but it should be pointed out that the Financial Times, WSJ, Forbes, Fort une, NY Times, Wash Post all supported the complete deregulation of the financial system and would have little sympathy for LaRouche's opinion. LaRouche represents unwelcome criticism of the dominant policy. On the other hand, the China Youth Daily speaks for the government of China, which is hardly insignificant in today's world, unless one suffers from a bad case of Systemic bias. Waalkes (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources I mention are the same ones used in myriads of articles because they are trusted by the editors working on the articles and they are easily checked out by others. We cannot just accept LaRouche's world view as a reason to accept a source. That is arguing in circles.

--Javaweb (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * As far as I know, Corriera della Sera and China Youth Daily are also trusted (I haven't heard of the other one.) If someone would like to raise issues about their reliability, there's a noticeboard for that. I'd like to make two observations: first of all, whether LaRouche's forecast was really correct is not the issue. It is significant that these major publications from different corners of the globe have apparently high regard for LaRouche, and it is certainly relevant to his biography. My other observation is that the disputed quotes are all relatively recent. Looking at this article, it strikes me that most of the sources cited are from the 1970s and 1980s, so the article really needs to be more up to date. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Waalkes point is a good one, which is that the China Youth Daily represents the opinion of the government of the PRC, one of the world's superpowers (and likely soon to eclipse the US in its influence on the global economic and political environment), and is therefore a notable opinion. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * These publications are not notable. It could be that they are right and mainstream media is wrong, but that is policy and the place to argue about it is on the policy talk pages.  TFD (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think several hundred million of our Chinese comrades would disagree with you that their newspapers are not notable. Cla68 (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * China Youth Daily is a notable newspaper. The economic opinions of their American foreign correspondent in a puff-piece interview aren't.  If the China Youth Daily editorial made claims about a minor political figure's significance, that would be worth noting. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The major media in China are no different than those in the US and Europe -- the decisions on which politicians to promote, and which to designate as "minor political figures," are made at the highest levels. What is clear is that leading circles in China and Russia consider LaRouche to be a significant person whose ideas should be discussed, and under NPOV their views should be included. To declare that the Chinese media, or Corriere della Sera, the leading newspaper in Italy, are "not mainstream" is just xenophobic. Again, see Systemic bias. Waalkes (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All the new commenters seem to have vanished just as suddenly as they appeared. Unless someone can provide a policy-based reason why recent views from the leading papers of China and Italy should not be given as much weight as something from the Heritage Foundation in 1984, I am going to restore them. Waalkes (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Chinese rag is not a leading paper. According to Wikipedia, its circulation is 1/5th of what it used to be, it is a propaganda rag, and it is aimed at youth and not adults. They are not a source anyone cares about in terms of economics. We don't know if the writer even knows who LaRouche really was. Additionally, it is not available in English so it fails verifiability because of that plus the obscurity of its editors and staff. If the Chinese govt. wants to spread propaganda, it uses the CCTV,People's Daily, Chinese News Service, and Xinhua. This is not a LaRouche scrapbook, this is an encyclopedia. The Russian source is so obscure, it did not have a WP article. You are trying to wear down the other editors because we see it as adding what is best trivia to WP and you are trying to show that LaRouche has made some splash in the last 20 years. We aren't as strongly motivated. --Javaweb (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * A translation done by a Chinese-speaking Wikipedian is available at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/China Youth Daily. For a ruling by the ArbCom on the use of non-English language sources, see Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty. Otherwise, it appears that you don't like the government of China much, but under NPOV we have a responsibility to include all significant points of view, and as Cla68 pointed out, these days China is becoming quite significant. One other point: if another minor American politician, such as Jesse Jackson or Ralph Nader, were being covered in-depth in countries like Italy or China, I'm sure that it would be considered notable at Wikipedia. Waalkes (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, China is important and when the govt. wants to say something important they publish it, in English as well, in the Chinese News Service and Xinhua. Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty says a reliable translation should be available as one of the requirements. A random person on the internet who may have a stake is not such a translator. --Javaweb (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * You are really just grasping at straws now. There are actually three different translations available at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/China Youth Daily. The Wikipedian who contributed a translation is User:Jim101, a respected editor. Do you also consider Corriere della Sera to be a "rag"? Waalkes (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I was pointing out an ADDITIONAL potential problem with the source, not the primary ones, which I have already outlined above. --Javaweb (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * Aside from the objection about the availability of translations, your argument seems to be that you consider China Youth Daily to be an unimportant and non-notable source. I think you are mistaken (as others have also said.) According to this source, "Being one of China's best selling domestic newspapers,China Youth Daily has an average daily circulation of nearly 1 million copies with its overseas distribution in more than 40 countries and regions. With its correspondents stationed in all Chinese Provinces, municipalities directly under the central government, and autonomous regions, as well as in the United States, Japan, Russia, France and many other countries, the newspaper disseminates information on the latest developments in all parts of China and the rest of the world."  I hope that puts that objection to rest. You haven't explained your objection to Corriere della Sera. Waalkes (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a solid reason to believe that cyol.net is independent of CYD, it doesn't qualify as a wp:reliable source for the merits of CYD. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it isn't usable for that purpose. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi y'all, I just got a request to translate those source for this discussion, so I'll just post my findings here.

The first passage is an opinion piece from Xinhua paraphrased by Chinese Radio International online:

社论说，美林公司北美地区首席经济学家戴维·罗森堡在2006年底就指出，“美国房地产市场的暴跌将会是2007年经济展望中最大的风险”. 民主党著名异议人士林登·拉鲁什也早就预言，以美国为代表的世界金融体系已经崩溃，如果政府不及时救市，后果将不堪设想. 然而，美联储却没有采取应对措施. http://gb.cri.cn/19224/2008/10/04/3365s2268021.htm CRI online Oct 4, 2008

Translation: According to the opinion piece of Xinhua, economist David Rosenberg had already pointed out that "Slumps in American real estate market will be the biggest risk to the economic development of 2007". The famous Democrat dissenter Lyndon LaRouche also predicted that American led financial system is already collapsing, and if government does not bail out in time, the results will be unthinkable. Yet, the US Federal Reserve did not enact measures in time.

The second passage is from People's Daily, the de facto holy bible of Chinese Communist Party:

美国著名经济学家、独立总统候选人林登·拉鲁什曾多次成功预言了巴西、俄罗斯和亚洲的金融危机. “参议院这种带着帝国主义气息的单方面对抗行为根本无助于问题的解决，是丧失理智的行为！” 拉鲁什以预言家的口吻告诉记者，要解决美国经济出现的问题，必须动大手术. 他说，当今世界的金融和货币体系已病入膏肓，必须彻底重组，而不能仅仅是加以改革. http://world.people.com.cn/GB/41217/3317833.html Apr 13, 2005

Translation: Famous American economist and independent presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche have successfully predicted Brazilian, Russian and Asian financial crisis. "The Congress' imperialist attitude and its unilateral and confrontation behavior will not help to resolve the problem, it is a completely illogical act!" LaRouche, using his predictive tone, tells this journalist that to solve America's economic problem, large surgeries are needed. He said, today's financial and currency system is already unsalvageable, thus it must be radically restructured, not just merely reformed.

Hope it helps. Jim101 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Now my personal opinion...If you are looking for facts, aside from noting Lyndon LaRouche is a somewhat notable figure in China, quoting Xinhua on this matter is somewhat a waste of time since there will always be better English source available per WP:NOENG. If you want to prove that Lyndon LaRouche's economic theory is notable in China, then you better bring sources from notable Chinese academic bodies like Peking University or Chinese Academy of Social Science, not mass media sources like Xinhua. Jim101 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just go through the article and there are some problems by using Chinese source in this article.
 * Cite 139 and 140...there is no context within those two source. There is no way to tell if those two views are official view of LaRouche or just mere quote farming...if he really meant what he said, then there must be equivalent English sources to confirm what he meant, and only use the Chinese source to note that his statement is received well in Chinese media.
 * Cite 145, People Daily did not pass WP:REDFLAG because no Chinese economist is show to have acknowledged his academic merit.
 * Cite 145, I'll let CYD slide since it has been proven that Lyndon LaRouche meant what he said...although without the context of this interview (almost all of his Chinese interview in the past two decades ended with the slogan "US will fail"...coincidence?), it still has to pass WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE test. Jim101 (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing those translations. The issue here is not whether LaRouche's forecasts were correct, or whether academics consider him to be correct. The issue is what is LaRouche known for today, because the lead should make that clear (right now the lead tells the reader what LaRouche was known for in the 1980s.) These Chinese publications are major, mass-circulation newspapers. I think that it is safe to say at this point that today in China, LaRouche is known for his economic forecasts, particularly for forecasting the 2007 financial crisis. Waalkes (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

HIpocrite, what exactly are you asking for with the "who?" tag in the lead? A list of all the article authors? That's what footnotes are for. The information is all there. Waalkes (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's not what footnotes are for. If the body detailed who said "News media" were, it could be argued it was summary style - however, the body does no such detailing. Further, how did you find those articles, exactly? I thought you didn't speak Chinese? Is someone from the organization assisting you in your editing? Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me introduce you to Google Translate ( http://translate.google.com/ ). In the left box, select "English" and put in "Lyndon LaRouche" plus keywords such as "forecast", "financial" and "crisis," In the right hand box, select "Chinese." Then click on "Translate." When you get results in the right box, copy them into Google News and presto! You find lots of articles, because LaRouche gets a lot of coverage in China. Didn't Will Beback tell you about that? BTW I'll fix the body of the article. Waalkes (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good job, Waalkes on fleshing out the use of Chinese sources and thanks to Jim101 for the translations. Hipocrite, since I am apparently banned from your talk page for some reason I will say it here, please exercise more good faith in your fellow editors.  We are all on the same team here. Cla68 (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Dubious
This article includes a claim that LaRouche changed his political views because he was involved in a romantic triangle. That is just too far-fetched -- with the LaRouche, politics always comes first. I think that claim should be dismissed from the article. Nash Motors (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is sourced to the New York Times. Do you agree that it is true that Paul L. Montgomery suggested in The New York Times that the change of political direction might have been linked to his partner, Carol Schnitzer/Larrabee, having left him in 1972 for a British activist, Chris White? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * From what is known about LaRouche, he is obsessed with politics. Do people normally change their political views because of something going on in their love lives? I don't think so. Is there any evidence that this is the case with LaRouche? I don't think so. Does Paul Montgomery have a close personal relationship with LaRouche that would give him special access to LaRouche's inner emotional life? I don't think so. This is one of these weird speculations that may have appeared in the New York Times, but not every word that appears in the New York Times is suitable for inclusion here. Nash Motors (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "What is known," is not a reliable source. Do you agree that Paul L. Montgomery suggested in The New York Times that the change of political direction might have been linked to his partner, Carol Schnitzer/Larrabee, having left him in 1972 for a British activist, Chris White? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is a BLP. The speculation by Paul Montgomery should be removed per WP:BLPGOSSIP, as not relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.Waalkes (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

20 June revert
I agreed with Waalkes removal of that material under the reason he cited and don't support the revert warring that ensued. Additional input requested. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been reading the BLP policy and I see a lot there that applies to this and other LaRouche articles. I can also see that not everyone is happy with the policy, because they use the term "whitewash" when the policy is (correctly) applied. I wonder how they feel about the policy when it is applied to a public figure that they like; I suspect that under those circumstances, they strongly approve.


 * In addition to WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPGOSSIP, there is another aspect of BLP which I think very much applies to LaRouche articles, which is WP:WELLKNOWN:


 * "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Looking at the statement in question and the BLP policies, removal was appropriate imo. The suggestion that the relationship with his wife might have caused a change in political direction is speculative. I agree that WP:BLPGOSSIP AND WP:WELLKNOWN apply here. This is a good case illustrating the need for multiple third party sources supporting the connection.Coaster92 (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * One thing, I was not able to locate and read the full NYT article without paying. How have others been able to read the full article?Coaster92 (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A new source on LaRouche
Ever fascinated by the internal logic of wikipedia's policy on reliable sources in relation to incendiary topics like this one, I propose the following for other editors' consideration. Here's the Russian original: http://terra-america.ru/posledniy-rozenkreicer-part-3.aspx And here's an English translation (from LaRouche's own website): Russian Website Features LaRouche's Influence in Post-Soviet RussiaOther Choices (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to "be bold" and add a sentence to the article (the 1990s section) based on this new source, to see if other editors object to this source and/or its translation. Perhaps a wikipedia editor who speaks Russian could scan the original.  Perhaps somebody will argue that EIR's translation is "self-published" (does that criterion apply to a translation?) or that the original article is not a "reliable source." Other Choices (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct that neither terra-america.ru is a reliable source nor is EIR a reliable translator. As such, I have removed this addition. Please find a reliable source before adding this content - terra-america.ru seems to be "some guys blog." Hipocrite (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked the website and I can't tell who owns and operates it. I will ask about it at the Russia wiki-project. Cla68 (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not "some guys blog"(sic). The writing team is listed here -- journalists, academics, and members of something called the "Guild of Political Criticism." The sole American member is Edward Luttwak, a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.65.149 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The website appears to be down at the moment, but I will look at it again when it's back up. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the response at WP:RUSSIA, it is a self-published website. Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's too bad, because that is a very comprehensive article about LaRouche and Russia in the 1990s, where there is a big gap in our coverage here. Hopefully it will be reprinted in a source which is acceptable to Wikipedia. Waalkes (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe this one's better -- a translation of a recent article in a weekly Russian journal that deals with LaRouche's impact there in the 1990s: link--Other Choices (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like some usable material there. Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks fine to me. Waalkes (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The copy of the article on the LaRouche website doesn't include the byline and other publishing info. Please use a link to the original article on the Zavtra website if you can find it.  I can't read a word of Russian so I couldn't find it. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the link to the original article in Zavtra: http://www.zavtra.ru/content/view/slovo-o-larushe/

--Other Choices (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

edit of lead
I have removed the sections in the lead paragraph that are other people's opinions of Larouche. While they were sourced, it seems inappropriate to put anyone's opinions of Larouche in the first paragraph - otherwise, the paragraph could be filled with hundreds of opinions. It should, as it does now, reflect undisputed facts.Polkadreamer (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but I also agree with Collect, who said that Ramsey Clark should be retained (he's a former US Attorney General, and the jailing of LaRouche is sort of what put LaRouche on the map as a political figure.) However, I disagreed with the new section Collect created, which interrupted the flow of the article and also had a confusing header ("Views of LaRouche" sounds like it's about LaRouche's opinions.) So I checked to see whether those opinions already appear elsewhere in the article, which most of them do, and I moved the remaining ones into sections that seemed apropos.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.81.102 (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The current lede do not reflect the article. Reading the lede, one is left with the impression that LaRouche is a major political figure. The description of the trail indicate some type of conspiracy and the controversial aspects of LaRouche and his movement are not mentioned. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The controversy seems well noted by the second half of the lede. I added "controversial" to the first sentence - but this is surely a reasonable amount of criticism in the lede. Collect (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding controversioal is a good start, but the point is not to ad criticism for it's own sake. The lede is supposed to reflect the article. Reading the article and reading the lede gives very different perspectives, which means the lede has failed to summarize the article. Also, the lede do not at all mention LaRouche's various philosophical and political theories, which are otherwise well represented in the article text. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have edited several thousand articles - and this is one of the better ledes for summarizing the article found on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. In the past the lede was a battleground between pro- and anti-LaRouche POVs. For some time now it has been non-partisan and reasonable, as it ought to be. Joe Bodacious (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "For some time now it has been non-partisan and reasonable, as it ought to be." Well, that's great. Congratulations to Joe Bodacious and all the others who have put in the time and hard work to accomplish this. Tom Harrison Talk 14:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree pro and con arguments over LaRouche do not need to be in the lede (the "controversial" added is in my view sufficient), but a very basic of his political ideas seem in order (all sourced of course). Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable proposal, but easier said than done, based on what I have seen at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. I might propose something like Over the past 50 years, LaRouche has advocated scientific and technological progress, with an emphasis on building infrastructure, while opposing financial speculation, Economic liberalism and Economic globalization, which he regards as a new form of Imperialism. See also Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. Joe Bodacious (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly too puffy for what is supposed to be an NPOV BLP. Collect (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A tad puffy, but not a bad startingpoint. The first sentence could be shortened to: "LaRouche advocates scientific and technological progress, ...", it sounds a bit more encylopedic too. Should his view of whom is behind the imperialism also be mentioned here? It is something he has been very keen on pointing out, and quite characteristic of his work. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I put that "past 50 years" thing in because he's really, really old, and I wouldn't expect him to continue advocating much longer. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AIDS section
I think this section is a problem because the ratio of opinion to dispassionate reporting is too high. I am also concerned about the amount of material that is sourced to opinion pieces, particularly when views are being attributed to LaRouche which are sourced to hostile opinion pieces. I think it would be better to follow a format where there is a neutral presentation of facts followed by a "controversy" or "opinion" section. Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely something wrong here. For example the section says: Main article: California Proposition 64 (1986) But the main article is only 419 words while this section is 562 words. For me, that's a big red flag right there. Also the fact that these 562 words are taken from only three sources. Second red flag. Also, there is off topic text in the section (ie the proposition). IMO this section needs to be cut back, summarized and rewritten in a neutral way.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ambassador Stevens
Would a flyer put out by the "LaRouche Political Action Committee" be a reliable source on the views of LaRouche? I picked up such a flyer the other day which states that Ambassador Stevens was assassinated, and that this attack had been pre-meditated by "elements of the British-Saudi sponsored Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb." I don't see anything in the current article about this conspiracy theory.Wjhonson (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions

 * By 1961 the LaRouches were living in Central Park West, Manhattan, and LaRouche's activities were mostly focused on his career

What was his career?


 * In 1967 LaRouche began teaching classes on Marx's dialectical materialism at New York City's Free School

I cannot find any information about New York City's Free School. Where was it; what kind of school was it; does it still exist? AxelBoldt (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Andrei Fursov comment
This material has recently been deleted twice, with edit summaries "fringe conspiracy crap" and "no useful learning experience in the cited quote." This would appear to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- we need some reason that is more based in Wikipedia policy for such a deletion to take place. There are a number of quotes in the article from LaRouche's opponents alleging that he is a fascist or has "fascist tendencies", without providing much of an argument to support the charge. Perhaps those should be removed under BLP. But as long as those quotes remain in the article, it seems reasonable to have a rebuttal from a notable academic. Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed it because Fursov's reasons are not given to the reader. Fursov considers LaRouche's ideas to be valid as a coherent "system", and that this system constructed of various issues must be addressed as a whole by intellectuals. Fursov thinks that LaRouche's system is built on elements that have a factual basis. He is in agreement with LaRouche's ideas about how small groups of highly influential people in Venice at the end of the 16th century and Great Britain in the 18th century came to control most of the world's commerce. He is not in agreement with LaRouche's idea that FDR "created a new America"—instead, Fursov says that FDR was a "puppet of the Fed" (Federal Reserve Bank) and acted in their interest. Fursov also says that LaRouche is reactionary in his wish to "draw a line between the national and the international in the modern global ruling class." Such a line, says Fursov, is not possible in today's global economy, with multi-national corporations acting in their own interests. He says the era of the "LaRouche school" is gone and that LaRouche's followers will not thrive without him. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's all very interesting, but I don't see the relevance. His statement about LaRouche's opponents who call him a fascist is unambiguous and pertinent to the article. I see no need to go off on tangents. Joe Bodacious (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Joe Bodacious. If we're going to keep the allegations of fascism in this BLP (which I support, as long as it's balanced, because LaRouche's public war of words with his many detractors is an important part of his life story), then an academic rebuttal is appropriate.  There is no need to explain in the article the reasoning behind Fursov's rebuttal -- that's why we have footnotes pointing interested readers toward reliable sources.--Other Choices (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't misrepresent Fursov as holding a purely positive view of LaRouche. Fursov's position is more convoluted or complex than that. Fursov is clearly critical or pessimistic about certain parts of the LaRouche topic. If you misrepresent Fursov by avoiding his negative points, you are violating WP:NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At present, the article does not represent Fursov as having a either a positive or a negative view of LaRouche. He is quoted only expressing his opinion on how some of the western media characterize LaRouche, and on that point his views are straightforward. His personal views of LaRouche might be appropriate in some other section of the article. Joe Bodacious (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The only sources I can find for Fursov are ones associated with the LaRouche organization. Volunteer Marek 04:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Joe Bodacious (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that "Terra America" is published by the LaRouche organization? Also, here's a short bio in L'Express: http://fiches.lexpress.fr/personnalite/andrei-fursov_1035687/biographie Joe Bodacious (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not claiming anything about "Terra America". I'm claiming that Fursov is closely associated with the LaRouche organization. (And that he says a lot of wacky shit in the interview). Somehow your L'Express link is not working for me. Honestly I don't care that much about this stuff. The whole article is a mess. I just took out one part that seemed to be obvious crap, just because I was clicking through stuff and noticed it. Serious scrutiny of the article would probably lead to a whole bunch of other nonsense being removed or rewritten. But I don't have time nor the inclination. Volunteer Marek 06:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Racism, Etc. Section
I thought the "controversies" section read oddly; in the version I found, the article quoted people defending LaRouche from allegations of racism, antisemitism, etc., but no mention of what the actual allegations were or which of LaRouche's statements, if any, triggered them. I added a few of the controversial statements themselves, cited to LaRouche's own publications (linked where possible). One of the publications was only available online from an anti-LaRouche site, but the link goes directly to a PDF of the original printed leaflet. Another was a quote from one of the works already listed in the article's bibliography.

These edits were immediately reverted by an anonymous IP address as "unsourced and poorly sourced material." All edits I made were sourced to original materials, and without some examples of the types of statement people have found controversial the section simply makes no sense, and certainly does not present an NPOV. If you have issues with specific statements or their sources, please discuss them here before you delete them out of hand. Chapka (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Chapka and welcome to the LaRouche article and thank you for your good faith contributions and efforts to improve the article. You should know that this article has a long history of controversy amongst WP editors and I'm glad you have opened a talk page thread. At the same time, I support the revert made by the IP and I have removed your additions for a variety of reasons which I'd be happy to explain. First, WP gives strong preference to secondary sources per WP:SECONDARY. Primary sources (items published by LaRouche or his organization) have limited usage especially on a biography (see WP:BLP). Also by 'cherry picking' quotes or sections from these publications there is an element of 'original research' or editorializing (though unintended I'm sure) per WP:OR.  So for all of these reasons I felt that your additions were inappropriate. If you feel for example that LaRouche is/was homophobic, then you would need to find reliable secondary sources (scholarly books, mainstream press etc.) to support that allegation before adding it into the article. I certainly think that section of this article could be improved and would be happy to work with you on that, but citing primary documents written by LaRouche is not the way to proceed. Best, -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 17:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand that primary sources are not appropriate for biography; but surely they are the most appropriate way to establish controversial statements by the subject. LaRouche is quoted throughout the article. Surely it makes more sense to include the contentious statements themselves, quoted to the primary source, than to leave this section as it is, essentially an apologia for controversies that the article doesn't even mention? Chapka (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For now, I've edited the section, cleaned up the formatting, and added citations to third-party reports attempting to clarify some of the controversy. Chapka (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ...and my edits were immediately and without comment undone by an anonymous user. Any suggestions on how we can avoid an edit war here?Chapka (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC
 * As far as I know, LaRouche is still alive, although getting a bit long in the tooth. That means that WP:BLP still applies to him. It means that we should use the best reliable secondary sources -- not self-published sources ("Red Letter Press" is the house organ for the Freedom Socialist Party, not a suitable source), blogs, or anonymous websites. We should also avoid selecting our own quotes from primary sources, which will generally be considered Cherry picking (fallacy) (especially if you are finding those purported quotes on an anonymous website and not in the actual primary sources, which has been known to happen). The policy here is generally to let reliable secondary sources select the quotes. Chapka, perhaps you should explain exactly what you think is incomplete or inaccurate about the present version. Given the long history of controversy around this article, it's best to take things slowly. Joe Bodacious (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The issue is that, as written, the article essentially says nothing. If someone wants to come to Wikipedia to find out what the deal is with Lyndon LaRouche, the article will not be helpful in any meaningful way. It says, "Some people think some things LaRouche said are anti-semitic. Other people disagree." I've attempted to add information from newspapers, from secondary sources--including sources already cited in the same article. I've also attempted to clean up the section and do other general editing. If you think the Gilbert isn't a good source, fine; remove that source. What was the problem with the other sources I cited that required their removal?
 * Rather than going back and forth on this, here's an alternate plan. This material is already basically duplicative of the equivalent sections of Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. I propose eliminating the current section entirely, migrating any material not already duplicated to that page, and replacing this section with a link to that page.
 * In the meantime, I have reorganized the section to make it slightly more coherent; this may make it clear where the issues lie (for example, the fascism section, which I understand is already being discussed elsewhere). The only sources added are an Associated Press story quoting a named Democratic Party official, and an additional cite to the King article already cited in this section.Chapka (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither Dennis King's self-published website, nor "New York Native" are adequate sources under Wikipedia's policy. I reverted your change; I would suggest that you propose future changes on the talk page and gain consensus for them before adding them, since it is already clear that several editors find your material problematic. However, I think that your idea about a link to the "Views" page might work. You are right that there is duplication. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

First, what is wrong with the source? You have a writer who is cited numerous times in the article, writing about gay and lesbian issues in what at the time was one of America's most prominent gay newspapers. Second, I made a number of changes to the section, including other citations nobody has complained about. If you don't like that citation, why not simply eliminate it, rather than once again reverting everything? Chapka (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:UGC: Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. You used King's website as the source. The Wikipedia article on New York Native says that it went defunct after developing a reputation for circulating conspiracy theories, which does not suggest a high quality source. Keithbob suggested that you look for "reliable secondary sources (scholarly books, mainstream press etc.)" and I agree. I'd like to repeat my suggestion that you make proposals for changes on this talk page, rather than just reverting back to what you had posted earlier (incidentally, your revert eliminated an edit that had supplied a requested source, the New York Times.) I'd also like to respond to your objection where you characterized the present version of the section (which has been stable for a long time, after years of edit warring) as "Some people think some things LaRouche said are anti-semitic. Other people disagree." I have read a lot of debates about this at Wikipedia; the problem that I see is that the allegations that LaRouche is anti-semitic, racist, etc. are based on speculation. I have never seen an example quoted where LaRouche says "I don't like Jews." LaRouche's critics will find statements by LaRouche criticizing the ADL, for example, and cite these as evidence of an unspoken anti-semitic intent. That may be true, but we don't know. Many diverse groups have attacked the ADL, especially after the scandal in California where they were spying on anti-apartheid groups, etc. The wilder accusations are the ones about "coded messages" in LaRouche's writing, which to my mind is conspiracy theorizing. So since LaRouche denies he is anti-semitic, and makes no overtly anti-semitic statements, I think that we have an obligation to report that there are allegations of an unspoken anti-semitic intent, but we also have an obligation not to give too much weight to such speculation because it may indeed be false. This is my interpretation of the WP:BLP policy where it says Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively. I think the way the article reads now is about right. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Chapka, I understand that you feel frustrated and that you have some good faith concerns about this article. Some of your concerns may be legitimate and JoeB and I have already expressed some empathy for some of your concerns. So there is no need to make enemies of us. WP is a collaborative project and is created and maintained via consensus. That requires discussion which sometimes takes days or weeks given the crudeness of typed discussions by part-time volunteers. Also you are somewhat new to WP and may not be familiar with all of the relevant guidelines. Lastly, this is a highly contentious article with a long history of spirited debates on every aspect of the article. Yes it can be improved but what I suggest is to accept the collaboration of other experienced editors by proposing changes and sources here on the talk page before making changes to the article.  I think if you slow down and accept the help and views of others we can make progress. Best, -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 21:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Little mistake
Sentence " When the ADL accused him of anti-Semitism in 1979, he filed a $26-million libel suit; Justice Michael Dontzin of the New York Supreme Court ruled against LaRouche, holding that the ADL's speech was fair comment, and that the facts "reasonably give rise" to that description " is showing up twice in a row in part of article,can someone just delete one ? Thank you. 46.40.21.107 (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC: How should WP:RS be applied to this article?
A particular formulation, that "LaRouche said AIDS had been created by the 'Soviet war machine,' or by the International Monetary Fund to kill 'excess eaters' in Africa," has been re-inserted into the article. This same formulation appears in a number of press citations, but none of them identify the original source document or provide any additional context. They all say that the original source is a "133-page report" which is not identified. The question is whether it is permissible to include this in the article, or whether it violates WP:RS, which says that:
 * ''The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.


 * Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.

See also the preceding discussion thread. 99.146.12.45 (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What is your proposed change to the article? From recent article history, it looks like you simply want to remove the quotes. They are as you say widely reported, so third party observers have found the quotes important. It would be a poor representation of LaRouche if we did not cover that aspect. To get any traction here you should propose some solution which retains the quotes but gives them more context. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll address your question in the previous thread, so as not to take the RfC off-topic. 99.146.12.45 (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You are here at an article talk page where the point is to improve the relevant article. You seem to think that an ivory tower discussion of the meaning of the wording in a guideline is divorced from article content, from article improvement. I say the point is always to determine how best to convey to the reader a fairly brief but sufficiently thorough summary of the topic. Since a lot of press was generated by the LaRouche phrasing about "excess eaters" and "Soviet war machine", both with regard to AIDS conspiracy, I think we must include the quotes in the article.
 * To that end, we are using WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT by citing David Kirp's NYT op-ed piece and not the 133-page report written under LaRouche's authority. If necessary, we can also cite the dry United Press article about the same issues, quoting the same LaRouche quotes. This satisfies the suggestion to look for "neutral corroboration from another source." At that point we are not required to cite the original report. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is entirely accurate to say that "a lot of press was generated by the LaRouche phrasing." Since every source you have linked to uses the identical boilerplate text, I think it would be safe to assume that in reality, a lot a press was generated by a press release issued by opponents of the LaRouche initiative in California. I would be quite surprised if any of the journalists involved had ever laid eyes on the "133-page report." So under the circumstances, these might be considered "partisan secondary sources." As for my proposal to improve the article, it would be to include less detail in the section under discussion, and add more to the linked Main article: California Proposition 64 (1986). There the purported quotes could be supplemented by some of the context I mention at the end of the previous thread. I think it would be useful now if we hear from some uninvolved editors. 99.126.47.148 (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved? I'm pretty darn close to uninvolved. I had never participated on this talk page until two days ago when I responded to your post. In article space, my first edit was last April when I slightly expanded the part about Verdi tuning. Since then I have only played the occasional referee, not adding material but deleting bits that seemed extraneous.
 * You have tried to impeach all the sources by saying they are taken from the same original newspaper article, but the list below shows that only two of the sources are identical. The various editorials have focused on various parts of the LaRouche AIDS initiative, and many of them have elected to quote LaRouche as reported by Doug Willis of the Associated Press—hardly a biased source. David Kirp and Robert Walters each wrote pieces which brought the AP quotes together with new sources of quotes. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I said it appears likely that they are all taken from a press release, since they all use identical quote-fragments and provide no context. Since the dispute is over an edit which you made, I think that under the circumstances you are "involved." The purpose of the RfC is to solicit viewpoints other than yours or mine, so I have taken the liberty of reformatting this page so that we may encourage some outside views. 99.146.13.127 (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't misrepresent the recent article history. People watching this discussion should not lose track of the fact that this Rfc comes from a poorly considered removal the IP-from-L.A. made rather than from the partial reversion and correction I made. The Rfc is for soliciting other opinions but not to the exclusion of mine and the IP's. Note to IP person from L.A: Stop trying to make the question be only about the meaning of WP:RS. If that was your only question, you would have posted it at WP:RSN. Do not refactor the discussion. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem: The AP report is used by multiple members of the AP, but that does not make it multiple sources. As written, it appears the claim is being ascribed to Dr. Laurens White in the anteceding sentences, and does not indicate that the reporter independently read the "report." Editorials clearly tracing back to this AP article do not meet WP:RS for claims of fact, only of opinion of the editorial writers. The quotes should be attributed to White, AFAICT, and not presented as uncontroverted fact. The NYT editorial notes that some "outlandish claims" were removed from a "pamphlet" to be sent to voters, but makes no statement as to what claims were in the proposed pamphlet, which I doubt was 133 pages long. I am sure LaRouche has made many outlandish claims, but Wikipedia requires better sourcing than so far provided. Collect (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: We are already mentioning Seale, and Toumey (Rutgers University Press, 1996) attributes that speculation about a Soviet origin of AIDS to Seale. To my mind, the recent insertion about the Soviet plot is out of place where it is now: it should be part of the sentence mentioning Seale's work, which is already cited to Toumey. From the sources below, I gain the clear impression that LaRouche accused the IMF of having allowed AIDS to flourish, rather than of having created it, as the article currently states. So as this is a BLP, I would recommend speedy remedial work. LaRouche's ideas are idiosyncratic enough without misrepresenting them. Andreas JN 466 20:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . I have no objection to mentioning his accusation that the IMF had allowed the epidemic to spread, not done enough to halt it or whatever, using separate sourcing (Kirp and/or some of the sources listed below). Andreas JN 466 20:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be most accurate to say that he accused the IMF of creating conditions, by demanding a reduction of living standards, which made the populations in Africa more susceptible to diseases old and new. 99.109.198.169 (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Quoted sources, by date

 * Willis, Doug (June 30, 1986). "California AIDS Ballot Measure Alarms Medical Community". Associated Press.
 * AP (July 1, 1986) "AIDS Isolation Proposal Alarms Doctors". The Lewiston Daily Sun, Lewiston, Maine, page 14. (It includes "Soviet war machine" and "excess eaters".)
 * (August 4, 1986) "LaRouche's Epidemic of Fear". The Fresno Bee. (This editorial starts with "Lyndon LaRouche says the Queen of England is a drug pusher..." It includes "Soviet war machine" and "excess eaters".)
 * (August 12, 1986) "State Voters Should Resist the Urge to PANIC". Lodi News-Sentinel, page 4. (This editorial starts with "The name of the group promoting the AIDS measure..." It includes "Soviet war machine" and "excess eaters".)
 * (August 25, 1986) "Lyndon LaRouche Peddles Epidemic of Fear". Lodi News-Sentinel, page 4. (This editorial starts with "Lyndon LaRouche says the Queen of England is a drug pusher..." It is identical to the editorial appearing three weeks earlier in the Fresno Bee.)
 * Kirp, David L. (September 11, 1986). "LaRouche Turns To AIDS Politics". Kirp provides various LaRouche quotes: "Soviet war machine", "excess eaters" (both from the 133-page report according to AP), "a person with AIDS running around is like a person with a machine gun running around" (from a LaRouche radio interview), and "universal screening and isolating or quarantining all individuals in the active carrier states" which I cannot trace.
 * Walters, Robert (October 30, 1986). "LaRouche's PANIC Plot". Point Pleasant Register, page 2. Columnist Walters cites and quotes a 24-page pamphlet from LaRouche, and also uses the previous quotes about "Soviet war machine" and "excess eaters".


 * I'd leave the majority out of the article. To include the numerous sources would give undue weight to one small section of a rather colorful life. Remember, along with quotations, one has to consider undue weight.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again, WP:RS
An editor restored some contested material in this edit, claiming that it came from The Power of Reason, 1988: An Autobiography. As luck would have it, that entire book is available online, at this location: https://ia600304.us.archive.org/5/items/ThePowerOfReason1988AnAutobiography/powerofreason.pdf I did a search of the entire book for both of the quoted phrases, and neither are there. Obviously, the supposed quotes were taken from some other source, which is clearly a less than reliable one. I would request that editors take a little more care in what they do to BLPs, this one in particular. 99.118.151.187 (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you managed to search the book, which is a scanned book with no OCR rendering. Still, if the editor wishes to have the information included, the page and chapter should be mentioned to ensure that the information has a citation that cannot be challenged. I'd consider reading the book, despite some dislike, it's short enough, however, not tonight. I'll be virtually blind within the next ten minutes until this scintillating scotoma is over. We really need to stick with consensus, RfC and reliable citations. Hopefully, I didn't have too many typos here...Wzrd1 (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought the quote appeared first in the autobiography then afterward in the 20 February 1987 issue of Executive Intelligence Review under the title "My program against AIDS" (pages 10–15). If IP 99 does not find it in the autobiography (surprising to me) then we will just go with the EIR article. Binksternet (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly the Executive Intelligence Review is a good source for a quotation regarding LaRouche's views at that time.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I added the URL to the citation that otherwise only pointed to the Wikipedia article on the Executive Intelligence Review. I also corrected the page number in the article where he suggested mandatory quarantine. Finding the article was not difficult, a Google search of "executive intelligence review February 1987" gave me the first listing being the article in question. Now, excuse me, I need to delete that article from my HD, it feels dirty now.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

AIDS created by the Soviet war machine or the IMF
This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=579760795&oldid=579744995 says "named reference." Yes, the reference is named, but it is an opinion piece which cobbles together fragments of purported quotes in an effort to make the subject look ridiculous. RS says that quotations must be handled with care, and in this case there is danger of misrepresentation. If the fragmentary quotes are restored, there should be an effort to find a more complete version, to establish the context in which they appeared, and to find a more verifiable source. 99.106.240.14 (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * LaRouche needs no assistance from professor David Kirp to look ridiculous. That link shows my edit to the article. The edit is best seen in proper context; it is a restoration of Kirp's piece that appeared in the New York Times in 1986. Here is the diff of before you arrived, and after my rework. You can see that I properly formatted and positioned the Kirp piece, and I formatted and positioned the Petit piece. Per WP:RS we do not require our sources to be free from bias. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV we name Kirp as the person holding the opinion. All the policies and guidelines agree with my reworking of your changes.
 * If you have some actionable complaint with regard to RS, then clearly say what it is. For instance, if you have the original quotes of LaRouche which include "Soviet war machine" with regard to AIDS, and "excess eaters" also with regard to AIDS, then please link to them so we can see if Kirp misrepresented them. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My complaint is that the quote-fragments are clearly out of context, by design. Wikipedia policies don't require sources to be free of bias, but they discourage misrepresentation. Since Mr. Kirp provides so little of the original quotes, it would be well nigh impossible to locate the original publications, and besides, in the case of possible BLP violations (which is what this is), the burden of proof is on the person inserting or re-inserting the material. 99.126.44.77 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand that you are not happy with the New York Times opinion piece, written by a professor who is quoting LaRouche. However, you have not brought any evidence of Kirp misrepresenting LaRouche's expressed ideas; it's just your word against the professor's. Wikipedia sides with the published piece rather than the opinion of an anonymous Wikipedia participant. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderstanding Wikipedia policies, including the ones you cite. You mention WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but the POV we are discussing here is not that of Mr. Kirp. It is a POV being attributed to the subject, and we are not given sufficient documentation to establish that the subject's views are being accurately represented. That's why WP:RS says the following:
 * To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted... Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context.
 * If it is still unclear to you how these policies apply to the edit in question, than perhaps a request for comment is in order. 20:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.44.197 (talk)


 * Again you have emphasized the importance of getting the original quote sufficiently correct, enough so that we know Kirp is not misrepresenting LaRouche. Yet you shy away from finding the original quotes—Why? The original is a 133-page report delivered by LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee, the report's purpose being to declare an international conspiracy to make AIDS kill more people. So many news agencies and newspaper editors wrote about these exact quotes that I'm not worried at all about whether Kirp got them right. Your only option here is to find the exact quotes from the 133-page report and cite them. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, what is clear from the links that you provide is that they're all working from the same press release. The formulations, including the fragmentary quotes, are identical, and none of them name the "133-page report." I'm not "shying away from finding the original quotes" -- I simply don't have much to go on in terms of finding them. This is probably one reason that WP:RS says the following:
 * text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.
 * ...which, of course, none of the sources you provided do. 99.146.12.45 (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have had no luck finding the "133-page report." I did find a reference to the IMF and Africa -- the old issues of LaRouche's magazine are searchable online. From this it is apparent that LaRouche blamed the IMF policies for "collapsing the nutrition, health and sanitation levels in Africa," which in turn lowered the population's resistance to disease. The "Soviet" reference is more complicated -- I found an article here which includes a partial translation of a Soviet article alleging that AIDS may have been developed as a bio-weapon at the US biological weapons lab at Fort Detrick (there seems to be an insinuation that the Soviets themselves might have done such a thing, but I don't see an outright accusation.) The article references an earlier article in the LaRouche magazine which claims that the Soviets dominated the World Health Organization, which LaRouche accused of dragging its feet on measures to combat AIDS. These comments are the closest thing I could find to the quote which is presented in the various news clippings you assembled. 99.146.12.45 (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC) I'll only suggest one look at *who* had the largest influence on the IMF during the period in question. That was the US, it was far from being the USSR. Meanwhile, US policy, as established by Reagan was one of ignoring AIDS, as Reagan perceived it as a gay disease, to the point where it was called "GRID" (Gay Rights Individuals Disease). Meanwhile, the LaRouche version of events ignores well reported and documented history and the science of genetics.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted changes to the lede
An editor removed references in the lede to LaRouche's forecast of the 2007 financial crisis, and to Ramsey Clark's comments about his imprisonment. Both of these items have been extensively discussed on this page, as you may see in the archives. The economic forecasts are the reason LaRouche has received global press coverage, and are obviously key to his notability. In the case of Ramsey Clark, he is not just an attorney, he is a former US Attorney General, making his comments more interesting than those of some blogger. 99.122.154.35 (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ramsey Clark's comments are simply too skewed to be used here. He was LaRouche's defense attorney, and his comments are combative and biased. In commenting on the LaRouche case, he was not speaking as the US Attorney General. There is no reason we need to give him such a prominent place in this article.
 * Regarding LaRouche's fame tied to his single correct prediction, I don't see the sources saying so. Yes, they report his prediction, but they do not say specifically that his fame is tied to that.
 * In the ABC-CLIO encyclopedia American Dissidents: An Encyclopedia of Activists, Subversives, and Prisoners of Conscience: An Encyclopedia of Activists, Subversives, and Prisoners of Conscience, there is a biographical entry on LaRouche on page 377. The entry quotes LaRouche who says he is "the most successful forecaster on record since 1956–1957." On page 380, the entry quotes LaRouche again who toots his own horn in March 2009 about what he says was a correct July 25, 2007, prediction of the 2008 financial crisis. In both cases, the encyclopedia authors do not support LaRouche's self-promotional comments; they simply report them. They do not say that LaRouche is well known for his predictions; instead, they identify LaRouche as a "dissident who attacks multiple targets", not as a person who makes predictions.
 * Similarly, the 2011 ABC-CLIO encyclopedia Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History says on page 108 that "LaRouche is the leading neo-fascist politician in the United States." It does not even mention LaRouche's predictions.
 * Since these major encyclopedias do not validate LaRouche's predictions, I see this material as too promotional. As such it is a violation of Wikipedia's WP:Neutral point of view policy. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's been real quiet around these parts since the Arbcom banned the last of the big-time POV warriors, one year ago. I hope that no one is aimin' to revive his tradition. Also, I think it is useless to try to compare Wikipedia with regular encyclopedias, whether "major" or not. Instead, rely on Wikipedia policies such as V and RS. They don't say that you can't use sources from other countries. Also, virtually every comment about LaRouche, whether pro or con, seems pretty "combative and biased." If you want to use that as a standard, you'll reduce the article to a stub. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not one of verifiability or reliability of sources. It is about presenting the topic neutrally. LaRouche is very widely seen as in a negative light, so we tell this to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not uncommon for editors to confuse NPOV with "Negative Point Of View," especially when dealing with BLPs of controversial public figures. There is one point in particular that I will make: there are 1.362 billion people living in China, so when China's state-sponsored press outlets say that LaRouche is a "famous American economist" whose "prediction was vindicated", I am inclined to believe that this is how he is "very widely seen" in that neck of the woods. Likewise Russia and Italy; they may not be quite as large as China, but they are nothing to sneeze at. I am not of the Neocon view that China (or Russia) is the new Evil Empire and that the opinions of Chinese people may be discounted. So therefore, perhaps LaRouche is not notable in your neighborhood for these things, but Wikipedia serves more than just your neighborhood. I will wonder in passing whether you would question the notability of the Ramsey Clark quote if appeared in the lede of the BLP of someone with whom you were politically aligned. Having said all that, I'm going to restore the established version of the lede. As is the normal practice with controversial topics, I would suggest that you seek consensus on the talk page before making any dramatic changes. Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are attacking me for some political alignment? What alignment might that be? If you asked me, I would say my alignment is mainstream scholarly. Our article about LaRouche cannot give the reader the impression that he is respected in the USA where he holds his headquarters. The fact that people outside of his "neighborhood" consider him with greater respect does not increase the effectiveness of LaRouche within his neighborhood. This material you have returned to the lead section is best suited to the article body, since LaRouche is not known the English-speaking world as a person who makes accurate predictions. I bring to your attention that this is the English-language Wikipedia article about him. English-language encyclopedia entries show the state of mainstream thought regarding this fringe character. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that LaRouche gets a lot of press coverage in China and elsewhere would be sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the lede, regardless of the nature of the coverage. Not many minor American political figures get that sort of international attention. The fact that the Chinese sources believe x or y about him does not in any way imply that American sources have a similar view, your assertion notwithstanding. Your suggestion that non-American viewpoints are not "mainstream" is an indication of possible WP:Systemic bias. I'd like to ask you to consider my suggestion that you seek consensus on this page before making controversial changes, rather than engaging in revert warfare (this revert is your third today.) Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * LaRouche cannot be represented as a successful person when that is not his legacy in the USA where he bases his operations. The Chinese are clearly not in touch with this negative viewpoint about him, the viewpoint which can be seen clearly in the ABC-CLIO encyclopedia entries on him. As such, the Chinese opinion is an outlier, not suitable for the lead section. We cannot cherry-pick various bits of LaRouche's global reputation to pick the cream off the top, and paint an inaccurate picture of a man who is respected, when he is not respected in the country of his greatest efforts. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The ABC-CLIO encyclopedia articles that were cited as the source for Binksternet's re-write of the lead paragraph are inadequate sources. The author, Stephen E Atkins, served as associate university libarian for collection management at Texas A&M University, hardly an impressive credential. Wikipedia discourages the use of encyclopedias as sources, favoring secondary sources (see WP:TERTIARY) and it is difficult to learn much about this one because its Wikipedia article (ABC-CLIO) is basically an unsourced stub that has been tagged as promotional. And the sources which Mr. Atkins cites in his article are familiar ones: Dennis King, Chip Berlet, Clara Fraser. The consensus on this talk page has been to use these sources sparingly because they are unusually biased. Calling LaRouche "neo-fascist" in the lead paragraph does not reflect "mainstream" thought and is a clear BLP violation. The pre-Binksternet lead was balanced IMO and I have restored it. If Binksternet wants it to be more negative, let him find a recent assessment from the New York Times or something like that, I wouldn't oppose it. 99.109.196.150 (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The publisher ABC-CLIO is extremely well known for high quality books—they supply universities. You cannot shoot one of the two encyclopedias down because you don't like the author.
 * In your NPOV-violating lead section, the Xinhua URL http://zqb.cyol.com/content/2009-07/24/content_2771606.htm is an interview, so it is not preferred by Wikipedia. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources. The URL http://gb.cri.cn/19224/2008/10/04/3365s2268021.htm is a summary of an op-ed piece in China Daily, no independent reporting. What's missing from the Chinese section of your first reference is the URL for Yong Tang's interview of LaRouche. I find the absence revealing, because the URL shows that LaRouche was interviewed over the phone by reporter Yong Tang, making the interview a WP:PRIMARY source. See April 18, 2005, "U.S. economist: RMB appreciation pressure is a mistake" (in Chinese). Of course, a newspaper article written in April 2005 will not be able to stand as proof that LaRouche is seen as a successful forecaster of the 2008 financial crisis! In later pieces, not used in our LaRouche biography, Yong Tang says some harsh things about LaRouche, for instance in November 2005, "'Global financial crisis is coming': Interview". Before Yong Tang gets to the interview portion, he sums up LaRouche in the following manner, with emphasis added by me:
 * The above-quoted article is not currently used as a source in the biography. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The 'Italy' section of your first reference also has problems. The first reference says LaRouche has been predicting financial collapse since the 1990s. This does not support the statement that LaRouche successfully predicted "unrestricted financial speculation would cause the late-2000s financial crisis," which is what the lead section says. In the 1990s, LaRouche was not pointing to 2008, he was saying collapse was imminent, which it was not. The second Italian reference quotes Mario Borghezio to get an opinion on LaRouche. Borghezio is a convicted arsonist, a racist politician, a conspiracy theorist and an admirer of Qaddafi. Borghezio cannot represent the opinion of all of Italy. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The section in the box is a direct quote from Wikipedia, an earlier version of this article. As such it is not suitable to be used as a source. 173.247.191.211 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I like that early version of the biography, as seen in late November 2005. It's a lot better than the puff piece we have now. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The 'Russia' reference starts with a bit from Terra America, a think tank founded on August 2, 2011, presented to the public as a web portal. The stated mission of Terra America is to rebuild Russia using the most successful parts of America, to "steal" or "abduct" or "kidnap" American ideas to re-invent Russia as a stronger global competitor rather than a satellite of the USA. This is not a reliable source. Furthermore, Кирилл Бенедиктов, Михаил Диунов (Cyril Benedictine and Michael Diunov), the authors of the piece called "The Last Rosicrucian", an interview presented in three parts, have written nothing else for Terra America (list of works written by Cyril Benedictine and Michael Diunov). At any rate, Cyril Benedictine and Michael Diunov write that LaRouche is a lone utopian fated to disappointment, an assessment which goes against the words of Sergei Dyshlevsky, who is next quoted your first reference group saying LaRouche "has been gaining popularity". The second Russian link is from 2002, even though it is listed as "Shishova, Tatiana 'Globalization – The Greatest Scam of the 20th Century' Russia Today, 2007". Clearly, the 2007 year is wrong, as the URL for that is http://archive.russia-today.ru/2002/no_17/17_world_2.htm, published in 2002, number 17. Again, a source from earlier than 2008 cannot support the statement that LaRouche successfully predicted the 2008 financial problems. As well, the Tatiana Shishova piece is an interview, so it is a primary source. Going back to the Sergei Dyshlevsky quote saying LaRouche "has been gaining popularity", this is contradicted by another reference used in our LaRouche biography, the interview of Andrew Fursov. Fursov is asked how influential is LaRouche in Russia, and Fursov replies that LaRouche is not significant, that not many Russians have ever heard of him. Cyril Benedictine and Michael Diunov write in part III of their LaRouche interviews that there was only one main LaRouche supporter in Russia: Professor Taras Vasilievich Muranivsky who joined LaRouche's Schiller Institute in 1991. Cyril Benedictine and Michael Diunov write that the influence of LaRouche in Russia should not be exaggerated, since the Schiller Institute 'office' was just a one-bedroom apartment at the periphery of Moscow, containing only one computer and "littered" with copies of LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review. Cyril Benedictine and Michael Diunov write that Russian reaction to LaRouche is skeptical and cautious. So your Russian sources are a combination of contradiction, incorrect date, primary interviews and unreliability. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Has anybody else here noticed that the IPs commenting here geolocate to Los Angeles where LaRouche has his base of operations? Apparently there are LaRouche staffers who are tasked with keeping this biography as positive as possible. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Apparently"? I resent the cheap innuendo. Are you not capable of honestly discussing this article? According the article, LaRouche's base of operations is in Virginia. Where you got Los Angeles is a mystery to me. 173.247.191.211 (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that multiple IPs are being used to bypass Wikipedia's policies against multiple reversions, and these IPs possibly indicate the hand of a registered user who has been blocked or banned. The L.A. area LaRouche people include LaRouche youth activist Cody Jones, and Maureen Calney of American System Publications, a LaRouche press. Going forward, I will consider all Los Angeles IPs to be the same person in terms of arguments and reversions. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At Long-term abuse/Herschelkrustofsky, we can see that LaRouche POV editor Herschelkrustofsky has been connected to IPs editing in the Greater Los Angeles area, including Glendale, Garden Grove, El Monte, Santa Monica, Burbank, and even an American System Publications IP located in Sherman Oaks. I'm serious when I say that IPs from L.A. will be considered one person, that person likely User:Herschelkrustofsky, a banned editor. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If we could dial back the WP:BATTLE attitude a little, it would be helpful. Speculation about the motives or RL identities of the editors you regard as your opponents, for example. Also, before you get too excited, you have been reverted by an IP a total of one time, so it doesn't require much number crunching. I didn't see a response to my suggestion, that if you feel the need for more negativity in the lede, find a recent quote from the New York Times to the effect that LaRouche is some kind of weirdo and I would have no problem with that. One correction: when an interview is accompanied by a biographical sketch, as is the case with the cited Chinese and Russian sources, the bio is a secondary, not a primary source. 99.126.45.13 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care who edits here as long as it is not anybody who has been banned from editing. That's not battleground mentality, it is protecting Wikipedia from abuse. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The mentions of his economic predictions are too much for the lede, but I think your attempt to label him a "neo-facist" in the lede runs severely afoul of BLP. Just because you can find a source making this evaluation of his political views does not make it acceptable to add such an allegation to the lede of this BLP.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Fursov
I fear the accuracy of the claims attributed to him might suffer from bad or mistranslation. AFIACT,  Fursov said that LaRouche is little known in Russia, but that it is not the "quality but the quantity" that counts. is probably several times more accurate. We must always avoid accidental mistranslations, alas. Collect (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fursov was saying that there was very little quantity of interest, that LaRouche was not significantly influential in Russia, but a few people knew a lot about him, these few being the "quality" factor. It remains that Fursov's analysis was that LaRouche was not significant in Russia. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah -- he said it was the "quality and not the quantity" which counts -- thanks -- I think that is a great deal more accurate than your preceding paraphrase of that interview. Collect (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat confusing, because the article text presently reads it is not the "quality but the quantity" that counts, which is the opposite of what Collect just said. This should be clarified.
 * Binksternet, I see that you have deleted a comment on this page, citing an Arbcom decision. Could you kindly link to the page where the ArbCom issued a finding that IP editor 173.247.191.211 is actually Hershelkrustofsy? Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think any editor from SoCal who fights for positive coverage of LaRouche is very likely to be our banned friend Krusty. What do you think? Binksternet (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I really have no idea, but then again, my opinion here doesn't matter because I'm not a member of ArbCom. My point here is that neither of us ought go around assuming the authority to act on behalf of ArbCom -- I believe that there is an established mechanism for the enforcement of ArbCom decisions. We don't need vigilantism. Joe Bodacious (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So you think we should let a banned editor take part in discussion? One who is not allowed to edit anonymously? Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My Russian is weak which is why I asked at the RefDesk for a correct translation -- I believe Binksternet said that the second case was his translation, but it does not comport with his original wording for the articles. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Amble brought up the question about Fursov's reliability in the Reference desk discussion. Should we ditch Fursov? Binksternet (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest dropping the line about quality vs. quantity; it seems irrelevant in the section of the article where it appears. It's also unavoidably vague because Fursov is deliberately hedging his answer.  We may be able to use Fursov's opinion on whether LaRouche is fascist and why he is sometimes described in those terms.  This is on point for the part of the Wikipedia article where Fursov is cited, and his opinion is very clearly stated.  The only question is whether Fursov has the credentials to justify relying on him (and I have no idea about that, I was just raising the question).  --Amble (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Fursov was definitely hedging his answer. He said he would not go so far as to say LaRouche was significant in Russia because not many knew about him. However, those who knew of him were significant. In another article by the same media source, the think tank / web portal Terra America, the article authored by the same guy—Kyril or Cyril Benedictine—says that LaRouche was a dissident fated to political failure, a "lone utopian in an age of disappointment in any utopia." (See "The Last Rosicrucian, Part II": Original Russian. Machine translation to English.) In his third installment, Benedictine says LaRouche's strength in Russia should not be overestimated: "With all that exaggerate the influence of structures LaRouche Russia would be wrong." (See "The Last Rosicrucian, Part III": Original Russian. Machine translation to English.) The general drift of this media source is that LaRouche has many interesting ideas but is still not widely known in Russia. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Problem is the original claim was that LaRouche was "insignificant" and now it appears that he is quite significant ... either we either use what he says or we have to discredit him with a reliable source. Collect (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, he does not look significant. Fursov said he would not agree that LaRouche is significant. Then he waffled and said LaRouche was significant among those who knew of him. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem possibly to be inferring that which is not explicitly in the material. Collect (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * These articles look very interesting, but the computer translations are in some parts incomprehensible. Would the people at the reference desk have time to do more extensive translations? Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the Google automatic translation of the Benedictine/Fursov interview: 

Here is a portion of the above from Amble at the Reference desk:
 * "I wouldn't rush to say 'significant'. I think that in Russia not so many people know of Larouche, although, of course, the important thing is not the quantity, but the quality."

This interchange makes it clear that Fursov does not agree with Benedictine's statement/question that "a significant number of our Russian intellectuals" used LaRouche's ideas consciously or unconsciously. Fursov says not so many intellectuals in Russia know about LaRouche. Then he hedges his denial by asserting that the number of intellectuals, though not significant as a number, is nevertheless significant because of quality. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Curiously enough, I do not find the same inference you find. In fact I get the clear implication that LaRouche is significant precisely because of how important ("quality") his followers are.  In that case, he is not "hedging his denial" but expounding on what he means.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "I wouldn't rush to say 'significant.'" That part is the key. It's the first thing out of Fursov's mouth. Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And how do you get from that to "it is insignificant"?   Seems quite a leap in English and I suspect an equal leap in Russian.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm equally at a loss to explain how you got to a positive "significant" conclusion. I just don't see it. Fursov said he would not rush to say LaRouche was significant, yet you think the opposite. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I simply used what he said -- rather than trying to infer "hedging" in his words, I took them at face value. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I still can't see the relevance of this part of the Fursov interview. The section is about whether LaRouche is a fascist, who says so, and why.  Why do we need a digression on whether Russians have heard of him?  It seems to me not to matter.  --Amble (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right about the Fursov section which is now in the article. I guess I was responding to the fact that Benedictine was in the article for a long time to support the notion that LaRouche is well known in Russia. The sequence went like this: Waalke [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=477567906&oldid=477546451 added a sentence to the lead section] in February 2012, with some supporting refs. Waalke was under pressure from other editors to get rid of the bit, so the next step was apparently the beefing up of the cite with more material [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=489264359&oldid=488873225 in April 2012]. Benedictine appeared in this second edit to support the notion that LaRouche is well known. I wanted to make sure that the Benedictine/Fursov interview was seen to contradict the other Benedictine/Diunov article. I don't think it is such a slam-dunk—Waalke's notion that LaRouche is well known outside of the US for his economic predictions. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I understand this article has a complex and contentious history.  If anything, shouldn't that part of the interview be used in the section "2003–2012: Overseas press coverage, financial crisis"? --Amble (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fursov does have an article in Russian Wikipedia: ru:Фурсов, Андрей Ильич. He does seem to have some real credentials.  --Amble (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like Fursov is a full member of the International Academy of Science. We can forgive him his mistake identifying two people who share the same name. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And what is the International Academy of Science? Is it a well-known or prestigious organization?  It has an impressive name, but of course that doesn't mean much.  If it's this International Academy of Science then I could get full membership today, online. --Amble (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I believe it's this one. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's probably that one... or at least the Innsbruck affiliate of that one. Still doesn't mean much to me.  --Amble (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Since there continues to be quarreling over the Fursov translation, I'll provide a link to the discussion at RefDesk. People should resist the temptation to "spin" what was said there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2014_January_10#Russian_translation  Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Amble's point is valid, that this bit should be removed from its current location in the article, as it does not fit the reading flow. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- IIRC you insisted on it when you used a mistranslation, and now think the correct translation is not what you like? I find that disingenuous indeed -- if the source was good enough for you when you misused it, it should be good enough when it is accurately used.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Length of article
Just noticed that the length of this article on the relatively obscure Mr. LaRouche is about the same length as our article on George Washington. So much for WP:UNDUE. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I fear it is the odd application of NPOV which makes for long BLPs for controversial figures.  He is not, however, all that "obscure" although his number of followers is relatively small, he has lots of mentions in the media over the years.  NYT search function finds 754 hits for him in their database, and about 40 "real hits" in Google News.  Questia finds him in 99 books,  5 academic journal articles, 51 magazine articles and 164 newspaper articles in the one database.   Collect (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but by just about any measure, the guy's a minor curiosity. Reminds me of the bloated articles we have on professional wrestlers (detailing their various story-lines) many of whom will be better remembered by the general public in thirty years time than LaRouche will be. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is beyond ridiculous, not only in it's length but in it's nearly promotional style. — TimL &bull; talk 00:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The promotional style has to go, of course. LaRouche's role as a media curiosity is why he's so easily found in reliable sources. He's a freak of politics; quoting him sells papers. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

First, a friendly reminder that this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Then an observation: although LaRouche gets relatively little press coverage in the U.S. (as opposed to the extensive and much more negative coverage he got itn the 80s), he gets substantial coverage outside the U.S., particularly in Russia and China (and in today's world, I think it would be foolish to discount the importance of those two nations.) This is not typical of fringe figures in the U.S. As an experiment I did a search for coverage of Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, and Ross Perot in Russian and Chinese Google News. Ron Paul gets a fair amount of coverage, though probably not as much as LaRouche. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader get considerably less. Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * First a friendly reminder that this is not a forum on LaRouche and then you start discussing his supposed notability? Unbelievable. — TimL &bull; talk 09:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Interviews and original research
This is for the benefit of 69.243.1.208 who is presumably a new editor and unfamiliar with policy. This editor is edit-warring to restore this material, which comes from an interview. We stay away from using interviews as source material (see WP:PRIMARY.) We avoid using primary sources because it puts the Wikipedia editor in the position of selecting a few sentences from a long interview, because that editor finds them appealing, or hopes to make some sort of point. Instead, we prefer secondary sources, because some author with credentials and/or editorial oversight, whose identity may be verified by Wikipedia readers, is making an informed decision that the lines in question are of particular interest. See also No original research. Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead too short
I have tagged this article because the lead is much too short. I came here to learn about LaRouche's political philosophies, hoping they'd be in the lead. The article is 187,296 bytes before my tag and WP:LEADLENGTH would suggest that the lead be at least 4 paragraphs. As I know nothing about this topic, I felt a tag was better than WP:SOFIXIT. Would people following this page be so kind as to add to the lead? Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a separate article on LaRouche's political philosophies, Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. Up until the end of last year there was a longer lead for this article which I thought was better, but there was an unfortunate edit war, which apparently could only be ended by adopting the present super-short lead. Here's a link to the older version: Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! I'll check out that article.  This page still really does need a longer lead though.  But I can understand why edit wars might occur here. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Fursov redux
Volunteer Marek has removed the Fursov quote on the grounds that "he is a crazy conspiracy theorist who thinks the Boston Marathon bombing was orchestrated by the US government." I did a web search and I found no evidence that he has said that. I did find that he has said some things about Ukraine which are likely to run counter to Volunteer Marek's ideology. If there is a reliable source saying that he said something weird about the Boston Marathon (either than that the US ignored intel provided by the Russians, which is common knowledge,) please post it. If there is reliable secondary source that is BLP-worthy and says Fursov is a nut, please provide a link to that. Otherwise, please refrain from deleting sourced material which has already been extensively debated, translated, etc. on this talk page. Joe Bodacious (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * . Sigh. You made me link and give google juice to stuff that's better unlinked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Searching through the Talk page and archives leads me to believe there has never been a consensus to add Andrey Fursov to this article. So I would wait until one develops, or just leave it out. There have been many attempts to put 'reviews' in this article that were nothing more than LaRouche paid advertisements or Schilling Institute ravings. Dave Dial (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the source in question, http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fterra-america.ru%2Fintellektuali-nazivaushie-larusha-fashistom-ne-yavlyautsya-intellektualami.aspx and what I'm wondering is has anyone that can read Russian verify any of this? Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. However the source isn't being quoted. A machine translation of the source is being quoted. There is no indication that this is a machne tranlation until you click the link. Further per WP:NOENG at the section "Quoting non-English sources" it specifically says not to use machine translations for Biographies of living persons.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The matter of translation was a subject of a previous discussion. I can't find the link right now, I can post it later. If you type in "Fursov" into the search archives box in the talk page templates above you can find it - a few clicks away. The point though - and this was the point made in that previous discussion - is that regardless of whether Fursov is being translated correctly or not, he is simply not a reliable source of the kind that you'd want to include in an Encyclopedia article. Because he's a conspiracy guy and all. Who thinks that the Boston Marathon bombings were the work of US government. And other stuff (that discussion took place, IIRC, before the Boston Marathon bombings and it concerned other wacky things he said). So it really doesn't matter if it's being translated correctly or not. It's just WP:FRINGE stuff.
 * The only way I can see of including that quote is if we say "According to the conspiracy theorist Fursov..." or something like that. But per WP:BLP it just makes more sense to leave it out altogether.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The BLP violation is a bigger deal. I'm not familiar with his fringe views on the Boston bombing but I would have to review them. Honestly since it's unrelated to the topic at hand I'm not sure that disaqualifies him. He is apparently a well known Russian Historian. Without verifying your position that is what comes to mind.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess that depends on how you define "well known Russian Historian". None of the Russian historians I know of take him seriously or are even aware of him. He's got a degree though I guess.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't define that. And really you haven't offered up much to define that with. You mention his fringe positions. I'm just not sure calling the world flat removes your reliability to call the moon round. That be a long and painful conversation that I honestly feel you want to have and certainly I don't want to have it. The above policies I mention however offer a pretty straight forward case. That case can be worked around by for instance offering something other than a mchine translation. But then in the case that there's more to look at. If this machine translation were acceptable I would ask what is the relevence and what is being said. His opinion on Western critics of LaRocuhe may fall under being a significant minority POV but in that case a question of notability Pops up. But "Fursov said that in Russia not so many people know of Larouche, although, of course, the important thing is not the quantity, but the quality." I'm not sure what that means. I have assumptions but I think as this seems to be a primary source and the assumptions would basically be original research. I missing the relevence behind it's inclusion. A small undetermined group in Russia like LL. But then as I said I don't have a proper translation to really ask anything. But I think we both currently agree that this shouldn't be in the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, if you would be so kind as to scroll up the page just a little, or click here if you prefer, you can find the first Fursov discussion, which didn't happen all that long ago. The translation is not by a computer, it was made by User:Amble at the Russian Reference Desk. I followed the link to Marek's video and I am unimpressed -- what he says is ambiguous and could be easily interpreted as a claim that the US simply exploited the bombings to change the subject from other, more embarrassing topics. Compare that to some of the truly outlandish claims by Chip Berlet or Dennis King which are all over this article -- and neither of them is a credentialed academic. Since we are giving so much weight to those claims, I think it is appropriate under NPOV (if we can't simply remove them under BLP) to allow Fursov to rebut them. We can't call Fursov a conspiracy theorist based on Marek's opinion, due to the rule against Original Research. In fact, I'm still waiting for any reliable secondary source that might discredit Fursov. Joe Bodacious (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You sourced it to a machine translation. When someone clicks your source they go to the machine translation. "Fursov said that in Russia not so many people know of Larouche, although, of course, the important thing is not the quantity, but the quality." I wondering how this is relevent. It really sounds like inane banter. As far as the rest of what he says, I'm sure why it should be removed even if he is a conspiracy theorist. The question I would pose is if he's represnts a significant view point ( minority or otherwise). Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't source it to anything, I'm not the one who added it. The line for which you are wondering about relevance was added much later by Binksternet, who mistakenly thought that it was negative and was therefore eager to add it. User:Amble was asked to clarify the translation, and it turned out that it meant something different than what Binksternet thought. As far as I am concerned, that sentence is useless and should be removed. The part about people who call LaRouche a fascist should stay, as long as we are also quoting the people who call LaRouche a fascist. Joe Bodacious (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaking we have a consensus here to leave out, "Fursov said that in Russia not so many people know of Larouche, although, of course, the important thing is not the quantity, but the quality." As for the machine translation as a source you were the last person to restore that information so it does really follow you. If you go to restore it at any point use the original source instead of the machine translation. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a consensus to omit that section. The section which was there earlier, where Fursov refutes the Dennis King claim that LaRouche was secretly a fascist, should stay under NPOV, unless the King claim is also removed. The only argument that has been offered against the Fursov quote is Volunteer Marek's personal opinion, based on a tortured interpretation of a YouTube video, that Fursov is "fringe." Dennis King's book is available online and I have read parts of it -- King jumps to the wildest and most extraordinary conclusions based on the wispiest evidence, which to me is the hallmark of a conspiracy theorist, AKA "fringe." King also has no credentials of any sort that I am aware of, whereas Fursov has a Phd in History, is the Director of Russian Studies at Moscow University, and is a member of the International Academy of Sciences. Under the circumstances, I can think of no policy-based reason to retain King's BLP-problematic accusation while excluding Fursov's refutation. I hope that some of the edit-warriors who have been deleting it will provide us here with some explanation. Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Small corrections: Fursov is affiliated with the Moscow Institute for the Humanities; and it's not at all clear that membership in the International Academy of Sciences is a meaningful credential. --Amble (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have participated extensively in this discussion, and provided policy-based reasoning for including the original Fursov quote. The two of you have avoided the discussion like the plague, and simply reverted on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. I think that it is time you demonstrated good faith and provided some sort of rationale. Under the circumstances, I think it is particularly ironic that DD2K continually reverts using "no consensus" as an edit summary (and then leaves an "edit war" warning on my talk page.) I've been watching these LaRouche-related pages for a couple of years now and what jumps out at me is that Fursov's view is highly characteristic of coverage of LaRouche in the establishment media of Russia and China, whereas in the establishment media of the U.S. and Europe the typical denunciations of LaRouche have grown much milder over the past several decades. It seems that there are some editors here that are nostalgic for the 1980s and want to make Wikipedia a showcase for Dennis King, etc. But NPOV dictates that we include all significant points of view "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias." Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not been discussing the issue here because Volunteer Marek, Amble and Serialjoepsycho have been bringing up the points I am concerned with.
 * Coverage of LaRouche has not grown milder. LaRouche is an old man now but he is still injecting controversy into the world. In the 2010 book Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices, editor Roger Chapman selected Chip Berlet to write the section on LaRouche. Berlet does not describe LaRouche in "milder" terms. See page 315. Editor Kathlyn Gay does not describe LaRouche in "milder" terms in the 2011 book American Dissidents: An Encyclopedia of Activists, Subversives, and Prisoners of Conscience: An Encyclopedia of Activists, Subversives, and Prisoners of Conscience. Gay says on pages 377 to 380 that LaRouche continues to engage in confrontational politics in the 2000s, comparing Obama to Hitler, continuing with his charge that Jews are conspiring to take over the world, and that US and UK banking policies are fascist. Gay's sources include LaRouche's own writing as recent as 2010, and writing about LaRouche from Marc Ambinder's 2009 article in Atlantic, Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons in the 2000 book Right-wing Populism in America, and April Witt from a 2004 article in the Washington Post Magazine. She also uses the Dennis King book, showing that it still has relevance. In any case, there is no factual basis for your assertion that LaRouche is denounced in a "milder" fashion in recent years. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You have participated, but you refuse to listen. There have been several long time editors that have objected to adding this to the article. Whether the reasons are WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. Just because you believe the reasons aren't good enough, doesn't mean you can edit war to continually add the disputed section. Once it's challenged, you should not re-add the disputed material until consensus is formed. Or you can take the issue to another venue. But to refuse the reasoning of other editors, while continuing to insert the disputed material is edit warring. And will eventually lead to a block, topic ban or both. Dave Dial (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. It's difficult to reach consensus without any discussion. First, I'd like to point out that neither of you are offering a reason to exclude the Fursov material. Marek said that in his personal opinion, Fursov was a "fringe" commentator, but of course, Wikipedia requires secondary sources and prohibits original research. As far as I can see, that was the end of that particular argument. Binksternet, your listing of WP:TERTIARY sources that include Berlet's POV is not an argument for excluding Fursov's POV. DD2K, you are citing WP:CONSENSUS, but you may have missed the part that says "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." Joe Bodacious (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not even try to support a Fursov exclusion because it is the burden of the person who wants to include disputed text to argue for inclusion, and I don't see your view catching fire here. What I did instead is rebut your assertion that a neutral portrayal of LaRouche should be "milder" than what we now have. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Allow me to refresh your memory about two things: WP:BURDEN says that the person who adds disputed material must demonstrate that it is verifiable, and I don't think that verifiability is being disputed here. It doesn't say that the person who adds disputed text must make everyone WP:LIKE it. Secondly, WP:CONSENSUS says this: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." So, once again, the fact that you and DDK2 don't like the material does not absolve you of the responsibility to present policy-based reasons why you think it should be excluded. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's WP:UNDUE emphasis! First, it's from a Russian source which gives the reader a false sense that LaRouche has a strong base in Russia. Kyril or Cyril Benedictine, Fursov's interviewer and the author of the article, says in a different article that the size of the LaRouche movement in Russia should not be exaggerated. (See "The Last Rosicrucian, Part III"). Second, Fursov's comment itself has no substance; it is just a put-down. We don't need to tell the reader that Fursov gets irritable with regard to intellectuals who call LaRouche a fascist. The reader doesn't care a fig about Fursov's opinion on the matter. If the reader was interested in the fascist label as applied to LaRouche, they would want to know why it is applied to LaRouche, not whether Fursov gets irritated. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting reasoning, since the article is full of similar "put-downs" of LaRouche by his opponents, also without explanation. I have read chunks of King and Berlet on-line, and they appear to be asserting that they have telepathic powers, since LaRouche claims to be crusading against fascism and the two of them claim that secretly LaRouche likes fascism, which they can ascertain by hearing "echoes" and "coded language." It all strikes me as decidedly fringe-y. As far as LaRouche being popular in the Russian establishment press (I never claimed he had some sort of mass movement there,) see Lyndon LaRouche. Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue whether LaRouche should be described as a fascist you should start another discussion topic. Of course, I would point out that it's far more than just Berlet and King who say this. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You pick and choose(cherry pick) texts within policy almost as much as you and Waalkes pick and choose parts of an interview to include in this article. It's undue weight, and as another editor stated, if we were to even consider inserting anything concerning Fursov's small mention of LaRouche, other measures would need to be included as well. The fact that you continue to ignore objections and try to use portions of policy to support you ignoring those objections, seems to be an underlying tactic by more than a 'few' LaRouche editors. As it seems both you and Waalkes have almost exclusively edited articles concerning LaRouche, this is getting very tendentious. Dave Dial (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a credible argument. First of all, I didn't add the Fursov quote, but it's obvious why that quote was selected for that section, which is entitled "Allegations of fascism, anti-Semitism, and racism." It's a view, directly on that topic, by a notable commentator. As far as citing of policy is concerned, that is exactly what we're supposed to be doing. The few times you have cited policy, you have gotten it wrong, which is why I felt obliged to quote the relevant sections in hopes that you would gain a better understanding of the policies you were citing. And don't characterize me as a "LaRouche editor" -- that's a cheap trick to imply COI. I watch a number of articles about political dissidents, but I see a lot more POV shenanigans on the LaRouche articles than on the others. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * |Waalkes&project=en.wikipedia&toplimit=10#top Bullshit. Dave Dial (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I ran those programs with my name and yours, and my name and Binksternet's, and got much the same results. So I'm not at all sure what your point is here, unless it is simply to express your unwillingness to use this talk page for the purposes of improving the article. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Per DD2K's suggestion I have taken this to another venue, WP:NPOVN. Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm currently feeding on a diet of Red Herrings and with Cherries. Yet, I cannot see any policy based reason for the exclusion of the quote. Waalkes (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPN regarding "controversial" in first sentence
I have posted there concerning using Wikipedia's voice to call LaRouche "controversial". This violates WP:LABEL, and in turn, WP:BLP. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it. There is no question that the man has been controversial, but that cannot be in the lede, and it cannot be "said" in Wikipedia's voice. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it can. The fact that LaRouche is controversial is widely known, not a matter of dispute. The possible sources supporting the word "controversial" are legion, and we cited one of them in the first sentence.
 * The word "controversial" is apt, and should be returned. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's probably the least of the descriptors one could use in the lede. This is not a BLP issue. There can surely be a discussion about what descriptors to use in the lede, but to pretend it's a BLP issue to describe a controversial figure as "controversial" is a step into fantasy land. Dave Dial (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope. We (as in we, the supposedly neutral Wikipedia editors) cannot flat out call someone "controversial" so that the people who read the article think we've poured our negative opinion of the subject into the intro, no less. We can say something like "LaRouche's (career, views, eating habits, whatever) is considered to be controversial by XYZ" followed by a good set of citations. That's what WP:NPOV exists to enforce - avoiding passing judgement on a subject. "Controversial" is as inappropriate there as "brilliant" would be, which I assume would be removed without hesitation if a fan of his politics decided to add it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Both "controversial" and "brilliant" may be appropriate for rare biographies. This one is most certainly appropriate for "controversial". LaRouche is so controversial that people use him in passing as an obvious example of someone who is controversial, despite the text being about something completely different. Here are some sources specifically about LaRouche:
 * LaRouche's own biography, published by his own organization, says he ranks "among the most controversial international political figures of his time".
 * Respected military historian H. Paul Jeffers writes, "The protesters were led and organized by and consisted mainly of supporters of Lyndon LaRouche, a controversial political figure." Freemasons: A History and Exploration of the World's Oldest Secret Society, page 107, Citadel Press, 2005.
 * John M. Allswang, Professor of History at California State University, Los Angeles, wrote that "the leaders of these proposition campaigns were primarily political rather than medical figures, and none of them was more controversial than Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr." The Initiative and Referendum in California: 1898–1998, page 190, Stanford University Press, 2000.
 * That's just a start. I can fill the page with this stuff. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When I submitted Vaillancourt Fountain for GA review, I got mild criticism for including 8 or 9 references calling the fountain "controversial" so I trimmed the references back a bit. In this case, I think it would be an easy matter to find scores of references calling LaRouche "controversial". It might be difficult to find any in-depth coverage of LaRouche in reliable independent sources that doesn't use the word "controversial" or a close synonym. We should summarize what reliable sources say, and this characterization seems completely justified.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no issue with using controversial. The MOS is about the effect and usage of words. How do you think this usage has introduced bias?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the controversial word before checking Talk and seeing there is a discussion about it. But I obviously also believe it shouldn't be there. Not for any BIAS reasons but because it tells us nothing. (Every activist and politician is controversial). The lede needs to say what his position is and who opposes it. "Controversial" tells us absolutely nothing about him or his positions. Ashmoo (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The word controversial in the lede smacks the reader in the face with a non-neutral point-of-view. The controversy will flow from the documentation in the article, to include it in the lede undermines the encyclopedic neutrality we strive for.Jacona (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What makes the word "controversial" non-neutral? When the whole world including LaRouche agrees that LaRouche is controversial, the word as applied to him is neutral. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Left Proto Fascists
Fascism is by nature a reactionary right wing phenomenon. To call it left-fascism is contradictory and eclectic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:309E:D2BE:3A43:8540 (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really have an opinion on this, but FWIW Wikipedia has an article on Left-wing fascism. Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that it is not uncommon for rival groups of leftists to call each other left-fascists. Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Modern Fascism originated 100 years ago when the question of how to respond to the outbreak of World War I disrupted socialist organizations. Benito Mussolini had been a leading Socialist Party activist and newspaper editor when he was ousted for nationalist support of the war. He then founded the fascist movement. Fascism originated, then, as a specific nationalist variant of revolutionary socialism. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources can call it that. Reliable sources can be contradictory and eclectic. Your original research not withstanding.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fascism as radical socialism is not a new idea or "original reseach". For example, Jonah Goldberg's recent book "Liberal Fascism" explores this.  He argues that fascism was leftist, but was labeled "right wing" because of its refusal to give allegiance to the Comintern in Moscow. DonPMitchell (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversial?
Is it really appropriate to describe the subject as "controversial" without any additional qualifiers or explanation in the lead sentence? IMHO this is not NPOV at all it would be best to take out the word "controversial" and leave it to the rest of the article or in a separate paragraph below the first in the introduction. Laval (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Lyndon LaRouche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/upload/91214_1.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for larouchein2004.net/pages/questions/youth/030201penn004.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://larouchepac.com/pages/writings_files/2006/060917_bernard_lewis_prt.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 12:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#109_BLP_articles_labelled_.22Climate_Change_Deniers.22_all_at_once WP:BLPN] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers WP:CFD] the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Lyndon LaRouche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.main-rheiner.de/region/objekt.php3?artikel_id=2793524

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 07:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Fully protected...
I have locked down the article for 3 days; please continue the discussion. Lectonar (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Lyndon LaRouche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121112145307/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pat-lynch to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pat-lynch

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 21:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sources
Why were the sources removed? And why were they removed selectively (other material sourced to New York Times, Wall Street Journal etc. were left in the article)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B1BF:8E80:2033:528F:22D2:D761 (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Christopher Toumey
This article seems to rely heavily on commentary by someone named Christopher Toumey. Who is he, and what makes him an authority? The source links seem to be broken -- they all lead to something that says "Toumey 1996", but that's the end of the line. What is "Toumey 1996"? Not the original Jack Bruce (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Toumey, a cultural anthropologist, published Conjuring Science: Scientific Symbols and Cultural Meanings in American Life in 1996, which discusses LaRouche's claims about AIDS and his false assertions of scientific authority (pp. 84-95). Xelkman (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me
Ten days ago I tried to initiate a discussion about a source that appears frequently in this article, Christopher Toumey, who seems to have no stature as a commentator. Also, the quotes from him in the article cannot be verified online. It looked to me to be something that fell short of Wikipedia's policies on sourcing. Ten days have gone by and there has been zero response on this page. Meanwhile, some fellow has repeatedly deleted a huge swath of the article with no discussion at all, including material that is sourced to serious news publications with a circulation in the millions. I thought that the policy was to discuss any major changes in an article. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia seems to me to be playpen for people who do whatever they damn well please, with no responsible oversight. How could anyone take it seriously? Not the original Jack Bruce ([=[User talk:Not the original Jack Bruce|talk]]) 14:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * At least five experienced generalist editors have reverted this hagiographic content, . There is no consensus for its inclusion. On the other hand, you show all the signs of being a "throwaway" single purpose account engaged in a slow motion edit war determined to keep this stuff in the article, and not a person who is here for the broad purpose of improving the encyclopedia. This is not another LaRouche controlled publication. Your efforts are unlikely to work here. Sorry. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors should assume WP:Good Faith. The problem seems to be whether or not to keep content that was removed in February 2016, the content had been there since at least January 2014. Perhaps it would be helpful for editors either wanting to keep or remove material to expand on theirs reasons why on this talk page rather than in the confines of an edit comment. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is clear to me that this article needs trimming. It is too long. The thing that struck me was that it seems to rely on "indy" commentators who may not be reliable sources. I identified one of these commentators, Christopher Toumey, in a post on this talk page, and waited to see what others would say, because that seemed like the most responsible way to proceed. No one responded. Then an editor came along and without initiating any discussion, deleted a very large segment of the article. I reverted the deleting, making a request for discussion on the talk page, which was ignored. A second editor deleted again, saying (in an edit summary, not on the talk page) that the sources were sketchy. Among these "sketchy" sources were the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, UPI, Xinhua, People's Daily, and Russia Today, all major publications.


 * One of the deleting editors left a message on my talk page in which he advised me to read BRD (he later denied having left that message.) I read BRD. It advises editors to make a "bold" edit (deleting a sizeable part of an article seems to qualify) and then "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version." It also says "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante)." As well, it says "Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion"." None of these policies were followed by the deleting editors. I would be happy to discuss proposed deletions and if reasonable explanations are offered, I won't object. I would also like to get a response to my question about Christopher Toumey. Not the original Jack Bruce (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've answered your question in the previous section. This took me less than five minutes of searching on Google. Xelkman (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on content removal
Removal one and edit comment:
 * diff1 - rmvd unreliable sources

Removal two and edit comment:
 * diff2 - rmvd completely unsourced section

Edit war
please discuss the merits of inclusion and omission instead of edit warring. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't moan at me about edit-warring when I've made only one edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to single anyone out in particular. If you check the history you if see their is no consensus for inclusion or omission, and there has been over ten reverts. Why do you think the material should be included or omitted? Jonpatterns (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2016
Under section ===Teaching and the National Caucus of Labor Committees===. In the second paragraph:

"Leaving Wohlforth's group, LaRouche briefly joined the rival Spartacist League before announcing his intention to build a new "Fifth International"."

Should be changed to

"Leaving Wohlforth's group, LaRouche briefly joined the rival Spartacist League before announcing his intention to build a new "Fifth International"."

98.26.10.137 (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 01:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Do selective deletions of material make this article non-neutral?
In February, a large amount of material was deleted from Lyndon LaRouche. The only explanation offered, in one of the edit summaries, was that the sources were "sketchy". Among the sources for the deleted material were the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Corriere della Sera, and Xinhua. Other material sourced to these same publications was retained in the article. The deleted material depicted the subject in a relatively favorable light, while the retained material was unfavorable. Requests for an explanation on the talk page have gone unanswered. Should this article be considered non-neutral and display the "neutrality dispute" message? 75.27.248.232 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=703959707&oldid=703959318 2602:304:B1BF:8E80:949E:1039:4EE1:D41C (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the article has not been made non-neutral by the removal of text which tried to make LaRouche seem like a respected thought leader in global politics when he is actually a fringe character. It's not the removal in February that made this article non-neutral, it was the much earlier additions of such text. So the removals fixed the problem. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So, just to be clear: in your few, the source, for example New York Times, is not the problem, but rather that the viewpoint was incorrect? So we retain the negative comments from that source, but purge the positive comments? That's an odd approach to neutrality. 2602:304:B1BF:8E80:949E:1039:4EE1:D41C (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There was one statement sourced to The New York Times : a Mexican official told The New York Times that LaRouche had arranged the meeting by representing himself as a Democratic Party official. That's hardly a positive statement. The problem is that it was included in a larger block of content misrepresenting LaRouche as a major figure in world politics by throwing out a whole bunch of insignificant meetings. See WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. clpo13(talk) 16:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No, that diff shows a badly needed purge of WP:NPOV-violating content. VQuakr (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Summoned by the bot, It is reasonable to delete the unsourced content which the removed section had several. But there were sourced content in that section too, and I don't think they should be removed along with the junk stuff. There has to be a way to include them without conflating it with unsourced or poorly sourced commentary. I don't agree with the accusation of COATRACK. The content was directly relevant to the article subject, albeit sketchy in some parts.<span style=" color:#0B0B3B; text-shadow: 3px 3px #C0C0C0;font-style: italic; font-family:'Britannic Bold';">Darwinian Ape talk 13:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No the selective edits are not harming the neutral POV. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Possibly I think that the deleted items should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Some are quite well sourced, some not. It looks to me like quite a few babies were tossed out with the bathwater. 99.27.104.103 (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lyndon LaRouche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314044047/http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/image/show.html?did=14331971&aref=image036%2F2006%2F06%2F16%2Fcq-sp198003901310133.pdf&thumb=false to http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/image/show.html?did=14331971&aref=image036%2F2006%2F06%2F16%2Fcq-sp198003901310133.pdf&thumb=false
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.larouchepub.com/exon/exon_add4_virginia.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://larouchein2004.net/pages/questions/youth/030201penn004.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Jane_Doe_v_John_Hritz/20001013_doe_quash_memo.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203083630/http://www.patriotledger.com/your_vote/election-1/x128165993/Frank-meets-LaRouche-candidate-Brown-in-only-primary-debate to http://www.patriotledger.com/your_vote/election-1/x128165993/Frank-meets-LaRouche-candidate-Brown-in-only-primary-debate

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2017
Silentstorm341 (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Time to clean up LaRouche entry.
There needs to be less needless glorification and more fair and accurate and balanced material on this page. Chip.berlet (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2019
Larouche died on Tuesday, February 12, 2019. 2601:2C6:5080:430D:E453:BFA0:8224:DBAC (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Alas, it does seem there is a reliabilty issue with all LaRouchite information sources. But why does this not extend to the questionable claims by his supporters on other pages about the LaRouchians here on Wikipedia?Chip.berlet (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably because no experienced, uninvolved Wikipedia editor has taken a close look at those pages, . <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

His death has been confirmed in public posts by people inside and favorable to the LaRouche network. Here are some confirmations: . From LaRouchites: https://www.facebook.com/ted.andromidas . https://www.facebook.com/pat.ruckert Chip.berlet (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Reported Death
I'm seeing people saying on Twitter that LaRouche has died but none of them link to reliable sources saying so; can anyone confirm or not? Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Reported by their news service NSIPS.Chip.berlet (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Where? How do we confirm that? Still nothing on this from any reputable national news organization that I can see. (the only Google news hit is from the blog "Boing Boing" which sources it to "Twitter." john k (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could provide a link to the New Solidarity International News Service report, . What's available online at this moment does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source standards, and we should not be in a rush to update this article unless and until better sources are available. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be true, from Mike Billington of EIR Magazine - https://twitter.com/mobeir2 - but as you say, doesn't yet fit the "Reliable Source" requirements. Cancerward (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's apparently the Twitter of Michael_Billington_(activist) but is not linked to from elsewhere, so although the death is pretty much a "fact", it's still not good enough for WP now. The account timeline goes back to 15 November 2016 and was created August 2014. I think the text at http://icont.ac/4dQLQ is probably the same as the report mentioned by Chip_Berlet above.Cancerward (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just in case there's any doubt - FB pages of top EIR people filling with condolences. https://www.facebook.com/ted.andromidas and https://www.facebook.com/pat.ruckert ... https://twitter.com/DrMatthewSweet/status/1095599994990546944 Cancerward (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Full EIRNS article from Ron Wieczorek https://www.facebook.com/ron.wieczorek/posts/2148746848481759 Cancerward (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Good evening everyone, what about this? https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/2/12/1834283/-Lyndon-LaRouche-has-died-but-his-CTs-live-on KJS ml343x (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a credible source, unfortunately. Says at the top that it's a community post not reviewed by Daily Kos staff, and the article itself is just echoing what some people are saying on Twitter. Wall Screamer (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am increasingly convinced that LaRouche is dead, but we really must have a reliable source reporting it in order to add it to this article. Wikipedia is not a breaking news source. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It feels strange to be in a social transitional period where we can get plausible death reports but for there to be a disconnect to not have a statement from his institution or follow up from other media houses. LaRouche has been a monumental figure for decades and I expect broad interest in reports of his death. I confirm, nothing on his organization's website and seemingly nothing except rumors in online channels which report statements from individuals' social media accounts.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm shocked by the complete lack of confirmation. This man is iconic, like it or not. --Folengo (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If he hasn't actually died (i.e. the reports are all baseless rumours), then there's nothing for them to confirm. A denial would be a different thing.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Designation as Conspiracy Theorist
I have added a section under Controversy Designation as Conspiracy theorist which contains five credible references to him as a conspiracy theorist. When all of your MSM obituaries (including by Fox News) and academics etc state this as the key attribute, it is not acceptable that the Wikipedia page makes no reference to this. I am sure that this will not please devotees and followers of Mr LaRouche, however please note that I have put this in the controversies section, to emphasize that the fact being reported is that he was (nearly universally) regarded as a conspiracy theorist, not that the article is asserting that he was. That being said, I think the main article sanitizes the views of his opponents, and is in danger of not having a NPOV by cherrypicking and avoiding the more lurid claims about him and the more outrageous quotes from him that would tend to cast him in a more dubious light. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Convicted Fraudster
I have added "convicted fraudster" to the first paragraph with a link to the relevant wikipedia page. That someone was sentenced to 15 years for fraud is a critical and interesting part of their biography. And it is vital information in assessing their activities and approach and their treatment. That this event is important enough to have its own Wikipedia page shows its importance and relevance. That he actually served, as did numerous others, is not in dispute. That he failed on numerous appeals and attempts at exoneration including three appeals to the Supreme Court indicates the soundness of the legal basis of the conviction under the American legal system. The article in general seeks to portray Mr LaRouche as a respectable, respected citizen (whats with that birthday party claim?) with ideosyncratic views; however this portrait is misleadingly incomplete without stating upfront that he was a convicted criminal (whether you believe this fair or not) whatever else he was. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Movement: Characterized as Cult
The term "cult" or "cult-like" frequently appears in material and articles about the LaRouche Movement, not only in mainstream media but also professional media such as Foreign Policy journal. I have split out material relevant to this and added numerous references in a subsection Characterized as cult. I have put in the weaker "or cult-like" to reflect the references, and I have put in the phrase "at certain times" to reflect that at various times the movement may have exhibited more or less cult-like attributes. In the references, I have put in a reference to give visibility that some material speaks of a "political cult" rather than just "cult" or "cult-like".

The attributes of a cult that seem to justify this view as one in the range of reasonable views (without endorsing it) include: mercurial charismatic leader who puts themselves in the centre of thought ("worlds greatest economist") or history ("world's most accurate forcaster") and encourages a cult of personality; accusations of abuse of member's time, finance and deviant thought; us-versus-them separation; doomsday prophecies; a succession of failed predictions of disaster which do not occur but which are promptly swept under the carpet by the next round of predictions; etc

In this regard I note (from the Fox News obituary) that movement members have been taken by cult 'de-programming' teams: "One high-profile case involved a supposed conspiracy to kidnap DuPont heir Lewis duPont Smith and his wife to deprogram them. In 1992, a federal jury in Alexandria, Virginia, acquitted Smith's father, E. Newbold Smith, and three other men." These family members certainly viewed the movement as a cult. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Disputed record as economist and forecaster
This is, I think, the most problematic one, and I would be happy if someone found some better way to phrase it, in case the tone is snarky or there is not a NPOV.

The general problem with the article as it stands is that it is primarily a timeline presenting LaRouche's life story in sequence of events or phases (commie, democrat, rightwing, criminal,etc) with no attempt to discuss his significance, self-claimed or otherwise. I have no problem with the timeline, but without the things that remain constant throughout, they don't reveal much.

Many of his followers sincerely believe him to be the world's greatest economist, it seems; not (m)any professional economists, but certainly politicians keen to find an anti-Western or anti-establishment angle and rhetoric would give him credence and a platform. (Here in Australia, I can see many in regional areas expressing views that are second-hand LaRouche ideas.)

However, others point out that he so consistently and often made wrong predictions, that sooner or later some would be right, just as a spin of the roulette wheel (which is a trick used by fake spiritists too): the trick is to only remind people of the hits and ignore the misses. I have tried to be fair, and put in some of the self-claimed successful predictions: however, I think a dispassionate analysis would show that many others were calling for the same things at the same time, so the claims to be an instigator and forecaster may not find them good evidence. (For example, the LaRouche's Eurasian Landbridge was originally Germany, Austria and Italy IIRC, then expanded into Russia. Then it evolved as China resurged into the New Silk Road, which was a term the Clinton's also used for their initiative: so I don't see that LaRouche can really claim to be behind it all, rather than just one voice in the crowd.)

However I tried not to interpose editorial material about what seems to be this self-aggrandizing tendency, I hope. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

"Undo undone" - a talk page entry in the article?
Hi, the "Undo undone" section reads like a talk page argument - shouldn't it be moved from the article? T 85.166.162.64 (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 21:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed, this was my mistake, apologies. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Here was the text intended for this Talk page:

An editor undid this section on Record as Economist and Forecaster, because it contained self-published material that is regarded by Wikipedia rules as not reliable. However, the references were made as evidence that LaRouche et al do claim the things that section mentions and to provide primary evidence, not to assert the contents of the LaRouche claims. Note that the section contains "claims". In other words, the only reliability issue is whether the words say what they say, not whether they are true or not. You would not refuse to link to Mein Kampf or the Bible or a speech of President Trump or a Mickey Mouse comic because they were considered unreliable. The unreliability constraint can only apply when it is the contents being referenced as authoritative, not when it is their existence that is being attested. So I have undone the undo, but is there some better way to mark something as not contentious but as a potentially self-serving primary source, reliable as an object or assertion but not referenced as endorsed facts or anything deemed reliable?

Is he actually dead?
Other than social media posts and news reports that picked up on it there is no evidence of any funeral and no one has been able to produce a death certificate as of yet. On the forum that discusses a number of valid points have been brought up to question as to whether or not he has actually died. Perhaps someone in Germany where he was living at the time of his death can contact necessary places to see if one can be obtained for verification? Yrly (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)