Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/Archive 10

Independent Institute of Strategic Studies
I'm confused about this material. Google's translation is sporadic, at best. How does the IISS qualify as a reliable source, and which exact text is being used as the basis for this material? Please quote it so we can review it together.  Will Beback   talk    20:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ''According to the Independent Institute of Strategic Studies in Ukraine, LaRouche traces the two incompatible lines in the development of economic theory. The first, considered unscientific by LaRouche, dates back to Aristotle and passes through the ideas of Rene Descartes, John Locke, Quesnay, David Hume, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, Karl Marx, and the Club of Rome, up to modern concepts of "post-industrial society." The second line, considered scientific by LaRouche, comes from Plato, Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Gottfried Leibniz, Bernhard Riemann, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Carey, and Friedrich List up to Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle and politicians of postwar Japan. The difference between them lies in the fact that the first sees the purpose of economic science only in the monetarist effort to "buy cheap and sell dear," while the second focuses on the production, based on continuous technological progress and economic development as an integral part of the evolution of scientific knowledge in general including natural and technical sciences.
 * Taras Muranivsky, preface to "ВЫ НА САМОМ ДЕЛЕ ХОТЕЛИ БЫ ЗНАТЬ ВСЁ ОБ ЭКОНОМИКЕ?" ("So, You Wish To Learn All About Economics?"), quoted at INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE OF STRATEGIC STUDIES website, Ukraine, December 24, 2007
 * :Here is what I have found so far: an English-language page from the Institute. Pozniy evidently heads it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC);
 * Thanks. But it looks like Pozniy is just an associate. What is the Independent Institute of Strategic Studies and what is their reputation for act checking? And what is this material that we're quoting? The text says "according to the IISS", but the citation indicate that it's just a quotation from Muranivsky's introduction to the Russian?/Ukrainian? edition of So, You Wish To Learn All About Economics?. Do we know who the author of this article is?   Will Beback    talk    01:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever this group is, they reprint LaRouche articles and press releases verbatim. That implies they aren't independent.    Will Beback    talk    02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this the actual source of the material in the article: If so, we shouldn't say "according to the IISS", we should say "according to the introduction of the Ukrainian edition of LaRouche's..." and we should count it as a primary source.    Will Beback    talk    02:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We had this exchange at the Mediation Cabal discussion:
 * However, what is the policy when LaRouche articles are cited or reproduced in reliable sources? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to Leatherstocking, I think that it wouldn't be OR because at that point you're quoting a secondary source which has presumably done the analysis and everything. I assume that the reliable source is doing some kind of analysis on that quote to put it in context, so we don't have to. In addition, if it's a reliable source I think we can trust them to vet their sources; they wouldn't be reproducing the LaRouche articles if they couldn't authenticate them. -- Atama頭 15:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * :::Do you disagree? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC);
 * Let's step back a moment. We still haven't established what this institute is, and whether anything from it qualifies as a reliable source. I asked you for information about that but all you did was tell me the name of the director, which doesn't appear correct.   Will Beback    talk    01:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, since you raise the issue, mediation is not a noticeboard. The role of the mediator is to help settle content disputes, not to make policy interpretations. While Atama is a good editor and mediator, she does not make binding decisions regarding this material.   Will Beback    talk    01:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * :::::Should I take that as a "disagree"? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC);
 * I'm saying that you still haven't shown that the IISS website is a reliable source, and that Atama's comments are not binding. There's no point in further discussion until you've found evidence that the IISS has a reputation for fact checking and reliability.   Will Beback    talk    18:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * :::::::Here's a self-description:. I haven't had much luck finding more. Searching using Google Translate can be very tedious. You can treat it as a primary source if necessary, but I think it's useful, and it incorporates some of your "heroes and villains" stuff in a more useful way than what we had previously. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC);
 * "- a private, non-governmental and non-profit social formation." That could describe "Justice for Jeremiah" - how about we treat it as a primary source too? But seriously, the last thing this article needs is more text drawn from primary sources.    Will Beback    talk    19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * :::::::::::We should find out who the publisher of the So, You Wish To Learn All About Economics? book in Russian or Ukraine is. There's a good chance it is from a publisher that would be considered a reliable source. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC);

New Bretton Woods
The earliest I can find the "New Bretton Woods" proposal mentioned in a 3rd-party source is 1986. Are there any earlier mentions?  Will Beback   talk    01:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The July, 2007 forecast

 * The July 2007 forecast is particularly notable, as it has been commented upon by numerous secondary sources, some of which are cited in the bio article. I'll list them here if necessary. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC);
 * Yes, please do. LaRouche has made perhaps hundreds of predictions. Just cherry picking one or another is inappropriate.   Will Beback    talk    16:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * :::For starters, both the China Youth Daily article and the Menshikov/Slovo article are focussed on this particular forecast. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC);
 * Then add those as sources.   Will Beback    talk    23:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the text to reflect what is actually in the CYD article, and moved it beside another sentence CYD's comments about LaRouche's predictions. I couldn't find any mention of the July 2007 webcast in Pirogov - did I miss it?    Will Beback    talk    01:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ::::::I made an error by adding a footnote from Pirogov. As I mention above, the correct source was Menshikov. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC);
 * Neither Menshikov nor the CYD quote the text you added to the article. CYD only references the issue of four power action, and Menshikov talks about the mortgage crisis and offers a different quote. I think we can do a better job of summarizing those sources.    Will Beback    talk    23:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ::::::::That's not the issue. You asked that I demonstrate the notability of the webcast, not provide a source for the quote. This is a good example of a case where it is appropriate to quote a primary source. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC);
 * No I asked about the notabiulity of that specific quote/forecast. The webcast covers a large number of issues, and you deleted all of the other issues that I added from that webcast. So that specific quote is what needs a secondary source.   Will Beback    talk    01:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ::::::::::That particular quote is the one that is germane to the subtopic, i.e., economic forecasting. It provides important detail to the paragraph that precedes it. The material I deleted was off-topic, as I mentioned in my edit summary. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC);
 * Actually, you deleted a summary of what the CYD said, along with other material from the same webcast. Let's keep to what the reliable secondary sources say and avoid cherry picking quotes that we think are interesting.    Will Beback    talk    21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Postings by sock of banned user struck-through.

Spell check please
I have nothing to add on content, but noticed a number of spellying (sic) errors and/or typos. Since the article is locked, I was unable to correct them myself. Anonymous - Christmas 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.238.110 (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Check WP:RS where it says Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration. Captain Boycott (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Pipes
I'm no fan of Lyndon H. LaRouche or his policies, but should Daniel Pipes, a neoconservative racist demagogue, be considered a reliable source? Even Chip Berlet, who is an anti-LaRouche activist, would be a better source. 64.250.228.220 (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearing away crap
I'm going to remove everything on this page which is sourced directly to a LaRouchie, rather than to a WP:RS about the LaRouchies. Thoughts? BillMasen (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In general, I think that primary sources should only be used for illustrative quotations and details on topics that have already been covered in secondary sources. So there are some items that are probably OK to keep. OTOH, the article is so long that almost anything which shortens it would be an improvement.   Will Beback    talk    03:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think that the LaRouchies (or at least LaRouche) are good sources for his rather eccentric ideas. It's sad, however, that apart from Chip Berlet and Dennis King, the only other sources that provide critical points of view about LaRouche's ideas are neo-conservatives and other assorted propagandists (such as the racist Anti-Defamation League). 64.250.228.220 (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem of relying mainly on primary sources in this matter is that LaRouche has expressed opinions on so many issues it would be difficult to decide which ones to include, and how much weight to devote to them. That's why it's better to use secondary sources to decide which issues to cover, etc, and then turn to the LaRouche sources for quotations and other details.   Will Beback    talk    03:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have conducted a major rewrite. As suggested, I have retained primary and self-published sources where the statements therein have been commented on by reliable secondary sources. Of all the WP:RS on this page, a grand total of two had something positive to say about LaRouche. It's noteworthy that neither of these comes from the USA, where people actually know who and what LaRouche is, but still, rules are rules.
 * ''Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:


 * '' 1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * '' 2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * ''  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * '' 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * ''  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.


 * These are self published sources, which violate 3 of the 5 rules for self-published sources, as set out in WP:V. Specifically, they violate 2) and 3), and probably 5) as well.
 * netda.ru
 * thebruinstandard.com
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9pDY_ny6Qo (wearechange.org)
 * http://justiceforjeremiah.com/larouche_network_canada.html
 * www.ex-iwp.org
 * www.schillerinstitute.org
 * Note that three of these sources are unfavourable to LaRouche. The rest are from his self-published magazine or from LaRouche-oriented websites. And frankly removing some of them serves to help LaRouche's image, because what he says is so ridiculous.
 * These sources I removed, but I'm just not sure whether they constitute RS secondary sources or not
 * km.ru
 * www.aawsat.com
 * zvezda
 * http://www.rediff.com/money/2003/may/26larouche.htm
 * I wonder if someone in a better position could shed some light on that. BillMasen (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

For example, you retained all accusations of anti-semitism by secondary sources, while removing comments by LaRouche in which he expresses opposition to anti-semitism. As they say on "Law and Order," once the door has been opened by the accusation, a rebuttal is in order, and thoroughly justified by multiple policies. Also, the second line in your rewritten intro needs a source. In my opinion your rewrite has created a neutrality problem. Thomas Conneff (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which line are you referring to? If you mean The nature of Larouche's other beliefs are difficult to categorize, complicated by the fact that they have changed over the years, that has the same meaning as They are the source of much controversy; there are disputes over how to categorize them, complicated by the fact that they have changed over the years, just expressed in fewer words.
 * I removed the disavowal of anti-semitism not because I believe it to be disingenuous (although I do), but because no secondary source has commented on his disavowal. If the consensus is to restore it, then I will. Incidentally, I'm impressed at the grasp you of wikipedia policies you've gained in the two weeks you've been around. :) BillMasen (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, both of those claims need sources. And, common sense dictates that the introduction should summarize what is in the article as a whole, and your comments above reveal that you are simply not interested in the main body of LaRouche's ideas, regardless of whether secondary sources have commented on them. The article has been recast to emphasize your personal interests, which is why I say it has a neutrality problem. Thomas Conneff (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't at all difficult to find a source for these two sentences. Why don't you go and see if you can find a WP:RS to contradict them. You won't be able to, of course.
 * Your problem is that the WP:RS secondary sources given in this article are almost uniformly hostile to LaRouche. Furthermore, this isn't a result of anti-Rouche POV, since the article was bloated with his propaganda, which of course couldn't be sourced to anything other than his own statements. The secondary sources hailing LaRouche's supposed genius are simply very rare. If you can find more (read WP:RS to help you identify them) then someone will put them into the article.
 * I don't know what you think is "revealed"; I did not make any secret of my view of LaRouche, so I don't see how you think you can have "revealed" it. Despite this, I retained positive references in secondary sources (two, wow!) and removed several negative statements, which I fully agreed with, because they did not meet WP:RS. BillMasen (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A web search turns up nothing but his own blog. By way of contrast, Time Magazine, which must be considered by many to be an above-average source, has an entirely different prioritization of LaRouche's views, emphasizing "opposition to free trade and "globalism" (the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund)" and "a return to a humanist classical education, emphasizing the works of Plato and Leibnitz," as well as "support for the economic policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the impeachment of President Obama." Incidentally, this summary is current and therefore up to date, whereas your preferred source is 20 years old. I'm sure that there is a place for Dennis King in this article, but after glancing at his blog it looks like you have re-ordered the entire article to reflect King's views, while suppressing alternative assessments. Thomas Conneff (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the thresholds for a reliable secondary source is publication by a reputable publisher, such as DoubleDay, the publisher of King's book. As far on authorities on LaRouche are concerned, relatively few people have written lengthy treatments of him or his movement (as opposed to comparable movements, like the Communist party).
 * I'm happy to incorporate the article you cited into this one. However, I don't think it cuts against the grain of King's assessment. The second half of the paragraph you quoted:
 * On her professional looking campaign website, kesharogers.com, she touts the LaRouche political philosophy — a mix of support for the economic policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the impeachment of President Obama — and calls Obama a "London and Wall Street backed puppet" whose policies will destroy the Democratic Party. During the campaign, she was photographed carrying an oversized portrait of the President with a Hitler-style moustache penciled on his lip.
 * Which hardly does anything to dispel the idea that LaRouche is conspiracy-driven. BillMasen (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure just what that means. I don't dispute that he talks about conspiracies. However, in your first edits to the article, you wrote "moved conspiracy theories to top. They are the important thing about his movement and its views. The rest is just window-dressing." This appears to be just your personal opinion. It may be shared by Dennis King, but I see no evidence that this is the mainstream opinion, so therefore, I don't think it is appropriate for this viewpoint to dominate both the introduction and the layout of the article. I also object to your claim that "The principal antagonists in the conspiracies alleged by LaRouche are homosexuals, Jews, and the British people," which insinuates that all of LaRouche's ideas are motivated by bigotry, which is also not a mainstream opinion. I think it may very well violate what is on this page, which says that when writing about living individuals you must write conservatively and that the burden of evidence is on the person who makes the (possibly defamatory) claim. One last note: it seems obvious to me that the "overview" section should come first, as it would in any normal article. Will Beback moved it there, and you reverted him. Thomas Conneff (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot help it if LaRouche repeatedly alleges conspiracies by Jews, homosexuals and Brits. It would be "defamatory" (though true) if the first line called him an anti-semite, anglophobe and gay-basher. I honestly can't think of a more polite way to phrase LaRouche's self-professed views on these groups than the way it is in the lead. Are you denying that Jews, gays and Brits are the principal antagonists in his conspiracies? I could add Henry Kissinger, the Fabian Society and Raisa Gorbachev to that list, but I really don't see how that would help to cast him in a positive light.
 * The Overview section was in fact a list of his campaign pledges, and was not an 'overview'.
 * When I get a chance I will put this article on the NPOV board and see what they have to say. BillMasen (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Good work. The changes are extensive, so I can't vouch for everything, but it undoubtedly resulted in a shorter and more readable article. In reviewing some of the deletions, it occurs to me that some material used primary sources which could have also used secondary sources, but I only see a few of those. This article has been something of a "Gordian Knot" that resisted real improvement. Thanks for putting in the effort.  Will Beback   talk    00:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC) One of the recent edits caused a cite error. Before the edit the text read: "...inal economy (money and financial instruments) goes up there will be an unavoidable economic crisis. (graphic)" After the edit it reads:{{blockquote|text= ...inal economy (money and financial instruments) goes up there will be an unavoidable economic crisis. . I can't edit this page yet so if another editor can fix the error that would be great. ClamDip (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that. I've fixed it and a couple of other citation glitches.   Will Beback    talk    02:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

←I've come here from WP:NPOVN after reading BillMasen's comment there, and I thought a "third opinion" might be useful. I have to say that the changes made are a substantial improvement. That being said, I am uncomfortable with the article in general. It feels like a POV fork, and I would rather see a summary style approach in conjunction with the main articles on LaRouche and his movement. Obviously this would be a significant undertaking, but the article as it stands leaves a little bit of a bad taste in my mouth. I hope you find this comment helpful. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution. When you say it feels like a POV fork, do you mean its biased against LaRouche, or for it?
 * It seems to me that a shorter article, or an article which was split into different sections, would be permanently vulnerable to POV inflation from self-published LaRouche sources. That said, if someone else wants to go about the thankless work of rewriting this article once again, I would be very glad to see it. BillMasen (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't really a problem with bias. The problem is a little more complex than that. For example, to a neutral observer the lede seems perfectly reasonable; however, to a supporter of LaRouche it would inevitably seem horribly biased against the man and his movement. I confess I am struggling to think of a way to "make the bad taste go away". I'll do a little bit of research into how Wikipedia usually deals with fringe political groups. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Example: the two big LaRouche villains in the past 10 years have been Cheney and Obama. So according to your lede, how do you classify them: as homosexuals, Jews, or as "British people"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.204.10 (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than mention specific individuals in the lead (LaRouche has alleged conspiracies against a LOT of people) I thought it would be better to identify the main groups. If I add "mainstream American politicians" to the list, are you going to say I have to find a source? BillMasen (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.204.10 (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. LaRouche has alleged British or Jewish conspiracies countless times. I'm supposed to wipe his backside by pretending that he didn't? He's convicted out of his own mouth. BillMasen (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

LaRouche beliefs and conspiracies
Here are some mainstream sources that discuss the role of conspiracies in LaRouche's beliefs.

Based on these sources from just the past 12 months, it appears that LaRouche's views are often closely associated with conspiracies in the mainstream media.  Will Beback   talk    22:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It is whether LaRouche is associated ONLY with conspiracies, which is the claim that Bill is making (in the intro to the article.) It looks like you did a targeted search to find mention of both "LaRouche" and "conspiracy" in newspaper articles. Even so, your search also turned up reference to other views, including support for NASA and opposition to the Obama insurance plan. If you did a similar, targeted search for "larouche" +"health" you would find more sources and others if you search for "larouche" + "NASA" or "Mars" (.) You can also get numerous hits on "infrastructure", "bank" or "bailout", and "glass-steagall," just to pick a few examples. I am not suggesting that conspiracies be excluded from the intro to the article. I am suggesting that by excluding EVERYTHING ELSE from the intro, you slant the article in a biased way. Thomas Conneff (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You've highlighted a number of issues that concern LaRouche and his supporter's opposition of one or another policy of the Obama administration. If we look a little further, we see that LaRouche believes there is a conspiracy connecting Obama to the British throne. Here's an article by one of LaRouche's senior aides that appeared recently in an official publication:


 * Is anyone here claiming that LaRouche and his followers do not see Obama as a puppet of the British monarchy who was installed, in part, through "British orchestration"? That sure sounds to me like a conspiracy. I'm sure we can find articles on LaRouche websites that connect Obama's positions on health care reform, the financial overhaul, and the space program to the British throne. While those specific issues may be the conspiracies of the day, the underlying and relatively fixed view is that the British throne conspires against LaRouche, the US, and others. Can anyone here suggest a prominent view of LaRouche that does not involve a conspiracy of some kind?     Will Beback    talk    00:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's one on NASA:


 * I don't think it's necessary to do a search on Glass Steagall, as I think we can agree there'll be similar results.   Will Beback    talk    01:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A few days ago you said that the basis for discussion should be secondary sources, and now you appear to be constructing your own personal theory from selected primary sources. Could you please just tell me what your point is, as succinctly as possible? Are you arguing against the inclusion in the introduction of the views highlighted in Time Magazine (full list: opposition to free trade and globalism, return to a humanist classical education, support for the economic policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, impeachment of President Obama, NASA)? I don't think anyone would argue that Time is not the best source that has been mentioned in this discussion. Most of the sources mentioned have been either small-town or foreign newspapers, or a book by a guy that no one has ever heard of. Thomas Conneff (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Most books are by people who no one has ever heard of. As I wrote above, Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on secondary sources and use primary sources mainly for illustrative quotations and details. I've provided secondary sources that show LaRouche and his movement are still commonly depicted as having conspiracy-based views. You replied that I was ignoring his views on NASA, etc, and I provided primary sources that show even those views are based on conspiracy theories, just as the secondary sources say.   Will Beback    talk    21:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

They simply say he supports NASA, and that he opposes what he regards as Obama's policy to reduce it. This is likewise true of the other policies mentioned. You seem to be freely mixing your own theories into the discussion. You also seem to be avoiding my question. Are you arguing that the views of LaRouche which are unambiguously listed by Time, a very substantial secondary source, should be excluded from the the article introduction, and/or buried late in the article? Please answer the question directly and without evasion. Thomas Conneff (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any theories. What is your sudden interest in this topic and why are you demanding answers from me?    Will Beback    talk    22:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As for "demanding answers," I had hoped that you were engaged in a good-faith effort to resolve these issues, and that any circumlocution was unintentional. Thomas Conneff (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's just a coincidence? If you say so.
 * Anyway, it's clear that LaRouche is commonly viewed as a "conspiracy mongerer", and Wikipedia articles should give the most prominent views the greatest weight. Even good 'ol Time magazine has characterized LaRouche in that manner.   Will Beback    talk    21:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I have agreed numerous times now that LaRouche is seen as a conspiracy theorist, so it is not necessary to bring up that topic once more. The entirely different, unresolved issue is this: is it necessary or proper to EXCLUDE the fact that significant secondary sources have commented on OTHER views of LaRouche, specifically opposition to free trade and globalism (IMF etc.), return to a humanist classical education, support for the economic policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, impeachment of President Obama, and support for NASA? Thomas Conneff (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * LaRouche's views have been mentioned or discussed in literally hundreds of sources. Are you seriously asserting that a "return to a humanist classical education" is really one of the most prominent views of LaRouche and his movement? I'm sure it's mentioned here and there, but if that's on the list it's hard to see that you're making a serious proposal based on outside sources.   Will Beback    talk    23:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

But I would also agree that "classical education" does not appear as frequently as the other topics mentioned. So, putting it aside, are you arguing for the exclusion of opposition to free trade and globalism (IMF etc.), support for the economic policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, impeachment of President Obama, and support for NASA? Thomas Conneff (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Time is just one source. It doesn't "trump" other sources. If readers just want Time's view, they can go to that article. There are literally scores, if not hundreds, of sources for LaRouche's views over the years.    Will Beback    talk    00:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The views in question have been discussed in a more than sufficient number of other secondary sources. Based on these sources in general, are you arguing for the exclusion of opposition to free trade and globalism (IMF etc.), support for the economic policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, impeachment of President Obama, and support for NASA? Thomas Conneff (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Based on these sources in general..." I'm sorry, I must have missed something - what sources?   Will Beback    talk    18:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat the sources I have cited thus far, plus I will try to supplement them with sources that are already in the Wikipedia article and anything else I can find on the web. I'll skip the part about opposition to Obama, since I imagine that will no longer be an issue once Obama leaves office, and I'll focus on just three topics: opposition to free trade and globalism (IMF etc.), support for the economic policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and support for NASA /space exploration. I'll try to copy the format you used, to make it easy for you to read the citations. I hope that all this will make it possible at long last for you to answer the question, which to remind you, is the following: do you have a principled basis for excluding these views of LaRouche, amply noted in the secondary sources below, from the article introduction and and a relatively prominent position in the article itself? Thomas Conneff (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of those sources go back as far as 26 years - to the mid-1980s. Many of your assertions are rather vague. I've never heard of LaRouche supporting "space exploration" in general - it's the colonization of Mars that he supports. IIRC, he considers robotic deep space probes to be a waste of time. FDR had so many economic policies that every modern politician supports at least a few of them. LaRouche does not support them all, including measures such as banning the private ownership of gold or letting industry groups fix prices. If we were to consult current sources there would be one item far and above all others: the equation of Obama with Hitler. Nothing else would even come close. If we want to improve the intro, that is the item most obviously missing.   Will Beback    talk    08:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I know exactly why Will Bareback loves his "robotic deep space probes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.203.74 (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And why is that?   Will Beback    talk    21:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

==Programmatic views of LaRouche==

Disavowal of anti-Semitism
On August 30 BillMasen posted the following: "I removed the disavowal of anti-semitism not because I believe it to be disingenuous (although I do), but because no secondary source has commented on his disavowal." However, in the first of Will Beback's examples in the section that precedes this one, we have Bernard Schoenburg of the State Journal Register writing that "LaRouche and his followers have long denied charges of anti-Semitism." I think that qualifies as a comment. In addition, the article on the Schiller Institute contains a reference to an L.A. Times article, which says that LaRouche supporters protested a performance of Wagner and handed out fliers which read "Does Los Angeles County have nothing better to do ... than bail out L.A. Opera, so that it can celebrate the monstrous sexual fantasies, and the cult of violence, of that vile anti-Semite, Wagner?" Given these comments by secondary sources, I think it would be appropriate to restore the deleted comments in which LaRouche states his opposition to anti-Semitism. I might add that even without the secondary sources, we should avoid having articles where critics charge a living person with anti-Semitism and the subject's response is omitted, because if there is no disavowal in the article, it creates the impression that the subject is a self-avowed anti-Semite, which is clearly not the case here. Owen Roe (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's just cite Schoenberg that the assertion has been denied. We don't need quotes for everything. The less the better.   Will Beback    talk    07:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This article has a neutrality problem
At the top of this discussion page a number of policies are listed, including neutral point of view. Following the link, I found the following: "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints." This article as it was re-written on August 24 clearly disparages its subject, and endorses the claims of some of LaRouche's critics, while suppressing published views of LaRouche that contradict those claims. This is particularly clear in the previous section of this talk page, "Disavoval of anti-Semitism". See also the section from NPOV tutorial on Information Suppression. Programmatic views of LaRouche, well documented in secondary sources, have been suppressed, apparently in order to give greater weight to the theories of critics. My efforts to raise these issues on this page have been met with a solid week of evasion and stonewalling. Accordingly I have placed the POV template on the article. Thomas Conneff (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Article rewrite
I rewrote this article, but an editor has called its neutrality into question. I think that the article is now based (as it should be) on reliable sources. BillMasen (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems like a reasonable set of changes. WP:NPOV says that we should give material weight based on the prominence in independent secondary sources. The earlier version of the article was probably based too much on primary sources. Overall, the main effect of the editing seems to have been to reduce bloat. The article was too long before, so shorter is better.   Will Beback    talk    00:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been many changes made so it's a bit hard to follow them all, but they seem to fall into three basic categories: 1. The ordering and titles of the sections have been changed. 2. The section on Economics has been reduced by about 80%, and the "Political proposals" and "Anti-Semitism"(formerly "Zionism, Jews, and the Holocaust") have been reduced by about half. "LaRouche's View of Fascism" has been eliminated. Everything else seems largely intact. 3. New material has been added to the intro.

A few general observations: some sources used are journalistic or scholarly, some are from political activists opposed to LaRouche, and some are from LaRouche himself. The general effect of the re-write, particularly the re-ordering and re-titling of sections, is to give greater weight to the political activists opposed to LaRouche. The question of the use of LaRouche's writings as a source on his own views appears to be a bone of contention here. I have read the policy on self-published sources, and I think it is highly appropriate to use LaRouche's own writings as a source for an article entitled "Views of Lyndon LaRouche etc." Perhaps this article is having an identity crisis, and should be re-titled "Criticism of LaRouche." LaRouche is a political activist who has a following here and in other countries because he campaigns for specific economic proposals, both for reform of the financial system and for big infrastructure projects. This article tells me almost nothing about these things. What's the point?

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use I am still dissatisfied with the way the allegations of antisemitism are presented. These appear to be largely inferences drawn by LaRouche's opponents (coded language, etc.), and are contradicted by LaRouche's writings. So, to have the section re-titled "Antisemitism" seems simply to take the side of LaRouche's opponents in the controversy. Looking at the broad range of recent press citations presented on this page, it does not appear to me that LaRouche is routinely cast as an antisemite in normal press coverage. The 50% or so that was removed from this section appears to be comprised of statements by LaRouche that would cast doubt on this allegation. I also question the removal of the section that describes LaRouche's opposition to fascism, while retaining the section where his critics claim he is a fascist.

By the same token, the new material added to the introduction also indicates that antisemitism and homophobia are fundamental themes in LaRouche's writings. I don't see evidence in the body of the article to support this -- it could be said that these are important themes for LaRouche's critics, but not LaRouche himself. That he is a conspiracy theorist is widely accepted. Owen Roe (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Another drawer full of HK's socks has been found and blocked.   Will Beback    talk    03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Was there an SPI? You ought to link to it if so rather than just making assertions. If this is just your say so, maybe you shouldn't be striking everything quite so wantonly. Or removing neutrality tagging. If I add it back are you going to revert me? I'm not in the mood for edit warring. ++Lar: t/c 10:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you're a sock of HK, I won't revert your editing.   Will Beback    talk    18:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I just looked at the article, and the way it is currently written a better title would be "Controversial criticisms of views of the LaRouche movement". If this article was really about the views of the LaRouche movement, it would first present the major ideas of the LaRouche movement objectively and without criticism, i.e. as the movement's followers see themselves.  Once that is done, some criticism can be presented, such as claims by outside observers that the movement promotes anti-Semitism, for example. Cla68 (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think LaRouche is nutjob but this article is still a bit of a hitpiece.  Encyclopedic tone requires the content to be presented neutrally first and commented on later.  The comment cannot literally be the presentation, else it has a POV, else it is not encyclopedic.  In the introduction I want to know 1) What a LaRouche-ian thinks.  Period.  No judgment.  2) Then I want to know the history of the ideas and the movement.  Where it came from, what they do, where they do it, how it's changed.  3) Last I want to know what society, academics, politicians think about his ideas.  This piece can be part hitjob, as long as it is a referenced hitjob which follows WP:ASF by not presenting the views of others as Wikipedia's.  I think this model works better than saying, "Larouche is a discredited conspiracist"--and I think he probably is! Ocaasi 03:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - (obDisclose: I was asked to comment by someone who prefers to remain anonymous) I find myself in agreement with Owen Roe, Cla68 and Ocaasi. This is not as good as it was. Looking at this version (the last version before BillMasen's rewrite...) I find the lead much clearer and the article organization superior in that version than how it is now. As Ocaasi says, the article should present the views first, and only then present the criticism. Using characterization of views by critics makes everything muddy. I suggest another rewrite, or reversion to the version I cited. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The pre-rewrite version had its problems. I particularly take issue wuth the idea that the lead and organisation were better. The pre-rewrite lead:

''The views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement cover a wide variety of topics including history, economics, politics and cultural issues. They are the source of much controversy; there are disputes over how to categorize them, complicated by the fact that they have changed over the years. LaRouche abandoned his Marxist orientation in the 1970s, and some critics said that he moved to the right,[1][2] while others said that he remained a leftist and a supporter of the Soviet Union.[1][3] LaRouche's supporters portray him as a brilliant and original theorist.[citation needed] Observers from outside the movement regard him as a conspiracy theorist and an antisemite.[4][5]''
 * This isn't pride of authorship, I agree the article could be better than it is now. But the former lead gives us the information
 * He has expressed views on a wide variety of subjects (no attempt to summarise them at all)
 * Lots of people disagree with him (lots of people disagree with Barack Obama, relatively few people call him an antisemite or conspiracy theorist, which is not the same as expressing disagreement)
 * He used to be a Marxist, but isn't any more (good start, but no information about what his views are now)


 * Secondly, some of you feel that I am disparaging him by calling him a conspiracist in the lead and by starting the article with conspiracy theories. However, LaRouche himself has repeatedly used the word conspiracy in his allegations. Moreover, quoted in the article, he has written that conspiracy has a central role in human history (To conspire is human http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1998/lhl_hippo_tale.html). Even the Larouche supporting editors here have agreed that he alleges conspiracies. It would not be possible to describe his views without giving conspiracy a prominent place.


 * Thirdly, the article was composed almost entirely of primary sources, and repeated pronouncements that, as far as we can tell, were not repeated anywhere else but here. We would not write an article about the Labour party which was composed mostly of its manifesto pledges; that would be nothing less than a conduit for its propaganda. We would only take what was commented on by other sources, and it is not my fault that in LaRouche's case, secondary sources are almost uniformly hostile.


 * This aritcle can only be made less critical of LaRouche with secondary sources which praise him. I don't think such sources exist. BillMasen (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Put simply, the article proper needs to start with a clear exposition of what LaRouche's views are now (and how they have evolved over time). Primary sources are absolutely OK for that, if used properly, and will not necessarily result in a "conduit for propaganda". After that, there should be clearly delineated sections on the views that others have about these views. If those turn out to be mostly critical because that's what the sources are saying, that's entirely proper. The lead, too, needs to have this form, but written as a lead. What is there now is a mishmash with criticism interspersed throughout. That's wrong, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's regrettable that, once again, the discussions here have been driven and dominated by socks of HK. It further proves that new editors who come to LaRouche topics are almost always HK socks. Even though they hang out with HK on another site, I assume good faith on the part of Cla68 and Lar in commenting here.
 * BillMasen brought fresh eyes to this overlong article. But I agree that we can improve the intro further. While I've worked on various sections of this article and am familiar with the topic I don't seem to have made any significant edits to the lead in at least several years. I'll go ahead and take a shot at it.
 * More generally, the article may need further balancing and maybe some more cutting to keep issues in some rough proportion to their importance. WP:NPOV calls on us to give weight to issues depending on their prominence in reliable sources. We should describe the views with the neutral view, neither endorsing nor condemning them, but we should mainly use secondary sources. Primary sources are fine for illustrative quotes and details, and similar purposes. As happens with many groups, the movement is not necessarily a reliable source for its own views, current or past.   Will Beback    talk    05:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Update. Though this is on my to-do list, I am reluctant to try to summarize an article that I think is so deeply flawed, as I've expressed before. I don't think that this article, pre- or post-BillMasen, fully or properly describes the topic. Nonetheless, I'll confine myself to rearranging text and rewriting the lead for the time being. At the same time, the lead has always been inadequate so it shouldn't be too hard to improve upon. ;)   Will Beback    talk    10:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

LaRouche is a political activist who has a following here and in other countries because he campaigns for specific economic proposals, both for reform of the financial system and for big infrastructure projects. This article tells me almost nothing about these things. What's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.251.7 (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article does talk about those things, but I realize it's hard to get to the end.   Will Beback    talk    20:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Glass-Steagall, for example, even though there are references about it cited on this page. Reading over this page, I see some totally twisted stuff. You reject TIME magazine as a source? That is just totally bizarre. And yet the article is full of unknown lunatic fringe commentators spouting goofy theories about LaRouche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.251.7 (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And who are you? This page has seen so many sock puppets that new editors who appear out of nowhere yet are familiar with Wikipedia procedures are suspicious. What previous account names or IPs have you used?   Will Beback    talk    21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You first. You seem to be dominating this article -- who are you? There should be some accountability here. I don't know squat about Wikipedia procedures except to say that they don't seem to work, judging by the amount of BS in this article. There seem to be no quality control measures in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.251.7 (talk • contribs)


 * I've been active on the projected for years now and anyone who wants to know who I am can judge me by my contribution list. As for "dominating" the article, that view is based on a lack of research and insight. HK and his socks have made twice as many edits as I have, for example. So again, who are you and what knowledge do you have of the topic that you can say this article is full of "BS"?   Will Beback    talk    22:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Lack of Research and Insight" ? OMG, BeBack, you make my day? Everyone knows that you are virtually OBSESSED with LaRouche and LaRouche-related Articles. This is a new level of hypocrisy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.204.222 (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this the same editor as 97.96.251.7? What is your interest or obsession with LaRouche?   Will Beback    talk    23:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm here to expose hypocrites and chew bubblegum. And you, Will Beback, cannot deny the FACT that your name appears in every discussion of articles about LaRouche. People who DO their research can most easily confirm this. And by poiting to "lack of research and insight" you have exposed yourself as the hypocrite that you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.204.222 (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Exposing hypocrites and chewing gum isn't the purpose of this project, though you're free to do that elsewhere. If you don't want to discuss your own behavior then I don't see why we should discuss my behavior either.   Will Beback    talk    00:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback, your attempt to divert the discussion of your inappropriate behaviour (lying about your involvement with LaRouche - related articles) to project rules and to my editing has: FAILED.I take it then that you do not deny that you are a hypocrite and rest my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.204.222 (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing. I'll give your input the weight it deserves.   Will Beback    talk    00:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback, do to the fact that two people disagree with you does not make us the same person. Your rants, and run on babble, reads like your pontificated quotes contained in Sierra Club articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.251.7 (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your (pretend) ungrammatical rants don't add weight to your position. You seem to know a lot about me for a casual user.   Will Beback    talk    22:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not rocket science to search "Will Beback" and find "Encyclopedia Dramatica."

Intro rewrite
In response to the feedback from the RfC, I've reorganized the article (without changing any text) and totally rewritten the intro. I looked through the history, but this article has never had an adequate intro that came close to summarizing the contents. I did my best to summarize both the article and the sources posted at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources, which is a comprehensive set of excerpts from reliable sources on the LaRouche platforms. I'm sure it isn't perfect, but I can say with confidence that it is better than any previous version. I'm open to discussing improvements with established editors, but not with sockpuppets of HK.  Will Beback   talk    05:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

BS in article
In answer to a request from "Will Beback," I have been reading the LaRouche PAC website off and on for 10 years, and I am familiar with the policies that LaRouche and his movement actively campaigned for. These are barely mentioned in the article. These include infrastructure plans: Also financial reform: Examples of BS in article:
 * Eurasian Landbridge (covered briefly in article)
 * Bering Strait tunnel (mentioned in passing)
 * NAWAPA (No mention at all!!)
 * Development of nuclear fission and fusion plants (mentioned in passing)
 * Expanded space research and exploration (mentioned in passing)
 * Restore Glass-Steagall (No mention at all!!)
 * New Bretton Woods (mentioned in passing)
 * Homeowners and Banks Protection Act of 2007 (mentioned in passing, article says Italian Senators for it but says nothing about what it is)
 * Four Powers Agreement (China, India, Russia, USA) (No mention at all!!)
 * There is a section called "Jewish Conspiracies" where not one example of a Jewish conspiracy from LaRouche is named (because there are none in real life.) The article also says, with no evidence, that LaRouche said that the Holocaust is a delusion.
 * While there is almost no coverage of LaRouche economics, there are very large and irrelevant sections on "Psycho-sexuality and political organizing", "Marxist roots," and homosexuals. These seem to be there only as an excuse to include a bunch of attacks on LaRouche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.251.7 (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, many issues are mentioned briefly because we don't want this article to be 100,000 words long.
 * However I'd rather not waste time discussing this with socks puppets. If any established editors want to talk about the article I'm open.    Will Beback    talk    22:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If you dont want this article to be 100,000 words long I mentioned 3 very large and irrelevant sections you could cut, but then you seem to like to dodge points that are raised. Could you explain again why TIME magazine cannot be used as a source, I didn't really get that one. Obviously TIME magazine is not as awesome as the "Montreal Gazette" which you put in yesterday. I think that quote is fake. I've been reading a lot on this page, and I see that Wikipedia has a procedure called WP:RS#Quotations where it says "Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration." I'd like to see the original source for that fake quote.

Agreed, 97.96.251.7. The reason why this article is so long is because it is an intricate blend of an article about the views of larouche and another article about how Larouche is is being viewed by critics. If it were an honest article, it would only cover either of the sides or bear a title like "the views of lyndon larouche and how he is being perceived by his critics". 81.210.204.222 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC) IP 97.xxx.xxx.xx, would you be so kind and insert the 4~ sign, so our two posts are clearl separated? thanks 81.210.204.222 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
It's a good thing that "Will Beback" "doesn't dominate" this article. Imagine what it would be like if he did!

I have been reading the article on procedures called Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
 * It says that Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable. However, "Will Beback" insists that TIME magazine, a mainstream news source, cannot be used in this article.
 * It says that textbooks are preferred when available, but "Will Beback" says that Fenomeni e Fisica, a textbook, is "not a source."
 * It says that Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration. However, "Will Beback" just added two sources for a fake quote from LaRouche, and neither of them cites where the quote supposedly came from.
 * It says that Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. It looks to me like "Will Beback" is deliberately inserting opinions inteneded to slander LaRouche, while keeping out factual information. 97.96.251.7 (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Delia Peabody (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Banned users aren't permitted here, HK. Please go away.   Will Beback    talk    04:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another lame-O attempt to dodge the issue. First you accused me of being 81.210.204.222, then you accuse me of being "HK".  81.210.204.222 was right -- you are attempting to divert the discussion of your inappropriate behaviour.  You are violating official procedures that would help to clean up this crap article. 97.96.251.7 (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse you, I asked you. And you never responded, instead making more personal attacks against me. You also never responded to other questions about your involvement. Instead, you make more false accusations against me, including misquoting me from this very page. If you're pretending to be a useful editor you're not doing a good job.   Will Beback    talk    20:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey 97.xxx.x.x., as i don't like stonewalling and dodging, what if we write a few sub-chapters on Larouches published books on economics, starting with "dialectical economics", which to my knowledge was extensivly publicly reviewed and is published online? just a thought... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.204.222 (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know Dialectical Economics, so I searched it on the web. It's very old. Much of this article is completely out of date. The article should be made current. There are many recent sources quoted on this page that would help such as TIME magazine or the Italian textbook that was added to the article last week and then deleted. "Will Beback" has kept them out of the article because they are not negative enough for him. Do you know of any quality control system at Wikipedia that could be informed of this? 97.96.251.7 (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 97.xxxx.xxx.xx, i am not familiar with the quality control systems here, i only know

that IF it exists, it is highly susceptible to manipulation by selective source editing. One can clearly see this SSE in the fact, that there are virtually no direct quotations by Larouche about what seems to be his focus: economic forecasting and modelling. Furthermore, i cannot understand how a TIME magazine article can be excluded as source. But i maintain, that there are high-profile quality reviews of some of Larouches major books. I'll keep searching. Cheers! 81.210.204.222 (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I never said Time couldn't be a source. I said the Time article couldn't be used to define him as an economist. It doesn't, in fact, SAY he's an economist. It says he's against the free market, and that lots of people call him a racist. BillMasen (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, it mystifies me that there could be any question of "stonewalling". Before, during and after my edits to this article, I flagged my edits on the talk page, on user pages, in the noticeboards and in an RFC, without any prompting from other editors. This resulted, IMO, in a substantial diminution of the progress that I had made with the article. On the bright side, it hasn't gone back to its parlous state before my edits. BillMasen (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Bill Masen wrote that the TIME Magazine article stated that Larouche is seen by "lots of people" as a "racist". Here is the actual quote:
 * "Meanwhile, the state party has adopted a resolution denying any party support for Rogers, citing the alleged racist and discriminatory views of the LaRouche movement — allegations that Rogers, who is African-American, firmly rejects."

Now, given that an allegation is different from a fact, (the first should not be used in an encyclopedia, it is a mere rumour,a speculation, at least unproven and facts should be the only thing an encyclopedia should consist of)I have two questions for Bill: 1. Have you deliberatly tried to misrepresent  the article? Are you editing in good faith? 81.210.199.235 (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha! If we are to exclude "allegations", then all of Larouche's conspiracy-ridden bilge goes out the window.
 * "citing the alleged racist and discriminatory views of the LaRouche movement — allegations that Rogers, who is African-American, firmly rejects." Which is to say that others, not only the state Democratic party have said that LaRouche is a racist. Otherwise they wouldn't be citing allegations, they would be making allegations.
 * Since you seem to have mysteriously detailed (yet skewed) knowledge of policy, I suggest you revise No Personal Attacks. BillMasen (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha-Ha! "Mysteriously detailed" . I feel free to add paranoia to my list of wiki-induced

illnesses. (Make a list of wiki-induced illnesses, starting with Hypocrisy, then add paranoia ;) )Not only you do not believe i have more extensive knowledge of "wiki-rules" than i proclaim to have, you are even unable to believe an Afro-American like Mrs. Rogers, that she can work with an "alleged" racist like LaRouche. --ok, here the humour ends--- I am very fine with removing all sorts of "allegations" coming from either side, Larouche and his critics. Cheers! 81.210.198.198 (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotation sourcing still problematic
There does seem to be a problem with the sourcing of views. What is being requested under WP:RS is a citation of the original source. In most cases that has not been provided. In some cases a citation was provided that did not correspond to the attributed view. For example, this source does not say that LaRouche views the Beatles as "tools of oligarchs or Aristoleans" -- it simply makes it clear that he dislikes them (and I'm not convinced that this is a notable view, worthy of being in the lede.) This source doesn't say that Dick Cheney "ordered the 9/11 attacks" -- it says that "the entirety' of Cheney's power over U.S. policy-shaping 'was gained solely through those of his presently undiscovered political benefactors who staged the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001," which I understand to mean that Cheney was able to increase his influence due to the attacks. Since this is a BLP I think it is important that the views attributed closely match the original source. The alleged views on the Holocaust and "Zionist conspiracy" still have no original source cited. Delia Peabody (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's amazing Delia. I have never ever, counting from my one and only drug trip 10 years ago, seen such a massive distortion of reality as in the Beatles-"quote". I'm stunned. Who created this crap ? 81.210.199.235 (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I adjusted the quote about 9/11 to make it fit the source. I worry that statements which are complicated and ambiguous in the original source are winding up as simplified bald assertions in this article, because this may cause BLP problems. The "Beatles" quote still does not match what is said in the lede, and the campus newspaper cite that was provided also does not cite the original source. Since these are all controversial statements (especially the "holocaust" and "zionist" ones), I think the original sources are necessary per WP:RS. Rather than restore the individual request tags, I put a general tag at the top of the article. I can list the problem spots here if it would be helpful.

Two observations: I wonder if these are really central views of LaRouche, since they are so difficult to verify. Also, there are a number of views mentioned in the lede which do not appear in the body of the article. What is a "triple point curve"? Delia Peabody (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice catch, Delia! A "Triple point" curve does not exist, what is meant is the "Triple Curve" argument by Larouche, which can be found here: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/onlineimages/TripleCurve-web.gif and here http://www.schillerinstitute.org/graphics/diagrams/TripleCurve.jpg. If there is a GNU-licensed version of it, feel free to insert it.
 * Also, i don't understand that there are campus newspaper cite in there, I'd get rid of it asap: Campus Newspaper? : Pu-leaaase! Cheers! 81.210.200.246 (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much motion here. At WP:UNSOURCED it says "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page." However, I am reluctant to do this because I can see that this article has been a battleground. Instead, I am restoring some of the inline cite requests where I see trouble spots, and I hope that others will take the appropriate action.

A few comments on the lede: first of all, it doesn't match the body of the article. I would say that the topics mentioned in the lede seem more important than some of those in the body, so it would be good if the body could be re-written to correspond to the lede. However, there are numerous unsourced claims in the lede and some things that look like original research. Delia Peabody (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to engage in discussions on this page with "new" editors for the reasons I've stated above. I'll just point out the absurdity of adding "quotation request" tags to quotations.   Will Beback    talk    21:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem noted, Will Beback. What matters is not who an editor is, much less who you think he may be, what matters is that he or she improves the article according to the rules of wiki. Don't act like you own this article. Your failure of respect for Delia may be interpreted as a sign of ownage. 81.210.198.177 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What is being requested under WP:RS is a citation of the original source (I wish there were a more specific in-line request tag.) This would satisfy verifiability, and also provide context, because some of views being attributed are cited to fragments of quotes where it may be difficult to tell what was intended in the original. I hope you can see why I think this important, particularly in cases where "it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations" (WP:UNSOURCED.) Delia Peabody (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't that run contrary to the rule about using secondary sources? And not using self-published ones? Secondary sources necessarily don't print an entire speech or article for the sake of one quote, of course. BillMasen (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)




 * "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount; the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration." -- RS
 * "Primary sources are permitted if used carefully." -- WP:PRIMARY
 * "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" (with stipulations. But in a case where it is clear that a self-published source is used to document the opinion, policy or theory of the subject of this article, it is clearly acceptable.) -- WP:SELFPUB


 * I think that the most responsible course of action is to omit any views which are difficult to verify and which damage the reputation of LaRouche or his organization. That's what I would do with the "Holocaust" and "Zionist conspiracy" quote-fragments -- "Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration." Delia Peabody (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You say that the sources are "partisan". Which sources are they and what is their party?   Will Beback    talk    10:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It means biased. The sources that are cited are the Daily Mail (London (UK), The Gazette (Montreal, Que.), and a book by Muriel Siebert. The articles are all available online, and they appear to me to be polemics against LaRouche, with no original sources cited. I don't think they are sufficient if we are going to make a very damaging accusation against a living person. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I find that "clearly" so often an opaque word. Selfpub's "stipulations" are important. :::::"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as
 * '''1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * '''2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * '''3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * '''4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * '''5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Practically all of LaRouche's views involve "claims about third parties" and "claims about events not directly related to the subject". These include his economic theories and his many conspiracy allegations.

You seem to be saying that whatever LRs reported views are in secondary sources, they should be backed up by primary sources. According to WP's rules, I think that is the exact opposite of the case. These statements (about other events) should not be considered notable unless commented on by reliable secondary sources.

Otherwise, the article is merely a sounding board for whatever Lr is saying this week.

Moreover, no article may based primarily on self-published or primary sources, no matter what its subject. The article was so based before I edited it for the first time. Remember that the wording is "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually' in articles about themselves” not “especially in articles about themselves", as it was rendered above.

Moreover, it has been noted in the article that Larouche’s public statements do not accord with his true beliefs. What he says changes from week to week; it is our job to summarise his views as a whole, not collect a jumble of random statements. BillMasen (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said.   Will Beback    talk    00:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, our job is to summarize what the sources say about his beliefs, not what we think they are. If LaRouche has a website that lays out clearly his position on various things, it's ok to use that in this article.  For example, we can say that a secondary source reports that LaRouche hates the Beatles with the citation, then state, "But on his organization's website, LaRouche states that he doesn't actually hate the Beatles, just dislikes them [or whatever he says]" then cite his website.  This is allowable under Wikipedia's rules and allows us to present all sides of the topic without taking a side ourselves. Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

We agree then. It isn't right to stitch together the primary sources according to our own interpretation. We have to rely on secondary sources. The only remotely positive reliable sources are a load of newspaper articles with passing references to LaRouche; perhaps worthy of inclusion, definitely not enough to define him as a respected economist. Note that I did not add the beatles quote; I added virtually nothing to the article that was not already there. BillMasen (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The LaRouche movement maintains a number of websites, and has published dozens, if not hundreds, of books and pamphlets. Suffice it to say that the movement has views on countless topics. It would be inappropriate for us to skim through those and cherry-pick items that we think are interesting. We need to use secondary sources to establish which issues are significant. The pro-LaRouche editor here wants to insert material that only appears on LaRouche websites, and that's the big problem. I don't think anyone objects to citing primary sources for illustrative purposes if we already have a secondary source that we're using for our main source.   Will Beback    talk    01:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This has wandered far off-topic, perhaps because what BillMasen thinks I "seem to be saying" is quite different than what I am actually saying. I am not proposing that we add anything to the article. I am saying that there are a number of quotations already in the article that are inadequately sourced. We need to be able to verify that LaRouche actually said what is being attributed to him. According to WP:RS#Quotations the best way to do that is with a footnote to the original source. Failing that, use a secondary source which provides a cite to the original source. There are a number of cases where we have neither, and if proper verification can not be found, I think it would be best to remove them. --Delia Peabody (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In part it was a response to certain other editors, if I was unclear.


 * Apart from changing the lead, most of my edit to the page was removing content which I judged not to be notable. The fact that Lr said "XYZ" is not notable unless someone else thought to comment on it. Do I take it you agree with that?


 * I did not add any sourced quotations to the article; I do not possess any of the books cited therein. You said that we should at least use a secondary source which provides a cite to the original source. Have you looked at the citations in question? I don't think I can say that the citations are out of order unless I look at the books myself. BillMasen (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of anti-semitism
In any case where LaRouche's views on a given topic have been discussed in a secondary source, it is permissable (but not mandatory) to include examples from LaRouche's self-published statements on that topic. In a case where LaRouche's self-published statements contradict what has been attributed to him by a secondary source, it becomes mandatory under NPOV to include them. Taking an example from the many disputes on this page, I believe it was a serious error to remove LaRouche's statements condemning antisemitism while retaining allegations by his critics that he is antisemitic. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did that because LaRouche has continued to make antisemitic statements since then, which casts grave doubt on his sincerity. However, since that is my judgment, I can't stop you from adding it back if you think it necessary. BillMasen (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Delia Peabody (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Condemning something doesn't mean one has not committed it. We have examples of preachers who condemn fornication while using prostitutes, politicians who condemn homosexuality while engaging in it, legislators who condemn a policy and then vote for it, etc. The article currently says that "LaRouche has long denied that his movement is antisemitic" I don't object to adding "and condemned antisemiticism in 2006".   Will Beback    talk    01:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All that certainly could be true, but I'd still like to see a well-sourced example. Delia Peabody (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not "well-sourced", but in a 2006 EIR article he said that antisemiticism is bad.   Will Beback    talk    13:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And by "well-sourced" I mean conforming to WP:RS#Quotations. --Delia Peabody (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well how about this http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R8nmw1wlgeUC&pg=PA65&dq=&hl=en&ei=PRrXTM7KJIG7hAen_p2dBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=larouche%20%22holocaust%20denial%22&f=false (the Hebron massacre was organised by the World Jewish Council, inter alia) and this "Uwe Frisecke of Lyndon LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review said on Lebanon's New TV that Jews spread AIDS, SARS, mad cow, and other diseases". http://www.nysun.com/foreign/middle-east-conspiracy-theories/46074/.
 * I have to echo what Will Beback said. In the context of LaRouche's past blatant anti-semitism, his public attacks on prominent Jews such as Soros, and his continuing conspiracy mongering on "british zionism", it seems inconceivable that his "disavowal of antisemitism" is sincere. He has simply found a more acceptable way to peddle it, and is more careful about what he says in public.
 * But we are getting off track. I don't object to re-adding the statement that he condemned antisemitism. Everything else convicts him a hundred times over. BillMasen (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about this because I know that some people are accused of anti-semitism because they criticize the policies of the Israeli government, which is not actual anti-semitism. The New York Sun article does not meet the WP:RS standard. What you are presenting are allegations by critics. I want to see something from the horse's mouth that I can verify for myself is anti-semitic. Attacking Soros (George Soros?) is not anti-semitic unless he attacks him for being a Jew. You are referring to "past blatant anti-semitism," but I see very little in the way of concrete examples in this article. One comment from earlier on this page that I found particularly insightful was from Ocaasi, who referenced ASF. It is fair to report that LaRouche has critics who call him anti-semitic, but it is not acceptable to present their views as Wikipedia's. Delia Peabody (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no need to say that you're sorry, but your response is simply obtuse. The point is that he accuses the World Jewish Congress of orchestrating the massacre; an organisation which has little or nothing to do with Israel, apart from being Jewish.
 * The New York Sun article cites the original source; a TV show featuring a contributing editor from LaRouche's mouthpiece, Executive Intelligence review. A minute ago the standard was use a secondary source which provides a cite to the original source, but now you need more?
 * Believe it or not, it is difficult to get someone to say the words "I am attacking Soros because he is a Jew". But if you attack every politcally influential Jew in the country, wouldn't that suggest something?
 * In this very article LaRouche dismisses the whole Jewish culture as unsaleable residue. Do you want me to pile up more examples directly from LaRouche's early period of blatant antisemitism? You say we have "very few" examples. How many do you need? It will be pointless OR as far as wikipedia is concerned, but it might be worth doing nonetheless.
 * It is fair to report that LaRouche has critics who call him anti-semitic, but it is not acceptable to present their views as Wikipedia's. I have never presented it as Wikipedia's view that he is an antisemite. Every acussation has been referenced. The complaint is that LaRouche editors want him to be defined as a famous economist, rather than as a conspiracy-monger who is frequently accused of being an antisemite. BillMasen (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Where did he say that he retracted his holocaust denial?" is the same as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" - unacceptable. 81.210.195.82 (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * More: The problem of Hitler, Bob, is that Hitler was not real, he was a golem. http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.LoveEnemy1
 * A Golem? In legend, a frankenstein-monster created by rabbi-wizards.
 * I also suggest that you read this: http://larouche-danger.com/html/researches_lr_antisemitism.pdf, in particular chapters 4, 5 and 6. BillMasen (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "More: The problem of Hitler, Bob, is that Hitler was not real, he was a golem. http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.LoveEnemy1
 * A Golem? In legend, a frankenstein-monster created by rabbi-wizards." BillMasen (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is as rediculous as calling somebody who uses the word "Schlemihl" an antisemite. 81.210.198.148 (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if that actually happened, I'd probably want to look at what they actually said. BillMasen (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Masen's definition of anti-semitic is all over the map. It includes all sorts of things that do not belong. For example, criticizing the policies of the Israeli government is not anti-semitic. It is a common tactic to smear people who criticize them as anti-semitic. Criticizing George Soros is not anti-semitic (Masen also implies that LaRouche "attacks every politcally influential Jew in the country," which is a smear. I read a pamphlet not long ago where LaRouche was praising Russ Feingold to the skies, and he has praised numerous Israeli leaders as well.) If someone is talking about a conspiracy that includes a Jew, that does not make it a "Jewish Conspiracy." Masen says that he has "never presented it as Wikipedia's view that LaRouche is an antisemite", but I looked at the history of the article and Masen was the one who created the section called "Jewish Conspiracies," a title which implies that LaRouche is anti-semitic, while the section has nothing to do with any Jewish conspiracy theory by LaRouche. Snoid Headly (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. Call me Mr Masen if you like, but Bill is fine, by the way. :)
 * I reported that it was the view of those who had studied LaRouche, and at the time there was no countervailing source in the article which met WP:RS. I would have been representing it as wikipedia's view if there were no sources to support it, which there were.
 * I never said that all denunciation of Israel or a prominent Jew is antisemitic. It is the content of the statement which makes it so (in this case, he [Ed: his organisation] accuses non-Israeli organisations of sabotaging the peace accords, without any evidence). I am aware that LaRouche has changed from attacking all Jews to attacking some of them, without admitting, explaining or apologising for his past blatant antisemitism. I just don't understand why it's significant.
 * We have already established that LaRouche played down the holocaust, that he believes Jewish culture is unsaleable residue and that he believed himself under attack from a Jewish (among other things) oligarchy. By the way, I had to go to the primary sources because another editor said that secondary sources weren't enough for quotations. BillMasen (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

From EIR: http://www.wlym.com/www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2004/eirv31/eirv31n22.pdf ''The Jewish-American community is—how many mil- lions now? Five million or so? The Jewish organizations are no more than 600,000 people altogether, including every- thing: civil organizations, B’nai B’rith, religious community organizations, the federations,which are the local synagogue, schools, and so on; universities, the ADL and everything else. These 600,000 people are mostly controlled —and I exclude destructhe Reform and Conservative communities—but even among them, many leaders are totally controlled by Jewish business interests, which are very, very few, a handful of people, re- ally—I would say no more than 10,000 people altogether; 5,000 is probably closer to the truth. I’m talking about the major, big financiers.''

In other words, all Jewish civic organisations are "controlled by Jewish business interests". I can't put this in the article as a reliable source needs to flag it, but I would suggest that if anyone else comes across it in another source, it would be a useful addition to the article. BillMasen (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interview with Maxim Ghilan. While it's interesting that they'd choose to interview him, I don't think we can say he speaks for the movement.   Will Beback    talk    23:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

All References hostile to Larouche
Woohoo! I just noticed that each book given as "Reference" in this article is hostile to Larouche. Now i know im being cheated. uurgh! Never trust a Wiki! 81.210.204.116 (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't hear it the tenth time: find a reliable book that supports Larouche. Otherwise, there's no point in complaining. BillMasen (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't let your paranoia get the best of you, Bill Masen. Do not think that i know what was going on in this article. I simply noted that noone - that's: "N-O-O-N-E" would give a s**t about the reliability of an article with such sources. Got my point? 81.210.198.177 (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, i do not need to find a "book that supports Larouche". Neither do i need books which do not support him.I prefer unbiased sources.Thank you, Sir. That will do. 81.210.198.177 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, all I can say is that I would be impressed if you found an extensive account of LaRouche that was neither biased for or against him. You can see for yourself the trouble we have had in constructing a short article which no-one considers biased. BillMasen (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Soviets and AIDS
Here are excerpts from the source: There are many sources for LaRouche himself saying that the AIDS epidemic in Africa was the responsibility of the IMF, which might be a better assertion for the lead.  Will Beback   talk    00:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dr. John Grauerholz, a Virginia physician with close ties to LaRouche, announced his side's appeal at a Los Angeles news conference where he implied Soviet collaboration with U.S. public health officials to spread AIDS and passed out papers that accused a prominent New York researcher of terrorist activities in France. Introduced as medical director of LaRouche's Biological Holocaust Task Force, Grauerholz argued that ... [..] Under questioning by reporters, Grauerholz said that the Soviets may have started the AIDS plague, and certainly are glad that it is spreading. He said that U.S. health officials have aided the Soviets by not stopping AIDS,...
 * Decision on AIDS Measure Draws Appeals; KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 12, 1986. pg. 3

Quote
An example of Holocaust denial from one of LaRouche's own publications: http://wlym.com/campaigner/7812.pdf The impassioned sophistry which the Zionist demagogue offers to all foolish enough to be impressed with such hoaxes is the "holocaust" thesis: that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so essential to "Jewish survival" that any sort of criminal activity is justified against anti-Zionists, 'in memory of the "six million." This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die''' as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive "appropriate technology" for the employment of "inferior races," a small fraction of the tens of millions of others, especially Slavs, who were murdered in the same way that Jewish refugee Felix Rohatyn and others of his ilk propose to revive today. The point is that Adolf Hitler was put into power largely on the initiative of the Rothschilds, Warburgs, and Oppenheimers, among other Jewish and non-Jewish financial interests centered in the City of London. Their support for Hitler during the 1930s (and sometimes later) was based on the same policy that the same financial interests are pursuing through the likes of Rohatyn today.''

Trying to minimise the holocaust by fiddling the numbers is an established practice of Holocaust denial (Holocaust_denial). 'Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition' http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qMIDrggs8TsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Conspiracy+Theories+in+American+History&hl=en&ei=xfrXTLb6GIexhAfH7YDhBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=1.5%20million&f=false

I believe it is this quote which was mangled as "common delusion of the American Zionist". The intent is clear enough. BillMasen (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there it is. Good research.   Will Beback    talk    13:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be as concise as I can in my response. First of all, Bill says that "The point is that he accuses the World Jewish Congress of orchestrating the massacre; an organisation which has little or nothing to do with Israel, apart from being Jewish." And here is what the cited book actually says: "Hebron massacre was a plot by British Intelligence, working with the Israeli mafia, the Soviets, B'nai B'rith... and that the World Jewish Congress conspires with Trotskyists to destroy the Israel-PLO peace accords." It is sourced to "Jones 1994" -- is that an original source? I don't know what the ellipse replaces. As far as the New York Sun allegation is concerned, I certainly have no way of verifying what was said on a Lebanese TV show. WP:RS says that an archived copy must exist for it to be considered a reliable source. Perhaps such a copy exists.

The "holocaust minimization" quote that you provided is from 1978. I went back to look at the earlier version of this article as it looked before your re-write, and read the section called "Zionism, Jews and the Holocaust" which includes that quote, but also includes later quotes where LaRouche evidently revised his views. Although this section I think is too long, it comes much closer to NPOV than what is presently in the article. I see also that it includes the denunciation of anti-semitism which is under discussion. --Delia Peabody (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Where did he say that he retracted his holocaust denial? I have said before that his "condemnation of antisemitism" can go in the article, as long as we also present the copious evidence of his antisemitism. Most of his critics have noted that LaRouche has moved from open to coded antisemitism.
 * LR himself has never admitted that he was previously antisemitic, he has only said that he was never antisemitic. In other words, he has not "disavowed" his antisemitism, only tried to hide it.
 * From 1992: ''It is Aristotle who is our enemy. Now in respect to other things. Usury is the characteristic of Aristotle and oligarchism, as Aristotle is characteristic of the system of oligarchism in the history of European civilization and its offshoots. And that we attacked.
 * ''The Jewish element of this is subordinate to that oligarchical element, just as the Rosicrucian or Cathar or Bugger element is subordinate.
 * In other words, his "financial oligarchy" is Jewish as well as oligarchical, homosexual (and a few other things). This comes from an anti-lr website, but you can see for yourself the facsimile of the briefing below.
 * I realise that it is incredibly boring to watch LaRouche rape obscure historical figures and events for his own twisted purposes. However, I suggest that reading around the subject will leave you in no doubt about LaRouche's antisemitism, and his attempts to hide it. BillMasen (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On second reading, LaRouche accuses the WJC of sabotaging the peace accords, you are right. On the other hand, he is still attacking a Jewish group without foundation. BillMasen (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We should simply report what LaRouche says, or what his critics say, as accurately as possible. I urge you to be more careful in your reading or interpretation of quotes. If you will examine the text you quoted earlier, it says that the "hoax" is that "the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so essential to "Jewish survival" that any sort of criminal activity is justified against anti-Zionists." In the lede to the article, you say that LaRouche says "the holocaust is a hoax." You also interpret the quote to mean that "Jews were not specifically persecuted," which is incorrect -- the quote says that other groups were persecuted in addition to Jews. In addition to these problems, you have attributed an unsigned editorial in a LaRouche-group publication to LaRouche personally. I have tagged this, and re-added the article tags, because I don't see the concerns being fully addressed that were raised following your request for comment back in September (although there definately has been some progress.)


 * I also did a web search for other mentions of the holocaust in LaRouche publications. refers to the "Final Solution, and the murder of 6 million Jews." It should be included under NPOV.Delia Peabody (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also restoring LaRouche's statement against anti-semitism, which I believe was generally agreed to under NPOV. Delia Peabody (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * One other problem I see with the article is that the structure is very confusing. I moved "Judaism" to "culture and identity" because it did not fit under "conspiracy theories." I think that "condemnation of homosexuals" should go there also, instead of under "political proposals," except that it has political proposals on AIDs mixed in. I think that the structure of the lede is good, and since the lede is supposed to summarize the article, the article should be re-structured to follow the lede. Delia Peabody (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

''The impassioned sophistry which the Zionist ''demagogue offers to all foolish enough to be impressed ''with such hoaxes is the "holocaust" thesis: that the ''culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so essential to "Jewish survival" that any sort of criminal activity is justified ''against anti-Zionists, in memory of the "six million." ''This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a ''million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi ''policy of labor-intensive "appropriate technology" for the employment of "inferior races," a small fraction of ''the tens of millions of others, especially Slavs, who were ''murdered in the same way that Jewish refugee Felix Rohatyn and others of his ilk propose to revive today.

LR identifies the 'holocaust thesis' as a hoax; he says "this is a lie, only one an a half million Jews did die". Would you agree he identifies the claim that six million Jews died as a "lie"? I can't see any other way to read it; it would seem that Siebert saw it this way and we can't get out of that. You tell me I am misinterpreting it; I think that you are giving it a very generous interpretation which is not supported by the sources.

Apparently the number of Jews who died is a "small fraction" of the "tens of millions" of Slavs and others who died as a result of "labour-intensive" policies. How can I read that except as the Jews were no more persecuted than many other groups?

I have to say I believe this all goes to the heart of the problem with your approach. We should rely on reliable sources, not interpret these quotations ourselves. That is OR.

I would point out that, while by no means are most of Israel's critics antisemites, practically all antisemites are anti-Israel. A criticism of Israel can be antisemitic. Lr would not have to falsify the holocaust figures to make the point that "israel is not essential for the survival of the Jewish race". It is his holocaust obfuscation which makes it so.

I will not stop you from adding the 6 million quote which you mentioned, but I am concerned that it is OR. I will ask for guidance about these rules. BillMasen (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a criticism of Israel can be antisemitic, but we are not at liberty to speculate about whether it is in LaRouche's case. We report what sources say without comment.


 * Here is how I would write an NPOV description of this issue: In 1973, a LaRouche-affiliated publication published a cover story entitled "Zionism is not Judaism," in which they alleged that figures for the holocaust were being inflated to make a case for the importance of Zionism. At that time, the magazine claimed that only "a million and a half Jews did die" as a result of Nazi labor policies. In later years, LaRouche publications referred to the "Final Solution, and the murder of 6 million Jews." I would then follow that with any criticism from reliable sources. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * But we can already find a hundred sources saying he denied the holocaust. We had secodary sources, but you wanted a direct quotation.
 * Here we have a direct quotation that only one and a half million Jews died as a result of "labour policies" (presumably he means slave labour, but he doesn't even say that). Ergo, he is denying that six million Jews were gassed. Ergo, he is denying the holocaust.
 * I disagree entirely that you have hit on the right interpretation of the quote. To summarise, he says the assertion that the state of Israel is necessary because 6 million Jews were murdered in the holocaust is a lie/piece of sophistry/hoax. Only 1.5 million Jews died because of slave labour, a small fraction of tens of millions of non-Jews who died. ::So:
 * 1)he says Israel is not necessary for the survival of the Jewish people (not of itself holocaust denial, but I never said it was)
 * 2)he says that Zionists believe any "criminal actions" against "anti-Zionists" are justified (slanderous, paranoid claptrap but again, not of itself holocaust denial)
 * 3)he says 6 million Jews didn't get murdered, which they did.
 * 4)he says that the Jews who died were all killed by "slave labour", which they weren't.
 * 5)he says that the Jewish victims were "a small fraction" of the Nazis' victims, which they were not.
 * Points 3, 4 and 5 are straight-up-and-down holocaust denial. I believe your arguments to the contrary are your own private and dubious interpretation, and not appropriate for the article. BillMasen (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is about the LaRouche movement, and the campaigner is clearly part of that. I think LaRouche was the editor, but whether its attributed to him or his movement it needs to go in the article.

More
Here is another source for the blindingly obvious (emphasis mine):
 * ''These quotations are taken from “Zionism is not Judaism”, the anti-Semitic tract given in the epigraph above, which continues: ‘The ADL is literally the Gestapo of British secret intelligence in the urban centre in the United States. No other “social action” complement to a religious association is so consistently, so profoundly evil.’[8]


 * ''These may not seem, at first glance, to be egregiously anti-Semitic remarks, but they are part of a consistent – if systematically veiled – pattern of anti-Semitic conspiricism espoused by the LaRouche Organization. It is frequently mixed with a coded form of Holocaust denial, which is itself a microcosm of the sanitized language which is deliberately employed across the gamut of LaRouche publications:


 * ''The Czarist Okhrana's Protocols of Zion include a hard kernel of truth which no mere Swiss court decision could legislate out of existence. The fallacy of the Protocols of Zion is that it attributes the alleged conspiracy to Jews generally, to Judaism. A corrected version of The Protocols would stipulate that the evil oaths cited were actually the practices of variously a Paris branch of B'nai B'rith [….][9]


 * ''Going even further than this endorsement of a crude anti-Semitic forgery over a century old, LaRouche also claims that traditional understandings of the Holocaust are ‘hoaxes’:


 * The impassioned sophistry which the Zionist demagogue offers to all foolish enough to be impressed with such hoaxes is the “holocaust” thesis: that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so essential to ‘Jewish survival’ that any sort of criminal activity is justified against anti-Zionists in memory of the ‘six million.’ This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive “appropriate technology” for the employment of “inferior races”, a small fraction of the tens of millions of others, especially Slavs, who were murdered in the same way that Jewish refugee Felix Rohatyn and others of his ilk propose to revive today.

See [www.holocaustresearchproject.net/essays&editorials/larouche2.html#_ednref9].


 * The author is Matthew Feldman, Senior Lecturer in twentieth century history at the university of Northampton (i.e. his opinions are notable).


 * I'm going to cite this in the article. Sensible comments are appreciated. BillMasen (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There's the Siebert excerpt.  Will Beback   talk    02:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since she doesn't quote his article, I don't think it's necessary to include it. BillMasen (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to cite the original source.   Will Beback    talk    00:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be, but I think the Feldman quote is superior. He's a historian, LaRouche is central to the essay he wrote, and he provides a verifiable quote to demonstrate his point. BillMasen (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I do suggest, though, that if you remove the quotation you should probably also remove the citation.   Will Beback    talk    01:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be that this is, as Bill suggested, a "mangled" allusion to the quote under discussion, but we don't know for sure. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that this situation is exactly why WP:RS was made a policy. A charge of anti-Semitism is an extremely serious one to make against a public figure, and we must be meticulous in making the distinction between what is an actual quote, and what is an allegation or interpretation by critics (as in the Feldman quote above.) If this were a central issue for LaRouche or his publications, it should be easy to find other original sources that address the topic. It does, however, appear to a major issue for LaRouche's critics, as Bill points out. I believe it should go in the "accusations" section. Delia Peabody (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. It says:
 * 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).
 * Thus it specifically allows the use of quotes from reliable secondary sources.   Will Beback    talk    00:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:V on the other hand is a policy, and the one which I tried to implement in the rewrite. WP:Selfpub says that, even articles about their authors must not be primarily based on self-published sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillMasen (talk • contribs)
 * I certainly agree with that.   Will Beback    talk    01:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A charge of anti-Semitism is an extremely serious one to make against a public figure, and we must be meticulous in making the distinction between what is an actual quote, and what is an allegation or interpretation by critics (as in the Feldman quote above.) Feldman both quotes the original and makes the interpretation that LR is a holocaust denier. Matthew Feldman's interpretation of the quote is important; Delia Peabody's is not. Apparently you don't think that denying the murder of 4.5 million people is denial. Since it isn't you that I have to convince, I won't bother any more. Incidentally, calling LaRouche an antisemite has been ruled fair comment in a US libel case. Did you read all of Feldman's article? "very serious accusations" are sometimes true.

This is going in the article. I really don't mind whether it is framed as a "general" statement or a "specific" one; but it is important whether LaRouche wants it to be or not. He can even have some of his later statements about the holocaust too. Yay for him.

'''If this were a central issue for LaRouche or his publications, it should be easy to find other original sources that address the topic. It does, however, appear to a major issue for LaRouche's critics, as Bill points out.''' That is rather telling. LaRouche doesn't get to decide what a "central issue" is on a wikipedia article. Reliable secondary sources do; both positive and negative.

You did not "write the policies", but you have spent significantly more time quoting policy on the talk page than implementing those policies in the article. My original rewrite was intended to conform the article with WP:selfpub. If you pick any "political positions of So-And-So" article, it relies entirely on secondary news sources, not on the politicians self-published statements.

The problem with this on LaRouche's part is that virtually every secondary source is hostile to him, and not particularly interested in schemes like "let's all read lots of plato so that we can conquer mars". For that reason, it was decided to retain primary sources where they could elucidate or respond to secondary ones. I just don't know how to conjure pro-LaRouche reliable secondary sources out of thin air. BillMasen (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content
I deleted some things which had not been pointed up at all by secondary sources. We can't just be picking random proposals from LaRouche's website.

I also changed several direct quotes to paraphrases. I tried to make them a fair representation of what was said. If you feel that these are unfair please raise it here or alter them rather than bring back lots of long quotes. They make the article difficult to read, particularly with LaRouche's rambling bombast.

Also, please try to write in finished time, not unfinished time (i.e. LaRouche proposed rather than LaRouche has proposed) One day there won't be an economic crisis, and "present economic crisis" won't make any sense. BillMasen (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: any foreign language sources require translation on the talk page; google translate will do if you can't speak the language. I notice that several sources have been re-added from the old version of the article; some (such as the Arabic website) I took away because I had no idea whether they met RS.

Unlike Will, I do not want to be discussing every change on the talk page. I did ask you to conduct whatever changes you wanted, so I won't excise these dubious sources before you have had a chance to justify them. BillMasen (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I added a grand total of two sources: the Daily Bell, and a second article from Corrierre della Sera. I did not add an Arabic website (although why would an Arabic website be assumed to be unreliable?) I should also mention that I did not remove anything at all, even though some of the quotes from critics seem unduly long. I think it was a mistake to remove the following material, which is sourced and I think of some importance to the article:
 * According to EIR, "LaRouche has consistently called for reregulation of utilities, transportation, health care (under the "Hill-Burton" standard), the financial (especially the speculative markets) and other sectors, and a return to traditional American-System practices, set aside over the past 40 years."
 * "LaRouche proposed the "Homeowners and Banks Protection Act of 2007," which would freeze mortgage rates, ban foreclosures and put the banking system through a bankruptcy reorganization."
 * "In recent years LaRouche has been described as an opponent of both Marxism and deregulated Economic liberalism, as well as being an enemy of financial speculation."
 * "LaRouche has emphasized that now only states can provide credit in the medium and long term."


 * Could you explain why you thought it was necessary to remove these things? Delia Peabody (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)  sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said "an Arabic website would be assumed to be unreliable", I said that I could not determine whether it was reliable, because I could not read anything on it. I assumed that you had added it, it seems it was already there.

As you pointed out, it is not mandatory to elucidate with primary sources when the primary sources do not contradict the secondary ones. It is only our task to say what the RS say about his views, not to act as his sounding board.

The use of "american system" is confusing as it refers to a 19th century tarrif proposal, which has little or nothing to do with regulating health care or or utilities. Nor was it the same as Roosevelt's policies, which are not called that either by historians or by FDR's contemporaries. The article only says that the proposal "borrows language" from LaRouche. It does not identify any of these points as something whihc LR has notably proposed. Unwarranted detail.
 * LaRouche has consistently called for reregulation of utilities, transportation, health care (under the "Hill-Burton" standard), the financial (especially the speculative markets) and other sectors, and a return to traditional American-System practices, set aside over the past 40 years.
 * "LaRouche proposed the "Homeowners and Banks Protection Act of 2007," which would freeze mortgage rates, ban foreclosures and put the banking system through a bankruptcy reorganization."
 * "In recent years LaRouche has been described as an opponent of both Marxism and deregulated Economic liberalism, as well as being an enemy of financial speculation."

Repetitive, noted elsewhere in the article.
 * "LaRouche has emphasized that now only states can provide credit in the medium and long term."

Doesn't make any sense.

I assume you can speak Italian, since you added the quotes. Are you going to post a translation? BillMasen (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it generally works best if you delete things one at a time, and provide the explanation in the edit summary. The quotes I added were from the English-language Daily Bell and did not require translation. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)