Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:38, 13 March 2007

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/archive1, Aug 21-Nov 29
• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/archive2, Dec 17-Jan 11
• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/archive3, Jan 11-19
• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Twrigley, Feb 27-March 06, 2006

Minority views

From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

SlimVirgin 10:58, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

It would seem that most of Berlet's theories would belong in the third category. --HK 20:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The condemnation of Lyndon LaRouche and his followers is nearly universal and worldwide in terms of material published in commonly accepted reference texts. The proponents of LaRouche are a tiny group that live in a bubble of admiration. I started out here merely asking that the text be reduced to 50% self-published claims by LaRouchites and 50% material from commonly accepted reference texts (all critical of LaRouche). This apparently is not OK with HK, who insists on inserting material with no independent verification. I think it is clear that HK is not capable of participating in this process in a way that is even remotely connected to the goals of Misplaced Pages. He has already repeatedy violated the strictures placed on him by the Arb. committee. He continues to enagage in personal attacks. He continues to claim that I cook quotes when it has been shown to the satisfaction of anyone but a LaRouche fanatic that the quotes are accurate and my interpretation of them is fair. Why is this being tolerated?

Will: In an entry on the Holocaust, would you find it acceptable if the Holocaust Deniers were allowed 50% of the text space to post their views? Would it be OK to allow them to constantly rewrite the text so that their claims ended every section, thus giving those views more weight? I think not.

Let's get back to editing. Let's be fair to the LaRouchites, but let's be editors of a serious encylopedia.

In the meantime--once again--I ask that HK and Weed and the other pro-LaRouche editors stop editing other LaRouche-related pages and just work on this page. I am willing to just work on this page. What's the problem with that? Let's finish the work on the text on AIDS and Gay people. Here is a proposed format

Majority view from material published in commonly accepted reference texts.

Quote from critic.

Quote from LaRouchites.

Summary

Then we move on to another section, until the article is edited. --Cberlet 12:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slim: I don't know how to create a Temp page, can you create one for me to edit and tell me how to do it?--Cberlet 13:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You can have a Temp page here or in your own user space. If the former, go to the search box on the left hand side. Type in (you can choose the words after the slash) Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Cberlet and press "go". A page will come up with a link saying that page doesn't exist - click here to create it (or words to that effect). Simply click on that link, and start writing on the blank page. Alternatively (and this is what most people do for personal drafts), create a page in your own user space by typing User:Cberlet/LaRouche draft, click on go, same procedure. Again, you can choose the words after the slash. Hope that helps. SlimVirgin 23:20, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Cberlet's proposed format above. Please let's concentrate on one page at a time. As this one is protected, we must edit this one, or ask for unprotection, because we're currently abusing the protection process. We should aim to make this article the sort of thing you'd expect to read in the Encyclopedia Britannica, if they had enough space (by which I don't mean it should be so long no one will read it). SlimVirgin 23:25, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Editing by Sections

Let's start with this section:

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Gays & AIDS

Here are the remaining sections to edit after we agree to the above section:

Republicanism v. Fascism

Racism or Higher Culture?

The Brainwashing Incident

Let's edit them in order

We can do this!--Cberlet 03:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chip, it's a good idea. What I'd suggest is to get a structure going first, and a rough estimate of desired length. Suggestion: Intro, Marxist period; Change of views, Conspiracy theories (issues like John Train Salon included here), Allegations of brainwashing, Gays and AIDS, Attitude toward Jews (including here the views about the British establishment and "international Jewry"), Attitude toward women; The LaRouche movement around the world (say something about the Schiller Institute and LYM, methods of recruitment, how many followers, how is movement financed). Then we can have LaRouche rebuttal sections, or we can intersperse LaRouche position throughout the text. I'd prefer the latter, so long as it doesn't lead to claim, counter-claim, and counter-counter etc. Suggest your own section headings if you want because you're the expert. I was thinking structure would be a good thing to pin down so we can pace ourselves in terms of word length, as we tackle each subject. SlimVirgin 04:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Berlet's theories

If you think that I am going to accept the replacement of this article with a knock-off of Chip Berlet's web site, you are dreaming. I indicated that I would accept Willmcw's (relatively) neutral re-write of the AIDS section. It is a basis for discussion. A total re-write by Berlet is out of the question. --HK 15:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not just the gay/AIDS section that needs attention. Material that should be discussed has been left out: for example, the brainwashing allegations against the movement; the period when LaRouche thought the CIA had brainwashed the membership; his belief that people want to assassinate him; how the membership is recruited; how it finances itself. You've prevented these issues from being examined in Schiller Institute, LaRouche Youth Movement, and the National Caucus of Labor Committees, so they can only go here or in Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin 17:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't "prevented them from being discussed" anywhere, but I agree that this is the appropriate location for such a discussion, except for how the movement finances itself, which is already discussed in Lyndon LaRouche. If you want to add more material there, I have no objection, provided that it comes from a reputable source. Meanwhile, I propose that we agree to use Will's AIDS section, and unprotect. --HK 01:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche/Temp&oldid=9385104 was the version that Will wrote and I wrote suggestions on. Will, Cberlet and I then reached an agreement, which was we'd have what Will wanted of the AIDS quote, and what I wanted of the apparent LaRouche change-of-heart. Then you objected. If we're going to use any of the gay drafts as a basis, it should be this one; though I believe Cberlet may have in mind writing another. SlimVirgin 01:50, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Stop Complaining and start discussing this draft

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Gays & AIDS I propose we post it and move on to editing other sections. --Cberlet 02:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with that version. SlimVirgin 02:42, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Slim: Let's go with it. As for the major re-edit, I agree we need a structure, but let's not worry about length at first. If we can agree on content that is too long, it will be easier to reduce the length later. Do you have a suggested outline?--Cberlet 04:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of this (feel free to change the names of the headers: I mean them here only as areas):

• Biographical intro
• Early life
• Marxist period
• Change of views (when, why, in what form, personal reasons for change)
• The brainwashing incident
• Conspiracy theories
• Allegations of brainwashing of recruits
• Gays and AIDS (agreed)
• Attitude toward Jews (the views about the British establishment and "international Jewry", allegations of Holocaust denial),
• Attitude toward women (if there's enough to warrant a section)
• The LaRouche movement in the U.S. and around the world (National Causus of Labor Committees; the Schiller Institute; LYM; how many members; methods of recruitment, how is movement financed)
• LaRouche rebuttal sections (or we can intersperse LaRouche position throughout the text. I'd prefer the latter, though it makes it harder to write)

SlimVirgin 04:21, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Some of this seems to replicate material on the Lyndon LaRouche page, perhaps some of it can be referenced on that page and the detials moved here?--Cberlet 04:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll go along with any structure you suggest that gets us moving. If you think some of these issues are best on Lyndon LaRouche, we could leave them there and reference them here, or vice versa. The biographical intro and early life is repetitive and so can mostly refer readers to Lyndon LaRouche, except insofar as you believe his early personal circumstances affected his political views, assuming enough is known about the former. Or perhaps it's more appropriate to say here what the political views are, and not to expound on how they came to be, leaving that analysis to Lyndon LaRouche. You might think the personal circumstances that surrounded his move away from Marxism should be left on Lyndon LaRouche too. I'll go along with your preference. (For my own part, I wouldn't have separated these pages in the first place, because the man IS the politics, but I'm not suggesting a merger.) SlimVirgin 12:22, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of "Cooked Quotes"

The issue of "cooked quotes" is essential to the question of whether Berlet's web site should be considered a reputable source. I have assembled the evidence on a special page: Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence of "cooked quotes". I have edited for clarity some material contributed by Herschel. Weed Harper 07:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Weed, could you say which parts you have edited for clarity, please? SlimVirgin 09:05, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

I shortened Herschels "Anatomy of a cut and paste job", leaving out comments that I thought were unnecessary, and I put in the italic and bold formatting. Weed Harper 21:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Next Steps

What about making temporary copies of both pages, and then moving blocks of text around until it looks reasonable, we reduce duplication, and only the most important and salient material is on the Lyndon LaRouche page? Can you make the Temp pages? Last time I made a mess of things.--Cberlet 03:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've made Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox and Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox. Don't worry about having made a mistake. I just did the exact same thing!  :-) SlimVirgin 06:10, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

United States v. LaRouche

Talk:United States v. LaRouche

Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox

There are still some (((missing paragraphs))).--Cberlet 16:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you try to replace a Misplaced Pages article with a Chip Berlet article, rest assured it will be reverted. --64.30.208.48 18:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous threats. How endearing. Collect them all...--Cberlet 23:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That IP address is one that the Herschel/Weed Harper account uses. SlimVirgin 03:11, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

A proposal concerning the issue of Chip Berlet and original research

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

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

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

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

What is at issue is not the NPOV policy, but the Misplaced Pages:No original research policy. --HK 02:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you do your homework, you will see that it is not considered original research for the purposes of Misplaced Pages if it has been published by a reputable and reliable publication or organization, even if I, as the author, post it--as long as I post it in the third person..--Cberlet 03:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates are regarded as experts in their field by other professional researchers and journalists. He is allowed to quote himself from his own publications, and that includes reports published by PRA, so long as (a) he quotes himself in the third person; and (b) he does not self-promote in an unnecessary or irrelevant way. Also, cut out the remarks about him being King's Siamese twin. Most intelligent people share these views about LaRouche, not just Berlet and King. SlimVirgin 03:11, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, your POV with regard to LaRouche is no mystery. Chip, it is the reputability and reliability of your organization that is being disputed. If you can find yourself quoted in a mass-circulation publication there will be no dispute. --HK 03:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox

There is another version of this article, Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox, that some editors have been working on. I am going to hide the comments and post it here. Substantial material has been moved between the Lyndon LaRouche bio and that version, in order to make a more logical division between the topics. The sandbox version is a bit rough in places, but I'm sure we can smooth it out. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Four months later

This has been the quietest talk page in Misplaced Pages for the last four months. Who'd have guessed that five months ago? When I merged in the VfDed articles I glanced over the article. It is the worst of all the LaRouche articles. No offense to any editor, but there are sections that have little or no apparent meaning. "LaRouche-Riemann Method", "Culture and identity" (what exactly is the point of that anecdote - that some people are more talented than others? How did LL "collaborate" with Brainin and why does it matter?) It is hard to discern, in some places, what the reception has been to his ideas, or which are the most important.

We'd started working on a major revision but we all may have had LaRouche-fatigue after the ArbCom matter was settled. It's time to finish the work, or at least make some more progress. This article is longer than his significance warrants, especially since it is overflow from other articles. There's lots of good information in it. Some parts were the result of contentious editing, but may seem unnecessary in six months later. Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox I'm going to start playing in the sandbox again. There are many notes from our previous editing to guide us. An early step will be to re-organize it into the most logical structure. All editors are welcome to contribute productively. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's time to get it sorted. I'll start by doing a copy edit in the sandbox. Feel free to revert anything I do. SlimVirgin 06:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've just reverted User:The Platonist's addition of the LaRouche photograph with Martin Luther King. I did this because LaRouche was never actually photographed with Martin Luther King, and to reproduce this collage would be to publish a piece of LaRouche propaganda. SlimVirgin 21:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Request for clarification

What the dickens is the "sacralization of politics"? --Stain

It's a book. See also, www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/GENSAC.html, the publisher's blurb, and Political religion. Gentile's thesis is basically that the Italian fascists made politics into a religion. -Willmcw 03:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Gentile's thesis is controversial but widely read and has many proponents. The argument is that a key element of totalitarianism is the raising of a political (or other) struggle to a cosmological level so that it attains the form of a "poliical religion." Note that this is different from a "politicized religion," although in neofascist groups such as Christian Identity you have an example of both. See: Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2004, (Winter), special issue on Fascism as a Totalitarian Movement; in which Gentile wrote a lead article and then several commentators (including me) wrote lengthy responses.

concerning the legal Term "fair comment"

I was wondering if somebody might be able to explain to me why there were reverts of the following paragraphs:

1:

LaRouche has never explicitly repudiated the views expressed in the 1978 article, and in the 1980s, the Supreme Court of New York state ruled that calling LaRouche an anti-Semite was "fair comment".

To this original paragraph was then the following added:

This ruling was in accordance to a U.S. Supream Court ruling that makes it clear that a public figue as a plaintiff must proofe that the opinion statet, even if untrue and harmful, was stated maliciously-with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm the plaintiff. As long as this proposition can not be met the opinion is called "fair comment". That means the court did not qualify the statement of calling LaRouche an anti-Semite but judged if there was proof of mailcious intend etc. on the side of the defendend. The plaintiff in this case was LaRouche.

2:

LaRouche has never explicitly repudiated the views expressed in the 1978 article, and in the 1980s, the Supreme Court of New York state ruled that calling LaRouche an anti-Semite was "fair comment".

To this was then added:

Fair comment is a legal term used in defamation cases. It does not reflect the common language use of the words fair comment.

Both changes were reverted without diskussion. In case number 2 it was reverted with out explanation just the statement of the reverting.

So if somebody could help me with creating a less controversial paragraph that includes the information of the legal term fair comment?

I notified both reverters...

--Zirkon 13:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

In the mean time i have changed the paragraph to version nr.2.

--Zirkon 16:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop trying to invent a way to explain a court decision when none is needed. --Cberlet 17:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I do know of at least one case where the words fair comment were misinterpretet. This means an explanation is nessesary or the paragraph is missleading. i am certain nobody wants to lead people to false conclusions about the statement "fair comment". Your answer to the argument?

--Zirkon 17:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I will revert your changes at 19:00 UTC. But I hope of course that within that timeframe you will give me a constructive answer - so that we can make the paragraph better. I am still looking for your help in doing so.

--Zirkon 18:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted to version number 2. I am aware of the short commings of two simple added sentences and ask anybody to cooperate with me on building a more integrated paragraph that includes the facts that Fair comment is a legal term with special implications, so that no one arrives at seemingly logical but false conclusions. This call for help includes cberlet and slimvirgin.

Thank you in advance for your help and constructive advice.

--Zirkon 19:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Zircon, in adding your own understanding of the term "fair comment" and what the judge may have meant by it, you're doing original research, which is not allowed. If you want to expand, you'd probably have to quote from the judgment itself, or quote something that one of the lawyers said before or after the case. The point of the no-original-research policy is that any analysis has to come from another reputable published source, and as this is a legal analysis, it would have to be a legal source. SlimVirgin 19:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry in advance for crossposting.

So i wrote on your talk page:

I was just using the term as obviously the Washington Post understood it. I am revering to this paragraph in this article:

In October 1980, a New York State Supreme Court justice dismissed a defamation suit the NCLC had filed against the Anti-Defamation League and ruled that calling the NCLC anti-Semitic is merely "fair comment" or a matter of opinion.

Is this original research?

I mean if the WP understood that this was a special term and clarified it for its readers should we not do the same? Yes it does not say the judge used the legal term "fair comment" - instead the WP puts it so that it is implicitly seen as a legal term. Please tell me if you can come up with other conclusions.

--Zirkon 20:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. I can't see where the W/Post explains the term. Please read Misplaced Pages:No original research. You seem to be trying to advance a personal opinion of yours, or build a case, and neither is allowed. SlimVirgin 20:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I understand your confusion. Please explain therefore to yourself your understanding of the words "is merely "fair comment" or a matter of opinion."

What exactly does that mean?

If "fair comment" would be used in the common way it would qualify the statement anti-semitic. If on the other hand it is "a matter of opinion" can it be at the same time a "fair comment"?

I dont think so - what do you think?

--Zirkon 21:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd say fair comment means a matter of opinion, both in law and in layman's terms. The judgment means that it's not defamatory to call LaRouche an anti-Semite. Anyway, the W/Post article wasn't about the LaRouche case, so to refer to it is building a case (or it would be, if it supported your position, though it seems not to). I encourage you to read Misplaced Pages:No original research as that will make things clearer for you. SlimVirgin 21:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

So we add "or a matter of opinion" to the words "fair comment"? It seems to be a good compromise for the time being.

About not defamatory calling LaRouche an anti-Semite - this is not the case in Germany - nor following the legal definition of "fair comment" is it okay to do that in America. Just so you know... Ah well actual malice is so hard to prove...

--Zirkon 21:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Just one more comment on this:

Have you tried just googeling "fair comment"?

And do you really believe the N.Y. Supream court would use the words "fair comment" as a judgement without intending to use them in their legal definition?

Do you really believe that?

Sleep over it and we will talk again.

--Zirkon 00:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's not go through another endless round of discussion over pointless issues. The court ruling is a matter of public record. Attempts to craft apologia for the long track recond of LaRouche's antisemitism are POV. This page threats LaRouche fairly.--Cberlet 02:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating answer. Unfortunatly not putting my concerns to rest. So let me ask you too:

1)

Do you believe that the N.Y. Supream Court would use the words "fair comment" as a judgement without intending to use them in their legal definition?

2)

Following your long career as a journalist Mr.Berlet did a court ever use the words "fair comment" without refering to their legal definition?

3)

And would it not be very unlikely that a court would use a such words without explicitly intending to use it as a legal term. Especially since it is the highest court in N.Y..

4)

Finally Mr. Berlet would you substantiate your implicit case that as Silmvirgin put it "The judgment means that it's not defamatory to call LaRouche an anti-Semite."?

Since the court ruling is a matter of pulic record as you put it - it should be easy to find the sentence in that court ruling that does prove that the words "fair comment" were in fact meant as the layman and Slimvirgin understands them.

Thank you in advance Mr. Berlet for your kind help in making this a better paragraph...

--Zirkon 10:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This is pseudo-legal gibberish. The term is well-established in law. This page accurately reports the judge's ruling. We cannot ever establish what was in the judge's mind. There are times whan a claim about a public figure is so outrageous and false that the protection of "fair comment" concerning a criticism of a public figure is transcended. The judge ruled that LaRouche was not able to show the claim of antisemitism was so outrageous and false that "fair comment" was not a protection. Stop this ridiculous nit-picking.--Cberlet 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Berlet for your enlightening answer. Following your paragraph your answers to my questions are:

1)

Do you believe that the N.Y. Supream Court would use the words "fair comment" as a judgement without intending to use them in their legal definition?

Answer: No. ( The term is well-established in law. This page accurately reports the judge's ruling) and no (implicit in your interpretation of the use of "fair comment" in this case)

3)

And would it not be very unlikely that a court would use a such words without explicitly intending to use it as a legal term. Especially since it is the highest court in N.Y..

Answer: I don´t know. Because the court used an ambiguouse term. (We cannot ever establish what was in the judge's mind.)

Well I do believe we are making progess Mr. Berlet. Refering to question Number 1 I propose that we change the paragraph to reflect our common understanding that this is a legal term.

Refering to question Number 3 I see a direct conflict with your answer to question Number 1. Please clarify your statement so that it cannot conflict with statement Number 1.

Unfortunately missing are answers to the questions 2 and 4.

so I will ask them again:

2)

Following your long career as a journalist Mr.Berlet did a court ever use the words "fair comment" without refering to their legal definition?

4)

Finally Mr. Berlet would you substantiate your implicit case that as Silmvirgin put it "The judgment means that it's not defamatory to call LaRouche an anti-Semite."?

( I could not get a to a clear answer from your interpretation of the use of "fair comment" in the LaRouche case.)

Thank you again for your clear answers to the questions I asked you. I really hope that we will soon reach a common ground on which a better paragraph can be established.

----Zirkon 18:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to add my two bits to this ongoing mess: Zirkon asked me on my talk page to help clarify the discussion here of fair comment. I don't know too much about defamation law, so I can't really help with that. But to correct a key misconception:

The Court of Appeals is the highest court in the State of New York; please see the article on state supreme courts. The Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction (meaning the trial court) for most cases. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court is the intermediate appellate court. New York has this weird situation because previously when it was a colony of the United Kingdom, the local town and county courts had jurisdiction over most matters. Then litigants would appeal to the Supreme Court of the colony, and then to the Privy Council in London. The Privy Council still has jurisdiction over colonial matters, although it has been gradually losing power as the Queen's former Dominions continue to create their own Supreme Courts (as New Zealand did recently). So what happened was that when New York declared independence from the Crown, then there was no more Privy Council. Hence, they had to create a new court to appeal to, which ended up being the Court of Appeals. --Coolcaesar 16:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that is very helpful. I forget that most people are not aware of this peculiarity of the New York State judiciary. Unless, of course, if they watch "Law and Order," in which case they see the signage for the trial courts list them as parts of the NY Supreme Court. Here is some text that may help put this issue of the judge's ruling in context:

" But in 1980, the Supreme Court of New York agreed with the ADL that the publications of LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party could be qualified as anti-Semitic.... Judge Michael Dontzin of the New York Supreme Court ruled that: 'Upon consideration of the voluminous evidence presented to the court, it is clear that ADL's characterization of plaintiffs as anti-Semitic constitutes fair comment. Plaintiffs have continuously expressed highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith and have connected them with plaintiffs' critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies.' " justiceforjeremiah.com/larouche_network_canada.html.

So Judge Dontzin essentially ruled that as a public figure plaintiff, LaRouche failed to show that the claim by ADL was so outrageous and false that the normal protection of "fair comment" for criticisms of public figures could not be transcended, and thus the case ended.--Cberlet 18:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

To explain how this works, I cite here two related aspects of what a public figure in the U.S. has to contend with in order to win a defamation case:

"Fair comment: this common law defense guarantees the freedom of the press to express statements on matters of public interest, as long as the statements are not made with ill will, spite, or with the intent to harm the plaintiff." www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/definition.html

"Actual Malice is what plaintiffs in the public eye have to prove in order to win a libel case. Actual malice is the act of publishing or broadcasting statements with prior knowledge of the inaccuracy of the statement or a reckless disregard for the truth." www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/definition.html

The statement from Judge Dontzin show elements of both, and since we cannot know what was in the judge's mind, we have to rely on just citing the "fair comment," statement, or include the longer quote in the article, which is what I would prefer.--Cberlet 18:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Berlet for posting the missing link in this search for a better and less missleading paragraph.

I will now cite the quotation of the ruling:

'Upon consideration of the voluminous evidence presented to the court, it is clear that ADL's characterization of plaintiffs as anti-Semitic constitutes fair comment. Plaintiffs have continuously expressed highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith and have connected them with plaintiffs' critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies.'

As you can see there is no indication the judge did not use the term "fair comment" outside of its legal meaning. The legal term "" is defined in wikipedia. On this article there is also a weblink to a legal services Website that is echoing the essentials of the wikipedia article.

Conclusions:

A)

I presume therefore that we have established beyond doubt the meaning of the legal term "fair comment". Furthermore that we have established that "fair comment" was used with full intention in its legal definition by the judge.

B)

Concerning the paragraph in question I therefore suggest changes that reflect these new found insights. Details will soon follow.

C)

Concerning your personal definiton of "fair comment" i ask you to substantiate your claims concerning this case. Please post legal definitons that change our view on this topic.

D)

Concerning my questions Nr. 2 and Nr. 4 I would still like to know your answers since they could clear up misconceptions that people harbour.

Thank you again for your very valid help in this mission of making this a less missleading paragraph.

--Zirkon 19:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but I find the style and content of your comments to be incoherent and incomprehensible. I am not interested in playing intellectual chess, I am interested in helping write a factual NPOV article. Therefore I have simply added the comments by the judge. People can follow the link to fair comment if they so desire.--Cberlet 19:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Your article had changed while I was working on mine therefore I will add the following:

Conclusion C:

This is your own definition of "fair comment": "LaRouche failed to show that the claim by ADL was so outrageous and false that the normal protection of "fair comment" for criticisms of public figures could not be transcended, and thus the case ended"

I repeat: Concerning your personal definiton of "fair comment" i ask you to substantiate your claims concerning this case. Please post legal definitons that change our view on this topic.

About actual malice:

I dont see any notion of this in the quotation. Following this it was not part of the court ruling. Which is enough to not bring it into the diskussion. Following the definition of "fair comment" there are also logical reasons for not doing so.

Your comments Mr. Berlet?

--Zirkon 19:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous waste of time. Pedantic. Pointless. Attempt to rewrite history. You asked for my comments. I have answered honestly.--Cberlet 19:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes you really are opinionated but willing to talk.

Concerning the paragraph we might still have our differences and mediation might be nessasary, but this is the way things are and - considering your answers - will be.

However sometimes it is nessary to be pedantic,

after all nobody wants to misslead people,

which is the reason why this was and will not be pointless

nor will it be seen as an attempt to rewrite history.

But lets leave this for others to judge...

Willmcw would you like to comment?

SlimVirgin would you like to comment?

--Zirkon 20:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I note that Zirkon created a Misplaced Pages page on fair comment that mischaracterised the actual complicated legal meaning of the term in a way that supports the LaRouchite line on the New York defamation case. The page is now being edited to reflect a more accurate definition and discussion. It would be helpful if Zirkon created a User Page so that we could discuss some of these related matters there, rather than filling up this disucssion page. Also, could Zirkon please stop writing in a form reflective of e. e. cummings poetry? It fills up a lot of space and makes meaning difficult to comprehend. Paragraphs are a more traditional form.--Cberlet 20:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict: I wrote this before reading Cberlet's comment). I'm not sure what you're getting at, Zirkon. If anyone wants to look up fair comment, they can check out the article, which you helpfully started. Thank you for doing that. If you want to add after "fair comment" in the article something like "which means x, y, and z," you'd have to add a fairly lengthy explanation, and there would be a danger of it becoming original research i.e. collecting known facts to build a case. The case you want to build here is presumably that LaRouche isn't really an anti-Semite, or that the court didn't really say he was. But as Cberlet points out, we can't get into speculating what the judge did or didn't intend to say (except that, as you say, the term "fair comment" would, of course, have been used in the legal sense). If you can find something in the judgment that you feel is a fairer representation of the ruling, by all means add it, but you'd probably have to find a quote from the judge, or a quote from a reputable newspaper interpreting the ruling. But we can't rely on dictionary.com to say what the judge meant in this case. SlimVirgin 21:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Considering the posting of Mr. Berlet from 20:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC): I note that your concerns about "fair comment" have not been put to rest. I find that interesting. Therefore I believe I have to ask the following questions:

C: This is your own definition of "fair comment": "LaRouche failed to show that the claim by ADL was so outrageous and false that the normal protection of "fair comment" for criticisms of public figures could not be transcended, and thus the case ended"

I repeat: Concerning your personal definiton of "fair comment" i ask you to substantiate your claims concerning this case. Please post legal definitons that change our view on this topic. Do I have to assume you dont want to do point C?

About actual malice: I dont see any notion of this in the quotation. Following this it was not part of the court ruling. Which is enough to not bring it into the diskussion. Following the definition of "fair comment" there are also logical reasons for not doing so. Would you please answer to this statement following your problems with "fair comment"?

4) Finally Mr. Berlet would you substantiate your implicit case that as Silmvirgin put it "The judgment means that it's not defamatory to call LaRouche an anti-Semite." ? Would you like to answer question Nr. 4 now Mr. Berlet?

I understand that reading through the whole thread is difficult for the casual reader i therefore will soon write a summary of the discussion so far. In doing so the questions asked to Mr. Berlet will be easier to put into a meaningfull context. And thank you Mr. Berlet we really did make progress today! Zirkon 23:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no need for a summary, but please take note that your comments are hard to read when spaced out (in more than one sense, perhaps). I've reformatted. If you want people to read them, please write in normal paragraphs. SlimVirgin 23:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Zirkon: here is what I posted on the fair comment page that you keep trying to rewrite to make it seem that LaRouche is not a notorious anti-Semite:

I have rewritten the explanation of fair comment in the U.S. once again to make matters more clear. In most states, the "fair comment" defense requires a factual basis. "The privilege of 'fair comment' for expressions of opinion depends on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based" according to U.S Supreme Court Justice Brennan who wrote the ruling in Times v. Sullivan. This is based on Alabama law. I do not have the laws of New York state handy, but since you are attempting to write an apologia for on another page based on a New York lawsuit, you would first have to show that under New York defamation law, "fair comment" does NOT require a factal basis. I do not know if it does or does not. In any case, the judge in the LaRouche case who ruled it was not defamation to call LaRouche anti-Semitic is clearly indicating the defendants introduced sufficient evidence to butress the factual basis of their opinion that LaRouche was an anti-Semite.

Feel free to dig up published commentaries on the defamation laws of the state of New York, otherwise your original research has no place on this page.--Cberlet 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Berlet! After I have seen your last statement I decided to just stay silent for a while to see if there would be corrections or other comments and to hope in doing so to defuse the situation.

Unfortunatly you seem to have misinterpreted my silence. I believe you expected that I would argue immediatly against your statements and in not doing so I further believe that you assumed i had lost interest in the matter after the comments you have made...

In order to keep a civil discussion I hope you will make certain corrections in your statements.If you dont make those corrections your statements will induce fallacies in to the reader. I am certain that this is not your intention. If you should not make the corrections I will obviously point out the potential fallacies to the reader. And thank you in advance for cooperation in cleaning up this misunderstanding.

--Zirkon 18:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Your complaints are without any merit whatsoever. Please stop trying to rewrite the facts of the laws of defamation to apologize for LaRouche's antisemitism.--Cberlet 00:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Administrator SlimVirgin: Following your remarks on my Talk page I realise that there is a certain difficulty on your side in following my intentions. I therefore ask you to state the points you do not understand. I also would like to ask you to explain to me what you do mean with the following words: "...hard to read when spaced out (in more than one sense, perhaps)." I assume we will work through this together? --Zirkon 20:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

After Mr. Berlet had enough time to answer I shall proceed with pointing out the problems I have with Mr. Berlets remarks.

Quotes from Mr.Berlet are in quotation marks and itallic.

“Zirkon: here is what I posted on the fair comment page that you keep trying to rewrite to make it seem that LaRouche is not a notorious anti-Semite:”

1) That is a false statement. Please point out my attempts to rewrite your edits. If you cannot do so please change your words.

2)Please do not try to devine my intentions for other readers in this matter.

Further comments:

This is not the place to talk about guessed intentions in order to place a person in to a certain corner in the dabate. This discussion was about the question if it should be pointed out that “Fair comment” is a legal term. Again this is not a fight about political views or the powers of something versus the powers of something. Trying to create such perspective is corrosive to any seriouse debate.

Such a behaviour is useful for a demagogue to rally his troops for a confrontation. It is impossible not to call such a behaviour disruptive.

“I have rewritten the explanation of fair comment in the U.S. once again to make matters more clear. In most states, the "fair comment" defense requires a factual basis. “

...“a factual basis”... Following your edit of the article “Fair comment”. It is a common law defence in court ... “a protection for robust, even outrageous published or spoken opinions about public officials and public figures.”

If you use the words “a factual basis” in conjunction you will come to the following conclusion:

“In most states the “fair comment” defense requires a factual basis.” ...”a protection for robust even outrageous published of spoken opinions about public officials and public figures.”

"The privilege of 'fair comment' for expressions of opinion depends on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based" according to U.S Supreme Court Justice Brennan who wrote the ruling in Times v. Sullivan. This is based on Alabama law. I do not have the laws of New York state handy, but since you are attempting to write an apologia for on another page based on a New York lawsuit, you would first have to show that under New York defamation law, "fair comment" does NOT require a factal basis.”

A)

As demonstrated beneath your argument that I would ...”first have to show that under New York defamation law, "fair comment" does NOT require a factal basis.” is a strawman argument.

It is allways usefull to view a statement from both sides:

a)So if I am able to show that New York law needs factual evidence I am able to prove that the judge based his judgement on facts upon which “...a protection for robust even outrageous published of spoken opinions about public officials and public figures.” can be based.

b)If I am able to show that NY law does not need factual evidence I am able to show that the judge based his judgement upon heresay/gossip upon he granted “..a protection for robust even outrageous published of spoken opinions about public officials and public figures.”

If you read the discussion above you will find that you have gone on a tangent. I still argue that it is nesessary to include a sentence about the fact that “fair comment” is a legal term. I do not know if you intentionaly set out to offer a strawmen argument but rather did not reread the whole discussion. Perhaps I should have gone on and posted a summery against Administrator Slimvirgins wishes...

B)

Following the words... “...since you are attempting to write an apologia...” I have to say the following:

Again you are trying to put me into a corner. Please do not attempt to do so. If I want to make my political afiliation clear I will do so. You will not point out my intentions for me as this is not the correct way to debate a topic. I believe in doing so you are displaying disruptive behavior as I am forced to defend myself and not the topic at hand. Making an Ad Hominem argument is not acceptable in this forum. Please delete the relevant words.

“I do not know if it does or does not. In any case, the judge in the LaRouche case who ruled it was not defamation to call LaRouche anti-Semitic is clearly indicating the defendants introduced sufficient evidence to butress the factual basis of their opinion that LaRouche was an anti-Semite.”

Following this statement I will repeat this:

“In most states the “fair comment” defense requires a factual basis.” ...”a protection for robust even outrageous published of spoken opinions about public officials and public figures.”

Now - following the established definition of “Fair Comment” - that does not “qualify” the statement “antisemitic” opposed to what the article (that you found) says:

“But in 1980, the Supreme Court of New York agreed with the ADL that the publications of LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party could be qualified as anti-Semitic.... “

While all of this is strictly of topic, it indicates that the definition of “fair comment” or “qualified” for the ADL are different than the definitions we know. This should be investigated.

“Judge Michael Dontzin of the New York Supreme Court ruled that: 'Upon consideration of the voluminous evidence presented to the court, it is clear that ADL's characterization of plaintiffs as anti-Semitic constitutes fair comment. Plaintiffs have continuously expressed highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith and have connected them with plaintiffs' critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies.'”

This points out that the common law defence “fair comment” was acceptable to the Judge. If anything it would be the definition of “Fair Comment” that could be in question here.

Following the citation what happened was that the defendends had the oppinion that expressing “highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith...” and connecting these views with “...critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies.' ” is anti-Semitic.

Since there was evidence presented to the court that there were statements by the plaintivc that were highly critical in the described manner and since the plaintive could not prove that the statements by the defendend were made with “actual malice” the defense of “fair comment” was granted.

So the court ruled about granting the defense “fair comment” not about the question if expressing “critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies in connection with “highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith” qualifies you as an anti-semite.

In other words not the interpretation of the facts was disputed but if the facts themselfs were false or not. Interpretation of facts (or expression of fact based oppinions) is a matter of free speech as long as it is a matter or person of public interest.

It is unfortunate that the words “Fair Comment” are so easely missinterpreted. But a simple sentence added to the relevant paragraph will make things clearer for the reader.

Feel free to dig up published commentaries on the defamation laws of the state of New York, otherwise your original research has no place on this page.--Cberlet 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Following my statements above I shall not do so.

In Summery:

Mr. Berlet I ask you to do the following things:

A: Please delete this statement:

....“that you keep trying to rewrite”...

In the given context any reader will believe that somekind of edit war took place. Which was obviously not the case.

Reputation is the most precious of commoditis in an online community. Please do not put me in to a position where I have to defend myself against statements that are not accurate or are missleading in the extreme to save my reputation. I consider this disruptive to the discussion of the topic at hand.

B: Please do not try to use ad hominem arguments to lead the dabate astray. This is disruptive behavior. Please stop your attempts to guess my intentions. Please stop using bold statements that define your point of view on the debate. This serfs no purpose in debating the topic but displays demagogic behaviour. Example follows:

“Attempts to craft apologia for the long track recond of LaRouche's antisemitism are POV.”

Cberlet 02:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the article "Fair Comment":

“I note that Zirkon created a Misplaced Pages page on fair comment that mischaracterised the actual complicated legal meaning of the term in a way that supports the LaRouchite line on the New York defamation case.” Cberlet 20:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Following this statement it is nessesary for me to show that my own work (the copyedited version of Willmcw) does in fact echo the understanding of fair comment from the external source and does not mischaracterise it. I will do so in the fair comment forum.

--Zirkon 13:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I am very sorry, but much of --Zirkon's text appears to me to be pseudo-intellectual gibberish. I apologize for not being able to make sense of it. It still seems to me to be a lot of verbiage that results in the same situation that existed before: fancy footwork by a POV warrior out to defend LaRouche from the obvious and well-documented published claim that LaRouche is an antisemite. We do not need to misrepresent the law of defamation to arrive at that conclusion.--Cberlet 13:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I see. Thank you for your timely and interesting reaction Mr. Berlet. I have three questions to you Mr. Berlet:

• Following your statement you will not stop me from adding that “Fair comment” is a legal term?

• Following your statement you will delete the statement: ...”that you are trying to rewrite”... (see summery)?

• Following your statement you will use demagogic tatics to promote your point of view (see summery)?

Thank you for your answers and for helping to make this a better article.--Zirkon 13:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I find unctuous faux courtesy from someone challenging me to be annoying, and would prefer it if we just exchanged thoughts in simple language. You have posted trick questions that have no merit in editing an encyclopedia article. It is not a game I play. Please try to learn how to post text here on Misplaced Pages, it makes your text easier to read, takes up less room, and allows for people to follow the flow of ideas in a structured manner. As a courtesy, I have provided a reformat of your text as an example. I hope it is useful.--Cberlet 14:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr Berlet as always I am gratefull if somebody else is doing the hard work of editing the wikipedia artikls for me. You have to understand that I was in a hurry to answer your statement and did not precheck the article in its actual outlook. Considering the idea of trick questions. This is indeed a very interesting question to ask – are the questions I asked after your short statement really trick questions?

What would be the nature of such a trick question?

Would it not be a deceiving question? A question in which you would have to answer in a way that would be reveiling or damning no matter what?

• Question Number 1 is simple and can be answered with a simple yes or no. In doing so you would simply allow me to introduce the fact that “fair comment” is legal term into the paragraph. What would be the potential problem? That is for you to answer.

• Question Number 2 is also simple, but needs the actual reading of my statements (admitedly time constraints could stop you from doing it). Actually answering in the affirmative could lead to future backlashes as one could allways point that you were not accurate in your postings and actually admited it by removing the offending phrase. Answering in the negative could on the other hand lead to an arbitration commitee and to unknown shores.

• Question Number 3 is difficult. As it is a question that goes directly to your stile of answering questions and making statements. When people feel passionate about an issue they tend go on to a metaphorical soap box. However making speeches or bold statements is not what building an encyclopedia is about. So the question could also be: Will you continue making statements that are basicly devisive and destructive to the debate or will you go back to work constructivly on the topic at hand?

Thank you again for making the editing. And thank you for your constructive work in middle part of this long dabate. (That at least you have to grand me)

--Zirkon 15:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

'Bold textSorry to add another layer of complexity to an already complex argument, but... Both arguments in this case are completely void because they are trying to imply that the court ruled on whether or not LaRouche's views were anti-semitic. They did not do this. The ruling that the court made was on the comment that LaRouche's views were anti-semitic, which they ruled was fair comment. When the British courts ruled on the Marquess of Queensbury's claims that Oscar Wilde was posing as a sodomite they did not have to establish that Wilde was or wasn't a sodomite, but merely that he may have appeared to be one or that such a comment did not damage Wilde's reputation. It is possible to see LaRouche as an anti-semite and it is also possible to see him as merely being highly critical of prominent Jews and Zionism as he is of many things. I'm personally of the view that LaRouche probably is an anti-semite, but the court ruling does nothing to support or detract from this. I hope that clears up a bit of confusion. - moodsformoderns

Thank you for your input Moodsformoderns. As you can see in the following paragraph I did follow your line of understanding of the legal term "fair comment":

Now - following the established definition of “Fair Comment” - that does not “qualify” the statement “antisemitic” opposed to what the article (that you found) says:

“But in 1980, the Supreme Court of New York agreed with the ADL that the publications of LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party could be qualified as anti-Semitic.... “

While all of this is strictly of topic, it indicates that the definition of “fair comment” or “qualified” for the ADL are different than the definitions we know. This should be investigated.

“Judge Michael Dontzin of the New York Supreme Court ruled that: 'Upon consideration of the voluminous evidence presented to the court, it is clear that ADL's characterization of plaintiffs as anti-Semitic constitutes fair comment. Plaintiffs have continuously expressed highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith and have connected them with plaintiffs' critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies.'”

This points out that the common law defence “fair comment” was acceptable to the Judge. If anything it would be the definition of “Fair Comment” that could be in question here.

Following the citation what happened was that the defendends had the oppinion that expressing “highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith...” and connecting these views with “...critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies.' ” is anti-Semitic.

Since there was evidence presented to the court that there were statements by the plaintivc that were highly critical in the described manner and since the plaintive could not prove that the statements by the defendend were made with “actual malice” the defense of “fair comment” was granted.

So the court ruled about granting the defense “fair comment” not about the question if expressing “critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies in connection with “highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith” qualifies you as an anti-semite.

In other words not the interpretation of the facts was disputed but if the facts themselfs were false or not. Interpretation of facts (or expression of fact based oppinions) is a matter of free speech as long as it is a matter or person of public interest.

It is unfortunate that the words “Fair Comment” are so easely missinterpreted. But a simple sentence added to the relevant paragraph will make things clearer for the reader.

And here is the understanding of "fair comment" of Mr.Berlet before he changed the wikipedia article "fair comment" (how he understands "fair comment" today is not quite clear - see above):

"(...) There are times whan a claim about a public figure is so outrageous and false that the protection of "fair comment" concerning a criticism of a public figure is transcended. The judge ruled that LaRouche was not able to show the claim of antisemitism was so outrageous and false that "fair comment" was not a protection. (...) --Cberlet 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)"

I hope I could clear things up for you. It should also be noticed that the paragraph is still as Mr. Berlet left him some months ago. I will soon make changes that reflect the legal nature of the words "fair comment".

--Zirkon 19:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this consistant with Misplaced Pages policy?

On October 18, Sean Black removed the word "obsessively" from the section called "Women and Feminism," with the memo "Rm POV word." On the same day, Cberlet put it back, with the memo "Restored word expressing opinion of critics." The following day, I went back to the Sean Black version, because his point seemed reasonable to me. I put as a memo "Who are these critics? Cite sources please." Minutes later, Cberlet put "obsessively" back, with the rather flippant memo, "or we could simply reinsert the word obsessively." What's going on here? As I understand it, the use of neutral language, and the citing of sources, are official Misplaced Pages policy. I count 9 references to "Chip Berlet" in the article. Is he the same person as the editor? Perhaps many of the unsourced opinions in the article are also those of Chip Berlet. Does he control this article? Is this consistant with Misplaced Pages policy?

--80.74.131.252 01:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Try actually reading the article before making a (false) complaint. I did not reinsert the word "obsessively," I added quoted text with a cite to a published article. --Cberlet 02:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes he controls this article. A gang of several adminstrators goes around and blocks articles and blocks editors whenever someone tries to stop the views of Chip Berlet or his High Times colleague Dennis King from being the sole views represented on LaRouche. The only discussion they are willing to engage in is making threats and snide, rude comments. They don't even read the comments posted by editors who don't belong to their narrow out-of-the-mainstream POV clique. Cognition 20:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I see that you have responded to my request for a source by adding yet another quote from Chip Berlet. Aren't you just quoting yourself? It seems like you have an axe to grind. Also, another section of anonymous opinions that I removed with a request for a source was simply re-added by Snowspinner, with no source provided. At the top of this talk page it says:

"From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Again I ask, is the way that this article is being handled consistant with Misplaced Pages policy? --80.74.131.252 15:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet is, it seems to me, a leading critic of LaRouche, so there is nothing wrong with quoting him as a critic of LaRouche. (Note: I am referring to quoting published works by him, rather than his work on wikipedia per se). john k 16:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Chip Berlet is one of the sources any of us would add to this article, so whether he or someone else adds that material is irrelevant. Editors are allowed to quote and refer to their own published work, so long as it's relevant, notable, published by a credible publisher, and referred to in neutral way. SlimVirgin 17:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I also agree, but that's because Chip Berlet leads the cabal, and the mind control chip he implanted in my brain makes me agree. Snowspinner 17:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's probably not mind control chips. But when it comes to explaining the conduct of the Dennis King/High Times crowd, it might be the dope. Cognition 19:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Which you're not supposed to realize. Now you'll have to be re-programmed. SlimVirgin 00:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's all true but one should take care not to privilege Chip as an editor. He still has to follow the rules (I'm not saying he hasn't). Chip should take care as well to recognise that he has a clear bias in this area, although I recognise that in this company asking that editors have an awareness of their own biases is going to fall on deaf ears. -- Grace Note.

Snowspinner's joke is funny. But that doesn't excuse him for putting in a quote, in quotation marks, with no source cited.

It seems to me that Lyndon LaRouche is not stingy with his opinions, he will talk to anyone who will listen. There are thousands of articles by him on the internet. But author/editor Chip Berlet says that he knows an anonymous person who says that LaRouche has opinions about the anus and the vagina, yadda yadda yadda, that have never been published, and he puts this in an encyclopedia article. This is not encyclopedia writing, this is tabloid journalism, and there is too much of it in this article, which is why I am putting up the announcement of disputed neutrality. --80.74.131.252 15:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a NPOV tag is appropriate for this - perhaps factual accuracy, or better yet, unverified. Snowspinner 02:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It is a quote from a published report. That's what matters. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.--Cberlet 13:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I have been able to find out, no such ideas have ever been published by LaRouche, and this is supposed to be an article to inform people about LaRouche's views. I don't think this article is neutral under Misplaced Pages policy. I found that an example of things to be avoided at Misplaced Pages:Avoid_weasel_terms is "Critics say that..." I found seven examples of this in the article, usually with very inflammatory accusations. The readers of this article ought to know who is making these accusations. Also, there is one case where a critic other than Chip Berlet is identified, and that critic is Jean Hardisty. However, when I followed the link to Political Research Associates, I learned that she is a close collaborator with Chip Berlet. So it looks more and more like all the criticism in this article comes from a close knit group. There are other critics of LaRouche, like Michael Rubin and Robert Bartley, who are well known, but their opinions are not included in this article. I searched Google news for Chip Berlet and only got one hit. Again, this does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article; it should verifiably reflect broad based, main stream opinion, not the special theory of one person or group.--80.74.131.252 15:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Google news isn't the place for news on Chip Berlet. Try articles related to the marijuana High Times subculture. Or far-left extremist outfits like the Communist Party. Or the Misplaced Pages arbitration case brought against him by User:Rangerdude-- a libertarian and no supporter of LaRouche-- for aggressive POV waring. That being said, Chip Berlet is NOT mainstream. In fact, the views of LaRouche-- in the tradition of Franklin, Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, FDR, MLK, et al, are the kinds of views that resonate much more strongly among most hard-working, moral American families than Berlet's far-left and pro-drug legalization agenda. Cognition 20:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If it is OK to cite Michael Rubin writing about LaRouche on the online Frontpage website, it is OK to cite Chip Berlet writing in a published report from Political Research Associates. Do you honestly think that bean-counting hits on Google News is serious research? I am happy to delete what I posted and replace it with the word "obsessive." This is an article about LaRouche, not an ad for for his views. Critical views are appropriate in an encyclopedia. --Cberlet 15:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

As the person who initially removed "obsessively", I'd like to say that I'm pleased with that bit as it is now- It's well cited, and clarified as the view of a prominent critic (Berlet). I'm in favor of removing the NPOV tag.--Sean Black | Talk 22:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, you were right to take the word out. Cites are always better than POV-sounding words.  :-)--Cberlet 22:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I put the NPOV announcement there because I saw too many anonymous opinions attributed to "critics," which is against Misplaced Pages policy as I understand it. I am in favor of there being criticism in the article, but anonymous criticism makes it look like propaganda.

Here are the opinions that I think should be attributed. I don't see why the authors of the article wouldn't want to simply put the attributions in. Then the article would be fine, and I would be in favor of removing the announcement.

• "Several critics of LaRouche argue that his ideas about economics are not original and are similar to the policies of Germany under Bismarck; and the corporatism of Italy under Benito Mussolini, Spain under Francisco Franco, and Portugal under Antonio Salazar."

• "As for moving from the left to the right, historically a number of fascists started out as socialists, and critics argue this is the case with LaRouche."

• "According to his critics, LaRouche's personal egotism is a significant force driving his politics."

• "LaRouche's critics claim he is a "disguised anti-Semite," in that he takes the classical anti-Semitic conspiracy theory and substitutes the word "Zionist" for the word "Jew", and ascribes the classical anti-Semite's caricature of the evil, scheming Jew to particular, named, Jews and groups of Jews, rather than to the Jews as a whole."

• "His critics claim that he attributes to the ADL "the classic crimes of the sterotypical Jew of the anti-Semitic imagination," although he has also referred to the ADL as the "FBI's private asset."
  • You're conflating criticizing the ADL with anti-Semitism, which is a technique to distort the truth. LaRouche has many Jewish associates and supporters. I am Jewish myself, by the way. LaRouche supports an independent Jewish state. He is a supporter of Israel and an admirer of true Israeli patriots like Ben Guriorn and Rabin. LaRouche opposes the murderous clique surrounding fascist terrorists, though, like Jabotinsky, Begin, Shamir, and Sharon, whom he considers true enemies of the Jewish people, because they are the ones breeding anti-Semitism by fooling people with their lie that they somehow represent the Jewish and Israeli people. Cognition 20:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• "What LaRouche supporters see as praising classic culture, LaRouche critics see as a bias against non-White, non-European, non-patriarchal, non-heterosexual cultures and identities."

I also have two questions for Chip Berlet regarding the sourcing of quotes attributed to LaRouche.

• The description of the "Chinese culture" quote does not seem to match the quote that it is describing. It seems to me that LaRouche is attacking the Maoists by saying that they reject Western culture as in favor of pre-revolutionary culture. The Misplaced Pages article says that LaRouche is condemning China's pre-revolutionary culture, which seems to be wrong. There is a missing quote mark that further confuses things.

• The quote about the "ghetto mother" is attributed in such a way as it looks like it was published. I went to Chip's web site and looked at it, and it looks like a type written or mimeograph page. The attribution should somehow indicate where it actually came from. And as in the case of your "anus" quote, don't you think Chip that if your theory really is strong, you could find an example to prove it that LaRouche actually published? It seems you are trying to prove your point with gossip. --80.74.131.252 00:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Gossip? Nice cheap shot. And totally false. All of these questions have been answered repeatedly. And the editors here have summarized the published work of a number of LaRouche critics. You need to do some research and homework before raising the questions yet again, when they have been answered repeatedly. For example, the ghetto mothe quote is from a published document issued by the LaRouche group, which you would have known if you had spent a few minutes actually reading the relevant material. And, just in case you are not aware, anonymous questions on LaRouche pages generally do not get a lot of sympathy, because of a history of abuses by LaRouche supporters. --Cberlet 02:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

What a farce. Even if the comment were his, it doesn't tell us anything. It's possible to pick anything out of context in order to distort the truth when an author has written so much and given so many lectures as LaRouche. (It's safe to say that every month LaRouche typically writes more content for scientific and economic publications than most Misplaced Pages editors have ever read in their entire lives.) This is a classic technique known to the professional propaganist. Cognition 20:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not looking for sympathy. I am pointing out what seem to me to be deviations from Misplaced Pages policy, as stated in Misplaced Pages:Cite sources and ]. That's all. --80.74.131.252 15:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering why it is taking so long to get a reply to my question about the anonymous opinions. Snowspinner, when I took out the unsourced quote "His critics claim that he attributes to the ADL "the classic crimes of the sterotypical Jew of the anti-Semitic imagination,"", it only took you 2 minutes to put it back in. Why is it taking you so long to explain why you think this is justified under Misplaced Pages policy?

--80.74.131.252 21:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed/original research

I see than an editor has added the "totally dipsuted" and "original research" tags to this article. Can we please have the specific problems with this article which warrant those tags? Please note that published material by Berlet does not count as original research. Which factual matters are in dispute? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I read Misplaced Pages:No original research and I found that it says this: ""Original research refers to theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any unpublished interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas ..." It seems to me then that the numerous anonymous opinions that I have pointed out must also be considered original research, because we have no way of establishing that they have been published in a reputable publication. If the authors would provide sources for these opinions there would be no problem.

PS Cognition please do not put more rebuttals to the anonymous quotes in my list. Those criticisms may be valid or invalid but the main point is that they are anonymous.

--80.74.131.252 16:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the answer, but you are not the editor who added the tags. That editor needs to state his reasons. -Willmcw 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the original research tag, as the only thing cited was Berlet's works, and I think everybody agrees that it's not OR.--Sean Black | Talk 02:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The Original Research page says "Original research refers to theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any unpublished interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas" and some of Chip Berlet's arguments appear on his web site only, like the part where he says that when LaRouche attacks the policy of Maoism he is also attacking ancient China culture. But mainly I think that all the anonymous opinions which cannot be verified must be original research.--80.74.131.252 16:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This statement is simply false and distorted. Some of my harshest criticism of LaRouche appear in the book I co-wrote, Right-Wing Populism in America. The study I wrote with Bellman was published as a printed report. Summaries of widely-held claims appearing as published comments that LaRouche is a neofascist, cult leader, antisemite, sexist, racist, and lunatic are appropriate. There is a difference between a legitimate summary and an "anonymous" claim. That LaRouiche is a convicted crook is a matter of public record.--Cberlet 16:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Chip's a pubished author, a prominent critic, and widely regarded as an expert in the field, so therefore it does not qualify as original research.--Sean|Black 21:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be original research for Chip to add the material himself. I assume he has not done so, thus making the tag patently absurd. Phil Sandifer 22:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I try not to add my own material to Wiki pages, but do it rarely when there are no readily available sources on an obscure topic; and when someone pops onto a page and claims that a particular claim already posted is either false or not cited and thus should be removed. That's what I have tended to do on the LaRouche pages. Periodically their supporters show up and delete material, claiming it is not cited or that it is false. Several times I have had to post images of pages from LaRouche publications at www.publiceye.org to prove that a particular quote is real and not taken out of context.--Cberlet 22:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me but I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that the anonymous opinions in this article are justified under Misplaced Pages rules? I went and read the article called "Chip Berlet." It seems that Chip Berlet has published many books and is considered controversial, and has numerous critics. LaRouche too has published many books and is considered controversial, and has numerous critics. However in the Misplaced Pages article on Chip Berlet each criticism is carefully attributed. There are no inflammatory accusations with no source to verify. Why should the article on Political views of LaRouche not be written to the same standard of quality? I don't see why the authors of this article would be unwilling to simply add sources for the anonymous quotes I listed on this page. --80.74.131.252 02:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please identify what you think are "anonymous opinions". Virtually everything in the article is sourced, from Berlet, to LaRouche himself, and everything in between. I really don't think that repeatedly making vague accusations of original research solves anything.--Sean|Black 02:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There are numerous sources cited on this page, and many of them track back directly to a LaRouche or LaRouchite publication. While I am controversial at times, my byline has appeared in the New York Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, and Des Moines Register. I have written for a number of scholarly journals and edited books. LaRouche, on the other hand, has been published primarily by his cohort of groveling syncophants.--Cberlet 02:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I'm removing the OR tag.--Sean|Black 02:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have listed them once before on this page. Here they are again. They cannot be verified.

• "Several critics of LaRouche argue that his ideas about economics are not original and are similar to the policies of Germany under Bismarck; and the corporatism of Italy under Benito Mussolini, Spain under Francisco Franco, and Portugal under Antonio Salazar."

• "As for moving from the left to the right, historically a number of fascists started out as socialists, and critics argue this is the case with LaRouche."

• "According to his critics, LaRouche's personal egotism is a significant force driving his politics."

• "LaRouche's critics claim he is a "disguised anti-Semite," in that he takes the classical anti-Semitic conspiracy theory and substitutes the word "Zionist" for the word "Jew", and ascribes the classical anti-Semite's caricature of the evil, scheming Jew to particular, named, Jews and groups of Jews, rather than to the Jews as a whole."

• "His critics claim that he attributes to the ADL "the classic crimes of the sterotypical Jew of the anti-Semitic imagination," although he has also referred to the ADL as the "FBI's private asset."

• "What LaRouche supporters see as praising classic culture, LaRouche critics see as a bias against non-White, non-European, non-patriarchal, non-heterosexual cultures and identities."

--80.74.131.252 16:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. You may have a point there. I'll see what I can do.--Sean|Black 22:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

 Again thanks