Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:24, 2 September 2009

	Lyndon LaRouche is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 22, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Biography B‑class

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Politics B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "LaRouche for president: The campaign that keeps on going". Loudon Times-Mirror. January 27, 2004.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Can History Be Open Source? Misplaced Pages and the Future of the Past". The Journal of American History. June 2006.

• Talk page archives
• Talk page index
• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research

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.

Criticisms in the intro

I moved DETAILED criticisms and other stuff to the CRITICISM section where they belong. I left some of it in the intro specifically because it seems that the consensus among wikipedians is to leave them in the intro if it makes up a major portion of the persons work, such as LaRouche. So now the intro is more clean and lean and more in line with good intros. Also, I moved the entire ORIGINAL paragraph from the intro to the criticism section,including the defensive part. Even thought there usually isn't any of that in that section, however, due to the extensiveness of that section, it would seem only fair to ALSO leave in some defensive, or contrasting views there. I actually suggest that that section be shortened and summarized and the current section be split into a separate article of criticisms of LaRouche, of which there is no shortage of, and on that page the critics and defenders could have more leeway in portraying those there. Please do not revert to old version without first discussing it here, but do clean up style in both intro and criticism.Seeasea (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The main effect of your edit was to minimize views of supporters, making it into a general "supporters think he's a good leader." I frankly think the older intro was better, but I'm respecting your wishes and making only a small change. Another editor thought that it was improper to have criticism in the 2nd paragraph. I also think that, but if it must be there, it should be balanced with supporters' views. --Steve Grayce (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the intro to the the form it's had for about 8 months. This was discussed extensively on the BLP noticebaord, and this is the text that the community agreed upon.   Will Beback  talk  16:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The main things that I wanted to change were details that are extraneous and uninformative in a generalized intro. The idea that he "has one of the best private intelligence organizations" does not tell me anything. Calling him an extremist is kind of self-evident and does not need to be mentioned along side other criticisms here., especially the loading up on specific references to those. Also in the supporters section, calling him a great leader and economist is exactly what it says, and giving examples of similar leaders, as similarities of influence etc. certainly not style, is not applicable, even if the article referenced it mentions them as similar. and to reply to the claim that it minimized supporters views, I had removed aprox. EQUAL ratios of pro and con views; however, in its current state anyways is more loaded to the critics side.

Once again, my aim was to remove EXCESS details.Seeasea (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Those critical terms were chosen because they represent the most common criticisms of the individual. I agree that the description of his intelligience agency may be unhelpful here, and it probably belongs in the LaRouche movement article instead. While we should include the views of followers, we should also be careful about giving those views excess weight. Most reports I've seen say that the subject has a following of about a thousand people in the U.S., and perhaps another thousand internationally. So it's not a large movement and the followers are basically holding a fringe view.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, "controversial" is a fairly meaningless term that could be applied to a large proportion of the topics on Misplaced Pages. Better to say what the controvery is. In this case, the paragraph describing the disparate views of the subject does that.   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is why i propose that he should simply be described as controversial in the intro, and put the specific, even if common criticisms AND DEFENSES down in the criticism section. There is no need for the excessive details in intro...though i must say the heritage foundation critique is funny and probably gets people interested in reading the article.Seeasea (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The list of criticisms is a summary, not a detailed description of why he received those criticisms.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to contain summaries anyways, not full books on the subject.Seeasea (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I also put in the template to split the article. I also believe that the article could be left here if all the inane details were to be removed...i.e. there is no need a day by day account of his activities and list of his interviews, see section on press coverage for examples etc.Seeasea (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your proposal. Could you flesh it out with more specifics about which parts would go into which articles, and place it in a new thread at the bottom of the page?   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ill try to do that later this week, but if someone else doe start that, it would be nice.Seeasea (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the "split" tag tag for the time being. We can easily re-add it once you've posted your proposal.   Will Beback  talk  03:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the section below, second to lastSeeasea (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to the end (where all new threads go). I'll respond there.   Will Beback  talk  03:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Scans of documents

The purported FBI letter (File:Fbidoc.jpg) is apparently uploaded from the Schiller Institute website. Yet I recall editors complaining about using scanned documents hosted on partisan websites as sources. How is this file different from a scan of a LaRouche letter hosted on laroucheplanet.info, for example? Do we even ened this document, since we already have LaRouche's statement?   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a relevant image for this article. It looks like an official FOIA release, and the FOIA process is well known. Is there a basis for disputing its authenticity? In the case of the Dennis King site, I would certainly question any typewritten document with no logo that was supposedly an "internal document," when the means by which is was obtained are not revealed. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What was the basis for disputing the authenticity of the material on Laroucheplanet.info? I just want us to be consistent. Either we allow scanned documents in or we don't. I think we're safest if we remove the purported letter and avoid using scans of primary sources hosted on partisan website.   Will Beback  talk 

No one knows how the LaRoucheplanet site got the document in question, nor do we even know who "LaRoucheplanet" is. On the other hand, the origins of the FOIA document are not obscure. There is no secret about how FOIA documents are obtained. I am restoring it, and I suggest you take it to the RS noticeboard if you doubt its authenticity. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So, to be consistent, if Laroucheplanet identifies the source of its documents then we can use those too? Do you think that's what's in WP:V and WP:NOR?   Will Beback  talk  05:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We would have to know exactly who "laroucheplanet" is, and the precise nature of his or her relationship to the LaRouche organization, in order to decide whether to give credence to a story about how he or she obtained secret internal documents. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we know who the webmaster at the Schiller Insititute is, the one who posted the FBI letter?   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Committee to Save the Presidency"

I found two sources in answer to the citation request. Could the editor who has tagged them as "rejected" explain what was lacking? --Steve Grayce (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources I looked at didn't mention mobilizing for Clinton, or a petition agaisnt impeachment. What are the sources? Are they from the LaRouche movement?   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I'll see if I can find more, and otherwise I'll just edit the article to match the sources. --Steve Grayce (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Normally I'd say that's fine but right now there's a discussion over using articles like that as exclusive sources for assertions. So I suggest preserving the status quo on that material pending resolution.   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ken and Molly Kronberg

I question whether the Kronberg business is notable enough for an extensive section in this bio, particularly because it has its own article. I find it strange that a great deal of material is being moved out of this article to others, but this section is moving in the opposite direction. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a paragraph about Kronberg in the article until HK's sock deleted it. When it was restored, you acted on behalf of the banned user and deleted it again. There is quite a bit elsewhere in the article about collaborators and people with whom LaRouche met, so it's not that unuusual. The LaRouche side is presented, though again it's from anonymous postings. Let me see if I can trim it some more so that weight won't be an issue.   Will Beback  talk  15:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. I didn't "act on behalf of a banned user." When there is an article devoted to a topic, it is customary to use the "main" template to direct readers to that article, rather than replicating its contents in another article. Aside from the fact that LaRouche is now the defendant in a lawsuit (according to a blog,) the relevance to his biography seems scant at best. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

When you restore edits by a banned editor then you are acting on their behalf.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That is bad faith speculation about my motives. I don't make any edit that I can't personally justify on the basis of Misplaced Pages policy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not speculating about your motives, I'm describing your actions. Shall we count up how many times you've restored HK's edits, or defended his socks? You're doing it right now on a noticeboard, so add another one to the list.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates

Could the editors using the citation templates please bear in mind that they make the page very difficult to edit, so that the writing inevitably deteriorates? It's also hard to read the references section in edit mode, and therefore hard to place new refs in alphabetical order. Also, they're not supposed to be added to pages that already have properly formatted refs. See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin 08:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever system makes most sense if fine with me. The citations in this article seem like a jumble to me. If someone wants to convert the refs into a consistent format that'd be wonderful.   Will Beback  talk  09:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Re your edit summary, I'll take anarchy any day over citation templates. :) SlimVirgin 09:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I like templates but I wish there was a way of placing them outside the text and just using "ref names" inline. So, which system is preferable? A modified Harvard system using {{citation}} ? I did something like that in Millennium '73. It was a pain in the neck getting it all working, but it's very nice now that the work is done.   Will Beback  talk  10:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with templates is fourfold: (1) people add unnecessary details to the refs just because there is a parameter for them, so refs become ever longer and harder to read; (2) because there are so many unnecessary words, the text becomes impossible to edit for flow, which means bad writing, and it can't be copy-edited; (3) the references section becomes impossible to read quickly in edit mode, and if you want to add one, you can't see where to slot it in, because all the refs begin with C; (4) the template formats seem to be inconsistent, so the refs don't always end up looking the same.

But don't get me started.

What I'm doing is removing templates and retaining a Harvard ref in the text. I'm doing it that way because it's faster to get rid of templates that way, than having to extract all the info from the template and rewrite the ref from scratch. And I'm moving the templated ref into References. At some point, I'll try to find the time to de-template that section too. SlimVirgin 10:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And (5) I think they slow down the loading time. SlimVirgin 10:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I hear they cause cancer, too. ;)   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, from the stress. SlimVirgin 22:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

There is a problem with the lead. It is making the criticism appear to be a minority view, in part because it's not detailed in any way, and in part because it's left to the end. SlimVirgin 10:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I just recently moved that material to the end, just because it's commentary, but I don't care much where it is in the intro as long as the basic text is retained. There's already talk here about making the body of the article better reflect the rigorously-sourced lead. That's a top issue to be adressed.   Will Beback  talk  11:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. The article reads in parts like a giant press release, or a running commentary on his life from the LaRouche movement. Although self-published material is allowed in BLPs, we're not supposed to use it where it's unduly self-serving. Also, adding every tiny detail that's apparently been published somewhere in the world just isn't sustainable, especially when the links are dead so that we can't know what the articles said. SlimVirgin 12:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like you have added many "tiny details" in the way of criticism from marginal sources, while removing many "tiny details" that represented a favorable appraisal of LaRouche (mainly from Russian or Asian sources.) I see this as part of the dispute over article neutrality. --Steve Grayce (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Will Beback is systematically shifting the article away from a relatively NPOV position to one that is biased, in violation ofWP:BLP#Criticism and praise. For example, he deleted the Laird Wilcox rebuttal to Dennis King's "coded language" speculations, without providing any explanation. The mention of the founding of the Schiller Institute, also deleted, is clearly notable as it is the overall umbrella organization for the LaRouche groups internationally. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Schiller Insitute founding doesn't need a whole paragraph. I'll add back a sentence on it. I see that in most places the founder is listed as Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Here's the new text.   Will Beback  talk  18:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the edit to "Allegations of coded references", I used the last draft at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 15#King on LaRouche on Jews, a lengthy discussion of the material. Among other problems, the previous text "put the cart before the horse" by first disputing King's theory before presenting it. As for the general issue of criticism and praise, this article doesn't not seem to treat them equally. For example, most of the "Financial crisis of 2007–2009" seems to be complimentary mentions of the subject, while most of the criticism is relegated to a separate section at the end. The structure of the article is an important aspect of NPOV. We should probably move most or all of the criticism material into the chronology.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Will, you astound me. The "Financial crisis of 2007–2009," two paragraphs long, features various press reporting what seems to be an objective fact, that LaRouche's forecast was correct. It is immediately followed by the 12 paragraphs of the "criticism" section, which contain what appear to be rather fantastic speculations about hidden meanings in LaRouche's writings. So, your position is that "criticism" is receiving short shrift, because is "relegated to a separate section at the end"? Incidentally, I must have missed the part where you explain why you deleted the quote from Laird Wilcox. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessing the accuracy of LaRouche's various forecasts and predictions is a judgment call. We have other sentences that can be moved out of the criticism section to make it shorter. With most of the press reporting, it's probably best to mention it in the chronolgy, as is done with the "Fincancial crisis" section. As for Wilcox, what does he say about LaRouche?   Will Beback  talk  19:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read what you were deleting? Wilcox and George write that "Dennis King goes to considerable lengths to paint LaRouche as a neo-Nazi, even engaging in a little conspiracy-mongering of his own. King maintains, for example, that words like "British" were really code words for 'Jew.' But I notice now that you also deleted examples of King's "decoding" technique, perhaps because you think King is shooting himself in the foot with some of his claims. However, that is typical of King's methods and the reader should be aware of this, since King is hardly a well-known commentator. You also placed a duplicate paragraph from an earlier section at the beginning of "coded references" for no reason that I can see. I am reverting this poorly-conceived edit. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole criticms section has major problems. If Wilcox is a notable source why aren't we quoting him on LaRouche? There seems to be a lot of space devoted to attacking King's view, and to be neutral we should include the praise for it too, or delete the criticism. Anyway, I've merged the two King paragraphs to reduce the redundancy.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this dispute still active? If so, what exactly is disputed? If no, let's remove the POV tag.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You are still making 15-20 edits a day to this article, many of them controversial. It is difficult to follow such a frenzy of edits, but my sense is still that the tendency is to shift the emphasis in order to give undue weight to criticism. When the article is stable, I'll assess it and tell you whether the dispute is over. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So there's no problem that you can identify? In that case let's take off the tag. If you find something identifiable we can restore it.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section has now been expanded to 14 long paragraphs, largely due to the inclusion of extended and often repetitive quotes. It should be condensed. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole section will be re-worked, per the discussion below.   Will Beback  talk  15:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the tag, due to unexplained deletions of sourced material from the China and Russia sections. SlimVirgin has made over 30 edits today to this article and it will take time to unravel them all. I have also added the "controversial" template to this page, and I ask other editors to refrain from making massive numbers of controversial edits, so that proper discussion can take place. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Another point of dispute is that recent edits have highlighted the two WP:COATRACK articles on the LaRouche list, Jeremiah Duggan and Kenneth Kronberg, without giving similar emphasis to other articles on the LaRouche list that depict LaRouche in a more favorable light, such as Amelia Boynton Robinson. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Duggan matter has received considerable attention in the press, and the Kronberg matter has ended up in court. I'm only aware of a few sourcess for Robinson's connections to LaRouche,and most aren't really suitable for this article, in my opinion. One article deals with complaints about how a celebration of Harriet Tubman's life was essentially hijacked by the Schiller Institute and Robinson into a pro-LaRouche rally. Another concerns an honor for Robinson that was withdrawn after Seattle City Council (if I recall correctly) learned that she was campaigning for LaRouche. I suppose that concerns how LaRouche is seen by others, but it's tangential and since the article is so long already I don't recommend adding it.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot that your search engine only locates negative material. I use Google, which found these items: ,.

In this recent edit , you moved material out of the bio because it had little to do with LaRouche personally. However, Jeremiah Duggan, who had nothing do with LaRouche and little to do with his movement, is retained in the article. This is a clear violation of NPOV. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My search engine mostly includes English-language sources. The Michigan Daily is a student newspaper. Either you or HK have objected to using those in the past. Do you consider it to be a reliable source? If so, there are a variety of relevant assertions in that article. I'm not sure what your point is about the Bailey material - it seems to be in the article now.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the two foreign sources, the Italian one only mentions LaRouche as connected ot the Schiller institute, and we;'ve already mentioend Robinson in that context. The German ones goes slightly farther, saying she's campaigning for the New Bretton Woods program. That would seem more appropriate for her bio or for the material no the NBW at the "Views" article. As for Duggan, I didn't add it but the weight of the media coverage merits some mention in this article.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the Article

The article is extremely long.

The first suggestions that i would make would be to take up SlimVirgn's ideas regarding the extra details of LaRouche's life that are mostly inane. The Criticism section can be spun off into another article like Views of LaRouche, an example of this is the artcile of Noam Chomsky who is also controversial, where the criticism on his bio page is two sentences with a link to another very long page of criticism.

LaRouche on Obama section and section of Larouche on financial crisis should be moved to the Views article.

Press coverage paragraph is irrelevant and serves no readily apparent purpose.

as does the webcast paragraph, perhaps the comments he made there can be moved to the views srticle and/or criticism section/article.

The Mop Up section should be moved to a separate article on his movement, or an article which is organization specific.

These are suggestions that I believe could be a good start to fixing this article. I am not sure how to make an article and link it here to be an example of what it might read like if these suggestions where to be taken without changing the real article, so...Seeasea (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am putting up the split template to bring notice to these suggestions.Seeasea (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeasea, can you first of all tell us what your main account is? You've done almost no editing with this one, yet you're familiar with the other articles and how to add a template. Given that this article has been very troublesome, and that you're suggesting extensive changes, it would be good to know which editor we're replying to. If there are privacy issues, feel free to e-mail the editors on this page instead. SlimVirgin 03:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is my main account, however, it took me a long time to get an actual acount, and i often forget to sign in, my apologies to the wikipedia community. Seeasea (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with several points in this proposal. The article has been split many times, and we shouldmake the best use of those child articles.

• Lyndon LaRouche - this article shouold remain focused solely on the things that LaRouche has done or had done to him.
• Views of Lyndon LaRouche - this article should contain all of LaRouche's theories and proposals, and outside views of those.
• LaRouche movement - this article should contain information about the organizations, publications, and people who are part of the overall movement.
• LaRouche criminal trials - the title makes the focus clear
• Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns - ditto

We can streamline this article by moving out material that is better suited to a child article, leaving a summary per WP:SUMMARY. I am currently working on a spin-off of the movement article focusing on the violence and harassment by the movement. "Operation Mop Up" might be handled in greater detail there, but in the meantime it should stay here. I do not think that splitting off the "criticism" section would be good at this time. Per other discussions, a full rewrite of that section is pending. We should wait until that has been done before deciding whether to split it off.   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Should I continue bringing up points here so that an experienced editor can make the choices, or should I BE BOLD? Im not experienced in doing something to that extent in an article, but I am learning.

Just some more points while im at it: The deaths of Duggan and Kronberg seem to be almost exclusively related to the movement. As does the Lawsuit against NBC. those three paragraphs/sections should probably be moved. The founding of the Youth movement is also more borne out of the organization rather than the man, so perhaps it should be moved to the movement article.Seeasea (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It'd be best to wait a bit and see if there are other comments before doing any major changes, and even then it may be better to have a more experienced editor make the edits.

The NBC case is directly related to LaRouche because he was found personally liable for the damages, which resulted in his important testimony about his lack of income, which in turn may have helped result in this later conviction on tax charges. The Duggan and Kronberg matters are also directly relevant, though it might be possible to shorten them a bit further. We currently mention the founding of a few entities. If we move one we should be consistent and move them all. Perhaps a sentence for each in their chronological position might be more appropriate instead of deleting them entirely.

How familiar are you with the LaRouche movement?   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

High Times article

I'm not sure I understand why folks keep changing the verifiable title of Chip Berlet's article in High Times. The High Times Reader is partially available on Google, and the title of the article is clear. What evidence is there of another title? Does anyone have a copy of the article so we can mention it's main point? Is this considered a significant article for some reason? If it is then we should say more. If it isn't then we should say less (i.e., nothing).   Will Beback  talk  01:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is you who are changing the "verifiable title" - as I mentioned, I can send a scan of the front page of the article, if you want to challenge my honesty. The subtitle should not be censored. Perhaps you want to present Chip Berlet as an ultra-serious academic writer, but that is misleading. He was in fact Washington Bureau chief for High Times, and High Times is all about taking dope. --Steve Grayce (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The most verifiable material is what's printed in the book, which is on the shelves of dozens of libraries and is partially scanned into Google). Most of us don't have stashes of old High Times. If you have the magazine could you scan the entire article, so we can summarize its key points? It's not clear why this article is even important. What does it tell us about LaRouche? From what I've read elsewhere, it documents the relation of LaRouche to a "front group", the National Anti-Drug Coalition. LaRouche's anti-drug views are best included in the "Views" article, and his organiztions are best covered in the "Movement" article. So how is it relevant here?   Will Beback  talk  06:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think my comments above are sufficiently clear. The reader is entitled to know something about a writer who is quoted so often in this article. --Steve Grayce (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's about Berlet then it should go in that article. You make it sound like you've added it simply as an ad hominem attack on a critic. If so, then that's inappropriate, especially since it isn't a rebutal to any specific criticism or comment. Unless there's some direct relevance to LaRouche, I'll delete it. The article doesn't need extra irrelevancies. If someone wants to use the article as a source we can add it back then.   Will Beback  talk  06:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

There is so much fluff in this article that I suggest we reduce the reliance on primary source material, and try to use only material from LaRouche that secondary sources have deemed worthy of mention. As it stands, we're acting as almost a platform, mentioning every meeting, every press conference, every speech that a supporter deems notable. SlimVirgin 04:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're mentioning individual interviews and profiles. The subject has had dozens, if not hundreds, of articles about him, and numerous interviews. I can't think of another political figure for whom we'd include such minor press coverage.   Will Beback  talk  04:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

His supporters say they regard him as a world statesman, yet when they edit this article, they do so as though he's a figure of no importance, so that every even slightly positive reference to him in the media must be mentioned. I suggest we stop engaging in OR entirely (which includes picking and choosing material from primary sources), and stick only to what secondary sources regard as important. That doesn't mean we can't use LaRouche articles at all, but it does mean that someone else must have mentioned them first. SlimVirgin 06:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree and, in informal mediation, Leatherstocking has now also agreed that these articles should be based on secondary sources. That's what's required by WP:V:

• Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

If we follow that policy then there won't be so many problems with this and related articles.   Will Beback  talk  06:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm glad that's agreed. SlimVirgin 06:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comments, because the material SlimVirgin is deleting seems to be mainly from press coverage of LaRouche, not from LaRouche's own publications example 1. He also deleted all the comments from various 3rd party observers that cast doubt on the methods of Dennis King.example 2 Plus, although he complains about material being used from LaRouche publicatiosn, he himself added material from LaRouche's own publications example 3, although, as another editor pointed out, he provided a totally bogus summary of what was said. He has added a lot of what I would consider defamatory quotes, while systematically deleting favorable press coverage which is just as well sourced, and necessary for balance. I believe that especially examples 1 and 2 should simply be reverted, although I will wait for an explanation of what you both are doing. What it looks like to me is that you are simply trying to produce a highly biased article. --Steve Grayce (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be shortened, tightened, fluff and repetition removed, articles that don't say anything removed as sources, and so on. Above all, it must conform to NPOV (including UNDUE, which you might want to read), V, and NOR. SlimVirgin 06:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read UNDUE. You just re-added a quote from Antony Lerman, a person so obscure that he has no bio on Misplaced Pages, to the intro. So much for "shortened" and "tightened." And I must object to the remarkable arrogance with which you write "revert no more. This article must be properly written." Is your personal opinion the only standard for what should be regarded as "proper"? --Steve Grayce (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the name of your main account, please? SlimVirgin 07:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A clarification: when we use the contents of a newspaper article, we're using it as a secondary source. If we simply list its existence, we're using it as a primary source for its existence. Some of the pieces about LaRouche have been notable. For example, the King series in Our Town is mentioned in many other sources. But writing something like "the subject was interviewed in Time magazine", would be treating it as a primary source unless we're either using the interview as a source for some of its contents, or if the fact of the interview is reported in another secondary source. I think I may have added a few of those muyself, and I propose we delete them all. Being interviewed on Vremya is not, in and of itself, significant. If folks really want it we could say something like, "LaRouche has been interviewed and profiled in countless media sources inseveral countries."   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the listed deletions above, other editors here have complained about the length of the "criticism" and "Obama/healthcare" sections, so those edits may have been the result of requests. Example #1 I've addressed above.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For a long time the intro had quotes from two individuals without articles, so if you thinnk that's arrogance then there are other editors to whom that characterization would better apply.   Will Beback  talk  06:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

At least at this article, the issue of primary sources is a red herring. The issue at this article is neutrality, and edit warring. On August 28 I placed the "controversial" template, requesting that substantial changes be discussed on the talk page first. Since that time, SlimVirgin has made over controversial 60 edits with no prior discussion. Both of you (SlimVirgin and Will) have edit warred to remove secondary-sourced material. There has been bullying and intimidation of other editors ("What is the name of your main account, please?") I have started a thread at WP:NPOVN. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics