Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:56, 18 June 2007

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.

Archives

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

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

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.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Lyndon LaRouche. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Lyndon LaRouche at the Reference desk.

Request for consensus on two non-controversial changes

I'm not interested in unblocking this page for yet another edit war, but I noticed a couple of annoying errors about LaRouche's life pre-NCLC that should be changed. If we can all agree, I'd like to get permission to change them.

1. The article now reads: "His wife left him in 1963 (they had a son, born in 1956) and, in the late 1960s, Janice Neuberger LaRouche became a leader of the New York City branch of the National Organization for Women." I propose that this be changed to: "He and Janice separated in 1963, with Janice retaining custody of their son, born in 1956." First, Janice didn't leave: she kept the apartment on Central Park West. Second, the addition of the fact that Janice later became an activist with NOW bears the imputation that Lyndon led her to it. This is absurd--she had been a socialist since the 1950s and a close friend of the formidable Myra Tanner Weiss and Myra's equally formidable husband Murray, who were both advocates of feminism as well as socialism. She didn't need any negative experiences with Lyndon to propel her into what was an obviously appropriate vehicle for social protest for a woman of her ideological background in the late 1960s. In my researches in past decades, I interviewed Janice as well as Myra, Murray and other people who knew the LaRouche couple in the 1950s and early 1960s; I never received any impression that Lyndon was abusive to Janice or that their divorce was an unusually messy one. Also, Janice's life after separating from Lyndon is irrelevant to this article.

2. The description of Carol Schnitzer as LaRouche's "common-law wife" in the 1960s should be changed simply to his "partner," which is the term that is almost universally used nowadays. Also, "common-law wife" is an inappropriate term from a legal standpoint, since Lyndon and Carol lived together exclusively in New York State, which does not recognize common law marriages.--Dking 19:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

These are extremely minor points. We can worry about them later. Dking, I would like to repeat the question that has been put to you, let's see, three times without receiving an answer, so here comes number four: can you, or can you not, supply a quote from LaRouche in context to document your claim that LaRouche says he has a plot for "conquering the world," that "centers on eliminating a Jewish banking oligarchy." I think that claim of yours was the pivotal issue in the revert war that caused protection of the article. It will have to be resolved in order to get unprotection. --NathanDW 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is cited properly to the book by King, published by a major reputable outlet.--Cberlet 03:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Inquiring minds still want to know whether LaRouche ever said anything remotely like it. --Tsunami Butler 06:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Major Typo

In the "Alleged Coded Discourse" section, the last two paragraphs (the one about Children of Satan and the following one) repeat. There's also a cutoff sentence at the end of one of them. Someone who has the power to do so, please take a look and fix it.

Fixed. Thank you. SlimVirgin 08:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please restore material on this page

This page is protected due to protracted conflicts over content. It is inappropriate to archive the relevant discussion until the issues have been resolved. Please restore the recent discussion, or provide me with a good reason why I should not do so. --Tsunami Butler 16:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And given the circumstances, why on earth would you remove the NPOV tag? --Tsunami Butler 16:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The page was too long; the threads were inactive; and the tag has been there for ages for no obvious reason. SlimVirgin 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason is obvious -- because there are serious disputes about the neutrality of the article. The discussion is going on at the Mediation Cabal. And is it permissible under Misplaced Pages policy for you to remove that tag while the article is protected? Particularly when you are a party to the content disputes? --NathanDW 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is it going on at the mediation cabal? SlimVirgin 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice it was protected. I've reverted myself. SlimVirgin 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering why this article is protected

See Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/medcab06-07 and Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/archive13. There have been protracted disputes over the content of this article. --Tsunami Butler 14:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be some kind of explanation of who Ramsey Clark is. I don't think it's inappropriate to quote him, necessarily, but it's a bit misleading to say he's a former US AG and an "activist." That makes him sound like a guy who likes to speak at rallies now and then, when in fact he's very much on the extreme fringes of US politics these days. I'm trying to think of a NPOV of saying that, but honestly it's tough to think of one with someone like Clark. HowardW March 22, 2007

LaRouche and German scientists

I have moved this section, re-inserted today by Dking, to "Criticism," and significantly shortened it, on grounds of WP:UNDUE. It was disproportionately long in terms of its importance to a biographical article, and was mainly a POV vehicle for Dking to make Guilt by Association insinuations. I removed the "Liberty Lobby" reference as a more blatant form of guilt by association. --Tsunami Butler 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to repeat what I said when I first posted here, even though it got me harassed by Will Beback: King refers to John Demjanjuk as "Ivan the Terrible" when in fact he was acquitted of that charge in Israeli court, and the OSI admitted that it had forged documents to back the charge. Don't tell me that King didn't know that when he wrote it. The other two guys, Linnas and Soobzokov, were both killed before they could stand trial, so the presumption of guilt on King's part is wrong -- I suspect that King knows this too. Of course, LaRouche had no political connection to these three men -- he merely joined the chorus of voices who protested the star chamber tactics of the OSI. Frankly, now that Dking has inserted the whole mess again, I think it should just be reverted, but I don't want to see the article go back to full edit war and protection again. --HonourableSchoolboy 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I've never harassed you, and I never objected to your assertion about John Demanjuk. Please keep personal comments (especially untrue ones) off of article talk pages. -Will Beback · † · 20:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche and the German scientists, war criminals, etc.

LaRouche supporters removed once again two paragraphs from the end of the section on LaRouche and the German V-2 scientists. These paragraphs were properly sourced, both to my book and to the original LaRouche documents. The second of these paragraphs (on LaRouche's Munich 1987 speech) had earlier been the subject of controversy and I had gone to the trouble of digging out the text of the speech as published in EIR. Here is what I wrote on January 5:

Pro-LaRouche editors on this page have repeatedly made insertions to make it appear that LaRouche's 1987 statement in Munich on dominating the planet through microwave weapons was merely a warning against Soviet machinations. I have reviewed the text of LaRouche's speech as published in EIR, plus an accompanying news artice, "Seminar in Munich looks at radio-frequency weapons," plus a bibliography of previous EIR articles on the weapons technology in question (also accompanying the text of the speech). I have also read over a Feb. 22, 1985 article from New Solidarity on "microwave bombs" (illustrated by one of nutty Professor Bostick's plasmoid "swastikas"). It is clear that prior to LaRouche's Munich speech he and his organization had engaged in a concerted effort to whip up support for a massive crash program to develop such weapons in the United States and Germany. They exaggerated Soviet work in the field and LaRouche himself made two claims in his Munich speech that are now known to be (like most of his predictions) false: First, that perestroika was nothing but a trick to lull the West into inaction; and second, that in "four to five years" a huge revolution in warfare "more awesome than that which exploded over Hiroshima" would be underway, with microwave weapons dominating the "arenas of strategic and tactical conflict." LaRouche discussed both the defensive and offensive capabilities of such weapons (but in apocalyptic terms that almost rendered the difference between offense and defense mute). A statement from his speech now quoted in the text of the Wiki LaRouche bio makes quite clear that he was urging the development of these weapons by Germany and/or by Germany and the United States, not just describing some effort by the Soviets. The quote now says "dominate the world" rather than "dominate the planet." This is not because I misquoted LaRouche in my book, but because LaRouche talked about dominating the "planet" at the beginning of the speech and then repeated himself using the word "world" near the end. Apparently, he wanted to make sure that any aging revanchists in the audience would get the point even if they had snoozed off during part of the proceedings.

At the time Tsunami Butler said she would only accept this if I placed the entire context on this page. This was sheer harassment. I properly sourced the material and added more than adequate clarification by Misplaced Pages standards. Now, three months later, another LaRouchian simply removes the reference to the Munich speech because it doesn't agree with his or her spin on LaRouche as a great peace maker.

Furthermore I changed the material added the other day about the Nazi war criminals. John Demjanjuk was not found "innocent"; his conviction in an Israeli court was overturned on appeal by the Israeli Supreme Court on the basis of the unreliability of eyewitness identification fifty years after the fact. This is not a judgement of "innocence." The U.S. Justice Department subsequently filed a civil proceeding and in 2004 the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Demjanjuk could be stripped again of his citizenship because of "clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence" of his service as a death camp guard.

Arthur Rudolph was never found "innocent" or even "not guilty"--he went back to Germany rather than face trial in the United States. German prosecutors subsequently declined to prosecute him, just as more recently they declined to investigate the German LaRouchians for their possible role in the death of Jeremiah Duggan. About Linnas and Soobzokov's crimes strong evidence has been gathered over the years by prosecutors, journalists (see Howard Blum's book) and historians. The LaRouchian interpolation that Linnas died before he could be tried is extremely misleading and betrays a misunderstanding of the OSI's legal aims, which were to strip Nazi war criminals of their fraudulently obtained U.S. citizenship and deport them. Here is what the Misplaced Pages article on Linnas says:

In 1981 the Federal District Court in Westbury, NY stripped 67-year-old Karl Linnas of his citizenship for having lied to immigration officials thirty years earlier about his Nazi past. Linnas's crimes, the judge said, "were such as to offend the decency of any civilized society." From 1941 to 1943 Linnas had commanded a Nazi concentration camp at Tartu, Estonia, where he allegedly directed and personally took part in the murder of thousands of men, women, and children who were shot into anti-tank ditches. A 1986 federal appeals court upheld his deportation order, ruling that the evidence against the defendant was "overwhelming and largely uncontroverted."

On April 20, 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a final appeal. At that point Linnas was flown to the Soviet Union and three months later died in a prison hospital while awaiting trial (July 2, 1987).

The reader will note that although Linnas died before he could be tried in the Soviet Union, he had already been tried and found guilty in federal court (with the decision upheld on appeal) of lying about his past to immigration officials, with the judge stating that his crimes were such as to "offend the decency of any civilized society." Now the LaRouchians are stating that the true test for Linnas should have been a trial in the Soviet Union, even though at the time they stated he could not receive a fair trial there and would be summarily executed by the Bolsheviks. Clearly the LaRouchians editors are playing games on Misplaced Pages to cover up the true nature of their extremist movement.--Dking 18:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The Misplaced Pages article on Soobzokov describes information that became available after his death:

In 2006, declassified documents of the Central Intelligence Agency confirmed that Soobzokov had been a CIA agent in Jordan and that the agency had misled the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service on Soobzokov's Nazi past. Historian Richard Breitman concluded based on these documents that Soobzokov had indeed strong ties to the SS and that he had admitted to the CIA his participation in an execution commando searching for Jews and Komsomol members.

As to Demjanjuk, Misplaced Pages describes legal action against him in the U.S. after the Israeli Supreme Court overturned his conviction:

On February 20, 1998, Federal District Court Judge Paul Matia ruled that Demjanjuk's citizenship could be restored. On May 20, 1999, the Justice Department filed a new civil complaint against Demjanjuk.

No mention was made in the new complaint of the previous allegations that Demjanjuk was Ivan the Terrible. Instead, the complaint alleged that Demjanjuk served as a guard at the Sobibór and Majdanek camps in Poland and at the Flossenburg camp in Germany. It additionally accused Demjanjuk of being a member of an SS-run unit that took part in capturing nearly two million Jews in the General Government of Poland. Demjanjuk was put on trial again in 2001, and in February 2002, Matia ruled that Demjanjuk had not produced any credible evidence of his whereabouts during the war and that the Justice Department had proved its case against him.

On May 1, 2004, a three-judge panel of the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Demjanjuk could be again stripped of his US citizenship because the Justice Department had presented "clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence" of Demjanjuk's service in Nazi death camps. Demjanjuk vowed to appeal the ruling.

On December 28, 2005, an immigration judge ordered Demjanjuk deported to Ukraine. "Having marked Mr. Demjanjuk with blood scent, the government wants to drop him into a shark tank," his lawyer, John Broadley, said during the hearing. Chief U.S. Immigration Judge Michael Creppy ruled that there is no evidence to substantiate Demjanjuk's claim that he would be mistreated if deported.

On December 22 2006, the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the deportation order, stating "Simply put, the respondent's arguments regarding the likelihood of torture are speculative and not based on evidence in record".

Even if Demjanuk loses all appeals, he would remain in the United States if no other country is willing to accept him. This is a likely outcome, according to his attorneys, since European countries are reluctant to accept the aged and infamous. In that case, Demjanjuk would become a stateless alien and would lose all Social Security benefits.

I am rewriting the misleading information of the LaRouchian editors accordingly.--Dking 20:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This stuff belongs in the various articles on Demjanjuk, etc. It has little if anything to do with LaRouche. If you want to make neutral corrections on the passage in question, without quadrupling it in size, go ahead. --Tsunami Butler 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't follow what's going on here because there's so much to read. Dennis, it's not clear to me how the material you're adding is directly relevant to LaRouche. Apologies if I'm missing the point. Also, there seemed to be a large number of foonotes being deleted, but I couldn't see which side was deleting what. Can someone explain? SlimVirgin 23:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The LaRouche folks added a paragraph (without any citations) saying that Rudolph and Demjanjuk had been found "innocent" at trial, which is not the case. They also claimed that the other two named individuals had never been tried, although Karl Linnas had in fact been tried and found guilty in U.S. Federal Court and his conviction had been upheld on appeal. Rather than simply delete their nonsense, I chose to clarify it and placed the clarification in a footnote, not in the main body of the article where I agree it does not belong. As to the rest, I am fighting to restore properly cited material that has been deleted step by step over a period of months. This material, as you can see by tracking what I added today (which Tsunami and her associates promptly deleted again), is directly relevant to the biography of LaRouche. He spent fifteen years crusading for various aging Nazis and identifying himself as being in a joint battle with them against a common enemy. This is an important part of his life. Also, the material about his Munich speech had originally been challenged in early January. I provided ample documentation, and thought that was the end of it. Months later, however, the LaRouchians deleted it without explanation. We have here a systematic pattern of properly cited material being deleted--and absurd and often totally uncited (or miscited) information being inserted in its place.--Dking 00:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. I did not delete footnotes but the other side has definitely deleted paragraphs that were copiously footnoted. Today I added a link to the picture (taken from their own newspaper) of Queen Elizabeth at the top of the Star of David. Although the LaRouchians had previously asked to see it, now they have deleted the link--again, with no explanation.--Dking 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis. It's hard to tell what's what because there's so much of it. Is there a way of summarizing the material you wanted to add, and putting the summary in instead? SlimVirgin 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at this stuff and I really don't see how it is appropriate to a biography of LaRouche, beyond a brief mention. The other thing I did is follow the links to the Misplaced Pages biographies of the various alleged war criminals, and I find that the material there contradicts what Dking is saying. For example, according to Misplaced Pages, Karl Linnas was not tried in the US. There was an extradition hearing in the US, which is not the same thing as a trial. The trial was to take place in the Soviet Union, but he died before the trial could take place, which is in fact what the LaRouche article presently says. --Don't lose that number 06:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is typical of what is found in Dennis King's book, which is that King takes every episode in LaRouche's life and desperately tries to twist it until he can make it look somehow like LaRouche harbors secret sympathy for fascism. The real significance of LaRouche's interest in the Demjanjuk case is simple and obvious. LaRouche was in prison. It was his view that he was a victim of a government frame-up, and he was interested in finding a pattern of politically-motivated government frame-ups of a wide spectrum of people. The result was the Mann-Chestnut hearings, and I just added a (blessedly brief) section on those hearings. --HonourableSchoolboy 14:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the material under dispute is 3 or 4 short paragraphs that are thoroughly backed up by citations. This material was in the article for many weeks, Tsunami Butler made some changes as to POV language that were agreed to, but then the material was removed without explanation by another LaRouche editor right before the article was frozen for an extended period. I see no reason why this material needs to be summarized, nor would the LaRouchians accept any possible summary that I might come up with. However, if the long footnote I added yesterday is an issue, I would certainly be willing to delete it if the LaRouchians would agree to stop inserting their absurd statements about the alleged innocence of slave labor camp production manager Arthur Rudolph, death camp commandant Karl Linnas, etc.--Dking 17:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)P.S. I have restored the disputed material once again.--Dking 17:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's very detailed and not always entirely clear what it's saying. We can't record every single thing that LaRouche has ever said or done. We especially can't go off on tangents about other people's lives. That material can go into a footnote if it's relevant. SlimVirgin 23:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami Butler suggested that you could make neutral corrections if you don't massively expand and self-quote. Why don't you try that. But as DLTN points out, it would be technically incorrect to say that Linnas was convicted in a trial in the US. Perhaps you can find a formulation that is to your liking without being false. --NathanDW 17:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Our John LeCarre fan writes: "King takes every episode in LaRouche's life and desperately tries to twist it until he can make it look somehow like LaRouche harbors secret sympathy for fascism. The real significance of LaRouche's interest in the Demjanjuk case is simple and obvious. LaRouche was in prison. It was his view that he was a victim of a government frame-up, and he was interested in finding a pattern of politically-motivated government frame-ups of a wide spectrum of people."

If this was the only thing involved in the LaRouche organization's support for Nazi war criminals, then how does one explain its vociferous support for Arthur Rudolph almost three and a half years before LaRouche was convicted at trial and sent to prison (indeed, before he was even indicted). See editorial from the July 1, 1985 New Solidarity at

Also, how does one explain the extreme language in a 1988 article by LaRouche on the eve of his trial in which he talks about the OSI's prosecution of Tartu death camp commandante Karl Linnas in order to strip him of his citizenship and deport him: "We despise as low dogs those who betrayed U.S. justice and spat in the face of God by sending the American citizen Karl Linnas to his death at Soviet hands. These persons are an example of those we demand be brought to trial for their crimes against God and humanity."

This kind of language appears to be motivated by something more than a "simple and obvious" interest in finding examples of "politically-motivated government frameups" (as does the language in the 1985 editorial suggesting that the OSI prosecutors of Rudolph were Soviet spies and should possibly be executed for treason).--Dking 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. To enlarge images of the two articles, place cursor at bottom right corner of image and left-click on icon that appears.--Dking 19:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mann-Chestnut hearings

Information was recently added regarding the "Mann-Chestnut hearings". As far as I can tell, these hearings were a product of the Schiller Institute. These hearings apparently investigated several issues. The only part that would be applicable to this article is the exoneration of LaRouche, though even it might be more appropriate in United States v. LaRouche. The bulk of the material should probably be in our article on the Schiller Institute. -Will Beback · † · 02:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed it earlier because the section didn't explain what it was about. SlimVirgin 03:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It explains the LaRouche organization's interest in the OSI cases, about which Dking has contributed a lot conspiracy theorizing earlier in the article (and on this talk page.) --Tsunami Butler 14:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about the LaRouche organization, it's about the person Lyndon LaRouche. So only those things directly related to the person shold be included. We have several articles on the organization, and most of this material belongs in one of them. Since the Schiller Institute conducted the hearings, that article would be the best place. -Will Beback · † · 18:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The LaRouche organization generally reflects the interests of LaRouche the person, hence the name. I've noticed that whenever SlimVirgin discovers a new piece of criticism against LaRouche, she tends to spam it to as many articles as possible (not that I am advocating this.) By the way, LaRouche's interest in DOJ corruption didn't just begin with his own trial. He was big on that topic at least since the '70s, when the FBI-CPUSA collaboration against him came to light. --Don't lose that number 21:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no question that LaRouche's organization reflects his interests. That isn't the issue. The issue is which place in our encyclopedia is most suitable for this information. Except for perhaps a short mention of his testimony, the bulk of it should go into the article about the organization that actually comnducted the hearing. -Will Beback · † · 00:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The same argument applies to all of Dking's theorizing about German scientists. It was the organization, not LaRouche personally, that criticized the OSI. So I don't mind moving Mann-Chestnut if Dking's German scientist section goes with it. To have one without the other violates NPOV. --Tsunami Butler 14:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again, Tsunami. It's not just the "organization." LaRouche has personally criticized the OSI in very harsh language. How can you deny this? I provided a quote above with a link to a page image of a 1988 article in which LaRouche raved about OSI prosecutors spitting in the face of God by deporting death camp commandante Karl Linnas (and there are other comments LaRouche has personally made along these lines). His personal support for Nazi war criminals extended over at least a 15-year period and is an important theme of his political activities both as an individual and as the leader of a movement. LaRouche personally identified with these guys, like when he'd have his newspaper print his picture together with those of Demjanjuk and Kurl Waldheim, suggesting all three were joint victims of the same conspiracy.--Dking 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Mann-Chestnut hearings are not related to the German scientists, so let's deal with them separately. -Will Beback · † · 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

They are related to the allegations of corruption by the OSI, which plays a big part in the new stuff added by Dking (Demjanjuk, Linnas, etc.) The point is, LaRouche & Co. were interested in all sorts of issues where they saw DOJ persecution. The hearings also touched upon Waco and Ruby Ridge, I think. --Don't lose that number 22:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If we put in here everything that LaRouche is interested in or is related to things in this article it'll be 10,000 pages long. The hearings were conducted by the Schiller Institute so that's where the bulk of the coverage belongs. -Will Beback · † · 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Olof Palme

Over three months ago, I requested that the LaRouchian editors provide a proper citation for the hearsay statement by Dean Andromidas, writing in a LaRouche publication, that a former Stasi agent once said on Swedish radio that the Stasi had run a propaganda campaign to blame the murder of Palme on the LaRouche movement. No citation to a legitimate print publication has been forthcoming and therefore I am removing the paragraph. If in fact a proper citation exists, by all means restore the information.--Dking 01:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction

SlimVirgin deleted the references to meetings with heads of state in the intro, with this edit summary: "it's not really relevant, and not obviously true; just because someone has had meetings with a couple of ex-presidents of non-influential countries doesn't really say much." In fact, all three were sitting heads of state at the time, as I'm sure that Dennis King will be more than happy to confirm. Indira Ghandi was assassinated in office, so she could hardly have met with LaRouche as an "Ex-president." "Non-influential countries" strikes me as highly POV, and condescending. --NathanDW 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like SlimVirgin to explain how she arrived at this conclusion: "added who said it and that it was in 1985, because it doesn't seem to be true now)," regarding LaRouche having an international network. And I'd also like an explicit rationale for the removal of the "coded discourse" section. SlimVirgin, you have said on numerous occasions that one doesn't remove material simply because one doesn't like it. --NathanDW 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Ethan a dawe: the meetings with heads of state belongs in the intro because it is a major factor in LaRouche's notability. Simply running for president would have never made him such a major target of establishment ire. --NathanDW 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that LaRouche met with three notable heads of state in the early 1980s should be restored, since it can be properly sourced to the Washington Post and other media which thought it noteworthy to mention. I also mentioned it in my book. I believe these meetings were not just flukes but were the result of assiduous efforts by his followers in those areas of the world; in the case of Mexico's Lopez Portillo at least, LaRouche's ideas on debt cancellation, as advanced in the document "Operation Juarez," apparently also played a role. If LaRouche were still obtaining meetings with heads of state, the fact would belong in the opening paragraph. As it stands, I think putting the material at the beginning gives an inflated view of LaRouche's current influence. It should be moved to the section on LaRouche's activities in the 1980s. Any details, however, properly belong in the article on the "LaRouche Movement."

Re the quote from Norman Bailey, I think it is important to give the date of it (1984), since Bailey may not have the same opinion today of the reports emanating from Executive Intelligence Review, which has lost many talented researchers (and such researchers' carefully cultivated sources) over the years.--Dking 17:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The bulk of the article covers events from earlier in LaRouche's life, which is not atypical of a biographical article. The intro is supposed to reflect the article generally, not necessarily the current activity of the subject. Also, significantly, the criticism that is featured so prominently in the intro dates from the '80s. Therefore, inclusion of the meetings with heads of state is required for balance in the intro. --NathanDW 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Coded discourse" should be restored. It is amply documented and shows an interesting pattern. --Don't lose that number 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am restoring this now. --Don't lose that number 21:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be written differently, so as not to suggest mockery of the sources. Also, it would be more appropriate in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary says "this is silly as written; would need to be written so as not to suggest mockery of the source; also, multiple sources have alleged that the group uses euphemisms, so multiple sources should be used)" In fact, there are multiple sources: Dennis King, Chip Berlet, Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal, and Daniel Pipes. If you think it is written in a "silly" manner, you should do a copy edit, not revert. It is perfectly well documented, and I believe that I have seen you write over at Talk:Schiller Institute that we must include published comments from reliable sources, even if we don't like what they say. So, please don't revert this again, unless you can demonstrate that there is a policy violation. Feel free to copy edit it. --Don't lose that number 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I would like to request that you participate in the discussion here before going on a revert binge. I left a comment above on this section, dated April 13, and I let it sit for a week before restoring the section. It says on the top of this page that major changes should be discussed before being done, and I am trying to abide by that, so I request that you do so also. The reason this section is appropriate to this article, and not the one you suggest, is that it is about criticism of LaRouche. It really has little bearing on what you say in your edit summary: "it would be more appropriate (so long as copy edited) in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche as it deals with the expression of his political opinions and his writings, not his biography)." What it bears on is unusual theories about LaRouche developed by his critics. There is no section in the other article on criticism. I will wait until your response before I restore the section, but I really think you should discuss this, instead of edit warring. --Don't lose that number 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You're saying it's fine for you to revert, but not for others.

The section would be more appropriate where LaRouche's alleged antisemitism is discussed in Political Views ... and as I recall there is already some allusion to euphemism there. What is your source for the "unusual theories" claim? I've seen this said of LaRouche in quite a few articles, though it's not discussed as "coded discourse," but as the use of euphemism. SlimVirgin 21:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Curious, Don't Lose That Number sounds exactly like earlier LaRouche editors now banned from this article; perhaps it's just that they all memorize the same Morning Briefings from Lyn. I waged a two-month battle with them over the material on coded discourse. They repeatedly reverted properly sourced material and kept reinserting material that profoundly misrepresented the contents of my book. I put in citations from my book that proved they were wrong (like their assertion that my only evidence of LaRouche's anti-Semitism was code language and that I had not provided any evidence for asserting that LaRouche had articulated weird fantasies about conquering the world). They would then (a) delete my citations and (b) complain to Wiki authorities unfamiliar with the article that I was engaging in self-promotion, spam, etc. in violation of Wiki policy. Now I have an admin going through every article I ever edited and removing links to articles on my website on spam violation grounds. You can't win with these LaRouche people and I am opposed to the section on coded discourse being restored unless there is a mechanism in place to prevent Tsunami Bu-- {er, excuse me, Don't Lose That New User Name) from turning it into yet another demean-Dennis-King and hooray-for-Lyndon-and-his-Nazi-war-criminal-pals exercise.--Dking 22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you kindly specify how the section in question misrepresents your book? It looks to me as if it is quoting it. Are the quotes out of context? And please stop insulting me. --Don't lose that number 15:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I specified how the section misrepresented my book over and over again on this discussion page in great detail earlier this year. I'd spell it out and then a new sock puppet would pop up to demand that I do so again, while the old sock puppet continued erasing my properly sourced version and restoring a version I had exhaustively proven was false. Your latest demand is nothing but harassment, and you know it.--Dking 18:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I recall you complaining that an earlier version of the section said that you made exlusively "coded" allegations. I see nothing of that sort in the version that "Don't lose that number" added. I also see no formulations that would suggest "mockery of the source," as claimed by SlimVirgin. Since this section is very well documented, the burden of proof is on those editors who wish to delete it. It is also very notable -- the theme of "coded," "hidden," "subliminal" or some other form of less-than-overt anti-Semitism is a a major theme among LaRouche's critics, particularly the ones that promote themselves as editors here at Misplaced Pages. Another good example is the new quote from Chip Berlet that SlimVirgin just added to Schiller Institute: "You would have to listen over time to a ... set of patterns, and you would begin to hear the echoes of the classic antisemitic conspiracy theories." Dking and SlimVirgin should be very specific about whatever complaints they have about the most recent version of the section, or else cease and desist from deleting it. --NathanDW 19:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this section should be re-added, but I will wait another day or so to see if someone has a complaint about it that is actionable under Misplaced Pages policies. I can see nothing wrong with it. --Don't lose that number 14:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rudolph

The fact that Willis Carto supported Arthur Rudolph is not notable. This is Dennis King, deliberately violating WP:UNDUE in order to slant the article toward his fringe theory. I refer you to the article Arthur Rudolph, where it lists his supporters in this way: "These included retired Major General John Medaris (former commander of ABMA), officials of the city of Huntsville, the American Legion and former associates at NASA." This strikes me as neutral. I am replacing the shorter version of this in the LaRouche article, unless someone thinks this longer version is better. It is also the case that Rudolph was supported by all the NASA scientists in Huntsville, not just the "Operation Paperclip" scientists. This again is deliberately misleading editing on the part of Dking. Also misleading is the edit summary, "Stop trying to censor facts about LaRouche's life" -- these are not "facts about LaRouche's life," they are incidental to his life, but Dking is trying to play the Association fallacy game. --Don't lose that number 21:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am restoring the material because it is properly sourced. The primary force in defending Rudolph in Huntsville was the community of Operation Paperclip old timers. I quoted Linda Hunt, the chief expert on this, in my book: "In 1985, the old-timers held their fortieth reunion at the Alabama Space and Rocket Museum beneath a giant picture of von Braun. Linda Hunt, a former Cable Network News reporter, recalled a darkened auditorium full of aging Nazis eagerly watching a slide show of the latest laser-beam weapon. She said that when the lights went on, the Marsha Freeman went to the front and delivered a tirade against the OSI to heavy applause." (p. 80) (The Fusion Energy Foundation was a LaRouche front; Freeman was a longtime LaRouche operative.) Much of the activism of the old Nazis was due to a false rumor spread by the LaRouchians that the OSI was planning to round up and deport hundreds of former Nazi scientists (this was false--the OSI was only after Rudolph). The old-timers may have fallen for the rumor because many of them had guilty consciences and were worried that someone had found out about their secret crimes. As to the Liberty Lobby's support for Rudolph being "not notable", the fact is that the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight had a much larger circulation than LaRouche's New Solidarity and the Liberty lobby had a radio program on a very large number of stations around the country; its role was at least as significant as LaRouche's.--Dking 23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be notable to an article about the Liberty Lobby, possibly even the article about Rudolph, but not a biography of LaRouche. You are attempting to insert it for purposes of Association fallacy. --Don't lose that number 15:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Liberty Lobby not relevant??? I guess you weren't around when NCLC members were writing for Spotlight, and Lyn and Helga were meeting with Carto. Or when they hired Liberty Lobby supporter Mitch WerBell as LaRouche's security consultant. The NCLC in the mid to late 1970s lifted whole-hog all kinds of conspiracy theories about Jews straight out of Spotlight and continue to promote those theories to this day. The participation of Liberty Lobby in the save-Rudolph-from-his-just-desserts campaign is significant because it shows just how deep LaRouche was involved in the pro-Nazi rightwing. Everything reverted by Don't Lose That New Sockpuppet User Name is properly sourced and I am restoring the paragraph once again.--Dking 17:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a quote from Hunt linking LaRouche to the Liberty Lobby directly, not just by agreeing on a particular issue. Otherwise it is OR. --NathanDW 19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop playing games. The involvement of Liberty Lobby in this campaign is already properly cited to my book and thus is not OR at all. As to LaRouche's direct relationship to the Liberty Lobby, Spotlight and Carto, see pp. 39-40 and various other references in my book. As I recall it's also dealt with in Greg Rose's National Review cover article, among other published sources. If I cite myself on the direct connection, the LaRouchians will scream self-promotion and spamming, so I leave it to someone else to provide a citation from one of the many reputable published sources.--Dking 21:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Benton

NathanDW added to the section about Kronberg that the article about his death was written by a former LaRouche activist, Nicholas Benton, offering as evidence this link, which appears to amount to OR. The link shows that Benton gave $200 to a LaRouche campaign in 1979. It doesn't show that he was an "activist," so I've removed the claim for now. SlimVirgin 22:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Dennis King, Nick Benton was affiliated with the LaRouche publication EIR. --Don't lose that number 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Nicholas Benton" sounds like it could be a common name. I would worry that if we're searching primary sources we could get the wrong one by mistake. -Will Beback · † · 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that Dennis King or Chip Berlet have something in their files that could settle this. Meanwhile, Benton's comments seem a bit catty or bloggy. They don't seem appropriate under BLP, and the Falls Church News-Press is not exactly a major-league source. --Don't lose that number 14:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I met Nick Benton when he ran the LaRouche office in Los Angeles in the late 70s-early 80s. Then he moved to Houston, Texas, where he was a write-in LaRouche candidate for congress . From there he went to Washington, D.C. where for a while he was the EIR White House correspondent.. Then he quit the LaRouche organization and settled in Falls Church (I ran into him in a restaurant there in 1990.) He now writes for the Falls Church paper. It is definately the same guy.

Self-styled candidate

If he was on the ballot, he was a candidate. The adjective "self-styled" adds no important information and only lets off the hook the Democratic Party leaders who allowed the "LaRouche Democrats" to invade the party with little or no opposition (or even welcomed them in, as former NY Mayor Ed Koch did and as certain members of the Congressional Black Caucus have tried to do more recently). Also to be consistent in using "self-styled," one would have to clutter the article with references to self-styled economist, self-styled philosopher, self-styled music critic, etc. etc.--Dking 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. SlimVirgin 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ken Kronberg

I am opposed to the Kronberg suicide material being moved to the LaRouche Movement page. The Lyndon LaRouche biography page is clearly the most visited of the LaRouche-related pages on Misplaced Pages. The previous editor in effect was trying to bury the news on Kronberg in a place where it would do the minimum damage to LaRouche's reputation. --Dking 22:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that there is a revert war over the above comment by Dennis King. Parts of it clearly violated BLP. I have removed only those parts and left the remainder. I'm surprised that SlimVirgin didn't catch this, because she is normally very vigilant. --NathanDW 01:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone able to explain what these morning briefings are, and what their relationship is to LaRouche? Does he write them, or how does it work? SlimVirgin 04:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

NathanDW, you are perfectly aware of the distinction between editing an article and making comments on a discussion page. You have no right to censor my remarks on the discussion page, and indeed this is a new escalation of your tactics. I didn't censor those of your comrades even when you called me a drug dealer, so hands off! P.S. What I said that you removed was said in print in Nick Benton's article.--Dking 23:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP and self-published sources

I was asked to clarify the BLP issues.

Misplaced Pages doesn't publish allegations about living persons based on material from questionable sources, either in articles or on talk pages. A questionable source includes any third-party self-published sources (e.g. a personal website written by someone other than the subject of the BLP). LaRouche publications, although not self-published, are not subject to any editorial oversight, and for that reason have been ruled as questionable sources by the ArbCom.

What this means is that LaRouche's publications can be used as a source about LaRouche, but not anyone else; and Dennis King's website can be used as a source about Dennis King, but not anyone else.

Therefore, a dispute between the two that is taking place only on their websites or their own offline publications, or on discussion boards, can't be reported by us until a third-party reliable publication writes about it.

Don't lose that number asked me to confirm that BLP applies to talk pages. Yes, it does. Any unsourced contentious material about a living person can and should be removed from talk pages. In fact, even if reliably sourced it can be removed from talk pages if it has been added gratuitiously. Talk pages are here only to discuss the article, and shouldn't be used to attack people. SlimVirgin 16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Ramsey Clark hired"

Question to Will Beback: is there any documentation that Ramsey Clark was "hired to defend LaRouche"? He could have been working pro bono. --MaplePorter 15:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We just removed his name from the LaRouche Movement because he was decided to be a hired professional. If Clark worked pro-bono that would be worth noting. Have you got a source for it? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 17:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

All we actually know is that he was LaRouche's attorney, and that he made a number of statements on the record about LaRouche's case. We don't know that he was hired. We don't know that he is a supporter of LaRouche's ideas. We should stick with what can be documented, and avoid speculation. --NathanDW 20:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Clark also had ties to the International Progress Organization, which intervened on behalf of LaRouche in his legal cases. But I have never seen any documentation as to who, if anyone, paid Clark for his services, so I am removing "hired." --Don't lose that number 14:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche as neo-fascist and felon

Clearly these two descriptors belong in the lead.

The sentence: "There are sharply contrasting views of LaRouche. His supporters regard him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas his critics see him as a conspiracy theorist, cult leader, anti-Semite, and Neo-fascist." accurately reflects the published references that follow.

The felony convictions are among the best known aspects of LaRouche's public life.

I was attempting a compromise edit to stop a revert war. Assistance in this matter is constructive. Simple deletions are not constructive.--Cberlet 17:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the felony convictions are probably the best known aspects of LaRouche's public life. Outside the US and Western Europe, LaRouche was considered a political prisoner, which is why it is inappropriate to remove Clark's comment. As for LaRouche being a neo-fascist, that is a fringe viewpoint. You and Dennis King do not represent the mainstream. There are harsh attacks on LaRouche in publications like the Washington Post, but they don't claim that he is a neo-fascist.

One more thing. The intro has been fairly stable for a long time. Don't start a revert war, and then say you are trying to stop one.--Don't lose that number 21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire intro for a long time has been a POV whitewash. The idea that "LaRouche was considered a political prisoner" is not possible to sustain in reputable published sources. If LaRouche apologists continue to abuse the clear intent of numerous admin decision, I will seek to have bans enforced on individual editors. Wearing out other editors to control leads and introductions and other LaRouche-related text is one resaon for the bans in the first place.--Cberlet 21:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss edits here, but I am unwilling to have pro-LaRouche editors flaunt the Arbcom decisions by simply reverting back to wording that is biased, POV, and not cited to reputable published sources. The appropriate cautions regarding bios of living persons are not an excuse to engage in POV pushing and whitewashing. --Cberlet 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Propose Banning of NathanDW

NathanDW just reverted my compromise edit without any discussion. Given the long pattern established here, I propose that NathanDW be banned from editing this and other LaRouche-related pages. Discussion?--Cberlet 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been trying to insert your fringe POV into the intro of a controversial article. You have already been reverted by numerous editors including myself. NathanDW probably didn't think additional discussion was necessary. --Don't lose that number 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to make the lead NPOV. Additional discussion is always appropriate, and in this case needed. Much of the lead is framed to minimize criticism of LaRouche, and give the impression that LaRouche is the victim of a government conspiracy. Let's take it a sentence at a time.--Cberlet 16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV text for the lead

Convictions

Here is a current paragraph:

• LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who was one of LaRouche's attorneys, wrote that his case "involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge."

The major fact is the conviction, yet the bulk of the text is a defense of LaRouche by his attorney. This is highly biased.

The following would be NPOV for a lead:

• LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. LaRouche's attorney suggests the conviction was the result of a government vendetta agaisnt LaRouche.

The quote from Clark could then be properly placed in the section on the conviction.--Cberlet 17:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Since your main profession at the time was acting as a spokesman for the faction that wanted LaRouche jailed, it seems ironic that you speak of bias. Since the open letter calling for his exoneration was signed by 5 former heads of state, numerous cabinet-level officials, a former US Senator, 30 former US Congressmen, 830 present and former state legislators from all 50 states, etc., the claim that he was a political prisoner is probably the single most notable aspect of his biography. Thus, I think that it is appropriate for the actual quote from Clark to be included, just as you undoubtably think that the quote from the Heritage Foundation should be included. As it stands, both are included, and this intro is the result of much debate and compromise. --Don't lose that number 20:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I stongly object to the false and defamatory personal attack contained in the phrase: "your main profession at the time was acting as a spokesman for the faction that wanted LaRouche jailed." What faction? The British royal family? The Synarchists? The Jews? At the time I was a journalist on the trail of a story about a huckster fleecing elderly people out of their life savings while violating numerous tax and fundraising related laws. I am a journalist who helped get a crook convicted by writing stories based on documents and interviews. The claim that LaRouche was a "political prisoner" only floats in the tiny pond of LaRouche supporters. Please refrain from further false and defamatory personal attacks.--Cberlet 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we remove all quotes from the intro. The point of an intro is to summarize the article not to provide evidence. Quotations are always problematic as they are hard to make neutral. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "quotations are hard to make neutral"? It seems to me that they are easier than editorial summaries of the quotes, which are often subject to dispute. --Marvin Diode 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the poor grammar. I should have said they are hard to present neutrally. What I mean is that quotations are often strongly POV and there's little we can do to make them neutral. The number, size, or stridency of quotations in an article can be out of balance with the importance of the viewpoint. My belief is that quotations should be kept to a minimum, especially in introductions. (Note our sister project: Wikiquote). ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If the allegations about government corruption in the LaRouche case had just come from "LaRouche's attorney," they wouldn't be notable. Coming from Ramsey Clark, a specialist in the field, they are notable. Cberlet probably should not be editing this article, because it creates a problem with the Conflict of Interest rules. --MaplePorter 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Clark was not speaking as an uninvolved expert, he was talking about LaRouche because he was LRouche's attorney. If we're going to quote him it's important that we give the proper context. Regarding conflict of interest, I'm not sure what interpretation would exclude Cberlet while allowing LaRouche followers to stay involved. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Will, let me break it down for you. It is unfortunate that you and your friends are so quick to apply the name "LaRouche followers" to anyone that disagrees with you. I would like to remind you of your own words in this comment, where you say "I again request that you stop bringing theories of editor motivation into this disucssion." You know nothing about me or my editor motivation. On the other hand, with Chip Berlet and Dennis King, we are talking about public persons who have positioned themselves on the extreme fringe of LaRouche criticism, and are editing Misplaced Pages under their own names. There is no need to speculate in their cases, and that is why it is appropriate to speak of conflict of interest with them, as opposed to garden variety editors. --MaplePorter 21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

MP, I don't think I made any comments about you. I referred to "LaRouche followers". If you put uyourself in that camp then fine, but I made no such assertion. I'm not sure how suggesting that the same rules apply to all editors is an attack on editor motivation. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 02:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Will, I think you are being coy. Clearly your comments were made about someone. You should come clean and say who you mean, or abandon this line of argument. Regardless, the only editors here who have a clear conflict of interest are King and Berlet, for the reasons Maple gives. It is not a question of whether "the same rules apply to all editors" -- WP:COI applies only to those editors who have a documented conflict of interest. --Don't lose that number 06:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If an editor has a conflict of interest then that should be addressed elsewhere. Making ad hominem attacks on someone in a discussion won't make the issues go away. Let's stick to the topic at hand, the intro to this article. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am hardly a marginal source of information about LaRouche. Not only have I published articles about LaRouche in the Chicago Sun-Times and Des Moines Register, but I am widely quoted in major dailies. This claim that there is a COI problem is absurd. Every journalist who writes about LaRouche is made part of the vast conspiracy by the LaRouchites. This claim has no merit, yet it is repeated endlessly. I am not in the "extreme fringe of LaRouche criticism," I am one of the main sources for mainstream journalism.

Consider the following:

• "Neo-Nazism," entry in Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 2007

• "Notorious antisemite Lyndon LaRouche, who shifted from left to right yet ran as a Democrat, has appeared on the presidential primary ballot for decades, attracting tens of thousands of votes in some states."

• "...antisemitic ideas and conspiracy theories once circulated almost exclusively by German Nazis and their neo-Nazi offspring entered popular culture, mainstream political debate, and even broadcast television series, especially in Islamic and Arab countries in the Middle East. These even included a revival of the false allegations from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. These conspiracy allegations moved into more mainstream circles through bridging mechanisms that often mask the original overtly anti-Jewish claims by using coded rhetoric about "secret elites" or "Zionist cabals." The international organization run by Lyndon LaRouche is a major source of such masked antisemitic theories globally. In the U.S. the LaRouchites spread these conspiracy theories in an alliance with aides to Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam. A series of LaRouchite pamphlets calls the neoconservative movement the "Children of Satan," which links Jewish neo-conservatives to the historic rhetoric of the blood libel. In a twisted irony, the pamphlets imply the neoconservatives are the real neo-Nazis."

• Source Citation: Hearst, Ernest, Chip Berlet, and Jack Porter. "Neo-Nazism." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 15. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 74-82. 22 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale.

Is the Encyclopaedia Judaica marginal?--Cberlet 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cute-- I was touched by your defense of the neocons. With the Iraq war going the way it is, they need all the friends they can get. But of course, what you say about LaRouche is hogwash. That doesn't make the Encyclopaedia Judaica marginal, it just makes you marginal. The Encyclopaedia Judaica simply needs more fact-checkers, if they havent' already hired some after that piece of nonsense was published. --NathanDW 01:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Judaica entry was thoroughly fact-checked. The text is not a defense of the neocons (I have criticized them in print for years) it is an observation that the LaRouchite criticism of the neocons is rooted in historic antisemitism, and that it is ironic for neonazi LaRouchites to paint the neoconservatives as the new Nazis. What matters is that the Encyclopaedia Judaica is a mainstream publication which had me coordinate the writing of the revised entry. This adresses the issue of my views on LaRouche being marginal. They are not marginal at all. The mainstream view is reflected in the entry. It is audacious to suggest that the Encyclopaedia Judaica failed to fact-check the entry rather than accepting the fact that LaRouche in the mainstream view is a kook, convicted criminal, "small-time Hitler" cult leader, and antisemite. While a tiny handful of published sources praise LaRouche, most condemn him, his policy pronouncements, and his followers. That's what needs to be made clear in this entry. The lead needs to be rewritten to be less of an apologia of LaRouche, no matter how relentlessly his supporters on Misplaced Pages try to whitewash reality.--Cberlet 01:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no facts to check in Berlet's little essay -- it is all innuendo. It reminds me of "The Emperor's New Clothes": What, you can't see the "masked" anti-Semitic theories? What about the "coded" anti-Semitic theories? As far as Berlet being "marginal," this is a small thing, but very timely. --Don't lose that number 06:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Clark was representing LaRouche does not in any way diminish his expert qualifications. Clark appears to choose his clients on the basis of the political importance of the case (I'm thinking Saddam Hussein here,) not because he needs the money. --NathanDW 20:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What is significant is the fact that LaRouche is a convicted criminal. That he and his supporters claim this is the result of a vast government conspiracy deserves a small mention in the lead. The Clark quote and the rest of the discussion about the conviction belong lower in the body. This Clark quote stuff is just an attempt to misdirect readers from the fact that LaRouche is a convicted criminal.--Cberlet 21:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Two observations:

1. The discussion is becoming overheated out of proportion to the issue of the intro.

2. LaRouche is very controversial and therefore any assertion made about him (whether positive or negative) is going to be disputed. The best solution is to have assertions cited to notable individuals or organizations so that the reader may evaluate the source. In the case of Ramsey Clark, definately identify him. Cberlet is concerned that this may give too much credence to the claim that there was a political dimension to the trial and that it was not just a typical corrupt politician lining his pockets. I disagree. The intro still says LaRouche was convicted, and for every person who thinks that Clark is a crusader for justice there is a person who thinks he is a crank and professional protestor. My point is that the reader is better served by identifying the source than by concealing it, and it doesn't make the intro any longer. --Marvin Diode 14:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And yet the denial in the lead is longer than the statement of fact about the conviction. This is just wrong. It violates the basic premise of an encyclopedia. And I have always moved the complete quote from Clark lower into the body of the text for the reader to see. And it is not just Clark that claims a vast government conspiracy behind the convictions, but LaRouche himself and several of his accolytes writing in LaRouche publications. The pro-LaRouche editors game Misplaced Pages by relentlessly contesting any critical statement about LaRouche, and padding articles with material praising or defending LaRouche. It is a form of editing by attrition. Other editors wear out, and give up. Little by little the LaRouche-related pages are inexorably turned into propoganda for LaRouche rather than legitimate entries. Every attempt to make them NPOV is cause for a huge energy-draining discussion that sometimes takes months. This aspect of the editing dispute cannot simply be dismissed.--Cberlet 14:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

King's version is crisp and to the point. It is the superior version for a compromise.--Cberlet 21:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

King says the Clark statement is "standard attorney boilerplate." I can't accept that description, because Clark has had many high-profile political cases, and his statement says that the LaRouche case represents "a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge." To say this is "standard attorney boilerplate" does not seem like a serious viewpoint. --Marvin Diode 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What justifies a common claim of all convicted criminals--that they are the victim of a frame--taking up more space than the fact of the conviction in the lead? This is so totally outside the parameters of encyclopedia writing. It is POV to the max. What is the justification? Please explain in detail. Until I see a discussion about this justification, the King edit is far superior.--Cberlet 02:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that Cberlet is simply trolling here. He knows very well that the LaRouche case was controversial internationally. As I mentioned earlier, the open letter calling for his exoneration was signed by 5 former heads of state, numerous cabinet-level officials, a former US Senator, 30 former US Congressmen, 830 present and former state legislators from all 50 states. This makes the LaRouche case one of the most controversial political cases in memory, comparable with those of Nelson Mandela and Andrei Sakharov. I have a copy and can upload an image file on request, but that shouldn't be necessary, because Chip Berlet and Dennis King have both seen it many times -- there is even a summary of it on their "Justice for Jeremiah" website. Despite all this, Cberlet writes "The claim that LaRouche was a "political prisoner" only floats in the tiny pond of LaRouche supporters." I would have to say that this is just flat out dishonest, as was Cberlet's statement that he was "attempting a compromise edit to stop a revert war." Cberlet, you came to this page with the intention of starting a revert war, and your edit summaries are a bad joke -- "Restore NPOV version." Give me a break. It is clear that you are attempting to impose your POV (that there was nothing unusual about the LaRouche trial, that he was just another crooked politician like Duke Cunningham,) and the quote by Ramsey Clark, which explicitly contradicts your POV, is an obstacle to your agenda. Of course, Dennis King comes along and says he "agrees with Berlet"-- Whoa! I didn't see that one coming! And he proposes a summary which is a complete distortion of Clark's comments. Clark's comments should stay. They are what makes LaRouche actually notable, and not just another politician like Duke Cunningham. Berlet and King should edit in good faith and stop trolling. --Don't lose that number 05:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on editing the text. Please stop the personal attacks. Only a tiny handful of people consider LaRouche a political prisoner. Comparing LaRouche to Nelson Mandela and Andrei Sakharov is ludicrous. This entry has for too long been biased in favor a defending and apologizing for LaRouche. That is not proper. This discussion keeps getting sidetracked. The issue is why the lead has to include more text defending LaRouche as a "political prisoner" than detailing his legitimate convcition as a crrok who preyed on the elderly through investment scams. That's the public record. There should be a short mention that he and his defenders consider the conviction flawed. That's NPOV.--Cberlet 20:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Suppose we mention that LaRouche's "defenders" included 5 former heads of state, numerous cabinet-level officials, a former US Senator, 30 former US Congressmen, and 830 present and former state legislators from all 50 states. That's certainly notable. --Don't lose that number 21:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Assertions about third parties would require third-party sources. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is undue weight to give that long a voice in the lead, which is merely supposed to be a summary of the article, to his hired attorney. The fact that the attorney was a famous and important person doesn't change this. Here's the version I put in, which was reverted:

LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. LaRouche's supporters and his attorney Ramsey Clark claim the convictions resulted from abuse of power in a concerted government effort to crush the LaRouche organizations.

I think it does a good job of addressing the concerns of LaRouche's defenders but without giving three times as much space to the defense and an attack on the government than to the charge itself, which is what that paragraph is supposed to summarize. nadav (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't know that Clark was hired. If you look earlier on this talk page, this has already been discussed. All that we actually know is that he represented LaRouche, and it could have been pro bono. No one has found a reliable source one way or the other, so we go only with what we know. I think that LaRouche's and/or Clark's critics are exaggerating the length of the quote. It is one slightly convoluted sentence. That comes to a total of one sentence about his conviction, and one sentence from Clark. Do you want to quibble over the number of characters? --Don't lose that number 22:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Add pro bono to my comment above. I still mean what I said, though. Your version and the quote uses strong language, which may sway the reader's opinion. There's no problem with that if it's used in the body of the article with more context, but it shouldn't be used in the lead, whose sole purpose is to summarize points already made later in the article. nadav (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead is full of strong language. Some of LaRouche's critics claim he is an anti-Semite, for example, and that's included in the lead. The best we can hope for is a relatively complete summary of the major controversies. --MaplePorter 00:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If those sorts of allegations are covered extensively in the body, then they should stay. Regarding the quotes: Since lead sections should conform to WP:LEAD, i.e. they should be cut-and-dry summaries of the article, there is almost never a reason to introduce quotes, unless they are themselves functioning as NPOV summaries of the material. nadav (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make two observations, first that WP:LEAD is a style guideline, and it says there that it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. It may be too difficult to find a summary of Clark's statement that is acceptable to both sides, in which case it might be necessary to use the quote. On the other hand, I would propose a different summary than the one by Nadav1, because the lead should make it clear what makes LaRouche notable. Clark is not simply saying that the convictions resulted from abuse of power in a concerted government effort to crush the LaRouche organizations. He is saying that, in his career as a specialist in cases where governments abuse the legal process to eliminate political opponents, this is the most extreme case he has seen. This establishes the notability of LaRouche in this regard. --Marvin Diode 06:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why we deleted the Buster Horton quotation. As for the Clark quote, I don't think anyone is opposing including it in the article. But it isn't necessary to quote him in the summary. I don't know of any article about a person who was convicted of a felony that quotes the subject's attorney in the summary. If we can't agree on either the summary or the quotation then we shouldn't include either. It's sufficient for the intro to say that he was convicted but maintains his innocence. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored the Buster Horton quote in the "criminal convictions" section. Otherwise, Will, you seem to be following Cberlet's tactic of saying "But gee, isn't LaRouche just an ordinary criminal, and isn't Ramsey Clark just an ordinary lawyer?" As I think everyone concerned knows full well, the answer to both questions is no. What makes LaRouche notable? That he ran for president without much chance of winning? Others have done that. Because he's a conspiracy theorist? They're a dime a dozen. Clark's quote sums up what really makes LaRouche notable -- it's the number one case in the history of the US where a combination of government and private sector forces (John Train et al) attempted to use the courts (and the press) to annihilate a political movement. --Don't lose that number 13:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, based on standard texts on the U.S. history of political reperssion, the above claim is utter hogwash. This is why supporters of cult leaders have no business editing pages to represent the marginal and crackpot views of the cult leader and the cult. This is true whether or not the editors consider themselves part of the cult.--Cberlet 16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

<-----Sorry, I am losing track of where what is. The Clark quote and the Horton quote belong lower on the page, not in the lead.--Cberlet 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I frankly don't understand the big fuss over the length of the Clark quote. It is not that long, plus it is very carefully worded and I don't see how any summary or paraphrase could be accurate without being as long as the quote itself. --MaplePorter 15:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The fuss is that the Clark quote in the lead is improper, unencyclopedic, and biases the entire paragraph in favor of a refutation of the fact of the conviction. It is little more than LaRouche propaganda. If it belongs on the page at all (which is dubious since there is already an entire page on the LaRouche conviction which itself is biased and POV in favor of LaRouche) then the Clark quote belongs lower in the text.--Cberlet 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose again moving all of the quotes out of the intro. As I said before, the intro should be a summary of the article, and it's better to place supporting materials, like quotes, in context. As for user:Don't lose that number's assertion about the motivation for the prosecution, that's original research. There's no objective evidence that the U.S. government tried to shut down the LaRouche movement. The government certainly haven't made any further documented efforts since the early release of LaRouche and the other conspirators. This debate and the associated edit war appear dilatory, and not likely to gain consensus. I hope I'll be proved wrong by editors agreeing to my compromise proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Will, you are misreprenting my comments. They are not OR -- they are a paraphrase of Clark's assessment. --Don't lose that number 00:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to base our work on the lead guideline, since there is a wide consensus of wikipedian opinion that it's good. I invite the LaRouche supporters to formulate an exact phrasing instead of this quote, so we can discuss it. Try to make it a general description of the reactions of LaRouche supporters, and not to focus too much only on Clark's opinion, since it is not expanded on in the body of the article. The phrasing should also be concise enough that it doesn't overshadow the rest of the paragraph. Here's my attempt:

LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. LaRouche's supporters and his attorney Ramsey Clark claim the convictions were due to a concerted government effort's unprecedented abuse of power to crush the LaRouche organizations.

nadav (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If we agree to this version, then the full Clark quote below is redundant. I think it is too long and detailed for the lead. Just my opinion. Do we offer such perks to every convicted criminal here on Misplaced Pages?--Cberlet 19:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not every convict starts a mass movement and has so many followers, and the lead should reflect that to some extent. nadav (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the summary is good, though we might use Clark's word "destroy" rather than the more picturesque "crush". I don't think the summary makes the quotation redundant later on. For the intro to be a summary there should be a longer treatment of the same material later in the article. Also, it nicely balances the jury-member's quotation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, Cberlet's objection to the Clark quote is that he personally disagrees with it. Of all the opinions voiced in this debate, that is the most "unencyclopedic." The summary is not bad, except that what makes Clark's opinion notable is his credentials, that being that he is former AG, and a specialist in political cases. I have no objection to saying that he was LaRouche's attorney -- clearly Cberlet and friends hope that this will discredit Clark, but big deal. --NathanDW 00:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the edits, not the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, there appears to be a tactic of lumping Clark in with "LaRouche supporters" to discredit him (sort of like what goes on in these discussion pages.) I know of no evidence that Clark is in fact a LaRouche supporter. I believe that he has some serious disagreements with LaRouche. If it is safe to generalize about Clark's approach to the law, it appears that he seeks out cases where he believes the legal process has been abused for political purposes. His substantial experience in this field makes his opinion an expert legal opinion, as opposed to the opinion of Chip Berlet. --Don't lose that number 00:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember that we are trying to summarize the article, not summarize the quote. As I said, there is almost never a reason to put a quote in the lead. Don't make this about Clark. Devote a whole section of the article to Mr. Clark if you want to, but until you do that, there is no reason to devote that paragraph to his opinion, and especially not in his own words. nadav (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried to take into account some of the concerns raised above in my new revision. I sincerely hope this will be acceptable. LaRouche supporters should realize that a compromise must be made, and no one is ever entirely satisfied with compromises. nadav (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC

What are our options and objectives for re-writing the lead?

It looks like some editors are proposing a big re-write of the lead. This could be a lot of work, and the present lead is the result of many compromises, some of them bad ones in my opinion. I am going to list some points that have been raised and provide my "take" on the matter:

1. Cberlet appears to want to re-cast the entire lead to make it more negative toward LaRouche, since he considers the present lead an "apologia." My view of this proposal is that it is unacceptable POV pushing. The present lead, while not perfect, is relatively balanced.

2. Will Beback says he would like to eliminate quotes. I'm not sure exactly what this is intended to accomplish -- WP:LEAD doesn't say that quotes are bad, but it does say that the lead should provide a summary. Nadav1 seems to be saying that quotes are inconsistent with a summary -- I can see his point, but in the case of such an unusually controversial subject, perhaps the best way of providing a summary is to provide contrasting quotes which illustrate the range of opinion. The section which contrasts the Heritage Foundation with Norman Bailey is an example of what I mean.

3. Don't Lose That Number says that he thinks the most notable feature of LaRouche is that, in Ramsey Clark's opinion, he was the target of an unprecendented legal assault. I don't think that this is LaRouche's actual "claim to fame," although it is an indication of his notability. I would like to see something in the lead about LaRouche's international activity. There was something there before about his standing in Russia and China, that was eliminated in an earlier bout of controversy. Since that time, much better evidence is available from LaRouche's recent trips to Russia and Italy. I would favor saying something like the following: "Although coverage of LaRouche in the Western media is generally sparse and negative in tone, he receives far more positive coverage in Russia, China, and many Third World nations, where his campaign to change US policy toward the rest of the world is viewed sympathetically." It might be appropriate to mention LaRouche's meetings with various heads of state and other dignitaries in this context, since this is also an important indication of his notability. --MaplePorter 11:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Our objectives for rewriting the lead are to make it NPOV and conform to standard Wiki policies. End of discussion. Please avoid personal attacks, even when couched in civility.--Cberlet 13:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are superior

The primary published source challenging the conviction of LaRouche is provided by the LaRouchites in a published collection of articles: "Have the Mass Media Brainwashed your Neighbor about Lyndon LaRouche?" Thus this text is appropriate:

• LaRouche and his defenders claim the prosecution was a politically motivated conspiracy involving government officials, numerous others, and a mass media brainwashing campaign.

The actual text includes a reference to the URL and a link to the details lower on the page . Whenever possible a lead should rely on these types of primary published sources, especially in a bio of a living person. In this case a letter from an attorney is an inferior source, and on this page is already elaborated on in detail with full quotes lower on the page. The collection cited in the new lead text contains articles by LaRouche himself.--Cberlet 13:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A lengthy debate over the section you didn't like has produced a new consensus version of that section. Continued attempts to make it conform to your POV is Tendentious editing. --MaplePorter 14:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am raising a different point and providing a superior primary source. Please do not move my text again. Please do not delete my subheading. Please discuss the text.--Cberlet 14:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This lead has been very thoroughly discussed. You have provided many different explanations for why you don't want Ramsey Clark mentioned. However, he is a well-known expert in the field about which he speaks, and I can't think of a more notable person to cite. --Marvin Diode 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Cberlet wants to start the controversy all over again from scratch. He has made the claim numerous times on this page that no one outside the LaRouche organization believes the trial was tainted. The evidence tells a different story, but Cberlet keeps trying to cleanse the lead of anything that contradicts his claim. He should respect the consensus and stop wasting our time. --NathanDW 15:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The most notable source is LaRouche himself and his organization. Look at this diff. The end result of weeks of discussion is that the lead is virtually unchanged, and once again favors pro-LaRouche claims over the fact of his conviction; the lead also highlights Clark as a former Attorney General (an appeal to false authority - Clark represents the interests of LaRouche); and now there are even more paragraphs of unchallennged LaRouchite propoganda. This is outlandish, biased, POV and clearly Tendentious editing on the part of the pro-LaRouche partisans. --Cberlet 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's preferable to give the opinions of the movement and LaRouche himself rather than his lawyer. nadav (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, firstly because LaRouche's opinions about his guilt or innocence are not especially noteworthy, secondly because Clark is an expert in the field of politically motivated trials and not simply "his lawyer," and thirdly because there is an element of POV-pushing in attempting to make it look like only LaRouche's supporters question the legitimacy of the trial. --NathanDW

Nathan, do you have any reliable sources who questioned the legitimacy of the trial, who weren't members or supporters of the LaRouche movement, weren't acting for him, and whose views about the trial weren't published solely by a LaRouche publication? SlimVirgin 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we even have a 3rd-party source for the Clark quote? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is Catch-22. The moment anyone says something favorable to LaRouche, they become "supporters of the LaRouche movement," like the disclaimer on this article about the German Defense Intelligence chief. You folks judge anti-LaRouche sources strictly by their notability, so you should judge other sources by the same standard. And given the political climate in the '80s, the idea that the US press would voluntarily cover an action to question the LaRouche trial is pretty far-fetched. As I said earlier, I can upload an image of the exoneration ad if you claim I am lying. --Don't lose that number 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

<----------The issue is that a primary source from the LaRouche group (including an article by LaRouche himself) is superior to an unpublished secondary source from the legal representative of the person. The main outcome of posting the Clark quote is an appeal to false authority--to claim that instead of Clark being an attorney for a convicted criminal, Clark is somehow more credible as a former US Attorney General. For any issue other than one connected to legal representation this would be true. Here it is just an appeal to false authority. The primary published source is always superior to a secondary source in a biographical entry here on Misplaced Pages.--Cberlet 14:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's cut the pretense, shall we?

This article was stable and undisputed for a long time. The recent kerfuffle began when Cberlet decided to add to the intro the characterization of LaRouche as "neofascist." That didn't last long, so he tried another disruptive tack -- censoring the view of Ramsey Clark. Cberlet has made it abundantly clear that he simply doesn't like Clark's opinion. Chip Berlet and his POV twin Dennis King were major cheerleaders of the LaRouche prosecution, back when the foundation grants were rolling in, back in the 1980s. The two of them resent any aspersions cast on the legitimacy of the trial, so Cberlet has launched an attempt to remove Clark's quote here, while King has launched a parallel effort to censor the opinion of Von der Heydte at United States v. LaRouche.

So, let's cut the pretense and wiki-lawyering. This is simply POV censorship. In response to questions raised above, the following is clear as day:

1. It is completely acceptable under both the LaRouche1 arbcom enforcement and the Tsunami Butler request for appeal to use LaRouche sites are sources for the Clark and Von der Heydte quotes. These were both open letters, released to the public, and these two individuals may be seen as LaRouche supporters, so they may be cited to LaRouche publications.

2. It is bogus to complain that too much space is being devoted to the rather brief quotes from these credentialed experts, particularly when much more space is devoted to quotes from Chip Berlet and Dennis King, whose claim to fame is that they both finished high school.

(unsigned, but posted by NathanDW)

Please avoid future personal attacks, NathanDW. Please focus on editing text using Misplaced Pages guidelines.--Cberlet 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, I have many more proposed changes to this entry and others. I just thought it polite to deal with one matter at a time. Next I intend to pursue the fact that the cited sources for the critics of LaRouche use the term "fascist," and it is POV to delete that from the list of criticisms, especially when the term is used in the titles.--Cberlet 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that Dking has reverted again with edit summary "restored proper version; it is long past time for NathanDW to be blocked from this page for his edit warring." First of all, I think that it is presumptuous to declare one version to be the "proper" version, since there is clearly a dispute. One of the things I particularly object to about Cberlet's version is the continual use of the word "conspiracy" to denigrate LaRouche's views.

LaRouche and his publications have detailed numerous conspiracy claims for decades. To suggest otherwise is outlandish. How ridiculous will this discussion get before the Arbcom sanctions are invoked?--Cberlet 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Then, it seems even more presumptuous for Dking to demand that NathanDW be blocked for edit warring. NathanDW has taken the time to argue his position on the talk page, while Dking just shows up to revert. Who'e the edit warrior? --MaplePorter 22:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

NathanDW has reverted without discussion repeatedly. That is easy to demonstrate. How ridiculous will this discussion get before the Arbcom sanctions are invoked?--Cberlet 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like some response to my proposal that LaRouche's relationship to Russia, China and the Third World be mentioned in the lead. --MaplePorter 22:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What relationship? Outside the lunatic assertions of LaRouche conspiracy fanatics there is no reputable published source to confirm these absurd claims. That's the proper response. How ridiculous will this discussion get before the Arbcom sanctions are invoked?--Cberlet 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead: criminal conviction

Let's continue the discussion about the lead (lede) and the criminal conviction of LaRouche.

The central issue is that a primary source from the LaRouche group (including an article by LaRouche himself) is superior to text from an unpublished secondary source from the legal representative of the person. The main outcome of posting the Clark quote is an appeal to false authority--to claim that instead of Clark being an attorney for a convicted criminal, Clark is somehow more credible as a former US Attorney General. For any legal issue other than one connected to legal representation of a client, this would be true. Here it is just an appeal to false authority. The primary published source is always superior to a secondary source in a biographical entry here on Misplaced Pages. LaRouche claims it all was a government conspiracy. Let him speak for himself.--Cberlet 16:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the "central issue." It's only your most recent tactic. You have changed your "central issue" numerous times. LaRouche is not an expert on politically motivated cases, at least the last time I checked -- therefore Clark's opinion is the more notable. No one one should be especially surprised to learn that LaRouche thinks the trial was rigged.

Cberlet, you have largely ignored every point raised by others in this discussion. I have brought up several times the prominent signers on the exoneration ad, and you continue to blithely insist that only members of LaRouche's organization question the trial. You also arrogantly dismissed MaplePorter's proposal that the lead mention China, India and the Third World. You claim there is no documentation that LaRouche is active there. I suggest that you read this (subhead: "Meetings with Third World leaders") and this, since the lead is supposed to summarize the article. --Don't lose that number 00:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We can deal with the outlandishly hyperbolic claims of the LaRouchites about LaRouche's importance later. For now we are discussing the issue of whether or not Clark is a superior source than LaRouche as to LaRouche's claim of a massive mass media brainwashing and government conspiracy. Under what Misplaced Pages guideline is an attorney's "open letter" a superior source than the person whose biography is the topic of the entry?--Cberlet 02:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not add to LaRouche's statement on the trial the opinion of a reliable independent source (not his attorney)? nadav (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the information on the trial should be moved to the trial page, which itself is heavily unbalanced in favor of the pro-LaRouche position. I think the lead here on this page should state the facts of the conviction, and then have a smaller amount of summary text (not quotes) drawn from the LaRouche official website on the trial. I have been concentrating on the lead, and as such have never removed the Clark quotes from this entry page,(I move them down in the entry) but I feel there is already too much on the trial on this page. This is the page on Lyndon LaRouche, we should quote him or his group's official statements as the superior primary source on his concerns about the trial. Clark's comments in an unpublished (except for LaRouchite press & publicity) "open letter" is a suspect and inferior source of information in this instance. Putting Clark's comments in the lead is an appeal to false authority, when it is little more than a publicity stunt by the attorney for a convicted criminal. Clark has a right to do this, however Misplaced Pages has no obligation to serve as a mouthpiece for propaganda.--Cberlet 14:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Where are the "outlandishly hyperbolic claims"? Can you carry on a normal discussion without constantly laying on the propaganda? The sections in the article, which I suggest that you read, are simply an account of the press coverage in Russia of LaRouche's activities, and the interviews in the China Peoples Daily. --Don't lose that number 06:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. Obscure anecdotal cites do not trump majority published material in which LaRouche, when he is not treated as a crackpot, is placed in a proper infinitesimally marginal and irrelevant context and perspective.--Cberlet 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why anyone would spend time (decades?) publishing books and attempting to reveal the hidden truth of LaRouche if he is "infinitesimally marginal and irrelevant". Also I'm not clear how claims by patently politically motivated and essentially self-published sources that describe hidden swastikas and secret meanings are any less "crackpot" than run of the mill freemasonry, illuminati and space alien conspiracy theory. This is along the lines of people who play the Beatles backward to show they are devil-worshippers. All these sources are exactly on par with each other as far as I can tell. This looks like a lot of nonsense. "Misplaced Pages has no obligation to serve as a mouthpiece for propaganda." Indeed. Fourdee 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is true that King and Berlet seldom address LaRouche's actual ideas or activities in their tracts. Instead, the emphasis is always on "exposing" the "hidden truth," which is on a par with standard conspiracism. --MaplePorter 14:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, I have spent far less than 1% of my time in the last 30 years writing about LaRouche, including articles in the Chicago Sun-Times, Des Moines Register, the New Internationalist, and the Encyclopedia Judaica -- hardly publications willing to allow sloppy "conspiracy theory" work to be published in their pages. The only source for the claim that I spend a substantial amount of time attacking LaRouche comes from unverified LaRouchite propaganda; and credulous people willing to relay unverified LaRouchite propaganda.--Cberlet 15:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think people are talking here about the PRA website, and of course the very substantial amount of time you spend promoting your views on Misplaced Pages. When were the Chicago Sun-Times and Des Moines Register articles published? Not very recently, I suspect. --NathanDW 15:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Clark, Ramsey. "Open Letter to Janet Reno," posted on LaRouche presidential campaign website, 2004.
2. Clark, Ramsey. "Open Letter to Janet Reno," posted on LaRouche presidential campaign website, 2004.

• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics