Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:09, 24 October 2009

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

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Politics B‑class Low‑importance

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

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

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

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

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

References

Change in lead

I have changed the deprecatory "self-styled economist" to "economist," and added a sentence about LaRouche's reputation in Russia, based on the following sources:

"Economist"

There are many references to LaRouche as an economist, but in particular, if LaRouche's arch-enemy of the 1970s, the New York Times, can use it, so can we:

• Mr. LaRouche, an 80-year-old economist, has raised more than $3.7 million over the years, much of it through small donations and the Internet. -- "Washington: Solid Fund-Raising By Lyndon Larouche," New York Times, , May 3, 2003

"Leading economist" in Russia

• And, as indicated by many prominent scientists, such as L. LaRouche, GA Odum, MA Schlesser, and others, leads to a global monetary and financial collapse. -- Kuznetsov,Oleg L., Bolshakov, Boris E., Ryabkova, Svetlana, "The idea of Nursultan Nazarbayev - a democratic future designer,", Interfax, October 17, 2009
• ...the greatest American economist --Shishov, Tatania, ""Globalization - Greatest Scam of the Twentieth Century," Russia Today, June 29, 2008
• ... the famous economist Lyndon LaRouche -- Voice of Russia, August 18, 2006

"Founder of Physical Economics"

• In April 2006, of America once again came the voice of a well-known dissident and founder of the movement of physical economy Lyndon LaRouche -- Centrasia.ru, July 27, 2006
• Lyndon H. LaRouche, the founder of physical economics -- the late Russian economist Pobisk Kuznetsov, paper available at his memorial site ]
• The fact that the U.S. financial system moves toward a catastrophe, since the 1990's in a loud voice saying economists - the supporters of "physical economy", which are grouped around the Lyndon LaRouche. --KM.RU news, July 10, 2009
• The founder of a new direction in economic science, which he described as the physical economy.--Polar Star magazine, undated

--Leatherstocking (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Good research. I moved it down beside the other characterizations, and copyedited the result.   Will Beback  talk  20:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

At least one of these persons, Pobisk Kuznetsov, would appear to qualify as a member of the LaRouche movement, according to the criteria proposed by Leatherstocking.   Will Beback  talk  03:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Platform

I moved the poliotical platform material to Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Campaign platforms. Note that there are additjonal sources on the movement's platforms in Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources#Platforms, which we'll also need to integrate with the Rusian source.   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete the very concise reference I added to campaign platforms. The platform is not a "view," it pertains to something the subject did, and being a "perennial candidate" is being presented here as a key aspect of the subject's notability. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete it. I moved it to the "Views" article. That's where it belongs. Further, the material you presented is not a balanced, comprehensive summary of his political platforms.   Will Beback  talk  00:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where the article says these were LaRouche's platform. Also, I'm not sure what this means:

• По материалам журнала «Валютный спекулянт» и сайта www.larouchepub.com

I see that most of the material is copied from this page. It says:

• По материалам сайта www.larouchepub.com

In other words this material appears to have been copied off of a LaRouche website. If we're going to have platform information, please let's use reliable secondary sources and let's make sure it is reasonable comprehensive.   Will Beback  talk  02:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Before we use http://www.zvezda.ru/ or http://www.spekulant.ru we need to establish that they have reputations for reliability.   Will Beback  talk  03:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've compiled a list of platform items from the sources page.   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to Leatherstocking's re-write. But it still belongs in the "Views": article, so I've moved it back again.   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And per the postings above, it's not clear that http://www.zvezda.ru is a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is ample information available on Polar Star. Their home page in English, with a list of staff, collaborators and their respective credentials, is available here. Among the "authors and partners" are Richard K. Betts, Dean Baker, and Mikhail Delyagin, all of whom have Misplaced Pages bios. Here is a English-language reference to the magazine and its editor-in-chief Dmitri Rodin, and here's another.

Please do not continue to move campaign platform information to "views." A presidential campaign is not a mere expression of an opinion. It is an active process of attempting to rally support for a series of policies. LaRouche is considered notable as a "perennial candidate," and information on LaRouche's campaign platforms is exactly what is needed to provide some semblance of balance to this biographical article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain the provenence of the cited source, cinosiderfing the issues I raised above.

We don't cover his presidential campaigns in this article either. The version you reverted is incomplete and based mostly on a source of undetermined reliability and with a lack of neutrality. I'll move it back to the views article, where it belongs alongside his other views.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise to get consensus, I've left a short summary of some of the main issues. Let's keep it short here and give a full coverage in the views article.   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to disturb your conversation, I just want to add that i love the word "cinosiderfing". 81.210.198.46 (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean that isn't how it's spelled?   Will Beback  talk 

Let's take a step back and look at what is going on here. You have now reached the point of edit warring, in a biographical article, to exclude coverage of the presidential campaigns of a guy who ran for president 8 times. At the same time, you demand the inclusion of material like "Jeremiah Duggan," whom the subject never even met, and whose only connection to the subject is innuendo from LaRouche's critics. This is like Alice in Wonderland. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so only one editor is edit warring. Anyway, do you want to discuss this here or on the mediation page?   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite the lack of further discussion here, the material was restored yet again. Aside from the problem of duplicating material already covered in the Views of Lyndon LaRouche article, the actual material that's being restored is not balanced and is based primarily on a Google translation of Russian website article of dubiuous origins. We should use the best possible sources, not the worst. I don't see how anyone can argue that "www.zvezda.ru" is the best possible source for the political platforms of an American presidential candidate.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be entirely appropriate to have LaRouche's campaign platforms mentioned in his BLP. But Will is right in that sources like zvezda.ru can't be it. Did no one in the US report on his campaign platforms? If there is really no American third-party source for them, did LaRouche not at least publish them himself at the time? --JN466 02:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The platform is mentioned in the article. It's the full discussion of the platforms (plural) that beloings on another article. Either Views of Lyndon LaRouche, or possible Presidential campaigns of Lyndon LaRouche (though thaty is complicated because many other people ran on those platforms too). There are numerous reliable sources in the U.S. that wrote about the platforms. See Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Campaign platforms. Using those, I've compiled a better sourced, more comprehensive list at Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Campaign platforms.   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks a lot more together, sourcing-wise. As a compromise, could we perhaps agree to mention a few additional representative points here in this BLP, so that in terms of space given to this aspect we meet somewhere in the middle between the two versions established by the to-and-fro edits? --JN466 03:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise, I added a summary of the platforms. Some folks never seem to acknowledge compromises.   Will Beback  talk  04:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. The recent edit-warring I saw was between the one-sentence summary and the eight-bullet-point summary. . Given that he's known as the perennial presidential candidate, the summary of his presidential platforms in his BLP could reasonably be expected to be a little longer than one sentence giving four policy examples, even while there may be no need to reproduce the full list as given in the subarticle. --JN466 04:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

For example, why not mention his opposition to gay rights, environmentalism and abortion? While we briefly quote one observer later on opining that LaRouche has shown "hostility" to gay rights and environmentalism, reporting the perception of such hostility, attributed to a single named commentator, is not quite as strong as reporting that LaRouche made opposition to these initiatives part of his campaign platform. --JN466 04:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Abortion, gay rights, and environmentalism haven't been the most prominent parts of the platforms, so that's why they aren't mentioned. AIDS, SDI, building nuclear power plants, etc - those are the more prominent planks. Have you read over the sources?   Will Beback  talk  05:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise even further, and expand the space to it. More than the space devoted to it the problem is the unbalanced material - it's not a common view of LaRouche's platforms. We can deal with more viewpoints on the "Views" page, but saying, for example, that he's had pro-Russian platforms when some of his platforms favored dramatically increased military spending in anticipation of imminent war with the USSR is "counterfactual". We don't need a big bullet pointed list either - a long sentence or two, or even three should suffice. We should also mention how those platforms have been described. But the first step is to drop zvezda.ru as the main source.   Will Beback  talk  07:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead

This lead is absurdly unbalanced. The widespread view of LaRouche is that he is a cult leader, conspiracy theorist, and very strange person. Yet our lead is almost entirely positive. We have one half of a sentence that is negative: "critics regard him as a cult leader, conspiracy theorist, fascist, and antisemite." And of course it's not even true that only "critics" say this. But we can't change it because Leatherstocking reverts almost all attempts to improve the article. I dislike using tags, but in this situation I wonder if it's time to add the COI tag. I counted the movement's various edits with the different accounts, and they amount to over 1,000. SlimVirgin 07:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

By all means, add the tag. You and Will must have racked up 1,000 edits between you in August/September alone. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't say "critics"; that's in the version you reverted to. Please respond to the material below; I've moved it down from earlier this week. You should have responded to it before changing the lead. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

One big problem with the Oct 21 version is that it puts the views of a few Russian sources far out of proportion to their weight. Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research has scores of sources for the contentious assertions in the lead. Weight should be related to depth and breadth of coverage in reliable sources and to intrinsic importance. Since he's gained so much attention for his predictions of financial depressions, and for the recent "Obama=Hitler" campaign, we should add those to the intro too.   Will Beback  talk  09:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should contain notable controversies. The problem with LaRouche is that there have been so many, it's hard to know which to pick. We should perhaps make a list here on talk first, and try to decide which ones gained the most mainstream coverage. SlimVirgin 15:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just noting here that Leatherstocking tried to move this thread behind an older one. He didn't say why. SlimVirgin 16:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I was attempting to draw your attention to the sources I posted at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Change in_ lead, which you appear to be studiously ignoring. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Leatherstocking, I count seven Russian citations in your listing above: three for "Leading economist" and four for "Founder of Physical Economics", and none of those appear to have been from the most prominent Russian news sources. By contrast, the other phrases used for LaRouche that are in the lead have far more citations. There are 72 sources for "anti-semite" and 56 for "fascist", many of them in the newspapers of record, or quotations from prominent individuals. If the threshold is just 3 or 4 cites, then there are many more terms we should add. If the threshold is higher, then we should delete the Russian terms. But we can't have it both ways.   Will Beback  talk  03:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, i love everybody on this talkpage. You guys simply make my day! Please keep up the good work, the entertainment value of this page surpasses even "Seinfeld". Cheers, and good luck to each of you! *runs for popcorn* 81.210.198.46 (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad you're enjoying it.   Will Beback  talk  03:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Acquaintance of mine over on de:WP says he participates in Misplaced Pages because to him it beats watching soap operas on TV – Misplaced Pages is the soap opera he can be in himself. It looks like it is beginning to attract a viewing public: The thing that is worrying is that the stuff we write today might still be here in ten or twenty years. Given that I cringe today at much of what I wrote twenty (or even three) years ago, quite possibly I'll cringe in twenty years at what I write today. On the other hand, it is unlikely I'll still cringe in 40 years. Perhaps the entertainment will continue for the Internet archaeologists of the future. "An analysis of early 21st-century cultural and intellectual values, based on archives from the founding decade of Misplaced Pages." --JN466 03:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Jay, i certainly love your view. I had the same idea some weeks ago, but i cannnot help but watching, reading and enjoying this for whats it worth. *hands over popcorn* 81.210.198.46 (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Speculation vs. Argument

The verb "speculate" as used to describe my argument that LaRouche uses "British" to designate "Jewish" in certain contexts, is LaRouchian POV. My argument is backed up by solid research; see chapter 29 of Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism which not only cites examples from LaRouche's propaganda but also traces the historical antecedents in earlier ultra-right movements including the Nazis. It would be difficult to interpret in any other way the notorious picture of Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David (flanked by Kissinger and Milton Friedman) that illustrated a LaRouche article in the late 1970s or the recent picture showing George Soros (LaRouche's latest symbolic evil Jew) with the Union Jack behind his head. Or LaRouche's use of the terms "British (Rothschild)" and "Zionist-British organism." As to the antecedents of this game, I have posted many of my research findings on Lyndon LaRouche Watch--and other examples can be found at LaRouche Planet along with examples of such LaRouchian anti-Jewish code words as "Synarchist," "Venetian virus" and "locusts."

People can disagree with the coded discourse ("forked tongue") thesis as applied to LaRouche and other extremists (the subject of an international symposium at Northampton University last summer), but to dismiss it as "speculation" here on Misplaced Pages merely tends to block any serious consideration of the evidence--especially when the use of the term is followed by a one-sided compendium of remarks by Dennis King critics (the longest of which isn't even about the issue of code language). I find it curious that LaRouche editors keep trying to delete all criticism of LaRouche from this article but defend via edit-warring their own insertion into it of a rather detailed critique of me.--Dking (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And on that note, I've added the COI tag. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

LS, you've applied a lot of tags to this article. Can you explain precisely how this article qualifies?

• A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.

Does that edit make Dking a "major contributor"? Has it violated NPOV? If not, then the tag doesn't belong.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Dking has made hundreds of edits over time to this article, many of which have violated NPOV. However, the COI policy also refers to self-promotion, which has been a chronic problem with Dking. --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Past problems aren't a reason to add a tag - only current problems. If there is a problem with his edit then discuss it.   Will Beback  talk  07:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to refresh your memory on this topic, by referring you to the last ANI discussion: As far as current problems are concerned, as an administrator, you ought to recognize that his recent comments on this talk page violate both WP:NPA and also WP:BLP, which applies to talk pages as well as articles. Then, there's also the matter of Dking removing his own COI tag, which is a mini-COI in its own right. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that linked disucssion is relevant. If there is a NPA/BLP problem then the COI tag isn't the way to solve it. Was there anything wrong with what Dking added to the article? If not then there's nothing left to discuss here.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed tag. I'm an acknowledged expert on LaRouche, have tracked his career for over 30 years, and have studied his writings closely. My work has been published on the subject in mainstream publications and by a mainstream publishing house. I edit on Misplaced Pages under my own name. Where is the conflict?--except that I happen to disagree with the tiny band of LaRouche devotees (about 1/100th of one percent of the American public) whose current Misplaced Pages spokesperson is "Leatherstocking" and who think LaRouche is a great man and not at all a bigot (in defiance of massive evidence to the contrary).

This shows what is wrong with Misplaced Pages--that anyone with real knowledge of a controversial subject has to deal constantly with flat-earther cranks and other irrationalists. Real experts should be encouraged to edit under their own names, as they do in the real world of journalism, publishing, academia and science. Unfortunately, on Misplaced Pages they may be penalized for doing so by cranks who hide behind user names and employ the Misplaced Pages rules in a defense-lawyer trickster fashion rather than joining in a sincere scholarly debate based on evidence (they claim, for instance, that the normal response of an expert to defend his or her legitimately published research findings--and to do so openly in a scholarly spirit under his or her real name--constitutes de facto a conflict of interest). I know many academics who could contribute to Misplaced Pages but decline to do so because they know they would end up having to play lawyer games with the cranks and hired guns such as the press secretary for the Divine Light Mission's fat corrupt little guru-God who for years wasted people's time on cult-related articles and kept real scholars and scientists away via his nasty fanaticism.

As to Leatherstocking's complaint that I am not sufficiently "neutral": Sir, don't ever ask me to be neutral about anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, calls for violence against gays, and vile mockery/defamation of the families of people driven to their deaths by the LaRouche organization. Nor should any Misplaced Pages editor be neutral about such matters. That is not a conflict of interest, but rather common human decency.--Dking (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with every detail of your argument, but it may interest you to know that the general gist of it is pretty much reflected in Misplaced Pages:Randy_in_Boise. --JN466 03:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Presidential campaign platform info

Please provide a legitimate, policy-based rationale before deleting this material again. Will Beback gave the edit summary of "already covered in 'Views' article." If your argument is that it should only appear in one article, please explain why:

• The section on "Kenneth Kronberg," which had little to do with LaRouche's biography, is presently featured in four articles, including this one
• The section on "Operation Mop-up," which had little to do with LaRouche's biography, is presently featured in four articles, including this one
• The section on "Jeremiah Duggan," which had nothing to do with LaRouche's biography, is presently featured in four articles, including this one

Are you contending that LaRouche was less personally involved in his presidential campaigns than with these other episodes? --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The platform hasn't been deleted. Just the opposite: I've expanded it at Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Campaign platforms, leaving a short summary at this page. Let's discuss that short summary and make it better. Let's not keep adding unbalanced material based on a poor quality source.   Will Beback  talk  07:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't evade my question above. The fact that platform information appears in "Views" is no reason to exclude it from this article, where it is extremely relevant. Of the issues which make LaRouche notable, as summarized in the lead, we have his criminal conviction, well covered in the article, accusations made by his critics, abundantly covered, and his presidential campaigns, virtually ignored in the article. What "unbalanced material based on a poor quality source" are you talking about? I count 16 sources in that section, most of which were added by yourself. If you are attacking "Polar Star," I provided information per your request at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Platform, and you did not respond to it. You're welcome to take it to RSN. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Leatherstocking says that "Operation Mop-up had little to do with LaRouche's biography"????? This transformative event in the history of the LaRouche organization (the organization that has been LaRouche's lifework) is to be dismissed as something trivial? Anyone can go to the mainstream media from the period in question--or to the microfilm of LaRouche's New Solidarity from that period--and see that LaRouche was personally the instigator of Mop-up.

And Ken Kronberg had "little to do" with LaRouche?? Wait a minute, wasn't Kronberg the loyal follower who started a printing business and became responsible for printing most of the propaganda, books, magazines, etc. on which LaRouche's reputation (such as it is) was built over a thirty-year period?

And Jeremiah Duggan had "nothing" to do with LaRouche's bio? Hmmm...who set up the indoctrination/brainwashing program--and inculcated in his followers the Jew hatred and conspiratorial paranoia--that set in motion the events resulting in Duggan's death?

The above remarks by Leatherstocking show that he or she is not a serious person and is incapable of even a modicum of intellectual honesty. Why, then, is LS allowed to continue tyrannizing over this page, removing entire chunks at will when no one is looking, inserting all kinds of sly propaganda, and wasting other editors' time with constant administrative complaints? I suggest that LS and other LaRouche editors be treated like the cranks who try to turn Wiki science articles into a vehicle for their bugbears. Scientists on Wiki give short shrift to such interventions. It's time to start treating LS and the rest of the LaRouchians in the same way--as the equivalent of flat-earthers.--Dking (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Even fringe topics should be described with a neutral point of view. However articles on fringe topics should not give the impression that the topics are mainstream. See WP:FRINGE. We have great articles on Flat Earth and the Flat Earth Society.

I agree with the other points, that Mop up, Duggan, and Kronberg are relevant to this biography.   Will Beback  talk  19:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's terminology seems to be a problem. Describing something in a relatively even-toned, cool manner in an article is different from having a neutral "point of view." Should Wiki editors actually be "neutral" on the factual issue of whether or not the earth is flat, or whether or not the Holocaust took place? If so, Wiki would be way outside the bounds of mainstream scholarship, of science, or even of J-School "objectivity." I don't think this is what you meant, but Wiki needs to replace the term "point of view" with something more precise.--Dking (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

To Leatherstocking: The platform material hasn't been deleted. Just the opposite, it has been expanded in another article, with a summary left here. That's the right way to proceed, rather than duplicating long sections of material in both a parent and child article. Per the discussion above #Platform, we can improve that summary. However the material you keep restoring is not good. First, that Russian website is not the best source for the political platforms of an American politician. Second, the actual article that is being proopsed for a source is dubious, and you've never responded to my questions about it. Third, that article provides a very unbalanced catalog of the LaRouche platform's main points over the years. So let's leave a short, sentence or two-long summary at this page,and provide a complete explanation of the platforms at the "Views" article.   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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