Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BetacommandBot (talk | contribs) at 03:07, 12 February 2008 (noting Image:Winterberg and LaRouche in 1985.jpg is about to be deleted WP:NONFREE). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page

Biography: Politics and Government 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. This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

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.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Cberlet (talk · contribs) / Berlet, Chip This user has contributed to the article.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Dking (talk · contribs) / King, Dennis This user has contributed to the article.

• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/archive1, Aug 21, 2004–Nov 29, 2004
• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/archive2, Dec 17, 2004–Jan 11, 2005
• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Twrigley, Feb 27, 2006–Mar 06, 2006
• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/archive3, Jan 11, 2005–Oct 02, 2006

Two recent edits that were wrongly reverted

On this edit it seems silly and misleading to argue that the edits labeled "general" are any different than the ones labeled "critical." It would be more honest to label the external links either "pro-" or "anti-" LaRouche.

On the John Train edit revert (,) let's not forget (as some editors seem to) that this is an article about the Political Views of Lyndon LaRouche, and we should make an effort to stay current. The LaRouche people are pushing this John Train thing hard -- my sister picked up their pamphlet on campus last week.

I was initially in favor of opening up the article John Train Salon again (instead of a redirect to this article,) but Will Beback/Willmcw/User2004 told me to just put the information in this one (see .) I'm sure that I'm not the only person who is puzzled about why Chip Berlet and Dennis King, two hippy-dippy conspiracy theorists with no academic credentials, suddenly had access to wads of foundation money and media time. Since they are also being given a platform here at Misplaced Pages, this information (which seems to answer the riddle) should not be hidden or suppressed. --NathanDW 20:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was able to read Talk:John Train Salon, but when I tried to read the article, I got stuck in a loop where I kept getting redirected to Political Views of Lyndon LaRouche. Can someone please tell me how to navigate to the John Train Salon article? Thanks in advance. --ManEatingDonut 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"John Train Salon" was merged into this article. -Will Beback 23:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You can read the last complete version of the "salon" article by following this link. Very little of it actually made it into the merged version. --172.193.31.88 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The above link doesn't work either. --Don't lose that number 14:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It is appalling that the silly story of a John Train conspiracy is being presented as fact. I was at the two meetings at Train's apartment; they were informational only. No plot was discussed or developed. This is all an artifically generated urban legend and should be dispensed with in one or two sentences with the caveat that no reputable source has confirmed the LaRouchian allegations. Herbert Quinde, author of the affidavit, was not even present at the meetings and has a reputation as a prankster and a source of false information (like when he told the Spanish secret police in the early 1980s where to find Basque terrorists in France--the Spanish sent agents to kidnap totally innocent people as a result). Quinde's main source for the plot, Michael Hudson, was bullshitting Quinde because he was fed up with being harassed by the LaRouchians and thought he'd freak them out with a little disinformation. (The LaRouchians had borrowed money from Hudson and refused to pay him back; when he sued them, they printed articles calling him a KGB agent. With experiences like that does anyone thing Hudson would or should have bothered to give them accurate information?)--Dking 00:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)P.S. Another example of this silliness is the Internet rumor that my travel expenses to the meeting were paid by the John Birch Society. In fact, John Train's apartment was only a few block from my own and I walked to the meetings. I received no monetary compensation for attending from either the JBS, the CPUSA, the CIA, the KGB, little green men or anyone else.--Dking 00:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Chip Berlet already explained over at Talk:John Train Salon that only he got the travel money. But do you deny that you got foundation money for your book? --Tsunami Butler 08:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami, why do you even ask this? You know perfectly well that in the Acknowledgement section at the end of my book I listed grants from the Smith Richardson Foundation and the Stern Fund. So what? Neither of these grants came from any John Train conspiracy, since such a conspiracy never existed.-- Dking 19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am asking something more specific. The LaRouche website makes this claim about the John Train meeting you attended: "At the meeting, arrangements were also made to have King's planned book on LaRouche financed by the League for Industrial Democracy and by the Smith Richardson Foundation." True or false? They also make this claim: "On Aug. 6, 1984, attorneys for LaRouche depositioned Dennis King. When asked about the circumstances under which he was introduced to Pat Lynch, King was silent. His attorney, Scott McLaughlin, interrupted the deposition, and took King out into the hallway for 20 minutes; when they returned, King claimed he could not recall how he had first met Lynch." Your comment? --Tsunami Butler 21:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to use Misplaced Pages to conduct research that would help a convicted felon with a histiory of harassment. If nothing else, it violates WP:OR.--Cberlet 02:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Separate article for criticisms of LaRouche?

I apologise if this point has already been discussed and archived, i had a quick look and didn't see it. I'm wondering whether it would be easier to gain consensus on this and other LaRouche articles (and avoid NPOV tags,mediation,etc) if the analysis and criticisms of LaRouche and his theories were grouped together in a single article dedicated to that purpose. I'm no LaRouche supporter (quite the opposite), and i certainly think that such criticisms are valid and have a place on wikipedia, but i don't think that place is scattered amongst a number of different articles. The title of this article indicates to me that it should explain what the political views of Lyndon LaRouche are, not analyse the validity of those views. I would explect to see such analysis in an article titled 'Criticisms of Lyndon LaRouche' or something similar. Content in this article (and other related articles) could then be replaced by single sentences like "Point X is disputed by critics of LaRouche; see (article link here)" --D Elkington 06:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel much the same as you: that it's be best to consolidate criticism. There are some "Criticisms of ..." articles on controversial figures (though one just got deleted ) and they have the benefit of preventing the main articles from being overwhelmed by criticism. However the approach preferred by the community, and even by Misplaced Pages's founder, is to mix in the criticism so that all matters are covered neutrally and the pros and cons are presented together. See Misplaced Pages:criticism. -Will Beback · † · 10:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, i hadn't seen that discussion before. I definitely lean more towards the second proposal, i think it gives articles a more encyclopaedic feel. After reading the 'Criticism in a "Reception" or "Reception history" section' guidelines, i wonder if this might be applied to the LaRouche articles. Perhaps 'Analysis of the political views of LaRouche', as this could include both the positive and negative POV. --D Elkington 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't all that much explicit criticism in this article, considering its overall length. However some sections, even when they only quote LaRouche, appear to express a critical point of view. If you'd like to work on improving this article I suggest taking a section at a time. This article was the subject of bitter fights a long time ago, and involved editors were too exhausted to come back and fix things up after the dust settled. That work is long overdue. -Will Beback · † · 06:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Who calls LaRouche a fascist?

In an article pretty much dominated by preposterous sanitization of LaRouche's ideas, the views of his critics are slyly demeaned, like when it was said that LaRouche is called a fascist by "leftwing writers and orators." I changed this to "some critics" since the term has been used in reference to LaRouche by a number of people who are decidedly NOT leftwing, such as the late Senator Moynihan, former Our Town publisher Ed Kayatt (a rockbound Reaganite), former Our Town editor and editorial writer Kalev Pehme, cold warrior Irwin Suall (who called LaRouche a "small-time Hitler") and many American Jewish supporters of Likud, such as the late Howard Adelson. Chip Berlet's conservative nemesis John Rees has referred to LaRouche as a "roast-beef fascist," which is not simply a joke since historically many fascists have either come out of the left, sought alliances there, or merged leftwing and rightwing rhetoric in their mass agitation (by attacking capitalism but saying the bad side of capitalism is a Jewish plot). I also took out the word "orators" since in context it was an obvious nonsense term meant to suggest a lack of credibility without having to prove it.--Dking 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit was not mine

The history of this article now records that I made an insert in this article today having to do with code language, which was promptly removed by Slim Virgin. I absolutely did not make this edit and have no idea why it is recorded under my name.--Dking 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

John Train Salon

I know that Dking and Cberlet have a particular desire to eliminate the John Train material from this article, but this is an article about LaRouche's political views, and LaRouche is the ultimate verifiable source on what those views are. I don't accept SlimVirgin's argument that, in effect, we may not report LaRouche's views on Living Persons. She certainly isn't applying that across the board, or we would delete most of this article. The material deleted is sourced not only to LaRouche, but also an affidavit submitted in court, so I can't accept the idea that it can be deleted to please certain editors. --NathanDW 06:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

All contentious claims about living persons that are sourced to LaRouche should be removed from this article. Nathan, if you restore any again, it will be a BLP violation. If there's a court document and if it's independent of LaRouche, by all means use it as a source, but you should also find an independent secondary source. Until you have that, you can't add this material. Please read WP:BLP. SlimVirgin 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I will try to find some outside source for this, but it seems to me that this is an unusual circumstance. This is in a section on "LaRouche's conspiracy theories," so it is not being presented as proven. I don't think your BLP argument applies in this case.

Also, I note on various talk pages that neither King nor Berlet denies that these meetings took place. They simply claim that it was a normal, innocent gathering of quasi-left-wing activists, deep-pockets right-wing financiers and intelligence operatives. So the facts are not in dispute, as far as I can see-- only the interpretation, which is of course, just another LaRouche conspiracy theory. So, where's the contention? --Tsunami Butler 03:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've worked on this a little, but it seems a bit ridiculous to document a LaRouche conspiracy theory with additional sources. It is not being presented as a widely-shared conspiracy theory, just a LaRouche conspiracy theory, so it doesn't really matter how many people agree with it. As I said, the facts themselves are not in dispute, so SlimVirgin, I would ask you to explain your thinking on this more fully. --Tsunami Butler 03:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"According to a sworn affidavit..." I guess I could have changed this to 'According to a pdf file of unknown origin on a geocities site...", but I didn't really see the point, so I took it out instead, along with everything that seemed to depend on it. If the point is that the LaRouche orginazition thinks lots of people are conspiring to make them look like loons, I'm not sure how notable that is anyway. Tom Harrison 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced that cite with a cite to the affidavit itself, which is provided in the Daniel Brandt article. What is notable about the meetings is the stellar grouping (except for King and Berlet) of persons and organizations that attended. It has COINTELPRO written all over it. --Tsunami Butler 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT and WP:BLP specifically prohibit the use of self-published third-party sources in support of biographical material about living persons. The use of primary sources alone is also discouraged. Please find a mainstream secondary source for this material, or leave it out. SlimVirgin 15:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you kindly be specific about what you consider to be a "self-published third party source" in this article? --Tsunami Butler 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You used a self-published website as a secondary source, I believe, and an affidavit as a primary source. Others used a LaRouche publication. None of these are reliable sources within the meaning of WP:ATT and WP:BLP. For contentious claims about living persons, you must use the best possible sources, which in this case would mean a mainstream news organization or other publisher. Please decide whether to answer here or on your talk page, but not both, please. SlimVirgin 15:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be reluctant to name the source you are objecting to. Is it Daniel Brandt? I have gathered from various Misplaced Pages controversies that you and he don't get along. His organization is no different than Chip Berlet's (in fact, Chip Berlet was once part of his organization) and in fact, there is an organization, whereas Dennis King's website is entirely self-published.

But you still haven't answered what I think is the main question here: we are not talking about "contentious claims about living persons." We are talking about a conspiracy theory of Lyndon LaRouche. You yourself have taken pains to emphasize that he is a conspiracy theorist, and this is an article specifically about his theories. I don't see how you can object to LaRouche as a source for his own theories. --Tsunami Butler 15:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, when I ask you to post either here or on my talk page, but not both, why do you continue to post on both?

Please don't edit further without reading our content policies. That's what they are there for, so that individual editors don't have to explain everything from scratch on every talk page about every issue. SlimVirgin 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please. I'm not asking you to explain everything from scratch. I'm asking you to specify which source you are objecting to. --Tsunami Butler 15:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm objecting to all the sources you used. One is a self-published website; one is what looks like a post to the National Review blog; one is a LaRouche publication. Find a mainstream source. If you can't find one, let that tell you something.

Question: have you read the content policies? SlimVirgin 15:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions for SlimVirgin

Let me preface this by saying I have read the content policies, and I think that you have a novel interpretation of BLP. Here are my questions:

1. You say that theories or claims made by LaRouche about living persons may not be sourced to LaRouche publications. Using this interpretation of BLP, do you think that this edit, made two days ago by yourself, should be removed? It refers to a claim made by LaRouche about advisors to the British royal family, and is sourced to a LaRouche publication.

No, because it doesn't name anyone, and it's clearly absurd. But you could find another source if you prefer. SlimVirgin 23:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

2. You say that claims about living persons may not be sourced to "self-published third party sources." Are you referring here to Public Information Research, the organization associated with Daniel Brandt?

No third-party self-published sources are allowed. SlimVirgin 23:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Do you believe that Public Information Research is in a different category, for the purposes of BLP source citing, than Political Research Associates (Chip Berlet), DennisKing.org (Dennis King), or the Rick A. Ross Institute (Rick Ross)? The LaRouche articles have abundant derogatory material on LaRouche sourced to these latter three websites. Do you think that these articles would conform better to BLP if they were to rely strictly on mainstream sources? --Tsunami Butler 23:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Political Research Associates is a research company with employees. As for the other two, I don't know much about them. Perhaps you can do the research and determine whether they're self-published. SlimVirgin 23:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

4. PIR is also a research company with employees. Their home page also indicates that they were incorporated in 1989 and have 501(c)3 status. You haven't actually said whether you think PIR is a "self-published third party source," but given these facts, it seems clear that they are not. Do you agree? --Tsunami Butler 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no employees listed at the cited page--Cberlet 18:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The alleged "internal memo" and BLP

As SlimVirgin has pointed out, the standards for sourcing under Biographies of Living Persons are very high. Dubious sourcing is unacceptable. The document attributed to LaRouche is supposed to be an "internal memo." Is there a reliable, mainstream source where LaRouche acknowledges that he wrote this? "High Times" and the "Justice for Jeremiah website" are hardly mainstream sources. --Tsunami Butler 06:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please say which material you're talking about. SlimVirgin 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The two purported quotes from LaRouche which are supposedly from an "internal memo" called "Politics of Male Impotence." Following the cites to Chip Berlet's website, the source is a scanned image of a sheet of typewritten paper. This totally fails the WP:V test, and also runs contrary to the rule that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" at WP:A. I am reverting this material. --Tsunami Butler 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also restoring the NPOV tag -- this article is being used as a vehicle to promote WP:FRINGE theories of Chip Berlet and Dennis King, and needs cleanup to conform to NPOV policy standards. --Tsunami Butler 22:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an exceptional claim; LaRouche is well-known for making extreme statements. And Political Research Associates is regarded as a reliable source, and has been accepted as such by the ArbCom. SlimVirgin 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." --WP:BLP. Are you going to argue that Chip Berlet's website is not partisan? And in this particular case, you have an unusual circumstance: these are quotes that are being attributed to LaRouche. On whose say-so? What person is claiming that LaRouche wrote them, and how would this person be in a position to know? These are unpublished statements. Under BLP, they should go. --Tsunami Butler 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The source is LaRouche himself, and if you read the memo, it's very clearly material from him. Also, as I've told you many times, PRA is regarded as a reliable source for Misplaced Pages, and the ArbCom has supported that. This isn't the place to discuss that decision. Please don't keep tagging the article whenever you find something you don't like.

Although it's fine to include the quote in terms of its sourcing, I'd question including it as an example of bias against "non-white, non-European, non-patriarchal, non-heterosexual cultures and identities," as we currently do. If you read the whole memo, it appears to be largely misogynist rather than racist, as he rails against German and Italian mothers too. SlimVirgin 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How would you know whether is is LaRouche? If you have some factual basis for saying so, please insert your real name in the article as the person vouching for its authenticity, or better yet, leave it out. As you say, LaRouche is known for making extreme statements. Therefore, what is preventing you, Berlet and King from making your case against him with actual, verifiable quotes? There are no shortage of them on the web, from veriable, LaRouche sources. There should be no need for you to resort to such a dubious source. --Tsunami Butler 01:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Having taken another look at both "LaRouche" ArbCom cases, I see that they both pre-date the BLP policy. Therefore, I think that it is incorrect for you to assert that the ArbCom has given a blanket blessing to the use of Chip Berlet's website as a source. I think that it should be handled with extreme caution under BLP, especially because it is so often the source of "derogatory" characterizations of living persons. Whereever possible, a mainstream source should be found, and in many cases, such as the one we are discussing, the material should be removed under BLP. Your responsibilities as an Admin should take precedence over your POV in such a situation. --Tsunami Butler 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dillin, John. "Lyndon LaRouche has got America's attention now!", Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), The Christian Science Publishing Society, 1986-03-27, p. 1. Retrieved on 8 March 2006. - Born to Quaker parents, LaRouche got his political start in the 1940s, when he was a member of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. At the time he took the name Lyn Marcus, after Lenin and Marx. Other mainstream sources also mention his use of the name Lyn Marcus. Tom Harrison 02:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami Butler, Political Research Associates isn't Chip Berlet's website; it's a professional research organization. SlimVirgin 02:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I am aware that LaRouche wrote under the pen name Lyn Marcus. That's in his autobiography. I am questioning whether the image of an unpublished typewritten document of unknown origin that is posted by Chip Berlet on the Political Research Associates website is actually written by LaRouche/Lyn Marcus, and I am also questioning the decision of SlimVirgin and Cberlet to insist upon using such a document as a source for Misplaced Pages, particularly when the number of authentic, verifiable documents attributable to LaRouche numbers in the thousands on the internet alone. --Tsunami Butler 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the cites on this to reflect the fact that it is an unpublished document of questionable authenticity. I won't revert until there has been further discussion. Ultimately this is still a BLP issue -- the BLP policy requires that we use unimpeachable sources. --Tsunami Butler 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone from the LaRouche movement questioned the authenticity? SlimVirgin 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. As I understand it, the purpose of WP:BLP is to anticipate and avoid complaints of that nature. I have restored my edits, because the previous format makes it appear as if the article in question was published, which it was not. Regardless of whether LaRouche wrote it, we have a responsibility not to mislead the readers by making it appear as if it were published.

I have restored the NPOV tag, which has been on this article since I began editing Misplaced Pages last October. SlimVirgin, it was you who unilaterally intervened to change the status quo on this. It ought to be obvious that there are ongoing neutrality disputes about this article. --Tsunami Butler 21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You're editing in violation of the ArbCom cases and you've violated 3RR. The material was published by Political Research Associates. Do you deny this?

If LaRouche has not denied the quotes are his, you're engaged in OR by claiming that there's no evidence they're his.

As for the tag, there are always going to be POV issues from the perspective of LaRouche followers, but that doesn't mean there are real ones, so don't keep adding the tag. SlimVirgin 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I find your interpretation of BLP to be amazingly flexible, depending, of course, on whether the Living Person is someone you like or dislike. Also, could you specify how Ms. Butler is violating an ArbCom decision? --NathanDW 02:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions for SlimVirgin

1. I also would like to know how you think I am violating the LaRouche ArbCom decisions. I have read both of them carefully. Please indicate the remedy or remedies you are referring to.

You're acting to promote LaRouche. SlimVirgin 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is baloney, and self-serving baloney as well. I am arguing that LaRouche, the subject of this article and others, is merely not exempt from the WP:BLP policy. This does not constitute "promotion of LaRouche." It appears to me that you are acting to exert ownership of these articles to make them a showcase for the esoteric fringe theories of Dennis King and Chip Berlet, both of whom are now editing Misplaced Pages, engaging in self-promotion and excessive self-citing in violation of WP:COI. You have thus far refused to discuss BLP as it applies to the subject of these articles. --Tsunami Butler 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Why do you object to identifying the "internal memo" as an unpublished document? By citing it as if it were a published source, you mislead the reader.

It wasn't unpublished. The part we are quoting was published or we wouldn't be able to quote it. SlimVirgin 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See #3, below. --Tsunami Butler 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

3. You ask whether I deny that the material was published by Political Research Associates. No, I don't. That's exactly the point. It should be attributed to PRA, not to LaRouche. I don't care whether the Washington Post has a published account that says that Dennis King says that Chip Berlet says that LaRouche wrote it (and Chip ain't saying where he got this document.) Just because the parson's wife repeats gossip, it doesn't make the gossip more true. Now for my question: why is it that you don't recognize this as a BLP issue?

We report what published sources say, and we have a published source. As a matter of interest, how do you know it wasn't also published by LaRouche? SlimVirgin 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Because by following the cites, the trail leads to a typewritten document, posted by Chip Berlet at the PRA website. The trail ends there. Where did he get it? Dumpster diving? He doesn't say. --Tsunami Butler 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Is it your view that Public Information Research, Inc. is a source that may not be used at Misplaced Pages? If not, why not? I am trying to ascertain whether they have "employees" as opposed to "directors," since Cberlet is raising that as an issue. But where in WP:RS does it make that distinction? --Tsunami Butler 16:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Political Research Associates? They have staff as explained above.

No, I mean Public Information Research, which has Daniel Brandt on its board of directors. Is it your view that this a source that may not be used at Misplaced Pages? If not, why not? --Tsunami Butler 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had enough of this back and forth. The material has been correctly sourced, and there's no point in going on about it. SlimVirgin 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Like it says at the talk of the page, this is a controversial topic and substantial changes to the article must be discussed before being made. I feel like I am having difficulty getting your cooperation in this. --Tsunami Butler 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't start editing within our policies, you're going to face administrative action. People have had enough of LaRouche supporters who cause endless disruption. SlimVirgin 06:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I see a neutrality dispute here. Does that make me a LaRouche follower? Does it take some special rank or status at Misplaced Pages to add a tag to an article? --Don't lose that number 21:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the comments of D Elkington earlier on this page. The reader shouldn't have to guess which are the views of LaRouche, and which are the speculation or analysis of his critics. There is no clear differentiation in the article. This is one reason why I think the neutrality dispute tag is appropriate.

There seems to be opposition to the use of Daniel Brandt as a source. Is this a revenge thing, because he opened up the Essjay scandal? --Don't lose that number 22:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt has never published anything on LaRouche in a venue recognized as citable by Misplaced Pages. He has produced self-published comments in his own newsletter and on his website--these might be marginably acceptable if they were supplemental to work that had established him as an expert on the subject, but the fact is that he has never published anything on LaRouche in a citable publication, much less established himself as having any expertise in the subject. From what I have read of Brandt's self-published materials on LaRouche and the so-called John Train salon, these seem to be an uncritical rehashing of what has appeared in LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review, which itself is not recognized as a legitimate source by Misplaced Pages. This has nothing to do with the Essjay incident, on which Brandt of course could be quoted since his remarks have appeared in numerous publications recognized by Misplaced Pages. And lest anyone charge that I'm part of a giant revenge conspiracy against Brandt, I invite them to (a) read my strong support for Brandt's work as an electronic indexer and the creator of "Namebase" included in all three editions of my Get the Facts on Anyone and (b) insert a quote therefrom into Brandt's Misplaced Pages bio.--Dking 16:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You make the assertion that Brandt is self-published, but it appears that his material is published by a non-profit corporation, Public Information Research. --Don't lose that number 13:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Brandt or anyone else would deny that Public Information Research is a vehicle chiefly for the nonprofit activities of Brandt himself. If he publishes material on a web site he controls, that is self publication. Since Brandt has not built up prior credibility on the subject of LaRouchism through extensive publication in print publications recognized by Wiki--and since his self-published material has not been reprinted in such publications--I see no grounds whatsoever for bending any rules and citing him in this particular article.--Dking 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"If he publishes material on a web site he controls" -- how is that different from Chip Berlet and PRA? It looks like an identical circumstance to me. Also, "building up prior credibility" does not appear in any Misplaced Pages guidelines that I have seen -- this seems to be your own innovation. Either the publication being cited is a reliable source, or it is not. There is no "reliability by association." That is why I think that you and Cberlet should only cite your own material when it has appeared in a mainstream publication. --NathanDW 15:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop changing the subject. There are no grounds for citing Daniel Brandt's website and any attempts to do so will be deleted.--Dking 17:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that you may have a personal interest in this? --Don't lose that number 14:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this tendentious nitpicking. The Arbcom decision is clear. Plesae do not try to circumvent it by burying discussion pages with pointless objections that represent a tiny marginal POV that should not be given Undue Weight WP:UW.--Cberlet 15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but where is any of this mentioned in an arbcom decision? --HonourableSchoolboy 23:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of NPOV tag

I looked it up at Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute, where it says the following: "Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." Therefore it seems appropriate to me that the tag remain until the issues have been resolved. I think that the point raised by "Don't lose that number" is valid, although there are more specific issues that should be raised under that rubric. I question the intentions of those editors that just want to remove the tag without engaging in any discussion of the issues raised. --HonourableSchoolboy 00:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I have carefully followed the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute in starting this discussion. Here are examples of bias and undue weight that I see in the article.

• In the intro, the following is Original Research: "LaRouche's critics and supporters often have difficulty interpreting or agreeing on the meaning of statements he has made." Some of LaRouche's critics insist that there are hidden meanings in LaRouche's writing. However, that is not an appropriate topic for an article on LaRouche's political views. As D Elkington suggested, it might be appropriate material for a seperate article, if it can be demonstrated that these theories are actually notable, which I doubt.

• Anyone who knows anything about LaRouche knows that the statement "LaRouche's critics and supporters often have difficulty interpreting or agreeing on the meaning of statements he has made" is correct. It's close to "the sky is blue," and it's WP:POINT to demand a source for it. It's a polite way of saying "his critics think most of what he says is nuts, but hey, there might be another way of looking at it." SlimVirgin 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• King and Berlet are a minority view among LaRouche critics. Most of them call him a conspiracy theorist, some call him either left-wing or right-wing. The idea that he is secretly in favor of what he says he is against, i.e. fascism, is a tiny minority view. Your claim that it is WP:POINT to demand a source is completely wild. --HonourableSchoolboy 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• In the section on fascism, there is the usual litany from King and Berlet accusing LaRouche of being a fascist himself, even though LaRouche writes extensively in opposition to fascism. This is irrelevant to an article on LaRouche's views. Maybe it would be appropriate to include it in the biographical articles on King and Berlet, since it is sort of their trademark.

• Cut out the personal attacks, please. Berlet and King are regarded as reliable sources on LaRouche. You may not like that, but it's a fact. Both have conducted professional research into the LaRouche organization, and King has written a book about it, so citing them is perfectly valid. And how can it possibly be irrelevant to LaRouche's political views that he's regarded by two reliable sources as displaying tendencies toward fascism? SlimVirgin 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I made no personal attacks. It is a matter of record that King and Berlet have made repeated claims that LaRouche is a fascist. They have also pushed this POV at Misplaced Pages. --HonourableSchoolboy 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• In the section on Conspiracy Theories, all the stuff about "conspiracism" by King and Berlet is irrelevant. This is an article on LaRouche's views, not on the speculations of his critics.

• You have that wrong. An article on LaRouche's political views tells us what LaRouche thinks his views are, and what third-party reliable sources think his views are. SlimVirgin 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• LaRouche states on the record what his views are. If someone suggests that his views are different than what he says, that is speculation bordering on conspiracy theory. --HonourableSchoolboy 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Similar problems exist throughout the remainder of the article. That's why I think the neutrality tag should stay up until these issues are resolved. --HonourableSchoolboy 00:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope I've addressed your issues. Please bear in mind that to use the tag correctly, you have to make suggestions for change that are actionable within our policies. The tag can't be used to mean "I don't like this." SlimVirgin 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Too bad your marginal view has been rejected repeatedly. Must be frustrating. Please accept the majority view. Tendentious editing is frowned upon.--Cberlet 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You say my "marginal view" has been rejected by the "majority view." Looking at this talk page, I don't see it. If you were to do a head count, it appears that more editors agree with me than with you. But rather than trying to avoid a discussion of the points I raise, why don't you just respond to them in a civil fashion? --HonourableSchoolboy 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of head count. SlimVirgin 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet refers to a "majority view." I dispute this. --HonourableSchoolboy 21:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, in initiating edit war over this, you use the edit memo, "The ArcCom decision is clear." Which ArbCom decision applies to this? You have said this before, but you seem absolutely unwilling to be specific. Please quote the relevant passage, or stop bringing it up. --HonourableSchoolboy 01:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom decisions are listed on this page so by all means have a look through them yourself. There were three that touched on LaRouche: LaRouche 1, 2, and Nobs01. SlimVirgin 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read all of them. As there are restrictions on inserting material about LaRouche in articles that are not closely related. There are bans and also warnings because of personal attacks (including one warning for you, SlimVirgin.) Two pro-LaRouche editors are banned. CBerlet is warned about autobiography. There is nothing that refers to the suitability of PRA as a source, also nothing that says that this or any other article is not subject to BLP, NPOV and other policies. Every time someone raises a question about the edits of you or Cberlet, you evade the question, saying "read the ArbCom decisions." Well, I've read them, and I would like you to stop evading the questions. --HonourableSchoolboy 21:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Discussion at another article named "Political views of ......"

• It appears that a number of the United States presidential candidate biographies or presidential campaign pages on Misplaced Pages have an associated "Political views of ____" article.
• There is a discussion of the merits of changing the name of Political views of Mitt Romney to Political positions of Mitt Romney, or, depending on how the conversation develops, some other name.
• In case you're interested, go to Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney#Requested move.
  
• The conversation there might influence other "Political views" articles.

-- Yellowdesk 06:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a great deal of difference between calling them "political views" and "political positions." However, I think the Mitt Romney article is far closer to NPOV than the LaRouche article is. It is straightforward and unadorned, without a lot of the speculation and spin that makes this article so POV-ridden. --Tsunami Butler 06:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientific theories

Missing: views on Artificial Intelligence (a laugh fest for anyone who has studied any computation theory, or who knows any computer history) Having read some LaRouche articles on "science", it is very difficult to get at what, if anything, he is actually claiming. The section on LaRouche-Riemann in particular is written in this schizophrenic style where one point moves to another in a convoluted fashion, such that it reads like one of his own articles. The section on physical science should link only cautiously to the Newton-Leibniz controversy, as LaRouche's support of Leibniz (and every other scientist he favors) is essentially philosophically, not scientifically or historically, based (i.e., he considers only the philosophical approach to the science, rather than the scientific formalism, which is universal). In general, I agree with several other posters in that the article seems to be biased (at least in science) as it implies an air of authority to LaRouche in spite of the fact that he has no formal training or scientific credibility. In particular, I object to the characterisation of his attacks on Newton as "controversial", both in that it implies none of his other claims inspire similar criticism and that it implies a legitimate debate in the scientific community of his claims (rather than his outright dismissal as a crank). SamuelRiv 06:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A new focus for EIR and other LaRouche sources seems to be global warming, Al Gore, and baby boomers. I hate to make this article longer but we may need to add a short section somewhere on scientific theories. Some of that material now is over at LaRouche Movement#Cultural, economic, and scientific initiatives but it would make more sense here. Or we can split off some material to make a new article, "Cultural, economic, and scientific initiatives of Lyndon LaRouche", or something like that, and move the economics stuff out of this article. Material is still coming in so we can start assembling sources here. -Will Beback · † · 07:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Implications of the Gore Hoax For International Policy
• "Earth issues hot topic at Dingell meeting"
• "Ban the Green Party as Nazis, Says Berlin Newspaper"
• "'Green Nazis' in Germany Under Fire"
• Larouche emerges with attacks on Al Gore and Climate Science
• Rt. 28 Suicide Jumper Was Long-Time Associate of LaRouche
• See the Film That Pops Gore's Bubble
• "Fix or Change a System?"
• "Lyndon LaRouche's Very Tough Address to the LaRouche PAC Beverly Hills Town Meeting"
• LaRouche Addresses FDR Legacy Club (L.A. Central Committee Dem. Party Organization) ("LaRouche...slammed the current Democratic Party Leadership for massive Baby Boomer Incompetance in toleration of Al Gore's hoax.")

Not all are suitable for use as references for the article, but amy additional provide context. -Will Beback · † · 08:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

LaRouchies visiting UMBC in anticipation of Mr. Gore's visit there have been spreading material accusing him of wanting to reduce the world's population to one billion--through genocide--in order to better control the world's "raw materials" (hilariously vague). I think this stuff needs to go up if only for its entertainment value, not to mention to publicly air the most outrageous and ridicuous LaRouche accusation yet. Fearwig 00:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bretton Woods / Gold standard

I am no expert on LaRouche, but in casually reading my material and talking to their advocates they seem to put a great deal of emphasis on returning to the gold standard or Bretton Woods system. (Or at least they did a few years ago; in current publications the emphasis seems to have shifted to "global warming is a hoax".)

This gets a one-sentence mention in LaRouche movement but I would have expected a longer discussion here. Does anyone have a source with more details? Subsolar 00:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are right on this. There is a page with a ton of information here: . Maybe you could summarize it for the article, or I will when I have more time. --Don't lose that number 14:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done a bit of work on this now. --Don't lose that number 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that work, but LaRouche pubs aren't reliable sources for the actions or statements of third parties. I removed a couple of assertions about others. If we can find 3rd-party sources then we can restore that info. -Will Beback · † · 22:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning here. This was a signed open letter. Are you disputing the signatures of the signators?--Don't lose that number 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is a notable, verifiable occurence it will have been reported in a 3rd-party source. -Will Beback · † · 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Princess Diana, etc. in intro

I took a look at the Princess Diana issue. The article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard that is quoted in the intro of the Misplaced Pages article is dismissed by the LaRouche organization as "pure fiction." So, I am moving that reference to the conspiracy section so that both it and the LaRouche response can be referenced. The 911 conspiracy reference is undisputed, I believe. --Don't lose that number 14:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that this has been restored without the editor responding to my comment. If that Evans-Pritchard allegation goes into the intro, it will become necessary to balance it with the LaRouche response of "pure fiction," and I don't think the intro is the right place for all this. --Don't lose that number 14:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Also because King and Berlet use a lot of poetic license in describing LaRouche's ideas, it is important to remember that LaRouche's original words are readily available. Dope, Inc. doesn't say that that the British royal family are global drug dealers. --Don't lose that number 14:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am moving this to the bottom of the page, because SlimVirgin has restored the material to the lead once again without responding to my earlier comments. SlimVirgin, I don't object to a reference to these theories in the lead. I think you should find another source, however, because Evans-Pritchard mischaracterizes LaRouche's views, according to LaRouche publications ("pure fiction.") Especially if you are putting something in the lead, where it should accurately summarize LaRouche's views, it should not be a disputed version. --Don't lose that number 15:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the intro is to provide a basic, neutral summary of the topic. When you have the notorious Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (also notorious for slandering Bill Clinton) in the intro, putting words in LaRouche's mouth that LaRouche apparently denies having said, that is not in the interests of the project. That is what is sometimes referred to as "soapboxing." --NathanDW 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources are reliable publications, and these are quite typical of LaRouche's views, and some of the ones he is best known for outside the LaRouche movement. SlimVirgin 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how members of the LaRouche movement will fight to stop LaRouche's actual views being known. First, you deny that he said such-and-such. Then when shown the source, you say the source is biased and is inventing it. When shown him actually saying the thing in an interview, you shout that he must have been taken out of context. When shown the whole interview, you mumble about anti-LaRouche activism then fall into an embarrassed silence. There's one very simple solution to your cognitive dissonance: end your association with the movement, because he really does make these bizarre claims. SlimVirgin 01:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But SlimVirgin, you haven't "shown him actually saying the thing in an interview," and the rest of your story is equally fanciful. The Evans-Pritchard article simply makes a few flippant assertions, and there are no quotes from LaRouche. Since there are enormous volumes of LaRouche's actual writings and interviews on the web, why not link directly to one of them? I am confident that with a little web searching, you can find something that will help you make whatever point you are trying to make, without introducing any actual falsehoods. --Don't lose that number 14:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The source for the claim that the British royal family are drug dealers is an interview with LaRouche himself. Which of the other claims are you questioning? SlimVirgin 04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and hazard a guess, based on a quick scan of the above comments, that he is questioning the article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. --64.183.125.210 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not which of the sources, which of the claims. There are multiple sources available for each one, so all he has to do is change the source if he doesn't like one of them. What I'm asking is whether he is questioning that LaRouche has said these things. SlimVirgin

There are two separate issues here, so I will address both of them, even though it appears to me that they have already been addressed before.

First of all, the Evans-Pritchard article was characterized by the LaRouche people as "pure fiction," but I didn't think it was appropriate to put rebuttal information in the intro to the article. On the other hand, I didn't think it was appropriate to allow Evans-Pritchard's claims to go unrebutted. My solution was to put the whole mess in this section (and it is all still there): Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#The_.22British.22_conspiracy. I don't understand why SlimVirgin feels so passionately about putting it in the intro, but que sera, sera. Perhaps this could be resolved by referring to these views, for the purposes of the intro, as "views attributed to LaRouche by his critics."

Secondly, SlimVirgin seems to want a debate over Evans-Pritchard's claims. I think of myself as something of a connoisseur of the battles between LaRouche and his critics. I was in New Hampshire during 1980, and my visit coincided with the primary election there, so (as I have mentioned on other talk pages) I got to hear the classic radio debate between Jeff Steinberg and Dennis King, and I also saw the NBC interview with LaRouche (as I mentioned elsewhere, it was on NBC, not BBC Newsnight, although BBC may have re-broadcast the NBC interview.)

So, here we go, point by point:

• Evans-Pritchard claims the LaRouche people were "accusing the Queen of ordering the assassination of Diana, Princess of Wales." The Steinberg article denies this, but apparently Steinberg was quoted in the Sunday Telegraph saying that he "could not rule out the possibility' that Prince Philip was involved in the `murder of Diana'" -- not exactly the same as "accusing the Queen of ordering the assassination of Diana."
• Evans-Pritchard claims that LaRouche is the "publisher of a book that accuses the Queen of being the world's foremost drug dealer." I've read Dope, Inc. It is a very thorough analysis of the history of the British East India Company and its cultivation of Opium in India, as well as the marketting of opium which led to the Opium Wars, and the situation in the 80s where money laundering for narcotics trafficking was conducted primarily in British crown colonies such as Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands. This book was widely circulated and very embarrassing to some of the institutions involved. It does not say that the Queen is a drug dealer. The interview on NBC is the source of that claim, which is acknowledged by Chip Berlet, who probably also has watched it. To his credit, he words it carefully later in the article:

"This is the genesis of the claim that LaRouche has said the Queen of England runs drugs. When asked by an NBC reporter in 1984 about the Queen of England and drug running, LaRouche replied, "Of course she's pushing drugs...that is in a sense of responsibility: the head of a gang that is pushing drugs; she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it." (NBC News, First Camera, March 4, 1984, transcript from NBC News, excerpt used with permission)."

What NBC broadcast was a snippet, taken from the middle of what appeared to be an argument between LaRouche and the interviewer. It appears to me that this coverage, and related coverage by Evans-Pritchard, is intended to deflect attention from the actual content of Dope, Inc by setting up a straw man argument, implying that LaRouche says the Queen is out on a street corner flogging nickle bags. Obviously (I hope,) he's not saying that. So, like I said, if it is necessary to put this stuff in the intro, I propose that it be referred to as "views attributed to LaRouche by his critics." --Don't lose that number 06:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're obfuscating and injecting your own opinions about who really intended to say what. The issue is very simple. We have four claims:

(1) LaRouche has advocated conspiracy theories about 9/11; source = LaRouche publication, allowed in this article per WP:V;

(2) he has alleged that the British royal family are drug dealers; source = LaRouche speaking to NBC/BBC, and the BBC voiceover confirms the interpretation of what he said;

(3) he has alleged that the Queen was involved in the death of Diana; source = Daily Telegraph, and it makes no difference who the reporter was, because the Telegraph is our source, not the writer;

(4) he has alleged that MI6 or senior advisers to the Queen want to assassinate him; source = LaRouche publication, and it could not be clearer or more explicit.

The material is reliably sourced; you clearly wish it were not so, but it is. SlimVirgin 07:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the way we summarize his views, we make them sound less silly than they are. For example, not only does he believe that MI6 wants to assassinate him, he also believes that they left a coded message to that effect in a British woman's magazine, and so concerned was he that he alerted the White House in case they also intended to assassinate the President. We are being charitable. SlimVirgin 07:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be writing in the first person? --64.183.125.210 15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple solution: when not dealing with a direct quote, as in the 911 theory, identify the source of the attribution, i.e. "BBC asserts that LaRouche believes the British Royal family are drug dealers." But direct quotes are preferable. --MaplePorter 14:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy which is most relevant here is WP:UNDUE. SlimVirgin is trying to load the intro with her personal schticks. The intro was fine and neutral in the previous version. The schticks should go. --NathanDW 05:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't Lose that Number refers to a radio debate between Dennis King and Jeff Steinberg. I honesty don't remember any such debate. Perhaps it was Chip Berlet?--Dking 22:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The material that is being discussed here all appears later in the article, in the section I wrote under "conspiracy theories." However, it seems to me that the comments about the British Royals are a relatively minor feature of LaRouche's complicated world view. SlimVirgin, what is your argument for prioritizing them in the intro? --MaplePorter 14:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I just did a Google search of www.larouchepub.com and found references to the British Royals on over 460 pages. I think it would be inaccurate to say that they are a minor feature of his world view. On the contrary, they seem to be at the center of many theories even when they aren't named. By comparison the "Eurasian Landbridge" only brings up 14 hits, and the "Triple Curve" gets 74. So those seem comparatively minor, just viewed statistically. -Will Beback · † · 18:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How did you configure your search? First of all, larouche.pub is their newsmagazine. If you wanted information about LaRouche's views, rather than general news coverage, I would suggest www.larouchepac.com, his political action committee. But beyond that, I just tried a Google search of larouchepub.com for "British Royals" and got only nine hits . --MaplePorter 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I closed the search, but the terms I was looking for included "royal family", "windsor", "royals", and "Queen Elizabeth". -Will Beback · † · 22:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that a "statistical" approach is appropriate to make decisions of this kind. That's why Misplaced Pages still needs human editors -- bots are not enough.

I've looked over this article and considered it. LaRouche has views on everything under the sun. I think the best approach would be to go back to the intro that simply says his views are controversial. I think that selecting out some for special emphasis in the intro is POV. I hope SlimVirgin will respond to this, because this page is clearly on her watchlist. --Don't lose that number 14:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Going on the idea the NPOV is the top priority, I am restoring the intro to an earlier version. If SlimVirgin objects, she will probably share her reasoning with us. --MaplePorter 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the thing about how he has "abandoned much of his Marxist ideology" seems dubious. Just about anything one can say about the man is probably contentious and subject to rebuttal, so better to have the charges and counter-charges in the body of the article. --MaplePorter 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You asserted that the British Royals are a minor part of the subject's worldview. Is there any evidence of this? I've provided evidence that they are more frequently referencd in his work than other topics covered in this article.-Will Beback · † · 07:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

These are the issues LaRouche is popularly known for, which is obvious by the frequency with which they're mentioned by secondary sources. According to WP:LEAD, the lead should mention the topic's most notable controversies. SlimVirgin 10:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Which secondary sources? Do you object to them being identified as "critics"?--MaplePorter 14:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not all critics. Many (e.g. BBC) are independent commentators. SlimVirgin 02:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And the difference is? --Don't lose that number 13:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

From the RfC: I think Will Beback's on the right track here. The question is: is the British royals thing is a significant proportion of coverage of LaRouche, or of his worldview in general? Hornplease 01:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've followed up on this. LaRouche's coverage in the United Kingdom in particular has almost always mentioned his views on the Royals and on MI6. In particular, most profiles of him available on L-N since 1986, which presumably would mention what met a certain bar of notability, mention the royal family and drugs.

One fascinating bit from the early 1980s about the 'airport pests' of the LaRouche movements, accorgding to the Grauniad: "eliminate the Gramm-Rudman budget cuts, beef up Star Wars, screen everyone for AIDS and quarantine the victims, and set up a 'Nuremberg tribunal' to investigate drug dealing by Henry Kissiger, the Zionist conspiracy and course the Queen." So different in details, yet similar in essentials.

Anyway, given this, I would strongly oppose removing references to the war on drugs from the intro, particularly his reference to the Queen. Hornplease 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Another useful line, from a 3 May 1986 interview, when LaRouche had got a few on the ballot in Indiana:"Even the well-known kooky claim about the Queen of England being a drug racketeer (the LaRouche book, Dope Inc. , sports a crown, a Union Jack, and a hypodermic needle on the cover) is explained in strictly historic terms - the opium wars in the East, not, says Mr LaRouche with a chuckle, Her Majesty 'selling nickel bags on Columbus Circle in New York. That is ridiculous. '"

Note the "well-known" part, the fascinating detail about the book cover, and LaRouche's explanation. Hornplease 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a useful line, because it does make clear that LaRouche didn't mean that the Queen, or the royal family, are personally dope dealers. The sole source for all the hoopla in the press was that one line in the NBC interview: "As the head of the gang that is pushing drugs, she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it." I reverted SlimVirgin's claim that LaRouche said that "the British royal family are global drug dealers," because he didn't say that. That was attributed to him by the BBC, that's their take on the phrase "head of a gang that is pushing drugs," but the quote that Hornplease provides makes it clear that it's not LaRouche's take. --Don't lose that number 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as justification for removing the mention from the lead; merely that it should be replaced with "said that the Royals bear responsibility for the drug trade", and perhaps with the addition "generally interpreted as..." Hornplease 21:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I approve of what Cberlet has done, to add an actual quote. That is always the best course of action. I am going to do something similar now with the Princess Diana quote. I would also like to add, however, that there are really two separate issues here: 1. What are LaRouche's views? and 2. How do LaRouche's critics characterize his views? I think these two issues should be kept meticulously separate. --Don't lose that number 21:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Princess Diana issue is an interesting case in point. I have gone exhaustively over all the LaRouche articles where Princess Diana is mentioned, and he never once accuses anyone in the royal household of being responsible. Not even close. The articles in the Telegraph, Guardian and so on are all premised on a statement made on British TV by Jeff Steinberg that he "could not rule out" involvement by Prince Philip. There are two articles where both LaRouche and Steinberg specifically deny the claims of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. So this raises an interesting question: when the media are clearly misrepresenting LaRouche, what should Misplaced Pages policy be? Obviously, if editors are primarily interested in making LaRouche look ridiculous, they will insist on using media references that are provably false, arguing that this is permissable under WP:RS. But is this in the interests of making Misplaced Pages a reliable encyclopedia? --Don't lose that number 22:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done as exhaustive a search as you, but one doesn't have to search for long to find LaRouche and associates referring to Diana's death as a murder with a cover-up by the royal family. - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I found those as well, but they don't say the royal household was responsible for the murder. I hope that it is clear to you that accusing the royal family of a cover-up is different than accusing them of ordering a hit on Diana (which is an important distinction from the standpoint of BLP.) You would think that this would be equally clear to the Telegraph and others, but oddly enough, it was not. --Don't lose that number 14:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that this evidence is the result of a cursory scan yet it shows that LaRouche and associates are very much concerned with the topic of Diana, believe that Diana was murdered, and believe that the royal family was involved (if only after the fact) in secret and illegal activities related to her murder. It is not a jump to believe that in the actual articles and pamphlets that I don't have access to, but which the Telegraph, etc, may have read, LaRouche or his associates have actually asserted responsibility on the part of the British royal family or their agents. Since reliable sources make this assertion, since it appears reasonable, and only LaRouche contests the assertion, I don't think there's a reason to remove it. We can and should say that Larouche denies having claimed that the royal family is directly repsonsible. - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the broader issue DLTN is raising should not be overlooked. Is the main objective here to provide a fair and neutral description of LaRouche's ideas, or to find a way to "game the system" to make him look as bad as possible? With the abundance of well-cited, undisputed quotes from LaRouche, why are some editors so insistent on including dubious and disputed ones? --NathanDW 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that most folks would consider the BBC and the Telebgraph to be dubious sources. As I pointed out above, LaRouche is demonstrably more focused on the British royal family than on topics like the "New Bretton Woods" or the "Eurasian Land Bridge". While those are undoubtedly part of his philosophy, they should not be given undue weight compared to the topics that keep re-appearing in LaRouche's articles and speeches. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 02:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

He said dubious quotes, not dubious sources. I think that it is probably the case that even the biggest and most successful newspapers have been used for propaganda purposes at one time or another. The reason I raised the question above, is that we all should refrain from using Misplaced Pages for propaganda purposes. I am calling upon editors to be honest about this. --Don't lose that number 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

..e all should refrain from using Misplaced Pages for propaganda purposes. I am calling upon editors to be honest about this.

I can't let that comment go unanswered. First, it assumes bad faith and dishonesty on the part of other editors. Second, it ignores your own "use" of Misplaced Pages. See here and here, or here and here. I'm sure you don't think of yourself as spreading propaganda. Please don't accuse others of doing so either. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please say what your complaint is about those edits? Do they mislead the reader in some way? I am making a very specific complaint, that some edits to this article misrepresent LaRouche's ideas, by emphasizing some news coverage which misrepresents LaRouche's ideas. If someone wants badly to do this, they can surely claim that it is legitimate under WP:RS, but then again, wouldn't WP:NPOV take precendence? I don't know the answer. That's why I am appealing to all editors concerned to be honest. --Don't lose that number 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My complaint is that you are calling your fellow editors dishonest and accusing us of using Misplaced Pages to spread propaganda. Meanwhile, you are inserting LaRouche-inspired propaganda into unrelated articles. Please follow your own advice regarding propaganda and please stop making attacks on the integrity of other editors. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I am baffled by your reasoning. You seem to be using the term "propaganda" to simply refer to an opinion you dislike (I mean the skepticism about anthropogenic global warming.) Propaganda has a quite specific meaning, and I refer especially to the statement in the intro of the Misplaced Pages article: "Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading." It is this quality that I am ojecting to in some of the edits in this article. As far as I can tell, you are not claiming that my edits are misleading. You do, however, seem to be claiming that Lord Monckton, John Linder (a Republican!), Michael Crichton, and Richard Lindzen are "LaRouche-inspired," which seems to me to be a very, very odd claim. --Don't lose that number 06:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's the type of logic that HK used many times, always incorrectly. I'm saying that your edits are LaRouche inspired because your only involvement in those topics has been to insert material which directly follows POVs and assertions recently made by LaRouche sources. I'm raising that issue because you have been asserting that editors here are not being honest and are using Misplaced Pages for propaganda purposes. Those are inappropriate comments and I again request that you stop bringing theories of editor motivation into this disucssion, especially when you do not have clean hands in that regard. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think my edits have been misleading or incorrect in any way, say so. I pledge to correct any edits that mislead, and I urge others to follow my example. --Don't lose that number 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's reverts

SlimVirgin, you say to check the footnote because "he said it himself." The footnote says "LaRouche said of the Queen: "Of course she's pushing drugs ... As the head of the gang that is pushing drugs, she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it." That does not translate to "the royal family are global drug dealers." It is ambiguous. According to Don't Lose That Number, he is referring to money laundering by British banks. If the BBC thinks he means the royal family are drug dealers, that interpretation should be sourced to the BBC or Daily Telegraph, and the LaRouche quote makes it clear that this interpretation is disputed by the LaRouche organization. So, when you say that "he said it himself," that is not in fact the case. --64.183.125.210 15:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The BBC says "Back on the campaign trail in the mid-80s, he told Newsnight the British royal family are global drug dealers," then they quote LaRouche. It is your or Don't lose that number's POV that by "the gang," he didn't mean the royal family. The BBC thinks he did, based either on that quote, or based on other things that he said. Regardless, we have the BBC as our source. SlimVirgin 10:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The way you have written the section, it is not clear that this is an opinion coming from the BBC. It looks like you may be quoting LaRouche, and clearly LaRouche or his organization disputes the BBC interpretation. Don't you think that under NPOV and BLP you should clarify this? --MaplePorter 14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does LaRouche dispute what the BBC says? SlimVirgin 02:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In the quote provided by Hornplease in the section above. Also, it is one of the claims in the Ambrose Evans-Pritchard article that is called "pure fiction" by EIR. --Don't lose that number 14:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to fix this so that it is attributed. --64.183.125.210 01:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC

This article is titled "Political Views of Lyndon LaRouche." Since it is a BLP article about a controversial politician, my view is that the only safe source for any contentious material is the person himself. Major publications are not above conducting dirty tricks campaigns where politics is involved -- this has been true for a long time, and not likely to change soon. Maybe disputed interpretations of his views could be quarantined in a section called "disputed quotes." --Marvin Diode 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence, outside of LaRouche sources, that major publications are conducting dirty tricks campaigns against the subject? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not making any claim like that. I'm simply saying that when the subject is a controversial politician, it's better to be on the safe side. --Marvin Diode 21:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Using reliable sources and including differing viewpoints in a neutral manner puts us on the safe side. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please edit courteously

Memo to Cberlet and Tom Harrison: it is very discourteous and disruptive to revert a series of unrelated edits all in one fell swoop, and then add insult to injury by using a dismissive edit summary like "restore NPOV version." Here is what I did, and am about to do again, one step at a time:

1. I am removing a section that is OR combined with unsourced material, that has been tagged as unsourced since March. This section consists of speculation about which Marxist theories may have influenced LaRouche's ideas. I have no objection to re-adding it if it can be sourced.

2. I am removing the uncited quoted from Tim Wohlforth, which is not germane to the section (or the article.) If it is restored and properly cited, I would suggest it be added to the "criticism" section of Lyndon LaRouche, although what Wohlforth says is not particularly interesting.

3. The remainder of the "Marxist roots" section is redundant material that duplicates the "economics" section which appears earlier, so I am removing that also.

4. I am restoring the "disputed attributions" section which was deleted, by both Tom Harrison and Cberlet, without any comment. This is particularly rude on Cberlet's part, because this section was carefully crafted per the discussion at Talk:Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement, a discussion in which Cberlet was a participant. --Don't lose that number 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dress it up however you want, but your recent edit was a tendentious rewrite against consensus. Tom Harrison 16:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How did you manage to ascertain what the consensus was, when you reverted it the moment it first appeared? This would appear to be clairvoyance on your part. --MaplePorter 03:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I think we can source this material. King's book has several pages on LaRouche's Marxist period.

2. Wohlforth's quote describes an element of the evolution of LaRouche's views.

3. The "Economics" section has only one half of a sentence (also unsourced) about LaRouche's Marxism. I don't see how four paragraphs can be redundant with six words.

4. I think the "disputed attributions" is problematic. The title is wrong - the attributions aren't disputed, just the meaning of the assertions. It appears to be original research. Where did we get this list of four issues? From where are we getting the supposed mis-attributions? Further, just because LaRouche says he only proposed quarantines "as needed", for example, that interpretation of the propositions isn't definitive. Since he was largely wrong in everything he predicted about AIDS, he isn't a reliable source for the truth in that topic, even about his own proposals.

I think we need to see if there's any consensus to add the new section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

EIR says that the bit about the Queen being a drug pusher is Black propaganda, which according to Misplaced Pages means "propaganda that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy." This seems clear-cut to me. The bio of LaRouche from EIR also says that "Train's documented function was to establish the common guidelines for the "black propaganda" lies to be used jointly by the U.S. news media. During 1984-1988, virtually all of the often massive coverage of LaRouche in the U.S. major news media was lies based on the 1983-1984 formulas adopted by the Train salon." So it is very clear that LaRouche complains about misrepresentation of his views. I am going to re-write this section and make it more general, although I will keep the Queen of England quote because it is very, very specific. --MaplePorter 03:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be some value to including this material. LaRouche has a set of theories about how various groups conspire against him. We could put together a review of all of the various conspiracies against him that he or his followers have described. We should give it a more general heading, like "personal persecution", and place it under "Conspiracy theories". Some of this info is already in the article in different sections, so we'll have to avoid excess duplication. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I find "LaRouche vs. the World" to be an obviously biased title, and most of the material about LaRouche being persecuted is more appropriate to the biographical article. LaRouche has articulated views about more general, universal themes, and those views belong in this article. When LaRouche objects that his critics have attributed to him views on those topics that are not his own, that also belongs in this article. --Don't lose that number 05:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that neither "LaRouche vs. the media" nor "LaRouche vs. the world" is ideal. How about "Conspiracies concerning LaRouche himself"? "Theories about personal persecution"? "Views of himself"? I'm not quite sure of the best to way describe the material neutrally. Clearly, LaRouche believes that he is intentionally misrepresented. That is part of his worldview, which is the topic of this article. His biography is (or should be) more concerned with the events of his life. But I'm flexible; if folks think the personal persecution material is better in the biography I can accept that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put the views of place material under "Conspiracies concerning himself", but maybe "Self-regard" would be better? The broad topic of the section is to cover how LaRouche fits into the body politic from his own viewpoint. We need to include his view of himself because it's integral to his view of modern world history. To write in one section about LaRouche's views on Soviet-U.S. relations and omit that he said Gorbachev sent an assassination team against him would leave an incomplete picture of LaRouche's view of the world and politics. Other topics we should cover in this section are his positive views of his role as an economist, a statesman, an intelligence gatherer, a cultural thinker, etc. I'll see what I can add in that department. I think the media coverage stuff should be here too, but it's OK where it is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The newer version is better. Is it possible to link to the actual articles you are citing? I would like to see the context on some of this stuff. --Don't lose that number 13:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like it. The articles are in an online archive, ProQuest, available courtesy of my local library. Perhaps your library makes it accessible too. If there's a particular citation you'd like to see context for I can look up the articles again and copy some of the text here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the new section to "conspiracies directed against himself," which is less ambiguous. I would also propose that in order to avoid controversies about "cooked quotes" (I found that section in the talk page archives, plus the topic has come up in "LaRouche vs. the media,") it is generally better to cite LaRouche directly, rather than to use a press paraphrase. A huge proportion of LaRouche's published writings is available online. --MaplePorter 23:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That title's fine with me, though we may change it again after we start adding other info about his view of his place in the world. The trouble with quoting LaRouche directly is that he sometimes rambles. Press summaries are valid and usually more direct. While LaRouche may assert that there is a press conspiracy against him, and we should report that assertion, we cannot adopt that it as true and act on it. If particular texts are inaccurate then we can address those as they're identified. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Material on LaRouche's place in the world would be more appropriate at Lyndon LaRouche. Regarding quotes from LaRouche, he does appear to ramble at times, but it is generally because he is making a complex point, and snipping a few phrases out of context is a common tactic of distortion. It would be more honest to simply search for a shorter quote that can be presented in context -- such quotes exist. --Don't lose that number 13:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If we were talking about a minor politician or scholar, that would make sense. But LaRouche's view of his place in the world is inextricably connected with his other views. He's not simply an observer, but is a target of complex conspiracies, the top economic forecaster, and the only one who can save the country, or civilization. Those views are fit best here rather than the biography, which focuses on the events in his life. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

<--------"he does appear to ramble at times, but it is generally because he is making a complex point" -- or the alternative majority view, which is that LaRouche is a deranged crackpot. Let's not ignore that this is what most reputable published sources say about LaRouche. To deny this is wrong. It distorts the article.--Cberlet 00:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Views expressed by Lyndon LaRouche"

Somebody started an article titled "Views expressed by Michael Savage" to cover material like this. The editor said it avoids 'the "personal" vs. "political" views argument.' That makes sense and this articles covers more that just political views. Any objections to renaming this article to "Views expressed by Lyndon LaRouche", or perhaps simply "Views of Lyndon LaRouche"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Either sounds OK as long as the criticisms of those views could still be covered.--Cberlet 13:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hearsay?

This passage was removed by Gelsomina, and restored by Cberlet:

In 1972 LaRouche's second wife, Carol Larrabee (also known as Carol Schnitzer), left him for Christopher White, a younger man who was a member of the LaRouche network in Britain. Some of his critics suggest that this caused a personal crisis of his marital breakdown, and according to this theory, his writings became anti-feminist to the point of misogyny, and obsessed with sex.

According to Chip Berlet and Joel Bellman:

This is troubling from the BLP standpoint, because it attributes views to LaRouche without sourcing them to LaRouche. Also, the thing about the second wife has a source request that dates back to March. --Marvin Diode 15:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The claims are published in a print report, and based on scores of interviews with former LaRouche members and reviews of thousands of pages of original LaRouchite documents. Your original research and assumptions have no bearing on the material being cited. --Cberlet 17:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see some proof that LaRouche actually said this. This is a biography of living persons issue, which is very sensitive for Misplaced Pages. I would urge you not to insert this material again until the matter has been thoroughly discussec. Please see WP:LIVING#Reliable_sources: "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." --Gelsomina 02:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche actually said what? A printed report from Political Research Associates (PRA) is neither a publication "solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers." This is simply a misapplication of Wiki policy based on a POV disagreement with a well-discussed matter of PRA being a reliable source. It is.--Cberlet 03:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose we consolidate this discussion at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche.--Cberlet 12:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"AIDS and Gays"

The following two summaries have been used, by Gelsomina and Cberlet respectively, to describe the same quoted passage. They both seem to be supported by the text, but are both POV to an extent. There ought to be an NPOV solution that combines them in some way:

LaRouche warned that failure by governments to implement public health measures could lead to outbreaks of irrationality:

LaRouche has written that history might not judge harshly those who joined lynch-mobs and beat gay people to death with baseball bats to stop the spread of AIDS:

Cberlet also accuses Gelsomina of "selective quoting" as he deletes the context she added, which struck me as ironic. --MaplePorter 14:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, irony is rewriting history so that LaRouche's brutish homophobic justification for murdering gay people is reframed as a public health concern. Now THAT is irony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cberlet (talk • contribs) 03:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd contradiction

The main LaRouche article claims that it is an urban legend that the Queen of England was pushing drugs. This article claims it's the truth. I have no idea which it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.118.88 (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is true (he said it) and easy to document. I fixed the material on the main page. Thanks for the catch.--Cberlet 14:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Quackery

This page is being overloaded with LaRouchite quack claims. Most of the material should be summarized with links to the LaRouchite websites. This is not a LaRouche website, it is an encyclopedia. At some point filling up this entrhy with the lunatic assertions of a convicted felon is just ludicrous. The last set of insertions were absurd. World famous scientists were plagiarists? This is just drivel.--Cberlet 02:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your position seems inconsistent. You were zealous about including the "Queen of England" stuff, which has rather sketchy documentation, yet you complain about the Isaac Newton material, which is abundantly sourced to LaRouche's own writings. The fact of the matter is, LaRouche is controversial in the scientific community mainly because of his attacks on Newton. You may argue about whether this small paragraph is notable, but it is impeccably sourced -- unlike some of the material that was removed earlier. --MaplePorter 05:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Reality -- a real quote -- lunacy -- what you are inserting into the entry. Flat earth crap. No more of it please. There is too much already.--Cberlet 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of the previous array of sentence fragments. But seriously, Chip, your position is that all of LaRouche's ideas are crazy, so you ought to object to the very existence of the article. you demand the inclusion of very lengthy quotes from LaRouche, such as in the "AIDS" section, in order to build a case for your theory. I think the article ought to provide cogent summaries of each of the basic areas where LaRouche has put forward views, especially controversial ones. This would include physical science -- why you object so much to that topic is unclear to me. Incidentally, FYI, Misplaced Pages has an article called Leibniz and Newton calculus controversy, so LaRouche is not the only one to weigh in on this topic. You might also have a look at Kepler's laws of planetary motion, where it says that "Isaac Newton was able to deduce Kepler's laws from his laws of motion and his law of universal gravitation, using his invention of calculus." -MaplePorter 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

MaplePorter's personal attacks on another editor are not appropriate here, and I've removed them. However there is some logic in including LaRouche's most prominent ideas. The issue isn't whether they are valid or not, just whether he advances them. My chief concern is that we maintain balance. There are some ideas that keep re-appearing while other ideas are only mentioned occasionally. In another plane, some concepts and proposals have generated controversy, while others have been barely noted outside of LaRouche publications. So balance must exist in at least two dimensions. I think the Newton material qualifies in both contexts: LaRouche and his followers frequently promote Kepler and Liebnitz while denigrating Newton, and that juxtaposition is noted by outside commentators. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the section you deleted from Maple's remarks, and I don't see a personal attack there. Could you explain your action? --Marvin Diode 23:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But how do we maintain a balance, when 99.9% of the sentient beings on the planet who have read LaRouche think he is a lunatic, and would never waste their time trying to refute his idiotic claims? The amount of space devoted to LaRouche's ideas on Misplaced Pages is ridiculous.--Cberlet 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

According to MaplePorter "you demand the inclusion of very lengthy quotes from LaRouche, such as in the "AIDS" section, in order to build a case for your theory." Not true. I keep adding lengthy quotes because pro-LaRouche editors keep writing false and misleading summaries of the actual quotes that sanitize what LaRouche clearly said. Note how the baseball bats keep disappearing.--Cberlet 22:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to note this, but I don't see them disappearing. You did feature the same quote twice in succession in one of your edits -- was that intentional? --Marvin Diode 23:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop wasting bandwidth with these baiting questions. It is tiresome.--Cberlet 02:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Misrepesentation, Evasion, Orwellian Summaries, and Wiki Sanitation Squads

Covering up racism, homophobia, and antisemitism has got to stop. Some of the recent changes on the page, especially attempts to sanitize the actual views of LaRouche by using formulations identical to those used within the cult itself, raise series issues. LaRouche's comments about gay people, especially apllauding the idea that they be battered or murdered, should not be sanitized in the summaries. To claim that these comments are about civil rights is disgusting. In some cases it is akin to rewriting a paragraph to read: "The Holocaust was inconvenient to Jews." Which, while true, displaces the murderous rhetoric and reality. I thought arbcom had rules about LaRouchian Wiki Sanitation Squads. Lets enforce the ruling. Is there no sense of moral obligation left among administrators? It is time to stand up and take action.--Cberlet 11:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any quotes from LaRouche being deleted, so the argument that there is "sanitizing" does not hold water. I do see revisions being made to some highly biased or misleading editorial comments. Such comments should be avoided -- remember WP:SOAP. --Marvin Diode 06:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits have taken out the qualifications around descriptions of LaRouche's ideology by his own followers, thus presenting these ludicrous descriptions as being based in fact.--Dking 18:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the edits made by Gelsomina, and I don't see a problem. In your writings, you consistently claim that LaRouche's ideology is actually different than what is found in his extensive published writings. I find this claim to be extremely far-fetched, in the realm of conspiracy theory, and certainly too weird for an encyclopedia article. --Marvin Diode 20:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, major daily newspapers have printed the views of Berlet and King. When you get quoted in a reputable published source, feel free to include it here on this entry.--Cberlet 15:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that views of Berlet and King that have been quoted in major daily newspapers would be welcome at Misplaced Pages, appropriately cited to those newspapers. However, original research by editors Cberlet and Dking is prohibited under Misplaced Pages policy. --Marvin Diode 16:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Marvin Diode, I "consistently claim that LaRouche's ideology is actually different than what is found in his extensive published writings." Anyone who goes to my book at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/newamericanfascism.htm will see that in fact I base my analysis squarely on LaRouche's published writings and those of his followers. That LaRouche is sometimes deceptive in his use of language (a deception rooted in his own published remarks about the historic use of deceptive euphemisms by Renaissance diplomats and anti-Czarist 19th century revolutionaries) is his problem, not mine. There is nothing "far-fetched" about calling attention to the code language in American politics--newspaper columnists do it all the time and at least three U.S. Presidents (Eisenhower, Carter, and Bush II) have used the term in discussing the machinations of their opponents. The only thing "weird" here is that LaRouche's remaining followers still can't look objectively at LaRouche, even after the deaths of Jeremiah Duggan and Ken Kronberg and the resignation of virtually the entire German branch of the LaRouche organization.--Dking 17:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to interject here that the edits of Cberlet and Dking are just ridiculously biased. They don't seem to be serious at all, just mouthing off or trolling. --Masai warrior 05:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to interject here that the edits of the pro-LaRouche sanitation squad reflect a slavish syncophancy that is not just ridiculously biased but poses serious issues of WP:COI in that clearly legitimate material from reputable published sources is repeatedly deleted with no proper justification and a contempt for standard Misplaced Pages guidelines. This is done in and endless pattern of edits that remove serious criticisms of LaRouche and pad the entry with bizarre and lunatic claims from a convicted felon that have no support in the real world of economics, science or politics.--Cberlet 12:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Specifically whom are you referring to as the "pro-LaRouche sanitation squad"? --Marvin Diode 20:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The latest trick of the sanitation squad is to present an unsourced, absurd description of LaRouche's ideas (implying that he is this great and profound thinker with academic-level qualifications) as if such description were factual. Then they take my properly sourced analysis and present it as merely my opinion to be segregated below their own unsourced opinion, which is presented as fact. Well, my analysis IS my opinion but it is a sourced opinion, and their opinion IS their opinion, but unsourced (and with the writers in most cases afraid, unlike myself and Chip Berlet, to reveal their identities). Question: Why should LaRouche followers be unwilling to stand up proudly and reveal their identities--what does this say about their own inner doubts about their leader?--Dking 22:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

First, let me ask the same question I asked of Cberlet: which editors to you consider to be a "sanitation squad" and/or "LaRouche followers"? Secondly, I have taken a look at the essay on "Inner Elites" and I find no mention, for example, of usury. Dking's edit makes it appear that usury is a central issue in the essay. I will take another look tomorrow, but for now, I am reverting to a version without Dennis King's commentary, on the grounds that it is not notable, adds nothing of importance to the article, is apparently inaccurate, and is self-cited, which is frowned upon here at Misplaced Pages. The description of LaRouche's ideas must match the source, which is to say, the essay "Inner Elites." If there is a dispute about what the essay says, I would suggest that it be carried out on this talk page rather than in the article, and disputants should cite relevant passages from the essay to back up their positions. --Marvin Diode 06:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The time worn cry of "LaRouche activist!" grows tiresome, and such fear mongering tactics are not conducive to a endeavor as serious as an encyclopedia. I restored the paragraph concerning King's interpretation of "Inner Elites." In this format it is presented aside from the discussion of the source document, which I do not have a problem with, as it presents both sides separately. --arkalochori 07:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Common-sense summaries, versus esoteric revelations of encrypted meanings in LaRouchian texts

The bulk of this article is necessarily going to be summaries of what LaRouche has written. This will be the result of consensus editing. If Cberlet or Dking disagree with any such summaries, they should demonstrate, by quoting text, that the summaries are inaccurate. Adding disclaimers like "LaRouche supporters claim x,y or z about LaRouche's writings" is Original Research, plus it makes Misplaced Pages look silly.

On the other hand, any assertions that there are encrypted messages in LaRouche texts, i.e., ideas that are not readily obvious to the reader, is a clear cut WP:REDFLAG issue. That means we are dealing with "surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known," which must be "supported by multiple high quality reliable sources." --Marvin Diode 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I reject the above as based on flawed assumptions and biased POV. This must be rejected. It leaps far outside current Wiki policies and guidelines in a way that sanitizes legitimate published criticism of LaRouche, who, in the real world, is considered a crackpot.--Cberlet 14:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche's followers have arrogated to themselves the right to determine what is a common sense summary. In fact their summaries, presented as fact, are loopy sanitizations. They say for instance that LaRouche's theory of elites is rooted in epistemology. Who said this? Who is their source? What is the evidence that college dropout LaRouche knows anything whatsoever about epistemology? And why are his views on epistemology, history, economics, mathematics, etc. taken seriously in this article when in fact virtually no one outside his cult recognizes his intellectual legitimacy. And please don't quote Norman Bailey to me--that was 25 years ago.--Dking 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I note that you continue to evade my question as to which editors here you believe are "LaRouche's followers." You clearly have someone specific in mind, and you should make clear who you mean. This article is the product of dozens of editors.

As to your other comments, LaRouche is evidently notable enough to warrant an article on his views, including his views on epistemology, history, economics, mathematics, etc. Whether his views are competent or peer-reviewed is another matter, and perhaps evaluations from credentialled experts in those various fields could be found. You mention that he is a college dropout, but is it not also the case that Dennis King is a college dropout himself? And Chip Berlet as well?

Finally, I have taken the time to download and read "Secrets known only to the Inner Elites." I found it useful, in that it seems to knit together a variety of ideas that I had seen attributed to LaRouche into one big theory. Much of it is highly speculative. However, I found no reference to usury or the other topics attributed to it in Dking's self-cited edit. Please cite some text from the essay to support these claims. --Marvin Diode 20:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted another clear attempt to cover up the obvious antisemitism of a convicted felon and lunatic Lyndon LaRouche, a notorious antisemite and neofascist. At what point will administrators at Misplaced Pages have the backbone to stop this disgusting charade? Have any of you even a scintilla of moral clarity here? This refusal to deal with this disgusting sanitization of antisemitism is a horrigying exanmple of the worst aspects of Misplaced Pages. Shame on all of you who fail to take action. History will judge you. I am disgusted. Enough. I would rather be banned from Misplaced Pages for life than put up with this horrific antisemitic crap for another day.--Cberlet 01:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's all please remain calm. This is a longterm project. We might not get this article right today, this year, or even before the subject's death. On a contentious topic it's best to use a variety of sources. However there is a large agreement among reliable English-language sources regarding the subject. I even came across letters to the editor from LaRouche complaining about being called "fringe" or "anti-semitic" so often. We should certainly report his protest, but we'd be remiss if we didn't report the common view as well. Lets's continue to work patiently towards the best language that summarizes neutrally all those views. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ponder our complicity in a distorted Misplaced Pages structure

I am temporarily leaving Misplaced Pages in protest over structural and procedural polices that reward aggression and bigotry here on Misplaced Pages.

I do not think these are intentional, but there has been a consistent refusal to deal with these issues over several years.

The system rewards and promotes:

1). aggressive bullies and stalkers who are often young and male.

2). racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, and Islamophobic bigots.

I am leaving for one month to commemorate the anniversary of Kristallnacht, which is on November 9th; after which I will reconsider my options, especially regarding the failure of Misplaced Pages to deal with the protracted and multi-year manipulation of Wikpedia by supporters of Lyndon LaRouche, especially on the entry, Views of Lyndon LaRouche. BLP violation redacted. Thatcher131 13:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

At what point do we as Misplaced Pages editors become complicit? At what point do we step back and consider how we have become enablers and apologists for aggression and bigotry?

I came to this decision while preparing an essay tied to the anniversary of Kristallnacht in Germany.

(Chip Berlet)--Cberlet 12:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This little essay appears to me to be a tactic in POV warring. Cberlet appears to be skirting WP:NPA by refusing to specifically identify the editors whom he is accusing, by implication, of being anti-semites, sexists, and homophobes. And Nazis, evidently, because he mentions Kristallnacht twice, linking it both times, to be subtle. I would like to point out that all this display does not in any way address the current disputes at this article, and should probably be removed as a disguised personal attack on whoever it is that is disagreeing with Cberlet. --Marvin Diode 14:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering what happened to Jeremiah Duggan and Ken Kronberg, a reference to Kristallnacht is quite appropriate. As to identifying the editors who are defending LaRouche on this page, I have a suggestion: Why don't these editors adopt their real names as their user names, as Berlet and I have done? And why don't they put information on their user pages to further identify themselves, as Berlet and I have done? Why don't the pro-LaRouche editors provide information as to their titles and functions within the LaRouche organization (or, if they claim not to be actual members, their relationships to various LaRouche entities in which members and supporters work together)? If they are really proud to be defenders of LaRouche surely they could find the moral courage to do so openly?--Dking 17:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Diode wrote above: "You mention that is a college dropout, but is it not also the case that Dennis King is a college dropout himself? And Chip Berlet as well?" This is not the first time this talk page has been used to make this claim about me. If Diode had gone to my webpage (to which I provide a link on my user page so there will be no doubt as to who I am and my basis for editing on topics such as LaRouche) he would have seen that I am a graduate of UNC at Chapel Hill (1965). I don't know about Berlet's academic background; I do know he has been the senior research associate for decades at a think tank that specializes in studying rightwing extremism and bigotry--and that he has been widely published in prestigious mainstream publications (unlike LaRouche, who has ONLY been published in his own organization's publications, by his own book publishing enterprises or by subsidy presses). My and Berlet's qualifications on the subject of LaRouche are as authors, journalists and researchers, and we have never claimed anything more. Unlike LaRouche, we do not pose as experts in the history of the Sumerians and Babylonians and of Athens and Rome. We do not pretend to be experts in neo-Platonic epistemology, in Riemannian mathematics, in military strategy, in musicology and all the other fields in which LaRouche claims to be the world's leading expert. Each of these fields DOES require a serious academic background, but LaRouche does not have it. He does not read Sumerian and other ancient Mesopotamian languages, he does not read Greek or Latin, or the Italian of the Renaissance, he is profoundly ignorant of higher mathematics, and (by his own admission) his military rank in WW Two was as a private in a noncombat role. Thus the fact that he is a college dropout and lacks the proper knowledge to be taken seriously in any of the above fields is relevant to a complaint about the way his followers (a) present their own glorification and sanitization of his ideas as factual, (b) neglect to provide sources for their strange interpretations of his ideas, and (c) delete or separate off into a marginalized paragraph any properly cited interpretations of his ideas.--Dking 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Although the LaRouchians do provide citations to writings of LaRouche they do so within the framework of an analysis for which they provide no legitimate sources, since no legitimate source has taken seriously their claims about LaRouche being a genius with beneficent, world-transforming ideas. In my opinion their entire presentation of LaRouche's ideas is original research and I urge that it be removed if they can't come up with legitimate sources for their interpretation.--Dking 20:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of reversion of biased edits

Others have pointed out that adding things like "According to LaRouche's followers' interpretation of his published writings" makes Misplaced Pages look stupid. Either the summary of the article is accurate, or it isn't. Dking is claiming that some editors here are "LaRouche followers." He should present some evidence for that claim. He should also read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, where it says "using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme" is an example of "types of comments are never acceptable." That applies whenever he is trying to claim on a talk page that anyone who disagrees with him is working for LaRouche. As arkalochori wrote, "The time worn cry of "LaRouche activist!" grows tiresome."

I have read enough of LaRouche to know that when King writes things like "As to the modern elite, LaRouche identifies it with a cabal of London banking families with mostly Jewish names," or "He identifies the elite's medieval version with Italian bankers, especially Jews and converted Jews," he is just making it up. Misplaced Pages has a policy against libel. Also, Misplaced Pages has a policy on undue weight, so I kept in place a suitably concise and non-libelous version of King's opinions. --Masai warrior 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not making it up. It's there in the original published articles (although the LaRouchians can sanitize at any time the online versions). As to "Masai warrior"'s theory of undue weight, let's think about this a second....LaRouche is on record, indisputably, as separating out a segment of humanity and calling them an evil species at war with the human species. And he also compares himself (in the EIR article) to Hitler while repeating the evil species theory? To point this out is UNDUE WEIGHT???? Masai warrior, come out from under your user name, identify yourself as Chip and I have done, provide details on your relationship with the LaRouche movement. If you are unwilling to do so, I can only conclude that you, like most of the LaRouche supporters on Misplaced Pages, are deep down inside ASHAMED of your relationship with LaRouche and his ideas.--Dking 22:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The idea that convicted felon LaRouche is going to sue Misplaced Pages for libel is ludicrous. The New York State Supreme Court in 1978 found that it was "fair comment" to call him an anti-Semite. A federal jury in Virginia in 1984 found NBC and the ADL innocent of libel after they termed LaRouche a "small-time Hitler." LaRouche dropped both of his libel suits against me to avoid pre-trial depositions where he would have been asked to explain the many anti-Semitic and Nazi-style statements he has made over the years. Followers of LaRouche who sued the newspaper Our Town in 1979 dropped their suit in 1981 and themselves denounced LaRouche's anti-Semitism in the newspaper Computer System News. Naturally the starry-eyed members of the LaRouche Youth Movement are not told anything about this legal history.--Dking 18:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My real life name is Deno Washington. Satisfied? I don't feel a need to use it at Misplaced Pages, because I am not here to promote a flagging career, or to spam the project with links to some crackpot website for that matter. I am not a member of the LaRouche organization, but I have read their publications and I value them as a useful, constructive political force, much as I value Seymour Hersch, Antiwar.com, and Truthout.org. And when I think of Kristalnacht, I always think about how people who are being set up for attack are first demonized, as the Jews were, by stinking propaganda, utilizing lies, half-truths, insinuations and innuendo, and I renew my resolution to combat such stinking propaganda whenever it rears its head at Misplaced Pages. The tactics are easily recognized. --Masai warrior 14:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a photostat of the purported quote from that EIR article, please, to get a sense of the context. There has been enough funny business with these quotes that I want to be able to evaluate it for myself. --Marvin Diode 07:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed from article for discussion

I took this out:

LaRouche has also described the struggle as one between apostolic Christianity and the "hoax" of Judaism:

The Christian apostles...rid Christianity of the worst implications of the Old Testament...Christ has freed man from such barbarisms as the Old Testament.

...because it is highly misleading. The context is a long discussion of, among other things, Philo of Alexandria, who LaRouche says was developing a "Platonic version of Judaism." Without drawing any conclusions as to whether this is correct, one thing is clear: King is cherry-picking the material to fit his own depiction of LaRouche as a crude anti-Semite. A reading of the essay has convinced me that this is false, and the characterization in Dking's edit is misleading. --Marvin Diode 07:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How would you saummarize LaRouche's point? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone can offer a better interpretation for this passage offered I'll restore this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

When I see that many elipses in a quote it makes my suspicious. Again, Dennis King is searching for references to Jews in order to try to make a case. Based on my reading of the essay by LaRouche, I would say that the essential point he is making about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is that they all have both Platonic and Aristotelean currents. For example, LaRouche says about Judaism, "During that latter period Judaism itself was divided between the reactionary "orthodox" currents and the tendency for a humanistic, Neoplatonic transformation of Judaism. The emergence of the humanistic Sephardic current out of the Ismailite Judaic faction, and the emergence of Maimonides, Avencibrol, et al. of the Toledo schol, reflect the course of the latter aspect of the development." I inlude the latter sentence because earlier on this talk page, Dking made a claim that the only Jew LaRouche ever liked was Philo, which is obviously a crock. So, Will, I am appealing to you, since you obviously have a copy of the essay and you presumably have read it, why not concentrate your efforts on providing a basic, encyclopedic summary, rather than trying to mount a legalistic defense of King's willful distortions? --Marvin Diode 22:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the full paragraph, plus text from above it:

• We now cite one related, important case here. We cite the case of that influential hoax known as the Jewish religion. (3)
• The modern Jewish religion originated not with the Kingdom of Solomon or earlier, but centuries later, as a synthetic cult created by the order of the Babylonians and other non-Jews. The first step in the fashioning of the Jewish religion was based on piecing together scraps of Mesopotamian legends (and anti-Phoenician and anti-Egyptian propaganda), with odd pieces of actual Babylonian and other history added to the mixture. The infusion gave a credible calendar to the otherwise fraudulent concoction. This original Mesopotamian hoax was reworked repeatedly, always under the super vision of non-Jews, with the basic structure of the Old Testament hoax completed during the Persian Empire period.
• Later, when Philo of Alexandria attempted to develop a Platonic version of Judaism (the roots of the later Sephardic tradition of Maimonides and Avencibrol), Philo avoided, for obvious political reasons, simply throwing out the mess before him. He attempted to circumvent the problem by the rabbinical, Pharasaical ruse of the "commentary," tolerating the text while fundamentally altering the reading to be attributed to it.
• The Christian Apostles, confronted with the same general problem, rid Christianity of the worst implications of the Old Testament by emphasizing the "Dispensation of Christ," and warning against the dangers of the " concision." Christ had freed man from such barbarisms as the Old Testament. Only those sections of the Old Testament which pointed toward the coming of the Messiah or otherwise happened to coincide with Christianity were to be treated seriously.

I think the quotation above is accurate, though it'd be more intersting if we include the part about "that influential hoax known as the Jewish religion". Here is the proposed summary:

• ''LaRouche has also described the struggle as one between apostolic Christianity and the "hoax" of Judaism.

LaRouche does call Judaism a "hoax" religion. He does depict the Apostles as being in opposition to that tradition. I don't see what the problem is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor question

Will Beback, could you explain why you think the bit on the Queen of England belongs in the Judaism section? It appears also in the Conspiracy section. --Marvin Diode 14:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's apparently there because that section contains background on how Jews fit into the larger conspiracies, many of which concern the House of Windsor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You say "apparently." Could you explain? It seems irrelevant to me. --Gelsomina 14:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why I'm reverting certain deletions

1. On the "hoax" of Judaism quote. That LaRouche had included something favorable about a single Jew, Philo of Alexandria, is not significant. Philo had no following at his time within the Jewish community for a shift away from "Old Testmament" Judaism if indeed that was what he intended. The only self-styled followers of Philo in modern Judaism are LaRouche's handful of house Jews, who view Philo himself through the lens of LaRouche's poorly informed historical theories. (Where did LaRouche obtain the training to develop his sweeping theories on a specialized subject such as the influence of Platonism on the thought of Philo? People go to universities for many years and learn the ancient languages and scientific methods of textual analysis before venturing strong opinions on such a subject. Does LaRouche read Hebrew or Greek or Latin? Has he read the other Jewish and Greek and Roman writers of Philo's era?)

Thus when LaRouche, while demeaning the Jewish community and its beliefs, adds, oh, by the way, there was one Jew who liked Plato and was not so bad, this is just a rhetorical trick. The fact is, LaRouche calls the Old Testament a "hoax" and "barbarism" in contrast to Christianity, just as earlier (in "The Case of Ludwig Feuerbach") he had talked about Judaism as a half-religion for people without a "Christian conscience." There was no "long" discussion of Philo but only two brief sentences. The context of the "barbarism" quote was an introduction to the essay that summarizes the struggle of the elites, with intro subheads such as "The Conspirators," "The Aristotelian enemies of mankind", "The 'Secret Knowledge'" and (my favorite) "Our Special Competence."

LaRouche's statement that the OT was written and revised under the supervision of Babylonians does not put LaRouche in a more favorable light--he is saying that the Jews have a synthetic culture and that their core religious tradition is a hoax. He implies that by choosing to follow a hoax they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. LaRouche does the same thing with Zionism, claiming it is a synthetic "racist" cult and that Israel is a puppet state for the London bankers. So ancient Judaism (and by extension Judaism today) is a hoax, Zionism today is an evil cult....what is left for Jews? To join LaRouche? All this nonsense is about creating nested framings to mentally trap his house Jews into continuing their loyalty to him, even unto suicide as in the case of Ken Kronberg.

2. As to the quote about medieval bankers, here is what LaRouche fantasizes (pp 32-33) about the period following Charlemagne:

From that point, a fight was joined in Europe between the Aristotelians (the monetarist banker-linked forces attempting and often succeeding, in controlling the papacy) and the humanist currents.

Some of these Roman banking families were Jewish, bankers speculating in Roman real estate and engaged in control of a significant part of Mediterranean trade through corresponding connections with banking families as distant as Baghdad.

Historically the most important of such Jewish banking families of Rome was the Pierleoni. Emulating another Jewish banking family which had "converted" earlier to Christianity, to successfully benefit from the financial advantages of the papacy, the Pierleoni "converted" with the same purpose in view. One member of the family, styling himself Pope Gregory VI, toook the direct route to his goal, buying the papacy from an incumbent pope....

This occurred during the eleventh century, and is no quaint element of church history but the focus of a chain of events which shaped the course of history over the following centuries, until the culmination of this policy in the mid-fourteenth century Black Death's killing of about half the existing population of central Europe.

Let's also look at a slightly different version in LaRouche's "The Two Global Conspiracies" (New Solidarity, Nov. 18, 1977):

During the 11th century, a pair of Jewish banking families converted to Christianity for the purpose of seizing the papacy, establishing,......with the accession of Hildebrand, a corruption of the papacy which generally persisted until the emergence of the conciliar reforms during the late 14th century. The papacy of that period was not a religious issue (although it was a religious problem), but a hideous center of corruption, which employed the papacy chiefly as an instrument of usury on behalf of the various Italian banking families which poisoned and bribed their way into the office for that purpose.

3. Let's return again to LaRouche's explication of the medieval struggle of the elites in "The Secrets" and examine again the first sentence of the above quote from p. 32:

From that point a fight was joined in Europe between the Aristotelians (the monetarist banker-linked forces attempting, and often succeeding, in controlling the papacy) and the humanist currents.

There you have it: No nonsense about epistemology and visions of man and cognition--the "Aristotelians" are the "monetarist banker-linked forces." Nothing could show more clearly the fraudulent nature of the description and interpretation of LaRouche's crank theories being presented as fact on this site, without proper sourcing, by LaRouche's supporters. And if you go on to the next paragraph, he states that part of this evil Aristotelian force is Roman Jewish bankers with their compatriot banking families "as distant as Baghdad." And in the third paragraph he presents the Roman Jewish bankers as being at the absolute heart of the conspiracy--in the papacy itself.--Dking 15:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Response

Since I have actually read the rather cumbersome essay that is being used as one of the main sources in this dispute, I would make the following observations:

1. Dking or Dennis King is taking ideas that are very complicated and trying to shoehorn them into a very simplistic theory. In doing so, he is resorting to some fairly devious rhetorical techniques. Example: in his essay above, he writes:

Let's return again to LaRouche's explication of the medieval struggle of the elites in "The Secrets" and examine again the first sentence of the above quote from p. 32:

From that point a fight was joined in Europe between the Aristotelians (the monetarist banker-linked forces attempting, and often succeeding, in controlling the papacy) and the humanist currents.

There you have it: No nonsense about epistemology and visions of man and cognition--the "Aristotelians" are the "monetarist banker-linked forces."

...thereby ignoring pages and pages of discussion of Aristotle's ideas, what they represent politically, and why "monetarist banker-linked forces" would have an affinity to them. He takes one sentence out of context and says "There! I proved my point!"

2. Dking is expressing loads of opinions on topics about which, by his own admission, neither he nor LaRouche are credentialed experts. The difference here is that this article is about LaRouche's views, not Dking's. Therefore LaRouche's views are notable despite his lack of credentials. King's are not.

3. I submit that we are looking at a lot of original research here. In the cases where Dking is citing his own book, WP:REDFLAG and WP:COI Citing oneself apply.

4. I think that the best way to resolve this, without having to produce a whole new article fork on King's theories about LaRouche's theories about elites, would be simply to include a passage like the following:

Journalist and LaRouche critic Dennis King maintains that when LaRouche discusses "Aristoteleans," he is, by implication, referring to Jews.

I would say that the arguments pro and con will be too lengthy and abstruse, and insufficiently notable, to go in an encyclopedia. A short summary of what is obviously King's intended point should suffice.--Marvin Diode 21:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche and the London bankers

Having started what he calls a "lengthy and abstruse" debate, Marvin Diode (see prior posting) wants to back out now that he sees he doesn't have the facts on his side. But let's look at another of the abstruse points he originally raised: whether it can fairly be said that when LaRouche talks about the current British "oligarchy" he is talking primarily (as a long string of Anglophobes dating back to the 1890s has done) about Jewish bankers. I quote from his "Anti-Dirigism Is British Tory Propaganda," New Solidarity, Feb. 3, 1978:

The policy-shaping kernel of the enemy forces centered in the British monarchy is a group of private banking families associated with the Round Table, the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the London Tavistock Institute, and control of networks conduited under the cover of the Socialist International and its adjunct organizations in the United States. These are notably the family interests of the Lazard Brothers, Barings, N.M. Rothschild, Hill Samuel, and other small private banking houses...

Note that of the four banking families listed above, three are Jewish, and the fourth, the Barings, are believed (in anti-Semitic lore) to be secret converts from Judaism. Thus LaRouche is referring to three Jewish banking families and one might-as-well-be-Jewish (for agitational purposes) banking family that, along with "other small private banking families," are the "policy-shaping kernel" of the "British monarchy" and "control" or "directly contol" various institutions regarded as key in LaRouchian theory (LaRouche lists several more beyond those described in the quote above, but to include them all here would be tiresome).

Now let's look at another example: LaRouche's "How to Analyze and Uproot International Terrorism," New Solidarity, Feb. 17, 1978.

The British loudly, shamelessly advertise such objectives in the press controlled by the same Barings, Lazards, and Rothschilds who control the Round Table, the Royal Institute for International Affairs and the London Institute for Strategic Studies. These ruling British forces, the avowed enemies of the human species, shamelessly declare war on the human species, and yet the governments of the nations targeted for victimization profess to be incredulous when we insist that the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the policy arm of British MI-5 and MI-6, is behind international terrorism and environmentalism....

Were I a head of state of any principal European nation, I would clean up the terrorism problem in short order.

And if these nefarious banking families are so powerful in England naturally their power is exerted worldwide. Like flying saucers, they are everywhere. For instance, did you know that these banking families even started the U.S. Civil War? Yep, in the "Dirigist" article LaRouche tells us:

It was these same City of London interests, acting largely through their agents in the Boston, Manhattan, New Orleans, and other private banks--e.g., August Belmont and Confederate (Rothschild) Treasurer Judah Benjamin--which engineered the Civil War.

In other words, two Jews working for a third Jew engineered the bloodiest war in U.S. history! This is about on the level of Farrakhan's accusation that the Jews controlled the slave trade (or LaRouche's claim on September 11, 2001 that the World Trade Center terror attacks had been engineered by the Goldsmith brothers (cousins of the Rothschilds)).

Finally, I cite the well-known image from LaRouche's "Mickey Mouse and Pluto Come to Washington," New Solidarity, Oct. 17, 1978: Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David flanked by two well-known Jews hated by LaRouche (Kissinger and Milton Friedman). The image's caption (why am I not surprised?) identifies the Jewish star as a "satanic" symbol.

Honest people can disagree on the extent to which Anglophobia and anti-Semitism merge in LaRouche's rhetoric, but I have cited the above sources in my own published writings, which in turn are recognized as legitimate sources for Misplaced Pages articles on LaRouche. The material is thus properly cited on two levels and there are no grounds for removing it.--Dking 22:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Using Dennis King's method it is also possible to prove that LaRouche is virulently anti-Christian. He has focussed his wrath on Francisco Franco, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Augusto Pinochet -- that gives him away right there! All four are Christians, or at least nominal Christians. And if that weren't enough, LaRouche viciously attacks Tomás de Torquemada, which is an affront to Catholics everywhere. Sure, LaRouche says a few nice things about the apostles John and Paul, but who cares about them nowadays? That's just two isolated cases, and it means nothing. The only people who are interested in them are probably just the "house Christians" in LaRouche's organization. I rest my case. --Masai warrior 05:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not a serious response to Dennis King's comments. Identifying Jewish bankers (or allegedly Jewish bankers) as the linchpin of conspiracies to provoke wars and control the world economy has been a staple of anti-semitism for 150 years. There is such a thing as anti-semitism, there are recognisable tropes of anti-semitism, and the examples given by King are consistent with these. LeContexte 10:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Redflag

An editor deleted some material with this edit summary:

• WP:REDFLAG,WP:NOR still apply. The cited sources are also misleading because interpretation given to sources is OR

"WP:REDFLAG is a section of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources:

• Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.
  • Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
  • Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
  • Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
  • Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
• Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.

What claims are surprising or out of character? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The claims that were removed in this edit. Dking attaches his own interpretations and conclusions to the material he cites, in particular, the "Inner Elites" article, which contradict what LaRouche himself says in the very same article. WP:NOR also comes into play here. As I see it, we have two options: we can devote a new, article length segment to Dking's claims and the inevitable rebuttals, or we can substitute the short summary I provided, which I believe to be far more appropriate to an encyclopedia. I also think that my summary is scrupulously fair and accurate. Do you disagree? --Marvin Diode 00:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about NOR, I'm talking about REDFLAG. Which claims do you find surprising or out of character? All of them? Based on the widely held views of LaRouche, do you think that trhis statement:

• LaRouche identifies the ancient incarnation of this elite with "the anti-human bestialists" and "parasites," "Babylonians and other non-Jews" who "cooked up the hoax known as the Old Testament."

Asserts views that are surprising or out of character for LaRouche? He is widely-viewed a anti-Semitic and as a conspiracy theorist. The assertions in that sentence appear to be within the common view of his character and unsurprising. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the red flag designation applies, the Washington Post and the Guardian, to name a few, have called LaRouche a conspiracy theorist and dealt with allegations of anti-Semitism. Original research is as always another issue. --arkalochori 02:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The subject is so well-known for advancing unusual concepts that REDFLAG would apply only for very unusual assertions. The editor forwarding the theory hasn't explained it. I've restored the sourced material deleted for that cause. (It was also deleted for "self-citing", but I didn't cite myself so that's no an issue either, and for NOR. Editors are free to explain that issue.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche's statement on fighting the alien species

Marvin Diode asked to see a copy of the text of "The Elite That Can't Think Straight." Without conceding that he has any right to ask me to furnish the original research materials for a properly sourced, critically praised book from a major publishing house, I am nevertheless furnishing this for the enlightenment of all (including LaRouche Youth Movement members with secret doubts about their leader) who may read this discussion page. The links are to images of the first page and last page of the essay in question. Left click to enlarge the images. The quote re LaRouche and the alien species is in the last paragraph of the last page. In reading it, ask yourself: What sort of person goes around having fantasies that people fear him and regard him as more dangerous than Hitler?--Dking 01:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Having read the context, I consider it biased and incorrect for you to draw the inference that he is comparing himself to Hitler. He is suggesting that his opponents might compare him to Hitler, which doesn't seem so far fetched to me, having seen you yourself do so so routinely. --Marvin Diode 21:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Basis for removal of OR

In response to Will Beback's edit summary: Identifying the "Italian banking families" as "Jewish-led" is OR, unsourced, and intended to insinuate that LaRouche has veiled or coded anti-Semitic intent. Likewise the reference to "a cabal of predominantly Jewish banking families in London." LaRouche opens the "Elites" essay by stating that:

Exemplary of the follies into which presumably educated and informed people are misled in the pursuit of the snipe, are the doctrines of the "international Jewish conspiracy" and the recently more popular "international communist conspiracy."

Thus Dking/Dennis King is attempting through part insinuation, part fabrication, to impute a meaning to LaRouche's words that runs directly contrary to the actual thrust of the essay. The remainder of the overly long comments from King are an exercise in WP:SYNTH, attempting to bolster his essential false argument. --Marvin Diode 21:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The contested text reads, in part:

• He identifies the elite's medieval version with Jewish-led Italian banking families that he blames, according to King, for poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague.LaRouche, "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites," The Campaigner, May-June 1978, pp. 32-33. LaRouche, "The Two Global Conspiracies," New Solidarity, Nov. 18, 1977

Checking page 32 of the "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites," I see it says:

• Some of these Roman banking families were Jewish...Historically the most important of such Jewish banking families of Rome was the Pierleoni. Emulating another Roman Jewish banking family which had "converted" earlier to Christianity, to successful benefit, from the finacnial advantages of the papacy, the Pierloeni "comverted" with the same purpose in view. One member of the family, styling himself Pope Gregory VI, took the direct route to his goal, buying the papacy from an incumbent pope. That sordid arrangement was nullified by intervention of the German emperor, and ex-Gregory VI and his heir Hildebrand, later Pope Gregory VII, were hustled off into exile.
• This occurred during the eleventh century, and is no quaint element of church history but the focus of a chain of events which shaped the course of history over the following centuries, until the culmination of this policy in the mid-fourteenth century Black Death's killing of about half the existing population of central Europe...Three principal operations of that period were decisive in enabling Hildebrand to seize the papacy. First, the Norman conquest of Saxon England and the associated project for the Norman conquest of Sicily. Second, the murder of three popes, two by Aristotelian methods within twenty-three _tays of one another, by Hildebrand's family's associates, a family then, among other functions, providing catering services to the papacy.

So it appears an accurate summary to me. Larouche does appear to say that Jews were among the leading bankers in Rome, that they achieved some goals through poisoning, and that there was some policy that culminated in the plague. Where's the original research? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to quote my comments at the beginning of this section: Identifying the "Italian banking families" as "Jewish-led" is OR, unsourced, and intended to insinuate that LaRouche has veiled or coded anti-Semitic intent. Likewise the reference to "a cabal of predominantly Jewish banking families in London." Neither of these editorial comments by Dking is supported by the material you cite. --Marvin Diode 02:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's the only problem then let's fix it here.

He identifies the elite's medieval version with Italian banking families, especially the "converted" Jewish Pierleoni family, that he blames for poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague.

How's that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it is an extremely minor point and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic summary of LaRouche's views. The only reason it comes up is that Dking was trying to scrape up some circumstantial evidence for his theory that the essay is secretly anti-Semitic. It's WP:SYNTH. --Marvin Diode 10:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm getting confused. You keep coming up with different objections to this material. As each is addressed you find fresh objections. It's getting old. Is the above text original research or not? If it isn't I'm going to put it back in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it is as confusing as you make it out to be. There is a particular section of the No Original Research policy which is called "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position," shortcut WP:SYNTH. What Dking is doing is simply scrounging through the article looking for any reference to Jewish families or banking interests (while ignoring all others,) then assembling these references to attempt to advance a position, i.e. his theory that LaRouche is talking about a Jewish conspiracy, even though LaRouche states his opposition to such a theory. So what we have in Dking's edits is, instead of an encyclopedic summary of LaRouche's ideas, a melange of unrelated and non-notable tidbits that is clearly "intended to advance a position," while misleading the reader and harming the encyclopedia project. I don't think that you can honestly claim, Will, that the material you are seeking to include is intended to provide an essential summary of the basic ideas of the "elites" essay. --Marvin Diode 01:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I should also reiterate that the formulations dentifying the "Italian banking families" as "Jewish-led" and the "cabal of ...banking families in London" as "predominantly Jewish" are complete OR -- they don't appear in LaRouche's work, they are otherwise unsourced, and I suspect that they are historically incorrect. --Marvin Diode 14:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also Dennis King's version has his interpretation of Lyndon LaRouche's essay being even longer than the explanation of the essay. How does that not qualify as undue weight. This article is about the views of LaRouche not King. --arkalochori 07:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to evaluating or criticizing a theory, it is better to report what a prominent critic has written in a reliable source than to engage in original research by interpreting the material ourselves. Marvin Diode has claimed that this passage is orignal research, but it appears to me to be a valid summary of the text I've posted here. Note, however, that the actual text that Marvin Diode has repeatedly deleted is also based on a second work that I haven't haven't posted. So long as we summarize what reliable sources have said on the topic then we won't be in trouble. I propose that we could get around this simply reporting what reliable sources have said about LaRouche in this context instead of trying to deicde what it means on our own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mixing apples and oranges. King's book does not provide summaries of LaRouche's views, it provides commentary on a real or imagined "sub-text." I think that it is normal practice in other articles on politicians to report directly on what they say, and to use mature editorial judgment as to what is notable and what isn't. --Gelsomina 14:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the frequency of what appear to be deliberate distortions in King's book, I don't think it is safe to conclude that it is a reliable source, published or not. There are many books available about 9-11 or JFK murder conspiracy theories that are published by reputable houses, but would not be admitted here as sources without careful scrutiny. --Marvin Diode 14:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that disputes the reliability of the book? It was published by a major publisher, Doubleday, and should be presumed reliable until proven otherwise. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times review of his book, while generally favorable, includes this concluding assessment: But in trying to see Mr. LaRouche as a would-be Fuhrer, Mr. King may be trying to tie together the whole unruly package with too neat a ribbon. A number of loose ends hang out, not least of which is the fact that many members of Mr. LaRouche's inner circle are Jewish. --Gelsomina 14:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Too neat a ribbon" is not the same as "deliberate distortions". Let's get back to the text in question. It plainly says that a Roman Jewish banking family "converted" to Christianity, and then went on to take over the papacy, pursuing a policy the led to the Black Death. This is not in a section on Jews, but in a paragraph trying to describe the lineage of the oligarchical/synarchic elites that is a key element of LaRouche's world view. I don't believe that excess weight on the oligarchy is a problem because it is so important to LaRouche and it appears throughout his writings. While Jews are part of the theory, they are not the whole theory and most of the important figures in the oligarchy haven't been Jewish, "converted" or otherwise. So I again propose the text:

• identifies the elite's medieval version with Italian banking families, especially the "converted" Jewish Pierleoni family, that he blames for poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague.

It accurately and briefly summarizes a key period in the history of the oligarchy as LaRouche has described it in his essay, "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that in LaRouche's essay, "most of the important figures in the oligarchy haven't been Jewish, 'converted' or otherwise." This directly contradicts Dennis King's thesis, of course. The question then is, why do you consider this section to be notable? I also see a major flaw in your proposed edit, that being that you say that LaRouche "blames" the Pierleoni family for "causing the Black Plague." That's quite a stretch. --Marvin Diode 17:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you interpret the sentence:

• This occurred during the eleventh century, and is no quaint element of church history but the focus of a chain of events which shaped the course of history over the following centuries, until the culmination of this policy in the mid-fourteenth century Black Death's killing of about half the existing population of central Europe

"This" refers to the takeover of the papacy by an "heir" to the Pierleoni family, who were "converted" Jews. Please explain who developed and implemented the policy that culminated in the Black Death, if it wasn't the Pierleoni, as LaRoche appears to say. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As is often the case with quotes taken out of context, the answer is not to be found within the sentence you cite. LaRouche's turgid writing style makes it difficult to ascertain who actually developed "the policy," or even what "the policy" actually is, but it may be the policy referred to a few paragraphs earlier, as "the Aristotelean policy of coopting and syncretizing religious beliefs into forms suitable to serve as state cults." At any rate, it is clear that LaRouche is not blaming the Pierleonin family for causing the plague, which happened 300 years later. --Marvin Diode 21:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to ask why you consider the section to be notable. We know why Dennis King considers it notable -- he's trying to piece together evidence for his theory of anti-Semitism. Since you apparently agree that "most of the important figures in the oligarchy haven't been Jewish, 'converted' or otherwise," why must we continue to wrangle over this obscure sentence? If you have read the essay, surely you agree that the kernel of LaRouche's view is that the two "elites" are characterized by adherence to the philosophies of either Plato or Aristotle, and the ethnicity or religious orientation of the individuals involved is of little importance. --Marvin Diode 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, I would very much like to see your response to this. --Gelsomina 06:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that one aspect of LaRouche's Manichean division of the world is based on the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. I disagree that he thinks that cultures, ethnicities, and religions are of little importance. His associaiton of "that influential hoax known as the Jewish religion" with the Aristotelian tradition is important enough to be a recurring theme in the Elites piece. That's why we're summarizing it. The "theory" of Larouche's anti-semitism is widely held. Other than LaRouce supports I'm not aware of anyone who contradicts the theory. Don't you think that calling the Jewish religion a hoax is anti-Semitic? I'd like to see both of your responses to this question. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, I actually have read this article. It was a lot of work. Did you actually read it, also, or did you just do some word searches? What LaRouche says about Judaism in the article, as I understand it, is that up through Roman times it was mixture of all sorts of different influences, and it wasn't until the advent of Philo and the neoplatonics that it began to gel as a religion in the modern sense. He appears to be saying that much of the historiography is a hoax. As far as the "barbarism of the Old Testament" is concerned, would you care to present a defense of the Book of Leviticus? The thing that I object to is that Dking, with your support, makes no effort to summarize the article. He goes in with an agenda -- "Let's prove that LaRouche is an anti-Semite" -- and cherry picks quotes, which are then re-assembled like Frankenstein's monster into something to fit the agenda. Now that we have a big sub-section on Judaism, are you going to give equal weight to all the claims LaRouche makes about good guys and bad guys in the Christian religion? That certain plays a bigger role in the article. --Marvin Diode 17:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite any langugage that supports the assertion that LaRouche was referring to the historiography being a hoax rather than the religion itself? I see where he says, "We cite the case of that influential hoax known as the Jewish religion." Calling the Old Testament "barabaric" is one thing, calling it a hoax is another. Are you saying that calling the Jewish religion a hoax is not anti-Semitic? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, did you read the article? Context is everything. LaRouche is an ambiguous character, and I had never labored through one of his long articles before. He obviously strongly supports some currents in Judaism that he considers to be neoplatonic. This may be a controversial view. I don't know whether he still thinks the same way (after all, this was written 30 years ago.) But in fairness to our readers, I would be extremely cautious about oversimplification. --Marvin Diode 14:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I've read the article. Do you think that calling Judaism a "hoax" religion" is anti-Semitic or not? You've said that the contention that LaRouche is anti-semitic is a fringe viewpoint. If that's the case then you'd have to agree that the remark is not anti-Semitic. Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No answer? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My answer is no, that is not correct. And if you ask me whether I have stopped beating my wife, I'll ask you to rephrase the question. --Marvin Diode 14:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean if someone called LaRouche a "hoax" you wouldn't consider that to be an anti-LaRouche statement either? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to LaRouche apologists

LaRouche's followers have inserted vast quantities of their own personal interpretations, completely unsourced Original Research, into this Wizard of Oz article. An example would be their claim that there is a LaRouche-Riemann mathematical method in economics and their flat-earther claims regarding its efficacy. This is all nonsense--LaRouche has never mastered higher mathematics, I'd be surprised if he still remembers high school algebra. He just spouts abusive opinions, as that Newton practiced witchcraft. Dr. Edward Teller told me that LaRouche is "a poorly informed man with fantastical conceptions" and I think this sums up LHL's intellectual standing with everyone except his followers and a few elderly people he's scamming. Yet adulatory material about him has been allowed to dominate this article almost without opposition. Now, when I attempt to inject a few paragraphs of properly sourced material, it gets deleted again and again (or now, they want to "compromise" and allow in a tiny proportion while leaving paragraph after paragraph of unsourced LaRouche hero worship untouched).

The claim that LaRouche was only talking about the beliefs of his oligarchical enemies and not his own when he said they regard him as "more dangerous than Hitler" is ridiculous. If you go to the full paragraph that I have now given a link to, you will see that the more-dangerous-than-Hitler sentence was directly preceded by the following:

hey recognize quickly in that distinction that exists between us evidence that I represent the ancient and feared adversary of their own evil species. The Whore of Babylon recognizes the mind of her potential destroyer.

Why does LaRouche use, and then repeat, the word "recognize" rather than choosing "perceive" or "fancy" or "imagine"? The word he chooses clearly indicates that LaRouche regards the described perception as correct. And in fact he has written numerous articles over the years about the need to destroy, eliminate, conquer, rid the world of, etc., etc., the evil species a/k/a the British, the Anglo-Dutch, the Venetians, the Zionist-British organism, the "friends of Henry Kissinger", the Synarchists or whatever his latest label might be.

As to LaRouche's statement that he's against "international Jewish conspiracy" doctrines, this is typical. He says he's against Nazis, then he calls the Jews Nazis and the Wehrmacht "heroic." He says he's against racism, then he hires Klansmen as his advisors. He says he's against fascism, then he writes a book calling for an industrial capitalist "dictatorship-in-fact" in the United States. He says he's against abortion but has pressured women in his group to have over 200 abortions. He says he's against international Jewish conspiracy theories but then outlines (in the very same essay and in numerous other essays) an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that embraces thousands of years of history.

I ask the LaRouche defenders on this page, do you or don't you agree with LaRouche:

• that Jews seized the papacy and caused the Black Plague?

• that the Rothschilds and Jewish agents of the Rothschilds caused the U.S. civil war?

• that Britain is unremittingly evil and that it is controlled by "the family interests of the Lazard Brothers, Barings, N.M. Rothschild, Hill Samuel, and other small private banking houses"?

• that the LaRouche organization is at war with an evil species outside the human race that is the relentless enemy of the human race?

• that this evil species "recognizes" in LaRouche the "mind of potential destroyer"?

• that (as LaRouche has said) what the oligarchical species is planning for the human race makes the crimes of Hitler look like a "slight mistake"?

• that Judaism is a half-religion and that Jews lack a proper Christian conscience?

• that Jewish culture is simply all that is left over after everything else has been sold to the Goyim?

• that the Biblical Jewish faith is based on a "hoax"?

• that the "Zionists" killed Jimmy Hoffa?

• that "America should be cleansed for its righteous war" by the "immediate elimination" of the Zionist lobby from positions of influence in America?

• that the U.S. government is riddled with Mossad agents?

• that the Nazi scientists who built V-2 rockets with slave labor represent one of the highest and most admirable stages in the history of Western science?

• that the Wehrmacht played a "heroic" role against the evil British in World War Two?

• that the Star of David is a satanic symbol?

• that if the "British" don't mend their evil ways the U.S. should do to London what was done to Japan in 1945?

If you agree with him on these points, I suggest that your edits on this article should be taken no more seriously than any that might be advanced by David Duke or Louis Farrakhan. If you do NOT agree with LaRouche on these points, I suggest that you stop defending the indefensible.--Dking 23:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dennis King has his own website to promote his conspiracy theories, Misplaced Pages should not be an additional venue for his opinions. He is thoroughly dishonest in the way that he mispresents LaRouche's ideas, using standard propaganda techniques. Because he wrote a book, Misplaced Pages is obliged to acknowledge that he has a theory that LaRouche is a closet anti-Semite, but we don't have to reproduce all of his convoluted and deceptive arguments. --Gelsomina 05:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The view that LaRouche is an anti-Semite is commonly held, not a fringe idea by one author. Which of the assertions in this list are misrepresentations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dwarf King

M Diode says that Dwarf King is not a real editor. If you click on the name you will see that this person is a real editor who has contributed to various articles. I might add it is NOT me. Although I'm found of Tolkein, I'm not a dwarf, an elf, an orc or a dragon.--Dking 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Incessant deletions of properly sourced material

It is clear that the LaRouche editors on this page will continue deleting my material about LaRouche's anti-Semitic conspiracy theories ad infinitum. The dispute has been exhaustively discussed on the discussion page, where I have presented the documentation from LaRouche's own writings that I based the analysis in my book on. There is clearly no point in waging an ongoing edit war; I can only rely on the good will of Wikipedians and the Wiki admin to resolve this issue.

LaRouche's defenders have responded to my proof of the well-founded nature of my analysis (including my furnishing of the text of LaRouche's more dangeous-than-Hitler fantasy and his allegations about Jews causing the Black Plague) with incessant re-deletions and yet another complaint to the Wiki admin repeating charges against Chip Berlet and myself that have already been rejected. On this discussion page, "Marvin Diode" has stated re my analysis that "I'm making it up" and that it is "thoroughly dishonest." Also on this discussion page, "Masai warrior" has threatened Misplaced Pages (and by implication, me as well) with a libel suit over this, and has called me a purveyor of "stinking propaganda."

As it stands, Wiki readers (including college students considering whether or not to join LaRouche) are being deprived of properly sourced information and are being fed absurd and totally unsourced sanitizations of LaRouche's ideas and history. This could have a disastrous effect on the lives of well-meaning but naive students and their families. Wiki as an institution needs to decide: Is it going to continue to allow this type of censorhip by LaRouche's followers, or will it take the steps that Chip Berlet has suggested for finally ending this abuse of the Misplaced Pages editing process?--Dking 17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

More deletions of properly sourced statements

In "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites" and contemporaneous articles, LaRouche did not just talk about Italian bankers. He repeatedly emphasized the leading role of Italian Jewish bankers who he said converted to Christianity (he repeatedly put the word converted in sarcastic quotation marks) in order to take over the Papacy and carry out usurious schemes resulting in the Black Plague. In LaRouche's description of Pierleoni rule of the Papacy and its alleged effect on European culture and economy he is clearly asserting that the Roman banking conspiracy was Jewish led. I properly cited this description to my book and I provided, on this discussion page, the actual quotes from the LaRouche articles cited in my book. The same holds true with the statement about LaRouche's view of the British oligarchy as being at its core a collection of London banking families of which those named are mostly Jewish. I properly referenced this statement to my book and provided the actual quotes from the LaRouche articles I cited in my book. The LaRouchians can disagree with my interpretation but the interpretation is solidly founded in my study of LaRouche's writings, is properly cited to a book widely recognized as being carefully researched, and thus deserves to be included in this article without censorship to balance the view presented by the LaRouchians (without any proper sources whatsoever) that LaRouche is a great and beneficent genius without a bigoted bone in the body.--Dking 02:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've already been over this. You point out that some banking families were Jewish, and from that you further conclude that they were "Jewish-led." However, LaRouche does not conclude this, there is nothing to suggest that he is attacking bankers for their religious or ethnic persuasion (as opposed to their banking pracitices,) and your edit was worded in such a way as to imply that he was singling them out for that reason. That is what is referred to as propaganda. I thought that Masai warrior's response was spot on. --Marvin Diode 02:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Diode, if I recall correctly you've said that you are not a follower of LaRouche and that you have only a casual interest in LaRouche's writings. I think Masai Warrior has said the same thing. On the other hand, King wrote a book about LaRouche and has been studying him for decades. I don't see how we can prefer the opinions of a couple of people who've only casually looked at some of the man's writings over an expert opinion. If you ave a different 3rd-party source that describes LaRouche differently then let's look at it. But if it's just the opinion of an anonymous Misplaced Pages over a published expert, then I think we have to go with the expert opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Dennis King makes no effort to disguise the fact that he is not in the least objective, which is what one would hope from an encyclopedia editor. He is editing with an agenda. Will, your view seems to conflict the view of the ArbCom, which said that "It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Editors who have exceptionally strong professional, political, or financial commitments to a particular point of view are asked to refrain from editing in affected subject areas. This is particularly true when the affected subject areas are controversial ." --Gelsomina 06:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom pointed those decisions at LaRouche followers, not their critics, though general editing concerns about avoiding COI and the like apply to everyone else as well. Attempting to use them to stifle critics of LaRouche here is... nice Chutzpah, but not going to fly. Georgewilliamherbert 09:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do your homework before making accusations. The arbcom decision I quoted was Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy, which had nothing to do with LaRouche. --Gelsomina 15:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note. Gelsomina (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs), based on checkuser evidence and editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Very similar language has been used, twice, regarding LaRouche supporters and this article. That you quoted another decision in this specific case does not invalidate my point in the least.

Based on the existing Arbcom precedent regarding this group and articles related to it, full protection of the article to end the edit warring is clearly on the table. A number of accounts involved in this debate are also clearly in violation of the prior arbcom rulings regarding LaRouche activities on Misplaced Pages.

While we generally limit other admin actions during a potential or actual arbcom case on a particular point, I don't see any reason to avoid enforcing prior AC decisions while we wait to see if this new case will introduce any new rulings specific to the issue at hand.

I reverted my brief full protection of the article a couple of days ago out of an abundance of caution. However, my conclusion at this time is that I was overcautious and that a full protect is probably warranted and compliant with policy and Arbcom rulings.

I haven't set a new full protection on, however I am strongly considering doing so. Georgewilliamherbert 23:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have carefully read the LaRouche arbcom decisions. They mainly apply to articles not directly related to LaRouche. Could you please specify which rulings you think are being violated here, and by which editors? --Marvin Diode 00:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Violations include but are not limited to:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche - Principles 1, 2; Remedies 1, 4; Enforcement 3 would justify protecting the article due to the edit warring (though the 'without any mention' would be inapplicable to an article specifically ON LaRouche's views like this one; the Enforcement clause does specifically call out that Admins can protect other than the last version of articles in this particular topic area, however)

Remedies 1, 3 and 4 apply very specifically to articles other than article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles. --Marvin Diode 00:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 - Principles 2, 3, 5
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others - Principles 5, 6, 11

None of these decisions nor Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines in general set aside topic-focused articles as some sort of exception to normal editing process or policy, where contentious editing by an involved party or organization is permitted. They all specifically state the opposite. Georgewilliamherbert 00:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. "Principles" refer to standing Misplaced Pages policies which are generally in force; for example, "Principle 2" of "LaRouche 2" reads 2) Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising. (Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not) I have referred to this in my arbcom complaint against Cberlet and Dking. However, when you speak, as you do, of enforcing a specific ArbCom decision, you need to reference "remedies" and "enforcement," and the only examples you give are the very ones which apply only to articles "not closely related to LaRouche." --Marvin Diode 00:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You're trying to legalistically wriggle around these points. Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way.

You are free to disagree with any enforcement actions I may take on these points, and my interpretation of policy. But I don't need you to agree that I'm enforcing policy and Arbcom rulings in a proper way for it to be OK for me to do so. Administrator actions are not constrained in the slightest by potential enforcees disagreeing that rules apply to them.

If I do act on these points I will of course notify the administrator's incidents noticeboard and note it on the ongoing arbitration case, for reference. Other administrators and editors are always welcome to review admin actions. Georgewilliamherbert 01:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, take whatever admin actions you like. I simply asked how the arbcom decisions were being violated, and by whom, and I seem to be having difficulty getting you to answer that. --Marvin Diode 04:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Are LaRouche's views "left" or "right"?

I have gone back over the edit history of the Lyndon LaRouche bio article, and there is a lot of interesting stuff there on this controversy. During the 80s, when the Washington Post was calling him right-wing, Daniel O. Graham (who was in fact right-wing) was calling him an "unrepentant Marxist-Leninist." It seems to me that LaRouche's politics are unusual and don't easily fit standard categories. I believe the John Birch Society also called him a leftist. Going down the list in this article of policies that he supports, some might be considered conservative, some liberal. In an encyclopedia there is a temptation to try to make everyone fit into cats, but I suggest that we resist the temptation in this case. --Marvin Diode 14:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem with saying that he moved rightward from his former Marxist positions. The Washington Post is a better source for political standing, comparative to mainstream, than an ultraconservative like Graham. --arkalochori 07:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be time-specific. --Marvin Diode 14:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see that it is. --Marvin Diode 14:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Note to users

• Note. Gelsomina (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs), based on checkuser evidence and editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • copied here from above. --arkalochori 07:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

Due to continuation of the ongoing slow-motion edit war, per Arbcom decisions and related Misplaced Pages policy as discussed above, this article is now fully protected. Only administrators can edit the article.

Other editors who want to propose changes are free to describe the change here on the Talk page and discuss why it is a good idea. Administrators who watch this article should review such requested changes and are encouraged to make changes that are supported by Misplaced Pages policy or the improvement of the article as a whole. Georgewilliamherbert 00:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mostly Jewish" bankers

Dking misrepresents what I said earlier about libel. I didn't "threaten Misplaced Pages with a libel suit." I simply said that Misplaced Pages has a policy against libel. Would you like to see it? It's to be found at WP:LIBEL.

Now, I see that Georgewilliamherbert is taking Dking's side in the dispute. George, the contested edits are a standard smear tactic. LaRouche attacks a banking family for its banking policies and practices. Dennis King says that because the family is Jewish, this attack must be motivated by anti-Semitism. It means nothing of the sort, and it is very irresponsible (not to mention a BLP violation) to allow this sort of thing to go into the article. --Masai warrior 06:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Masai warrior and Marvin Diode keep repeating the same charges over and over, I'll repeat part of my response from several days ago:

As to the quote about medieval bankers, here is what LaRouche fantasizes (pp 32-33 of "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites") about the period following Charlemagne:

From that point, a fight was joined in Europe between the Aristotelians (the monetarist banker-linked forces attempting and often succeeding, in controlling the papacy) and the humanist currents.

Some of these Roman banking families were Jewish, bankers speculating in Roman real estate and engaged in control of a significant part of Mediterranean trade through corresponding connections with banking families as distant as Baghdad.

Historically the most important of such Jewish banking families of Rome was the Pierleoni. Emulating another Jewish banking family which had "converted" earlier to Christianity, to successfully benefit from the financial advantages of the papacy, the Pierleoni "converted" with the same purpose in view. One member of the family, styling himself Pope Gregory VI, toook the direct route to his goal, buying the papacy from an incumbent pope....

This occurred during the eleventh century, and is no quaint element of church history but the focus of a chain of events which shaped the course of history over the following centuries, until the culmination of this policy in the mid-fourteenth century Black Death's killing of about half the existing population of central Europe.

Let's also look at a slightly different version in LaRouche's "The Two Global Conspiracies" (New Solidarity, Nov. 18, 1977):

During the 11th century, a pair of Jewish banking families converted to Christianity for the purpose of seizing the papacy, establishing,......with the accession of Hildebrand, a corruption of the papacy which generally persisted until the emergence of the conciliar reforms during the late 14th century. The papacy of that period was not a religious issue (although it was a religious problem), but a hideous center of corruption, which employed the papacy chiefly as an instrument of usury on behalf of the various Italian banking families which poisoned and bribed their way into the office for that purpose.

New comment: The LaRouche editors have also attacked me for my interpretation of LaRouche's views on ancient Judaism. According to these editors, LaRouche posits a progressive faction among Jews led by Philo of Alexandria. Apart from the lack of evidence that any such faction ever existed or was ever a significant force, the "Secrets" and "Global Conspiracies" articles themselves reveal the insincerity of LaRouche's rhetoric regarding the good Jew Philo. LaRouche suggests that Philo's supposed progressive faction of Jews was moving towards Christianity and away from what LaRouche described in his earlier "Feuerbach" article (The Campaigner, Dec. 1973, p. 37) as the "half-religion" of Judaism (which supposedly reflected the interests of the "Roman merchant usurer" and supposedly failed to instill a "Christian conscience"). But what happens when some of the Roman Jews do convert centuries later (according to LaRouche's account, which may or may reflect the historical reality)? He puts the word "convert" in sarcastic quotation marks, twice, and states flatly that the reason for the conversion was financial and political--to seize control of the Papacy and employ it as "an instrument of usury." Thus like many other anti-Semites, LaRouche sets up a sadistic Catch 22--the Jews are damned if they do and damned if they don't. In his 1978 article, "New Pamphlet to Document the Cult Origins of Zionism" (New Solidarity, Dec. 8, 1978) LaRouche suggests that it is possible for there to be real, worthwhile Jews (as opposed to the "Jews who are not Jews"). He suggests that these real Jews, who may escape society's next round of repression against the fake Jews, are the Jews who follow his own leadership. Oh yeah, Lyn? Try telling that to the families of Jeremiah Duggan and Kenneth Kronberg.--Dking 15:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

After your latest long digression, we are still without a source for your claim that the Italian and British banking families were "mostly Jewish."

Incidentally, although the subject of usury does not come up in the "elites" essay, I have no trouble acknowledging that LaRouche opposes usury, and if that isn't already in the article, it should go there. However, if it is your intention to then argue that opposition to usury is a coded form of anti-Semitism, let me say in advance that I think that's a crock. --Marvin Diode 00:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's probably why it says "according to King" in the relevant section. Perhaps it could be made clearer that it is King's interpretation. --arkalochori 06:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a veiled threat. You cannot use WP:LIBEL to silence scholarly criticisms, and obviously "according to King" is clear enough attribution. El_C 10:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"You cannot use WP:LIBEL to silence scholarly criticisms" -- that part is comedy gold. --Leatherstocking 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Try to stay on-topic. This isn't a chat room. El_C 00:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take side in the content dispute, I reverted the most recent policy-abusive edit. There is a difference between "this was wrong" and "they are right and those other guys are wrong".

If you believe there's a clear BLP violation in that text, we can discu in in appropriate depth here, and I or any other admin can deal with any violations which are evident after discussion and review. Georgewilliamherbert 21:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In the version that you locked into place, it is by no means clear that the observation that the Italian bankers or the British bankers were "mostly Jewish" is King's observation and not LaRouche's. I have read the article by LaRouche and he makes no such observation (and I know of no evidence that this was historically the case.) --Marvin Diode 00:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be appropriate to remind all parties of what the BLP policy mandates:

The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

— WP:BLP

--Marvin Diode 13:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Marvin, all protected articles are at The Wrong Version, so don't judge George too harshly on that. Perhaps you could propose a phrasing change to fix the problem you see and gather consensus around that? Thanks, William Pietri 18:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation could be easily remedied by removing the gratuitous and unsourced claim that the Italian and British banking families mentioned in LaRouche's essay were "mostly Jewish." Of course, that would simply be a return to the version that George reverted. But don't misunderstand me; I don't blame George for protecting The Wrong Version, I blame him for protecting an article in which he was a participant in the dispute (see Misplaced Pages:Page protection,) and for having a totally bizarre misreading of the arbcom decisions he cites. --Marvin Diode 00:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

British elite

The paragraph transitions poorly from "LaRouche has connected it with a cabal of mostly Jewish banking families in London" to the quote below which only discusses the "British elite." Although it is in the citations, nowhere does it mention the idea that British is a code word for Jewish. When reading that section it makes it harder to follow the connection.

Also on the Lyndon LaRouche page the following sentence is in the section Allegations of antisemitism: This latter claim is disputed by author Daniel Pipes, who writes: "Dennis King insists that references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really `code language' to refer to Jews. In fact, these are references to the British." Perhaps this or something similar can be added as an alternative view to counterbalance King's assertions. --arkalochori 23:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Then let's also copy from Wiki's Lyndon LaRouche article the citation to (and link to a page image of) the illustration, in a tract by LaRouche, of Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David flanked by Henry Kissinger and Milton Friedman and with a caption calling the star a "satanic" symbol--Dking 14:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure I have no problem bringing in relevant material from another related article. It probably should have been there in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkalochori (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Syntactical glitches

{{editprotected}}

Can someone fix the broken {{quote}} under "Marxist Roots" and the broken {{quotation}} under "AIDS and gays"? These appear to be errors introduced as a result of El C's ref cleanup. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. By the way, is there any reason why two different templates are used for quotes? mattbr 07:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Attribution

{{editprotected}}

I have a simple suggestion to resolve the above dispute about attribution. Let the passage which presently reads as:

He associates the elite's medieval form with Italian banking families, primarily Jewish ones, that he blames, according to King, for poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague.As to the modern elite, LaRouche has connected it with a cabal of mostly Jewish banking families in London.

be amended as follows:

He associates the elite's medieval form with Italian banking families, which according to King are primarily Jewish ones. King writes that he blames them for poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague. As to the modern elite, LaRouche has connected it with a cabal of banking families in London, which according to King are mostly Jewish.

--Masai warrior 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I dispute that version. We've had a long discussion of this above and it appears that LaRouche does associate the "elite" with poisoning popes and causing the Black Plague. LaRouche describes what he calls the leading banking family of Rome as being "converts" from Judaism (his quotation marks).

• Some of these Roman banking families were Jewish...Historically the most important of such Jewish banking families of Rome was the Pierleoni. Emulating another Roman Jewish banking family which had "converted" earlier to Christianity, to successful benefit, from the finacnial advantages of the papacy, the Pierloeni "comverted" with the same purpose in view. One member of the family, styling himself Pope Gregory VI, took the direct route to his goal, buying the papacy from an incumbent pope. That sordid arrangement was nullified by intervention of the German emperor, and ex-Gregory VI and his heir Hildebrand, later Pope Gregory VII, were hustled off into exile.

I don't think we need to attribute the well-known Judaism of the Rothschilds to King. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Will is evading the issue. It is simple. LaRouche attacks an elite, which he does not specify as Jewish. He also attacks one formerly Jewish family, the Pierleoni. Will and Dking wish to extrapolate this in such a way as to insinuate that whenever LaRouche attacks an "elite" it is a code word for Jews. Masai warrior's proposal cannot be challenged on factual grounds -- the attribution is accurate in his version. It appears that it is being challenged for some other reason. --Marvin Diode 00:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that the proposed change does not affect the business about the poisoned popes and Black Plague, only the claim that the bankers are "mostly Jewish." --Marvin Diode 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph after paragraph of adulatory nonsense about LaRouche in this article is not qualified by "according to Masai Warrior" or according to "Marvin Diode." Nor can it be, unless they have published such opinions in a citable publication. Masai Warrior, who has revealed his name, cannot claim such publication, and Marvin Diode is still hiding behind a user name rather than proudly standing up openly for his leader, so we can't say for sure what he has or has not published. Yet when someone comes along with citable information and even provides the backup documentation for that citable information, the LaRouchian editors say it has to be qualified with weasel language. The fact is that LaRouche said these reprehensible things. The language quoted and requoted in postings above is quite clear.

My counter proposal is that all the nonsense about the thought of Chairman LaRouche that goes beyond simply describing his opinions as a political figure (including his attempts to stir up hatred against Jews, gays and other groups), and instead depicts him as a great genius with marvelous ideas in vast fields of human knowledge (fields like medieval papal history and Riemannian mathematics in which, in fact, he lacks the training and background to even express a valid opinion) should be removed forthwith from this article. Such information should only be restored if the LaRouchian editors can come up with statements from legitimate experts writing in legitimate publications that LaRouche has made a valid contribution to Discipline X or Discipline Y.--Dking 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Diode said above that I and other non-LaRouchian editors "wish to extrapolate in such a way as to insinuate that whenever LaRouche attacks an 'elite' it is a code word for Jews." Again MD is trying to evade the issue of LaRouche's open anti-Semitism by changing the subject to that of code language. What LaRouche said about the Jewish bankers in Italy is not code language, it is an open example of anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering. As to what he said about the London bankers, well, if you say the British Empire is the source of all evil, then say it's controlled by a clique of London merchant banking families, then give the names of four families as being at the center of the evil, with three of these families being Jewish and one a family rumored to be of Jewish descent--this is not code language, it's open Jew baiting, since in reality Britain was not and is not controlled by these families except in the addled minds of anti-Semites. Of course these examples could be used in helping to explain how LaRouche employs euphemisms on other occasions, but in the examples at hand the anti-Semitism is right out in the open. I added them to this article to correct the sanitized account of LaRouche's conspiracy theory of history that had been written by his followers, not to demonstrate his use of code language. If I had wanted to demonstrate his code language I would have begun by citing, as I did in my book, LaRouche's own writings on the subject. His followers may laugh at the idea of code language, but LaRouche himself takes it very seriously.--Dking 02:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article to note that you have this theory, but not to present it as fact, or to give you a soapbox with which to attempt to make your case. --Marvin Diode 14:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again you're evading the issue. The dispute is not over my or anyone else's "theory" of code language. The dispute here is over statements by LaRouche that are open and uncoded expressions of conspiracy-theorist Jew baiting.--Dking 22:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No quotes from LaRouche are being disputed here. The only bone of contention has been spin-doctoring editorial comments made in your edits. Please either respond directly to Masai warrior's proposal, or start another section if you feel it necessary to soapbox on other topics. --Marvin Diode 00:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This section is intended to be a focused discussion of the attribution edits proposed by Masai warrior. They seem non-controversial to me. --Marvin Diode 14:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with Masai warrior's proposal. It's just a clarification of what statements are Dennis Kings. --arkalochori 07:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request, then, that an admin make those changes. --Masai warrior 13:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the changes and request that they not be made until we can achieve a consensus. This has been debated at length and not yet resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you please specify what you think is inaccurate in my proposed version? --Masai warrior 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I already have, see my comments above, starting with I dispute that version. You never responded. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Because your comments above don't address my proposed changes. You speak of poisoning popes and the black plague, and that part is identical in both versions. Please tell me your objections to the changes that I proposed, which in both cases are the simple insertion of the attribution "according to King." --Masai warrior 06:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My view is that, when summarizing views expressed in writing, that we should only attribute opinions and interpretations about the writing, not obvious summaries. If an author writes, "the sky is blue", and a reviewer writes "he says the sky is blue", then we don't need to say "According to a reviewer, he says the sky is blue". OTOH, if the reviewer says, "he uses the sky as a metaphor for the ocean", then that's interpretation and should be attributed. Since LaRouche plainly says that the leading Roman banking family was Jewish and that it poisoned popes we don't need to attribute that statement to any reviewer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view: Does LaRouche directly say the banking families he is criticizing are Jewish? If so, then we have no problem since we're just reproducing his view. If not, then I don't see the issue in making it clear what reliable source we rely on for this information. It seems to be a non-trivial fact that we should cite. - Merzbow 00:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To repost the relevant quote from above:

• Some of these Roman banking families were Jewish...Historically the most important of such Jewish banking families of Rome was the Pierleoni. Emulating another Roman Jewish banking family which had "converted" earlier to Christianity, to successful benefit, from the finacnial advantages of the papacy, the Pierloeni "comverted" with the same purpose in view. One member of the family, styling himself Pope Gregory VI, took the direct route to his goal, buying the papacy from an incumbent pope. That sordid arrangement was nullified by intervention of the German emperor, and ex-Gregory VI and his heir Hildebrand, later Pope Gregory VII, were hustled off into exile.

So yes, LaRouche does say directly that some of the banking families in Rome, including the leading one, "converted" to Christianity from Judaism. The source is his own essay, "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites". Other text in the essay describes the poisoning of popes to clear the throne for preferred candidates. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree. Now onto the sentence about the British families... after wading through the above discussion the relevant LaRouche quotes are listed in this thread. Although LaRouche doesn't say they're Jewish (directly), King says that three of the four are. I have no reason to doubt this, but can we find a cite to insert into the article at this point? (Maybe King's book)? - Merzbow 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The material posted at #LaRouche and the London bankers citations from three LaRouche sources using Jewish families as examples of London bankers.

• The policy-shaping kernel of the enemy forces centered in the British monarchy is a group of private banking families ... These are notably the family interests of the Lazard Brothers, Barings, N.M. Rothschild, Hill Samuel, and other small private banking houses...

I'm not sure how those don't support the assertion that "LaRouche has connected it with a cabal of mostly Jewish banking families in London." There may perhaps be a slightly more precise way of defining LaRouche's thesis, but I think the summary already in this article is reasonably close. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is either Original Research -- because LaRouche evidently doesn't think that it's significant that the British bankers are Jewish -- or it comes unattributed from King's book. In the case of the Italian family, how do you justify the leap from one family being Jewish, to "Italian banking families... primarily Jewish ones"? And what is more to the point, these are clearly not "summaries" of what is in LaRouche's essay, but cherry-picked details meant to back up Dennis King's theory. That should be made clear. --Masai warrior 13:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, all I'm saying is that it would deflect accusations of OR if we cited that sentence to wherever in King's book he makes two points about LaRouche's words there: that three of those four British families are Jewish, and that this is relevant. Unlike with the Italian bankers sentence, this one doesn't stand alone just on LaRouche's quote. I don't have the book and its not online so I can't do it. - Merzbow 18:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why it is necessary in the first place to identify the religion of the bankers? --Niels Gade 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Lyndon LaRouche about that. The idea of this text is simply to summarize what he says. Regarding Merzbow's question, this change may cover it:

• He associates the elite's medieval form with Italian banking families, primarily Jewish ones, that he blames for poisoning popes and causing the Black Plague. LaRouche connects the modern form to banking interests in London, most of them Jewish.

While King's interpretations of LaRouche are worth noting, I think we can summarize this material without reference to any interpretations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It turns out King's book is online - in Chapter 29 here he says "Although LaRouche threw in a single non-Jewish family, the definition was essentially the same as Alfred Rosenberg's." I also notice that the paragraph in this article containing these sentences under discussion begins with "Journalist and LaRouche critic Dennis King wrote in his book Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism (Chaps 28-30)". Looks like we're covered. - Merzbow 22:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To others who still have issues... it seems clear to me that King is a reliable source, his book is a reliable source, LaRouche's quotes and the statements in that book support the wording of those sentences, and the paragraph and sentences are properly referenced. Is there another reliable source you can provide that disputes any of this? - Merzbow 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So we're good with the existing language? Thanks for taking the time to review this request. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'm fine with it now. - Merzbow 00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a Break magazine

The mention of Take a Break magazine needs a little more context - the reader would be forgiven for thinking that this is a women's magazine focussing on politics and economics whereas, in fact, its publisher's description reads: "Captivating real life stories, prize puzzles and competitions and classic weekly elements, combine to give readers an interactive and involving big value package". Can I suggest we add change the description of the magazine to "a women's magazine specialising in celebrity news and puzzles" and a link to the magazine itself (www.takeabreak.co.uk) and/or a link to the description of the magazine at http://www.tpconline.co.uk/website/takeabreak.cfm? LeContexte 10:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't think such a designation necessary, but since we don't have an article on the magazine (even though it has a claimed circualtion of 3 million), and since the LaRouche organization made such a strident response to it, it may be worthwhile to give a better indication of the magazine's genre. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The 3 million figure seems a bit optimistic - ABC, the industry body that measures these things, reckons the circulation is 1 million (http://www.abc.org.uk/cgi-bin/gen5) LeContexte 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Error in citation link

Citation 9 (The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites) links to "http://wlym.com/PDF-77-85/CAM7806.pdfl". The "l" at the end should be deleted. Could an admin please fix this? LeContexte 10:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Got it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks LeContexte 10:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Views of a cult figure"

At the beginning of the article it says that LaRouche's critics believe he has "views of a cult figure." That seems to be a strange formulation -- what sort of views does a cult figure have? I would think that a person becomes a cult figure because of some sort of social dynamic, not because of his opinions per se. --Niels Gade 21:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

the choice of words is strange - presumably it means "views typical of a cult leader". As you say, it's an odd point to make. LaRouche's views are quite unique and not particularly comparable with those of Jim Jones, L Ron Hubbard, David Koresh, or the other individuals who are often cited as cult leaders. Indeed, query if any "views" could be said to be typical of a cult leader (and I think this is your point). On the other hand, LaRouche's attitude to criticism and modes of organisation and fundraising might be said to be typical, and perhaps this is what the text is getting at. Should it be changed to "and accuse him of having being the leader of what is effectively a cult?" LeContexte 13:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the two editors above. The phrase is nonsensical and should be removed. However, the suggested replacement "and accuse him of being the leader of what is effectively a cult" is not appropriate in the lead paragraph because this is an article specifically about his views, not his activities. The issue of cultism should be mentioned further down in the article in a context of explaining relevant aspects of his worldview. There are numerous proper references that can be quoted on this.--Dking 22:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

good point! LeContexte 10:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The page is protected due to edit warring. Any change we make should be minimal and uncontroversial. I suggest that we simply delete the clause entirely and leave it at that. Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delete it. I added it when I changed the lead to remove specific statements and be more of a general overview. I was referring to the criticism of how his statements are slavishly repeated and defended by his followers, but it isn't necessary. --arkalochori 21:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So how do we get someone to do this? --Niels Gade 07:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there's no objection I'll do it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove the top image?

It's in the LaRouche movement template anyway, and it certainly adds nothing to an article on the views of a person. If there was a picture of him stumbling around foaming at the mouth... maybe. But how he looks at LRO so-called 'conferences' has nothing to do with his views. John Nevard 11:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem with using photos in templates. One nice thing about using it by itself is that a caption can give the context and date. Too bad his face is half covered. Does anyone else have an opinion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· —Preceding comment was added at 22:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it's duplicated in the template, I say nuke it. - Merzbow 00:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Will; that's certainly true regards photographs in templates. However, in this case the LaRouche photo in an article on his views is as relevant to the article content as say, a painting of Mohammed in the article on Islamic practices. It really doesn't add anything to the article, which is the WP gold standard. John Nevard 06:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that pictures of LaRouche pontificating or Mohammed praying could illustrate those topics, but I'm not arguing that this picture adds anything. Since no one is objecting I'll make the edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Left-wing/right-wing

In the first paragraph of the article it says "This is complicated by the fact that LaRouche's views have changed considerably over time, particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy, and moved towards the right." Having looked at the "criticism" section of Lyndon LaRouche, I find that while the Post was making the claim that LaRouche moved to the right, other notable sources were saying that he was still a leftist. I would like to propose the following to replace the sentence: "This is complicated by the fact that LaRouche's views have changed considerably over time, particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy. Since that time, commentators disagree on whether LaRouche should be classified as Left- or Right-wing." --Niels Gade (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Which notable sources call LaRouche a "leftist"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

National Review, Heritage Foundation, Gen. Daniel Graham. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I presume you're referrig to Graham saying in 1985 that LaRouche was "pretending" to be right wing, in other words he has the appearance of being right wing. But since that's just one view I don't think we should change the text. I don't see where the others call LaRouche a "leftist". Cites? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Graham called LaRouche an "unrepentant Marxist-Leninist." Heritage said he takes stands which serve Soviet policy goals. There is clearly no unanimity among his critics about how to classify him, so I don't think that the article should present one viewpoint as established fact. --Niels Gade (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As anyone who follows LaRouche knows, people from all political orientations have taken stands that served the policy goals of the USSR. But the specific question here is whether LaRouche is now a leftist. I don't think there are any contemporary sources which say so. The overwhelming perception appears to be that LaRouche is right wing, or even ultra-right wing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There are contemporary sources that say that? --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly sources within the last decade that describe the subject as right wing or conservative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Within a few short years, the LaRouche group mutated from the left to the ultra-right, embracing a fascist agenda of extreme anticommunism, racism, and antiSemitism...LaRouche's public addresses revealed a bizarre philosophy-a mixture of paranoia, racism, and right-wing ideology. "
  • "Black fundamentalism" Manning Marable. Dissent. New York: Spring 1998. Vol. 45, Iss. 2; pg. 69, 8 pgs
• "One right-wing party - Citizens Movement Solidarity - is headed in Germany by Helga Zep-LaRouche, the wife of U.S. right-wing extremist Lyndon LaRouche."
  • "FRINGE PARTIES SPICE UP GERMAN ELECTIONS;" KAREN CARSTENS. Seattle Times. Seattle, Wash.: Sep 25, 1998. pg.A.14
• " Shortly after leaving a meeting staged by far-right extremists, ... The meeting was organised by the Schiller Institute, an extreme political group linked to LaRouche that shared a deep anti- Semitic streak. The institute is led by Lyndon LaRouche, a US right- wing conspiracy theorist once sentenced to 15 years in prison for fraud and who stood in this year's presidential elections."
  • "The student, the shadowy cult and a mother's fight for justice: Jeremiah Duggan's death baffled German police and was labelled suicide. Now, 18 months on, new evidence has prompted a reinvestigation", Mark Townsend reports. The Observer. London (UK): Oct 31, 2004. pg. 3
• " It was actually a meeting organized by the far-right Schiller Institute, and Duggan found himself involved with followers of Lyndon LaRouche, an American millionaire and convicted fraudster with virulent anti-Semitic views."
  • "UK Parliament discusses suspicious death of Jewish student in Germany" JONNY PAUL, Jerusalem Post correspondent. Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Mar 27, 2007. pg. 07
• "The only setback in Mr. Sangmeister's political career came when he lost the 1986 primary race for lieutenant governor to Mark Fairchild, a supporter of the ultra-right, anti-communist Lyndon LaRouche. "
  • "George E. Sangmeister Illinois" The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Oct 20, 2007. pg. B.6

That should be sufficient to show that LaRouche is widely considered to be right-wing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be good enough. However, the sourcing, especially the Washington Post, Seattle Times and Jerusalem Post descriptions are unambiguous (which is interesting. I personally think of him as more left-wing than right wing. This may be almost a Fred Phelps sort of situation, if you get sufficiently crazy then your viewpoints will rarely fit in a convenient classification) In any event, the sourcing is clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable sections

Many of the sections don't seem to be that obviously notable. Do we for example have anyone who discusses the LaRouche-Riemann Method that isn't LaRouche or one of his compatriots? I'm wondering how much of this material is all that worth having an article on. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of those sections, including "LaRouche-Riemann Method", "Triple Curve", "Eurasian Landbridge", and "Physical science", were started as standalone articles and merged in here. While they are occasionally mentioned by LaRouche publications as major initiatives or theories, they are ignored by the rest of the world and are not often discussed in depth in LaRouche publications either. I don't think they merit the space they have devoted to them, but I wonder if it's worth the trouble of editing them down. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not just add a section of the form "Other views of LaRouche" and include a one sentence description of each of these? If no one objects, I'll add a proposed language on this talk page sometime later tonight or tomorrow. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I support that solution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I object. This article purports to be about LaRouche's views, as opposed to "criticism of LaRouche," which instead of having its own article is simply spammed into all articles about LaRouche. If you look at the biography of LaRouche at the Schiller Institute site , the LaRouche-Riemann method is prominently featured, along with New Bretton Woods, etc. Also the coverage of LaRouche in Russia and China places major emphasis on the Land Bridge. Since LaRouche's activity does not consist only of commentary, but also making specific proposals, the sections in question should stay as they are. I would argue that they are actually more important to the subject of the article than most of the rest of what is written here. --Terrawatt (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your objection is mainly irrelevant. Misplaced Pages is not a sounding board for LaRouche's ideas. And non-notable ideas are simply not notable. The fact that the Schiller Institute says something important has no bearing on its importance to non-LaRouchians. If you can find actual secondary sources these might matter. In any event, I haven't included the proposals in my section since they seem to possible require a separate section. But it is unlikely they should be given this much material. In any event, section follows:

According to the LaRouchites, LaRouche has constructed the LaRouche-Riemann Method, built on the application of LaRouche's concepts to the theories of Bernhard Riemann, although it is a philosophical and not a mathematical concept. LaRouche claims that this method has given him the ability to engaged in economic forecasting including a predictions including future economic crises.

The "Triple Curve", or "typical collapse function", is an economic model developed by LaRouche which purports to illustrate the growth of financial aggregates at the expense of the physical economy and how this leads to an inevitably collapsing bubble economy. LaRouche developed this concept from a project he conducted during the late 1940s and early 1950s.

He has made attacks on Sir Isaac Newton, alleging that he and his associates plagiarized Kepler's discovery of universal gravitation as well as claiming that Newton's calculus is inferior to that of Leibniz.

References

1. CriticsBerletBellman
2. LaRouche, "Inner Elites," p. 12
3. Pipes, Daniel, Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From, Simon & Schuster (Free Press), 1997, p. 142
4. LaRouche, Lyndon, "Non-Newtonian Mathematics for Economists," Fidelio, Winter 1995
5. LaRouche, Lyndon, "ECONOMY DESPITE ALAN GREENSPAN: What Connects the Dots?" Executive Intelligence Review, February 17, 2006
6. LaRouche, Lyndon, "The Economics 'I.Q.' Test" Executive Intelligence Review, May 14, 1999
7. LaRouche, Lyndon, Information Society: A Doomed Empire of Evil" Executive Intelligence Review, April 13, 2000
8. LaRouche, Lyndon, "Music and Statecraft: How Space is Organized," LaRouche PAC website, August 29, 2007
9. LaRouche, Lyndon, "Science is not statistics," EIR, September 15, 1997

Comments on JoshuaZ's proposed re-write

Given that substantial portions of this article are devoted to weird speculations and insinuations about LaRouche's ideas by Dennis King and Chip Berlet, I would also object to abbreviating those sections which actually inform the reader about what LaRouche actually believes. May I ask what the motivation is? Is Misplaced Pages running out of space? Could we delete some of the Pokemon articles instead? Or this there a POV warfare aspect to this proposal? --Niels Gade (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The objectionable aspects of LaRouche's organization are a lot more important to anyone who doesn't drink the LaRouche (Flavour)-Aid than his wacky and oh-so-lovable economic ideas, and they recieve a lot more attention from the real world because of it. Misplaced Pages is not your LaRouche fansite. John Nevard (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This comment reflects the problem of Misplaced Pages systemic bias WP:BIAS, because it reflects the prejudice in the US and the UK, manufactured by media overlords like Rupert Murdoch, and their little hired hands. There is a totally different perception of LaRouche in Russia, China, India and the third world, and Misplaced Pages should try to take a more global perspective.--Terrawatt (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please, this is just LaRouchite cult propaganda.--Cberlet (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you explain this article, published today, which will probably be read by more people than all English-language dailies combined? --Terrawatt (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So, this shows that he gets a little press and that as usual Chinese state media fails to understand US politics. The fact that LaRouche gets occasional coverage is not by itself that impressive. If he didn't we wouldn't have any article on him. Keep in mind, we've already established that there is likely enough coverage to have an entire separate article on his views. That his views are on occasion notable is not the matter at issue here. How much room to give them is the matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"...as usual Chinese state media fails to understand US politics" looks to me like an excellent example of "systemic bias." I suspect that on their side, they probably think "US corporate media fails to understand Chinese politics." --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Xinhua has on multiple occasions quoted from The Onion repeated uncritically. Indeed, Xinhua is a mainly a press agency rather than a news agency for news not directly related to China. And in any event, as I said if LaRouche didn't occasionally get some coverage he wouldn't be notable at all. So explain how this coverage shows we should give that much detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese government didn't publish that article by accident. They know very well who LaRouche is, since the People's Daily did a 7 part interview with him 2 years ago. I suspect that by giving him such prominent coverage, when they know that he is denigrated by the U.S. establishment, they are tweaking the U.S. establishment, much the same way that the U.S. media tweak China by lionizing the Dalai Lama. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could list the portions you think consist of speculation and insinutation. LeContexte (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In the "Theory of history as a conflict between elites," King managed to sneak in his "When LaRouche says British he really means Jewish" stuff. It is made to look like LaRouche identifies these banking families as Jewish when he doesn't. The same techniques recur in the "Jews and the Holocaust" segment. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime is there a consensus to replace the sections in question with the replacement section? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there is not. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what precisely your objection is? JoshuaZ (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think JoshuaZ's version looks good. This article is so long that we can't treat every concept at length. A summary verion is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. The citations prvide links for further reading. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I support JoshuaZ's version.--Cberlet (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised?

I would offer a variety of comments here. I agree with Will that the article is so long that we can't treat every concept at length. I would start by shortening the "AIDS and gays" section, which is by far the longest, and appears to be mainly a Berlet hobby-horse. This is one example of where a much briefer summary would be sufficient to make the point. As far as JoshuaZ's rewrite is concerned, I would say the following:

• The "LaRouche-Riemann Method" section should not be shortened, but it should be re-written by someone who understands what the hell LaRouche is talking about. It is presently as clear as mud. Incidentally let me say in advance, since I know that Cberlet will say that the L-R method is nonsense that no one can understand, that I don't buy that.

• "although it is a philosophical and not a mathematical concept" appears to be OR.

• In "Triple Curve" as it presently appears in the article, the last two sentences can go. They don't seem to be directly relevant to what precedes it. The explanation of what the three curves are, in the present version, is useful. JoshuaZ's version omits this, and I would oppose that omission.

• "Physical science" is fine as is, and I disagree with JoshuaZ's proposed deletions. I would particularly oppose deleting the links to other articles on the Newton controversy, because obviously LaRouche didn't start these controversies, he's just weighing in on one side. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the comment about phil v. math as it currently stands may be OR and should be removed unless we can get better sourcing on that. I'd appreciate if you would explain how a rewrite by someone who "understands" it would not be original research itself given that you would be working with a variety of at best hard to understand primary documents. As to what the Triple Curves are, I don't see why we need all the details (especially because I'm not completely sure what LaRouche means by hperbolic in this context.) LaRouche's complains about Newton seem to have almost nothing to do with the the historical controversy, but I wouldn't object to an inclusion of a link to the main article Leibniz and Newton calculus controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to do a short summary of LaRouche-Riemann. I can find a suitable article by LaRouche, link to it, and summarize it. That would not be original research. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And how what you would be writing not be a synthesis of the LaRouche's primary sources? Furthermore, since no one but LaRocuhe's followers have bothered to pay any attention to the details, why are the details at all important enough to be mentioned here? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have some sort of basis for your assertion that "no one but LaRocuhe's followers have bothered to pay attention"? The Russians have "bothered to pay attention." LaRouche was made a member of the Moscow Universal Ecological Academy in 1994 on the basis of the LaRouche-Riemann method. Now, if you like, you can go ahead with the Systemic Bias and say, "what do the Russians know about science? And who cares what they think?" --Niels Gade (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your first reference is at best questionable (and it doesn't make at all clear who the "Moscow Universal Ecological Academy" nor who the CNSR people are. Some indication that either CNSR was a reliable source and that MUEA was at all notable might help. As to your second source, all it is is a copy of an itemt in the "Executive Intelligence Review" which is a LaRouche mouthpiece. You may have a point here, but first you're going to need better sourcing to demonstrate it. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, after poking around the CNSR site I found that here they describe LaRouche as "one of the currently leading candidates for the 2004 U.S. Presidential nomination by that nation's Democratic Party" this makes me doube their reliability as a source just a tad... JoshuaZ (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. The U.S. press would never make a mistake like that. They'd make a mistake like this. --Leon Pringle (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Either make substantive comments or don't clutter up the talk page. The inane comic you compare to had no bearing on anything whatsoever. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite. What on earth is the Moscow Universal Ecological Academy, and why is the only reference Google can find to the CNSR article you cited? LeContexte (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I'm reminded of the months-long effort by User:Jacob Peters on the Stalin article to convince people that Stalin wasn't a dictator by spamming the article with tons of Soviet-era USSR and Cuban cites. Needless to say, nobody bought it. It appears the Russian media hasn't increased in reliability much since then... - Merzbow (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A different proposal

The second link that Niels Gade cites provides a concise definition of the LaRouche-Riemann method, which could be quoted as follows:

LaRouche-Riemann Method

Ukrainian Professor Taras V. Muravinsky, who helped translate LaRouche's So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? into Russian, comments on LaRouche's identification of the essential character of economics as a natural science, and observes that

Lyndon LaRouche writes about his own contribution to the development of economic science, that he was the first to realize the importance of Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics, for the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development. This was the origin of the LaRouche-Riemann method.

I suggest that this replace the present section on this topic. It's short, clear and not OR. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing in real scientific circles as the so-called "LaRouche-Riemann Method." It is a cult fiction. Terrawatt and Niels Gade are essentially repeating the claims of a well-known crackpot. Let's return to the sensible NPOV proposal under discussion.--Cberlet (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is getting coverage by non-US scholars do we for example have any scholars who have cited and discussed the LR method in peer reviewed journals? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We would need the services of some Russian-speaker who could take a look at the Russian-language internet, which I have heard is quite extensive.

Terrawatt's re-write is far more clear than what is presently in the article. I propose, however, that rather than having a special subheading, it simply be added into the economics section with an explanatory sentence along the lines of "LaRouche and his supporters refer to his economic theory as the "LaRouche-Riemann method." --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Because LaRouche's bigotry is a major reason for his being notable, and needs to be explored in detail because of the repeated denials of pro-LaRouche editors that it is important.--Cberlet (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that LaRouche's notability is tied to his bigotry. (Anecdotally at least when I first heard of him there was far more emphasis on the conspiracy theory element than the bigotry). Furthermore, repeated denial by LaRouchian editors should not alter what the NPOV version of the article should look like. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Many major mainstream publications that discuss LaRouche in detail highlight his bigotry, especially antisemitism, sexism, and homophobia. When the pro-LaRouche editors try to sweep something under the rug, it is generally an indication that it is because it poses a problem for LaRouchite propaganda goals. Therefore it is frequently an indication that it needs to be considered in detail in an NPOV way, such as the current text.--Cberlet (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

AIDS and gays

I'd like to submit the following much-shortened version of the "AIDS and gays" segment. I believe it gets across the essential points without the excess verbiage and WP:UNDUE problems. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In 1974, LaRouche formed a "biological holocaust task force" to analyze the effects of International Monetary Fund austerity policies in Africa. The task force published reports warning that these policies would cause a collapse of nutrition and sanitation, and could create an environment where pandemics of old or new diseases could begin. The reports compared the situation to the collapse of public health conditions which lead to the Black Plague which killed 1/3 to 2/3 of the population of 14th Century Europe. When AIDS was first recognized as a medical phenomenon, LaRouche activists were convinced that this was the pandemic about which the task force had warned. The LaRouche organization continues to blame the IMF for the spread of AIDS.

LaRouche activists formed the "Prevent AIDS Now Initiative Committee" (PANIC) in 1986 and in 1988 the "Prevent AIDS Now In California" (also PANIC) committee, each of which placed initiatives on the state ballot. The measures would have required that AIDS be returned to the California state list of communicable diseases, which are subject to Public Health laws. Both measures were overwhelmingly defeated at the polls. The Wall Street Journal wrote:

The initiative declares that people who have AIDS, or who are "carriers" of the virus generally believed to cause AIDS, would have an "infectious, contagious and communicable" condition. The initiative would require that people in these categories be reported to public health authorities. Opponents, including state, political, and medical leaders and gay-rights activists, say there is little simple or reasonable about the initiative. AIDS victims and those exposed to the virus — many of whom, researchers believe, probably will never contract the disease — could be barred from jobs involving the handling of food and could be banned from working in, or even attending, schools. The initiative also could bar people from traveling without permission of health officials, opponents say. Possible use of the state's quarantine powers has led Bruce Decker, chief fund-raiser of the opposition effort and head of a state advisory committee on AIDS, to raise the specter of "concentration camps" for AIDS patients.

— The Wall Street Journal

The argument in support of Proposition 69 which appeared in the Voter's Guide published by the State of California said that "These measures are not new; they are the same health measures applied, every day, to every other contagious disease."

Opponents of these initiatives characterized them as anti-gay. Since the gay community was initially one of the major sectors of the population to be affected by AIDS in the United States, the relationship of the disease to so-called gay lifestyles was hotly contested; among the measures which could have been implemented, had the initiative passed, were sexual contact tracing, which was depicted as an invasion of privacy by opponents of the initiatives, and possibly the closing of bathhouses or other environments where anonymous sexual contacts might take place. Under public health law, persons with communicable diseases may be subject to quarantine at the discretion of the health department; this possibility was raised to suggest that LaRouche wished to use the measure to persecute gays. Jean V. Hardisty, then director of Political Research Associates, charged that the "initiatives sought, in effect, to require quarantine for people with AIDS." LaRouche strongly denounced the gay community at the time for its opposition to his measure, using language which critics alleged to be homophobic.

This version is primarily based on LaRouchite propaganda and the LaRouchite POV about its critics. It is not NPOV. It is a total rewriting of history. It dismisses and diminishes serious issues and criticisms of LaRouche. It is without value as a model for further work.--Cberlet (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's an improvement either. The details of the PANIC initiative are covered in an article of its own. More suitable for this article are the statements that LaRouche has made about gays and AIDS, which are well-covered in the current version. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you believe that this particular topic merits so much space in the article? Is there any basis for a claim that it is a central theme in LaRouche's output? --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it deserves as much space as it receives. I was not arguing that point. I was arguing that your proposal does not cover LaRouche's view on the topic sufficiently and is redundant with another article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet's assertion that my re-write, which is dominated by criticism from the Wall Street Journal, is "primarily based on LaRouchite propaganda" is, of course, a joke. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite is crafted in a way that distorts reality and is POV. Not funny at all--in fact, it is another example of denying the central homophobia of the LaRouche cult.--Cberlet (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that Berlet is obsessed with trying to make Misplaced Pages into an extension of his slander site, since nobody bothers to visit his slander site, but lots of people read Misplaced Pages. --Polly Hedra (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to criticizing the text.

Return to single discussion on text - "LaRouche-Riemann Method"

JoshuaZ version

• According to the LaRouchites, LaRouche has constructed the LaRouche-Riemann Method, built on the application of LaRouche's concepts to the theories of Bernhard Riemann, although it is a philosophical and not a mathematical concept. LaRouche claims that this method has given him the ability to engaged in economic forecasting including a predictions including future economic crises.

• The "Triple Curve", or "typical collapse function", is an economic model developed by LaRouche which purports to illustrate the growth of financial aggregates at the expense of the physical economy and how this leads to an inevitably collapsing bubble economy. LaRouche developed this concept from a project he conducted during the late 1940s and early 1950s.

• He has made attacks on Sir Isaac Newton, alleging that he and his associates plagiarized Kepler's discovery of universal gravitation as well as claiming that Newton's calculus is inferior to that of Leibniz.

References

1. Baker, Marcia Merry, "NYC's Big Mac: Rohatyn's Model for Destroying Gov'ts," EIR August 25, 2006
2. "The IMF spreads AIDS in Africa" LaRouche PAC website, May 26 2007
4. "Prop 22 Causes Ballot Box Deja Vu", Patrick Runkle,
5. "LaRouche's Program for a War on AIDS", John Covic, The LaRouche-Bevel Program to Save the Nation
6. "Constructing Homophobia: Colorado's Right-Wing Attack on Homosexuals", Jean Hardisty, Public Eye
8. LaRouche, Lyndon, "Non-Newtonian Mathematics for Economists," Fidelio, Winter 1995
9. LaRouche, Lyndon, "ECONOMY DESPITE ALAN GREENSPAN: What Connects the Dots?" Executive Intelligence Review, February 17, 2006
10. LaRouche, Lyndon, "The Economics 'I.Q.' Test" Executive Intelligence Review, May 14, 1999
11. LaRouche, Lyndon, Information Society: A Doomed Empire of Evil" Executive Intelligence Review, April 13, 2000
12. LaRouche, Lyndon, "Music and Statecraft: How Space is Organized," LaRouche PAC website, August 29, 2007
13. LaRouche, Lyndon, "Science is not statistics," EIR, September 15, 1997

Comments on JoshuaZ's proposed re-write

I support JoshuaZ's proposed re-write--Cberlet (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine, but can we use another term instead of "LaRouchites", which sounds like a colloquialism? Maybe just "LaRouche supporters"? - Merzbow (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, JoshuaZ's re-write was not intended to replace "LaRouche-Riemann" method, but rather to replace two other sections as well, "triple curve" and "physical science." I disagree with this approach, since it doesn't provide a clear definition of either the L-R method, or the triple curve, and this can be done in relatively few words. I support Terrawatt on L-R method, and I think the present version of triple curve is concise and readable. These concepts are in fact central to LaRouche's message, as opposed to "AIDS and gays," which is peripheral at best, and as has been noted above, takes up a massively disproportionate amount of space in the article. If saving space is an issue, start by shortening that part. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche sponsored propositions regarding AIDS in California on two ocassions. They got enormous press coverage, including hundreds of articles. LaRouche based at lest one of this presidential campaigns on the issue. OTOH, the only time the "LRM' has been mentioned in the press are two occasions when LaRouche has listed it in his bio, and then in the Klein article. In other words, it's not mentioned in numerous detailed profiles of LaRouche. It's occasionally mentioned in the LaRouche literature, but without explanation of the theory or its predictions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Try here. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Klein calls the movement a "paper-based cult", so the existence of a self-published journal isn't definitive, though it does show some allocation of resources to the topic. LaRouche has made many proposals that can be lumped together under "physical economy". I'm not sure why it's not a whole section since it's a key point. MagLevs, canals, bridges, landbridges, roads, dams, nuclear power, and other forms of infrastrucure are often mentioned in LaRouche literature, but can be handled together by simply saying that he's in favor of them. How many bridges has the movement built, either directly or indirectly? None. How many initiatives has the movement tried to pass regarding AIDS? Two. So that's two to zero. As mentioned above the difference in press coverage is more like a 100 to 1 or higher. While LaRouche pays lip service to physical economy, he's gone much further in promoting AIDS legislation. Both should be mentioned, but we should not give excessive weight to minor issues. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If by "Klein" you mean Avi Klein, he's an intern at a minor political opinion journal. Otherwise, you are mixing apples and oranges, i.e., LaRouche's activism vs. his theory. The biographical article covers much activity (which you seem to overlook) in the promotion of his infrastructure projects, including his numerous trips to Russia, India, and other countries. "How many bridges has the movement built" seems like a facetious question, although I suppose you could argue that they are in the process of building a tunnel under the Bering Straits, "indirectly." However, to get back to the point, this article purports to be on "views," not activism, and if LaRouche's opinions on various "hot button" issues (which seem to be the only kind of views that the American press covers for any politician) warrant an article, than a concise explanation of his core theory seems appropriate as well. --Marvin Diode 15:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Pres. George Bush says that reducing government spending is one of his highest priorities. But most of his policies and actions have not been concerned with lowering spending. So it would be inappropriate to devote large amounts of space in our bio of him on his philosophy of spending, even though he may say it's one of his most important beliefs. Likewise with this former presidential candidate. We should certainly mention the LRM and the Triple Curve, but with so little coverage of them in sources we shouldn't give them excess weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just so tacky and untue that it needs a strong response. Avi Klein is a freelance writer. The Washington Monthly is a major publication for the inside-the-beltway policy professional. All the more reason to rename this article Debates over the Views of Lyndon LaRouche in order to prevent this article from being turned into a fanzine for a cult crackpot and convited crook.--Cberlet 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Can we please stick to one discussion at a time? We can discuss the AIDS section later. I object to the continuous tendentious and disruptive editing pattern of spawning multiple discussion topics while there is no resolution of any text changes. This pattern has appeared before on LaRouche-related pages and was noted in previous complaints on how pro-LaRouche editors frequently create massive discussion page chaos that results in other Wiki editors wearing down and giving up. Please stop this pattern. No matter what the intent, the outcome is tendentious and disruptive.--Cberlet (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with this proposal, see reasoning in previous section. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I too still oppose. It glosses over key views of LaRouche. --16:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrawatt (talk • contribs)

Terrawatt version

Ukrainian Professor Taras V. Muravinsky, who helped translate LaRouche's So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? into Russian, comments on LaRouche's identification of the essential character of economics as a natural science, and observes that

New version in response to comments:

According to LaRouche and his supporters, an essential feature of LaRouche's economic theory is the "LaRouche-Riemann method," where LaRouche applies Bernhard Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics to the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development. With the formulation of this method, LaRouche claims success as a long-range forecaster: LaRouche says that he predicted that if the policies of the Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower presidencies persisted, the second half of the 1960s would experience a series of international financial-monetary crises, leading toward a breakdown in the existing Bretton Woods system. The LaRouche-Riemann Method predictions for the future include a systemic crisis, and a general breakdown crisis of the global system if monetarist forms of austerity measures are continued. I also borrowed the last two sentences from the old version. --Terrawatt (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Third version in response to comments:

According to LaRouche and his supporters, an essential feature of LaRouche's economic theory is the "LaRouche-Riemann method," which applies Bernhard Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics to the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development. With the formulation of this method, LaRouche claims success as a long-range forecaster: LaRouche says that he predicted that if the policies of the Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower presidencies persisted, the second half of the 1960s would experience a series of international financial-monetary crises, leading toward a breakdown in the existing Bretton Woods system. Since that time, LaRouche has consistently claimed, for over 30 years, that the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system would lead to a more general, systemic breakdown crisis of the global system if monetarist forms of austerity measures are continued.

--Terrawatt 07:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Terrawatt's proposed re-write

I support Terrawatt's proposed re-write --Niels Gade (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I oppose Terrawatt's proposed re-write version. It highlights an obscure and marginal professor who is a dedicated pro-LaRouche propagandist. Find a peer review journal mention of the so-called claims or move on.--Cberlet (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that if the professor was anti-LaRouche, he would suddenly be neither "obscure" nor "marginal." Be that as it may, I think using the quote is awkward. I suggest just using the explanation, which is clear and straightforward, without framing it as a quote, and simply citing it to the same source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be sure, because it is not true. The framing and composition of the Terrawatt text is POV and unsupported. It is a sleight of hand. Let me try to explain it another way. It is as if every time LaRouche farts his followers announce he has invented a new perfume. To highlight this is to elevate the marginal to undue weight status. What matters is if the perfume manufacturers and perfume critics agree LaRouche has invented a new perfume, otherwise it is just putrid gas, no matter how many LaRouche followers praise its smell.--Cberlet (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have re-written it in response to comments (other than Berlet's personal attack.) And, I support my version. --Terrawatt (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What personal attack?--Cberlet (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. --Polly Hedra (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

<---So far there is no evidence that there is any such thing as a "LaRouche-Riemann method" outside of the LaRouche group and its allies. Feel free to jump in below and help search other scholarly databases. I've done two. If Marvin Diode, Niels Gade, Terrawatt, and Polly Hedra each do two database reviews we should have plenty of evidence to weigh.--Cberlet (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche is not being used here as a source on a topic which would require expert credentials. He is the subject of the article, and if he is notable enough to have an article, he can call his "method" whatever he pleases. --Marvin Diode (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

But this is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine for LaRouche. We should probably just rename the article Debates over the Views of Lyndon LaRouche. How do I go about starting that process?--Cberlet (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) LaRouche is not the subject of this article, he's the subject of Lyndon LaRouche. The subject of this article is the views of Lyndon LaRouche. The reason that 3rd-party sources are appropriate is to help gauge the relative importance of his views. While LaRouche's views of the Queen of England are widely reported and thus notable, his theory of economic forecasting is only mentioned in one reliable, 3rd-party source that I can find and that's the recent "Publish and Perish" article. That's an indication that the "method" is not important in the scheme of things, and that we should be careful of giving it too much weight. We should also be careful to include what reliable sources say about it, which Terrawatt's version omits. On the other hand, I agree that it's a philosopher's prerogative to name his theories as he likes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems likely that this debate, with the attendant insults and POV-slinging, will drag on. In the meantime, I would like to propose that Terrawatt's re-write of "LaRouche-Riemann method," which is both shorter and easier to understand than the current version, be substituted for the current version. Clearly some people would like to remove that section altogether, but I don't think that is likely to be the consensus -- in the meantime, I should think that everyone can agree that shorter is better. --Marvin Diode 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

<--------I disagree. The proposed Terrawatt version is biased and misrepresents reality. Here is a better version based on the failure of the pro-LaRouche editors to assist in determining if there is any real scholarly literature that backs the notion that there is anything resembling a "LaRouche-Riemann method" in the real world.--Cberlet 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

New version in response to reality:

• According to LaRouche and his supporters, LaRouche has developed what they call the "LaRouche-Riemann method." The claim is that LaRouche has developed an economic model of analysis that applies Bernhard Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics to the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development. LaRouche claims that on the basis of this method, he has had success as a long-range forecaster. For example, LaRouche claims that he predicted that if the policies of the Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower presidencies persisted, the second half of the 1960s would experience a series of international financial-monetary crises, leading toward a breakdown in the existing Bretton Woods system. LaRouche, however, repeatedly also predicted a global economic collapse throughout the 1970s and 1980s.(ref) King, Lyndon LaRouche.(/ref) Using the "LaRouche-Riemann method," LaRouche claims the future will include a systemic crisis, and a general breakdown crisis of the global system if monetarist forms of austerity measures are continued.(ref)LaRouche, Lyndon, "The Economics 'I.Q.' Test" Executive Intelligence Review, May 14, 1999 (/ref) No scholarly journals mention the "LaRouche-Riemann method," however, and its use and claims of its usefulness appear to be limited to followers of LaRouche.

How about this version?--Cberlet 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTA calls on us to avoid using the word "claim" when it gives an appearance of editoral skepticism. Terms like "state", "say", write", etc. are more neutral. I think the intro can be tightened up by minimizing some if the attribution. Lastly, I believe has been predicting economic collapse in the 1990s and 2000s as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't find Cberlet's version entirely objectionable, except for the last sentence, which is sort of gratuitious "nyah, nyah" -- anyone who agrees with LaRouche automatically becomes a "follower," so it's sort of a tautology. I also agree with Will's WP:WTA comment, which ought to be applied more carefully throughout Misplaced Pages. Suppose we substitute a sentence which says "Using the "LaRouche-Riemann method," LaRouche has consistently claimed for over 30 years that the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system would lead to a more general, systemic breakdown crisis of the global system if monetarist forms of austerity measures are continued.(ref)LaRouche, Lyndon, "The Economics 'I.Q.' Test" Executive Intelligence Review, May 14, 1999 (/ref)--Marvin Diode 01:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche has consistently claimed that the global collapse is months away--for 30 years. At some point it became absurd...even comical. As for the last sentence, I invite everyone to search scholarly journals for any mention of the "LaRouche-Riemann method." If no evidence is found, then it is entirely reasonable to call it bullshit--using language appropriate for a Wiki entry, of course. See below. Help with the search. Otherwise stop complaining that the sentence is unfair.--Cberlet 03:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a reason why the Chinese government chose this particular moment to push LaRouche's ideas. They are losing millions per minute as their dollar-denominated holdings collapse in value. And Berlet is wrong about LaRouche's forecasts -- it hasn't been the same one over and over. He nailed the '87 stock collapse, for example. --Terrawatt 07:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The text is fine with me, but I'd be more comfortable leaving out the last sentence, which approaches OR (even if true, which it appears to be). - Merzbow 05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it approached OR so closely as to be carrying its child. --Marvin Diode 22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have incorporated these suggestions into a third draft, above. --Terrawatt 07:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The draft is better, but doesn't make it clear that the predicted economic crisis has been imminent for the past 30 years. I can look up some cites, but I recall that he's often predicted that a crash has been due in the upcoming year, or the next presidential term, unless his policies are adopted. Further, what's the source for his 1960s prediction - just his 1999 speech? We can't use self-published sources for a self-serving assertion, such as that he predicted an economic trend correctly 30 years previously. Also, if we're going to mention this theory we should at least spend a sentence describing it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Will Beback/Cberlet team seems to be concerned that LaRouche might be receiving undeserved credit for predictions. I would suggest the following solution: simply omit the last lines. Or, if Terrawatt can produce a cite from LaRouche that demonstrates, for example, that he did correctly call the '87 crash before it happened, include that. To include an editorial comment that "LaRouche's predictions didn't come true" would be OR. Again, the simplest solution would be to omit those lines. As for the theory, the one-sentence description seems adequate -- it's not really a theory per se, just a novel use of Riemann's math to describe economic processes (which presumably cannot adequately be described using conventional math.) --Marvin Diode 22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If we omit the last line, and if we omit the 1960s prediction that leaves us with:

• According to LaRouche and his supporters, an essential feature of LaRouche's economic theory is the "LaRouche-Riemann method," which applies Bernhard Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics to the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development.

I don't object to that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not NPOV enough. How about:

• According to LaRouche and his supporters, an essential feature of LaRouche's economic theory is what they call the "LaRouche-Riemann method," which they claim applies Bernhard Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics to the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development.

Otherwise, poor Bernhard Riemann will be twitching in his grave.--Cberlet 00:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fine with me. --Marvin Diode 01:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's all right, but I favor restoring one sentence: With the formulation of this method, LaRouche claims success as a long-range forecaster, or maybe Using this method, LaRouche claims success as a long-range forecaster. We don't have to pass judgment on those claims. --Niels Gade 09:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not accurate. LaRouche does not merely claim some success, he is called by his movement "the world's greatest economic forecaster"., and he himslef boasts of "my published record of unequalled success of more than thirty years as the world's leading long-range economic forecaster". "In incontestable fact, my record as an economic forecaster, over the recent thirty-five years, is not only unmatched, but unapproached by any other known forecaster whose work has been publicly accessible during that lapse of time to date." "...world events have shown that my long-range forecasts have been consistently correct..." and "my becoming the most successful long-range economic forecaster known to the public in the world at large today." "I'm probably the world's best economic forecaster alive, today. That's been the case, since about 1957-58, to the present time. I have never made a forecast which was wrong," Etc. Also, he credits more than just the LRM for his unique skill so we shouldn't say that his success is due only to the LRM. I think the best, simplest summary would be, LaRouche calls himself the "world's best economic forecaster". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A run-through of some of LaRouche's specific forecasts is here: http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.FcrasH - I guess I slept through "the end to the existence of humanity as we know it" in the 70s. LeContexte 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so how about "*According to LaRouche and his supporters, an essential feature of LaRouche's economic theory is what they call the "LaRouche-Riemann method," which they claim applies Bernhard Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics to the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development.. LaRouche claims that this method has allowed him to be the best economic forecaster for the last thirty years. (and then add above links for citations). JoshuaZ 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You left out "world's." But otherwise I can live with this version. --Terrawatt 04:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I like "world's leading long-range economic forecaster," which recurs in Will's quote list. More encyclopedic. But either way, I'm OK with it. --Marvin Diode 05:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• According to LaRouche and his supporters, an essential feature of LaRouche's economic theory is what they call the "LaRouche-Riemann method," which they claim applies Bernhard Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics to the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development.. LaRouche claims that this method has allowed him to be the world's leading long-range economic forecaster for the last thirty years.

I propose that this be put in the article so we can move on. --Niels Gade 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Clearly there are reputable published sources that note LaRouche's penchant for outlandish self-aggrandizing claims. This paragraph is ludicrous without such a caveat.--Cberlet 23:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What can we add to include that caveat? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• "LaRouche had a gargantuan ego. Convinced he was a genius, he combined his strong conviction in his own abilities with an arrogance expressed in the cadences of upper-class New England." -- A '60's Socialist Takes a Hard Right by Tim Wohlforth

That has a nice ring to it.--Cberlet 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that my optimism about reaching a consensus on this was premature. But just in case anyone here is serious, I have an additional suggestion, which is that the last line mention that LaRouche forecasts a systemic breakdown of the financial system (his so-called "ninth forecast.") --Niels Gade (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-LaRouchite scholarly cites to "LaRouche-Riemann method"

Help by searching databases and reporting back the results.

Still waiting for "Next Cite Search? :"--Cberlet (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. As I indicated above, it's irrelevant to the discussion. --Marvin Diode 15:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't count your chickens.... It is still relevant. See above.--Cberlet 23:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar: Only Non-LaRouchite scholarly cites are to article dubious of LaRouche's claims of scientific authority. "Conjuring medical science: the 1986 referendum on AIDS/HIV policy in California."

Sage Journals: No cites. Searched all "485 journals in Business, Humanities, Social Sciences, and Science, Technology and Medicine" and result was "Your search criteria: LaRouche and Riemann in Full Text, published Jan 1879 to Nov 2008 in all SAGE content...matched zero articles."--Cberlet (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Next Cite Search? :

Next Cite Search? :

Next Cite Search? :

British conspiracy

There's a newish claim by the LaRouche PAC that "The Mass Youth Killings are NOT a Social Phenomenon; It's the British Empire's Orchestration from the Top" . This seems a notable enough claim to deserve a mention. LeContexte 00:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thois is part of the subject's views on video games and social networking sites. We recently added a small section on "Video games", but we should probably add the social networking stuff too. Someone added material on that to Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement which we could move here. Perhaps "Video games and social networking" would be a good section title. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Or, both could be combined under "Social engineering." --Niels Gade 08:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any secondary sources for these claims? JoshuaZ 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There are secondary sources for the video game material now in the article. I agree that we should try to find some for the social networking material as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There's this in the Washington Monthly article:

• When the group's older leaders eventually ventured online, they often stumbled. They were slow to grasp that although the Internet allowed the free dissemination of ideas, it also made criticism equally accessible. Around 2003, the organization set up a discussion board and then a Yahoo group, but both were discovered by a former member who delighted in asking inconvenient questions about Jeremiah Duggan, a young Briton who died in 2003 under mysterious circumstances at a LaRouche conference in Germany. Organization members shut the boards down and tried a more proactive approach, popping up on anti-LaRouche sites to defend the organization. That tactic only inspired more criticism, and confirmed to posters that the LaRouche organization was worried about what they were saying. Eventually, Youth Movement members were ordered to stay off social networking sites like MySpace, which LaRouche deemed an "Orwellian brain-washing operation."

Crooked Timber is a reputable group blog. Scott McLemee has written about LaRouche in a reliable source and been interviewed about LaRouche on KPFK. He may qualify as an acknowledged expert on LaRouche. Commenting on the WT article he says:

• All of this began to fall apart over the past decade or so—with the internet playing a fairly important role in the collapse both of the business and of the cult’s ability to control interaction between current and ex-members. Efforts to recruit a new layer of youth have only complicated matters by adding to the internal tension. The group has lately been targetting MySpace as an instrument of diabolical forces. (The design is certainly evil, so they may have a point.)

It'd be nice to get more, but this is enough to source a straighforward assertion like, In the 2000s, LaRouche initiated a campaign against social networking sites, including MySpace, which he called an "Orwellian brain-washing operation" and reportedly forbid its use by members of the movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I know people in the LYM, and the idea that LaRouche "forbids people to use MySpace" is laughable. He denounces MySpace, but how is he going to control what people do on their computers? Why would he bother? The Washington Monthly article is just yellow journalism. I am appalled, as I said before, when I see people on this page sing the praises of the Washington Monthly because it happens to suit their POV, or talk about a "reputable group blog" (I thought blogs were off limits as sources,) and then turn around and dismiss Xinhua because it doesn't suit their POV, even though it is the most widely circulated press service in the world. I can't imagine a clearer example of WP:BIAS. --Terrawatt 04:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No doubt Xinhua took that position from Pravda. I wouldn't trust either for accurate information on bizarre critics of the western world. As for control, why would the Scientology Organization prohibit people from accessing possible forums for criticism of their 'peculiar' philosophy? Why would the Chinese government? John Nevard 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see anything like an objective source on LaRouche. I agree that the Washington Monthly article has all the earmarks of a smear job, and I suspect that the Chinese government has its own motives for praising LaRouche. However, I agree that there have been comments on this page which show systemic bias. You can't just write off a nation of a billion and half people. --Marvin Diode 05:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you don't like what a reliable source says doesn't make is a "smear job" Washington Monthly is a highly reliable source. JoshuaZ 15:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Monthly piece was summarized in Wall Street Journal in its "The Informed Reader / Insights and Items of Interest From Other Sources" section.(Nov 9, 2007. pg. B.5) The WSJ has a good reputation for reporting and I don't think they'd base a story on another paper's article if they didn't think the underlying reporting was adequate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The WSJ was recently acquired by Neocon maniac Rupert Murdoch, who has a reputation for using the press that he controls for propaganda (remember "fair and balanced" Fox News?) Incidentally, Avi Klein's previous gig was with another Neocon outfit, the "Homeland Security Daily Wire." And his research is sloppy: he and the WSJ blog that you cite claim that LaRouche missed the boat on the internet because he was fixated on print media. The truth is that EIR has been available online for years now, along with Twenty First Century, Dynamis and Promoteo. There are also websites for LaRouche PAC, Schiller Institute, Schiller Institute Denmark, Schiller Institute Germany, and also the various LaRouche affiliates in Malaysia, Australia, Philippines, Sweden, France, etc. --Niels Gade 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche did miss the boat. The Scientology organization attacked opponents online for years before the LaRouche organization had a single website. Cults had to adapt or suffer losses. John Nevard 05:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's silly to suggest that the neo-cons have it in for LaRouche, when five minutes' research will show you that he's criticised across the political spectrum, from Trotskyists to paelo-cons LeContexte 11:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Trotskyites and Neo-Cons are interchangeable, two different stages in the same cycle. I'd like to see a cite where Paleocons criticize LaRouche, if you can produce one. And those politicians who support LaRouche tend to be traditional liberal Democrats like Gene McCarthy, George McGovern, and the numerous veterans of the Civil Rights movement who have worked with him. The ones who want his head on a platter are the Neo-Cons. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm just confused - wasn't LaRouche a Trotskyist? Does that mean he wants his own head on a platter? LeContexte (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

<--------------Reality Check: The findings of two academics who studied a LaRouche campaign contributor list (available from the Federal Election Commission) lend support to the thesis that LaRouche appeals to a paranoid constituency. In a 1986 press release, "Who Controls Us: A Profile of Lyndon LaRouche's Campaign Contributors," John C. Green and James L. Guth of Furman University identify LaRouche as "a new celebrity on the extreme right."

"An analysis of his campaign contributors suggests that LaRouche should be taken seriously, not as a candidate, but as evidence of the failure--and success--American politics," wrote the professors.

According to the results of the study, among LaRouche's contributors are a significant proportion of Northern neo-populist conservatives, "profoundly uncomfortable with modern America and susceptible to conspiratorial explanations of their distress. One seemed to speak for the others when he listed his major concern as `who really controls us?' To many of these alienated people, LaRouche's outlandish views offer a plausible answer to this question."

According to the study:

"Though LaRouche campaigns as a Democrat, most of his donors

are independents, with the largest group `leaning' Republican. but ordinary people as well, believing that no one can be trusted `most of the time.' Very few say they are optimistic about their future or that of the country. They are equally disillusioned with politics, 40% report having become discouraged and ceased participating at some point. These attitudes extend to current political groups as well. Three-quarters feel `far' from mainstream conservative organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce. Roughly equal numbers feel `close' and `far' from more reactionary groups like the John Birch Society. Uniform dislike, however, is reserved for liberal advocates

of change; the ACLU, Common Cause and Ralph Nader.

"LaRouche is most criticized for his political intolerance,

a trait exhibited by his contributors. To measure tolerance, we asked all donors to name a group they regarded as `dangerous' and then asked if they would allow a member of that group to run for president, speak in a public place or teach in public school. Only a quarter of the LaRouchians would allow a member of their `dangerous' group to engage in all three activities

and another quarter would allow none.

"LaRouche would probably approve of their choice of `dangerous'

groups: more than half of the mentions figure prominently in `conspiracy' theories of politics, such as communists, drug dealers, Jews, bankers, intellectuals and the mass media. Some `conspiracies' are explicitly named: the `zionist-socialist movement,' the `international drug ring,' `cartel control of money' and the `post-industrial counter-culture.' But other donors identify mainstream organizations and leaders as `dangerous,' including the `unilateral disarmament advocates,' `eco-freaks,' `Hayden and Fonda,'

`socialist Democrats' and `big labor bosses.'

"These kinds of attitudes occur among other conservative activists,

but rarely to this extent. And the LaRouchians differ from other conservatives in demographic terms as well. LaRouche's donors seem to be the remnant of the `small town America' of a generation ago. Nearly three-quarters were born in the Midwest or Northeast and more than half still live there, outside the major cities. Most spent their adult life in one or two states; the only major move they have ever made was to retire to the Sunbelt. Two-thirds are 55 or older, male, of WASP or German extraction, and products of [nuclear two-parent] families. They are not, however, particularly religious; most belong to mainline Protestant denominations and few are active church members.

"

The authors concluded, "it is alienated people who make fringe candidates possible. LaRouche should be taken seriously as a symptom of distress in a small part of the body politic. His limited appeal is a sign of the basic health of America politics."

Indeed!--Cberlet (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And this is relevant, how? --Terrawatt (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable Wikipedians template

The template which notes that Dking and Cberlet have edited this article should stay. Their names appear throughout the article as critics and sources, so it is proper for the reader to know that they also edit the article. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this

"Nor have his economic theories attained any kind of recognition. The LaRouche-Riemann Method, an economic model that LaRouche calls "the most accurate method of economic forecasting in existence," has gone unnoticed by the social science indexes. Many former members admit to not understanding it." from the Washington Monthly. Seems like a reliable source, and moreover, it seems to be true, which kind of begs the question why theories that are unnoticed have so much notice on Misplaced Pages. Gives the appearance that both the pro's and the con's want to use up as much Wiki space as they can grab, irrespective of the notability of any of this. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The basic question is whether you think LaRouche is sufficiently notable to merit an article about his views. If not, there should be a vote to delete. If so, his views should be presently objectively and accurately. The Washington Monthly article is a smear, sponsored by people who are familiar with LaRouche's economic theories and wish to suppress them. I'm not going to argue that the Washington Monthly shouldn't be used as a source, since I understand how things work around here. But the press coverage of LaRouche in Russia and China clearly demonstrates that in other parts of the world his ideas on economics have "attained recognition." --Niels Gade (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is silly. There is no evidence from reputable published sources that LaRouche is anything other than a crackpot theoriest, politically impotent, and non-notable other than as a convcited felon and cult leader. I have no idea why LaRouche has more Wiki pages than Francis Bacon. It is outlandish.--Cberlet (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The above editors illustrate my point quite nicely, I think. Seems to be a breakdown in the system. Out of a spirit of openness, I would have no complaints of a paragraph or two under this heading. Larouche, a convicted felon and minor party politician believes Queen of England, Rothschilds, drug lords, bla bla bla; gone unnoticed, bladibla; end of story. I can't imagine that the Wiki community wouldnt support and kindly enforce such an entry (I mean what, has the Supreme Court issued an injunction against deleting this crap?). But, seems to moi, that, as the saying goes, it takes two to tango, and the prodigious amount of server space afforded this silliness is the end result of some tacit agreement to carry on a conflict that no one other than the players really cares for simply because it is of benefit to the players involved (who spend ample amounts of space trying to convince us minions that it is truly really super duper important and the end is near if we don't heed (pick one)). Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a pattern develop over time, where a LaRouche article remains stable for a while, then Cberlet adds something provocative and derogatory (generally self-cited,) and then other editors rush to add rebuttal material. In this way the articles grow like a coral reef. I think that they could all be shortened. However, I wouldn't support what Boodlesthecat appears to be suggesting, which is to simply use dismissive material from LaRouche's more mainstream critics. Niels Gade's point appears to be correct, which is that outside the U.S. LaRouche is more warmly received. I'd like to see shorter, yet also more neutral articles. There is enough non-controversial material available to cover LaRouche without constant assaults on BLP. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to make my position clear. I support deleting all the LaRouche-related articles on Misplaced Pages except for Lyndon LaRouche. I would be happy to flag them all for a vote for deletion, is that is what a mjority of editors here want. The only reason I have not done this is out of respect for Will Beback.--Cberlet (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

While there have been a few positive press reports from Russia and China, I haven't seen any that have given serious attention (or recognition) to the "LaRouche-Riemann Method". I don't think we cn blame Cberlet for the amount of space devoted to that unrecognized theory. That material was written by user:The Power of Reason, believed to be a sock of user:Cognition. As one editor commented in the AfD for the standalone article, "Unfortunately LaRouche is a charismatic kook, and it is better to document his kookery than censor it." Regardless of what we think of LaRouche or his views, there's merit in documenting the views. Regarding Glade's view of the Washington Monthly article, this article has a section devoted to "LaRouche vs. the media". If we ever wanted to make this article longer that'd be a good place to start. Overall, I think this article serves as a useful catch-all for views which we'd otherwise devote space to in LaRouche's biography and other related articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the Eugene V. Debs article serves as a good model for structure and size (no actual similarities intended). No endless sidelines and the "wit and wisdom" etc. And this is an article on someone whose writings and life actually are influential. So Will Beback, I ask ya--what exactly IS the "merit in documenting the views" of Larouche (in abject contravention of notability and a zillion other guidelines) in an encyclopedia (much less the real world)? I don't at all buy the strawman "it is better to document his kookery than censor it" claim. Is every possible configuration of words that could theoretically be in wikipedia "censored" by virtue of not being included? The argument to make this a "catch-all for views which we'd otherwise devote space to in LaRouche's biography" begs the question. Just do the latter! Again, I'm baffled by why this is such a seeming conundrum when there are very clear guidelines on the matter, and simple enforcement procedures. It still makes me think there is some committment, some unwritten agreement to make this far far bigger than it is in real life. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking first the issue of the number of LaRouche-related articles: Many of the articles exist because they fit some definition of notability. The political parties, (Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität, Citizens Electoral Council, European Workers Party, North American Labour Party, Party for the Commonwealth of Canada, U.S. Labor Party) and California Proposition 64 are inherently notable. Several of the LaRouche associates, such as Robinson and Bevel, are independently notable. Many of the other articles on people or organizations could be merged into the umbrella article, LaRouche movement. (It's questionable to what extent groups like WLYM should be regarded as independent groups anyway). Then there are the articles about LaRouche himself: the bio, the views, the presidential campaigns, and the trials. I think we've done a reasonable job, as a dysfunctional ad hoc committee, of avoiding too much overlap between those articles but an unconstrained editor could coordinate them better. The presidential campaigns and trials received extensive press coverage and I don't think we devote excessive space to them. We don't even begin to include all that we could say about the campaigns with the many lawsuits and battles over FEC money, ballots, debates, etc. The trials are covered pretty well and I think it's one of the best articles on LaRouche topics that we have. We could merge the trials and campaigns into the bio but it wouldn't be easy. Lastly, there's this article. Since LaRouche's views on many issues are complicated and obscure it isn't easy or quick to explain them. By analogy, the complicated plot of a poor movie may take longer to explain than the simple plot of a great movie. I think this is the worst of the LaRouche-related articles but it is accurate and neutral. My overall conclusion is that, like many complicated living figures, we may have to wait until a decade or two after his passing before we can gain proper perspective on his life and impact. Until then these articles are a work in progress. While the fighting over the content is disruptive, the existence of these articles doesn't harm the project and serves as perhaps the best neutral resource about the man and his movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Winterberg and LaRouche in 1985.jpg

Image:Winterberg and LaRouche in 1985.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

1. LaRouche, Lyndon, "The Economics 'I.Q.' Test" Executive Intelligence Review, May 14, 1999
2. LaRouche, Lyndon, "The Economics 'I.Q.' Test" Executive Intelligence Review, May 14, 1999

• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Articles edited by connected contributors