Wikipedia

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 22

< Talk:Lyndon LaRouche
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Will Beback in topic Tightening
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Translation request

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Could we have a translation of the relevant part of the source material, please, from whoever added it?

In 2004, Russian academic GG Pirogov asserted that LaRouche had, in 1959-60, forecast that a series of monetary shocks would lead to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system (GG Pirogov, conference presentation to the Lebedev Physical Institute [3]).

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

:The relevant sentence, as translated by Google, is LaRouche is known as the author of two fundamental long-term forecasts - predictions. In 1959-60 gg. he predicted a series of monetary shocks, which lead to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system (fulfilled in 1971). The entire article is available in translation at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/Russian Academy of Sciences. See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Disallow or severely restrict foreign language sources. The characterization of LaRouche by Russian, Chinese, Arabic and Spanish-language sources is entirely different (and obviously, more positive) than what is found in U.S., British and Australian sources, and under NPOV must be included in the article. I have recast the material from Asharq Al-Awsat as a summary, rather than a quote, given the limitations of Google (which nonetheless is an "independent" translator.) See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40#China Youth On Line and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Forum International.
Please provide accurate edit summaries. When you deleted the Laird Wilcox rebuttal of Dennis King, your edit summary says "tightened." That's not what it was. Likewise in this edit, "tightened" seems to be euphemism for wholesale deletions. Regarding the length of the article, an obvious step would be to move the longest section, "Criticism of the U.S. Labor Party," to U.S. Labor Party. --Leatherstocking (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC);
This article isn't about Dennis King, so the rebuttal is out of place. The "Criticism of the U.S. Labor Party," section is misnamed and covers more than just the USLP. The Arab source seems to be given excessive weight.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
:::KIng's theory, that "British" is a codeword for "Jewish," occupies a prominent place in the "alleged anti-Semitism" section. If you read Lerman's short essay, the theory is clearly King's and King is footnoted. You have reliable sources that dispute the theory, and they must be included under NPOV. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC);
Why does it occupy such a prominent place in the section?   Will Beback  talk  01:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Leatherstocking, stop undoing my work. You're restoring bad sources, dead links, poor translations or none, and inappropriate material. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're insisting on including King because you want to knock him down. That's not the way to proceed. This article is about LaRouche, not King. Because you were complaining about him as a source, I replaced him with an academic. Now you're still complaining, because what you really want to do is use this article as a way of attacking him. Please stop using Wikipedia in this way. That section is fine as it is. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Postings by sock of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback  talk  03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted portions of this article

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I have been following the discussion of this article at the Wikipedia Review, and I agree that the following portions of this article were illegally removed:

  • Russian academic GG Pirogov asserted that LaRouche had, in 1959-60, forecast that a series of monetary shocks would lead to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system.
  • Russian economist and LaRouche movement member Stanislav Menshikov says that LaRouche is among those few economists who look at the root causes, and therefore see what others cannot see. Also: Russian economist Menshikov wrote that, in a July 25, 2007 webcast, LaRouche was the first to observe disorder in the mortgage sector and to conclude that the financial system was crumbling. LaRouche subsequently proposed legislation to halt foreclosures, freeze mortgage rates, and write off speculative debt obligations. Menshikov asserted that the proposal could have prevented the crisis had it been enacted.
  • Iqbal Qazwini, writing in the Arabic-language daily Asharq Al-Awsat, says that that LaRouche was one of the first who predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1988, and German unification. LaRouche also urged the West to pursue a policy of economic cooperation with the socialist countries like the Marshall Plan after World War II, which rebuilt Germany. Qazwini goes on to say that in recent years there has been a proliferation of the ideas of LaRouche in China and South Asia, calling him the spiritual father of the new Silk Road or Eurasian Landbridge, a massive industrial project which aims to link the continents together through networks of advanced ground transportation accompanied by the creation of industrial and agricultural development zones, and bring development to areas that had been kept isolated and backward.
  • According to China Youth Daily, the official newspaper of Communist Youth League of China, LaRouche warned in July of 2007 that unless US stopped monopolizing world finances, and united with China, Russia, and India to reorganize the world financial system, a new world wide credit crisis would be unavoidable.
  • Executive Intelligence Review Senior Editor Jeffrey Steinberg, writing in Belarus government newspaper Narodnaya Gazeta, says that LaRouche proposed a new system of international relations, built around the joint work of four leading powers—the United States, Russia, China and India. According to Steinberg, the proposal would create a core group of powerful nations whose activities would be based on respect for national sovereignty and aims to establish a rapid economic development through investment in large infrastructure development projects in Eurasia.
  • National Journal reports that LaRouche's solution to the crisis includes "fixed currency-exchange rates, massive spending on new nuclear reactors, and a rejection of all global-warming ideas" and that failure to follow his advice will result, according to LaRouche, in "a plunge of the planet into a mass-murderous new dark age."
Greetings. Sockpuppets are not welcome on this topic. Could you tell us what your main account is please?   Will Beback  talk  07:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You and SlimVirgin, the other WP:OWNer of the LaRouche articles, are such notorious fanatics that no one in his right mind would use an account here that he didn't want blocked. --Zola says (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
For more information, see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=26468&view=findpost&p=192448 --Zola says (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Only socks of HK have been banned for editing here. I don't know if you're one of them, but after dealing with more than fifty of them over five years my patience and good faith have been used up. As for ownership - if you check the history you'll see that HK and his socks have edited more than any one else. You're welcome to particiapte with your regular account if you're an editor in good standing. But socking on this topic for the purpose of pushing HK's POV and restoring his edits is not acceptable, per WP:SOCK.   Will Beback  talk  16:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor going by the name of "Slimvirgin" seems to be the one repeatedly deleting these items. "SlimVirgin" wrote at the time of the last deletion that the deletion had been "discussed and agreed." I see the "discussed" part here, but as far as "agreed" is concerned, no one seems to be putting forth any argument in support of deletion. Am I looking on the wrong page? Also, some moron has blocked my other account (Dunce with a blade,) claiming that I am someone named EricBarbour. Is this typically the way negotiations take place at Wikipedia? --Robin Roybal (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please correct the error - what is the name of your main account?   Will Beback  talk  18:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Suicide sections

Latest comment: 15 years ago56 comments5 people in discussion

I don't see the justification for including sections on the suicides of Jeremiah Duggan and Kenneth Kronberg. From what I can tell from the sources (and please correct me if I'm wrong), LaRouche was not even charged with any crime in connection with these deaths, nor were any of his followers. How then can we justify including them in his biography? I did a Google Books search on their full names in conjunction with LaRouche's last name, and found no valid hits on either. (There were a couple of unrelated hits, and in Duggan's case, several Icon Group books that simply reprinted portions of Wikipedia articles). In my opinion, these paragraphs fail the requirement of WP:BLP to cover the subject "responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." They give undue weight to conspiracy theories propounded by the distraught family members of these individuals. *** Crotalus *** 16:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the topic. First, this has been discussed for years. Have you read through the talk page archives? Second, books are not the best gauge for this. If we limited the article to what was published in books it would look very different, and probably 90% of it would be from Dennis King's book, the longest and most detailed account. Taking books published since 2003, there are teriary sources, like "Conspiracy encyclopedia" or "Elections A to Z‎", and references that are limited to special topics, such as the subject's early organizatin efforts in "The party: the Socialist Workers Party, 1960-1988, Volume 1" or his later political positions in "Fascism: Post-war fascisms". Even among the books published in this decade, I don't think any of them devote significant attention to his recent actitivities. The most significant book in the last decade on LaRouche is "Lyndon LaRouche: fascism restyled for the new millennium", but it is only 51 poages long and is published by a political group so it isn't a general purpose source. Since the books don't talk about LaRouche's recent activity I don't think that they are the right measure of the notability of these recent deaths. Third, the recent press coverage of these deaths all discuss them in the context of LaRouche. The Duggan death received extensive coverage in U.K. newspapers and was even the subject of a question in Parliament. All of that reflected on LaRouche. Fourth, the standard of only mentioning incidents that led to criminal charges or convictions is excessively high. For example, Richard Nixon was never charged with any crimes in the Watergate scandal, yet we mention the events in his biography because they are part of his notability.   Will Beback  talk  18:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The analogy to Watergate is flawed. Yes, it's true that Nixon himself wasn't charged with crimes, but he was forced from office as a result of the scandal. Equally important, several of his close associates were convicted of, or pled guilty to, Watergate-related offenses. In contrast, with the two deaths discussed in the article, there doesn't seem to have been any crime committed at all — at least not so far as the local authorities determined. I'm concerned that mentioning this here would constitute undue weight. We seem to be giving these very sketchy allegations more room in the article than the recent "Obama=Hitler" crackpottery, even though the latter seems to have received far more press attention. *** Crotalus *** 19:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the "Obama=Hitler" campaign has received widespread attention in the US, probably the most attention the LaRouche movement has received in 20 years. But the coverage I've seen is, as they say, "a mile wide and an inch deep". OTOH, the coverage of Duggan has been more limited to the UK, but the articles have been much deeper. Have you read those? The Duggan death is also the main topic of perhaps the longest article, about 8600 words, in the US press about LaRouche in a long while, which appeared in the Washington Post.[8]   Will Beback  talk  20:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Crotalus, the Duggan issue received extensive coverage in the high-quality media in the UK. See this extended BBC Newsnight piece by Tim Samuels as an example. [9] [10] [11] There was also a long piece in The Washington Post, [12] and a German piece here [13] (these are just examples; the coverage has been extensive). The reports have said that LaRouche was present at the conference in question, and remained in the area after it, so there has been direct linkage. Duggan was British, Jewish, and had received therapy at the Tavistock Clinic, thereby constituting three of LaRouche's pet dislikes (putting it mildly). There is therefore suspicion, and not only on the part of the family, but also on the part of a cross-party selection of British MPs, that his profile may have singled him out for special attention. The British police appear to agree, as they submitted their opinion to Duggan's inquest that LaRouche's organization is a dangerous cult. The issue of whether to reopen the investigation is currently before the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, so it's not a minor issue.
The unfortunate thing about these articles is that, over the years, sockpuppets from the movement have prevented us from producing a well-written, coherent bio that would explain why these issues are directly relevant. The same accounts then turn up on other websites criticizing the article as not explaining the connections properly. That kind of approach, along with the denigration of the people involved, is how the movement operates. What we should do is ignore them, and stick closely to what high-quality reliable sources are saying. In relying on sources such as the BBC's Newsnight, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, the article is on the safest ground that we're able to provide. We can never know the truth. We can only report what sources we have reason to regard as trustworthy are saying. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Slim, do you have a source asserting LaRouche was still near Wiesbaden at the time? Neither the WP nor the two youtube programmes mention anything to that effect. And are there any sources suggesting personal involvement by LaRouche in how Duggan was treated? --JN466 03:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
That LaRouche remained in Wiesbaden after the conference was reported by several sources, Jayen. I'll look around tomorrow and try to find one for you. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
We have the German Nordhausen article, which attributes the discovery that LaRouche was still in town to Duggan's mother. I am not aware of any others. I am not comfortable with the way this is currently plonked in this article. Witt quotes LaRouche's statement; we could say briefly what happened, with a link to the dedicated article on Duggan's death, and report LaRouche's reaction, as reported in the Post. --JN466 13:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Crotalus horridus. The media also reported Duggan being incoherent just one hour before his death; when he called his girlfriend, he said he had learnt that the "government" did "experiments on human beings, with computers and magnetic waves"; he believed "they had done this to him", and feared "there was 'an implant in his body'. He said he had discovered some 'very grave things'" and "'no longer knew what reality was, what was truth and what was lies'." These sound like the statements of someone very disturbed, rather than someone afraid of LaRouche's henchmen. At any rate, including this here does not strike me as "conservative", given the absence of any criminal charges being brought against LaRouche, or even any of his followers. --JN466 02:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Is a criminal conviction the standard for including material in an article? To repeat my ealreir analogy, Richard Nixon was never convicted or charged with any crimes, yet we report the Watergate allegations at length. And no one is accusing LaRouche of a crime anyway = these are just events that are relevant to his biography.   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Will, you argue too often that something is relevant just because it is negative, regardless of how poorly or tenuously sourced, or that it isn't relevant just because it is positive or neutral. You will have to do better than that here. How is it relevant? Who says it is relevant? How is LaRouche personally involved? Is there a source suggesting, for example, that LaRouche followers believed Duggan to be a brainwashed assassin, that LaRouche made Duggan believe he was brainwashed as he appears to have done in the case of White, and that Duggan was driven out of his mind as a result? If there is none of that, then it should be deleted here and covered under LaRouche movement. If there are such sources, then let's have them. --JN466 03:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
You think the Dugan matter is poorly sourced? The BBC and a half dozen major newspapers are poor sources?   Will Beback  talk  03:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Did I say that? This one is not poorly sourced, just tenuous in its relation to the subject (even factoring in that Duggan's mother says she learnt LaRouche was still in town at the time). It should go under LaRouche movement. We don't even mention the one thing that does link LaRouche to this incident, i.e. his comment that he thought it was a smear. As it stands, it does not work. --JN466 13:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
LaRouche made a notable and fairly far-out comment that he thought he was being smeared; I propose we mention what happened -- briefly -- with a link to the full article on Duggan, and give LaRouche's reaction. --JN466 13:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me.   Will Beback  talk  15:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the original source of this text:

LaRouche said Duggan's distraught mother had been pressurised into joining the global conspiracy against him: "The objective of the media smear campaign, linking LaRouche-affiliated organizations to the Duggan suicide, is to build pressure in several Continental European countries, and eventually launch a major disruption of the LaRouche campaign ... to assure that if there is a John Kerry Presidency, LaRouche will be nowhere near the premises."[1]

Is an article by top LaRouche aide, Jeffrey Steinberg,.. titled "The Bizarre Case of Baroness Symons" [14]. It's worth reading to get a better picture of the LaRouche worldview and how Duggan's death is a significant part of the plots against him. We have to be careful using it as a source that we don't violate BLP for other living figures.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. I've used LaRouche's own text instead now, the one already quoted in the Duggan article, which blames Cheney and his wife for the campaign. I wasn't really able to shorten the account of Duggan's death; this seems to be pretty much the minimum for it to remain intelligible. --JN466 23:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
That's what I've fouind when I've looked at it too.   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Will, my eels are not at all reared. Can you show me how to use your "eelrear analogy" to rear them?? Thanks..hugs and kisses!

81.210.193.175 (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nixon was my eelrear analogy. They didn't call him "Tricky Dick" for nothing.   Will Beback  talk  04:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, there does seem to be some support for the Duggan incident (guess it was a slow news day at the Washington Post). What about the mention of Kronberg, though? I see an opinion piece in the Washington Monthly, but of the sources given, that is the only one that mentions LaRouche's name. And it refers to the speculation surrounding the death as "conspiracy theories." (True to form, LaRouche's current and former followers immediately burst forth with conspiracy theories. Had Kronberg been deliberately goaded to commit suicide by the movement's leaders? Had this private and modest man killed himself in a public fashion in order to draw attention to LaRouche's murky finances?) Part of the problem is that LaRouche is a very marginal figure, and most of the coverage of him has been negative, so it can be challenging to balance our obligations under WP:BLP with our obligations under WP:V to reflect what the sources say. It's a shame that there has never been a neutral, academic account of the LaRouche movement by university scholars, as there has been with most small religious sects and many other fringe political movements. Right now we're basically stuck piecing together coverage by reporters (who are generally fairly neutral, but aren't really experts in political extremism) and critics (who have some very large axes to grind). *** Crotalus *** 17:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a certain irony that LaRouche, who is known as a conspiracy theorist, should himself be the subject of conspiracy theories. And yes, it's surprising that there has been so little scholarly interest in LaRouche's movement. There have been a few dissertations on Larouche or some aspect of the movement, but not books or even substantial articles. From the parts I've seen of it on Google books, the entry in International Trotskyism seems to be fairly neutral, and it may be the longest recent source in English (eight pages, double column, pp 944-952). Although I guess 1991 isn't that recent.
NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view with a weight proportionate to their prominence and without depicting any view as true or untrue. BLP requires that all material be properly sourced and follow NPOV. Since the views expressed about this subject in reliable sources tend strongly toward the negative it's unavoidable that the article reflects that. But even while reporting negative and positive views with appropriate weight we can still follow the neutral point of view. (Using the neutral point of view is not the same thing as having an article that contains equal amounts of positive and negative material).
As for the Kronberg material, it's relevant in a few different ways: first, it concerns a long-time, close associate of LaRouche; second, it concerns the financial operations of the movement; third, it involves a lawsuit tied to LaRouche's criminal conviction in the 1988. If you'd like to suggest some alternate text I'm open. It sounds like you've read the sources. (The Washington Monthly article doesn't look like an opinion piece, which are usually short essays. Why do you think that?)  Will Beback  talk  17:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how the lawsuit is tied to LaRouche's conviction. The article previously said that Molly Kronberg's lawyer was one of the same people who prosecuted LaRouche, but (a) this was sourced to a blog post, and (b) the blog post didn't even make the connection. Consequently, I removed that sentence from the article. This claim appears to have been original research, unless there is another source that wasn't included here. As for Washington Monthly, they are a liberal opinion magazine — like National Review on the other side of the political spectrum, they don't aim for objectivity. This is what I meant when I referred to the article as an opinion piece. That doesn't mean that they are unreliable, just that their claims are coming from a specific political POV and can't be taken as neutral like we would with a Washington Post or NY Times article. I'm still not at all convinced that one Washington Monthly piece and a handful of news articles justify the inclusion of Kronberg's suicide in this biography. If it involves "the financial operations of the movement," then wouldn't LaRouche movement be a more appropriate destination? *** Crotalus *** 18:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The lawsuit alleges that LaRouche libeled M. Kronberg by accusing her of perjury in LaRouche's criminal trial. Apparently that's a special form of libel or interefence with justice or something like that.
The blog is a reliable source, but the material sourced from it is not necessary. HK/LS kept inserting it because he thought it was somehow important.
There's no rule that sources need to be objective to be reliable. Very few sources are truly objective, and plenty of folks consider the NYT to be a "liberal opinion" newspaper. The National Review is cited as a source in countless articles. Further, both conservative and liberal politicians tend to have similar views of LaRouche. Republican Congressman Ed Royce said this over the summer:
  • The one thing Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians and Peace and Freedom all agree with is that Lyndon LaRouche is a nut case.
So the precise political leanings of a publication probably aren't an overriding issue here.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Let's have one more run at this:

New heading: Molly Kronberg lawsuit

In 2009, LaRouche, along with others, was sued for libel by Molly Kronberg. Kronberg charged that LaRouche and the other defendants had libeled her by implying that she committed perjury at LaRouche's trial, in order to falsely cause his conviction, and that her active support for the re-election of George W. Bush had driven her husband Kenneth to suicide.<ref name=Wagoner>Wagoner 2009</ref> Her husband had been a long-time LaRouche associate and co-founder of the Schiller Institute's ''[[Schiller Institute#Fidelio|Fidelio]]'' magazine; he had taken his own life in 2007.<ref>''The Washington Post'', May 1, 2007.</ref>

That is now about the part of this that is, even taking the most conservative BLP view, directly about LaRouche personally. I haven't checked the sources yet, just used the existing sources that were in the article. Would that do? --JN466 15:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's OK except that it doesn't mention that M. Kronberg was also a longtime member of the movement who held a position on the National Committee. Also, I don't think that the accusation is that they implied she lied, rather it's that the defendants actually said it. Also, it fails to mention the LaRouche memo urging baby boomers in the organization to commit suicide.

In 2009, LaRouche, along with others, was sued for libel by Molly Kronberg, a longtime follower of LaRouche and member of the [[National Caucus of Labor Committees]]' National Committee. Kronberg charged that LaRouche and the other defendants had libeled her by saying that she committed perjury at LaRouche's trial in order to falsely cause his conviction, and that her active support for the re-election of George W. Bush had driven her husband to suicide.<ref name=Wagoner>Wagoner 2009</ref> Her husband, [[Kenneth Kronberg]], had been a long-time LaRouche associate and co-founder of the Schiller Institute's ''[[Schiller Institute#Fidelio|Fidelio]]'' magazine; he had taken his own life in 2007 following a memo in which LaRouche said that Baby Boomers who cannot become human should commit suicide.<ref>''The Washington Post'', May 1, 2007.</ref><ref name=Wagoner/>

How does that look?   Will Beback  talk  17:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Fine except I've read varying accounts of who wrote that memo. Some sources say it was an associate of LaRouche's, rather than LaRouche himself. This is kind of important here; let's be sure we get it right. Will do some digging ... Cheers, --JN466 17:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The "Wagoner" source says it was LaRouche who wrote it.

In a memo dated April 11, 2007, which LaRouche sent to all in his organization, he praised the 18- to 35-year-olds as the leadership in his organization while criticizing those in the baby-boomer generation.

“The Boomers will be scared into becoming human, because you're in the real world, and they're not,” LaRouche wrote in the memo. “Unless they want to commit suicide.”

— Wagoner, Jana (August 25, 2009). "After suicide, Leesburg widow sues LaRouche," Loudoun Times-Mirror.[15]
If there are other sources with differing views we can add those too.   Will Beback  talk  18:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Dennis King is positive that the statement, while probably broadly in line with LaRouche's thinking, was signed by Tony Papert, not LaRouche. That is also how we have it in the article at the moment.
For reference, the context of Papert's statement, as per the excerpts cited by Dennis, was,
We're reaching the most active part of the younger generation. . . . We go to the Boomers: "We're your boss." "You? Who are you?" "We represent the youth, the leadership." But you have to make it stick! . . . The Boomers will be scared into becoming human, because you're in the real world, and they're not. Unless they want to commit suicide. --JN466 18:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Washington Monthly agrees with Dennis. --JN466 18:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see where the Washington Monthly attributes the memo to Papert. Are you suggesting using the King webpage as a source?   Will Beback  talk  18:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The WM source says "Written by a close associate of LaRouche's ..." So we could deal with the conflicting sources by saying something like "A memo written by LaRouche or a close associate said..."   Will Beback  talk  18:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Falls Church News Press also attributes it to Papert, by name. We couldn't cite Dennis's site, obviously, but it's equally obviously useful background research. We should try and get this right. JN466 19:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
HK's socks argued against using the Falls Church News Press as a source.
Are you suggesting that we use that newspaper as a source for this article?   Will Beback  talk  19:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting using that as a source?   Will Beback  talk  19:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Certainly not. Just for background research, to assess the plausibility of the conflicting claims made in reliable sources. Note that the author is clearly stated as Papert; the document refers to LaRouche in the third person. And lyndonlarouchewatch.org is an anti-LaRouche organisation. I might be suspicious if a pro-LaRouche org claimed LaRouche had not written the memo, but here I see no reason to doubt that this is an accurate copy of the original memo. --JN466 19:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
LaRouche has written about himself in the third-person before, so we shouldn't make any conclusions from that or really from any reading of a primary source. It's possible that the memo was written by LaRouche and sent out by Papert. Many things are possible, but we should stick with reporting what reliable secondary sources say. In this case, we have one source that says it was written by LaRouche and one that says it was written by a close associate. Rather than pick which one we think is right we should reflect both views.   Will Beback  talk  19:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's see: The Washington Monthly, probably the most reputable of these sources, says it was written by an associate. The Falls Church News Press names the associate as "Tony Papert of LaRouche’s inner leadership circle". The memo is online, its author is named as Tony Papert. Dennis King, who has authored the only major book on LaRouche and who is consulted by mainstream news sources, is positive on his site that it was written by Tony Papert. I don't believe the Loudoun Times Mirror has it right, Will. --JN466 20:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
What's the basis for saying that the Washington Monthly is more reliable than the Loudon Times Mirror? Elsewhere on this page another editor expresses a poor opinion of the WM. They both appear to be reliable sources to me. Unless you are arguing that the King and Benton pieces are reliable sources they don't count.   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
They count for me, Will. This is my assessment. --JN466 21:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If they are reliable sources then they have many assertions which would be relevant to this article that we should add. Otherwise, I think my suggested text covers the conflict between the sources: "LaRouche or a close associate wrote..."   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Will, we had exactly the same situations in the Scientology case. Self-published countermovement websites are not reliable sources, especially in a BLP context. But they still often contain useful information (in addition to often very unreliable information) which, while it cannot be cited, may inform editing decisions (as can the movement's own sources). Speaking generally, the Washington Monthly is an RS; so is the Falls Church News Press. Both have quite a small circulation (<50,000). The WM however seems to have more notable journalists working for it. Dennis's website and lyndonlarouchewatch.org are not in my view suitable sources, unless used as legitimate convenience links for previously published RS content. I find it disquieting that you would evidently consider using them for a BLP if other editors were to consent to such use. As an admin, I would expect you to uphold basic site principles, one of which is that self-published sources, even by an acknowledged expert, should never be used as third-party sources in a BLP, let alone as sources for controversial statements.
In this specific case, I have every reason to believe that LaRouche did not write the words which may have led to Kronberg's suicide. I am therefore strongly opposed to the idea of inserting any statement that he did, based on a single small-town newspaper that is flatly and plausibly contradicted by multiple other sources. --JN466 00:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the Scientology case. Are you referring to the ArbCom case?
Are you saying that Benton writing in the FCNP is a reliable source, contrary to the assertions of HK/LS and the limited agreement at WP:RSN?
I think it is you that has suggested we give weight to King's webpage.
We seem to have gotten into some confusion as to which sources are reliable and which aren't. So far as I can see from this and previous discussions, WM and LTM are considered reliable, and FCNP and lyndonlarouchewatch.org are not. Do we agree on that?   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I think given that both the accounts who posted at that RSN thread were now-banned socks, we need not feel bound by that very brief discussion. FCNP is not a top-drawer source, and given its small circulation I wouldn't give it as much weight as Time Magazine, say, but I stand by what I wrote above, that "the Washington Monthly is an RS; so is the Falls Church News Press". If you like, we can take it to RSN again to get a second opinion. It may also depend on what kind of statement we want to source to it; if it is something particularly inflammatory that has not been reported elsewhere, then that might be different. What specific statement was the discussion last time about? --JN466 16:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The article talk page threads concerning FCNP are at Talk:Kenneth Kronberg. The issue in dispute then was roughly the same as we're discussing now - the Baby Boomer suicide memo. The views of the non-HK folks at WP:RSN was that the FCNP is a self-published source because Benton wrote the article in addition to being the owner, publisher, and editor of the newspaper. If you think that view was mistaken and that the article is a reliable source then that's fine with me. As I said earlier, there are other assertions in that article that are relevant here. However since it's been discussed at RSN twice with similar results we probably shouldn't change our treatment of it without going back for a fresh opinion. We might also ask again about the status of the copy of the memo posted on King's website. There was some input that the memo would be an acceptable primary source.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a reliable source, and it says LaRouche wrote it. The words are clearly his own, otherwise what would, "Lyn concluded by addressing the youth: You must represent the ..." mean? Equally clearly, an assistant took his words and typed them up for the memo. So I'm failing to see what the issue is for us. We simply say LaRouche or an associate, then detail what the sources say in a footnote. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've moved the speculation about who wrote it into a footnote, so that the current text doesn't mention the author, but uses Jayen's point about the briefings being the outcome of executive committee meetings. [16] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, all things considered, that works for me. I've tweaked the grammar of the first sentence to make it less abrupt. --JN466 13:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Will, I hadn't read through all of the second RSN thread you posted above. Mea culpa; I read about half the way down, and everything being said was about Dennis's website, and I got a tldr reaction. Having read through the rest of it now, which did touch on the FCNP as well, I agree it's best to leave it there. Sorry for the muddle. --JN466 13:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just say what the sources say. It seems clear that these are LaRouche's words; the voice is the same as his other writing. It's also clear from: "Lyn concluded by addressing the youth: You must represent the ..." etc. But equally it seems likely that it would be an assistant who would physically write up the memo and distribute it. So we should just note what the sources say, including any disagreements, with in-text attribution if necessary. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Monthly says, "On April 11, 2007, Ken sat in PMR's offices in Sterling, Virginia, forty-five miles northwest of Washington, to read the "morning briefing," a daily compendium of political statements that reflect the outcome of the executive committee meetings held at LaRouche's house in the nearby town of Round Hill. This particular briefing struck unnervingly close to home. Written by a close associate of LaRouche's and addressed to the movement's younger followers, ..." That covers all the bases and neither overstates nor minimises LaRouche's input to the memo; I propose we use that as a model. --JN466 17:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There's an interesting signed editorial here that could be used in this or the Kronberg article. It's from Paul Glastris, the editor of The Washington Monthly, introducing Klein's piece and adding that the death of Kronberg could be a significant blow to a movement that he argues is simply LaRouche's giant vanity press. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree; it's an interesting angle. Presumably, this was part of what that memo was about; the move from print to the web. It would have been depressing indeed to someone who'd spent 35 years printing LaRouche's stuff. :( --JN466 20:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good point. I hadn't thought of it that way before. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
By the by, I think the Falls Church News Press has one thing wrong: where they say the document appeared to say that "the only way the “baby boom” generation, ostensibly including those among LaRouche’s own associates, can be in the “real world” is through suicide." I don't read it that way at all. What was meant -- in LaRouche logic -- was that people would either "be scared into becoming human" and living in the real world, or, if they failed to become human, that would be equivalent to committing suicide, because it would mean joining the "dead generation in the Senate" that the document talks about right at the end.
I am equally struck by how this must have read to Kronberg. The man dedicated his whole life to serving LaRouche's cause, to the extent that he was in major debt. He is told in this memo that his life's work was worth nothing, his generation has completely failed. His print shop is singled out for attack. The movement was "insane" all this time not to use the web instead, of which the memo speaks euphorically. So not only is Kronberg's past work not acknowledged, but the publishing focus is moving away from him. Being told that one is, in so many words, useless, "not even human yet", must have felt very hurtful indeed. --JN466 21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Physical economy

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why isn't there a section on LaRouche's theory of physical economy in this article? After watching several YouTube videos on this by different people, and having never heard of LaRouche before today, I came here hoping to find a synopsis of "physical economy" and its connection to thermodynamics and Vladimir Vernadsky. I hope someone adds something on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.190.195 (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Theories are covered in the Views of Lyndon LaRouche article. This article is limited to events. And the "LaRouche movement" article covers organizations and members.   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Australian media coverage

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Just a heads up,

I thought it was odd that Andrew Markus is used as a source in this article, given that the only book he has written that deals with LaRouche in any way is Race, and only two pages of that book are really useful to us. So I've decided to research the various claims he makes, particularly the descriptions of LaRouche quoted on page 129, and am now in the process of reproducing his sources at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Australian media coverage. I should be finished typing up the sources within a week, and will redact the text once this article has been updated. Cheers, Ottre 03:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have access to Australian libraries, a major book on the LaRouche movement was published in 1996, Beyond common sense : psycho-politics in Australia, by Don Veitch, a former CEC member. I've never seen it, but some of it it is summarized in this PDF collection of forum postings: [17]   Will Beback  talk  05:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my library has a copy. I probably will read it, used to follow the CEC in the late 1990s. Ottre 10:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:::One of your Australian sources, The Age, has a LaRouche supporter, Mr Hetherington, quoted saying he is the world's best economist. I bring this up because you said that line in the intro fails verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kibitzer (talk • contribs) 01:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Our policy on verifiability says that facts must be sourced to multiple reliable sources. Generally "multiple reliable sources" is taken to mean three credible sources, or two sources if they are non-trivial mentions. Markus takes the quote from just one source. You will note that the Madonna King article (in my opinion, the better article) from The Australian does not quote Hetherington as saying that.
Also, the Laurie Oakes article (which I have not reproduced, as it does not mention LaRouche) claims that "one of the most prominent figures in the movement is John Keohler who organised Perrett's by-election win", claims Keohler had recently "organised a conference to consider a national federation of CECs" and claims Keohler has written in the Wake Up Australia newspaper about the establishment of the Barambah Electoral Council. I suspect it's not appropriate to quote Hetherington at all; to be honest, he seems like just another follower of Keohler and not a leader who has been personally mentored by LaRouche. Ottre 02:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Source confusion

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Crotalus horridus removed the line "A co-counsel for Kronberg is John Markham, one of the federal prosecutors who investigated and prosecuted LaRouche in the 1980s" on the grounds that it does not correspond to the source that was given, Weissmann 2009. However, upon closer examination I found that it does in fact correspond to the source which preceded it, Wagoner 2009. I attempted to fix it, only to be reversed by what seems to be an inanimate entity called XLinkBot, for reasons that I was unable to understand. So, I tried to fix it differently, only to be reversed by Will Beback, for reasons that seem presumptuous all around: "rv trivia from likely sock." I'm not a sock; it's not "from" me, since it has been there all along but with the wrong source; and it's hardly trivia. The article says "Kronberg's widow sued LaRouche and others in 2009 charging that they had libeled her by implying that she committed perjury at LaRouche's trial to falsely cause his conviction." If her attorney in the suit is a prosecutor from the very same trial, the relevance is hard to ignore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kibitzer (talk • contribs) 06:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not a sock"? That's not a credible statement.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Further reading section

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The further reading section currently says "Further information: Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research". I was going to suggest this page be moved to a new title, but I'm not sure what the "correct" location would be since I've never encountered this situation before. At a minimum, it should be moved out of the "Talk:" namespace if it's going to be linked to the way it is, shouldn't it? Recognizance (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It should never have been linked. That research page exists solely to store excerpts from sources used to help write the article. I'm going to delete the link. Thanks for catching it.   Will Beback  talk  09:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Glad I could help in that case, and my compliments on the exhaustive amount of research that went into this article. Recognizance (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is it that so many people think Lyndon LaRouche is a libertarian? Tisane (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen a discussion of that per se, though I have seen other comments noting the error. I can only guess that the complexity and unusualness of LaRouche's platform leads observers to confuse it with a slightly better-known movement.   Will Beback  talk  17:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Conjuring Science

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Conjuring Science has some interesting information and analysis of LaRouche, starting here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. That book especially applicable to the article on the "LaRouche Initiative", California Proposition 64 (1986). (That article is due for a complete overhaul). We cite it once in Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#AIDS, which covers some of the same ground.   Will Beback  talk  18:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Could the person who repeatedly deletes this information [18] please provide a concise explanation of what is wrong with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.137.74 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

:There is no basis in Wikipedia policy for excluding any of the deleted material. It is being deleted because Will Beback controls this and all other LaRouche-related articles, and he has a particular slant which he wishes to impose. Generally speaking, he prefers that these articles characterize LaRouche as a John Birch Society-type right-wing crank, so he will seek out press reports that reinforce that impression, and exclude press reports which do not. Rather than attempt to construct an argument to justify this behavior, he will bully and intimidate any new editor that attempts to edit the articles he controls. As an example, examine his recent treatment of Dezidor.[19][20] This kind of behavior is actually forbidden under Wikipedia policy (see WP:OWN#Examples of ownership behavior,) but Will doesn't have to obey policy. Why not? Because he is an administrator. He became one by following the usual route, i.e., kissing lots of ass among the upper echelons of the corrupt Wikipedia hierarchy, and forming alliances of convenience with others who are doing more or less what he is doing. This creates an "old boys club" at Wikipedia where established users, especially admins, who push POV are protected from scrutiny, and may violate policy with impunity. --198.147.225.60 (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC) edits by banned user


But then again, nobody in the world is foolish enough to take Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, Will Beback, SlimVirgin, Chip Berlet and Dennis King serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.202.127 (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC) ikip

:Wikipedia has rules that say administrators must not protect pages when they are involved in a dispute or block editors with whom they are involved in a dispute. There is also a rule that no one is supposed to revert more than three times in a day. If you examine the history of this article you will see Will Beback routinely violating each of these rules. Which goes to show that no one takes the rules hear seriously, except as a means of getting their own way. edits by banned user

"Commentators" vs. "Critics"

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I have a problem with the wording of the introduction, where it says "commentators outside the movement regard him variously as a cult leader, fascist, anti-Semite, or left-wing extremist." This wording implies that the harshest criticisms are universally shared by those outside the movement, which is contradicted by what is in the article. I changed the wording to "critics regard him variously as a cult leader, fascist, anti-Semite, or left-wing extremist," but this was rejected by SlimVirgin. I think that this paragraph should either reflect the fact that there are some outside the movement who have a milder or even favorable assessment, or else the word "critics" should be used. Marshal MacMahon (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The change from "critics" to "commentators" was made by user:BillMasen [21] Back in September SlimVirgin changed "other commentators" to "critics".[22] I suggest we go back to "other commentators". While I don't think there's a problem with "commentators" on its own, "other" makes it clearer that these are not all commentators, just some commentators. The problem with "critics" is that we're labeling the people in a non-neutral way. Someone like King has a reputation as a critic of LaRouche, but I don't think any of the people we're citing have such reputations.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd be fine with "other commentators". SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Other commentators" seems fair. I would also favor keeping "left-wing extremist" because I am seeing it a lot (see [23] for example) and because there never seems to be a clear consensus about to what category LaRouche belongs, so the article shouldn't give the impression that there is. Marshal MacMahon (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There's apparently some weird relationship between the Tea Party movement and the LaRouche movement. They "LaRouchians" appear at Tea Party events carrying the Obama=Hitler signs, but the TP folks apparently reject any connection and take pains to distance themselves. Anyway, it's certainly becoming a more popular description. Once we have one or two dozen citations like that then we might add it. Let's start a list at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research#Far left.   Will Beback  talk  11:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

New material: LaRouche on Obama

Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion
  • During the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primary campaign, the first campaign in more than two decades in which LaRouche did not himself run as a candidate for president, LaRouche initially stated that he believed no announced candidates were qualified for office under the historical circumstances of a severe financial crisis.[2] However, by early 2008 his organizations were campaigning heavily in support for Hillary Clinton, praising her call for a moratorium on home foreclosures and describing her candidacy as one addressing the economic issues most important to the lower 80% of U.S. households.[3][4] LaRouche stated that the candidacy of Barack Obama was promoted by interests associated with the City of London to attack Clinton and prevent her from winning the presidency, and stated that he believed Obama would be unsuccessful as a general election candidate and was being put forward by these interests to sabotage the Democratic Party and allow New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to run successfully as an independent candidate for president.[5]
  1. ^ Witt 2004
  2. ^ Executive Intelligence Review, October 19, 2007
  3. ^ Executive Intelligence Review, January 25, 2008
  4. ^ Freeman January 18, 2008
  5. ^ LaRouche February 15, 2008
  • After Obama's inauguration, LaRouche for a brief period spoke more positively of Obama, initially praising efforts to achieve greater bank oversight and stating, "We have go back to Franklin Roosevelt, to his principles of recovery; and organize the world, under U.S. leadership, with a President who's willing to play that role. And I think President Obama is willing to play that role."[1] In February 2009, LaRouche went so far as to describe himself as "in support of President Obama personally" but warned that Obama's economic advisers, led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, were threatening to destroy both U.S. economic prosperity and Obama's administration.[2]
  1. ^ LaRouche Political Action Committee, February 11, 2009
  2. ^ LaRouche Political Action Committee, February 18, 2009
  • "Clinton Campaign Pulls Nation Back From Brink" (PDF), Executive Intelligence Review, January 25, 2008
  • "Save the American Republic From the British Empire!" (PDF), Executive Intelligence Review, October 19, 2007
  • Freeman, Debra Hanania (January 18, 2008), "Clinton's Fight for `Invisible Americans' Can Save the U.S.", Executive Intelligence Review
  • LaRouche, Lyndon (February 15, 2008), "Bloomberg Fools Them Again", Executive Intelligence Review
  • LaRouche Political Action Committee (February 18, 2009), LaRouche: We Must Act to Rescue the Obama Administration
  • LaRouche Political Action Committee (February 11, 2009), Webcast Transcript: February 11, 2009

{{reflist=class=1}}

This material was added without discussion. There are several issues with it. First, it relies exclusively on LaRouche sources. There's no indication that any independent sources have covered these issues. While self-published primary sources may be used sparingly and with care, they should bot be used "wholesale". Second, these are LaRouche's views. We have an entire article devoted to his view, so that would be a more logical place to cover material on his speeches and webcasts.   Will Beback  talk  22:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:But you are omitting the third paragraph in the section, which has a variety of other sources. That paragraph would be misleading as a stand-alone paragraph, because it is out of context. The two paragraphs you are discussing here are well-written and provide that context. Here are some additional sources that might be useful: [24][25][26] Marshal MacMahon (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We've already talked about the existing material. This thread is on the new material. Sure, we can use those sources. Based on those we can say that LaRouche believes Obama is a British agent sent to prevent Clinton from winning, that a LaRouche publication carried an editorial praising Clinton's primary win in West Virginia, and that followers distributed flyers favoring P.U.M.A.: Party Unity My Ass.   Will Beback  talk  12:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
We generally shouldn't include material about any third party that's sourced only to LaRouche, or that would turn this page into a platform for views that haven't been discussed by independent reliable sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point. WP:BLP prevents us from using self-published sources about living people, such as Clinton and Obama (and even Cheney).   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
In the article as it presently stands, there's mention of LaRouche's claim that Walter Mondale functioned as an agent of Soviet intelligence. Should we remove this? Should we also remove mention of LaRouche's comparison of Obama to Hitler? Or his claim that Elizabeth II is a major figure in the international drug trade? How are these remarks different from those now threatened with deletion? It seems the article would quickly become quite hollow (and useless as an overview on the subject) if we applied such a standard for inclusion of material. I don't believe that reporting on events in LaRouche's life that have drawn attention from outside sources, which include controversial statements about leading political figures, "turns this page into a platform for views that haven't been discussed by independent reliable sources" -- it just makes the article as good of an overview as possible about Lyndon LaRouche, the subject at hand. A bio article on LaRouche clearly is improved through rational inclusion of noteworthy events in LaRouche's life which provide a comprehensive picture of his political career (as sources outside his movement have seen appropriate to record). The interpretation being put forth here of WP:BLP appears overly strict, with no real history of the principle ever being implemented in such a way, either on this page as it stands or on other pages. I think the paragraphs in question clearly could be modified somewhat and additional sources should be cited, but see no convincing reason to actually not include any of the information presently detailed therein. Adlerschloß (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
LaRouche's comments about Mondale and Elizabeth II have been covered extensively in independent, secondary sources. His comments about Obama and Clinton have been covered only slightly, although the Obama=Hitler posters carried by members of the movement have attracted substantial attention. I'm going to use the sources listed above to add to the "View" article, and remove the material from this article. (However the Ballet.org suite appears to be self-published so that won't qualify.)   Will Beback  talk  01:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Pat Buchanan is a comparable figure in some respects. He ran for US President in thee of the same elections as LaRouche. He also hasn't been elected to any office, and he is best known more for his writings and opinions. But we don't include his views of subsequent candidates in his bio either. There's one short paragraph on a view about Obama, which seems out of place. We don't have to be quite that strict here, but clearly we need to keep this article focused so it doesn't get too long. (the Buchanan bio is about 3600 words, and this one is about 10,000 words long). Since we have an article on opinions, that's where properly sourced opinions should go.   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd also add that the June 20, 2010, Daily Bell interview is quite remarkable. Lyndon LaRouche Explains the Collapsing Western Economy and How the World Really Works. The Obama comment is just a tiny part. The interview alone is fascinating. The site and the interviewer are solidly within the Austrian School of economics, and so the perspective is clear. Following the interview, there's a long analysis of some of LaRouche's economic and political views that includes summaries and quotations of other sources. It analyses LaRouche concepts I've never seen discussed before in an independent source. While I don't think we should be looking to add material to this topic, this would be a good source to keep in mind.   Will Beback  talk  12:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::::If you were to move this section because there is an article devoted to LaRouche's views, wouldn't you also have to move the sections on the US Labor Party, Jeremiah Duggan and Kenneth Kronberg as well, because there are articles about them? That might actually be a good idea, because this article is too long. Marshal MacMahon (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If we're seeking to reduce the length of this article, the section "Criticism of the U.S. Labor Party" probably belongs in the U.S. Labor Party article rather than in LaRouche's bio article. The section "Frankhouser, WerBell, and Carto" also possibly could be reduced in length -- some details regarding events in the lives of these individuals, while deserving of mention in their own bio articles, aren't exactly directly relevant to LaRouche's bio. (I'll also note that the section appears to presently not even mention Carto at all despite his name in the section title, which should be corrected regardless of other changes). Arguably, the material in the sections on Jeremiah Duggan and Kenneth Kronberg could be combined into one smaller section, given parallels between allegations. (These events received enough media attention, especially in the case of Duggan in terms of British press coverage, that I think inclusion in LaRouche's bio article is called for, but perhaps the amount of attention given presently constitutes undue weight.) Adlerschloß (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
redacted

I found reference to LaRouche's brief support for Obama early in his presidency here: [27] Though it would appear he supported the president early on, his belief in a single-payer health care model clashed last year with the Obama administration’s plan. My own view would be that LaRouche's Obama/Hitler signs were so heavily publicized (probably amounting to the highest amount of American media attention received by LaRouche at least since the mid-1980s, and receiving far more attention than many of the events mentioned in this article), that not mentioning the recent highly-visible campaign against Obama's health care bill in LaRouche's bio article seems a bit strange. However, merely mentioning the posters and LaRouche's own most scathing comments on the subject, while leaving out even brief and reasonable context (LaRouche's views on Obama during the 2008 primaries and afterwards), appears, as Marshal MacMahon stated, to present a potentially misleading picture of LaRouche as a political figure. In terms of the Pat Buchanan comparison, I find Will Beback's statement here, "But we don't include his views of subsequent candidates in his bio either", somewhat puzzling because my own glance at Buchanan's bio article in fact does find mention of statements Buchanan made on subsequent political candidates -- the article even notes his endorsement of George W. Bush in 2004 and his criticism of John Kerry, and highlights a quotation by Buchanan on the subject. In the contexts of Buchanan's career, that endorsement qualifies as a notable event and I think its inclusion in Buchanan's bio article is obviously appropriate, and would argue that in terms of LaRouche's career, his active campaigning (and mobilization of his supporters) on behalf of John Kerry in 2004 and Hillary Clinton in 2008 easily deserve mention in any decent bio article. Adlerschloß (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've striken your first paragraph. Rants against other editors are inappropriate.
I've restored a slightly trimmed version of the original Obama paragraph. We don't have a usable source for any support for Clinton.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the comment in question which was redacted was not left by me but by User:Sanehpotsira [28]. I feel the article could use some improvements, and will continue efforts in helping this process along, but am really not interested at all in making those types of personal attacks. Apologies if my formatting decision of adding a new comment directly below that one (which was not signed), without staggering my paragraph, created an incorrect impression, but given the sorts of drama I understand has surrounded these articles in the past, I feel it appropriate to assert that my efforts here are in good faith and only towards achieving neutrality, not in any sense in support of or against anyone's political objective. Adlerschloß (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification.   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding LaRouche's support for Hillary Clinton, there is another reference, that I believe we should be able to use, here: [29] If things look ok, I'd be willing in the next day or two to attempt a rewrite of the material I had added earlier, using some of the sources we've laid out here (although I believe that, as in a great many other places in this article, citations from LaRouche organization publications should be ok in order to provide certain details related to matters that we establish are noteworthy through their coverage by other sources). Adlerschloß (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Shawagunk Journal, the news source for Ellenville, NY, population 4,130, only devotes nine words to LaRouche's support for Clinton. If we can find a way of giving it the same amount of attention here then that wouldn't be a problem. Please post your draft here first.   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Below is the basic language I propose for the section "2008–2009: LaRouche on Obama." If we go with this draft the obvious citations can be added where appropriate. Adlerschloß (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • LaRouche did not enter the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, and supported Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. After Obama's victory in the 2008 general election, LaRouche for a brief period issued statements in support for the Obama administration, before breaking strongly with Obama over health care reform and other issues. In 2009, during discussion of U.S. health care reform, LaRouche endorsed a single-payer health care policy, as opposed to the plan proposed by Obama. LaRouche compared Obama to Adolf Hitler, and the proposed health-insurance reform to Hitler's Action T4 euthanasia program. He said Americans must "quickly and suddenly change the behavior of this president ... for no lesser reason than that your sister might not end up in somebody's gas oven." The movement printed pamphlets showing Obama and Hitler laughing together, and posters of Obama wearing a Hitler-style mustache. In Seattle, police were called twice in response to people threatening to tear the posters apart, or to assault the LaRouche supporters holding them. During one widely reported public meeting, Congressman Barney Frank referred to the posters as "vile, contemptible nonsense."
Thanks for that, but sources are a main concern so we can't evaluate it with looking at the sources first. Please add them and then we can review the complete package.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

self-styled is not very neutral

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The first sentence of the article is "Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. ... is an American self-styled economist, political activist, and the founder of several political organizations known collectively as the LaRouche movement."

I think the term "self-styled" doesn't sound very neutral.

I think "self-taught" would be better, and better yet would be to drop "economist" from the first sentence, because the organizations he founded and his political activities are much more central to the article which follows.

Son of eugene (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC

I agree. The first sentence of this article is anything but neutral. I think it should be mentioned that he understand economics, but "Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. ... is an American self-styled economist" sounds demeaning. We need to come up with a new way to say that he works with economics.
Pregunta Loca (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

::I changed it to "economic forecaster," which is not a formal title but which describes what he is known for. Angel's flight (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

He's not known primarily as an economist, much less as an "economic forecaster". I've removed it and left it with poltiical activist and founder of the movement.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
He is an economist, though, and is well known for his positions and discussions about the current U.S. economy. A term or sentence of some kind needs to be put in to point this out. --Pregunta Loca (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Mr. LaRouche, an 80-year-old economist, " - New York Times - May 3, 2003 "LaRouche, an economist from Virginia," - Los Angeles Times - Oct 25, 1984 "political economist Lyndon LaRouche" - Washington Post - Oct 14, 1994 "economist Lyndon LaRouche" - UPI, Sep 15, 2010 "economist Lyndon LaRouche Jr." - USA Today - Feb 3, 2004 "Controversial economist Lyndon LaRouche, D-Va" - The Telegraph - Jan 13, 2000 "radical economist Lyndon LaRouche Jr." - Daily News of Los Angeles - May 11, 1992 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel's flight (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So many new accounts.
Ban them all -- you know you want to. Also, anyone who dares edit or comment on this article should first watch this superb series of instructional videos. Pachuco cadaver (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The intro says that he has "written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

NCLC, US Labor Party

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

There is excessive weight given to allegations against the NCLC and US Labor party, taking up an amount of space inappropriate for a biographical article on LaRouche. I did not remove the material, I moved it to the articles which already exist on those organisations. 190.80.8.6 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The subject was the undisputed founder and leader of those groups, and the material in question dealt with his role in them. It's appropriate for a biography to discuss a subject's activities and the public responses to them.   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
How do you justify devoting such a large portion of the article to highly questionable allegations made in the 1970s, when there is such scant coverage of the past 20 years of the subject's life? And respecting said allegations, may I call your attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons where it is written, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." 190.80.8.6 (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing titillating in the article. It'd be more fun to read if it were!
Reporters wrote about LaRouche more frequently in the 1970s and 1980s than in the 1990s and 2000s. The last independent book-length biography was published over twenty years ago. Scholars mention him primarily in just two contexts: AIDS policy and the handling of minor presidential candidates, thought they don't make him the subject of their study. There's just not as much written about him as in the past. Why? It's hard to really say what makes a person newsworthy.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I dispute your suggestion that so much space must be given to speculative and clearly "sensationalist" accusations because there is simply no other information available. By looking at the history of the article, one may ascertain that the sections for the past two decades were at one time significantly longer, but much material was removed by SlimVirgin and it is unclear why. After looking at this discussion page and its archives, I have the distinct impression that in the view of some editors, sensationalist allegations that depict LaRouche in an unfavourable light are highly "newsworthy," whilst more responsible coverage of LaRouche's activities is far less "newsworthy" and therefore is removed from Wikipedia. I think that this clearly violates the policy of Biographies of Living Persons. 190.80.8.6 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You know a lot about this article's history for someone who's never edited here. The points you're making have already been made by many of HK's sock accounts, and been answered many times. I'd be happy to discuss the article with any known editor in good standing.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

I have affixed the neutrality template, because an inappropriate amount of weight is given to sensational allegations from the 1970s whilst coverage of more recent activity has been deleted for no reason except perhaps to maintain bias in the article's presentation. One may compare these versions[30][31] to see how at one time there was far more comprehensive coverage of recent events. I should think it were better to post a Biographies of Living Persons dispute template but I was unable to locate one. 190.80.8.6 (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You keep looking more like user:Leatherstocking/user:Herschelkrustofsky. This is exactly the same kind of comment made by those accounts. Considering how HK recently stated his intent to conduct an experiment here, it seems likely that you are indeed that user. HK is banned from this site and may not edit under any guise, nor may he employ proxies or meat puppets.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry IP 190! Will suffers from the Fregoli-Delusion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fregoli_delusion , which makes him see several people as one, in this case, he believes

that YOU are his nemesis, HK. It is also his standard approach to stifle a discussion: First, he declares that you are HK, or another banned user, then that you "know too much for a new user" and that you are biased because of that. In reality, there exists no wiki-policy against new users or IP users. So go ahead please, I really don't want an article with the main content from the 70ies. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The names being bandied about are unfamiliar to me, but it seems safe to draw the conclusion that others have made similar objections to what is clearly the unbalanced presentation of this article. I should think that this would be grounds for corrective action. But I also see a long-standing problem of article ownership. I posted a request at the incident noticeboard but it drew little notice. Is there no other avenue to request some intervention from the management of Wikipedia? 190.80.8.6 (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

::::I agree that there is a neutrality problem. Thanks for providing these versions[32][33] for reference -- we should look at the sources and if they are good, we should reinstate the material. Angel's flight (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, we should not "reinstate" the material. Sock puppet theater is amusing, but let's keep it on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

::::::Charming. When I get a chance, I'll review the missing material and post anything that I think merits inclusion on this page. Then perhaps you can present a reason why it should be excluded. Angel's flight (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Go ahead, Will, ban them all! No one will know! Do other admins even care what you do at LaRouche articles? Of course not! Pachuco cadaver (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've been adding links to the references where I can find them, and I'm sometimes doing it as a link in the footnote if a template isn't already there. If someone wants to move the links into the references section, and do the magic template thing, I have no objection. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It can all be fixed later.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Material

Latest comment: 13 years ago32 comments6 people in discussion

Much of the material in question was sourced to what are now broken links or to LaRouche's own publications. However, I think these are reliable sources and should be included:

Iqbal Qazwini, writing in the Arabic-language daily Asharq Al-Awsat, says that:

Perhaps it is interesting to recall that LaRouche was one of the first who predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1988, and German unification. He urged the West to pursue a policy of economic cooperation for the advancement of the economy of the socialist countries like the Marshall Plan after World War II, which has rebuilt Germany.

Recent years have witnessed a proliferation of the ideas of LaRouche in China and South Asia, as the spiritual father of the revival of the new Silk Road or Eurasian Landbridge, a project of massive, industrial technology which aims to link the continents together through networks of advanced ground transportation accompanied by the creation of industrial and agricultural development zones, and bring development to areas that had been isolated from the world and the technical development accumulated in the West.(Qazwini, Iqbal, "Major International Crises Need a Giant Project to Overcome Them," [34], ;

January 23,)

According to China Youth Daily, LaRouche warned in July of 2007 that unless US stopped monopolizing world finances, and united with China, Russia, and India to reorganize the world financial system, a new world wide credit crisis would be unavoidable.("The Current World Finacial System is Unsalvageable" (现行的世界金融体系已经无可救药), by Ju Hui (鞠辉), China Youth Daily 2009-07-24)

The quote from Italian Senator Peterlini should be taken out of the footnote and made visible in the article.

The following I think should be included because the personalities are notable, even though it uses LaRouche sources. I think it's OK under SELFPUB.

LaRouche has actively collaborated with Russian politician Sergey Glazyev, and in 1999 the LaRouche organization published an English language edition of Glazyev's book, Genocide – Russia and the New World Order.[1] More recently, it also published The Anatomy of Russian Capitalism by economist Stanislav Menshikov.[2] Both books include introductions written by LaRouche. In 2008, Menshikov described LaRouche as being "among those few economists who look at the root causes, and therefore see what others cannot see".[3]

  1. ^ Press release, "EIR publishes book by Russia's Glazyev," Executive Intelligence Review, December 3, 1999
  2. ^ Press release, EIR Releases Stanislav Menshikov's `The Anatomy of Russian Capitalism', Executive Intelligence Review, March 23, 2007
  3. ^ Menshikov, Stanislav, "A view from a Senior Russian Economist as Crisis Leaps Across the Planet." Slovo weekly, October 17, 2008

Angel's flight (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the Asharq Al-Awsat and China Youth Daily sources are fine. I'm reserving judgement on the self-published sources for now. Cla68 (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, these materials were deleted for good reason. The subject is an American politician. Wikipedia articles should be based on the best available sources. By no stretch of the imagination are these the best sources for the subject. Further, relying on machine translations is inappropriate for anything significant. We've been over these many times before.   Will Beback  talk  11:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Will, your argument is inconsistent. Right now you are saying that American Sources are better than sources from other countries. But when I gave you five major American newspapers[35] saying that LaRouche is an economist, you rejected them. Also, when British sources publish some sort of nasty criticism of LaRouche, you don't reject them. So what's the real reason? Angel's flight (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What we do when looking for sources is use the highest quality, the most appropriate, and the best informed. It's not always clear what we mean by that. But in the case of an American politician, it's fairly clear that the most informed sources would be the ones who have watched and studied him over the decades. It makes no sense to write of an American politician: "On the one hand, 200 articles in The Washington Post say X, but one article in the Liberian Daily Thunder says Y."

Or of a British politician: The Times of London, The Guardian, and The Daily Telegraph see him as corrupt, but a freelance writer for Mother's Digest of Iceland thinks he's fabulous."

Add another factor to the mix, which is that the overseas articles are based entirely on what LaRouche has told them, or what LaRouche publications say. And it's clear to anyone reading them that LaRouche publications rarely reflect reality, especially when it comes to LaRouche himself.

The idea of scouring the earth for any kind of source who might have published something positive about LaRouche based on what they've read in his own publications, then providing machine translations of what they say, would not be appropriate editing, regardless of POV. There is no other Western politician that we'd do that for. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The arguments above are obstructive. It is a fact that foreign language sources from quality sources are permitted and commonly used in articles about politicians with connections to other countries, for example the articles about M. Albright, Bush jr, R.Reagan etc. etc. They are usually marked as foreign language (russian, german,..etc). SV's argument, that any opinion OTHER than the mainstream comes from an "obscure" source is in itself a "bandwagon fallacy" combined with a "Poisoning the well" -fallacy, the argument that LaRouche has somehow interfered with the foreign news source is a speculative "Poisoning the Well" - fallacy. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
If the two "foreign" sources (I put "foreign" in quotation marks because I don't live in an English-speaking country, so non-English sources aren't necessarily "foreign" to me) under discussion here are reprinting stuff taken directly from LaRouche's websites, then I think we'll need to see some evidence of that. Otherwise, I can think of several reasons why using non-American or non-Commonwealth sources are appropriate for this article:
  • As a reader of this article, I would be interested in seeing what media observers outside the US or other English-speaking nations think or say about LaRouche.
  • I would think that those sources might have a more objective or unbiased perspective on LaRouche. For example, my acquaintances who work in the Japanese media tell me that they believe that US media reporting on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is extremely biased, and therefore lacking in credibility.
  • The fact that "foreign" media are discussing LaRouche is significant, as it shows that LaRouche's movement and ideas are having an influence outside the US and the article should reflect that.
  • Who is to say that American or British sources are "better." I expect that the editors of the Arabic and the Chinese newspapers would take exception to that statement, and rightfully so. Who is to say that observers in other countries can't have informed opinions of LaRouche?
  • Whether the sources are praising or criticizing LaRouche should be immaterial to us. We shouldn't be taking a side on whether the information in this article about LaRouche is negative or positive (except under the guidance of our BLP policy). We're not supposed to care. We just report what the sources are saying, and that includes reliable, verifiable, non-English sources.
Because of the problems associated with machine translation, I don't believe we should use direct quotes from the non-English sources, but stating in general what they are saying should be fine. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with all of that, and if we could find good articles written by respected writers who really have done some research into LaRouche, then I don't care if they're based in Timbuktu. The problem is this: LaRouche gets himself invited to address some forum in China. A reporter turns up to interview him politely. For background, the movement refers her to its publications, and she dutifully—probably never having heard of LaRouche—repeats whatever she's directed toward. This is done very deliberiately to generate press coverage, which is then repeated in LaRouche publications and on Wikipedia ("LaRouche hailed as world's greatest economist by China Chess Weekly!!").
The difficulty lies in determining which foreign-language sources are of type A or type B. We're not familiar with the publications or the languages, so we're being asked to buy a pig in a poke. Perhaps we could ask on those foreign-language wikis, or Wikiprojects, for editors from those countries to tell us how authoritative the articles seem to be. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
85% of whatever you see printed is like that. There is no guarantee that a hatchet job on X in the NYT wasn't sourced from some opposition organisation. There are very few investigative journalists that are going to uncover the 'real' story. When I was actively campaigning in community politics, I had my 'special' reporter, a well presented release would get into the paper almost verbatim. You can see company press releases in trade journals presented as editorial. Take most run of the mill stories in any publication and they'll will have come from PR agents. In the last couple of weeks we have all seen 100s of stories about women and wikipedia from multiple sources, problem is that they are all the same story thinly rehashed from a WMF press release, in not one of those articles did the journalists do their own research on the topic and come to their own conclusions. You know it and so does everyone else reading this page, the idea that there are a bunch of sleuthing reportser uncovering the truth, is so 1950s James Stewart. John lilburne (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it's always difficult to judge. But when it's foreign-language media it becomes close to impossible. We had a situation recently in a BLP of editors accusing someone of murder based on multiple articles in Portuguese, the machine-translation of which was very poor. We can't be politically correct in a situation like that, and say "let's not be judgmental about foreign-language sources." We have to be judgmental. As I said, the best thing is to ask editors from those countries to let us know what they think about the solidity of the sources being proposed, and take it from there. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I recall that case, it was about someone whose notability was based purely in the Portuguese speaking world. As nothing could be sourced to him in English there was no reason for the en:WP to have an article on him. This is different there are sources in English and Foreign and the notability is based both in English and Foreign. If lay people can write articles on medical subjects they ought to be able to determine a) the authoritativeness of the publication, and b) manage to work out the gist of what the publication is saying. BTW I do know that Chinese Google translate is abysmal Ah. John lilburne (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but notability was only part of the problem with the Portuguese article, John. The big issue was whether we could source contentious content in a BLP only to foreign-language sources, where there was a question mark over how notable and representative the publications were, never mind what they were saying. The BLP policy used to say it was only negative contentious content that needed especially good sources, but now it covers positive content too: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That's because we don't want BLPs to be either poorly sourced hatchet jobs or vanity articles.
If the contentious content is sourced directly to LaRouche (he says he is the world's greatest living economist; he says he was the first to warn of a global financial crisis), then readers can judge how self-promotional that is. But if it's China Youth Daily saying it, it raises the question of why they're saying it. Are they saying that he said it, or that someone else said it, or what? We don't know, because we don't have a good translation. The issue of POV is a side issue here. It's just not good editing to add contentious material to a BLP (or anywhere) that's sourced to publications of unknown quality and articles that no one here can read. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

::::::::SlimVirgin, you have been spinning imaginary scenarios about how the naive and gullible Chinese, who obviously would know nothing about American politics, would be putty in the hands of the cunning LaRouche. In order to find out what really happened, all you have to do it click on the source links. The Peoples Daily interview was conducted in Virginia by the paper's Washington bureau chief. It is the official organ of the Chinese government, and the relationship to the US is of vital importance to China, so I doubt that the 8-part interview was undertaken lightly. Interestingly, each segment of the English-language interview begins with a quote from the intro to this very same Wikipedia bio of LaRouche, which means that the author is quite familiar with every tidbit of negative commentary that you and Will Beback have so painstakingly packed into the article (yes, I've looked at the history.) Then we have the China Youth Daily interview, also conducted in the US. It has been featured on tens of thousands of Chinese websites and web publications. And since the CYD is also a government publication, I doubt that it was a hasty decision to do so. I'm sure that the Chinese government has reasons of its own for putting a big positive spotlight on LaRouche -- just as the cartelized U.S. media have their own reasons for giving him the negative treatment. Wikipedia, however, is supposed to be neutral. Angel's flight (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What I usually advise when dealing with foreign-language sources for anything contentious, where no good translation is at hand, is to find editors from that language's Wikiproject, or to find Wikipedia translators. A good translation of the part you want to use is needed in any event. Here is the machine translation of one of the sources you want to use, and it makes no sense. So before arguing whether it ought to be used, the first thing is to find a native speaker who can give you a translation and offer an opinion about how authoritative a source it is. Then we would have something more concrete to discuss. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::I aleady found one on another talk page: Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche/China_Youth_Daily. Angel's flight (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
"SlimVirgin, you have been spinning imaginary scenarios about how the naive and gullible Chinese, who obviously would know nothing about American politics, would be putty in the hands of the cunning LaRouche" Angel, I loved that bit. Have you tried your hand at film script writing yet? Cheers! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
IP editor and AngelFlight, you two should cut out the juvenile taunts. Once you two start engaging in civil discourse, perhaps I'll return to participate in this discussion. Cla68 (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I'm sorry, it wasn't intented to be a taunt. I wanted to call attention to the inappropriate tone of SlimVirgin's comments, such as LaRouche gets himself invited to address some forum in China. A reporter turns up to interview him politely. For background, the movement refers her to its publications, and she dutifully—probably never having heard of LaRouche—repeats whatever she's directed toward. This is done very deliberiately to generate press coverage, which is then repeated in LaRouche publications and on Wikipedia ("LaRouche hailed as world's greatest economist by China Chess Weekly!!"). BTW why do we assume that the fictitious Chinese reporter is a woman? Are they more gullible? I don't think it's unreasonable of me to ask that we address reality and not these prejudicial scenarios. Angel's flight (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

We have spent 2 days in a speculative contrafactual wasteland. Can we get some work done now without gliding into amusing fantasies? That would be nice. My apologies, but i found those "what if" - scenarios very amusing. Now stick to the facts. Thank you. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite willing to discuss this if it's done civilly, but obviously I'm not going to stick around to be attacked. The fact is that LaRouche does seek out these interviews; there's no point in pretending otherwise. And they do tend to repeat what he says. The China Youth Daily is quite clear about that: LaRouche says X, LaRouche says Y.

It raises the issue of why not just say in the article what LaRouche has said, then link to both the primary source (him saying it, wherever it was said originally), and the secondary source picking it up (the China Youth Daily or whatever it is). The problem with the way this section was originally written (I'm writing from memory here) is that an impression was given that Chinese and Russian sources—as independent actors—were beating down his door to hail him as the greatest this, and the greatest that. Whereas what was happening was that LaRouche's people were simply arranging interviews or venues where he could make a speech, where he told the audience or interviewer what he was saying in his own publications. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Slim, there is no need to "write from memory" here. The versions have been provided by Angel's flight just some inches up the scrollbar. Let's see, this is what what written in the original paragraph, quote: "Chinese press coverage
In November 2005, an eight-part interview with LaRouche was published in the People's Daily of China, covering his economic forecasts, his battles with the American media, and his assessment of the neoconservatives.[128] In 2006, Economic Daily, a Chinese newspaper runs directly by the Chinese State Council published an extensive biographical article on LaRouche.[129] In December 2008, LaRouche was interviewed by China Central Television and Chinese Biz News, with the discussion focusing on his economic forecasts.[130] In 2009, China Youth Daily published a new article of this type in which it was reported that LaRouche had forecast the 2008 financial collapse in July 2007. Many people scoffed at his warning, the paper said, but after one year it came true, as had all of his earlier forecasts.[131]"
Now, Slim, you wrote, quote: "an impression was given that Chinese and Russian sources—as independent actors—were beating down his door to hail him as the greatest this, and the greatest that."
Please, Slim, don't "write from memory" when sources are easily available, and don't invent things that might have been in the paragraph. The memory, alas, is oh-so-feeble.
Cheers! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
In fact, this is part of the version some editors were trying to restore, though at times it was longer than this, and included something about Mexico too. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

:I'm sorry, but the claims you are making are flatly contradicted by what is in the sources themselves. And the snide tone that you are using makes it appear that you have a bias. Angel's flight (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Which part of what I said is flatly contradicted by the China Youth Daily? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

:::You say "LaRouche's people were simply arranging interviews or venues where he could make a speech, where he told the audience or interviewer what he was saying in his own publications." Whereas the CYD says "On a sunny summer afternoon, our journalist visited his mansion in the Washington suburb, and listened to his unique perspective on the current world economic crisis." The journalist is clearly "on assignment," not walking blindly into some sort of ambush. Earlier you suggested that the reporter "dutifully—probably never having heard of LaRouche—repeats whatever she's directed toward." That's unlikely, given that in 2005, in the 8-part interview in the widely-read People's Daily, the interviewer says "You are quite famous in mainland China today,"[36] and in a different installment "But it seems you are much more famous overseas than here in America."[37] I would add that you seem to be casting all sorts of aspersions on these sources, without subjecting the negative commentary in the article to comparable scrutiny. Angel's flight (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Angel's flight, why not post here the exact words you'd like to see in the Russia/China section—i.e. this section exactly as you'd like to see it—along with the sources and working links, so we have something concrete to discuss? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

:I will do that tomorrow. Angel's flight (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would make one small addition to that section, adding the People's Daily interviewer's observation that LaRouche is famous in mainland China and seemed better known overseas than in America. The CYD material could either be incorporated in that section or another one about the crash. The Egyptian coverage would just go in chronologically for 2003. Angel's flight (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Tatania Shishov, writing in Russia Today, describes LaRouche as "the greatest American economist, a prominent politician, one of the first to struggle with the financial oligarchy and its major institutions—the World Bank and IMF. He has no equal in the field of economic and financial forecasts."[1] GG Pirogov of the Russian Academy of Sciences calls him "one of the greatest original thinkers of the twentieth century."[2]; In November 2005, an eight-part interview with LaRouche was published in the People's Daily of China, covering his economic forecasts, his battles with the American media, and his assessment of the neoconservatives. The interviewer observed that LaRouche is "quite famous in mainland China today," and seemed to be better known overseas than in America.(Tang 2005)

According to China Youth Daily, LaRouche warned in July of 2007 that unless US stopped monopolizing world finances, and united with China, Russia, and India to reorganize the world financial system, a new world wide credit crisis would be unavoidable.("The Current World Finacial System is Unsalvageable" (现行的世界金融体系已经无可救药), by Ju Hui (鞠辉), China Youth Daily 2009-07-24)

Iqbal Qazwini, writing in the Arabic-language daily Asharq Al-Awsat, reported that LaRouche was one of the first who predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1988, and German unification. He said that LaRouche had urged the West to pursue a policy of economic cooperation similar to the Marshall Plan for the advancement of the economy of the socialist countries. According to Qazwini, recent years have witnessed a proliferation of the ideas of LaRouche in China and South Asia. Qazwini refered to him as the spiritual father of the revival of the new Silk Road or Eurasian Landbridge, a project of massive, industrial technology which aims to link the continents together through networks of advanced ground transportation accompanied by the creation of industrial and agricultural development zones, and bring development to areas that had been isolated from the world and the technical development accumulated in the West.(Qazwini, Iqbal, "Major International Crises Need a Giant Project to Overcome Them," [38], ; January 23, 2003)
Thanks for writing this up. I don't think I have any objections in principle, though I wouldn't mind tightening it a little, especially the last paragraph. What is the Egyptian coverage, by the way?
Does anyone else have thoughts about whether to add this? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I just noticed you've included material from a dead link that we can't find a replacement for (Russian Today). Also, can you link to a translation for the second Russian citation (GG Pirogov)? I've just looked but can't find LaRouche in it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Sorry, Asharq Al-Awsat is not Egyptian. I must have Egypt on the brain. I followed the Pirogov link and got a rough translation -- I use a Google Chrome browser which offers to translate foreign text. It's the 4th essay on the page. The Shishov interview is archived in Russian (I don't know what language the original link was in) here: [39] I set up a subpage here with the raw machine translations: Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/russian Angel's flight (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Tightening

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

I started tightening bits of this recently, and I'm about to go in and tighten some more, particularly toward the end. I'd normally have incorporated the China/Russia section into some other section, but as it's being discussed I won't edit it for now. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

: I would like to thank you for your edit reducing the emphasis on Tim Wohlworth, because I think his opinions are given undue weight in this article. But I am wondering why you deleted the "expand section" tags. That is currently an open dispute. You also deleted this line: "A spokesman for the German public prosecution service said in 2007 that Duggan's mother simply cannot accept that her son committed suicide"(ref name=Degen), which tilts that section too much toward one POV. These are controversial edits which ought to be raised beforehand on this page. Angel's flight (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm tightening wherever possible, and the "expand section" tags shouldn't be there, because they don't actually achieve anything. If people want to read the details about Duggan they can go there; it's all in the lead.
Rather than discussing what's missing or UNDUE, what would be more helpful for now is if you could identify anything you think might actually be wrong, or poorly sourced/unsourced. That's the more important issue, and easier to deal with quickly. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

:::If "expand section" tags "don't actually achieve anything", why to we have them? It seems to me that the whole basis for the neutrality dispute is precisely that things are missing or UNDUE. And one could just as easily argue that the entire Duggan section is unnecessary, because readers can "go there" to the other article. But if we are to include a chunk of it here, it ought to be balanced. Angel's flight (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Duggan section is fine. We have (a) the Germans think it was suicide, (b) a British coroner said not, (c) the family thinks it was because of a recruitment attempt, (d) LaRouche says it's a press hoax, (e) a court has ordered a second inquest. That's everyone's view expressed once. That's more than fair to LaRouche given how overwhelmingly negative the international press coverage has been.
As for the tags, I can't say why they exist.
Is there anything in the article you regard as wrong or poorly sourced? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What you call "tightening" seems to involve a lot of controversial edits. For example, you removed this sentence: We of the press should be chary of offering them print or air time. There is no reason to be too delicate about it: Every day we decide whose voices to relay from the Washington Post editorial. You offered no explanation for doing so. This sentence is highly revealing of the mindset of LaRouche's critics and I have restored it. You should seek consensus for these sorts of edits and wait until the the neutrality dispute has been resolved. Angel's flight (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


What is the point of restoring the long description of Werbell?

Mitchell L. Werbell, an Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative, mercenary, accused drug trafficker, firearms engineer, and arms dealer who said he had an ongoing connection to the CIA.

What's wrong with saying arms dealer, or mercenary who said he had ties to the CIA, or something similar? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
We have an article on Mitchell WerBell III, so there's no need for a full recap of his job titles. A single descriptor would be sufficient.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

:::He was clearly a significant person in both OSS and CIA, who later became something of a rogue operative (mercenary, arms dealer.) If you mention one side of him without the other, it's oversimplification (would you be satisfied if the the article said only "OSS and CIA veteran"?) He is often referred to as Lt. General Mitchell WerBell, although there are conflicting explanations as to why. Angel's flight (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

He was clearly a significant person in both OSS and CIA, ...
I don't see any indication of that in his bio, which just says he was an operative of the OSS who carried out a secret mission, and that he had some CIA contact in 1972. It sounds more like he was a low-level person in those organizations. I suppose the "accused drug dealer" is amusing because of LaRouche's views on drug trafficking, and IIRC that was pointed out in a reliable source, but this isn't a bio of WerBell so we should probably limit the list to the most relevant job titles.   Will Beback  talk  09:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Do we have links to these news agency reports? I can't find any trace of them on Google, except with reference to this article.

In 1999, China's press agency, the Xinhua News Agency, reported that LaRouche had criticized the Cox Report, a congressional investigation that accused the Chinese of stealing U.S. nuclear weapons secrets.[3] LaRouche called the report "intrinsically fraudulent," and "a reflection of the kind of scientific illiteracy" of its writers.[4] On October 13, 1999, during a press conference to announce his plans to run for president, LaRouche predicted a collapse of the world's financial system, stating, "There's nothing like it in this century.... it is systematic, and therefore, inevitable." He added that the U.S. and other nations had built the "biggest financial bubble in all history" which was close to bankruptcy.[5]

  1. ^ Shishiv 2008[full citation needed]
  2. ^ GG Pirogov, conference presentation to the Lebedev Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (FIAN), Russian Academy of Sciences website [1]
  3. ^ Xinhua News Agency, June 4, 1999.
  4. ^ LaRouche, June 4, 1999.
  5. ^ Xinhua News Agency (October 25, 1999). "LaRouche Vows to Change U.S. Politics if Elected President". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |format= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed or fixed all the dead links, except some that might be invisible. The only one remaining in the text is Stanislav Menshikov in the Russian section. [40] SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

::I googled the title and found it here:[41] Angel's flight (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Do you know whether that' a LaRouche summary or an actual translation? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll make the Xinhau News Agency material invisible until we find links or at least a full citation. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Change of direction

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

Angel's flight, your recent edit didn't seem to make sense. We have a section about Operation Mop Up in 1973, most of it sourced to Antony Lerman, an academic; John Mintz in The New York Times, and Paul Montgomery, also in The New York Times. Secondary sources are King, Tourish and Wohlforth, and Hentoff.

Antony Lerman writes that, in 1973 and with little warning, LaRouche adopted extreme, even neo-Nazi, ideas, a process accompanied by a campaign of violence against his opponents on the left. The violence was accompanied by the development of conspiracy theories and paranoia about his personal safety, often involving alleged attempts to assassinate him.[1] LaRouche said in 1987 that, since 1973, he had believed he was under the threat of assassination from a number of sources, including the Soviet Union, the CIA, Libya, drug dealers, and bankers.[2]

Between April and September 1973, during what LaRouche called "Operation Mop-Up," NCLC members began physically attacking members of other leftist groups, groups that LaRouche classified as "left-protofascists." A New Solidarity editorial said of the Communist Party: "We must dispose of this stinking corpse to ensure that it cannot act as a host for maggots and other parasites..."[3] Armed with chains, bats, and martial-art nunchaku sticks, they assaulted members of the Communist Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Progressive Labor Party, and others, on the streets and during meetings. The New York Times said in January 1974 that former members were astonished by the direction the party had taken.[4] The operation ended when police arrested several of his followers in Philadelphia, Boston, Buffalo, and New York City.[5]

  1. ^ Lerman 1988, p. 212
  2. ^ Mintz, December 18, 1987.
  3. ^ New Solidarity, April 16, 1973.
    • Also see King 1989, p. 21
  4. ^ Montgomery 1974.
  5. ^ King 1989, pp. 23–24

You want to add to this, or rather you want to introduce it with:

During this period, LaRouche and his organization underwent an ideological shift. According to Arthur Goldwag, LaRouche described the changed direction of his economic thinking as being in "the tradition of what used to be known as the 'American System of political-economy'... typified by the policies of Benjamin Franklin,... U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, Philadelphia's Mathew and Henry Carey, Friedrich List, and President Abraham Lincoln."[1]

  1. ^ Goldwag, Arthur, Cults, Conspiracies and Secret Societies: The Straight Scoop on Freemasons[2] p.292, Random House, 2009


First, who is Arthur Goldwag? Secondly, what does the latter have to do with the former? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As it deals with the change in his economic thinking, I've placed it in its own section. [42] SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

::I strongly object to your deletion. You are putting forth a claim from critics that LaRouche shifted from Marxism to "extreme, even neo-Nazi ideas." I regard this as a malicious falsehood, but since it comes from published sources, I am not asking that it be removed. I am asking, under the NPOV policy, that LaRouche's own very different description of his new policy direction be also presented, and under BLP I am asking that it be presented first, and then you may have Mr. Lerman refute it. To have Lerman's version presented as a factual account of the shift is just unconscionable, and I believe it also violates a policy here where Wikipedia is supposed to report on POVs without actually adopting them.

A quick Google would have answered your question about Goldwag: Huffington Post bioRandom House bio Angel's flight (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You're mixing up two issues. Beating people up in the street is not a change of economic direction, and LaRouche doesn't deny that the former occurred, so this is not simply material from critics. The sources are high quality, and a great deal more extensive than that section implies. If you also want to discuss his change of economic thinking, that's fine, but it's a separate issue; hence the separate section. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

::::Then separate the "Ideological shift" from the "Operation Mop-up." And then balance both sections. There is a pattern throughout the 1970s sections of the article. The viewpoints of LaRouche's opponents are presented first as a factual account -- such as for Operation Mop-up -- and then LaRouche's account is added as an afterthought if at all. The NPOV approach would be to say at the beginning of each of these sections that the events are in dispute, and it would also be worth mentioning that since none of it ever went to court, it is "He said she said." And one more thing -- the 1970s section is bloated with gossipy allegations which were never proven, and these allegations are ripe for some "tightening." Wikipedia is not supposed to be a venue for scandal-mongering, particularly old, discredited scandals. Angel's flight (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We can remove that from the title, sure, but Lerman's view is part of the description of the violence. Whether it's gossip or not we can't say. It's in good sources, and LaRouche acknowledged it; he just said the violence was started by others.
I think you need to find a better source than Goldwag. That quote is taken from the Schiller Institute site, [43] not connected to the 1970s. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I'll look for a better source. Under NPOV, the description of the violence should begin with an introduction that emphasizes that both sides say the other started it. The commentary by Lerman (by the way, I looked at his book, and the description of LaRouche is very short and reflects no independent research. I think Dennis King just gave him an interview and he dutifully wrote down what King said -- just kidding) about a shift in LaRouche's views should be separated out and moved to whatever section discusses the shift. I also request that the postage stamp-sized image of the FOIA document be enlarged slightly so that it might be possible to see what it says. Angel's flight (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Under NPOV, the violence should be described the way the majority of high-quality sources described it. I can look through the NYT archives to see if there's a good description of who started what.
If you click on the image, you can see the text. I'm not sure we could get it big enough in the article to be able to read it there. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I tried enlarging it to 200px, but you still can't read the words, and it starts to overwhelm the section. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Readers can enlarge images just by clicking on them.   Will Beback  talk  04:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::It is not uncommon to see a section about a disputed issue begin with a word of introduction, such as "in the 1970s there were violent altercations between NCLC activists and activists from opposing groups. Both sides accuse the other of initiating the altercations." NPOV doesn't say "the side with the most sources wins." It says that all sides are presented, proportionately to the sources that can be found. This would seem to be particularly important where allegations of criminal acts are being made, without any court record that demonstrates who the guilty party really is. I think there is also an UNDUE question when a lot of space is being given to unproven allegations. Angel's flight (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The section already starts with LaRouche's perspective; see the first three sentences, sourced directly to him. If you want to add anything else along those lines, we'll need good secondary sources. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the Mop Up section a little more in the direction you wanted, including removing the neo-Nazi reference. Let me know what you think; see here. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 09:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

:Where there are no court convictions, criminal activity should be reported as allegations, not fact, and if possible the alleging parties should be named. Delia Peabody (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  07:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The movement bragged about the operation, so that seems unnecessary. Whether the attacks were crimes is a matter for the courts, but the existence of the attacks is not disputed.   Will Beback  talk  04:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Source request

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone have a source for this?

During the 2000 Democratic primaries, he scored in double digits in multiple states, with his best showing in Arkansas, where he received 22 percent of the vote to Vice President Al Gore's 78 percent. In the Kentucky primary, he placed third with 11 percent, behind Gore and Bill Bradley. These showings came after Bradley had ceased contesting the nomination and the race was generally considered settled.

SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

:Here's one source[44]. Evidently, the Economist didn't realize that LaRouche was unable to vote because felons are not permitted to register. I guess that's a typical problem with using foreign sources. Angel's flight (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've added the figures to that section. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/Archive_22&oldid=1069863873"