Talk:LaRouche movement/Archive 1

Opening comments

Also more critical content. Article is mostly neutral in tone, but the content is a bit one sided. Much more information about the Larouche Movement -- limited information from those who disagree. (of course there should be more about the movement itself, but there needs to be a clearly organized counterpoint for something so controversial) From Eggplantwizard, Feb 17, 2005

Note: Eggplantwizard's first edit was on February 17. SlimVirgin 23:28, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yet s/he already knows how to revert. See contribs. [1] SlimVirgin 23:30, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

And your point is...? I've been around a while -- I was anonymous before, and not as active. That's all EggplantWizard 02:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you've been around before you created an account, that would certainly explain why you're so familiar with Wikipedia. Don't worry about my comment. We've had some trouble over other articles related to this subject, though not with this article, and there have been a number of sockpuppet and anonymous edits, so I'm on the lookout, and your talk page said you were new here, though I see you've now changed that. But no offense was intended, and you are, of course, welcome to edit any article you choose to. And welcome to Wikipedia. SlimVirgin 03:16, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Have you looked at the other articles in the series? (See the listing in the box on the right side of the article). The Political views of Lyndon LaRouche is an often critical look at the philosophy espoused by LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche is a chronological account of the man, with the good and bad listed. This article has two sections which have been hidden pending more work, one on the movement's funding and the other on its cultic aspects. If you have anything that you'd like to add, then be bold and add it. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:25, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

reason for removing george w. bush from current villains

When you listen to their speeches and read their articles, it's striking how much they refer to Cheney and how little to Bush, esp. compared to reading or watching your typical U.S. Democrat or leftist speech/literature. They have made a very conscious decision to go after Cheney as a villain while calling Bush a puppet and ignoring him. DanKeshet 04:49, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

That's cool. Thanks for explaining it. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

missing pieces

I think there are a few missing pieces about the LaRouche movement that are important here: intelligence-gathering, methods of fundraising and recruiting, more on the nature of the relationship between the different realms of the movement. I believe that some of this should be moved over from Lyndon LaRouche and that article should focus more on the man himself. Other parts of it we don't have written yet. DanKeshet 19:01, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. When I drafted this I included sections for funding and cultic behavior, but haven't gathered enough information to flesh them out. The funding is empty; about all I can say there is that he's raised X amount for campaigns and received X money in FEC matching. I once saw an allegation, which I haven't tracked down, that money paid for subscriptions has been re-categorized as political contributions in order to qualify for matching funds. Please, if you know more, add it. The cultic behavior section has a bunch of notes, but I know there's more. It could include the recruiting. The only thing I know about intelligence gathering is something I found while researching U.S. News &WR's lawsuit against LaRouche, in which they accused his agents of impersonating their reporters. He denied it, but admitted they pretended to be from non-existent publications in order to get access. Even so, how many news agencies have a "Director of Counterintelligence"? As a general rule I agree that the bio should be kept to the man. Feel free to move stuff over. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Re: funding. I was trying to compile a list of running mates for Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns, and stumbled on what appears to be a significant funding source: campaign debt. Since 1990, LaRouche political committees have left almost $19 million in apparently unpaid expenditures. I am not intimately familiar with campaign committee financing, but I believe that each election's committee is a separate legal entity, as are the exploratory committees. I don't know who is owed the money. Perhaps TV and radio stations, the largest contractors along with LaRouche-owned printing/mailing companies, are required to extend credit to political committees. It may be that the campaign contributions go to pay affiliates and other campaign contractors get IOUs. If so, I think that the creditors would be grousing about it. -Willmcw 00:09, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:01, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche movement

See Lyndon LaRouche; LaRouche Movement, Schiller Institute, LaRouche Youth Movement, the National Caucus of Labor Committees, Political views of Lyndon LaRouche and Jeremiah Duggan. The Schiller Institute and LaRouche Youth Movement were accused in October 2004 in a British coroner's court of using mind-control techniques on Duggan, a Jewish student from London, England who died in odd circumstances after spending time at one of the movement's "cadre schools". [2] [3] [4]

This article should mention the former PRONA party in Brazil and the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine.

I would ask whether this is accurate reporting. You go to many sources, I wonder whether the question of truth comes in. Purported cult means to me that the user is making a baseless claim. Would someone please explain the Jeremiah Duggan stuff? The German authorities concluded a suicide and found no evidence to re-open the case. Is it possible that the German authorities got it right, that indeed it was suicide, for whatever reason? If they got it wrong, can we prove this? If they lied, can we prove this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibykus prometheus (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

One part of the the article I don't understand

From the article: Verdi tuning. Agitates in favor of the so-called "Verdi tuning", in which A=432Hz, as opposed to the common practice today of tuning to A=440 Hz.

What is this about? What is A?

Good question. "A" is the musical note that commonly serves as the baseline for tuning instruments. Before being fixed at 440Hz in the 19th century it had various changing or local intepretations, mostly lower than the current value. A tenet of the Schiller Institute is that the current value of A is too high for the human voice. I'll see if I can improve the brief explanation. Thanks for pointing out that confusing part. Cheers, -Willmcw 12:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

There is documentation on this. It also goes back to Verdi, who had a law passed in the italian parliament, that C=256Hz be the frequency at which the note C was to be set. This did not last forever. LaRouche may base it upon this. Also, from my understanding, if C=256Hz, A=432Hz.--Ibykus prometheus 22:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-neutrality of opening comments

The statement "...the movement itself teaches that Lyndon LaRouche is a central figure of international political and cultural importance, and that the movement is a necessary response to save the world from an ongoing and imminent global crisis." is a clumsy sentance. The author sounds like they are stating that the movement is factually a necessary response to save the world from crisis, which sounds more like an editorial. At the very least, the word 'teaches' should be changed to 'proclaims'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mightywurlitzer (talk • contribs) 21:33, September 30, 2005.

That's fine. Thanks for that improvement. -Willmcw 22:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon comment

An anon left the following comment (in parentheses) in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"War on AIDS carriers. Demands identification and isolation of HIV carriers, and proposes use of directed energy beams for cure. (Really? Please reference where the LaRouche Movement recommends "directed energy beams" for curing AIDS patients. Somebody?)"

PROGRAM TO PUSH RADIO-FREQUENCY WEAPONS, AS WE PUSHED WHAT BECAME THE SDI

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

It is now urgent that we present the case for U.S. and allied development of radio-frequency weapons, in the manner we popularized the idea of what became SDI/TDI.

4. Role in cancer and AIDS research. [5]

And other text at the same location. -Willmcw 20:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This is correct. LaRouche has proposed this. But this was before Executive Intelligence Review went online, so it is hard to find internet sources. For more info, check out the older material. --Ibykus prometheus 22:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Plato and Aristotle

I think Plato is an ideological hero and Aristotle is an ideological villain for the movement. There are LaRouche.. people (I can't in good conscience put a more specific noun here that isn't derogatory, so I'll refrain) all over my campus constantly seeking debate of passers-by, and a frequent opening line of theirs is "Are you a Plato person or an Aristotle person?" They go on to talk about how Plato's view on education is one where no knowledge is ever inferred and all learning must be done by redoing all the investigation that has ever been done... or something, and this is a view they support. Aristotle, on the other hand is "a slave of inference." I don't know if those people are representative of all LaRouche supporters (though I suspect it), but I make sure not to talk to them anymore. -VJ 00:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's about it: Plato and Aristotle represent these two factions, so to speak, that have continued to exist for ever. There's a whole bunch of stuff in Larouche's autobiographies, but for a more, erm, coherent, view, see Right Wing Populism in America (which is one of the few resources on LaRouche that's not swamped in propaganda).--Sean|Black 01:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Do not place heros or dislikes. There are no arguments in the article just lists of people. That is not good. Remove them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.212.78.246 (talk • contribs) .

IMHO

I have looked over a number of the LaRouche articles on Wikipedia. It seems that there are more of them than necessary. It also seems that they are dominated by a small number of editors, who have something of a jihad against LaRouche. These editors seem to have done a bit of bullying toward newcomers. I think that those of you who belong to this group should have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and allow these articles to become a bit more neutral. LaRouche is controversial and a bit of a weirdo -- just quote him, let his words speak for themselves, don't feel that you have to strengthen your case by a lot of theorizing and speculation about what he really means. --BirdsOfFire 20:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche speaks in his own words on his websites, and we provide links to those. The purpose of an encyclopedia, as opposed to a book of quotations, is to summarize conventional wisdom. Is there any issue you have with this specific article? -Willmcw 23:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You put the Jeremiah Duggan section back in, saying he is "notable" and "died at a LaRouche seminar." In fact, he did not die at the seminar; the article doesn't even say that he did. He died running around in traffic. The idea that the seminar somehow caused his death is a pretty far fetched conspiracy theory. I thought that Chip Berlet and his colleagues were against conspiracy theories, but apparently an occasional conspiracy theory is OK when it suits the agenda. Like I said, there seems to be a bit of a jihad against LaRouche going on here, and a general lack of neutrality. --BirdsOfFire 15:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Duggan died while attending the seminar. He was not in Germany on a social visit. Conspiracies do exist, but that is beside the point. -Willmcw 02:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Robert Beltran?

Are we sure about this decision? Given LaRouche's fear of Jazz and other sensationalistic art forms as a destracting stimulant that endangers one's ability to think rationally (and thus leaves one suggestable, suceptable to media propaganda and other memetic viruses). Something does not seem right with this inclusion. -- 69.248.43.27 01:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Google "Robert Beltran" "Lyndon LaRouche" -Will Beback 02:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

For example:

Internet audio broadcast for Dec. 20, 2003, featured a discussion with actor, director, and Lyndon LaRouche's collaborator Robert Beltran, after the end of the run of his production of Clifford Odets' The Big Knife in Los Angeles.[6] -Will Beback 02:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There must be a way we can tell how long he was involved with LaRouche, since he is not merely involved with Jazz music (again, something LaRouche despises) but also Star Trek (LaRouche dissagrees heavily with Rodenberry's vision, which seems in the same mold as H. G. Wells' and Bertrand Russel's vision of one world government and cultural pluralism, the opposite policy LaRouche has taken).

Is he even actively involved with Mr. LaRouche, or is he merely a supporter? Because I, myselfe, agree with much of what LaRouche says and have sometimes thought of supporting him wholly, but I still know enough to see that he is a cult leader who wishes to tightly regulate his society, not to mention his ensnarement over false delema abolutism (Schopenhauer is evil, rather then merely mistaken).

Or, perhapse I am merely mistaken about Mr. LaRouche, and in this case he is more flexible over the life-style of his followers then I presumed.

Again, is their a way we can know how long Mr. Beltran has been involved with Mr. LaRouche and how active in the movement he is?

Thanks -- IdeArchos 03:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that he became active in the movement from 03, and that he is indeed quite involved with them. I guess that means he has modified his lifestyle to suit the Platonic ideal. Pure logic, he is a Vulcan now. -- IdeArchos 04:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There may be instances of claiming supporters who have since left the fold. I don't think that the list has to be limited only to current supporters, but we should indicate if a person is no longer associated, or was associated only for a limited time. Also, in the case of Beltran, he's called a "collaborator" in the EIR, so it seems clear that there is a claims from that side that there was a significant relationship. Merely being a non-notable supporter is not sufficient for inclusion in the list, no offense. "Collaborator" is also used for other performing artists who have worked with the movement. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Dale

Who is Stanley Dale, and who says he is part of the LaRouche movement? --BirdsOfFire 16:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dale was an employee of some LaRouche campaigns. He was prosecuted in connection with them. -Will Beback 20:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What is your source, and what makes him notable? --BirdsOfFire 16:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the source:[7]. His case was newsworthy. -Will Beback 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The article says that he was just hired to circulate petitions. That doesn't make him an "associate or manager." --BirdsOfFire 16:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, folks who associate with other people for business purposes are called "associates". He was hired to manage the petition process. -Will Beback 17:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Above, you tell IdeArchos that "Merely being a non-notable supporter is not sufficient for inclusion in the list, no offense." Apparently a person who was not a supporter of LaRouche, who did not share his ideas, and was merely hired to do a job just like the phone company or the garbage pickup, is to be included on the list if it somehow makes LaRouche look bad. This is what I mean about the lack of neutrality in these articles. --BirdsOfFire 16:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dale was notable enough to make the newspapers for his support of LaRouche. I assume that most of LaRouche's supporters on the list are paid too. The fact that many of his associates have been jailed is relevant to the history of the LaRouche movement. -Will Beback 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

SlimVirgin should not be deleting material with no explanation. His behaviour is really no different from IAMthatIAM, who is supposedly pro-LaRouche. --BirdsOfFire 16:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Carter

• Take the case of "deregulation," as set wildly into motion under Brzezinski-misguided President Jimmy Carter. That four-year term, with its fanatical emphasis on the combined follies of "fiscal austerity" and "deregulation," did more damage to the U.S. economy, in four years, than has been done under any other post-1945 Presidency, prior to the drive to "globalization," begun at the beginning of the last decade.[8]
• Since about the time of the inauguration of the administration of President Jimmy Carter, there has been a persistent, catastrophic collapse of the share of national income of the lower 80% of family-income brackets.[9]
• And in 1976-77, Jimmy Carter from Georgia, became the flag-bearer for the Southern Strategy, the racist policy, inside the Democratic Party.[10]
• "The Men Behind Jimmy Carter's Bid for a Thermonuclear War, 1976"
• The next change came, after '71, with the Carter Administration: which was the Southern Strategy, Democratic Party version. In other words, the Republican Party became dominated under the Nixon Administration, by racists. The Carter election, was a takeover of the Democratic Party, to where the racists had a dominant position. What the Democratic Party did, in effect, was to say, "We're going to defend the Democratic Party, by keeping those who are pro-racists, in the party, to vote; and to vote for our candidates." And, therefore, we picked a dummy, Jimmy Carter, who didn't know what he was doing—a mental case, had a mental breakdown; that's what qualified him to become governor in Georgia. He was the kind of man they could trust. And, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is also crazy—and dangerously so—and David Rockefeller, took this dummy, Gov. Jimmy Carter, paid him a lot of money, and made him President! And, the way it worked, is, the Democrats argued, "We have to keep the racists in the Democratic Party, to keep them from running over to the Republican Party, and then the Republican Party would run the nation."[11]
• LaRouche also drew widespread attention, for his election-eve 1976 half-hour prime-time TV campaign broadcast, in which, as the U.S. Labor Party Presidential candidate, he warned voters about the menace of a Trilateral Commission-run Jimmy Carter Administration. LaRouche's dire warnings of a global confrontation and economic crisis, in the event of a Carter victory, set the groundwork for international resistance to the Zbigniew Brzezinski-run Carter regime.[12]

For these and a dozen similar quotes I think Carter belongs on the list of "villains". LaRouche frequently refers to Carter as a very bad president. -Will Beback 21:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow Will, that is a very advanced world view you promote concerning LaRouche. Is the world to be separated into heroes and villians? Does LaRouche put Superman as a hero or a villian? How does one define these categories?--Ibykus prometheus 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fraud Charges

Citing a source, disputing and disproving these charges, a source cites shows official FBI documents, should be allowed on this site. LaRouche released a book entitled "Railroad" showing that the whole prosecution was a set-up. Are the Wiki administrators going to allow truth on their site?

I didn't delete reference to "Railroad". I deleted tendentious arguments and unsourced assertions (who invited LaRouche to join the Democractic Party? Who brought him into the Kerry campaign?) -Will Beback 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Does one need an invite to join a party? Does one need permission to work to elect their choice of president? Do I need permission to vote now too? --Ibykus prometheus 13:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but an editor asserted (without any sources) that LaRouche joined the party because he was invited, and was later "brought in on the Kerry campaign".[13] If it is asserted that these happened then we need to provide sources. If a minor party worker invited LaRouche to join the party then that probably isn't noteworthy. -Will Beback · † · 20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The LaRouche Movement template

What is the argument behind giving Jeremiah Duggan equal billing with Helga Zepp LaRouche or Amelia Boynton Robinson? His connection to the movement seems tenuous at best. --172.194.74.72 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

POV edits

The assertion about "entryism" is clearly POV, and even if it were true, it would be "original research" (see WP:NOR.) As far as Gene McCarthy is concerned, your claim is false; McCarthy signed the ad in the Washington Post to exonerate LaRouche 10 years earlier. Similarly, I don't see any basis for disputing the Pierre Salinger stuff. If you find a source that says Salinger was hypnotized or brainwashed by LaRouche, include it. --172.192.204.233 05:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Members of one political party running for office in another is a tactic often referred to as entryism - no original research is required to establish this, since the entry in Wikipedia covers this. As regards the McCarthy/Salinger links, if you can find a source showing actual support, cite it. None of the evidence presented so far shows more than generic support for civil liberties, which can only be taken seriously if it extends to cover unpopular groups. JQ 12:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The original research comes in where you assert that the LaRouche candidates are practicing "entryism". That appears to be your own opinion. Please cite a source that says they do that. You seem to be under the impression that the LaRouche candidates are not Democrats. What party did you think they belong to? In the "LaRouche Youth" article there is a link to video of LaRouche activists speaking at the Texas Democratic Convention. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that they are with LaRouche. They could hardly be infiltrating it.

I added another cite on Gene McCarthy that I found in another LaRouche article. There are plenty of them. I did not restore the Salinger one until I find out exactly what your objection is. He dedicated a piano sonata to LaRouche. That strongly suggests to me that he was a supporter. Do you disagree? --172.194.94.177 14:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted reference to entryism (BTW, entryism is often overt, as in the case you mention, but I'll let that slide). Still, I think it's relevant in assessing cases like Gene McCarthy's. The quoted interview consists (on McCarthy's part) of general criticism of the Bush Administration, of the kind that most Democrats would agree with. There's nothing here to suggest that McCarthy endorsed the views of the LaRouche movement. I've been quoted by EIR myself, and talked to them on the phone (though I tried to avoid doing an interview) and I certainly would not like to be listed here as a supporter. To try and cover this, I've restored the caveat deleted earlier, but without the reference to entryism.JQ 22:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

On Salinger, are we talking about the same guy - Pierre Salinger, former press secretary for JFK? There's nothing in his entry to suggest he ever wrote a piano sonata. On the other hand, he was famously gullible in his later years (see the TWA incident) and could easily have been persuaded to sign something without reading it carefully.JQ 22:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are talking about the same guy. However, a more substantial source than an internet posting of the piano sonata would be welcome. // Astor Piazzolla 10:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The cited message from McCarthy re the Democratic Convention ends with these sentences: "Let me give the youth at this press conference something less material, and perhaps more useful—my outrage at their exclusion and my support for their mission. Let me be a part of their mission." That seems like pretty unambiguous support to me.

Were you quoted by EIR under the name "John Quiggin"? It doesn't turn up on a web search. Of course, only a little of the printed EIR is available on the web. --172.191.122.9 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

On McCarthy's message, I think it can equally well be read as a somewhat incautiously phrased statement of solidarity with an excluded group, the kind of thing you hear (or used to hear) a lot on the left. There's plenty of evidence to suggest his views, most obviously on environmentalism, were different from those of LaRouche. As regards EIR, I think there is a separate Australian version - I doubt that it's on the web.JQ 01:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche Publications and Wikipedia Policy

I removed this section:

LaRouche Publications and Wikipedia Policy

As a result of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche:

"Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense."

LaRouche publications are considerred unreliable for purposes other than citing the viewpoints of LaRouche and the LaRouche movement.

Self reference is strongly discouraged. Also, in the overall scale of the article this doesn't seem important. -Will Beback · † · 06:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I think something should be said though on the accuracy of their publications. Mgunn 11:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to claim inaccuracy, please cite an example of something they published that turned out to be wrong. --Tsunami Butler 15:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This article

Tells me virtually nothing about the organisation. Seems to be a battleground for different views. Cloveoil 23:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Associates and managers

Is it important these people have been convicted?

If so, what have they been convicted of? <humor> jaywalking? treason? </humor>

What source says they have been convicted?

--Kevinkor2 06:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is in danger of violating several WikiPedia policies

Removed this short section:

• Other LaRoucher-related websites
  • Archive of articles from the "American Almanac"
  • http://AboutSudan.com A compendium of news and LaRouche writings on Africa
  • Mathaba.net, an Internet news service

AboutSudan.com just contains automated news from so many news sources INCLUDING EIRNS, as does Mathaba.Net. That is not sufficient to be classed under a vague term "Laroucher-related websites". Are these and other web sites simply for containing news from EIRNS to be called BBC related web sites for the news from the BBC on those sites?

The top of this discussion page says:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

The including of web sites as being related, or even a PART of Larouche's movement as was Mathaba.Net also removed today after being added by the same person who added the above section, when they are NOT, is both unsourced, and potentially libelous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.12.38 (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Maybe "sympathetic websites" or "websites that carry LaRouche news feeds" would be a better heading. We have no way of knowing who runs them, of course, so the conection is subject matter, outlook, and, most of all, material. The "American Almanac" is a major host for LaRouche-related documents. About Sudan is a bit more mixed. Mabatha.net is just plain odd. It belongs to the "(Libyan) Green Charter International", according to site.[14] The funniest thing I've found yet is this Mabetha article written by Bill White (activist), of all people. "LaRouche Movement Catching Fire", "Bill White, a Mathaba News Service correspondent." Its actually one of the more thorough recent analyses of the LaRouche movement that I've read, though it dwells on their mutual enemies. (Separately, White argues over whether he's been a LaRouche supporter.[15]) -Will Beback · † · 10:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course a heading as you propose would be more accurate but what is the point of that? EIRNS is a news agency, of which there are many: Cuba has a news agency, Libya, Iran, etc, would sites that contain news from those agencies be worth mentioning under sections on Cuba, Libya etc? It seems a bit over the top? But what is without any foundation and your methods of research are really wanting if you use such methods - is your reference to the above URL at Overthrow.Com to describe what Mathaba is! Please! Overthrow.com belongs to the more-than-controversial Bill White, and what Bill White says about himself - being a Pravda correspondent, Mathaba correspondent, etc cannot be taken at face value. You should first ask those agencies if he really IS a correspondent. I've search Mathaba, and found nothing to suggest that, nor any item since? See http://www.mathaba.net/authors - again I don't see Bill White there. And what is wrong with what they say about themselves: http://www.mathaba.net/about - why would you reference a self-proclaimed (!) "neo-nazi racist" who revels in controversy as the basis for deciding what some other organisation or agency is about?! I'm sorry, but either you are well intentioned and lacking severely in the logical basis for research, or you are trying to use unsubstantiated biased/crazy sources in relation to LaRouche, which is therefore not objective, and then even those sources you are using in relation to LaRouche you are also using the same dubious methods to reference. The end result will be a completely unsubstantiated random mess, won't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.2.65 (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not using him as a reference, just stuff of interest for the talk page. As far as I'm concerned Bill White isn't a reliable source for the time of day. Regarding "AboutSudan", they describe themselves as having an "affiliation" with Executive Intelligence Review.[16] -Will Beback · † · 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ramsey Clark

There seems to be no evidence for listing him as an associate or manger or in any connections. The refs 3 &4 are to Larouch-related sources about his having defended them in one case. I think listing him here is a BLP violation unless there's more evidence than that. He defended SHussein also. He practices criminal law. DGG 23:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the only (known) assocation between Clark and LaRouche is that Clark defended LaRouche in a criminal case. I don't see a problem with removing his name. - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Done! --Kevinkor2 05:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, kindly explain why the same reasoning should not apply to Stanley Dale. --NathanDW 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dale was not a lawyer defending a client. Dale went to jail for his actions on behalf of LaRouche. Those are two major differences. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 02:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

These do not appear to be major differences. Both Dale and Clark were hired professionals, one a petitioner-for-hire, the other an attorney. Dale did not go to jail "on behalf of LaRouche" -- that's a ridiculous assertion, Will. He went to jail because he was greedy and used shady methods to make a buck.

There is a major difference between Dale and Clark, and that is that Clark appeared at the Mann-Chestnut hearings, of his own volition, and made a speech extolling the good character of LaRouche and his movement. I have an old videotape of this and I can probably dig it up and provide quotes if you like. --Don't lose that number 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Another difference between them is that Dale achieved his minimal notability solely through his involvement with LaRouche, while Ramsey Clark's involvement with LaRouche is barely a footnote in his biography.

"...[G]reedy and used shady methods to make a buck". How's that different from other associates who went to prison? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 16:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, did Clark appear at the Mann-Chestnut as a paid professional, or as an unpaid admirer? I doubt we have any way of knowing. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The answers to your questions seem obvious. It is reasonable to assume that members of the LaRouche movement support LaRouche's ideas; from what we hear from ex-members, it is not a well-paying profession, so there has to be a motive other than financial gain. Regarding Ramsey Clark, he is not a criminal attorney; he is a specialist in political trials, and he picks and chooses his clients. The fact that Clark is famous and Dale is not does not make any difference with respect to whether they should be seen as "associates and managers." --NathanDW 01:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The qy of RC's motivations has been discussed at the page for him, & is not something we're going to settle at WP. Putting him here is plain BLP violation. Listing anyone as a supporter or associate of LaRouche without really sound evidence is in my opinion a BLP violation. I think such evidence is probably there for the others. DGG 05:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're saying that all of associates are followers. There is sound evidence that Clark and Dale were both paid associates of LAaRoouche, and Dale was imprisoned for work he did for LaRouche. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about the LaRouche movement. A business relationship is not the same as an affiliation. Unless there is documentation of some sort of affiliation, both Clark and Dale should be removed. --Don't lose that number 22:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The cited article offers no evidence that Dale was affiliated with the LaRouche movement, so I am removing it. Also, including it in this article implies that LaRouche was somehow responsible for Dale's wrongdoing, and there is no evidence of that either. --MaplePorter 22:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The intro is not written from a neutral point of view. Please can people try to make this not a piece saying how wrong the larouche-ians are, especially in the lead, and to write in a neutral tone. It's late here but I'll have a go tomorrow.Merkinsmum 02:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a trio of editors here that insists on making every article that mentions LaRouche into an Op-ed.--Terrawatt (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right. The lead leaves out that LaRouche is a convicted felon and runs a widely denounced political cult. Would your lead about Stalin say he was "a forceful leader who helped modernize the Soviet Union?" How about a "totalitarian dictator?" Would that be NPOV for Stalin? How about Hitler? "Improved the german military, reduced population, and enjoyed large rallies?" Maybe mention a totalitarian dictator who murdered millions of Jews and other targeted groups?" NPOV does not mean sanitizing reality.--Cberlet (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck, Merkinsmum. NPOV is a rare and precious commodity in these parts. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Before making edits, it would be helpful if you could set out passages you believe are POV and your proposed amendments. LeContexte (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I rearranged the text a bit in a way that I think makes it more neutral. The first paragraph is entirely factual, while the second paragraph summarizes or quotes opinions about the movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with it now, thanks Will. I think it was just that the lead started with the criticism very early on. But a bit of shuffling has made it look better, and the amount of criticism in the lead seems proportionate to the worlds view of them by the sounds of it.

Cberlet- the article doesn't leave out that it's a denounced cult. It says plenty about that, and it's mentioned in the lead. As to him being a convicted felon- for those who don't know of LaRouche, perhaps you can mention that in the criticism section? Because otherwise including a cite saying they are a criminal gang or something in the lead, (as the article does at present) seems a bit strong. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it needs to be explained somewhere in the article, or we don't explain why that's in the lead. Things in the lead should be mentioned later on anyway, especially something of that seriousness, which the reader needs to know. I'm presuming you just don't mean the possible pet killings? As that's all that's in there in a mo, and harrassing of critics.Merkinsmum 23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

current 'villains'

I know what the editor meant by current and historical 'villains', but is there a more encyclopaedic word for it? Also groups a lot of people in together about whom they have very different opinions. I'm assuming they are antagonistic to Chip Berlet in a different way to the way in which they view the Duke of Edinburgh.:)Merkinsmum 13:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope so!--Cberlet (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The disctionary definition of "Villain" is: "A wicked or evil person; a scoundrel." I believe it is a correct word. For example,

• "LaRouche: How Bertrand Russell Becaem an Evil Man."
• Venice, orchestrating the Hapsburgs, who were always evil, on the one side; and then this emerging new form of evil, later called Anglo-Dutch liberalism, which developed in an imitation of Venice, in the Netherlands, along the northern coasts of Europe, and later, in England...And this was the doctrine of Quesnay, this was the doctrine of Mandeville, who was an apostle of evil, this was the doctrine later of Adam Smith; this was the doctrine of Jeremy Bentham, and so forth and so on...The father of Bentham, the creator of Adam Smith. One of the most evil men of the 18th Century, and the founder of the modern British System. ..It's coming out of the British monarchy, especially. It's world religion, and so forth. It's the present attacks on the Catholic Church, on all flanks, are part of this. It's Satanic evil.[17]
• What is that? This is called Classical art. You don't like something, because it "feels good" to not like it? That's irrationalism. That's Thrasymachus. That's evil. Rock music is evil. If you like rock, you are partaking of evil per se, because you've rejected truth and justice, for passion of a cheap kind—mere lust.[18]
• Financier Train, an intimate of Vice-Presidential spouse, the evil Lynne Cheney, has had a nearly 25 years obsession with LaRouche, whom he considers to be his major political adversary.[19]
• ...the "Southern Strategy" of 1966-1968. That wicked, inhuman legacy of the Nixon campaign, is the same cultural corruption running rampant in the Congress, in our national electoral processes, and in practiced U.S. foreign policy today. It is the same evil, as revived so today, which the voice of the slave indicts, as if by a voice speaking from across the centuries, through the Classical form of the Negro Spiritual. [20]
• The "anti-globalist" movement, worldwide, is headed by Teddy Goldsmith, who's a very evil fellow. [21]
• The writings of the Apostles John and Paul represent the Classical Greek science which was the highest form of scientific and related knowledge of that time, in opposition to the pro-Satanic legacy of the worship of the Olympian Zeus and other pro-reductionist excretions of that wicked Pythian cult of the Delphi Apollo from which the evil of imperial Rome had sprung in that time... the evil Emperor Diocletian gave up the tactic of mass-murder, not because he was humane, but because he was a smart and infinitely corrupt tyrant ...From that point on, science progressed along the lines marked chiefly by Fermat, Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann, in opposition to the reductionists typified by such house-lackeys and followers of Venice’s Paolo Sarpi as the scurrilous Galileo Galilei, the wicked René Descartes, the morally perverted John Locke, and the Eighteenth-Century radical reductionists de Moivre, d’Alembert, Euler, Lagrange, and the Nineteenth-Century followers of Laplace, Cauchy, Kelvin, Helmholtz, et al.
• Al Gore's a liar, he's evil, pure evil, and covering for Cheney.[22]
• All of the line of today's neo-malthusian argument, such as Gore's, now converges, exactly, on Gore's own copying of the motive of the explicitly, monstrously evil, late Bertrand Russell's own stated, mass-murderously malthusian intention...A human race which persisted in submitting to the wicked, Delphic way of thinking typified by the clear and present danger to mankind implicit in Al Gore's "Global Warming" swindle, would be a people which had abandoned the practical, as well as the moral fitness to survive... the opening chapter of the Biblical book of Genesis also repudiates Gore's wicked opinions,...In the meantime, approximately A.D. 1580, a masterful Venetian scoundrel, Paolo Sarpi, had consolidated a powerful faction among the Venetians, which, in its later guise as a Netherlands faction, later ruined a France misled by Louis XIV, took over the English monarchy under the Stuarts, and prepared the way for the Thirty Years War of 1618-1648... It is only from this standpoint that the pure evil embodied as Bertrand Russell and his political devotees, including Al Gore, can be thoroughly understood.[23]
• a policy which has been the subversion of America as a republic going back to the evil policies of H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and Samuel Huntington, and similar evil spirits.[24]
• You know, Prescott Bush was clever and evil. George H.W. was dumb and evil. George W. is psychotic and evil![25]

And this is only scratching the surface. I could go on with probably a hundred similar citations in which he calls people "evil", "wicked", or "scoundrels". The language may seem odd, but that's par for the course. Notable is that those he opposes are not "misguided" or any given similar assumption of good faith - they are intentionally evil. Another point is that it isn't correct to call them his "enemies", because that might that implies a degree of reciprocation. There's no evidence that Lynne Cheney has ever even commented on Lyndon LaRouche, so the disdain is one-sided. He is attacking them with words and labels, but his living targets mostly ignore him. All in all, "villains" both accurately captures his use of words like "evil" to describe politicians and scientists, and prevents the appearance of reciprocal opposition. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How about 'people Larouche considers to be evil' ? I just think 'villains' is a bit of a pantomime word. It's also inaccurate as I doubt he's frequently written that someone is a 'villain', using that word. Your refs show he uses the word 'evil'.Merkinsmum 00:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Villains" = "evil people". But if you think it wold improve the article then "Evil people" is OK with me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Molly Kronberg

Will, you seem to be on a drive to include the Molly Kronberg quote in all the LaRouche-related articles. I have no objection to keeping it in at Kenneth Kronberg because there is enough background there on who she is and what role she is playing, so that the quote may be understood in context. I object, however, to having the quote spammed. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We can add background here. The comment applies to the organization. It seems highly relevant. Kronberg is a longterm member of the governing committee, so her comment is germane. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to spamming this quote, because then there will be the inevitable bloating of the article(s) as context and rebuttal information is added. I'm thinking of proposing that all these articles, LaRouche movement, NCLC, LaRouche Youth Movement, etc. be consolidated into one moderately sized article. As it stands, they are all battlegrounds for the Berlet/King/Beback crowd versus defenders of LaRouche, and they grow and grow and grow due to tit-for-tat editing. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The only public source records I can find suggest that Molly Kronberg was a leading member of the organization at the time of the interview given to PRA. What evidence is there that she is no longer a leading member?--Cberlet (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer to that ought to be obvious -- that she gave an interview to PRA. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that a merger is inappropriate at this time. The article are fairly long and the overlap is limited. The quotation seems quite relevant to this article, while I'm not sure how relevant it is to the Kenneth Kronberg article. And, as Cberlet says, I'm not sure we have any reliable source that Marielly Kronberg is no longer a member of the National Committee. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The overlap is to be found in the slander-spam from King and Berlet that receives undue weight in just about every article. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it is especially relevant to this article. It's just a disaffected ex-member, although this one has a name, unlike others that King and Berlet have claimed to interview. Whereever the quotation appears, I'm going to insist that Molly Kronberg's role in the affair be fully explained, and the obvious place for that would be the Kenneth Kronberg article. I don't even think it belongs there, but I am yielding to Niels Gade on this point. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source saying that she's no longer a member of the National Committee. According to Niels Gade's criteria, she is a leading member of the NCLC, not just a disaffected member. The quotation is about the LaRouche movement, not about Kennth Kronberg. If you want to expand the description of MK that's fine. We can mention how she went to prison for the organaiztion, how many years she's been on the NC, and other relevant credentials. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Terrawatt that it is just common sense to assume that no member in good standing would fraternize with Chip Berlet. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As soon as "common sense" is accompanied by a reliable source we can take that as a verifiable fact. In the meantime it's unverifable speculation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that she is still a member of the National Committee is also speculative and unverified, in addition to being downright absurd. We can verify that she was at one time a member. To claim she is one now would require a source. --Terrawatt (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the claim that Chaitkin and Steinberg are still members, or that LaRouche is still alive, would also be speculative and unverifiable. However the usual practice is to assume that simething remains the same until it's shown to have changed. Regardless, the descrption I wrote of Kronberg didn't say she was a current member, just that she was a longterm member, a fact stated by LaRouche sources. If you have a source that calls her a former member then we can include that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing issues?[26] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSN#Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates. I believe your comments appear there. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of whether an interview from that source is suitable. The discussion there has been about vague "overuse" of that source. I'll start a fresh thread there to address this specific issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Promoting a POV

Some of the editors who've posted or defended the material in the intro on the LaRouche movement being "neofascist," appear, due to their other edits, to be sympathetic to the Chip Berlet crowd. Therefore it seems there is an effort to promote negative material about LaRouche in order to further a POV. Wikipedia is not a publishing arm of the Chip Berlet crowd. His concepts are thoroughly covered in the the articles about him and his organization, plus the "criticism" sections of this article and others. We don't need to use Wikipedia to further his ideas. Therefore the introductory paragraph should focus on mainstream views. --Terrawatt (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints be included. The major work describing LaRouche and his movement is titled Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism , which makes it pretty obvious that a major viewpoint is that the movement is neo-fasicist. Do you have a source for mainstream views being any different? As far as I can tell based on reading many sources, the mainstream views of the man and his movment are even more neagtive than just calling it "neo-fascist". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream views of LaRouche are confusing and contradictory, some saying leftist, some rightist. "Conspiracy theorist" is most common. However, the "neofascist" label comes from a very small group centered around Chip Berlet and Dennis King. Dennis King was given grants by LaRouche's opponents to write his book -- it is no "major work," it is defamation for hire. Chip Berlet is using Wikipedia for commercial purposes, to boost his organization which gets paid to attack selected political groups and individuals. I am amazed that Wikipedia has no rule that prevents business people from using it for commercial purposes. I did a google search to see how many times one of his books appears as a source at Wikipedia -- it is truly outlandish: [27] It looks like in a majority of cases, the cites were added by Berlet himself. --Polly Hedra (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides non-articles and the page about Berlet, I see twenty occasions that that book has been cited, which doesn't seem excessive. Until there's a decision otherwise, it qualifies as a reliable source, as does King's book. The movement clearly is regarded as neo-fascist by some, and it's one of the viewpoints we need to include. The article didn't belabor it, but just mentioned that it's a viewpoint. That's the minimum required by NPOV, and I think we can all live with that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Twenty occasions is a lot, if he's adding them himself. He's using Wikipedia as a PR firm. --Polly Hedra (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The article does include it. However, putting it in the lede is undue weight. --Niels Gade (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The lede should summarize what's in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It need not repeat all the details; as far as criticisms go, the lede should mention only the most common and notable, leaving the weird and exotic ones for later in the article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And your source for this asseriton being "weird and exotic"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Censoring website links

Marvin Diode's rationale for removing lyndonlarouchewatch.org from the list of outside links doesn't wash. This is not a matter of spam. The site is a massive repository of archival material and published articles re the history of the LaRouche movement. It contains the full text of "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism," a history of the LaRouche movement from the late 1960s through the late 1980s. The owner of the site is an acknowledged expert on the LaRouche movement. The owner of the site does not use it to sell products and does not solicit funds via the site. --Dking (talk)

I removed Dking's accusation that I am "a follower of LaRouche." First, because it is incorrect: I am no more a "follower of LaRouche" than I am a "follower of Robert Mugabe," even though I have worked hard to keep POV-pushers from using both biographical articles as a soapbox against those subjects. Secondly, if I were a "follower of LaRouche," it would still be a violation of WP:NPA to use that as a debating tactic: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's obviously not spam. I re-oriented the link to go straight to the book, which was published by a mainstream publisher and is unquestionably suitable for linking. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LINKSPAM: Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. It doesn't say that the spammer needs to show a monetary profit in order to be a spammer. In some cases, it may be just to boost a faded reputation for egotistical purposes. Dking has a history of being reprimanded, and reverted, for Linkspamming: (cleanup by COI noteboard team member) ... and of coming around again to re-add the spam: [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The book is undoubtedly a reliable source and a valuable resource to readers interested in this topic. While you deleted the assertion that you are a follower of LaRouche on the basis that it is a personal attack, you make a personal attack on Dking of your own. That's obviously inappropriate. There's not legitimate reason to delete the link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to point out that Dking is violating Wikipedia policy, particularly when he has a history of violating Wikipedia policy. He should correct his conduct, instead of proclaiming that he is being "censored." --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You know which part I mean. Please don't do that again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The links at the bottom of this article are 10 for LaRouche movement web sites, three for LaRouche associated web sites, and four for websites run by LaRouche supporters. For a total of 17. Before I added my site there were four sites listed that contained material critical of LaRouche, and one of them was merely a single article duplicating what was already accessible at the "Cults on Campus" link. So we had essentially 3 sites to 17 (and when I added a link to the home page of my web site it was promptly deleted), which shows the degree to which the LaRouche movement is being allowed to use Wikipedia (i.e. to make Wikipedia complicit) in its Orwellian control of information. When I complained that this was censorship, Marvin Diode (the LaRouchian who is not a LaRouchian) removed my complaint from the talk page. Well, I'm deleting from the talk page the sentence in which he claims I've been officially reprimanded for spamming, since no such determination was ever made.--Dking (talk)

Monkey business

It looks like there has been some monkey business here. I don't know what "premature archiving" is, but I would like to respond to the statement by Will Beback that Dennis King's book "is undoubtedly a reliable source and a valuable resource to readers interested in this topic." Dennis King's book isn't even a real book in the normal sense. Normally, an author approaches a publisher and says, "Would you like to publish this book? It's well written and informative." In this case, Doubleday was approached by some spooky foundations and told, "Here's some money. Publish the book." As I understand it, almost no copies of the book were actually sold in bookstores. Instead, it was purchased in bulk by the foundation sponsors and distributed for free to libraries and organizations. The whole thing was an exercise in propaganda. --Polly Hedra (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like Polly Helga to provide ANY documentary evidence that (1) I did not approach Doubleday with a normal book proposal through a normal literary agent, but instead "spooky foundations" arranged for the book's publication and paid Doubleday to do the publishing; (b) that almost no copies of the book were sold in bookstores; (c) that it was purchased in bulk by the foundation sponsors and distributed for free. I am not holding my breath, because I know that these accusations are all a fantasy.--Dking (talk)

Hey, is there any truth to the "Casper the friendly ghostwriter" story? --Terrawatt (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• This entire discussion is off topic. If it doesn't concern improving this article then it doesn't belong here. This isn't a discussion forum. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)