Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 13

General Review of this article under WP:LIVING

I have been reading up on Wikipedia policy, and I think that this article is probably in violation of a number of guidelines. To begin with, the following should be considered:

From WP:LIVING:

Biased or malicious content

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.

From WP:RS:

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
• Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
• Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues.

____

With this in mind, I think a number of the critical passages should go. To begin with, the Wohlforth quote where he says that LaRouche's support for American System is really just support for Nazism. This would be a case where exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. --ManEatingDonut 15:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think is't an exceptional claim that Wohlforth said that, but even so it should have a source. -Will Beback · † · 18:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. What I mean is that Wohlforth is making an exceptional claim, one that appears baseless and malicious, and that therefore Wohlforth himself is not an acceptable source under WP:LIVING. "If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." --ManEatingDonut 23:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How are you going to establish that his opnion is only shared by a tiny minority? A number of critics of LaRouche have compared his philosophy to fascism. -Will Beback · † · 00:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that may be a "tiny group" too, but in this case, Wohlforth is the only one I know that says that support for "American System" policies is fascist. Describing the US under FDR as "a totalitarian state that directs an economy where ownership of the means of production is still largely in public hands" would have to be a very small minority viewpoint. I notice that somehow the "American System" got dewikified. I must have missed it when it happened. --ManEatingDonut 01:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There's general resistance to wikilinking terms in direct quotations because they may lead to different concepts than the authors intended. "American System" is linked elsewhere, so readers can find more information if they wish. I think you're misreading the Wohlforth quotation. He dosn't seem to be saying that the American System is fascist, but rather that LaRouche has renamed his own fascist philosophy the "American System". -Will Beback · † · 04:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI:

• Words in quotations should not be linked for context. The text should remain in the same form and with the same emphasis as it did in the source. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Quotation

I think that's why it was delinked. -Will Beback · † · 05:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, let me put it differently. Since LaRouche has been warning for years about the dangers of fascism and in particular fascist economics, and explaining to anyone who will listen that he is for the FDR model of economics, it seems pretty far fetched to claim that he supports fascist economics. I admit that I have seen similar accusations made by Berlet, King and Wohlforth, but I have never seen any convincing evidence from any of them, and some of what I have seen is downright silly -- like Dennis King saying that pictures of galaxies remind him of swastikas. Therefore, in light of WP:LIVING, I think that claims by these authors, published or not, should be, in some cases, regarded as "criticism which represents the views of a tiny minority." --ManEatingDonut 08:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

totse.com

Is Totse.com a reliable source? [17] -Will Beback · † · 07:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not actually the source. It quotes a speech made at a LaRouche conference. That speech has appeared on other websites, too, that I found cached on Google. --ManEatingDonut 08:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The relevant assertions in the speech are confirmed also in [this Washington Post article,] although without the dates of the meetings. --ManEatingDonut 08:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean you consider the Washington Post a reliable source on LaRouche? -Will Beback · † · 10:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

??? --ManEatingDonut 15:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The intro again

This is for the benefit of Mgunn: you might want to review the previous discussion about the intro. First of all, the quote about China is from the China People's Daily, not EIR. There is a link so that you may read it for yourself. There is also a link to the Russia TV website, but you need to know Russian to pursue that one. Secondly, public messages to EIR, whether from Gene McCarthy or the comments made by the Russian guy in a webcast, are not subjective evaluations by the LaRouche movement, but quotes, and I don't see how they can be disputed. Finally (and this may not be entirely relevant to a discussion of the intro,) according to SlimVirgin the ArbCom said that EIR and LaRouche publications may be used as sources in articles about LaRouche. As you can see above, this has all been discussed and negotiated quite a bit, and as the template says, please don't make major changes without discussing first. --ManEatingDonut 20:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Two of the items I removed were sourced by the Larouche Execute Intelligence Review, a publication which is cited NOWHERE in academia and NOWHERE in the mainstream media. People can call it what they want, but it is not a reputable source for statements of fact. This is not opinion, this is reality. The validity of the statement I removed has been repeatedly questioned on this talk page, and it should be removed. On the China's People Daily reference, that article contians AN ALMOST EXACT COPY of the wikipedia article. This is a blatant circular reference (and IMHO is particularly egregious). The wikipedia article cites a china's people daily article that is a copy of an earlier version of the wikipedia article. Both of these vague, misleading, inaccurate, and inproperly sourced lines should be removed. --Mgunn November 23, 2006

The line, "His imprisonment was protested by public figures from around the world" has no sources. Which public figures? (The Ramsey Clark stuff is insufficient to backup that claim because Ramsey Clark is a US citizen and was representing Larouche in a legal capacity.) If justification for this statement cannot be found, it should also be removed. --Mgunn November 23, 2006

Evidently you and I have a difference of opinion, and in these matters, we must agree to be bound by Wikipedia policy statements such as WP:NPOV, WP:LIVING, and so on. Regarding the issues you raise, it is true that the People's Daily article begins with a quote from an earlier intro to the Wikipedia article. That doesn't discredit the People's Daily, because Wikipedia text is available under the GNU free documentation license. In fact, considering the fact that the People's Daily is probably the largest circulation newspaper in the world, it's a feather in Wikipedia's cap. It is also not really the issue here, although you say you find it "particularly egregious." The documentation for the statement about "his imprisonment protested by public figues around the world" is at United_States_v._LaRouche#Attempts_at_exoneration. I hope that answers your question. Perhaps we could discuss adding an additional note to the intro on this point. In the meantime, in line with the "controversial topics" policy, I would ask that you raise these questions here, and allow them to be answered, rather than deleting parts of an intro which is the work of many editors and represents a hard-won consensus. --ManEatingDonut 23:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of proper sourcing and fact. This discussion page already states that the Executive Intelligence Review cannot be used to substantiate general, factual statements. So the first reference is invalid. Your comment on the People's Daily article does not confront the fact that it is a circular reference. The wiki says X because the People's Daily says X and the People's Daily says X because the wiki says X. NOWHERE is X substantiated. They reference eachother, and the second reference therefore is invalid. I don't have time to waste on a revert war, but some editor needs to have both of these removed because they are (1) in the introduction (2) blatantly violate Wikipedia policy. --Mgunn 23, November 2006

Regardless of the sourcing issues, having so much praise inthe intro unbalances it. We should mention that he has a following, and critics, and then get on with the article. We don't need to list everybody who's ever said something nice, nor should the intro include quotations from every detractor. Let's keep it short. -Will Beback · † · 00:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Mgunn's statement about the Peoples' Daily overlooks the fact that the statement he disputes does not appear in the intro to the interview, which comes from Wikipedia. It comes from the interview itself, actually from the journalist conducting the interview. It also seems reasonable to me to say that when a paper that is controlled by the government of China runs an 8-part interview with LaRouche, that is a sign that they take him fairly seriously as a political commentator. --ManEatingDonut 01:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You have ONE chinese reporter that says "You are quite famous in mainland China today." And HOW does this substantiate, "He is reported to be highly regarded in China."  ???? It blatantly does not follow. This does not even pass 5th grade school paper writing standards. Jeffrey Dahmer is famous in the United States, and that does not mean he is highly regarded in the U.S. The fact that I even have to go line by line through this is absurd. This isn't even remotely a borderline case. --Mgunn

Statements with the Larouche Executive Intelligence Review or other Larouche publications as the citation

Facts

• No main stream media source ever cites Larouche publications except to discuss the viewpoints of Larouche.
• No academic source ever cites Larouche publications except to discuss the viewpoints of Larouche.
• The wikipedia article on Larouche is filled with generalized factual statements that are based on material in Larouche's Executive Intelligence Review.

My understanding is that the above statements are generally true in the US, but not elsewhere. I would also say that interviews, given on the record to EIR, should be treated as interviews, and accepted as a source for statements from those who granted them, such as Gene McCarthy for example. --ManEatingDonut 01:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the EIR as I see it is that I, nor anyone else, can have any confidence that the interview transcript is accurate. If you don't trust it to get facts right, then you can't trust it to get the interview right. If you trust the EIR to get the interview right, then you should trust it to get facts right. Basically, the Executive Intelligence Review is either trustworthy, or it isn't. I think the facts are fairly clear that it is not a trustworthy source for anything other than the views of Larouche and the Larouche organization. I welcome people's comments because a firm decision on this issue will either give ManEatingDonut firm ground to put Larouche sourced material in or give me indisputable grounds to take it out. --Mgunn 24 November 2006

EIR and other LaRouche sources are not merely generally unreliable, they've been explicitly ruled to be unreliable, per ArbCom:

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.

And their making claims about what Gene McCarthy is supposed to have said definitely qualifies. --Calton | Talk 08:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have missed something on the very page that you are citing: "1) Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles."

Also, it appears that you are claiming that the LaRouche movement is misrepresenting Gene McCarthy. That claim is ridiculous. He made public statements in support of LaRouche's innocence and supporting his work for over 10 years until he died, beginning when McCarthy signed the newspaper ads for LaRouche's exoneration. --Tsunami Butler 15:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And you are putting words in my mouth: if you're attempting to rebut someone, it's generally a good idea to rebut their actual words and talk about what they actually said. Specifically, I made no claim -- none, zero, zip, goose egg, nada, nil -- that the LaRouchoids misrepresented Clean Gene or anyone else. Rather, as the ArbCom ruling has, they can't be trusted regarding -- and cannot be the source -- facts about anything or anyone other their own selves, and even then for illustration purposes only. If LaRouche or one of his minions was the only source for "the sun rises in the east," it ain't going in, period/full stop, and all the wikilawyering in the universe ain't gonna change that. Do you need a refresher in WP:Reliable sources? --Calton | Talk 16:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts

As I understand it, the policy on the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) is that it can be used to explain the viewpoints of Larouche and attribute claims to Larouche, but nothing else because it is not a reliable source. eg. You could say... "Larouche claims X" and cite the the EIR but you cannot say "X" then cite the EIR. If the EIR is indeed unreliable, all material that is based on it should be:

• rewritten to say that is an uncorroborated claim of the Larouche organization OR
• it should be removed.

My question:

Does Wikipedia consider the Executive Intelligence Review a reliable source? Is my understanding of how an unreliable source is dealt with correct? -Mgunn November 23, 2006

A: 1) Not on your nelly. 2) If your understanding is "shot on sight", probably yes. --Calton | Talk 07:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche sources may be considered relaible sources for the opinions of LaRouche. They are not reliable sources for the opinions of others, or for other facts. -Will Beback · † · 20:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources for deleted material in intro

First of all, not all the material that is being deleted by Mgunn or 172 comes from EIR. For example, the stuff about meetings with third world leaders is not disputed. It is referenced in the Washington Post article, and even by Dennis King. No one, other than perhaps Mgunn, has argued that the China Peoples Daily is not a reputable source.

Regarding the use of EIR, I went to the ArbCom decision linked by Calton, and what I see is what Tsunami Butler saw: "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." That's as far as it goes. The article we are discussing is specifically exempted. Will Beback says "LaRouche sources may be considered relaible sources for the opinions of LaRouche. They are not reliable sources for the opinions of others, or for other facts." Is this from another ArbCom case that I don't know about, or is it his interpretation of the one that is linked by Calton? Is it Will Beback's view that EIR is not a reliable source for the opinions of people closely associated with his movement (for example, Gene McCarthy, or possibly Oleg Kuznetsov and Boris Bolshakov?)

Some editors, such as NathanDW and more recently Will Beback, have advocated a shorter intro. If that is the case, it should be modeled on the approach used in the intros for other biographies of controversial persons. In the case of George W. Bush, there are two paragraphs describing what makes him notable, followed by a paragraph that is predominately criticism. With Saddam Hussein, there is mild criticism in the third paragraph, characterizing his actions as president. With David Duke, there is one sentence of criticism, followed by rebuttal. In the case of Chip Berlet, there is no criticism in the intro. To have an all-criticism intro violates WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, and is probably in conflict with WP:LIVING. Therefore I am restoring the short intro that was reverted by Mgunn.

Rather than further edit warring at this point, I would ask participants to civilly discuss proposals for how the intro can be further re-written to satisfy all concerns. --ManEatingDonut 22:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) The statements I removed cannot be sourced using LaRouche material. That is why I removed them. (2) As I said earlier, the China Daily Article does NOT say what you claim it says. I hope, regardless of viewpoint, people working on this article can stay objectively focussed on proper sourcing and the facts. (3) The discussion responses supported the actions I took. (4) If this inaccurate, LaRouche sourced material keeps going on in inappropriate contexts (see previous discussion topic) then I think some enforcement of Wikipedia policy will be in order. (5) I am open to a shorter introduction, but it should be discussed here before broad structural changes are made. Mgunn 24 November 2006

Please explain why you deleted material sourced to the Washington Post. You asked for non-LaRouche sources, I provided them, and you deleted them anyway. --Tsunami Butler 16:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The first edit I made was to remove statements that were misleading, incorrect, and impropertly sourced. (eg. the LaRouche is highly regarded in Russia, China etc... statement) Last night, you inserted a completely different statement that says something completely different. This statement said that LaRouche has had private meetings with Jose Portillo, Raul Alfonsin, and Indira Ghandi. The Washington Post article appears to be corroborate that. Your new addition also says he assembled a worlwide network of contacts in government and military agencies. The Washington Post article attributed that to intelligence officials and former LaRouche organization members, and I think that if that material stays in, it should also be attributed in that way. However, in my opinion, this material doesn't belong in the introduction.Mgunn 20:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I said to discuss on the talk page before editting is to (1) avoid an edit war, and (2) keep the introduction reasonably short and unclutterred. Just because something is true, doesn't mean that it should be in the introduction. The introduction should give the core concept of who LaRouche is and why he's a public figure, and not tons of arcane trivia. The key features of LaRouche as far as i can tell are (1) He has run for President a billion times, (2) he heads the LaRouche political movement (3) His followers like him (4) The mainstream media, and mainstream America regard LaRouche as a political extremist and regard his publications as unreliable. Point #4 isn't my POV, that is fact. In articles on LaRouche, the NYTimes regularly refers to him as a "political extremist." The Democratic party wants nothing to do with him. Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has ruled that it is a bannable offense to reinsert LaRouche material into any article not on LaRouche because that material is so unreliable, etc... In any case, I think the material Tsunami Butler inserted doesn't belong in the introduction. (In fact I think u can find most of that material already elsewhere in the article.) Mgunn 20:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Without trying to edit this article, I'm going to weigh in on the above discussion. I think the facts will show indisputably that the LaRouche movement has gained access to and varying degrees of influence with well-known and even quite powerful people in various countries at various times as well as garnering a large amount of media attention from the press in developing countries, where LaRouche's claims to be an important U.S. political leader are often taken at face value. The foreign press and apparently some foreign public figures (such as Dr. Mahathir of Malaysia) are attracted to his conspiracy theories and his criticisms of U.S. and Israeli policy. Foreign governments have also demonstrated interest in some of the elaborate and imaginative development plans that his EIR think tank churns out--for instance, EIR's promotion of the Kra Canal plan, which garnered LaRouche much publicity and government access in Thailand for some years. LaRouche has also gathered a respectful audience by his habit of boning up on the scientific and cultural achievements of the country he visits; in a speech in Moscow several years ago, LaRouche praised the work of several distinguished Soviet era scientists who are almost unknown in the West. This could not but have caused intellectuals in the audience with a nationalist bent to give him the benefit of the doubt in spite of whatever criticisms of his ideology they might have read.

I think we need to distinguish between the following: (1) short-range relationships of mutual political usefulness with governments and powerful people (who often distance themselves from LaRouche when the relationship proves embarrassing); (2) relationships with senior citizens who once were powerful and/or influential but have latched onto LaRouchism in their dotage; (3) influence based on one or two issues (such as fusion energy or Latin American debt cancellation) but not on LaRouche's underlying ideology; (4) alliances of convenience (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) with notorious people such as Manuel Noriega, who called for LaRouche's release from prison while himself incarcerated; and (5) genuine longterm ideological influence (i.e., buying into LaRouche's world view). LaRouche's followers can easily provide examples of (1) through (4) from the mainstream media without relying on EIR (which makes me think the above dispute is basically an attempt to create a precedent for accepting EIR as a Wikipedia source). As to (5)--examples of lasting ideological influence with important public figures other than elderly retirees--this seems to be as rare as the ivory-billed woodpecker, but if LaRouche's followers can document such examples from reputable sources, I for one would like to hear about it.--Dking 00:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this article is long enough already, but I find DKing's brief discussion on the influence of LaRouche more informative than a lot of the detailed, chronological material currently in the article. Maybe this is a bad idea because it would just set off new edit wars, but adding a short, structured section on the influence of LaRouche could both describe the contacts LaRouche has had and give the context of these contacts so that their is properly understood (as the above two paragraphs do). Just my thoughts... Mgunn 20:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dking's comments are more sensible than Mgunn's, because they touch on what actually makes LaRouche notable. Mgunn wants to pretend that LaRouche has only a small "band of followers"(from the intro he wrote,) no original ideas, and no political impact ... Press coverage in the US of LaRouche is about as informative as Soviet Press coverage of Andrei Sakharov, or South African press coverage of Nelson Mandela, during the periods in which those leaders were ostracized. This stuff has failed to crush LaRouche's movement, but it has frightened American politicians who like LaRouche's ideas. John Conyers, no neophyte, spoke at a LaRouche meeting, and was immediately hit by two tons of crap, so he wilted and said it was a mistake. LaRouche has webcasts every month or so, and it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out who is asking the questions, although the American questioners are usually coyly identified by some sort of affiliation rather than by name (one man who had the cajones to be identified by name was George McGovern. I imagine that Dking will now say that he is "in his dotage.")

There is no evidence that EIR is unreliable. On the contrary, they often scoop the larger press, and investigators like Seymour Hersh often follow their lead. But the day that the mainstream press give LaRouche credit for anything will be a cold day in hell.

I find amusing Dking's attempts to explain away LaRouche's influence. The reason that "senior citizens" are less afraid to publicly side with LaRouche is twofold: first, because the older generation is less cowardly in general than the boomers, and secondly, people who are retired have less to fear from the kind of McCarthyite character assassination which inevitably follows a public association with LaRouche. The public figures that signed the ads for LaRouche's exoneration didn't do so because of debt cancellation or fusion energy -- they did so because they came to see him as a philosopher, and they know why philosophers are imprisoned. It's never because of single-issue campaigns. It's the same reason they made Socrates drink hemlock: "corrupting the youth." --Moebel 23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I needed a good laugh. Good thing this wasn't serious.--Cberlet 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously LaRouche has had significant (if not major) influence in U.S. political discourse--just look at the excessive demonization of the neo-conservatives by the liberal-left and the isolationist right, both of which ascribe to this small informal grouping of Jewish intellectuals (as does LaRouche's EIR) a commanding role in U.S. foreign policy which it has never possessed. Even LaRouche's bogus theories about a "Straussian" conspiracy have found their way into mainstream journalism by way of conduits such as Seymour Hersh. In my remarks above I did not address or attempt to "explain away" this type of influence on public opinion and the political class. I merely tried to classify the various types of relationships and influence that the LaRouche movement has historically enjoyed at various times with well-known public figures. I left open the possibility that some of the latter relationships have involved philosophical or ideological influence--and I urged LaRouche's followers to present evidence of such influence if they can. As to Moebel's assertion that prominent retired public figures support LaRouche because they have less to fear than those still in public office, this may be true for one or two individuals who were closet Jew haters all along, but the public record of LaRouche's dealings with senior citizens--as documented in over a dozen court cases and investigations in the late 1980s from Alaska to Florida--is one of manipulating, exploiting and ripping off for their life savings hundreds of seniors who often were in the early stages of senility. (This is one reason LaRouche keeps predicting another Great Depression and attempts to wrap himself in the mantle of FDR.) It should be remembered that LaRouche spent five years (1989-1994)in federal prison for preying on seniors via a massive loan fraud scheme--and that over a dozen of his followers were also convicted of loan fraud against the elderly in Virginia and New York state courts.

As to the credibility of EIR, I agree that this magazine has garnered some scoops; in my book (available at http://dennisking.org/newamericanfascism.htm), I cite especially EIR's uncovering of essential facts of the Iran contra conspiracy many months before the mainstream media did so. However, EIR, unlike mainstream magazines, mixes these nuggets with conspiratorial nonsense about the "British," the "Venetians," the "Straussians" and assorted "Satanists" as well as unsubstantiated and maliciously intended attacks on individuals, fabrications concocted by pranksters, and pseudo-scientific quackery. (How can one have confidence in a publication that claims Lyn Cheney is Dick Cheney's British Intelligence control officer--and that offers as proof the fact that she wrote her dissertation on a Victorian English writer and has travelled to England on occasion.)

The editorial policy of EIR and its sister publications is to glorify LaRouche, demonize his critics, and invent "evidence" to confirm his latest rant or to butter up whichever developing world leader, general or drug lord he hopes to meet with next. Never have these publications shown an ability to criticize LaRouche even on minor factual issues, nor have they ever followed the standard practices of editorial verification (in their political coverage) or peer review (regarding their pseudo-scientific and pseudo-scholarly articles). For these reasons, EIR and its sister publications should be cited chiefly to reveal the ideas and mindset of LaRouche and his followers (as revealed in their own words published therein) and not as reliable sources of factual knowledge or analysis regarding anything in the real world.--Dking 00:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)(text posted Nov. 28-reposted properly signed with no change in text)

I see that Dennis King, like Chip Berlet, rushes to the defense of the neo-conservatives, which reinforces my belief that both of them are in it strictly for the money. The neo-cons are morally indefensible; they are fascists. This view is now held almost universally around the world. And the most predictably pathetic argument that King and Berlet make is that LaRouche opposes the neo-cons, not because they advocate preventive war, torture, systematic lying, and a police state, but rather because a handful of them are Jewish. King and Berlet ought to be embarassed to spread such a transparent lie. It is also somewhat amazing that they continue to defend the imprisonment of LaRouche and his associates, which was a real stain on the honor of the US (and was publicly called so by leading figures from around the world, as King well knows.)

On the other hand, it is useful that King acknowledges that LaRouche's ideas have significant impact. That ought to be the centerpiece of the intro to the article, and if Wikipedia rules insist that it be balanced with a dollop of horseshit from LaRouche's critics, so be it. --Moebel 15:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. We're not here to discuss King, neoconservatives, or even LaRouche. This page is just here so that we can talk about how to improve the article. -Will Beback · † · 19:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

While there is some useful info in this article, and there should be information on all things from both sides on Lyndon Larouche. It is a problem that there is however an abundance of negative information, and most of the references and readings cited are articles from Chip Berlet and Dennis King, along with the fact that most of the article is from them, and they essentially make a living off of smearing this guy and have nothing better to do. IMO there should be some more 3rd party and independent sources rather than just pro or anti larouche. Vipercat 20:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We use any available, reliable sources. King and Berlet may be classified as experts about this topic, so we rely on their work more than others. There is also an abundance of positive information in the article. NPOV mean including all viewpoints. If you can suggest some additional sources that'd be great. -Will Beback · † · 21:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Source request

We need a non-LaRouche source for the following:

"Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark charged that his case "involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge."

Otherwise, we should say that it's according to a LaRouche movement website. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Composition of the intro

I am writing this particularly for the benefit of Mgunn. The policies which apply here are Wikipedia:Lead section and WP:BLP. From my reading of these policies, I believe that the intro should begin with one or two factual paragraphs on what makes LaRouche notable, followed by the criticism. The criticism against him is not what makes him notable; there is criticism because he is notable. You should avoid a tendency to make this into an "attack article." There is plenty of criticism in the body of the article, and it should be merely summarized, not replicated, in the lead. Also, your assertion about "political extremist" is sourced to a Google search; I believe that it is therefore Original Research, which is a no-no. You should find a source that comments about this and use that instead, and even then, I doubt that it would be noteworthy, certainly not enough for the lead section. --Tsunami Butler 22:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy is absolutely central to LaRouche and the LaRouche movement; this point deserves to be up front. The New York Times repeatedly refers to LaRouche as "LaRouche, the political extremist." I included your line about LaRouche's organization being worldwide in my edit. I think it might be informative to open up a section on the influence of LaRouche. I'd be open to moving the Lt. Gen Daniel Graham quote somewhere else to shorten the intro; I just like the New York Times fact better because people actually know what the New York Times is. Just my bulletpoint thoughts. Mgunn 22:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Qouting Wikipedia:Lead section, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Mgunn 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Graham's view of LaRouche as an unrepentant Marxist-Leninist is not widely held by people who have studied LaRouche. It certainly deserves to be mentioned as an example of how different people perceive the same set of ideas and behavior, but it shouldn't be in the lead paragraph and I would argue that it might more appropriately be put in the article on LaRouche's political views.--Dking 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche is depicted as a right-winger when the attack is directed to a left-wing audience, and vice-versa. In Chip Berlet's High Times article, LaRouche was depicted as anti-drug, an example of the broken clock being right twice (or in this case, once) a day.

Regarding Mgunn's links to the New York Times, they are all at least 12 years old. The "political extremist" line was dropped by the mainstream press in the mid-90s. --NathanDW 02:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the actual article, not just the LaRouche crap. The article in High Times clearly calls LaRouche right wing. Also, there are numerous mentions of LaRouche as a "political extremist" in more recent publications. Fawning syncophancy is not constructive editing. --Cberlet 02:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that somebody was talking about civility earlier.

Re: "Political extremist": Just as an experiment, I did a Google News search for "Lyndon LaRouche" and got 152 entries.[18] Then I tried one for "Lyndon LaRouche" + "Political extremist" and got a grand total of 2: one from your pal David Horowitz at FrontPage magazine, and the other from Scotsman in the UK.[19] --Tsunami Butler 07:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The google news search means nothing. Most items stay up for only a few days and the majority are from LaRouche's own publications while the rest are mostly only passing mentions in articles about other subjects. "Political extremist" has been used by the major media hundreds of times to characterize LaRouche over the years. Also, I did my own experiment. I typed in "lyndon LaRouche" + fascist (on google, not google news) and received 151,000 hits.--Dking 18:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, your experiment was flawed. Google News screens out most fringe or irresponsible viewpoints. They try to stick to reputable publications (by the way, they include EIR.) To show why I think your experiment is flawed, I performed the same kind of search on regular Google, but with "Bill Clinton"+rapist, and I got 160,000 hits.[20] I consider the allegation that Bill Clinton is a rapist to be wildly irresponsible, and the allegation that LaRouche is a fascist falls into the same class.

NathanDW says that the "political extremist" line went out of fashion in the mid-90s. Is there any credible evidence to the contrary? --Tsunami Butler 22:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Nathan have any evidence of his assertion? As for your Clinton experiment, it may in fact show that Clinton often has been called a rapist. In this case we're not saying that LaRouche is a political extremist. We're saying that, "...his critics in the U.S. regard him as a ... political extremist..." Is there any doubt of that? -Will Beback · † · 23:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding. My Clinton experiment is intended to show the mistaken nature of what DKing was doing, using a Google search to imply that LaRouche is widely regarded as a fascist. I think that it is fine to say, as the intro currently does, the "his critics in the US regard him as a ...political extremist." I didnt' remove that in my edit. I removed the part that says that the NYT calls him that. They used to call him that, as did every other major paper as I recall, but I haven't seen it in a long, long time (other than on the web search that turned up David Horowitz and FrontPage magazine. I don't consider him to be a major commentator.) I think the fact that the NYT stops calling him that after the early 90s is circumstantial evidence for Nathan's assertion. --Tsunami Butler 01:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Circumstantial evidence" = "orignal research". Regarding the NY Times, since we have ample sources to indicate that they've often called him a "political extremist" we should just re-phrase it to make it clear that they have done so in the past.

• The New York Times has repeatedly refered to LaRouche using the "political extremist" term.[21]

Is that inaccurate? -Will Beback · † · 02:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not "original research" if it doesn't go into the article. It's just "discussion" when it appears here. You could say that at one time the NYT called LaRouche a political extremist, but I don't think that it's notable enough to go in the intro. The intro already says that LaRouche's critics have called him a political extremist. I would say that there is plenty of criticism as is, and as ManEatingDonut pointed out, biographical articles normally do not have intros that are entirely dominated by criticism. --Tsunami Butler 07:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right that it doesn't need to be in the intro. -Will Beback · † · 19:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What really happened in the court case (And what remedial action is there for people who repeatedly make bogus edits?)

This was added, "LaRouche, along with a group of Democratic elected officials[22], sued under the Voting Rights Act, and lost; the court ruled that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution right of free association takes precedence over the Voting Rights Act."

This is a blatantly incorrect reading.

Describing the district court's previous action, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia wrote,

On August 15, 1996, the district court denied the application for a three-judge court and dismissed the entire complaint, with prejudice as to all defendants, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court ruled that "[n]ot only has the U.S. Supreme Court held that the national political parties possess the right under the First Amendment to 'identify' those who constitute their 'association' and to 'limit the association to those people only,' the only defendants able to afford the relief sought, viz., Chairman Fowler and the DNC, are neither 'covered jurisdictions' nor agents thereof under ... the Voting Rights Act and, thus, not subject to its 'preclearance' requirements."

The United States Court of Appeals proceeded to affirm the dismissal of all LaRouche's claims, except those pertaining to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which the Court of Appeals decided neither it nor the District Court had jurisdiction to hear. The Section 5 claims should properly have come before a three-judge district court, and that portion of the case was remanded for further proceedings. The three judge-court then dismissed all of LaRouche's remaining claims stating, "We conclude that the defendant Democratic National Party is not a covered jurisdiction under the Act, and that the defendant state parties are not required to request preclearance of national party rules."

Though I know it's common on Wikipedia, I'm tired of bogus edits based on sloppy reading and sloppy research. I think a certain person needs to shape up, or ship out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgunn (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC). (Sorry forgot to sign it...)Mgunn 19:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious to me what is going on here. The southern racists used to deny African-Americans the right to participate in Democratic primaries, on the grounds that the Democratic Party was a "private club" protected by Freedom of Association. What Fowler argued in this court case was no different, except that by the '80s the courts had swung way to the Right and they let him get away with it. Freedom of Association does not mean freedom to exclude, particularly when primary elections are publically funded. --MaplePorter 22:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that analysis. I'd also note that filing an amicus brief isn't the same as joining the lawsuit. Without a reliable source for the brief I don't think we should mention it. -Will Beback · † · 20:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

agreedMgunn 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Please observe WP:CIVIL.

2. The relevant quote was removed in this edit by Will Beback. I tried to summarize it accurately. Read it for yourself, and suggest a better summary: "While the Voting Rights Act is unarguably a statute of importance, it should not be read to extend coverage that would interfere with core associational rights; specifically here, internal national party rules as followed by state parties in a covered jurisdiction...We are guided by the principle that we should construe statutes so as to avoid constitutional questions. It is our plain duty to adopt that construction which will save the statute from constitutional infirmity."[23] Or, since the present version of the article has more extensive quotes than the one that Will Beback objected to, perhaps this quote should be restored as well. --Tsunami Butler 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, you blatantly misread it. Maybe you simply misunderstood, but you did misread it. A basic premise of statutory interpretation is not to interpret a statute in a way that causes constitutional problems. Interpretting the statute in the way LaRouche wished would interfere with constitutionally guaranteed associational rights. Therefore, this is another reason not to interpret the statute in that way. The final decision was a statutory decision, not a constitutional decision. The court neither said the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional nor did it say the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional "as applied" here. The court said the Voting Rights Act statute itself did not apply to this case. It is completely incorrect to say that the "the court ruled that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution right of free association takes precedence over the Voting Rights Act." Nothing in the Voting Rights Act was overruled. Mgunn 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope I won't have to remind you about WP:CIVIL after every exchange. It appears to me that the essence of the matter is that the court found that while the VRA prohibits the making of discriminatory rules by the Democratic Party on the local or state level, it cannot be extended to the national level without clashing with the constitution. If you find this explanation unsatisfactory, please propose an alternative. Remember that the VRA was written as a remedy for the practice of the Democratic Party in the south, where they would simply adopt party rules that blocked African-Americans from participation in primary elections. --Tsunami Butler 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We already have an entire article on Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns The detailed treatment of this issue should go there. All we need here is to say that he sued and lost. -Will Beback · † · 02:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He sued, and the case was dismissed. The case never went to trial. The courts affirmed the defendants motion to dismiss.Mgunn 06:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not the essence. The Voting Rights Act preclearance rules do not apply to the Democratic National Committee because the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is not listed by the Attorney General as a covered jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act and because the DNC is not acting under the delegated authority of states that are covered jurisdictions. Also, the Voting Rights Act preclearance rules do not apply to the implementation of a DNC rule by state parties that are covered jurisdictions because doing so would implicate core constitutional associational rights under the first amendment, and therefore the statute should be read more narrowly. The essence is that people in a party get to choose what their party stands for and who it runs, and the Voting Rights Act applies neither to the Democratic National Committee nor state parties implementing a DNC rule that exercises core associational rights. Mgunn 06:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Then let me propose this brief explanation (because I think it is necessary to provide the context for the back-and-forth accusations between Fowler and LaRouche that are quoted):

LaRouche argued that the decision violated the Voting Rights Act, by disenfranchising the voters who had cast their votes for LaRouche. The courts disagreed.

We can then provide a link to the other article, where I agree that the issue should receive more in-depth treatment. Any objections? --Tsunami Butler 06:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, now let's integrate that with a shortened treatment of the whole issue. We can copy the old full text copied to the campaigns article:

• When LaRouche ran for president again in 1996 the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Don Fowler, refused to allow LaRouche to be considered as a candidate or receive delegates because he professed beliefs did not agree with those of the party. LaRouche then received enough votes to earn two delegates. LaRouche argued that the decision violated the Voting Rights Act, by disenfranchising the voters who had cast their votes for LaRouche. The district and appeal courts disagreed in LaRouche v. Flower.

That cuts it down by half, but preserves the basics. -Will Beback · † · 07:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: Here's the text in the campaign article now:

• Prior to the primaries the Chair of the Democratic National Party ruled that LaRouche "is not to be considered a qualified candidate for nomination of the Democratic Party for President". In subsequent primaries LaRouche received enough votes in Louisiana and Virginia to get one delegate from each state. When the state parties refused to award the delegates LaRouche sued in federal court, claiming a violation of the Voting Rights Act. After losing in the district court the case was appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, which sustained the lower court.[24] Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns

We could just swap the text. -Will Beback · † · 07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable solution. --Tsunami Butler 14:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to copy edit that section, incorporating the swapped text but eliminating some redundancy. I hope this version is satisfactory to all parties. --Tsunami Butler 14:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion was that the text also replace the paragraph before, the one now starting, "When LaRouche ran for president again in 1996...." -Will Beback · † · 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done that too, with minor edit to make it fit. --Tsunami Butler 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Note on biography

This is a POV essay:

• Note on biography

Determining the accuracy of LaRouche's biography is made difficult by the barrage of conflicting accounts generated by the LaRouche movement and its critics. LaRouche writes in his autobiography that he developed his ideas in the 1950s and has advocated them consistently ever since. His followers say he is a world-renowned economist and philosopher. LaRouche himself says he has pioneered such ideas as the International Development Bank and the Strategic Defense Initiative He also says that he was used by the Reagan administration as a back-channel for negotiations with the Soviet Union. These claims are disputed by LaRouche's critics.

The only substantial biography of LaRouche is Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism by Dennis King (1989). It is not a biography in the conventional sense, however; the author employs a technique of "decoding" phrases and images that appear in LaRouche publications, to advance his theory that LaRouche is in fact a fascist with a "dream of world conquest." [25]

Is there anything worth saving?--Cberlet 16:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I do use the technique of "decoding" I also analyze the elusive and elliptical (and often ironic) phrasing in which LaRouche couches many ideas with or without code language. This artful language parallels similar formulations in Yockey's Imperium (and also in various Renaissance writers whom LaRouche professes to admire and whom he cited when openly articulating his own theory of elliptical and coded discourse in the late 1970s). And it was widely used by far-rightists in Germany in the decades immediately following World War Two (see Kurt Tauber's monumental work of scholarship on this, Beyond Eagle and Swastika.) And I point out many, many instances in which LaRouche directly expresses fascist ideas and hatred of an oligarchical "species" (Felix Rohatyn, Henry Kissinger, the Rothschilds, et al) which he describes as the sworn enemy of the "human" species. LaRouche discusses his fascist theory of the state (the dictatorship of industrial capitalism over finance capital in which criminal "thoughts" as well as criminal deeds are outlawed) pretty openly in The Case of Walter Lippmann (see my explication of this at http://dennisking.org/dictator.htm). And what was one supposed to think when LaRouche discussed in 1978 marching east to wipe out the Russians with "ABC" (atomic, bacteriological and chemical) warfare, or when in the early? mid? 1980s he gave a talk to the Bavarian Defense Contractors Association about ruling the world through the development of microwave weapons? As to the "decoding" of political discourse, this has become an extremely common procedure in the years since my book was published. Major newspaper and magazine columnists now point to "code language" all the time; even George W. Bush mentioned code words in a recent interview. I claim no influence on this; it's just that code words are so damned useful in today's polarized electoral climate that everyone is using them more and more. Does this make LaRouche the godfather of Karl Rove?--Dking 01:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. The person who wrote the paragraph deleted by Chip gave a link to one of the chapters from my book at the Justice for Jeremiah web site. I do not know if this scanned version was ever properly cleaned up. If a reader notices problems, they can find the full text of the book in page-image form at http://dennisking.org/newamericanfascism.htm --Dking 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

King's "analysis" reminds me of how the fundamentalists read the Bible, finding the most outlandish things in there because they want to, whilst obscuring the actual message. The fact is, LaRouche is a humanitarian. It's simple. His writings are not simple, but if a reader makes a fairly serious commitment to understanding them, it can be done. There are no coded meanings. There are people out there who know a humanitarian when they see one, people like all the veterans of Martin Luther King's movement who signed the ads for LaRouche's exoneration -- of course, Dennis King will portray these people as dupes who are not as clever as he. But the Civil Rights veterans have had a lot of experience with paid slanderers like Dennis King, back in the day, and they never backed down in the face of slander and defamation. --209.247.5.137 04:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that "decoding" is a kind of speculation that is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also, if Kings allegations were true, you would expect that LaRouche's ideas would be extremely unwelcome in Russia. Instead, they seem to regard him as one of the few American leaders that is not trying to screw them. --Tsunami Butler 15:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WHICH Russians "seem (!) to regard" LaRouche as "one of the few American leaders" not out to screw them? And since when has LaRouche become an "American leader"? And how does this fit with LaRouche's claims in past decades that the Soviet Russian leaders (the evil Third Rome magicians and their control officers on Mount Athos) were plotting to kill him? As to my view on LaRouche's code language, this is perfectly valid for inclusion in Wiki since it is the viewpoint of a recognized expert and it is not the only viewpoint presented. Tsunami ignores the fact that LaRouche himself has stated unequivocally that "decoding" is not just speculation but a necessary part of understanding political discourse. Read your own leader's comments on this, Tsunami--you'll find the citations in my book.

--Dking 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ramsey Clark

Does anybody mind if I delete the Ramsey Clark quote? It seems kind of misleading and irrelevant to me, considering that Clark is also a supporter of Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein and at this point is much better known as an activist than as a former attorney general. P4k 04:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is misleading to call Ramsey Clark a "supporter" of Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. He takes their cases because he is an authority on political prosecutions, which is why he is especially noteworthy for this article. --Tsunami Butler 15:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also reverted the criticism of Clark you included in the intro. To balance it, we would have to say that Daniel Graham and the Heritage Foundation are regarded by many as right-wing fanatics, and I think that we would be better off discussing that at their respective articles. --Tsunami Butler 15:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I call him a "supporter" of those people because he's made statements outside of court in support of them--eg saying that history would show Milosevic was right. But his support for those people isn't that important here and I probably shouldn't have brought it up. I don't think that Clark's wikipedia article bears out the idea that he's "an authority on political prosecutions" (or even says anything about it)--he's defended a lot of controversial people but there's no evidence that he's recognized in the legal field as an authority on political prisoners (that's what you're saying, right?). If that's the only reason to include his statement, it should be deleted. As far as my edits go, I don't think calling Clark a "left-wing activist" or an "advocate of controversial causes" is "criticism" (well, maybe the second one is implicitly critical, but it's still true); activism is simply his occupation right now. If you want to say that the Heritage Foundation is "right-wing" that's fine too, it would probably improve the article by giving more context for their criticism of LaRouche (I didn't say that Clark is a "fanatic" so you're stacking the deck there). The Heritage Foundation describes itself as "Conservative," it's not "criticism" to call them that. I don't think that Clark deserves to be in this article at all but if he's going to remain there's really no reason not to describe him as a left-wing activist. P4k 18:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been a few days, I'm restoring the "left-wing activist" thing. P4k 08:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs, and I have removed it. The place to debate the merits of Ramsey Clark is the Ramsey Clark article. He is certainly notable in the context of this article so he belongs in the intro, but I think a lot of back-and-forth, criticism and rebuttal, about the commentators in the intro would muddy it. If other editors have strong opinions, please speak up. --Tsunami Butler 16:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, calling him an activist isn't critism, it's just describing his occupation. If you want to remove it, it's kind of your responsibility to come up with some reason the points I'm making are invalid, which you still haven't done. 22:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, "left-wing activist" is not an occupation. Clark is an attorney who specializes in politically controversial clients. He is already described as a former Attorney General, which is what makes his opinion about the LaRouche case notable. To also call him a "left-wing activist" serves only to signify that conservatives or right-wingers disapprove of him, so I consider it criticism. As I mentioned earlier, liberals or left-wingers disapprove of Daniel Graham and the Heritage Foundation (or ought to, if they don't,) and we could also clutter up the intro by taking note of that. But this is an article about LaRouche (of whom it seems that both left-wingers and right-wingers disapprove,) and I think there are more important things to debate about the intro as soon as the mediation cabal checks in. --Tsunami Butler 07:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "occupation" is a poor choice of words; what I mean is that activism (and defending controversial clients, which is closely related) is what Ramsey Clark spends most of his time doing, so it's appropriate to note that. Being a former Attorney General is what makes Clark's opinion notable, but that doesn't mean that describing him solely as a former Attorney General gives the reader a useful idea of who he is. If you're worried about clutter then that's understandable, but all that really needs to be done is to add two words to the sentence: "and activist." And if you're really worried about clutter, then just delete the sentence! If Ramsey Clark is important enough to deserve a two-line quotation in the intro to this article, then he's important enough to deserve a slightly more full and accurate description of who he is. As far as the "mediation cabal" goes this is the first I've heard of it, if you want to continue this argument in a month or something then that's fine. P4k 08:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Conspiracy theorists

Category:Conspiracy theorists removed per WP:BIO and th charter of the category: the article must clearly state which exactly conspicacy theories the person authored or supported. The article says only that "some critics called him so" Name calling is not valid reason for cathegorizing. `'mikkanarxi 02:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that these categories should be dealt with carefully (for example cult leader category was removed because that's POV), but I think conspiracy theorist category is quite factually supported. I think this is neither a positive claim nor a derogatory claim, just a factual claim. I can easilly see your perspective here, but I think if you review a bit more of the views of Lyndon LaRouche and outside evidence, you'll agree this is not a POV claim (and I don't think it is particularly disputed by LaRouche supporters). A plethora of sources such as http://www.schillerinstitute.org/lar_related/2004/jan-march/kill_me.html amply support the conspiracy theorist designation.Mgunn 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are missing my point. I don't care about Larouche. Never heard about him before, if you believe me. It just sits in my watch list because exactly 2 years ago I routinely fixed a Russia-related wikilink. At last I decided to look into it and noticed that the category is not supported by text. Plain and simple. I don't want to do any off-wikipedia investigations, it is the job of experts in larouchism to write the article in a fully compliant way. `'mikkanarxi 01:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracy theorist designation does not say whether the conspiracy is true or not, but only that the individual believes in a number of conspiracies. (Larouche supporters will likely say the conspiracies are true while critics will say they are obvious hogwash).Mgunn 02:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. that's basically what I wrote: "the article must clearly state which exactly conspicacy theories the person authored or supported", no more, but no less either. BTW how a conspiracy theory can be true? :-) `'mikkanarxi 01:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This link http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2002/2901zbig_sept11.html documents belief in a September 11th conspiracy theory. This is a valid reason to categorize an individual a conspiracy theorist according to the charter of category:conspiracy theorists.Mgunn 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note that most of the subject's beliefs have been moved to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. Several conspriaracy theories are covered there, including Holocaust denial. -Will Beback · † · 05:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. That's it, then, fine with me. Still, since he is categorized so, a sentence into the article is quite due; WP:BIO, you know. `'mikkanarxi 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you're probably right on that last one. Mgunn 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, LaRouche is the author of "Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites," a lengthy essay published in The Campaigner in 1978, and he authorized the publication that same year of the book Dope, Inc. by three of his followers. These are both indisputably, by anyone's standards, works of conspiracy theory.--Dking 04:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche's war record

LaRouche has been pretty scrupulous about his war record, so I am sure he would appreciate it if his followers would pin down the paragraph on World War Two. He did say he could hear guns off aways, which could have been on the India-Burma border or deep inside Burma depending on what month he arrived in the theater. LaRouche's statements on his war service stand in sharp contrast with those of his former disciple, social therapy cult leader Fred Newman, who has claimed to be a "Korean war veteran" even though he did not arrive in Korea until months after the Armistice.--Dking 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary, I found a copy of the 1988 autobiography at a library, and he says he did go to Burma. --Tsunami Butler 07:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Source for Du Pont family kidnapping story

The LaRouche people put out a very interesting book about this back in the early 90s called Travesty (I think it was actually called Travesty: A True Crime Story.) The book was made entirely of the transcripts of recordings made by a former Loudon County Sheriff's Deputy who was working undercover for the FBI, wearing a wire. He was infiltrating the Cult Awareness Network team that kidnapped the Du Pont family member to deprogram him. I believe that some sort of criminal charges were filed against the CAN people. I tried to find it on the web, and found only a few references to it. --172.194.167.223 03:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This case was extensively reported in the Washington DC area media, which should be cited as the source here. As I recall (without checking my files), the purported target of deprogramming was never kidnapped. Four individuals, including the target's father, were arrested for discussing a deprogramming to possibly take place at a future date. The Cult Awareness Network was not involved in these discussions, although one of the arrested individuals was a private eye who had worked with CAN and other anti-cult organizations over the years. At least two persons were convicted, but their convictions may have been overturned or otherwise adjusted. Charges of prosecutorial misconduct emerged. The case was extremely murky.--Dking 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The "private eye" was Galen Kelly, who is described on the website of the "new", Scientology-controlled CAN as the "chief of security" for the "old" CAN. [26]--172.193.204.176 01:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My memory confused the Dupont Smith case with a subsequent deprogramming case involving Kelly. Kelly was not convicted in the Dupont Smith case. As to the claim by Scientology that Kelly was the "chief of security" of the old CAN, I find this dubious. The paragraph on the Dupont Smith incident in the LaRouche article still needs some reworking since as written it implies that Dupont Smith was actually kidnapped. I don't believe this was the case.--Dking 21:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Teachers Strike in 1968

I played no role in the 1968 community control of schools battle and made no anti-Semitic statements regarding it. LaRouche has zero documentation that I did so, this is just one of his organization's hundreds of off-the-cuff remarks about me over the years in which I have been called a drug dealer, drug user, drug lobbyist, CIA agent, FBI agent, Cuban agent, British agent, flying saucer buff, occultist, and just about every label they could come up with. Two years before the Columbia strike I was arrested at the gates to Columbia while leading a demonstration that stopped Nazi leader George Lincoln Rockwell from speaking on campus to spread his plan for a new Holocaust. I am removing the section of the LaRouche quote that defames me and I strongly question the motives and integrity of the person who inserted this.--Dking 01:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am the person whose motives and integrity you wish to question (see WP:AGF.) I am reading LHL's 1988 biography to find material that might balance this article, and his reference to you establishes something that I think is important: that you have been his political opponent for over 35 years (as you acknowledge in your edit summary.) This article represents you simply as "a biographer," which I think is misleading. As far as "off-the-cuff remarks about you" are concerned, my ex-husband had a subscription to EIR, and whenever I saw your name mentioned, which was seldom, it was always with the same charge: that you accepted funding from the right-wing Smith-Richardson Foundation to write your book. Your book itself strikes me as highly fanciful, essentially a conspiracy theory, with lots of "off-the-cuff remarks" about LaRouche, so this may be a case of pot and kettle. --Tsunami Butler 13:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Tsunami. I misread the article history list and thought the LaRouche quip about me had been inserted by an anonymous troll. I have debated with you on this site over the past few weeks and have no reason to think that you aren't sincere in your beliefs. I must say I am puzzled why you make such a big thing about the Smith-Richardson Foundation when I received help of various sorts from the entire range of American political life (as listed in the Acknowledgements to my book and exemplified by the people I quote). I know that the LaRouche group has claimed that Smith-Richardson is a front for various nefarious forces. I have never seen any facts that would persuade me of this. (And what about the Stern Fund, which also helped me out? Or Doubleday, which gave me a book advance?) At any rate, peace to you for the holiday season.--Dking 21:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily making a big thing about Smith-Richardson -- what I said was, that when you are criticized in EIR, that is what they focus on, not the other things that you mentioned. --Tsunami Butler 22:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Tsunami, most of the examples I gave of LaRouchian anti-Dennis King rhetoric were from the 1980s, the same decade as the LaRouche statement about the 1968 Teachers Strike that I objected to. It is probably true that they tend nowadays to concentrate more on the fact that I received a research grant from Smith Richardson, but all kinds of intemperate stuff is buried in articles you probably missed unless you read every issue cover to cover. The following is a list of recent EIR statements about me, all of which were found by typing in my name in the search box at the EIR/LaRouche web site:

• "pothead scribbler of the U.S. neoconservative war-mongers" (2003)

• "Dennis King was used by the dirtiest elements of the U.S. intelligence community" (2001)

• "Dennis King, a paid hack writer for the infamous New York City mob lawyer...Roy M. Cohn" (2006)

• "right-wing funded scum like Dennis King" (2006)

• "[Roy] Cohn creation Dennis King" (1996)

• "a local gutter type, Dennis King" (2000)

I have said harsh things about LaRouche and it is only to be expected that he retaliates. Alas for him, I can cite his writings as proof of what I say but he has yet to produce a single toke with my DNA on it. Why? Because I simply don't smoke pot, period. As to my being a "creation" of Roy Cohn, my utter loathing for Cohn is obvious from the chapter of my book entitled "To Roy Cohn With Love"; see http://dennisking.org/newamericanfascism.htm --Dking 00:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-citation

Dking, I would like to request that you carefully review WP:COI and especially WP:COI#Citing_oneself. Also, I would request that you log in when citing yourself, rather than doing it anonymously. --Tsunami Butler 01:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added this information. I am not Dennis King, and so can cite him happily. Phil Sandifer 04:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Propangandistic writing

Dking has done a major re-write of the criticism section. Please note the template at the top of this page:

I have changed this: "Although LaRouche has made a point of seeming to denounce the economic and other policies of Mussolini and Hitler" -- to this: "Although LaRouche has deonounced the economic and other policies of Mussolini and Hitler." The first sentence suggests that the editor who inserted it can read LaRouche's mind, and knows that LaRouche doesn't really mean what he says. This is speculation and un-encyclopediac.

Similarly, I have changed "LaRouche made several attempts to squelch the criticism through libel suits" to "LaRouche filed several libel suits." Please don't dress up the facts with innuendo.

There were also numerous formatting problems. If you want to include the entire title of the article you wrote when you cite it in Wikipedia, you should use the "ref" format.

There are some other, very strange things in there, like claiming that LaRouche has ideas that are modeled on the Nazis, and then adding these footnotes: [27] [28] where LaRouche denounces Nazism and fascism. It is unclear what you are trying to prove with this.

But these things should be discussed in advance, so they don't become edit wars. --Tsunami Butler 16:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

One other thing: is it realistic to talk of "Our Town" as being "widely circulated"? What is the actual circulation of "Our Town"? Does it even meet the specs for WP:RS? --Tsunami Butler 16:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly more widely circulated than LaRouche's writings. Phil Sandifer 18:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You think? It's the first weekly paper I ever heard of that didn't have a Wikipedia entry. --Tsunami Butler 15:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to bringing chronological and logical order to a section that was a confused mishmash but I seem to have created new problems as well. I agree with Tsunami's toning down of two phrases where indeed I was being POV (New Year's resolution: Keep POV on the discussion page only!). As to the LaRouche citations, they were already in the article and ended up in the wrong place because I added to the sentence before them rather than starting a new sentence with its own citations. I'll correct this. As to Our Town (which had a free distribution of about 100,000) being "widely circulated," I meant to say that my LaRouche series was widely circulated outside the Our Town distribution area and indeed around the country. But that is original research, so I am removing the phrase. Finally, on whether or not Our Town is a legitimate Wikipedia source, it was an important vehicle for investigative journalism in New York in the 1970s and 80s and won dozens of awards; my own series won the New York Public Relations Society public service award and was runner-up for the Columbia University School of Journalism's Paul Tobenkin Award. In a 1986 speech, U.S. Senator Daniel P. Moynihan suggested that the series had deserved a Pulitzer Prize. Although I personally think this was overstating the case, it does help to establish that my writings in Our Town (upon which my book and my later writings for national publications were to a substantial degree based) can and should be cited as Wikipedia sources.--Dking 15:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche in Popular Culture

In the "LaRouche in Popular Culture" section, someone has inserted a quote from humorist Dave Barry. The quote is a statement of political opinion about LaRouche rather than an example of popular humor or satire. As such it really doesn't seem to belong in this section. Should it be moved? Removed altogether?--Dking 15:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that there is relatively little discussion of LaRouche's actual political activity, I can't see the point of devoting so much space to this stuff. --NathanDW 16:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. First, there is a great deal of discussion of LaRouche's political activity scattered over this article and a half-dozen other LaRouche-related articles (including the one on his political theories). Second, LaRouche is a public figure who has run for U.S. President every election year since 1976, has spent tens of millions of dollars on TV infomercials and over 100 million dollars on publishing enterprises to spread his world view. Thus it is important to see the effect his efforts have had on the world of popular culture. Indeed, LaRouche himself has taken pains in his historical writings to point out the links between popular culture and politics--and how popular culture is used by the evil Venetian oligarchy to manipulate the donkey-like masses (his rhetoric, not mine).--Dking 17:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Palme Assassination

The article currently quotes Dean Andromidas, a longtime LaRouche follower writing for EIR, as stating that a former East German agent, Herbert Brehmer, had claimed that the STASI or the KGB had maliciously concocted a story that LaRouche was behind the assassination of Palme. This may be true (but even if it is, it doesn't necessarily absolve LaRouche because Swedish police had other reasons to be suspicious of the EAP and Victor Gunnarsson, regardless of what the STASI may or may not have said). Yet given the murkiness of so much information coming from retired East European spooks nowadays, I think we need a better source for this information than Andromidas and EIR citing an alleged Swedish radio broadcast. Did Brehmer make the allegation in his book? If so, how credible is Brehmer in the eyes of mainstream German journalists? Was Brehmer's radio allegation reported in the mainstream Swedish or German print media? If so, it should definitely be included. Note that I do not intend to remove the Andromidas allegation myself; I'm just raising questions.--Dking 22:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

NBC libel trial

I thought that journalists in most jurisdictions are protected by a shield law from having to name confidential sources, so the failure to name sources in the LaRouche case would not have been an unusual feature of a libel trial. Also, I question the relevance of the information Tsunami has inserted to helping us understand the outcome of the trial, since the issues were (a) the truthfulness of the allegations, (b) whether or not NBC acted with malice, and (c) whether or not LaRouche lost income as a result of the broadcast. If libel attorneys say otherwise, I stand corrected.--Dking 23:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Journalists should be protected from naming sources in most cases, for example to protect whisteblowers. But to extend the concept to libel cases is ridiculous -- it's just a free pass for corrupt journalists who want to slander someone, and then blame it on an imaginary playmate. --MaplePorter 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I found the LaRouche vs. NBC case cited as a precedent in this memo, on the subject of "whether to compel a person who has been sued for libel (or on some other basis) to identify the anonymous sources upon which the defendant relied in making the statements that are at issue in that case." It was on the basis of this memo that I used the expression "anonymous sources" in my edit, which Will Beback evidently thought was inappropriate. I think I might add this to the article unless someone strongly objects. It seems to me that there is a pattern of this sort of thing in the LaRouche legal cases, where LaRouche has been prevented from fully responding to the charges against him. I think that was gist of Ramsey Clark's objections. --Tsunami Butler 23:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your research effort, but I think it would take a lawyer familiar with the Eastern District of Virginia to figure out if the Jane Doe case is relevant to LaRouche v. NBC et al. Also, Ramsey Clark's points were directed to federal criminal law rather than federal civil law and thus may not be as relevant as you think. Why not select a brief quote made by LaRouche or his attorney to a mainstream Virginia paper after the jury verdict was announced as the best way to get across LaRouche's response to the verdict?--Dking 23:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. I note that the Jane Doe memo is dated year 2000 so it may reflect intervening case law generated after 1984 (the year of the NBC case verdict), which would not be relevant in any way. Also, some of the issues raised in the Jane Doe memo may have been dealt with during the LaRouche v. NBC appeals process (I seem to recall, but am not certain, that LaRouche unsuccessfully appealed the verdict although he may have won a reduction in the damages award).--Dking 23:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's another case which cites LaRouche vs NBC and which mentions the "three-part LaRouche test", though what each of the three prongs are isn't clear. [29] -Will Beback · † · 23:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It would appear from this case that LaRouche failed to meet the three-part test while the plaintiff in the more recent case (ED of North Carolina) did meet the test. None of us are lawyers (or are we?). And few of the Wikipedia readers of this article are likely to be. I have no intention of depriving LaRouche's supporters of the opportunity to present their leader's response to the outcome of a heavily publicized trial. But I think the need for balance is best met by selecting a quote from the press clips rather than from murky case law.--Dking 00:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. The case law is too murky to quote directly. -Will Beback · † · 00:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My point was that the case did set a precedent of sorts, or else there would not be something called a "LaRouche test." As to Dking's suggestion, from what I have seen, the press is generally not eager to give LaRouche an opportunity to tell his side of any story. --Tsunami Butler 01:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Science Photo Imagery and "decoding"

Will Beback, with all due respect, you seem to be going into editing contortions to draw attention away from the fact that this looking for symbolism in science photos cannot be described as anything other than weird, IMO. King acknowleges on this talk page that he uses "decoding," so I don't see why you deleted that term. I think that it is fair to point out that this technique is "unorthodox," another term you deleted. It is certainly the case that more orthodox critics of LaRouche do not point at space photos and conclude that he is a Nazi. There are other features of that article that seem equally wacky to me. I wouldn't think it appropriate to list them all. My original intent was just to say "decoding" and refer the reader to the article.

This section I removed:

King also describes LaRouche's dealing with former Nazi scientists and officers, including Arthur Rudolph, Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Adolf Busemann, Karl-Adolf Zenker, and Paul-Albert Scherer, and quotes LaRouche claiming that whoever has directed energy weapons can "dominate this planet."

If you follow the links that aren't red, you find no evidence that Busemann or Ehricke were Nazis, and in the case of Rudolph, it was contested and evidently he prevailed over those who accused him. Consequently, these references must be seen as slanderous. And since the topic of the paragraph was King's decoding or "unorthodox techniques," the inclusion of this material seems to be a diversionary tactic, anyway.

I think it would be appropriate to discuss LaRouche's support for space research elsewhere in the article, including his relationship with these scientists (mainly Krafft Ehricke and Scherer-- did he actually know any of those others?) I find the old tactic of insinuating that anyone who was German must be a Nazi to be repugnant. I certainly wouldn't want to be thought of as pro-Bush just because I am American. --Tsunami Butler 00:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't these space researchers previously work for the Nazi regime? If there's a better way of expressing their connection to fascism, which is the point, then let's fix it. If you read the sourced document those connections account for much more of the article then the interpetation of imagery, and omitting them gives a false impression of his thesis. Regarding that interpretation, "unorthodox" and "weird" are POV statements, do we have sources for them? We should not make that judgment on our own. -Will Beback · † · 00:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "German scientists who served under the Nazi regime"? Would that be an acceptable description of the rocket scientists? -Will Beback · † · 08:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's a diversion, and I still think that no matter how you parse it, it's an attempt at guilt by association. Do you still oppose the use of the term "decoding"? --Tsunami Butler 15:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a source for the term then we can use it. As for the scientists, from what is it a diversion? If you read the article you'll see that it's mostly about LaRouche's association with former participants in the fascist German war-machine, not about imagery. "Guilt by association" is an accurate description. Since you don't object to the phrasing I suggested above I'll add it. -Will Beback · † · 18:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I edited some of this section yesterday. I think that readers should know that Dennis King is trying to build a case that LaRouche is a fascist, not by demonstrating that he has endorsed fascism, or any idea or policy that could be construed as fascist, but through some sort of "free association" about spirals and so forth. I will add another quote from King so that this becomes clear. As far as the German scientists are concerned, they are completely irrelevant. They weren't facist. And as far as the beam weapons are concerned, take a look at the history. LaRouche never advocated them as a means toward "world domination." He proposed that they be shared with the Russians. He did warn, however, that the USSR might try to get world domination if they had a monopoly on the technology. --MaplePorter 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to summarize sources. I didn't add the King reference, but if we're going to have it in the article then we should summarize it properly. The section is on criticism, and King criticizes LaRouche for the imagery, the associations, and the discssion of weaponry. If the LaRouche camp has a rebuttal then we can include that. But we shouldn't skew the description of King's article. -Will Beback · † · 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Anti-war activist

To put LaRouche in this category implies that he has gone back to being a conscientious objector, or at the very least a person who is generally opposed to war. He has made it clear in his writings that this is not the case. He has the option, however, of opposing wars that he believes to be immoral or ill-conceived. So he is an anti-Iraq War activist. Whether or not he opposed Vietnam and other wars is irrelevant. If there are categories for opposing Vietnam and those other wars, by all means put him in. --Tsunami Butler 01:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

More on three-prong test

If a subject of a Wiki biography initiated a lawsuit that resulted in a significant contribution to case law named after that plaintiff, then this fact certainly belongs in the plaintiff's biography. However, here the information is cited to LaRouche publications, which is not acceptable. I suggest the following: that the report on this court ruling be cited to the National Law Journal or other legal journal, and that the mention of the "LaRouche test" also be followed by the correct legal citation (which can probably be found in the North Carolina ruling cited by Will Beback or the legal memorandum cited by Tsunami Butler).--Dking 20:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

John Train "salon" and Quinde affidavit

Sorry, but this stuff was removed long ago as unsubstantiated. EIR is not a legitimate source for this article. Quinde, who provided the affidavit quoted by EIR, was not even present at the meetings he described. I was present and can testify (as can Chip Berlet) that these were informational meetings only and never resulted in any conspiracy or other concerted action against LaRouche. LaRouche makes much of these meetings but his theory about them--or even the fact that they took place--has not been reported in any print media except publications controlled by LaRouche. Thus the quoting of the Quinde affidavit is original research and not allowed in this article.--Dking 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a claim being made by LaRouche, and being identified as such. It may be a conspiracy theory, but on the other hand, so might your claim that LaRouche is a fascist because he agrees on space policy with some scientists who at one time, before being employed by our government, were employed by the Nazi government. I personally think that this latter theory is bonkers, but as long as it is identified as your theory and not presented as fact, I suppose it must be included. --Tsunami Butler 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I ask old-timers on this article to weigh in on the John Train/Quinde stuff. Wasn't a decision made at least a year ago not to include this? And isn't this something that involves allegations of fact rather than just revealing the state of mind of LaRouche--and therefore should not be sourced exclusively from LaRouche publications? --Dking 01:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The John Train Salon was never in this article before, at least not for a long time. It is covered in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche#John Train Salon and it doesn't need to be here too. -Will Beback · † · 02:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many themes that are duplicated in these articles, not the least of which is the King-Berlet theory that LaRouche, who has fought all his life against fascism, is a fascist. Under NPOV LaRouche is entitled to rebut this. From looking at the LaRouche websites, LaRouche's primary rebuttal is the allegations about the Salon. Neither King nor Berlet disputes that they went to Train's house; they dispute the purpose of the meetings, and if there is a published comment by one or the other of them about the purpose of the meetings, it could be included.

I requested that the mediation cabal take a look at the disputes over this article. Hopefully they will arrive soon. --Tsunami Butler 15:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence that there has been no independent media verification of LaRouche's claims about the John Train conspiracy. Also, I removed the citation to Daniel Brandt's website. Although Mr. Brandt has expertise in a variety of areas (including the weaknesses of Wikipedia!) he is not an expert on LaRouche and has never published anything on LaRouche in a mainstream publication. Thus to cite his opinion from his own website on the John Train conspiracy (on which he apparently did no serious research, since he never called me and asked me about my eyewitness account of the meetings in question--and did he bother to call Chip Berlet either?) is meaningless. I think website information can be used if the author of the web information has recognized expertise in the subject in question; this is not the case here. Otherwise, various members of the LaRouche organization could set up their own web sites, publish articles saying they believe the John Train plot existed and was truly horrific and nefarious--and then get themselves quoted in Wikipedia as sources "independent" of LaRouche's publications. --Dking 18:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think that this is too long for this article. If we're just tring to say that King and Berlet are plotters then we can say it more directly, then give a link to the other article. Furthermore there's no way of proving this assertion:

• There has been no media assessment of this alleged plot except by LaRouche associated publications.

So it should be stricken outright. I'm going to shorten the text and give a link. -Will Beback · † · 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories

"If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.Inventors of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventor of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play." (From Wikipedia:Fringe theories.) I believe that King's theory that LaRouche is a fascist falls within these guidelines, and should be excluded. --NathanDW 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. Just read my book [30]--and then read the LaRouche documents that I cite (many of them are available in PDF form on the LaRouche Youth Movement site, where they are listed as "classics"). Especially read LaRouche's OWN WRITINGS on code language which I cite in my book, and the works I also cite in which he posits an evil oligarchical usurious "species" outside the human race (Kissinger, Rohatyn, Rothschild, et al) which he says is the enemy that must be destroyed. Also see The Case of Walter Lippmann and various LaRouche articles in the late 1970s on how to crush international terrorism--a fascist theory of the state (and of state repression) is there in all but name. (As LaRouche said, "It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist to be a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one.") As to the accusation that my interpretation of LaRouchism is a "fringe" theory, this is disproven by (among other things) the many favorable reviews of my book in mainstream media that can be read on my website. Especially see the review by Leonard Zeskin, one of the nation's leading experts on neo-fascist groups.--Dking 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of folks who have called LaRouche "fascist" or "neo-fascist". Daniel Moynihan being perhaps the most prominent.

• http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F5071FFA395C0C778EDDAA0894DE484D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fD%2fDemocratic%20Party
• http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_party/index.html?query=LAROUCHE,%20LYNDON&field=per&match=exact
• http://www.dailyvanguard.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/05/13/40a31aaa061fd?in_archive=1
• http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3613/is_199607/ai_n8744021/pg_3
• http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_n1_v20/ai_20791164/pg_2
• http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n10_v58/ai_15783405/pg_2
• http://www.amazon.com/Lyndon-Larouche-Fascism-Restyled-Millennium/dp/0932323219
• http://www.bethuneinstitute.org/documents/prescription.html
• http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=10851
• http://www.freepress.org/Backup/UnixBackup/pubhtml/manning/mmmlater.html
• http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/sum_03/sum_03_08.html

I'm sure we can find more. -Will Beback · † · 22:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Will, I am sure that list represents plenty of Googling on your part, but it sort of misses the point. Nathan is pointing out that the theory must be commented on by "mainstream sources." I agree that the Moynihan quote is the most notable, although in covering it, the NYT puts "fascist" in quotes. But the other cites you Googled don't measure up. I looked up Wikipedia:Reliable sources, where it says "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people." It also says that "Extremist organizations and individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used as sources about themselves and their activities, and even then should be used with caution." --Tsunami Butler 01:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting using these as sources for the article. I posted them here, on a talk page, to address the assertion that calling LaRouche a "fascist" is a "fringe theory". I omitted a number of mainstream sources that reviewed King's book. Those would also serve to prove that it is not a fringe theory. Getting back to the point, it is clear that the NY Time is a maintstream source and that it has covered the allegation br printing Moynihan's charge. So we can dispense with this attempt to remove King's criticism. -Will Beback · † · 02:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The "fringe theories" policy says that the theory should be commented on in the mainstream press, in order not to be considered "fringe." I don't think that a book review is sufficient. And I also note that the policy warns that fringe theorists may try to promote their pet projects on Wikipedia. I think that it is significant that both King and Berlet have spent considerable time editing and self-citing on Wikipedia. If I were trying to present myself as a "published expert," I would be embarrassed to do what they are doing. --NathanDW 16:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, several weeks ago the followers of Fred Newman (an ex-LaRouche follower who has his own psychotherapy-political cult) began sanitizing the Wiki article about their leader. Among the tricks they used was to label Newman's critics as "fringe" persons and to suggest that Newman in comparison was "mainstream." Since Newman's critics were pointing out Newman's history of support for Col. Gadhafi and Louis Farrakhan--as well as Newman's expressions of rank anti-Semitism and his advocacy of sex between psychotherapists and their patients--the labelling of his critics as the "fringe" was an obvious semantic trick to turn reality on its head. In a curious instance of synchronicity, the same trick is now being applied to the LaRouche article.

The theory that LaRouche is a fascist is NOT a "fringe" theory. The evidence presented is not simply "a" [a single] book review (as NathanDW falsely claims), but about two dozen book reviews including ones from national newspapers and magazines by journalists such as Doug Ireland and David Corn, a cover article by myself and Ron Radosh in The New Republic, over a dozen articles by Chip Berlet, the ground-breaking book on political cults by Tourish and Wohlforth, articles in the San Francisco Examiner and the Chicago Sun-Times, numerous citations of Berlet's work and my own in books by respected experts on the far right, and independent labeling of LaRouche as a fascist by various scholars, columnists and political figures. There is also the 1984 statement by ADL fact-finding director Irwin Suall that LaRouche is a "small-time Hitler" (when LaRouche sued Suall for this in federal court, Suall won the case hands down).

NathanDW states on his user page that he has encountered LaRouche literature on the street (this would be in large part ephemeral propaganda) and that he finds LaRouche "difficult to read and super-intellectual." I suggest that NDW go to the core writings of LaRouche from the years that he was developing his ideology (the writings now offered as "classics" on the LaRouche Youth Movement web page) and also to the ones cited in my book that the Larouche movement is too embarrassed to republish (like LaRouche's ravings on "ABC" warfare to turn Eastern Europe into a parking lot) since such writings might upset their attempts today to recruit naive leftist kids on college campuses. If one really carefully reads this stuff, one will find numerous naked expressions of anti-Semitism and fascist-style political concepts buried in elaborately constructed and artfully turgid paragraphs. One will also find references, that continue to the present day in Larouche's writings and speeches, to an alien "species" (Kissinger, the "Venetians," etc) that is supposedly parasiting off the human race--what is this if not crypto-Nazi insanity?

NDW says he finds LaRouche "difficult to read"? This is because NDW hasn't tackled LaRouche's use of elusive language, euphemisms, semi-euphemisms, semantic juggling, elaborate cognitive framings, and symbolic scapegoats. In LaRouche, things are not always what they seem to be--as LaRouche himself says, you have to read him like you would read Renaissance writers who disguised their meaning for political reasons. (See King, chapter 27 [31].)

I hope NDW will not try to oversimplify this once again by referring to it merely as a code-word theory. Code words are only one trick in LaRouche's bag. And LaRouche himself is not the first one since the Renaissance to use such tricks. NDW should look at the famous 19th century book by the Russian publicist and democrat, Nikolay Dobrolyubov, A Ray of Light in the Realm of Darkness, in which a revolutionary political manifesto is disguised--with astounding cleverness--as a book of drama criticism. The Russian revolutionaries called this "Aesopian" language. LaRouche has learned to use such language with a cleverness all his own.-- Dking 20:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Another LaRouchian urban myth

Implanted in this article is a picture of an FBI memo re LaRouche and the Communist Party from October 1973. The article quotes LaRouche as giving a certain interpretation of the FBI memo that is not warranted by the actual text of the memo or by its timing. Since the text of the memo has been included in the article, I think it is not original research to point out that LaRouche's interpretation of the memo is far-fetched. The LaRouchians have had some success on the internet in spreading the urban myth that the FBI and its supposed agents inside the CP plotted to kill LaRouche in 1973 (although LaRouche shortly thereafter began informing on his leftist opponents to Red Squads all over the country as well as to the FBI and the CIA; see King, chapter 24 [32]). This goes hand in hand with the other urban myth--that LaRouche's felony conviction for swindling old ladies, and his reputation for Jew hatred, are all the result of a conspiracy emanating from the apartment of a Manhattan investment banker named John Train. Since urban legends concocted by LaRouche are a part of his life story, I suppose they should be mentioned; but it is incumbent on Wikipedia to make clear that these allegations are of extremely dubious provenance.--Dking 20:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. In October 1973, Operation Mop Up had been over for several months. Self-defense squads at leftist meetings had decisively defeated LaRouche's attack squads. Arrests and indictments had totally demoralized his followers. The NCLC had succeeded in totally isolating itself from the campus and off-campus left (which I think is what LaRouche intended but which made him much less of a threat to the CP). In other words, the crisis was over for the CP and it would have had zero motivation for running the astounding risk of attempting to assassinate LaRouche. (See King, chapter 3 [33].) This is another reason, apart from the ones I gave in my most recent edit to the article, to assume that the FBI memo is speaking of a CP desire to politically expose and isolate LaRouche, not to kill him.--Dking 20:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

---

The term "Fascist" was first applied to NCLC as a result of Operation Mopup. I was in the Young Socialist Alliance at this time, following the NCLC assaults on the CP. When the SWP/YSA came to defense of the CP after the CP asked us for help (an historic first, mind you!) we too became victims of their ganster strategy of physical violance and intimination. One meeting that year in Detroit was attacked and parapalegic member of the YSA was beaten up in his wheelchair by the NCLC gangs (reported in The Militant). Basically the article is correct, where ever there was organized defense, we consistantly stomped the NCLCers to pieces. A key turning point was when the NCLC/Larouche started mouthing off about the "sexual impotancy of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party" and the PSP completely when crazy and smashed up several contingents of NCLCers in NY in 1975.

Having said all that, Larouche has made a turn to the left, kind of, coming out in rigerous defense of public health and leadng the fight to save DC General Hospital. His positions in opposition the oil wars is more or less along the lines of other left groups, minus the conspiracy theory stuff. 216.203.27.99 10:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)DavidMIA Feb 7, 2007

Misrepresentation of King's argument that LaRouche is a fascist

LaRouche supporters have shamelessly misrepresented (and attempted to trivialize) my arguments as to why I think LaRouche is best classified as a fascist. I rewrote the paragraphs of this article that mischaracterized my ideas, following closely the text of the actual chapter of my book that had been distorted. If LaRouche's folks think there's now too much Dennis King in this article, they have no one to blame but themselves. I also moved text into chronological order, correcting confusion over dates and approximate time periods that have long plagued this article (but are NOT the result of any conspiracy).--Dking 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make the observation that your arguments are based on the flimsiest sort of circumstantial evidence, i.e. LaRouche once discussed space colonization with a scientist who once lived in Germany when Hitler was running it, so therefore LaRouche should be considered a fascist. You would think that we should open an investigation of anyone who ever owned a spirograph. If LaRouche were really a fascist, he would advocate policies that were fascist in character, and he doesn't. Plus, the people that you are defending, the neoconservatives, embrace the entire fascist agenda. That's the irony that I see here. --MaplePorter 01:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-citation

Dking, I would like to request for the second time that you carefully review WP:COI and especially WP:COI#Citing_oneself. --Tsunami Butler 15:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that some of the changes Tsumani just made and explained in the history box are valid. Some of the difficulties in editing this article, however, are in part a result of the article's dreadfully choatic organization and confusion of chronology which keeps getting compounded. More on this later.--Dking 18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved the stuff about Rudolph to a separate section directly below the one about LaRouche's SDI activity. This is really more about political activity than ideology, although as I pointed out it certainly influenced LaRouche's program. I restored the accusations about Rudolph since the account now deals with the LaRouche organization's campaign to defend Rudolph against the OSI. I made a separate small section for the stuff about code language and placed it after the account of the libel cases. (I think it really should be moved to the article on LaRouche's political views but if others want to keep it here I won't argue the point.) Finally I added that the $3M judgement against LaRouche in his suit against NBC was reduced by Judge Cacheris to $200,000, and that the "LaRouche test" was articulated by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, not by Judge Cacheris.--Dking 20:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Several times on this talk page it says that major changes to the article should be discussed first, because it is considered to be a controversial topic. Dking is making such massive re-writes that it is difficult to keep track of all the changes. I would appreciate it if he would discuss them on the talk page first. --MaplePorter 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that we are looking at a serious conflict with another Wikipedia policy, WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. King deserves to be mentioned as a critic of LaRouche. However, the massive self-citing is beginning to unbalance the article, particularly when the article begins to provide a soapbox for some of King's more exotic notions, like this:

LaRouche and "coded" discourse

Dennis King has cited certain euphemisms, Orwellian semantic tricks, and examples of symbolic scapegoating which he believes LaRouche uses. King believes these examples bolster his argument (which also references certain images used in LaRouche publications) that LaRouche is a fascist whose world view centers on anti-Semitism and includes a "dream of world conquest." He suggests that certain photos of barred spiral galaxies and of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory plasmoid experiments which appeared in LaRouche's New Solidarity newspaper and Fusion magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika" and of the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest." He also points to a 1978 illustration in New Solidarity of Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David -- and certain headlines (in more recent LaRouche publications) such as "How the Venetian Virus Infected and Took Over England" -- to bolster his argument that LaRouche's attacks on a "British" oligarchy are often intended as attacks on international Jewry. But King has also presented numerous examples of direct statements by LaRouche and his followers that are not couched in euphemisms and which King regards as proof of anti-Semitism and of LaRouche's desire for a fascist-in-all-but-name dictatorship in the United States and elsewhere.

Former LaRouche follower Linda Ray, writing in In These Times, has commented on these alleged LaRouchian methods of communicating. She recalls reading in New Solidarity about a subhuman oligarchical species centered in London: "Although I knew it did not make scientific sense, I presumed that it was a deep intellectual metaphor that was over my head." She says that years later, when she was shown the Star of David picture with Queen Elizabeth at the top, "I quickly replied...'It is just a graphics art symbol'--which I naively thought for years. But as soon as I said it out loud I realized that I sounded ridiculous. It was as if I was waking from a nightmare."

I retained the "imagery" section under criticism. As for the rest, there are now, by my count, 8 links to King's website in the article. That should be enough to enable the reader to find it. --Tsunami Butler 09:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the LaRouche assocaition with German scientists and the supposed us of weapsons for world domination? Those are as central to the article as the imagery. -Will Beback · † · 06:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still in there -- Dennis King created a new section for it later in article. --NathanDW 16:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, indeed. Thanks for that. Since the expanded material isn't strictly biographical I'm wondering it it'd be better in the "Political views" article. That covers more of his intellectual relationships. -Will Beback · † · 18:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Latest edits and comments by LaRouche defenders

As usual, Tsunami's edits are a mixture of good and bad.

• I accept T's reversion of phrasing in the second paragraph. However, since T removed the reference to people regarding LaRouche as a "fascist", on grounds that it is a minority viewpoint, I have removed also the statement from General Graham that LaRouche is a communist, which without any doubt IS a minority viewpoint. This is not to censor Graham; he is quoted further on in the article (in the subsection "Criticism from the Right") as making an almost identical accusation. I am curious why there is so much opposition to the accusations of fascism being included in the opening section but NOT to the accusation of LaRouche still being a Marxist-Leninist. Could it be because LaRouche's supporters know that this latter accusation would be dismissed as "McCarthyism" by the naive anti-war students they are trying to recruit today on college campuses, and thus is not as threatening to LaRouche's reputation as the well-documented accusations of fascism?

I have no problem with your edit. I have, however, moved the little section on right-wing criticism into the main criticism section. I think that it is useful for the reader to know that LaRouche is attacked by both ends of the spectrum. If may say so, your insinuations about the motives of LaRouche supporters and "naive college students" do you no credit. I think today's college students are far more astute than their parents were. --Tsunami Butler 23:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I removed once again T's paragraph that takes my comments about images in LaRouche's publications totally out of context. I had written a paragraph that attempted to place it all in context, but T (or NathanDW?) removed this to the discussion page. Fine. Leave both versions out and discuss whether this material should be included in some form in the article on LaRouche's political views which is where it properly belongs. There is objection to my citing myself so much, but I only did so in this paragraph to correct a totally false impression left by T's version. When I clarified that I believe LaRouche not only uses code language but also reframings, symbolic scapegoats, etc., T objected that this was not properly sourced. Fine, so I sourced it, and now I am accused of citing myself too much! This is a Catch-22 totally created by T and NathanDW. If you want me to not cite myself so much then stop misrepresenting my book.

I disagree with this one. I also don't think it belongs in "Political views." It tells the reader nothing whatsoever about LaRouche or his views; I think that it belongs in the section on Criticism, because people should know something about your methodology. I originally wrote that you use "decoding," which was deleted by Will Beback. MaplePorter added this as a neutrally worded example of the sorts of unusual inferences you draw, to back up what are frankly IMO "conspiracy theories," and I think that the reader should be allowed to draw his own conclusions about this methodology. --Tsunami Butler 23:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence of T's paragraph in which he describes my belief that LaRouche changed his program to include "lebensraum" on Mars, etc. is still in the article. It is now in context--in the section on his relationships with former Nazi scientists--where it is implicitly clear that these ideas evolved out of his developing relationships with the Operation Paperclip crowd. And anyone who reads the chapter of my book on this, which has a distinctly satiric tone ("green steppes of Earth," etc.) will clearly see how nutty I regard all this as being.

Another reason I removed T's paragraph is because of his persistence in saying the photos of swastika-like objects appeared in "scientific" publications. New Solidarity is not a scientific publication, nor was Fusion, which was a political propaganda journal directed at scientists. And by the way the pictures of swastika-shaped "barred spiral galaxies" were first brought to my attention by a top scientist at Lawrence Livermore. If the LaRouchians wanted simply to put a picture of a "spiral nebula" in their publication, why out of all the vast number of such objects did they pick one shaped like a swastika?

If you think those things look like swastikas, you need to read this joke. --172.192.141.130 02:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fusion was a science magazine. If you call it differently, put it in quotes and cite yourself yet again. I am a "she", by the way. --Tsunami Butler 23:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I replaced the phrase in which T says that LaRouche "warned" against EMW weapons at the Munich EIR conference. This is misleading. The implicit warning was that if the Germans and Americans didn't develop such weapons first, the Soviets might. I personally believe he was also sending a double message to a small minority of revanchists--develop these weapons and you can fulfill your revanchist dream. Be that as it may, LaRouche was definitely urging development of the weapons. However, I am willing to go with a neutral-language compromise--that he "described" or "predicted" the development of such weapons. To say that he warned against EMW weapons contradicts the testimony of Steve Bardwell (cited in the "SDI" subsection of this article) and the record of LaRouche's ultra-aggressive military proposals during the late Cold War period (a record that might prove extremely embarrassing to him now that he is presenting himself as an anti-war activist).

As you note elsewhere, the LaRouche Youth Movement site has all the old texts of LaRouche's articles, and he makes no attempt to "revise" his old opinions. He still talks about Reagan's SDI as one of his most important victories. I disagree with your attempts to paint LaRouche as a war-monger; as I understand it, he was shocked and upset that the Soviets turned down Reagan's offer, and took it as evidence of bellicose intentions on the Soviets' part. LaRouche called for a defense buildup as a result. --Tsunami Butler 23:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I restored the subhead about "Nazi scientists." They WERE Nazi scientists. Rudolph was a party member for many years. Von Braun was an SS officer. The rest of them worked FOR the Nazis, for Hitler. They were not part of a separate war being fought by the "good" Wehrmacht against the "evil" Zionist-British organism in London (whose secret agent was Adolph Hitler). This is all a LaRouche fantasy. Likewise I am replacing T's phrasing that the Peenemunde scientists were serving "during" the Nazi regime with the truth, that they served the Nazi regime. Who else would they have been serving? They were voluntarily carrying out orders from Hitler, Goering et al as filtered through SS officer Von Braun and other Nazis.

I still think you are "spinning" the history here to make your case. Since your case is all based on circumstantial evidence and guilt by association, you are more or less forced to "spin" everything that you cite as evidence, and therefore I am insisting on rigor in language here, particularly because you risk smearing the reputations of others as you attempt to bring down LaRouche. --Tsunami Butler 23:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that Rudolph should not be held directly responsible for the SS executions at Mittelwerk and agree to drop that phrase. However, I have restored the rest, which is factual. Rudolph WAS the rocket production manager, and did oversee slave laborers who died in the tens of thousands. And this information is directly pertinent to one of the most important political events of the Larouche movement in the 1980s--its alliance with Operation Paperclip scientists to try to vilify the OSI and other Nazi hunters, and to help Rudolph beat the rap.

• I agree to the inclusion of General Medaris' name in the list of those allied to support Rudolph; this is in my book. However, the Liberty Lobby is also listed in my book and I have included it as well. If you go to the Rudolph article on Wikipedia you will see that Canadian neo-Nazi and Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel also got involved. I am not adding that fact to the LaRouche article, only pointing it out here for the record.-- Dking 18:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche's childhood

In the section on LaRouche's childhood it says he grew up speaking French and German. I have never heard this before. Although I can see how he may have picked up some Quebec French in childhood from his father or paternal grandparents, where would he have learned to speak German as a youngster? I'm not saying the statement is false, just that it should be checked and a citation should be provided. Also, was it LaRouche's father who was a Quebec immigrant--or his grandfather? I can't remember.-- Dking 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In his autobiography, the 1988 one, he says his paternal grandfather came from Quebec by way of Paris. I don't find anything about him speaking French or German. I wonder about some of the unsourced childhood stuff in this article. I also think that there should be more detail about his activities after he began to run for President, which are what make him actually notable. --Tsunami Butler 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of major figures should cover their youth, education, and personal lives, at least in passing, even if those are not what make the person notable. However in this case there is a lack of sources for particulars of the subject's youth. The subject's biographical claims should be included, though uncorroborated claims that are contentious or self-serving should be attributed. -Will Beback · † · 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami, thanks for clarifying about LaRouche's grandfather being the immigrant. I will change it if you haven't already done so. I'll leave the stuff about French and German for the time being in case someone else comes up with a cite. I presented yet another version of the stuff about EMW weapons. The phrase you added was placed after a quote from my book in such a way that it seems to be an extension of the quote, which it isn't. I added a separate sentence giving it as the interpretation of LaRouche supporters. See what you think. As to the shortening of the LaRouche quote on Mop Up, I have no objection to you restoring the full quote, but I still think the first sentence was irrelevant, since in my study of New Solidarity issues during the Mop Up period I never saw any reference to clashes with Rudd and the New Left as being motivating forces. However, I have no doubt that such clashes occurred, since all the SDS factions ended up in violent or subviolent clashes in 1968-69.--Dking 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the quotes from LaRouche on WMD, I think it is ill advised to speculate about what "his followers" think, or to speculate about what LaRouche really meant, which it seems to me is what you are doing, although you are trying to word it cleverly so it seems that you are simply reporting his views. Would you mind reproducing, on this page, his actual remarks, in context? --Tsunami Butler 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive

This page takes a long time to load on my computer. Does anyone mind if I archive the parts before Sept 27, 2006? --Tsunami Butler 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Coded discourse"

Dking, would you be so kind as to explain how this paragraph "distorts and trivializes" your theory?

King interprets imagery, and what he regards as "elliptical" phrases in LaRouche publications. to argue that LaRouche is a fascist with a "dream of world conquest." He states that certain photos of Nuclear fusion experiments at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and of barred spiral galaxies, which appeared in LaRouche's New Solidarity newspaper and Fusion magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika" and a reference to the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest," and refers to Space colonization as "Lebensraum on Mars."

I will reproduce once again your preferred version, so that I may tell you what my objections to it are:

LaRouche and "coded" discourse

Dennis King has cited certain euphemisms, Orwellian semantic tricks, and examples of symbolic scapegoating which he believes LaRouche uses. King believes these examples bolster his argument (which also references certain images used in LaRouche publications) that LaRouche is a fascist whose world view centers on anti-Semitism and includes a "dream of world conquest." He suggests that certain photos of barred spiral galaxies and of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory plasmoid experiments which appeared in LaRouche's New Solidarity newspaper and Fusion magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika" and of the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest." He also points to a 1978 illustration in New Solidarity of Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David -- and certain headlines (in more recent LaRouche publications) such as "How the Venetian Virus Infected and Took Over England" -- to bolster his argument that LaRouche's attacks on a "British" oligarchy are often intended as attacks on international Jewry. But King has also presented numerous examples of direct statements by LaRouche and his followers that are not couched in euphemisms and which King regards as proof of anti-Semitism and of LaRouche's desire for a fascist-in-all-but-name dictatorship in the United States and elsewhere.

Former LaRouche follower Linda Ray, writing in In These Times, has commented on these alleged LaRouchian methods of communicating. She recalls reading in New Solidarity about a subhuman oligarchical species centered in London: "Although I knew it did not make scientific sense, I presumed that it was a deep intellectual metaphor that was over my head." She says that years later, when she was shown the Star of David picture with Queen Elizabeth at the top, "I quickly replied...'It is just a graphics art symbol'--which I naively thought for years. But as soon as I said it out loud I realized that I sounded ridiculous. It was as if I was waking from a nightmare."

First of all, you simply assert (by saying that you "cited them") that LaRouche is using "certain euphemisms, Orwellian semantic tricks, and examples of symbolic scapegoating." I frankly think that is a load of crap. I have read plenty of LaRouche, and he is very plain-spoken, sometimes egregiously or laboriously so. You are simply throwing up a cloud of verbiage to disguise the fact you are really claiming that he is lying, and that he means something other than what he says. I remind you that originally I was prepared to simply say that you claim that you can "decode" LaRouche, but Will Beback would have none of that, even though it is clear that that is exactly what you are saying. My view is that the short version which you keep deleting is truthful, and the longer one which you prefer is full of "Orwellian semantic tricks" on your own part. It may be that this cannot be resolved with mediation, which I have requested. --Tsunami Butler 01:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the opportunity to read some of the web pages which are used as cites, and I must say, I am astounded. You actually claim that it is anti-Semitic to oppose usury! I would say it is anti-Semitic to equate usury with Judaism, which is exactly what you are doing. Likewise, you associate medieval Venice with Judaism, when Venice in fact oppressed the Jews; you associate Leo Strauss with Judaism; in fact, you imply that any criticism of a person with a Jewish surname is implicitly anti-Semitic, and you ignore the fact the most of LaRouche's targets of criticism, like Dick Cheney for example, are not Jewish. You also shamelessly take quotes out of context: for example, you know very well that when LaRouche refers to George Soros as "a man of very unpleasant antecedents," he is talking about the fact that he was a Nazi collaborator in Hungary. This sort of thing is propagandistic, a shoddy excuse for "scholarship," and IMO inadmissable to Wikipedia under WP:BLP. --Tsunami Butler 03:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this is all clearly properly cited.--Cberlet 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami, the quote from Linda Ray about awakening from a nightmare seems to have affected you. Your latest accusations are confused and untrue. I have never equated Jews with usury, but have objected to LaRouche doing so in writings like the "Case of Ludwig Feuerbach." When LaRouche publications talk about a "Venetian oligarchy" they are talking about Venetian bankers who moved to London; it was the Jews of Venice, not the Italian Christians of Venice, who moved to London. And when the LaRouche publications describe Benjamin Disraeli as the "leader of the Venetian party" in England, they sure as hell aren't referring to any Venetian Christian immigrants in Victorian England. (And anyone who reads this stuff will automatically think of Shylock in the "Merchant of Venice.") When LaRouche talks about the Jewish individuals he uses as symbolic scapegoats, like Felix Rohatyn, the Rothschilds, Henry Kissinger and Leo Strauss, he frequently refers to them as being part of a separate oligarchical "species" -- what do you suppose this really means? LaRouche tells us in some of his "classic" writings that this oligarchy is a separate biological species that evolved through moral degeneracy and Lysenko style genetics and must be crushed--he even gloats over how this separate species regards him as the "new Hitler." (THINK about that, like Linda Ray did.) George Soros may or may not have a shady past, but reference to his "antecedents" is clearly to his ancestry, not to his actions during WW II. It is true that LaRouche publications attack Dick Cheney, but they often depict him and and Bush as being tools of the neoconservatives (Jews) who in turn are working for the international oligarchy (Jews and British aristocratic culture-Jews a la Nazi theory). When 9/11 happened, LaRouche immediately went on a radio talk show to blame it on a conspiracy headed by a British Jew. Furthermore, LaRouche publications have stated that Cheney is controlled by his wife who in turn is a "British" agent. It is absurd to describe LaRouche as "plainspoken" when he routinely engages in such obfuscatory tactics.-- Dking 20:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read the transcript of LaRouche's interview on the Jack Stockwell show that was conducted live during 9/11, so I know that your claim regarding 9/11 is false. I also know that LaRouche does not equate Jews with Neo-conservatives, although you apparently do. As for your other claims, I have seen some examples of how you purport to produce "evidence" for them, and I have never seen such a bunch of amateurish propaganda in my life. I looked up Linda Ray on Google, and the only cites I found were references to your website and Chip Berlet's website. If you can produce a photostat of the alleged "Star of David" pamphlet, I'll read it. I won't take it on faith. --Tsunami Butler 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Tsunami, my description of the Stockwell interview (conducted while the Twin Tower attacks were in progress on the morning of 9/11) is NOT false. LaRouche attempted to suggest that the Goldsmith family (relatives of the Rothschilds, according to the Wiki bio of Sir James, one of the two brothers mentioned by LaRouche) was linked to the attacks. Here is what the transcript quotes LaRouche as saying in response to Stockwell telling him that "smoke is billowing" out of one of the towers:

We have a global process. Look, the financial system's coming down. That's always a dangerous thing. Because then the entire system is being shaken..., political things happen, because various people try to intervene and orchestrate events by spectacular interventions, which will change, shall we say, get public attention off one thing and put it on another. So, this is obviously--I mean, I cannot draw a conclusion, except the circumstances tell me something evil is behind this thing. And I don't know which, but they're both connected, because I know the Goldsmith brothers--for example, Jimmy Goldsmith was key in helping to create--he's now deceased--Osama bin Laden and people like that. The Taliban and so forth. And at the same time, his brother, Teddy Goldsmith, who is still very much alive, is sort of the spiritual godfather of this movement which is planning to inundate Washington D.C. with some pretty nasty stuff at the end of this month.

Why, when anything bad happens in the world, does LaRouche so often look for some wealthy Jew or Jewish family or Jewish institution to blame it on?--Dking 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't. Your allegations appear to me to be malicious and not supported by the quote you cite above. LaRouche has sharp disagreements on policy with the Goldsmith brother, as you well know, but you feign ignorance of those differences in order insinuate that he has a problem with their ethnicity. You are undoubtably also aware that there is a long, long list of Jews that LaRouche praises as heroes -- Moses Mendelssohn, or Itzhak Rabin, for example -- and you simply ignore any evidence that is not consistant with your conspiracy theory. --Tsunami Butler 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I should add that LaRouche repeated and elaborated on his allegations about the Goldsmiths in a variety of forums over the next few years. It is only fair to point out, however, that on at least one occasion (in a Nov. 1, 2004 interview on KXOW in Hot Springs, Ark.), LaRouche gave the Goldsmiths a gentile partner in crime: George Herbert Bush. I suppose that LaRouche followers will point to this as evidence that LaRouche is not anti-Semitic.-- Dking 19:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche's Munich speech on death rays

Pro-LaRouche editors on this page have repeatedly made insertions to make it appear that LaRouche's 1987 statement in Munich on dominating the planet through microwave weapons was merely a warning against Soviet machinations. I have reviewed the text of LaRouche's speech as published in EIR, plus an accompanying news artice, "Seminar in Munich looks at radio-frequency weapons," plus a bibliography of previous EIR articles on the weapons technology in question (also accompanying the text of the speech). I have also read over a Feb. 22, 1985 article from New Solidarity on "microwave bombs" (illustrated by one of nutty Professor Bostick's plasmoid "swastikas"). It is clear that prior to LaRouche's Munich speech he and his organization had engaged in a concerted effort to whip up support for a massive crash program to develop such weapons in the United States and Germany. They exaggerated Soviet work in the field and LaRouche himself made two claims in his Munich speech that are now known to be (like most of his predictions) false: First, that perestroika was nothing but a trick to lull the West into inaction; and second, that in "four to five years" a huge revolution in warfare "more awesome than that which exploded over Hiroshima" would be underway, with microwave weapons dominating the "arenas of strategic and tactical conflict." LaRouche discussed both the defensive and offensive capabilities of such weapons (but in apocalyptic terms that almost rendered the difference between offense and defense mute). A statement from his speech now quoted in the text of the Wiki LaRouche bio makes quite clear that he was urging the development of these weapons by Germany and/or by Germany and the United States, not just describing some effort by the Soviets. The quote now says "dominate the world" rather than "dominate the planet." This is not because I misquoted LaRouche in my book, but because LaRouche talked about dominating the "planet" at the beginning of the speech and then repeated himself using the word "world" near the end. Apparently, he wanted to make sure that any aging revanchists in the audience would get the point even if they had snoozed off during part of the proceedings.--Dking 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Post the context on this page, then. I am unwilling to take your word for these things, as I find that your characterizations of LaRouche's ideas are seldom supported by what you cite as "evidence." --Tsunami Butler 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid propagandistic language

Dking, you changed MaplePorter's edit, referring to "LaRouche's opposition to the policies of the neo-conservatives," and replaced it with "LaRouche's attacks on the neo-conservatives." This is propagandistic, in two ways: first of all, because you are using the "Orwellian semantic trick" of hiding the fact that LaRouche does in fact oppose the policies of the neo-cons, because then you can insinuate that he opposes them for some reason unrelated to policy. Secondly, when you criticize LaRouche, you call it "criticism," but when LaRouche criticizes someone else, you call it an "attack." This is an encyclopedia, and you have a responsibility to at least make the effort to be neutral and objective. --Tsunami Butler 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

When LaRouche and his followers rave about "Children of Satan" and a separate "species" outside the human race--and use wildly abusive personal language against individual neocons (suggesting they are traitors and Israeli spies)--that constitutes a published "attack," not a "policy criticism." --Dking 23:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dking, you seem to forget that I have actually read some books by LaRouche, including "Children of Satan." It appears to me that the title refers to the moral ambivalence of the philosophy of Leo Strauss, whom LaRouche depicts as the mentor of the neo-cons in the Bush DOD. I suspect that LaRouche is also ribbing the Christian fundamentalists, who ironically, wind up following a gang of atheists. But please don't resort to the sort of wild allegations you make in your previous post. You are supposed to be some sort of scholar. You don't seem to be above the use of "wildly abusive personal language" yourself. --Tsunami Butler 00:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading this makes me feel like I'm in some weird alternate universe. The Neo-cons promote preventive war, torture, illegal wiretapping of US citizens, the whole package of Hitlerian policies. LaRouche opposes them at a time when most people are afraid to do so. Then Dennis King calls LaRouche a neo-Nazi. This is through-the-looking-glass stuff.

Another thing -- earlier, ManEatingDonut was complaining about student site that was used as a source, because of a "photoshopped" photo superimposing LaRouche on Hitler. I found the very same photo on Dennis King's website. I wonder whether he did the photoshopping himself. I don't think his site meets WP:RS criteria. --NathanDW 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A fascist isn't the same as a Neo-nazi. How do we know the image was photoshopped? -Will Beback · † · 07:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw a few points out there... Neo-conservative means new conservative (liberals that are now conservative). Bill Crystal, Paul Wolfowitz, along with any neoconservative I can think of does NOT advocate torture. Supposedly, the wiretap progamming involved the intercept of calls between the United States and overseas involving suspected Al Qaeda members. Challenges to the Terrorist Surveillance Program are working their way through the courts. If it explicitly only pertains to Al Qaeda, there are strong legal arguments that it is legal and the power implicitly flows from prior congressional authorization and if they did keep congress informed, they very likely might win. If the administration took some overly broad position, they might lose. You might disagree with these policies, but calling them "Hitlerian" is hysterical and incorrect. Mgunn 12:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche's attacks on the neocons

Once again, Tsunami Butler has distorted my criticism of LaRouche's attacks on the neocons. The only thing I have written on LaRouche and the Bush admin neocons (and hence the only thing she can refer to under Wiki policy) is in the 2005 report on LaRouche's anti-Semitism I prepared for the Justice for Jeremiah organization.[34] Here in fact is what I wrote:

It is undeniable that a small group of Jewish neoconservative intellectuals at the Pentagon (mostly notably, Under Secretary Paul Wolfowitz) performed an important role in encouraging the Iraq war. However, LaRouche (for whom controversial Jews are meat and potatoes) played on the popular discontent over the war to concoct a conspiracy theory that vastly conflates the role of the neocons and depicts U.S. policy as having been taken over by a giant network of Zionist agents (called "Straussians" after a Jewish professor at the University of Chicago who died in 1973 but has subsequently become the Professor Moriarty of LaRouche's universe). The Straussians are said to be working as agents of the Israeli government and of the "British" (the oligarchy of mostly Jewish financiers operating out of London...). To the delight of LaRouche's Saudi friends, this conspiracy theory has achieved wide circulation in the U.S. media and probably represents the high point ever of LaRouche's influence on public opinion. Somewhere along the way, the proponents of this theory have forgotten that none of the top policy makers--Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--were Jewish nor were they "Straussians." But in the world view of anti-Semites, the Jews are always invested with magical powers to cloud the minds of gentiles and turn them into puppets.

As can be seen, I focus not on LaRouche's criticism of neocon policy positions but on his conspiracy theory about the neocons. In the compilation of LaRouchian quotes in the report I also give examples of his abusive personal and ethnic attacks on the neocons/Straussians, which include accusing them of treason. Tsunami's description of what I wrote is false, and this is why I have reverted her edit.--Dking 00:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you invent an entirely different conspiracy theory about the neocons, and then attribute it to LaRouche. LaRouche has never focussed on the ethnicity of these guys, except to say that Leo Strauss probably would have joined the Nazi party were it not for his Jewish heritage which excluded him from membership. LaRouche in fact focusses his critique on the people who, as you point out, are not Jewish. The original Children of Satan pamphlet had a big picture of Rumsfeld, with several other figures in the background. The book version had a similar format, except that the big picture was of Cheney. When LaRouche warned in January 2001 that someone in the Bush administration would like a new Reichstag Fire, he specified that someone: John Ashcroft.

LaRouche has never said that the Straussians were "working as agents of the Israeli government" or "Zionist agents"; that's a fabrication and you should be ashamed of yourself. He has said that the neo-cons wish to use Israel under the Likud leaders like a hand grenade, which would blow up the Middle East while simultaneously destroying itself. To my knowledge LaRouche has no "Saudi friends," unlike the Bush family. The more I read of your productions, the more I am appalled at the half-truths and outright fabrications you employ. --Tsunami Butler 21:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche publications on the neocons reek of antisemitism. Where do you think the LaRouchite booklet titles "Children of Satan" and "Beast Men" are drawn from?--Cberlet 22:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you wish to suggest that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft are Jewish? That's not what I heard. However, if the discussion were about their policies, I should think that "Children of Satan" and "Beast men" were right on the mark. --Tsunami Butler 22:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Children of Satan" and "Beast Men" and similar phrases have been used for centuries to suggest plots on behalf of subhuman evil Jews in league with the devil. If you think LaRouche is so brilliant, then explain why these terms are used by the LaRouchites, when anyone with a library card should know they are rooted in historic antisemitic canards that lead to pogroms and genocide.--Cberlet 22:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I rephrased Tsunami's latest edit to point out that I do not base my accusations of anti-Semitism solely on euphemisms but also solidly on naked expressions of anti-Semitism by LaRouche. I gave four citations for this. I encourage others to add more citations (like the ADL reports from 1978 and 1981 and Judge Dontzin's decision that it was fair comment to call LaRouche anti-Semitic). I intend to defend my position that some LaRouche statements are partly coded and partly open, because this is a characteristic method of his.--Dking 00:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like Dennis and Chip to get out their decoder rings and take a crack at this:

Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

What do you think? Is this "reeking with anti-Semitism?" --NathanDW 06:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing this was said by Judge Cacheris when he sentenced LaRouche to 15 years for loan fraud. Because Lyndon sure changed the money fast once he enticed it out of the bank accounts of Alzheimer patients.--Dking 23:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the relevant Wikipedia policy guidelines

Dking, you have now made hundreds of edits to this article, and I think that you have been careless about following Wikipedia policies, including in particular WP:COI#Citing_oneself and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Also, the notice which appears twice on this page, that this is a controversial topic and major changes should be discussed before being applied to the article. All of this has a bearing as well upon WP:BLP, which has recently become a particular priority at Wikipedia. I am re-posting this, which I think is highly relevant:

From WP:LIVING:

Biased or malicious content

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.

--Tsunami Butler 03:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the coded discourse paragraph

Tsunami says that I have inserted "hundreds" of edits in this article. The overwhelming majority of my edits (which are not as many as T claims) have involved format, chronology, chaotic and repetitious organization of information, typos, citations, and noncontroversial or relatively low-controversy factual matters--or simple stylistic retooling on the few really controversial inserts. It is true that I have disputed some points fiercely, mostly relating to the efforts of LaRouche's followers to misrepresent my work in the paragraph they inserted in this article (although it really belongs in the article on LaRouche's political views) regarding code language, symbolic imagery, etc. As I have said previously on this discussion page, the self-citations I have made (and my adding of a section on LaRouche's relations to former Nazi scientists etc.) were necessitated by the distortions introduced by followers of LaRouche. Here is why I strongly object to MaplePorter's (MP's) version:

1. MP makes it seem that my arguments about LaRouche's anti-Semitism are based solely or primarily on code language. In fact, I base my analysis solidly on the many undisputed examples of anti-Semitism in LaRouche's writings, and on the many instances of transparent euphemisms such as "Zionist" (used with terms such as "nauseating"), "Zionist-British organism", Israelis "a hundred times worse than Hitler," "folks who cooked up the hoax known as the Old Testament", etc. that any reasonable person who is not either a bigot or a programmed ideologue would instantly recognize as anti-Semitic.

2. MP suggests that the paragraph about coded discourse should somehow exist behind a Chinese wall with no discussion of open anti-Semitism and the interpenetration of open and code antiSemitism in the writings of the LaRouche movement. In fact, open, lightly coded and more esoterically coded discourse almost always coexist in the self-styled "classics" of the LaRouche movement; you cannot analyze one without the other.

3. MP attempts to trivialize my analysis of LaRouche's military and political fantasies by (a) conflating them with my remarks on symbolic imagery in LaRouche publications (and with a citation only to Chapter 10 ("Old Nazis and New Dreams")) and (b) suggesting that my analysis is based on using a decoding method. In fact, (a) my analysis of LaRouche's military and political fantasies are primarily contained in an entirely different chapter (Chapter 7, "The Grand Design") albeit with a brief reference to "Thule" symbolism; (b) LaRouche's adolescent fantasy of conquering the world is right out in the open, not in code language at all, although it is frequently wrapped in turgid phraseology. (The only thing he "codes" is the identity of the object of his extermination campaign--international Jewry. If he had not coded this he would never have gotten entre to the Reagan administration or even to many of the Third World cocaine dictators his followers love to hobnob with.)

My reference to a four-pronged plasmoid glowing with light was explicitly described in Chapter 10 as symbolizing LaRouche's attempt to form an alliance with former Nazi scientists and military officers to defend Nazi war criminals and to demonize Nazis hunters such as Eli Rosenbaum as KGB agents, traitors and worse. (And I carefully pointed out in Chap. 10 the image's provenance as a Lawrence Livermore photo, noting however that LaRouche was using it in a political context in political propaganda journals; I also noted that LaRouche himself was enamored with cosmic spirals, which is a somewhat different obsession.)

4. MP included a quote from Daniel Pipes saying he disagrees with me about the meaning of "British" in LaRouche's writings. Fine, I'm sure there are many other people who don't agree with me on this (or only agree privately, like the late Irwin Suall, who came around after reading Richard Hofstader's account of how Anglophobia and anti-Semitism were merged in the propaganda of American anti-Semites beginning in the late 19th century). But the paragraph as originally written by a LaRouche follower also refers to my analysis of LaRouche's world domination fantasies, while the version I wrote adds that LaRouche's code language is an extension of his open anti-Semitism. So it is necessary to point out that (a) Pipes agrees LaRouche is anti-Semitic and (b) Pipes agrees that LaRouche has military fantasies about total war (which Pipes could see were phrased openly in the sense of total war against Britain).

The underlying problem here is that LaRouche's followers, with all their obvious sincerity, are simply not capable of describing my ideas and analyses accurately. They are programmed not to see what is clearly in front of their eyes. I am reverting MP's version of the disputed subsection once again.--Dking 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The previous paragraph amply airs your charges of overt anti-Semitism, but none of them are "undisputed." You are very careless with language. Also, LaRouche has often used the phrase "100 times worse than Hitler" to describe the policies of the IMF toward the 3rd World, but never to describe the Israelis -- is your memory bad, or are you misleading us? --MaplePorter 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I consider these theories of yours to be hallucinatory. It is worth mentioning in the article that you have such theories, but aside from Chip Berlet, no one else comes up with this sort of nonsense, and it is not notable enough for a big explication in the article. As others have noted, there are plenty of links to your website, for people who like to read that sort of thing. --MaplePorter 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

MaplePorter, please do not insert your comments in the middle of what I have written. I have moved your comment to underneath my posting; you might want to re-identify it in terms of the numbered paragraph in my posting to which it refers.--Dking 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed this line: "In addition to making allegations of conventional anti-Semitism," -- because I have never seen Dennis King make "allegations of conventional anti-Semitism." "Conventional anti-Semitism" would mean that LaRouche attacks Judaism and Jews generally. King can show examples of LaRouche attacking individual Jews, but what does that prove? LaRouche also attacks individual Christians and Muslims. King can show examples of LaRouche attacking Zionism, but that is not the same as attacking Judaism. So if King claims these things are anti-Semitic, what he is really claiming is other kinds of "coded" anti-Semitism, not conventional anti-Semitism. --172.191.190.144 07:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the quotes from Daniel Pipes have nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It is quite possible to criticize the ADL without being anti-Semitic. See Norman Finkelstein. What LaRouche says may be a conspiracy theory, but that's a separate issue. --172.191.190.144 07:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Recap of editing dispute

Mgunn, if you would be so kind as to simply start here and read to the end of the page, I think you will understand what the dispute is about. I asked Dking, "Please don't dress up the facts with innuendo." He can't seem to help himself. In the edit that he keeps reverting (with your assistance,) he refers to "LaRouche's highly imaginative fantasies about conquering the world" as if it were a fact. He attempts, through creative writing, to make his assertings about a "glowing, four pronged object" more believable, when in fact, he is describing a barred spiral galaxy and a fusion experiment, appearing in science articles, and those are the facts of the matter (that he looks at these things and sees swastikas tells us more about himself than about LaRouche.) I have on numerous occasions asked Dking to observe in particular WP:COI#Citing_oneself and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, and he seems nonetheless bent on transforming this article into a POV essay.

Not all of his edits have been of this type, but too many have, and he should content himself with the fact that there is at least one external link to his website. I say "at least one," because I am not convinced that we need as many as we presently have. --Tsunami Butler 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche's early years

I was cited in this article for quotes from LaRouche's 1979 autobiography. It seems to me that there is no reason not to directly quote the subject of a Wiki biography's own autobiography, as long as one makes clear if there is published evidence that refutes a particular statement and as long as the autobiographer's claim is not outlandish. So I have directly cited LaRouche and in the course of doing so have found a quote (about his imaginary conversations in his head with great philosophers) that I think both his critics and supporters will find fascinating. I wish I hadn't missed this one when writing my book on LaRouche.--Dking 23:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You signed your post as an IP number. Do we know you as someone else? --MaplePorter 22:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

More on coded discourse

I gave us a few days to cool off on the edit war that seemed to be beginning. I think in general when we get into such an impasse the best thing for everyone is to concentrate for a short time on noncontroversial or low controversy things (there are a huge number of problems with the article in terms of style, organization, factual errors and lack of adequate citation that can be improved at any time). But I have restored the two disputed paragraph to my version because I sincerely believe that MP has misrepresented what I actually wrote in my book. Again, I never based my case for LaRouche being anti-Semitic solely or even primarily on code language. Indeed, much of his code language is obvious ant-Semitism (as Bartley pointed out in the WSJ) but just expressed in a "polite" way to prevent triggering too much outrage (see LaRouche's own published comments on the usefulness of euphemisms). I didn't use the four-pronged object to illustrate LaRouche's military conceptions but suggested it symbolized his efforts to ally with Nazi scientists and to defend Nazi criminals (I gave the exact quote on this, MP did not). My reference to a "four-pronged object glowing with light" is not "creative writing" added to this article, but the actual description in my book. I did not cover up the fact that this picture is of a fusion experiment but stated that fact in my book; the issue is not the provenance of this photo resembling a swastika but the circumstances under which it appeared repeatedly in LaRouche propaganda publications in the middle 1980s when LaRouch was forming alliances with "former" Nazis. I never said LaRouche had a "secret" plan for his conquer-the-world fantasies; in fact, it is all out in the open, as quoted from his own writings in my Chapter 7, which MP failed to cite because it didn't fit with his own description of my findings. Finally, these two paragraphs as inherited from MP's first version contain the linked arguments that (a) I concentrate on code language and (b) I use the analysis of code language to bolster my theory about LaRouche's military dreams. Given these assertions, it is misleading to quote Daniel Pipes as disagreeing with me about a certain code word without also pointing out that he arrived at findings similar to mine regarding LaRouche's military dreams. Reverted again. --Dking 03:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous questions and comments that have been put to you on this page to which you have not responded. For example, someone who signed with an IP number made a very valid point, that in fact all your accusations of anti-Semitism are of the coded variety. You have never found a quote from LaRouche that even remotely seems to condemn Jews generally. Here are other specific objections to your version:

• describes Jewish ("Viennese") refugees who came to the United States fleeing Hitler You take the enormous liberty of subsituting "Jewish" for "Viennese." I suspect that you are generally quoting out of context here.
• King claims that LaRouche's published attacks on the neo-conservatives include a partially disguised form of anti-Semitism No, you don't. All your claims are of "coded" anti-Semitism.
• LaRouche's alliance with former Peenemunde V-2 scientists and accused Nazi war criminals in the 1980s Propaganda. LaRouche supported in-depth scientific research on NASA, SDI and Fusion. Some of the scientists he worked with were German, some were not. As I keep reminding you, Wikipedia policy says "Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association."
• the picture was later used to illustrate articles that related to LaRouche's political and military conceptions and his theories about cosmic spirals, which King compared to the Nazis' obsession with "spiraling expansion/conquest" during World War Two. Ridiculous. When LaRouche has spoken of sprirals, it is neither coded nor mystical, but based on the ideas of Da Vinci and others about Morphology.

I maintain that it is sufficient to note that you have theories about "coded discourse" without giving you a soapbox to try to make them more credible. I have no objection to including Bartley's comments, although I also find them laughable (and I suspect that he doesn't believe a word of what he says -- he is also indulging in a cheap smear.) The reason is that the Wall Street Journal is a mainstream, if right-wing, publication. That makes it notable, more so than your views, which are nonetheless included as well. But in summary, your preferred version crosses the line of undue weight and excessive self-citation. --Tsunami Butler 16:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea that LaRouche has never written or published anti-Semitic things is just plain laughable. The idea that LaRouche's support for Nazi war criminals was simply support for "in-depth scientific research" is equally laughable. The idea that I never pointed out a wealth of open, clear-cut instances of LaRouche anti-Semitism is just plain flatout wrong (I cite chapter 6, but examples are scattered throughout the book). I should note that when LaRouche sued me in 1979 for calling him a Nazi and an anti-Semite, his lawyers asked for proof under discovery. My lawyers from Cravath Swaine & Moore produced more than one hundred examples from LaRouche's writings and said that they intended to ask LaRouche about each and every one during his deposition. LaRouche promptly dropped the case and agreed to its dismissal with prejudice so he could never re-file it. The same thing happened in 1984, when LaRouche sued myself, Chip Berlet, the ADL and NBC. LaRouche was facing deposition questions from Phil Hirschkopf, the lawyer for Chip and myself, whom LaRouche knew would ask the detailed questions about his anti-Semitic writings (and about whether or not it was libelous to call him a "small-time Hitler")that NBC's corporate lawyers had not asked in prior deposition sessions. Just as our attorney was about to take over the questioning, LaRouche suddenly announced that Chip and I were plotting to kill him with nerve gas--a convenient excuse to once again avoid questions LaRouche and his lawyers knew he couldn't possibly answer without hoisting himself by his own petard. Apparently, LaRouche (and his Nazi war criminal-defending attorney Michael Dennis) knew something LaRouche's naive followers don't know.--Dking 18:23, 13 January 2007 P.S. The federal jury in the 1984 case found it was NOT libelous to call LaRouche a "small-Hitler," thus showing the same common sense displayed by Judge Dontzin of New York State Supreme Court in 1978 when he ruled it was "fair comment" to call LaRouche anti-Semitic.--Dking 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami has no objection to quotes from Bartley in the Wall Street Journal, because, she says, that is more "notable" and "mainstream" than quotes from me. I wish to point out that I have been published on LaRouche in both the Wall Street Journal and The New Republic (cover article in the latter), as well as having my book on LaRouche published by a mainstream publisher and favorably reviewed in numerous mainstream publications. Please stop trying to demean me, and stop deleting accurate and properly cited material.-- Dking 19:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To put things in perspective, Bartley is the former editor of the WSJ, whereas your opinion piece appeared back at the time of the John Train salon, which appears to have been your 15 minutes of fame, over 20 years ago. Nonetheless, there is only one citation to Bartley in this article as compared to 23 for Dennis King, so count your blessings.

There are other objections I have to your version which I forgot to list earlier today:

• Plasmoids and galaxies don't have "prongs." You are spinning wildly here to try to provide your theory with a veneer of credibility.
• But Pipes also provides examples of LaRouche's anti-Semitism (for instance, the belief that the "Anti-Defamation League imports drugs into the United States"), while pointing out that LaRouche believes a vast ancient oligarchical conspiracy centered in London is preparing to "kill off large parts of the human race....To prevent this catastrophe, LaRouche advocates preparation for total war with Great Britain." First of all, Pipes is not providing examples of anti-Semitism, he is providing examples of conspiracy theorizing. You are attempting to mislead the reader into thinking that Pipes partially agrees with you. In fact, as Pipes himself says, "a vast ancient oligarchical conspiracy centered in London" means British, not Jewish. So citing this to try so support your claims is a non sequitur.

With the exception of 'mikkanarxi, I don't believe anyone on this talk page has disputed the claim that LaRouche is a conspiracy theorist. What this debate demonstrates, however, is that Dennis King is probably more of a conspiracy theorist than LaRouche is. --Tsunami Butler 21:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let everyone know that Tsunami is now appearing on the "Political Cult" article to help Fred Newman's International Workers Party get around the three-revert rule. Wow! The LaRouchians are now cooperating with the NAMBLA-supporting/friendosex-for-teenagers Newman cult even though in the past the LaRouchians have described the IWP and NAMBLA as the epitome of evil. Did Lyndon approve this, Tsunami? Or is he so unsettled by the implosion of his European organization and the impending indictments in the Jeremiah Duggan unlawful death case that he's simply not paying attention to what his U.S. followers do?--Dking 22:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That article is on my watchlist; I added the word "alleged" to it last week. I thought that the version prior to your edit was more neutral; I invite others to compare [35]. Dking, please have a look at WP:NPA. --Tsunami Butler 22:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That won't wash, Tsunami. The edit that I had reverted (and which you in term restored--not last week, but earlier today) to help the Newmanites get around the 3-reverts rule was clearly propaganda aimed at covering up the sleaze of Fred Newman. Again, I ask you, did Lyn give you permission to become a champion of Fred Newman, friendosex and NAMBLA?--Dking 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Coded Discourse (Round 3)

I think the following points are indisputable:
(1) Many notable individuals and groups have made allegations of anti-semitism, euphamisms etc... This is an extremely common (if not mainstream) view.
(2) Dennis King has the most notable third party book on LaRouche. (It is a reliable source.)
(3) Dennis King can more accurately describe what he said in his book than other people.

From these three premises, you reach several logical conclusions:
(1b) These allegations should be included because it is a notable controversy. Anti-semitism etc.. were part of the reason the DNC wouldn't accept LaRouche delegates (whether or not you agree with the allegations, their existence is important to the biography of LaRouche).
(1c) As is the case with other controversies, I think there should be some text that these allegations are disputed by LaRouche.
(2b) Because Dennis King's book is reliable and notable, it is probably the best base source to use for describing these type of allegations.
(3b) Almost by definition, Dennis King's version of what Dennis King's book said is going to be far more accurate than a LaRouche follower's version of what Dennis King's book said. Dennis King's edits to text describing his own book and own allegations should clearly be accepted.

I therefore revert back to DKing's version. Mgunn 19:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that King's viewpoint is mainstream. Do a recent search of mainstream press articles (not FrontPage, etc.) King's criticism is notable, which is why there were 23 cites to him in the previous version. 23 is enough. The article should not be a POV essay, which is what you seem to desire. --NathanDW 22:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mgunn; I have personally watched LaRouche from an attentive distance, and I am new to this LaRouche controversy here at Wikipedia. I have reviewed both versions of the last edits of the main LaRouche page from both Tsunami & Mr King. From my distant but attentive view, i have never heard that LaRouche was "Anti-Semitic". Your above point # 1; to the effect that: "Many notable individuals and groups have made allegations of anti-semitism" (apparently against Mr LaRouche, that clearly seems to be the context) is totally foreign to me. I consider myself well-read, but i have never heard that LaRouche was "Anti-Semitic".

Now i do know that "Dennis King" is a friend and ally of "Chip Berlet" and of the so-called "Anti-Defamation League"; and that both Berlet and the ADL are strongly inclined to accuse anyone who does not support the war-mongering Palestinian-genocide agenda of which-ever regimen is currently in power, to be "Anti-Semites". And so i would not be surprised to know that both the ADL ant Mr Berlet have accused Mr LaRouche of being "Anti-Semitic". But i hardly consider the ADL or Chip Berlet to be "Neutral Sources" as general Wikipedia policy requires. I think you should be sharp enough to recognize this, Mgunn. For gods sake, they are accusing Jimmy Carter of being "Anti-Semitic" now. Where does all of this stop?

And with all due respect, Mgunn, i think "Dennis King" is equally "Non-Neutral" as the ADL & Chip Berlet. I think there are dark and powerful economic forces behind the ADL, behind Chip Berlet, and probably behind their friend & ally Dennis King. If you have enough money, you can buy almost any-thing; & i believe that is what is happening here on the LaRouche article at Wikipedia.

I reviewed Tsunami's version of the current edit in question, & i believe it is much more appropriate for the main LaRouche page. The manner in which Mr King's version seeks to Ramble on and on about "Code" Theories, about how, possibly, LaRouche Might be "Anti-Semitic", if you can Decipher the alleged "Code", seems to me to be clearly "Grasping at Straws" in Desperate Efforts to "Gate-Keep" the more-balanced and conscience-bound views of LaRouche appearing on this article, which is generally Suppose to be "Presuming Good Faith" of all concerned. Clearly, Mr Kings very lengthy indictment, all based on his "Code" Theory, is Stretching to Great Lengths to Paint LaRouche and his supports as participating on the public arena in "Bad Faith". I here-by point to the general Wikipedia policy of "Presuming Good Faith". What has happened to this "Presumption of Good Faith" in regards to LaRouche & his supporters??? This all looks to me to be little more than a modern-day which-hunt.

In contrast; i think Mr King's version of the general LaRouche article is quite possibly a "Bad Faith" Destruction or Vandalism of it. After my review of her edit of the LaRouche article, I think Tsunami has thrown Mr King a number of very substantial bones, and that she has gone to great lengths to accommodate Mr King's accusations (slander? defamation?) against Mr LaRouche.

How-ever; because i am new to this LaRouche page, i am not going to counter your anti-LaRouche & pro-King Reversion, at this time; Mgunn. But Tsunami has contacted me in private mail asking me to intervene as an impartial arbitrator in this matter, & she has implied that she would like me to bring my conscience and reasoning capabilities to bear on this LaRouche controversy. And if she presses the issue, and if i see no counter-argument from any in your camp which seems to me to be reasonably persuasive, then i probably will complete the Reversion which Tsunami is asking me to complete.

If any in your camp have persuasive argument in support of your general indictment of Mr LaRouche, then please post it here and now, or send it to me in private email. If Mr King has an electronic copy of his book, i would appreciate a copy of that, so that i may examine it for credibility. If Mr King or others can find legitimate dis-honorable behavior in Mr LaRouche, then i will support their indictment against him. I promise i will behave in this manner before the God of Israel, whom i do hold sacred. But i am not going to stand by quietly when seemingly honorable people like Tsunami have asked me to intervene in what seems now to me to be nothing more than a modern-day which-hunt.

My email address is charles@constitutionalgov.us . If any of you desire to discuss these issues in good faith on the phone, then send me your email & will send you my phone number.

Glory to the God of Israel. Charles8854 22:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Though the absolute clearest accusations center on general nuttiness and conspiracy theory, I think you'll find accusations of anti-semitism are widespread. Here are just a couple from prominent sources that I've come across:

• In an October 10, 1979 editorial titled, "The Cult of LaRouche," the New York Times writes, "... Mr. LaRouche returned from West Germany with a new vision. His party turned to the extreme right and to anti-Semitism."
• In 1996, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Don Fowler, refused to allow LaRouche to be considered as a candidate or receive delegates because, "Lyndon Larouche [sic] is not a bona fide Democrat and does not possess a record affirmatively demonstrating that he is faithful to, or has at heart, the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States. This determination is based on Mr. LaRouche's expressed political beliefs, including beliefs which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic, and other- wise utterly contrary to the fundamental beliefs ... of the Democratic Party and ... on his past activities including exploitation of and defrauding contributors and voters."[36]
• Quoting the former head of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Robert Bartley, writing on LaRouche, "Sometimes it is overt anti-Semitism; with "Children of Satan," Mr. LaRouche has chosen an Aryan-nation phrase for Jews (descendants of Cain, who was the result of Satan seducing Eve, in this perfervid theology). At other times, often in the hands of accusers who are Jewish themselves, it is a charge of secret loyalties. The Jews, or Israel, or the Likud have conspired to take over American foreign policy."[37]
• I invite anyone to review previous discussions of LaRouche and anti-semitism, such as the one archived here: http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/html/lyndon_larouche_wikipedia.html That discussion quotes numerous passages of LaRouche which by any fair measure show a pattern of anti-semitism. Mgunn 23:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mgunn, you requested a list of my specific suggestions to Dking's version of the "coded discourse" paragraph. You will find the list here. Please note that I also cite the relevant Wikipedia policies that apply. I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with these policies, as it is useful to refer to them when attempting to resolve a dispute. Please also bear in mind that the allegations of anti-Semitism are noted in the previous section ("Criticism") and in more detail at the "Political Views" article. The disputed paragraph deals specifically with "coded discourse," and other, unrelated allegations, such as Pipes' comments on LaRouche's conspiracy theorizing, should not be interjected there.--Tsunami Butler 02:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like specifics, for example, why was this removed, "In addition to providing examples of what he believes is conventional anti-Semitism in LaRouche's writings" Just two of the numerous examples in Dennis King's book:

• On page 43, Dennis King writes, "A few more NCLC members protested when LaRouche announced that only one and a half million Jews, not six million, were killed in the Holocaust. Contemptuously ignoring his followers' complaints, he issued a press release reaffirming the 1.5 million figure." Denying or denying the extent of the holocaust is a standard anti-semitic tactic.
• On page 138, Dennis King writes, "In 1978 LaRouche dismissed the Holocaust as mostly "mythical," while his wife, Helga, called it a "swindle."
• Quoting the Lyndon LaRouche article "New Pahmplet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism,"

  It is argued that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so eessential to "Jewish survival" that any anti-Zionist is therefore not only an anti-Semite, but that any sort of criminal action is excusable against anti-Zionists in memory of the mythical "six million Jewish victims" of the Nazi "holocaust."
  
  This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive "appropriate technology" for the employment of "inferior races," a small fraction of the tens of million of others - especially Slavs - who were murdered in the same way Jewish refugee Felix Rohaytin proposes today. Even on a relative scale, what the Nazis did to Jewish victims was mild compared with the virtual extermination of gypsies and the butchery of Communists.

  [38]

So why was this sentence removed? Dennis King does make the allegation of anti-semitism, and he sources the allegations (and as I mentioned earlier, this is a notable and fairly widespread view). Mgunn 10:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of anti-Semitism should be noted in the "Criticism" section (as they are,) and described in more detail in the "Political Views" article (as they are, including the examples you cite.) However, the "swindle" quote from his wife appears to be out of context, as many of King's quotes from LaRouche typically are. The actual context - criticism of the NBC miniseries by the same name - is found at Helga Zepp-LaRouche. --MaplePorter 15:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence provides context and Quoting other users earlier in the talk page:

• "I removed this line: "In addition to making allegations of conventional anti-Semitism," -- because I have never seen Dennis King make "allegations of conventional anti-Semitism."" -- 172.191.190.144
• "For example, someone who signed with an IP number made a very valid point, that in fact all your (Dennis King) accusations of anti-Semitism are of the coded variety. You have never found a quote from LaRouche that even remotely seems to condemn Jews generally." -- Tsunami Butler

in this case, 172.191.190.144 and Tsunami Butler are just plain wrong. As I just demonstrated, King makes numerous allegations of plain, run of the mill anti-semitism. I find this edit as symptomatic of a number of edits to DKing material. The removal of this line was completely incorrect.Mgunn 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I therefore will reinstate the previous version of the Coded Discourse section. I think the burden is on Butler, MaplePorter or NathanDW to conclusively and clearly demonstrate a problem on the talk page before they make another change. This is approximately the 3rd or 4th time that I have had to conduct a lengthy talk page discussion to block factually wrong edits, and frankly, its a waste of everybodies time. If this sort of bogus editting continues, I think the next step will have to be some sort of RFC or mediation because the Wikipedia process doesn't work when 1/2 the editors on the article repeatedly make factually wrong edits 1/2 of the time. Mgunn 20:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Informational Notice - USER:Charles8854 has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. /Blaxthos 05:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nunchucks

As the recipient of several swings of these weapons during Operation Mop-up, and as a Martial Artist myself, I want to state they are NOT Korean as indicated in the article. Nunchucks are Okinawan, where most of Japan's hand weapons (but not the Katana) originaed from. When they unlock this article, please correct the error. 216.203.27.99 11:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing

Big reverts don't lead to consensus editing. Please edit a section at a time, and explain each edit. Even better, work towards a consensus version that is at least minimally acceptable to everyone. This biography is very long already so I discourage the addition of new material that can be handled in an existing or new article. We should keep this article focused on the events of the subject's life and keep the bulk of his philosophy in "political views" while details of party histories should go in the party articles. -Will Beback · † · 08:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I explained each and every change I made to MaplePorter's paragraph on code language. For instance, in deleting the allegation that I accused LaRouche of having a "secret" scheme (really, a fantasy) of world domination, I pointed out that I had never referred to it as "secret." Indeed, I had documented my claim through publicly available LaRouche writings in which he spoke frankly and thoroughly about his fantasy (see Chapter 7 of my book). LaRouche's followers have not cited any quote from me in which I called the fantasy "secret" nor have they addressed the extensive and properly cited evidence in my book. Instead they just continue to revert the paragraph to their own uncited version. It would appear this edit war will go on and on, because we are dealing with people who live in their own bubble world and really believe, as one of them stated here the other day, that LaRouche's support for Nazi war criminals was just a campaign to support "scientific research."--Dking 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. They don't like my referring to LaRouche's schemes as "fantasies"; perhaps they would prefer the term used by Dr. Edward Teller (p. 68 of my book). In 1984, he told Ronald Radosh and I that LaRouche was a "poorly informed man with fantastic conceptions." Over 20 years later, this term seems like the perfect summation.--Dking 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It says in WP:LIVING: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one." As far as I am concerned, that pretty much sums up what is going on here.

I have not read nearly as much of LaRouche's stuff as some of the other participants have. I have, however, read Children of Satan, and it is obviously not about Jews. What I see going on here is two editors, Dking and Mgunn, who want to deflect criticism from the neocons by implying that all criticism is motivated by anti-Semitism. This is a cheap, dishonest tactic.

I will also repeat what I have said elsewhere: Dennis King may have written a book about LaRouche, but it is so biased that I believe it violates WP:RS. The quoting out of context and rampant speculation ("conspiracy theorizing") are so pervasive that the book should be considered an "attack piece," not a biography. This article should be a biography, not an "attack piece." WP:LIVING applies. --NathanDW 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We would need a consensus of active editors to decide that King's book is too biased to use as a reliable source. Until that happens you should not keep reverting references to it. Do you have any 3rd-party critics who consider King to be a highly biased source? -Will Beback · † · 21:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I am not reverting references to King's book based on WP:RS. I am reverting Dking's version of the section on coded discourse, because it violates the following policies:

• WP:COI#Citing_oneself
• WP:NPOV#Undue_weight
• WP:FRINGE
• WP:LIVING

There are other edits by Dking which may also violate one or more of these policies. I have made many compromises with Dking. But I think that generally he is flouting Wikipedia policy and that this should be addressed. He has not responded when these policy violations have been raised earlier on this page, except to say that his violations of WP:COI#Citing_oneself were the fault of those who disagreed with his edits. --Tsunami Butler 22:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If editors continue to revert back and forth between two versions we'll have to protect the page. Please find common ground, compromise, and reach a consensus. -Will Beback · † · 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding King and WP:COI#Citing_oneself. The guideline reads:

• You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether or not your citation is an appropriate one, and defer to the community's opinion.

The guideline merely warns caution. King has discussed his edits on this page, and I don't think anyone has asserted that he's trying to promote himself. -Will Beback · † · 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am arguing that he's trying to promote himself. He receives almost no media attention these days, and his book sells for $.41 at Amazon.com. He is involved in two simultaneous revert wars [39] because his sole participation at Wikipedia is to aggressively promote his POV. --Tsunami Butler 01:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying he's trying to get rich off of Wikipedia, $.41 at a time? Is his book even in print any longer? I don't see self-promotion as a reasonable objection. So far as I'm aware, he's the author of the only book-length biography of the subject. -Will Beback · † · 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The self-promotion wouldn't take the form of book sales. It would be an attempt to raise his public profile in hopes of attracting foundation grant money a la Chip Berlet. --Tsunami Butler 15:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

His book is freely downloadable, so he doesn't even have to get $.41. I don't think anyone will buy that charge Tsunami, and this type of accusation has come up before. From what I read, King sailed cleanly through the previous Arbcom case. Several results of the previous Arbcom are relevant:

• "Holding a strong POV does not necessarily imply POV-pushing edits"[40]
• "Revert wars considered harmful"[41]

Further down Coded Discourse (Round 3) on this talk page, i carefully went through and described in excruciating detail why one sentence of DKing's edits were valid, and I have yet to read a response. Tsunami Butler and NathanDW just reverted with no comment but the fairly wild accusation I'm now responding to. I think the burden is on them to demonstrate something incorrect in the reinserted material. As far as I can tell, their main objection is that they don't like Dennis King's book, not that they can find any substantive error. In my opinion, further reverts of this material with no justification, vague justfication, or blatantly wrong justification should be grounds for some type of ban or at least escalating to the next level in the Wikipedia dispute process. I hope this can be avoided, but i see no alternative if facts and thoughtful discussion are completely ignored. Mgunn 02:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that on the ArbCom case, Mgunn is confusing Dennis King (Dking) with Chip Berlet (Cberlet.) This is understandable. --MaplePorter 06:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise version

I am the author of one of the two disputed versions of "Coded discourse," so I have written a compromise version which I hope will break the deadlock. Here are the changes I made:

• I have restored "In addition to providing examples of what he claims is conventional anti-Semitism in LaRouche's writings," since it is true that King makes such claims. Whether they are valid is for the reader to decide.
• I have restored the word "partially" to "LaRouche's published attacks on the neo-conservatives include a partially disguised form of anti-Semitism," which is a compromise because I see no evidence to support the claim.
• I have restored King's description of a plasmoid as "a four-pronged object, glowing with light." I did not restore the allegations about Nazi scientists, because King has inserted an entire new section on that in the article, and there's no need for the claims to be made twice.
• I added that Daniel Pipes has criticized LaRouche as a conspiracy theorist, because he has in fact done so. I did not couch it in terms that makes it look like he agrees with King on coded discourse, because he does not.

If Dking will provide a quote in context from LaRouche where LaRouche says he has a plot for "conquering the world," that "centers on eliminating a Jewish banking oligarchy," I will elimate the word "secretly." I have read plenty of LaRouche, and even at his most abstruse I have never seen him even hint at such a thing.

I hope that this compromise version will get us all out of the revert loop:

In addition to providing examples of what he claims is conventional anti-Semitism in LaRouche's writings, Dennis King also claims to have found what he terms "euphemisms," "semantic tricks," and examples of "symbolic scapegoating" in LaRouche's writings which he claims contradict LaRouche's published condemnations[42] of Anti-Semitism. For example, King claims that LaRouche's published attacks on the neo-conservatives include a partially disguised form of anti-Semitism. King further says these examples bolster his argument (which also references certain images used in LaRouche publications) that LaRouche is a fascist whose world view secretly centers on anti-Semitism and includes a "dream of world conquest." He claims that certain photos of barred spiral galaxies and of a Lawrence Livermore Laboratory plasmoid experiments (which King describes as "a four-pronged object, glowing with light") which appeared in LaRouche's New Solidarity newspaper and Fusion magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika" and of the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest." He also points to a 1978 illustration in New Solidarity of Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David -- and certain headlines (in more recent LaRouche publications) such as "How the Venetian Virus Infected and Took Over England" -- to bolster his argument that LaRouche's attacks on a "British" oligarchy are often coded attacks on international Jewry. This latter claim is disputed by author Daniel Pipes, who writes: "Dennis King insists that [LaRouche's] references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really `code language' to refer to Jews. In fact, these are references to the British." However, Pipes also criticizes LaRouche for being a conspiracy theorist.

--MaplePorter 06:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maple Porter, rather than answering MGunn's questions, you merely came up with a "compromise" which is basically still your misleading and unsubstantiated version of this article. This is apparently intended to disguise the fact that you cannot substantiate your version to anyone except your fellow LaRouche followers. And I note the veiled threat in your remarks--either go with your version or endure a continuation of the edit war you have been waging. Compromise rejected, threats of further edit war discounted, LaRouche propaganda changes reverted once again.--Dking 21:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to accept the compromise, although I think that the inclusion of the bit about a "glowing four pronged object" is silly and not notable. I agree with Will Beback on one point, which is that it would be better to err on the side of being less long-winded. --NathanDW 01:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the games, NathanDW. You are pretending that you are just another Wiki editor who happens to agree with MP's so-called compromise, when in fact the two of you are both LaRouche followers who have been working in tandem for weeks to give this article a pro-LaRouche spin in defiance of the public record, which clearly shows he is a convicted felon, an anti-Semite, and, as Dr. Teller said, a man with "fantastic conceptions."--Dking 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dking, can you propose any text which might be acceptable to NDW and MP? -Will Beback · † · 03:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the borderline of biased?

I read LaRouche, and see echoes of Hitler and Mussolini. Why believe the claims of a crank and convicted felon?--Cberlet 01:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC) --Cberlet 01:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it NPOV for someone that says such obviously biased and harsh words about someone they never even met to be editing an article about them?... Do these people even have any non negative things to say about this guy? And do they even have a life outside of obsessing over and smearing that guy? I will admit Larouche is no perfect angel, but even so, he does not warrant such demonization in a simple biography... If such is allowed on this page, then perhaps the George W Bush and other republican pages need to have a littler harsher criticisms on them... Just some thoughts... The edits to the page ought to be thought over very long and hard, instead of just throwing out smears or nonsense from either side , pro or anti Larouche onto it... Vipercat 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral articles don't require neutral editors. We have a neutral article about Adolf Hitler, even though most of the editors of that article probably have a negative view of the subject. We have neutral articles about all kinds of people that the editors believe are convicted felons or cranks. Let's focus n keeping the article neutral, not on policing the personal views of editors. Will Beback · † · 03:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Never even met the guy??? Both Berlet and I spent a week of our lives sitting six feet away from LaRouche at a conference table during his 1984 deposition in LaRouche v. NBC, listening to him try to explain why he hadn't paid any income taxes in over a decade even though he lived in a mansion. We also heard him complain that Berlet and I were plotting to kill him, that Henry Kissinger was a Soviet agent, that he didn't know where the food in his refrigerator came from, and that he was confused about which universe of discourse the deposition was taking place in. An entire week of this! I can't say LaRouche is an old buddy but I have definitely met the man, and I can say for certain that he is one clever fox at running out the clock on an expensive deposition in a room full of corporate lawyers.--Dking 04:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)P.S. The last substantive change on this article was made by me. Although my name is not on it, no deception was intended.--Dking 04:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second MaplePorter's request that Dking "provide a quote in context from LaRouche where LaRouche says he has a plot for "conquering the world," that "centers on eliminating a Jewish banking oligarchy." I am very interested to see whether he can produce such a thing. --NathanDW 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

On the importance, or lack of importance, of Dennis King as a critic of LaRouche

I can see that there has been a long debate about this issue in this discussion group, and it seems that the main person arguing in favor of Dennis King is Dennis King himself, which seems sort of inappropriate. I would like to add my thoughts:

I have read some of King's stuff, and I have often wondered whether he really believes what he writes. He takes about 1% of LaRouche's writings and quotes it out of context to support his claims, which are readily refuted by the other 99% of LaRouche's writings (ignored by King.) In my opinion, the matter is simple: the policies that LaRouche advocates establish him as an anti-fascist. He uses as a reference point the constitution's commitment to the General Welfare, which is the opposite of fascism.

This enclopedia article should provide a balanced view of LaRouche, and it seems that a too-high percentage of the article is devoted to King's claims.

I realize that at the moment the article is protected from editing, but I would like to point out that in the last edit made by King, there are logical fallacies. It is true that LaRouche is anti-British, but how does that make him pro-fascist? It is true that LaRouche claims Hitler was playing footsie with the Brits (others have similar theories,) but how does that make him pro-fascist? I think King is wrong in what he says about the figures on the holocaust, because LaRouche was making a point that most people were worked to death (not simply exterminated) under the slave labor policy, which is often ignored by popular histories that cover up that fact. It's beside the point, though, because either way it does not prove that LaRouche is pro-fascist. And as far as I'm concerned, LaRouche's attacks on "various public figures in post-war Britain and America" is proof that he is anti-fascist, not pro-fascist -- look at the current leadership of those two countries!

Also, the section called "LaRouche's 1980s alliance with former Peenemunde V-2 scientists" contains misleading statements. King refers to John Demjanjuk as "Ivan the Terrible" when in fact he was acquitted of that charge in Israeli court, and the OSI admitted that it had forged documents to back the charge. Don't tell me that King didn't know that when he wrote it. The other two guys, Linnas and Soobzokov, were both killed before they could stand trial, so the presumption of guilt on King's part is wrong -- I suspect that King knows this too. Of course, LaRouche had no political connection to these three men -- he merely joined the chorus of voices who protested the star chamber tactics of the OSI. And this whole section is not an especially notable part of LaRouche's bio -- he was involved in all sorts of "alliances," with farm activists, civil rights leaders, union groups, and so on. King cherry picks events from LaRouche's life to back up his claims. This article should be a bio, not an article about King's claims. --HonourableSchoolboy 01:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mgunn, please respect Wikipedia policy. This article was protected for 12 days. During that time you could have participated in discussion on this talk page. The announcement above says that this is a controversial article, and that changes should be discussed before being made. They were discussed, and you didn't participate. In the future, please raise the issues, as I did, before making your edits. --HonourableSchoolboy 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't respond to any of the above discussion points either. You simply made an ad hominem attack on King and then take as grounds to remove any material that is cited to King that you disagree with. What you have done in no way conforms to Wikipedia policy. If you think King is wrong, produce REAL, observable evidence on the talk page of the mistake, and I'll go along with you. What is totally bogus though is various editors saying "I don't like King" and then removing anything King says. King is the only published author on LaRouche and as such, it's not particularly surprising that his material is disproportionately represented in this article. -- Mgunn 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have problem with a specific passage. (1) Quote the passage on the talk page. (2) Describe why it's wrong. and (3) Cite evidence to show why it's wrong. King's book counts as a Wikipedia source and material is valid to include unless you can show it's wrong. Unless you can do that, you're going to be reverted. -- Mgunn 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Using your above reasoning, Wikipedia ought to reproduce Dennis King's entire book. We are certainly headed in that direction. I am reverting your edit on the grounds of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. I think that King's views are already reasonably represented, and I don't think HonourableSchoolboy's comments are an "ad hominem attack." --Tsunami Butler 00:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If the debate is over the inclusion of the Dking material please don't engage in reverts that include other material as well. Blanket reverts are counter-productive. -Will Beback · † · 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If these reverts continue we'll have to reprotect the article. -Will Beback · † · 01:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that LaRouche said only 1.5 million Jews died in the Holocaust is interesting and relevant. I'm going to reinsert cited material and if you have objections, please state them clearly on the talk page rather than giving a blanket, "too much King" and then removing whatever random material you don't like. Mgunn 01:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that HonourableSchoolboy's objections were quite specific, including what he said about allegations of holocaust denial. I would also point out that those allegations are in the "political views" article. There is an appropriate link to the article. King, however, is attempting to spin the material he refers to. It's a POV essay. H.Schoolboy analyzes both the "criticism" section and the "rocket scientist" section, which are the areas that I am now going to revert. --NathanDW 02:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Page reprotected

This page has been reprotected, since the edit warring started right after it was uprotected. This is kind of ridiculous; we are all mature editors, we should be able to work out our disagreements through discussion. Please take this opportunity to remember that it pays to discuss before editing, for hopefully then the page can stay unprotected and stable. -- Natalya 15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

My thinking is that Dking's accusations should be presented in list form, in the criticism section, without turning it into a essay. Then there should be a link to "political views of Lyndon LaRouche." King's accusations are all there already, but with appropriate rebuttals from LaRouche. There is no reason to replicate the whole thing in the bio article, when we have another article which is a (slightly) more appropriate forum for presenting King's theories about LaRouche's hidden agenda, coded messages, and so forth. --Tsunami Butler 15:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the latest issue was that there was a sourced line saying LaRouche had denounced anti-semitism, and King, as well as several other editors, thought that that statement should be challenged/put in context. -- Mgunn 20:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there is a sourced line saying that LaRouche had denounced Nazism and fascism. Dking tried to "qualify" LaRouche's opposition to Hitler and Mussolini with a bunch of stuff about the British. I tried to point out that LaRouche being anti-British, or LaRouche charging that the British had deals under the table with the Nazis, is entirely irrelevant to LaRouche denouncing fascism. It is not "putting it in context." It is obfuscation. --HonourableSchoolboy 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What about LaRouche saying that only 1.5 million died in the Holocaust. Is that obfuscation? -- Mgunn 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Different controversy. But I would suggest that you take a look at Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#Jews_and_the_Holocaust, where what he said, and the context in which he said it, is gone over in some depth. The issue of whether LaRouche is an anti-Semite has been debated all over. The New York Times book review of King's book said that this was one issue where King was unconvincing. I have no problem with the criticism section saying that there are allegations of anti-Semitism -- it presently says that. I have a definite problem with Dking turning that section into a POV essay. There should be a link to "political views," and of course, the 20+ links to the Dennis King website, and that ought to be sufficient. --Tsunami Butler 07:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

the edit war on this article

LaRouche's supporters claim that I did not reply to their edits during the first time the article was locked and they appear to have used this as a justification for starting their policy of block deletions and replacements once again while the article was briefly unlocked. Anyone who cares can go back and review my postings over the past month and see that I replied to their edits repeatedly, in detail, with no avail. Now they have brought in yet another LaRouche follower with the predictable name of "Honourable Schoolboy" (yes, guys, we already know that you regard most of the British public school toffs as "dishonorable," you don't have to keep reminding us) to bolster their forces, giving them four people with unlimited time to censor articles relating to LaRouche. Honorable Schoolboy removed the section on LaRouche and the Nazi scientists before the article was relocked and now they are talking about how this belongs on the page about LaRouche's political views. I beg to differ. LaRouche waged a campaign to defend Nazi war criminals and to glorify Operation Paperclip Nazi scientists for at least 15 years. He claims to have revered some of these unrepentent guys. He put their pictures next to his in the New Federalist as victims of the OSI cabal (the cabal is represented by pictures of three Jews). He caused his newspaper to publish tirades saying that Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, sponsor of the federal law on Nazi war crimes, bears the mark of the Anti-Christ. This stuff is an important part of LaRouche's biography reflecting his deepest convictions and fantasies. My paragraph on it is properly sourced and should be restored forthwith, and the LaRouche mischaracterizations of my book (saying I only accused LaRouche of "coded" anti-Semitism and of a "secret" plan for world power) in the other disputed paragraph should likewise be summarily replaced with the accurate, properly sourced description I provided. LaRouche's followers should not be allowed to dismiss the numerous examples in my book of LaRouche's open Jew-hatred and my citations of his openly published military fantasies as if such evidence does not exist.--Dking 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dking, I ask you to follow the Wikipedia guidelines, in this case Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Your speculation about my user name is like your speculation about LaRouche: bizarre. Just to clarify, I chose the name HonourableSchoolboy because the book by that name by John le Carre is one of my favorite books. I intended to take the name "Hopscotch" because I like the movie, but that name was already taken.

Two other editors have asked you to "provide a quote in context from LaRouche where LaRouche says he has a plot for "conquering the world," that "centers on eliminating a Jewish banking oligarchy." You claim that such quotes exist. Why not go ahead a post such a quote here on this talk page. I think it would go a long way to settling the dispute.--HonourableSchoolboy 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add to the Further Reading section the following: "Lyndon LaRouche's Raid on Democracy" article by Eugene H. Methvin in August 1986 Reader's Digest

On conflicts of interest

I apologize in advance for jumping in the middle of the dispute but I just have to say something. I know little if anything about LaRouche. I'm not American, I've vaguely heard about LaRouche from time to time but I really have no opinion on the subject. I come here looking for information and what I get is an article with clearly undue weight given to criticism, with two of the active editors of the page having been sued for defamation by LaRouche and where a majority of the sources are linked to these two editors. Whatever happened to avoiding conflicts of interest? Frankly, my reaction is "whatever this article is saying, I can't trust it". I'm not saying the info is incorrect, as I said I don't have enough background to really say. What I do know is that I don't trust an article that is so blatantly influenced by editors with an obvious slant against LaRouche. Now it may very well be that there are also people involved here with close ties to LaRouche and I suspect that tendentious editing will tend to attract more tendentious editing. In any case, as far as I'm concerned this article falls into the junk bin and might just as well be re-started from scratch. Pascal.Tesson 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir, there is a sharp contrast between your profession that you "really have no opinion on the subject" and have only "vaguely heard about LaRouche," on the one hand, and the intense opinions which you in fact profess. Why should strong weight NOT be given to criticism of a convicted felon who swindled old ladies out of their life savings in order to finance an anti-Semitic political movement? Why would you assume such weight is "undue"? If you look at the actual citations, the majority are not "linked to these two editors" (Chip Berlet and I), as you claim. I count only 26 out of 68 citations that are linked to either of us and many of these are merely quotes from LaRouche himself which can and should be turned into direct citations of his work. And why shouldn't Berlet and I nevertheless be cited fairly heavily? Both of us have spent decades studying LaRouche and are recognized by mainstream intellectual opinion as being experts on the subject. LaRouche himself and his close followers are the source of at least 20 direct citations even though they make patently ridiculous claims, like about vast plots to destroy LaRouche and even an FBI assassination plot (in addition there is much uncited material from LaRouchian sources that no one has had time to challenge). If you subtract the citations I was forced to add after LaRouche supporters placed material in this article that blatantly misrepresented what I said in my book (especially, the canard that I supply no examples of direct anti-Semitism by LaRouche), then LaRouche is given at least equal weight with us. (Can the same be said for articles about Louis Farrakhan and David Duke?) The rest of the citations are from sources such as the New York Times, the National Review and the Wall Street Journal, which also are strongly critical of LaRouche for reasons he has only himself to blame for. As to the idea that being sued for libel by LaRouche disqualifies us as experts, if you had read the article, sir, you would have seen that (a) LaRouche agreed to a dismissal with prejudice of his complaints against myself in the 1979 suit and against Berlet and myself in the 1984 suit; (b) in the 1984 case LaRouche continued with the case against two other defendants, NBC and the ADL. At trial, the jury ruled for the defense, finding that it was not libelous to call LaRouche a "small-time Hitler"; indeed, the jury awarded defendant NBC $3 million in damages. If you are truly uninformed and not connected to LaRouche, as you claim, why don't you do some research before jumping to conclusions?--Dking 02:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you feel strongly about LaRouche. I'm not saying that the article should be a fluff piece praising LaRouche but I would recommend that editors such as yourself which have a direct and very personal involvement in the matter should not be the ones writing this article. As I'm sure you've been made aware of, we do have guidelines on conflicts of interest and I don't think you should ignore the underlying problem. As I said, the whole article feels tendentious and I had this feeling before I realized who had been involved in the editing. Sure, you can discount this on grounds that I haven't done my research or on the basis of your not-so-subtle hint that maybe I'm just a LaRouche supporter masquerading as a neutral observer but I'm telling you that I'd rather have an article about straight facts which I can read without thinking "was this part written by Dking?" Pascal.Tesson 05:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that Pascal did not answer ANY of the substantive points in my posting above. Instead he seems focused on only one thing: banning myself and other strong critics of LaRouche from editing on this article. He says NOTHING about banning the numerous LaRouche followers who edit on this article in an almost grotesquely tendentious manner. I can only conclude that Pascal has some kind of agenda that he is not telling us about.--Dking 01:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter, Dking, is that Wikipedia has numerous policies that all editors are supposed to adhere to. I have pointed this out until I'm blue in the face. Once again, you should familiarize your self with WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, WP:COI#Citing_oneself, and WP:LIVING, because you have been editing in flagrant disregard of these policies since day one.

Note also that you are once again speculating about the motives of other editors, in this case, Pascal.Tesson. Please take note of the fact that at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, it states the following: "always allow for the possibility that you are indeed wrong, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is dickish." --Tsunami Butler 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

King is the only 3rd party biographer of LaRouche. It seems to me that we're lucky to have his involvement in this article. Clearly, there are other editors who have strong opinions about LaRouche, and who may receive pay from the LaRouche organization. The tendentious nature of the editing atmosphere is due to the sum of the editors. What's most important is that everyone stick to making NPOV edits that summarize reliable sources, and to being civil with each other. -Will Beback · † · 01:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it takes two to tango but again, as an outside observer I'm not comfortable with editing of Dking in his position. Nor am I comfortable with people on the LaRouche payroll editing the article. That's really all I wanted to say and frankly I'm puzzled by Dking's immediate accusations of hidden agendas. At the risk of repeating the same thing thrice, my sole intention was to remind everybody that this article is being edited by a number of people (on each side of the fence) in a clear position of conflict of interest and that the casual observer (e.g. me) can definitely feel this by skimming through the article. That's not a good situation. Pascal.Tesson 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You came into this discussion out of nowhere, professed no knowledge of LaRouche, and then focussed in like an SDI laser on removing Dennis King and Chip Berlet (two people you presumably know nothing about if in fact you know nothing about LaRouche) from editing on this article. Now you profess to be "frankly puzzled" that I questioned where you were coming from????? I am glad, however, that in your last posting you opted for a more neutral posture.--Dking 21:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Does Will Beback have a shred of evidence to back up his insinuation that someone is being paid by LaRouche to edit Wikipedia? It is certainly not true in my case, and I have been the most active editor opposing Dking's methods. Will Beback's insinuation is more outrageous than any of Dking's speculations to date, and certainly violates the policy of not "attributing motives to fellow editors." --Tsunami Butler 07:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this is a tactic of intimidation. I have had little involvement with this article. I made a disapproving comment on this page about Dennis King's book on January 24, and I made a couple of edits to the article when it was briefly unprotected on January 30-31. Next thing I know, Dking is branding me a "LaRouche supporter" and says that I am part of a four man task force with unlimited time to censor this article. On top of that, he puts forward an incoherent theory about the meaning of my User name (which is simply the name of a favorite book of mine,) using the same tactics he uses in his book.

But it doesn't stop there. The harassment continues when Will Beback and 172 show up at articles which have nothing to do with LaRouche, and begin reverting my edits, claiming that I am making them as an agent of LaRouche. It looks like a tactic to silence any opposition to Dking's aggressive attempts to dominate this article. --HonourableSchoolboy 14:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi, I am here from the Cabal to mediate. Due to the fact that this page is enormous, I have created /medcab06-07 to discuss on. This will allow easier review by parties. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the main points of contention have to do with Dking's edits. Geo. Talk to me 03:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The mediation request I saw listed me first among the problem users. Dking seems to only be the latest complaint. -Will Beback · † · 05:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresentations by LaRouche supporters

The LaRouche editors are attempting to create a red herring. They say that the issue is an attempt by myself to aggressively "dominate" this article. I think any fair minded person who goes back and reviews the record of my edits on this article over the past several weeks will see that I have been concerned with proper sourcing, have made many corrections of a factual nature, have raised questions about particular points in hopes others would make the corrections, have attempted to organize some sections in a more logical fashion, and have provided detailed explanations of contested edits. I have aggressively opposed attempts by LaRouche editors to misrepresent my work (for instance, the canard that I provide no examples of direct LaRouchian anti-Semitism), as any author would do. It should be noted that this article has been under dispute for about three years and the LaRouchians earlier tried, unsuccessfully, to make me the issue. (I was not at the time editing on this article and only began to do so at the end of 2006.) The issue is not Dennis King--the issue is that properly sourced and factually accurate material is being removed from this article and replaced by improperly sourced and factually inaccurate material, and that this is being done by at least four supporters of LaRouche acting together with a clear agenda of sanitizing the biography of a convicted felon whose political extremism and anti-Semitism are well documented by a variety of respected sources on both the right and the left.--Dking 18:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Honorable Schoolboy complains that I describe him as being part of a four-person pro-LaRouche task force trying to dominate this artice. Well, let me quote pro-LaRouche editor Tsunami Butler: "The other side of the edit war was a group of editors who might be described as either pro-LaRouche or, depending on your frame of reference, anti-Defamation. They are myself, MaplePorter, HonorableSchoolboy, and Nathan DW." Talk to me So let's have no more of this silly pretending that no cooperative campaign to defend LaRouche is being conducted, and that Honorable Schoolboy and Nathan DW [[43]] are merely objective, disinterested third parties.--Dking 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How about you join the discussion. Geo. Talk to me 00:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)