Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 14

Request for consensus on two non-controversial changes

I'm not interested in unblocking this page for yet another edit war, but I noticed a couple of annoying errors about LaRouche's life pre-NCLC that should be changed. If we can all agree, I'd like to get permission to change them.

1. The article now reads: "His wife left him in 1963 (they had a son, born in 1956) and, in the late 1960s, Janice Neuberger LaRouche became a leader of the New York City branch of the National Organization for Women." I propose that this be changed to: "He and Janice separated in 1963, with Janice retaining custody of their son, born in 1956." First, Janice didn't leave: she kept the apartment on Central Park West. Second, the addition of the fact that Janice later became an activist with NOW bears the imputation that Lyndon led her to it. This is absurd--she had been a socialist since the 1950s and a close friend of the formidable Myra Tanner Weiss and Myra's equally formidable husband Murray, who were both advocates of feminism as well as socialism. She didn't need any negative experiences with Lyndon to propel her into what was an obviously appropriate vehicle for social protest for a woman of her ideological background in the late 1960s. In my researches in past decades, I interviewed Janice as well as Myra, Murray and other people who knew the LaRouche couple in the 1950s and early 1960s; I never received any impression that Lyndon was abusive to Janice or that their divorce was an unusually messy one. Also, Janice's life after separating from Lyndon is irrelevant to this article.

2. The description of Carol Schnitzer as LaRouche's "common-law wife" in the 1960s should be changed simply to his "partner," which is the term that is almost universally used nowadays. Also, "common-law wife" is an inappropriate term from a legal standpoint, since Lyndon and Carol lived together exclusively in New York State, which does not recognize common law marriages.--Dking 19:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

These are extremely minor points. We can worry about them later. Dking, I would like to repeat the question that has been put to you, let's see, three times without receiving an answer, so here comes number four: can you, or can you not, supply a quote from LaRouche in context to document your claim that LaRouche says he has a plot for "conquering the world," that "centers on eliminating a Jewish banking oligarchy." I think that claim of yours was the pivotal issue in the revert war that caused protection of the article. It will have to be resolved in order to get unprotection. --NathanDW 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is cited properly to the book by King, published by a major reputable outlet.--Cberlet 03:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Inquiring minds still want to know whether LaRouche ever said anything remotely like it. --Tsunami Butler 06:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Major Typo

In the "Alleged Coded Discourse" section, the last two paragraphs (the one about Children of Satan and the following one) repeat. There's also a cutoff sentence at the end of one of them. Someone who has the power to do so, please take a look and fix it.

Fixed. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please restore material on this page

This page is protected due to protracted conflicts over content. It is inappropriate to archive the relevant discussion until the issues have been resolved. Please restore the recent discussion, or provide me with a good reason why I should not do so. --Tsunami Butler 16:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And given the circumstances, why on earth would you remove the NPOV tag? --Tsunami Butler 16:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The page was too long; the threads were inactive; and the tag has been there for ages for no obvious reason. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason is obvious -- because there are serious disputes about the neutrality of the article. The discussion is going on at the Mediation Cabal. And is it permissible under Wikipedia policy for you to remove that tag while the article is protected? Particularly when you are a party to the content disputes? --NathanDW 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is it going on at the mediation cabal? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice it was protected. I've reverted myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering why this article is protected

See Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/medcab06-07 and Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/archive13. There have been protracted disputes over the content of this article. --Tsunami Butler 14:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be some kind of explanation of who Ramsey Clark is. I don't think it's inappropriate to quote him, necessarily, but it's a bit misleading to say he's a former US AG and an "activist." That makes him sound like a guy who likes to speak at rallies now and then, when in fact he's very much on the extreme fringes of US politics these days. I'm trying to think of a NPOV of saying that, but honestly it's tough to think of one with someone like Clark. HowardW March 22, 2007

LaRouche and German scientists

I have moved this section, re-inserted today by Dking, to "Criticism," and significantly shortened it, on grounds of WP:UNDUE. It was disproportionately long in terms of its importance to a biographical article, and was mainly a POV vehicle for Dking to make Guilt by Association insinuations. I removed the "Liberty Lobby" reference as a more blatant form of guilt by association. --Tsunami Butler 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to repeat what I said when I first posted here, even though it got me harassed by Will Beback: 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. Frankly, now that Dking has inserted the whole mess again, I think it should just be reverted, but I don't want to see the article go back to full edit war and protection again. --HonourableSchoolboy 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I've never harassed you, and I never objected to your assertion about John Demanjuk. Please keep personal comments (especially untrue ones) off of article talk pages. -Will Beback · † · 20:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche and the German scientists, war criminals, etc.

LaRouche supporters removed once again two paragraphs from the end of the section on LaRouche and the German V-2 scientists. These paragraphs were properly sourced, both to my book and to the original LaRouche documents. The second of these paragraphs (on LaRouche's Munich 1987 speech) had earlier been the subject of controversy and I had gone to the trouble of digging out the text of the speech as published in EIR. Here is what I wrote on January 5:

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.

At the time Tsunami Butler said she would only accept this if I placed the entire context on this page. This was sheer harassment. I properly sourced the material and added more than adequate clarification by Wikipedia standards. Now, three months later, another LaRouchian simply removes the reference to the Munich speech because it doesn't agree with his or her spin on LaRouche as a great peace maker.

Furthermore I changed the material added the other day about the Nazi war criminals. John Demjanjuk was not found "innocent"; his conviction in an Israeli court was overturned on appeal by the Israeli Supreme Court on the basis of the unreliability of eyewitness identification fifty years after the fact. This is not a judgement of "innocence." The U.S. Justice Department subsequently filed a civil proceeding and in 2004 the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Demjanjuk could be stripped again of his citizenship because of "clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence" of his service as a death camp guard.

Arthur Rudolph was never found "innocent" or even "not guilty"--he went back to Germany rather than face trial in the United States. German prosecutors subsequently declined to prosecute him, just as more recently they declined to investigate the German LaRouchians for their possible role in the death of Jeremiah Duggan. About Linnas and Soobzokov's crimes strong evidence has been gathered over the years by prosecutors, journalists (see Howard Blum's book) and historians. The LaRouchian interpolation that Linnas died before he could be tried is extremely misleading and betrays a misunderstanding of the OSI's legal aims, which were to strip Nazi war criminals of their fraudulently obtained U.S. citizenship and deport them. Here is what the Wikipedia article on Linnas says:

In 1981 the Federal District Court in Westbury, NY stripped 67-year-old Karl Linnas of his citizenship for having lied to immigration officials thirty years earlier about his Nazi past. Linnas's crimes, the judge said, "were such as to offend the decency of any civilized society." From 1941 to 1943 Linnas had commanded a Nazi concentration camp at Tartu, Estonia, where he allegedly directed and personally took part in the murder of thousands of men, women, and children who were shot into anti-tank ditches. A 1986 federal appeals court upheld his deportation order, ruling that the evidence against the defendant was "overwhelming and largely uncontroverted."

On April 20, 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a final appeal. At that point Linnas was flown to the Soviet Union and three months later died in a prison hospital while awaiting trial (July 2, 1987).

The reader will note that although Linnas died before he could be tried in the Soviet Union, he had already been tried and found guilty in federal court (with the decision upheld on appeal) of lying about his past to immigration officials, with the judge stating that his crimes were such as to "offend the decency of any civilized society." Now the LaRouchians are stating that the true test for Linnas should have been a trial in the Soviet Union, even though at the time they stated he could not receive a fair trial there and would be summarily executed by the Bolsheviks. Clearly the LaRouchians editors are playing games on Wikipedia to cover up the true nature of their extremist movement.--Dking 18:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The Wikipedia article on Soobzokov describes information that became available after his death:

In 2006, declassified documents of the Central Intelligence Agency confirmed[2] that Soobzokov had been a CIA agent in Jordan and that the agency had misled the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service on Soobzokov's Nazi past. Historian Richard Breitman concluded based on these documents [3] that Soobzokov had indeed strong ties to the SS and that he had admitted to the CIA his participation in an execution commando searching for Jews and Komsomol members.

As to Demjanjuk, Wikipedia describes legal action against him in the U.S. after the Israeli Supreme Court overturned his conviction:

On February 20, 1998, Federal District Court Judge Paul Matia ruled that Demjanjuk's citizenship could be restored. On May 20, 1999, the Justice Department filed a new civil complaint against Demjanjuk.

No mention was made in the new complaint of the previous allegations that Demjanjuk was Ivan the Terrible. Instead, the complaint alleged that Demjanjuk served as a guard at the Sobibór and Majdanek camps in Poland and at the Flossenburg camp in Germany. It additionally accused Demjanjuk of being a member of an SS-run unit that took part in capturing nearly two million Jews in the General Government of Poland. Demjanjuk was put on trial again in 2001, and in February 2002, Matia ruled that Demjanjuk had not produced any credible evidence of his whereabouts during the war and that the Justice Department had proved its case against him.

On May 1, 2004, a three-judge panel of the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Demjanjuk could be again stripped of his US citizenship because the Justice Department had presented "clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence" of Demjanjuk's service in Nazi death camps. Demjanjuk vowed to appeal the ruling.

On December 28, 2005, an immigration judge ordered Demjanjuk deported to Ukraine. "Having marked Mr. Demjanjuk with blood scent, the government wants to drop him into a shark tank," his lawyer, John Broadley, said during the hearing. Chief U.S. Immigration Judge Michael Creppy ruled that there is no evidence to substantiate Demjanjuk's claim that he would be mistreated if deported.

On December 22 2006, the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the deportation order, stating "Simply put, the respondent's arguments regarding the likelihood of torture are speculative and not based on evidence in record".[1]

Even if Demjanuk loses all appeals, he would remain in the United States if no other country is willing to accept him. This is a likely outcome, according to his attorneys, since European countries are reluctant to accept the aged and infamous. In that case, Demjanjuk would become a stateless alien and would lose all Social Security benefits.[2]

I am rewriting the misleading information of the LaRouchian editors accordingly.--Dking 20:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This stuff belongs in the various articles on Demjanjuk, etc. It has little if anything to do with LaRouche. If you want to make neutral corrections on the passage in question, without quadrupling it in size, go ahead. --Tsunami Butler 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't follow what's going on here because there's so much to read. Dennis, it's not clear to me how the material you're adding is directly relevant to LaRouche. Apologies if I'm missing the point. Also, there seemed to be a large number of foonotes being deleted, but I couldn't see which side was deleting what. Can someone explain? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The LaRouche folks added a paragraph (without any citations) saying that Rudolph and Demjanjuk had been found "innocent" at trial, which is not the case. They also claimed that the other two named individuals had never been tried, although Karl Linnas had in fact been tried and found guilty in U.S. Federal Court and his conviction had been upheld on appeal. Rather than simply delete their nonsense, I chose to clarify it and placed the clarification in a footnote, not in the main body of the article where I agree it does not belong. As to the rest, I am fighting to restore properly cited material that has been deleted step by step over a period of months. This material, as you can see by tracking what I added today (which Tsunami and her associates promptly deleted again), is directly relevant to the biography of LaRouche. He spent fifteen years crusading for various aging Nazis and identifying himself as being in a joint battle with them against a common enemy. This is an important part of his life. Also, the material about his Munich speech had originally been challenged in early January. I provided ample documentation, and thought that was the end of it. Months later, however, the LaRouchians deleted it without explanation. We have here a systematic pattern of properly cited material being deleted--and absurd and often totally uncited (or miscited) information being inserted in its place.--Dking 00:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. I did not delete footnotes but the other side has definitely deleted paragraphs that were copiously footnoted. Today I added a link to the picture (taken from their own newspaper) of Queen Elizabeth at the top of the Star of David. Although the LaRouchians had previously asked to see it, now they have deleted the link--again, with no explanation.--Dking 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis. It's hard to tell what's what because there's so much of it. Is there a way of summarizing the material you wanted to add, and putting the summary in instead? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at this stuff and I really don't see how it is appropriate to a biography of LaRouche, beyond a brief mention. The other thing I did is follow the links to the Wikipedia biographies of the various alleged war criminals, and I find that the material there contradicts what Dking is saying. For example, according to Wikipedia, Karl Linnas was not tried in the US. There was an extradition hearing in the US, which is not the same thing as a trial. The trial was to take place in the Soviet Union, but he died before the trial could take place, which is in fact what the LaRouche article presently says. --Don't lose that number 06:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is typical of what is found in Dennis King's book, which is that King takes every episode in LaRouche's life and desperately tries to twist it until he can make it look somehow like LaRouche harbors secret sympathy for fascism. The real significance of LaRouche's interest in the Demjanjuk case is simple and obvious. LaRouche was in prison. It was his view that he was a victim of a government frame-up, and he was interested in finding a pattern of politically-motivated government frame-ups of a wide spectrum of people. The result was the Mann-Chestnut hearings, and I just added a (blessedly brief) section on those hearings. --HonourableSchoolboy 14:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the material under dispute is 3 or 4 short paragraphs that are thoroughly backed up by citations. This material was in the article for many weeks, Tsunami Butler made some changes as to POV language that were agreed to, but then the material was removed without explanation by another LaRouche editor right before the article was frozen for an extended period. I see no reason why this material needs to be summarized, nor would the LaRouchians accept any possible summary that I might come up with. However, if the long footnote I added yesterday is an issue, I would certainly be willing to delete it if the LaRouchians would agree to stop inserting their absurd statements about the alleged innocence of slave labor camp production manager Arthur Rudolph, death camp commandant Karl Linnas, etc.--Dking 17:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)P.S. I have restored the disputed material once again.--Dking 17:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's very detailed and not always entirely clear what it's saying. We can't record every single thing that LaRouche has ever said or done. We especially can't go off on tangents about other people's lives. That material can go into a footnote if it's relevant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami Butler suggested that you could make neutral corrections if you don't massively expand and self-quote. Why don't you try that. But as DLTN points out, it would be technically incorrect to say that Linnas was convicted in a trial in the US. Perhaps you can find a formulation that is to your liking without being false. --NathanDW 17:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Our John LeCarre fan writes: "King takes every episode in LaRouche's life and desperately tries to twist it until he can make it look somehow like LaRouche harbors secret sympathy for fascism. The real significance of LaRouche's interest in the Demjanjuk case is simple and obvious. LaRouche was in prison. It was his view that he was a victim of a government frame-up, and he was interested in finding a pattern of politically-motivated government frame-ups of a wide spectrum of people."

If this was the only thing involved in the LaRouche organization's support for Nazi war criminals, then how does one explain its vociferous support for Arthur Rudolph almost three and a half years before LaRouche was convicted at trial and sent to prison (indeed, before he was even indicted). See editorial from the July 1, 1985 New Solidarity at[3]

Also, how does one explain the extreme language in a 1988 article by LaRouche on the eve of his trial in which he talks about the OSI's prosecution of Tartu death camp commandante Karl Linnas in order to strip him of his citizenship and deport him: "We despise as low dogs those who betrayed U.S. justice and spat in the face of God by sending the American citizen Karl Linnas to his death at Soviet hands. These persons [apparently LaRouche also means the federal appeals court that upheld Linnas's conviction and the Supreme Court which failed to review the appeals court decision--DK] are an example of those we demand be brought to trial for their crimes against God and humanity."[4]

This kind of language appears to be motivated by something more than a "simple and obvious" interest in finding examples of "politically-motivated government frameups" (as does the language in the 1985 editorial suggesting that the OSI prosecutors of Rudolph were Soviet spies and should possibly be executed for treason).--Dking 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. To enlarge images of the two articles, place cursor at bottom right corner of image and left-click on icon that appears.--Dking 19:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mann-Chestnut hearings

Information was recently added regarding the "Mann-Chestnut hearings".[5] As far as I can tell, these hearings were a product of the Schiller Institute. These hearings apparently investigated several issues. The only part that would be applicable to this article is the exoneration of LaRouche, though even it might be more appropriate in United States v. LaRouche. The bulk of the material should probably be in our article on the Schiller Institute. -Will Beback · † · 02:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed it earlier because the section didn't explain what it was about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It explains the LaRouche organization's interest in the OSI cases, about which Dking has contributed a lot conspiracy theorizing earlier in the article (and on this talk page.) --Tsunami Butler 14:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about the LaRouche organization, it's about the person Lyndon LaRouche. So only those things directly related to the person shold be included. We have several articles on the organization, and most of this material belongs in one of them. Since the Schiller Institute conducted the hearings, that article would be the best place. -Will Beback · † · 18:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The LaRouche organization generally reflects the interests of LaRouche the person, hence the name. I've noticed that whenever SlimVirgin discovers a new piece of criticism against LaRouche, she tends to spam it to as many articles as possible (not that I am advocating this.) By the way, LaRouche's interest in DOJ corruption didn't just begin with his own trial. He was big on that topic at least since the '70s, when the FBI-CPUSA collaboration against him came to light. --Don't lose that number 21:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no question that LaRouche's organization reflects his interests. That isn't the issue. The issue is which place in our encyclopedia is most suitable for this information. Except for perhaps a short mention of his testimony, the bulk of it should go into the article about the organization that actually comnducted the hearing. -Will Beback · † · 00:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The same argument applies to all of Dking's theorizing about German scientists. It was the organization, not LaRouche personally, that criticized the OSI. So I don't mind moving Mann-Chestnut if Dking's German scientist section goes with it. To have one without the other violates NPOV. --Tsunami Butler 14:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again, Tsunami. It's not just the "organization." LaRouche has personally criticized the OSI in very harsh language. How can you deny this? I provided a quote above with a link to a page image of a 1988 article in which LaRouche raved about OSI prosecutors spitting in the face of God by deporting death camp commandante Karl Linnas (and there are other comments LaRouche has personally made along these lines). His personal support for Nazi war criminals extended over at least a 15-year period and is an important theme of his political activities both as an individual and as the leader of a movement. LaRouche personally identified with these guys, like when he'd have his newspaper print his picture together with those of Demjanjuk and Kurl Waldheim, suggesting all three were joint victims of the same conspiracy.--Dking 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Mann-Chestnut hearings are not related to the German scientists, so let's deal with them separately. -Will Beback · † · 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

They are related to the allegations of corruption by the OSI, which plays a big part in the new stuff added by Dking (Demjanjuk, Linnas, etc.) The point is, LaRouche & Co. were interested in all sorts of issues where they saw DOJ persecution. The hearings also touched upon Waco and Ruby Ridge, I think. --Don't lose that number 22:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If we put in here everything that LaRouche is interested in or is related to things in this article it'll be 10,000 pages long. The hearings were conducted by the Schiller Institute so that's where the bulk of the coverage belongs. -Will Beback · † · 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Olof Palme

Over three months ago, I requested that the LaRouchian editors provide a proper citation for the hearsay statement by Dean Andromidas, writing in a LaRouche publication, that a former Stasi agent once said on Swedish radio that the Stasi had run a propaganda campaign to blame the murder of Palme on the LaRouche movement. No citation to a legitimate print publication has been forthcoming and therefore I am removing the paragraph. If in fact a proper citation exists, by all means restore the information.--Dking 01:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction

SlimVirgin deleted the references to meetings with heads of state in the intro, with this edit summary: "it's not really relevant, and not obviously true; just because someone has had meetings with a couple of ex-presidents of non-influential countries doesn't really say much." In fact, all three were sitting heads of state at the time, as I'm sure that Dennis King will be more than happy to confirm. Indira Ghandi was assassinated in office, so she could hardly have met with LaRouche as an "Ex-president." "Non-influential countries" strikes me as highly POV, and condescending. --NathanDW 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like SlimVirgin to explain how she arrived at this conclusion: "added who said it and that it was in 1985, because it doesn't seem to be true now)," regarding LaRouche having an international network. And I'd also like an explicit rationale for the removal of the "coded discourse" section. SlimVirgin, you have said on numerous occasions that one doesn't remove material simply because one doesn't like it. --NathanDW 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Ethan a dawe: the meetings with heads of state belongs in the intro because it is a major factor in LaRouche's notability. Simply running for president would have never made him such a major target of establishment ire. --NathanDW 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that LaRouche met with three notable heads of state in the early 1980s should be restored, since it can be properly sourced to the Washington Post and other media which thought it noteworthy to mention. I also mentioned it in my book. I believe these meetings were not just flukes but were the result of assiduous efforts by his followers in those areas of the world; in the case of Mexico's Lopez Portillo at least, LaRouche's ideas on debt cancellation, as advanced in the document "Operation Juarez," apparently also played a role. If LaRouche were still obtaining meetings with heads of state, the fact would belong in the opening paragraph. As it stands, I think putting the material at the beginning gives an inflated view of LaRouche's current influence. It should be moved to the section on LaRouche's activities in the 1980s. Any details, however, properly belong in the article on the "LaRouche Movement."

Re the quote from Norman Bailey, I think it is important to give the date of it (1984), since Bailey may not have the same opinion today of the reports emanating from Executive Intelligence Review, which has lost many talented researchers (and such researchers' carefully cultivated sources) over the years.--Dking 17:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The bulk of the article covers events from earlier in LaRouche's life, which is not atypical of a biographical article. The intro is supposed to reflect the article generally, not necessarily the current activity of the subject. Also, significantly, the criticism that is featured so prominently in the intro dates from the '80s. Therefore, inclusion of the meetings with heads of state is required for balance in the intro. --NathanDW 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Coded discourse" should be restored. It is amply documented and shows an interesting pattern. --Don't lose that number 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am restoring this now. --Don't lose that number 21:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be written differently, so as not to suggest mockery of the sources. Also, it would be more appropriate in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary says "this is silly as written; would need to be written so as not to suggest mockery of the source; also, multiple sources have alleged that the group uses euphemisms, so multiple sources should be used)" In fact, there are multiple sources: Dennis King, Chip Berlet, Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal, and Daniel Pipes. If you think it is written in a "silly" manner, you should do a copy edit, not revert. It is perfectly well documented, and I believe that I have seen you write over at Talk:Schiller Institute that we must include published comments from reliable sources, even if we don't like what they say. So, please don't revert this again, unless you can demonstrate that there is a policy violation. Feel free to copy edit it. --Don't lose that number 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I would like to request that you participate in the discussion here before going on a revert binge. I left a comment above on this section, dated April 13, and I let it sit for a week before restoring the section. It says on the top of this page that major changes should be discussed before being done, and I am trying to abide by that, so I request that you do so also. The reason this section is appropriate to this article, and not the one you suggest, is that it is about criticism of LaRouche. It really has little bearing on what you say in your edit summary: "it would be more appropriate (so long as copy edited) in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche as it deals with the expression of his political opinions and his writings, not his biography)." What it bears on is unusual theories about LaRouche developed by his critics. There is no section in the other article on criticism. I will wait until your response before I restore the section, but I really think you should discuss this, instead of edit warring. --Don't lose that number 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You're saying it's fine for you to revert, but not for others.

The section would be more appropriate where LaRouche's alleged antisemitism is discussed in Political Views ... and as I recall there is already some allusion to euphemism there. What is your source for the "unusual theories" claim? I've seen this said of LaRouche in quite a few articles, though it's not discussed as "coded discourse," but as the use of euphemism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Curious, Don't Lose That Number sounds exactly like earlier LaRouche editors now banned from this article; perhaps it's just that they all memorize the same Morning Briefings from Lyn. I waged a two-month battle with them over the material on coded discourse. They repeatedly reverted properly sourced material and kept reinserting material that profoundly misrepresented the contents of my book. I put in citations from my book that proved they were wrong (like their assertion that my only evidence of LaRouche's anti-Semitism was code language and that I had not provided any evidence for asserting that LaRouche had articulated weird fantasies about conquering the world). They would then (a) delete my citations and (b) complain to Wiki authorities unfamiliar with the article that I was engaging in self-promotion, spam, etc. in violation of Wiki policy. Now I have an admin going through every article I ever edited and removing links to articles on my website on spam violation grounds. You can't win with these LaRouche people and I am opposed to the section on coded discourse being restored unless there is a mechanism in place to prevent Tsunami Bu-- {er, excuse me, Don't Lose That New User Name) from turning it into yet another demean-Dennis-King and hooray-for-Lyndon-and-his-Nazi-war-criminal-pals exercise.--Dking 22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you kindly specify how the section in question misrepresents your book? It looks to me as if it is quoting it. Are the quotes out of context? And please stop insulting me. --Don't lose that number 15:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I specified how the section misrepresented my book over and over again on this discussion page in great detail earlier this year. I'd spell it out and then a new sock puppet would pop up to demand that I do so again, while the old sock puppet continued erasing my properly sourced version and restoring a version I had exhaustively proven was false. Your latest demand is nothing but harassment, and you know it.--Dking 18:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I recall you complaining that an earlier version of the section said that you made exlusively "coded" allegations. I see nothing of that sort in the version that "Don't lose that number" added. I also see no formulations that would suggest "mockery of the source," as claimed by SlimVirgin. Since this section is very well documented, the burden of proof is on those editors who wish to delete it. It is also very notable -- the theme of "coded," "hidden," "subliminal" or some other form of less-than-overt anti-Semitism is a a major theme among LaRouche's critics, particularly the ones that promote themselves as editors here at Wikipedia. Another good example is the new quote from Chip Berlet that SlimVirgin just added to Schiller Institute: "You would have to listen over time to a ... set of patterns, and you would begin to hear the echoes of the classic antisemitic conspiracy theories." Dking and SlimVirgin should be very specific about whatever complaints they have about the most recent version of the section, or else cease and desist from deleting it. --NathanDW 19:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this section should be re-added, but I will wait another day or so to see if someone has a complaint about it that is actionable under Wikipedia policies. I can see nothing wrong with it. --Don't lose that number 14:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rudolph

The fact that Willis Carto supported Arthur Rudolph is not notable. This is Dennis King, deliberately violating WP:UNDUE in order to slant the article toward his fringe theory. I refer you to the article Arthur Rudolph, where it lists his supporters in this way: "These included retired Major General John Medaris (former commander of ABMA), officials of the city of Huntsville, the American Legion and former associates at NASA." This strikes me as neutral. I am replacing the shorter version of this in the LaRouche article, unless someone thinks this longer version is better. It is also the case that Rudolph was supported by all the NASA scientists in Huntsville, not just the "Operation Paperclip" scientists. This again is deliberately misleading editing on the part of Dking. Also misleading is the edit summary, "Stop trying to censor facts about LaRouche's life" -- these are not "facts about LaRouche's life," they are incidental to his life, but Dking is trying to play the Association fallacy game. --Don't lose that number 21:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am restoring the material because it is properly sourced. The primary force in defending Rudolph in Huntsville was the community of Operation Paperclip old timers. I quoted Linda Hunt, the chief expert on this, in my book: "In 1985, the old-timers held their fortieth reunion at the Alabama Space and Rocket Museum beneath a giant picture of [SS general] von Braun. Linda Hunt, a former Cable Network News reporter, recalled a darkened auditorium full of aging Nazis eagerly watching a slide show of the latest laser-beam weapon. She said that when the lights went on, the [Fusion Energy Foundation's] Marsha Freeman went to the front and delivered a tirade against the OSI to heavy applause." (p. 80) (The Fusion Energy Foundation was a LaRouche front; Freeman was a longtime LaRouche operative.) Much of the activism of the old Nazis was due to a false rumor spread by the LaRouchians that the OSI was planning to round up and deport hundreds of former Nazi scientists (this was false--the OSI was only after Rudolph). The old-timers may have fallen for the rumor because many of them had guilty consciences and were worried that someone had found out about their secret crimes. As to the Liberty Lobby's support for Rudolph being "not notable", the fact is that the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight had a much larger circulation than LaRouche's New Solidarity and the Liberty lobby had a radio program on a very large number of stations around the country; its role was at least as significant as LaRouche's.--Dking 23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be notable to an article about the Liberty Lobby, possibly even the article about Rudolph, but not a biography of LaRouche. You are attempting to insert it for purposes of Association fallacy. --Don't lose that number 15:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Liberty Lobby not relevant??? I guess you weren't around when NCLC members were writing for Spotlight, and Lyn and Helga were meeting with Carto. Or when they hired Liberty Lobby supporter Mitch WerBell as LaRouche's security consultant. The NCLC in the mid to late 1970s lifted whole-hog all kinds of conspiracy theories about Jews straight out of Spotlight and continue to promote those theories to this day. The participation of Liberty Lobby in the save-Rudolph-from-his-just-desserts campaign is significant because it shows just how deep LaRouche was involved in the pro-Nazi rightwing. Everything reverted by Don't Lose That New Sockpuppet User Name is properly sourced and I am restoring the paragraph once again.--Dking 17:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a quote from Hunt linking LaRouche to the Liberty Lobby directly, not just by agreeing on a particular issue. Otherwise it is OR. --NathanDW 19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop playing games. The involvement of Liberty Lobby in this campaign is already properly cited to my book and thus is not OR at all. As to LaRouche's direct relationship to the Liberty Lobby, Spotlight and Carto, see pp. 39-40 and various other references in my book. As I recall it's also dealt with in Greg Rose's National Review cover article, among other published sources. If I cite myself on the direct connection, the LaRouchians will scream self-promotion and spamming, so I leave it to someone else to provide a citation from one of the many reputable published sources.--Dking 21:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Benton

NathanDW added to the section about Kronberg that the article about his death was written by a former LaRouche activist, Nicholas Benton, offering as evidence this link, which appears to amount to OR. The link shows that Benton gave $200 to a LaRouche campaign in 1979. It doesn't show that he was an "activist," so I've removed the claim for now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Dennis King[6], Nick Benton was affiliated with the LaRouche publication EIR. --Don't lose that number 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Nicholas Benton" sounds like it could be a common name. I would worry that if we're searching primary sources we could get the wrong one by mistake. -Will Beback · † · 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that Dennis King or Chip Berlet have something in their files that could settle this. Meanwhile, Benton's comments seem a bit catty or bloggy. They don't seem appropriate under BLP, and the Falls Church News-Press is not exactly a major-league source. --Don't lose that number 14:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I met Nick Benton when he ran the LaRouche office in Los Angeles in the late 70s-early 80s. Then he moved to Houston, Texas, where he was a write-in LaRouche candidate for congress [7]. From there he went to Washington, D.C. where for a while he was the EIR White House correspondent.[8]. Then he quit the LaRouche organization and settled in Falls Church (I ran into him in a restaurant there in 1990.) He now writes for the Falls Church paper. It is definately the same guy.

Self-styled candidate

If he was on the ballot, he was a candidate. The adjective "self-styled" adds no important information and only lets off the hook the Democratic Party leaders who allowed the "LaRouche Democrats" to invade the party with little or no opposition (or even welcomed them in, as former NY Mayor Ed Koch did and as certain members of the Congressional Black Caucus have tried to do more recently). Also to be consistent in using "self-styled," one would have to clutter the article with references to self-styled economist, self-styled philosopher, self-styled music critic, etc. etc.--Dking 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ken Kronberg

I am opposed to the Kronberg suicide material being moved to the LaRouche Movement page. The Lyndon LaRouche biography page is clearly the most visited of the LaRouche-related pages on Wikipedia. The previous editor in effect was trying to bury the news on Kronberg in a place where it would do the minimum damage to LaRouche's reputation. --Dking 22:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that there is a revert war over the above comment by Dennis King. Parts of it clearly violated BLP. I have removed only those parts and left the remainder. I'm surprised that SlimVirgin didn't catch this, because she is normally very vigilant. --NathanDW 01:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone able to explain what these morning briefings are, and what their relationship is to LaRouche? Does he write them, or how does it work? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

NathanDW, you are perfectly aware of the distinction between editing an article and making comments on a discussion page. You have no right to censor my remarks on the discussion page, and indeed this is a new escalation of your tactics. I didn't censor those of your comrades even when you called me a drug dealer, so hands off! P.S. What I said that you removed was said in print in Nick Benton's article.--Dking 23:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP and self-published sources

I was asked to clarify the BLP issues.

Wikipedia doesn't publish allegations about living persons based on material from questionable sources, either in articles or on talk pages. A questionable source includes any third-party self-published sources (e.g. a personal website written by someone other than the subject of the BLP). LaRouche publications, although not self-published, are not subject to any editorial oversight, and for that reason have been ruled as questionable sources by the ArbCom.

What this means is that LaRouche's publications can be used as a source about LaRouche, but not anyone else; and Dennis King's website can be used as a source about Dennis King, but not anyone else.

Therefore, a dispute between the two that is taking place only on their websites or their own offline publications, or on discussion boards, can't be reported by us until a third-party reliable publication writes about it.

Don't lose that number asked me to confirm that BLP applies to talk pages. Yes, it does. Any unsourced contentious material about a living person can and should be removed from talk pages. In fact, even if reliably sourced it can be removed from talk pages if it has been added gratuitiously. Talk pages are here only to discuss the article, and shouldn't be used to attack people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Ramsey Clark hired"

Question to Will Beback: is there any documentation that Ramsey Clark was "hired to defend LaRouche"? He could have been working pro bono. --MaplePorter 15:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We just removed his name from the LaRouche Movement because he was decided to be a hired professional. If Clark worked pro-bono that would be worth noting. Have you got a source for it? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 17:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

All we actually know is that he was LaRouche's attorney, and that he made a number of statements on the record about LaRouche's case. We don't know that he was hired. We don't know that he is a supporter of LaRouche's ideas. We should stick with what can be documented, and avoid speculation. --NathanDW 20:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Clark also had ties to the International Progress Organization, which intervened on behalf of LaRouche in his legal cases. But I have never seen any documentation as to who, if anyone, paid Clark for his services, so I am removing "hired." --Don't lose that number 14:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche as neo-fascist and felon

Clearly these two descriptors belong in the lead.

The sentence: "There are sharply contrasting views of LaRouche. His supporters regard him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas his critics see him as a conspiracy theorist, cult leader, anti-Semite, and Neo-fascist." accurately reflects the published references that follow.

The felony convictions are among the best known aspects of LaRouche's public life.

I was attempting a compromise edit to stop a revert war. Assistance in this matter is constructive. Simple deletions are not constructive.--Cberlet 17:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the felony convictions are probably the best known aspects of LaRouche's public life. Outside the US and Western Europe, LaRouche was considered a political prisoner, which is why it is inappropriate to remove Clark's comment. As for LaRouche being a neo-fascist, that is a fringe viewpoint. You and Dennis King do not represent the mainstream. There are harsh attacks on LaRouche in publications like the Washington Post, but they don't claim that he is a neo-fascist.

One more thing. The intro has been fairly stable for a long time. Don't start a revert war, and then say you are trying to stop one.--Don't lose that number 21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire intro for a long time has been a POV whitewash. The idea that "LaRouche was considered a political prisoner" is not possible to sustain in reputable published sources. If LaRouche apologists continue to abuse the clear intent of numerous admin decision, I will seek to have bans enforced on individual editors. Wearing out other editors to control leads and introductions and other LaRouche-related text is one resaon for the bans in the first place.--Cberlet 21:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss edits here, but I am unwilling to have pro-LaRouche editors flaunt the Arbcom decisions by simply reverting back to wording that is biased, POV, and not cited to reputable published sources. The appropriate cautions regarding bios of living persons are not an excuse to engage in POV pushing and whitewashing. --Cberlet 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Propose Banning of NathanDW

NathanDW just reverted my compromise edit without any discussion. Given the long pattern established here, I propose that NathanDW be banned from editing this and other LaRouche-related pages. Discussion?--Cberlet 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been trying to insert your fringe POV into the intro of a controversial article. You have already been reverted by numerous editors including myself. NathanDW probably didn't think additional discussion was necessary. --Don't lose that number 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to make the lead NPOV. Additional discussion is always appropriate, and in this case needed. Much of the lead is framed to minimize criticism of LaRouche, and give the impression that LaRouche is the victim of a government conspiracy. Let's take it a sentence at a time.--Cberlet 16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV text for the lead

Convictions

Here is a current paragraph:

• LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who was one of LaRouche's attorneys, wrote 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."

The major fact is the conviction, yet the bulk of the text is a defense of LaRouche by his attorney. This is highly biased.

The following would be NPOV for a lead:

• LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. LaRouche's attorney suggests the conviction was the result of a government vendetta agaisnt LaRouche.

The quote from Clark could then be properly placed in the section on the conviction.--Cberlet 17:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Since your main profession at the time was acting as a spokesman for the faction that wanted LaRouche jailed, it seems ironic that you speak of bias. Since the open letter calling for his exoneration was signed by 5 former heads of state, numerous cabinet-level officials, a former US Senator, 30 former US Congressmen, 830 present and former state legislators from all 50 states, etc., the claim that he was a political prisoner is probably the single most notable aspect of his biography. Thus, I think that it is appropriate for the actual quote from Clark to be included, just as you undoubtably think that the quote from the Heritage Foundation should be included. As it stands, both are included, and this intro is the result of much debate and compromise. --Don't lose that number 20:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I stongly object to the false and defamatory personal attack contained in the phrase: "your main profession at the time was acting as a spokesman for the faction that wanted LaRouche jailed." What faction? The British royal family? The Synarchists? The Jews? At the time I was a journalist on the trail of a story about a huckster fleecing elderly people out of their life savings while violating numerous tax and fundraising related laws. I am a journalist who helped get a crook convicted by writing stories based on documents and interviews. The claim that LaRouche was a "political prisoner" only floats in the tiny pond of LaRouche supporters. Please refrain from further false and defamatory personal attacks.--Cberlet 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we remove all quotes from the intro. The point of an intro is to summarize the article not to provide evidence. Quotations are always problematic as they are hard to make neutral. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "quotations are hard to make neutral"? It seems to me that they are easier than editorial summaries of the quotes, which are often subject to dispute. --Marvin Diode 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the poor grammar. I should have said they are hard to present neutrally. What I mean is that quotations are often strongly POV and there's little we can do to make them neutral. The number, size, or stridency of quotations in an article can be out of balance with the importance of the viewpoint. My belief is that quotations should be kept to a minimum, especially in introductions. (Note our sister project: Wikiquote). ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If the allegations about government corruption in the LaRouche case had just come from "LaRouche's attorney," they wouldn't be notable. Coming from Ramsey Clark, a specialist in the field, they are notable. Cberlet probably should not be editing this article, because it creates a problem with the Conflict of Interest rules. --MaplePorter 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Clark was not speaking as an uninvolved expert, he was talking about LaRouche because he was LRouche's attorney. If we're going to quote him it's important that we give the proper context. Regarding conflict of interest, I'm not sure what interpretation would exclude Cberlet while allowing LaRouche followers to stay involved. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Will, let me break it down for you. It is unfortunate that you and your friends are so quick to apply the name "LaRouche followers" to anyone that disagrees with you. I would like to remind you of your own words in this comment, where you say "I again request that you stop bringing theories of editor motivation into this disucssion." You know nothing about me or my editor motivation. On the other hand, with Chip Berlet and Dennis King, we are talking about public persons who have positioned themselves on the extreme fringe of LaRouche criticism, and are editing Wikipedia under their own names. There is no need to speculate in their cases, and that is why it is appropriate to speak of conflict of interest with them, as opposed to garden variety editors. --MaplePorter 21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

MP, I don't think I made any comments about you. I referred to "LaRouche followers". If you put uyourself in that camp then fine, but I made no such assertion. I'm not sure how suggesting that the same rules apply to all editors is an attack on editor motivation. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 02:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Will, I think you are being coy. Clearly your comments were made about someone. You should come clean and say who you mean, or abandon this line of argument. Regardless, the only editors here who have a clear conflict of interest are King and Berlet, for the reasons Maple gives. It is not a question of whether "the same rules apply to all editors" -- WP:COI applies only to those editors who have a documented conflict of interest. --Don't lose that number 06:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If an editor has a conflict of interest then that should be addressed elsewhere. Making ad hominem attacks on someone in a discussion won't make the issues go away. Let's stick to the topic at hand, the intro to this article. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am hardly a marginal source of information about LaRouche. Not only have I published articles about LaRouche in the Chicago Sun-Times and Des Moines Register, but I am widely quoted in major dailies. This claim that there is a COI problem is absurd. Every journalist who writes about LaRouche is made part of the vast conspiracy by the LaRouchites. This claim has no merit, yet it is repeated endlessly. I am not in the "extreme fringe of LaRouche criticism,"; I am one of the main sources for mainstream journalism.

Consider the following:

• "Neo-Nazism," entry in Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 2007

• "Notorious antisemite Lyndon LaRouche, who shifted from left to right yet ran as a Democrat, has appeared on the presidential primary ballot for decades, attracting tens of thousands of votes in some states."

• "...antisemitic ideas and conspiracy theories once circulated almost exclusively by German Nazis and their neo-Nazi offspring entered popular culture, mainstream political debate, and even broadcast television series, especially in Islamic and Arab countries in the Middle East. These even included a revival of the false allegations from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. These conspiracy allegations moved into more mainstream circles through bridging mechanisms that often mask the original overtly anti-Jewish claims by using coded rhetoric about "secret elites" or "Zionist cabals." The international organization run by Lyndon LaRouche is a major source of such masked antisemitic theories globally. In the U.S. the LaRouchites spread these conspiracy theories in an alliance with aides to Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam. A series of LaRouchite pamphlets calls the neoconservative movement the "Children of Satan," which links Jewish neo-conservatives to the historic rhetoric of the blood libel. In a twisted irony, the pamphlets imply the neoconservatives are the real neo-Nazis."

• Source Citation: Hearst, Ernest, Chip Berlet, and Jack Porter. "Neo-Nazism." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 15. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 74-82. 22 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale.

Is the Encyclopaedia Judaica marginal?--Cberlet 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cute-- I was touched by your defense of the neocons. With the Iraq war going the way it is, they need all the friends they can get. But of course, what you say about LaRouche is hogwash. That doesn't make the Encyclopaedia Judaica marginal, it just makes you marginal. The Encyclopaedia Judaica simply needs more fact-checkers, if they havent' already hired some after that piece of nonsense was published. --NathanDW 01:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Judaica entry was thoroughly fact-checked. The text is not a defense of the neocons (I have criticized them in print for years) it is an observation that the LaRouchite criticism of the neocons is rooted in historic antisemitism, and that it is ironic for neonazi LaRouchites to paint the neoconservatives as the new Nazis. What matters is that the Encyclopaedia Judaica is a mainstream publication which had me coordinate the writing of the revised entry. This adresses the issue of my views on LaRouche being marginal. They are not marginal at all. The mainstream view is reflected in the entry. It is audacious to suggest that the Encyclopaedia Judaica failed to fact-check the entry rather than accepting the fact that LaRouche in the mainstream view is a kook, convicted criminal, "small-time Hitler" cult leader, and antisemite. While a tiny handful of published sources praise LaRouche, most condemn him, his policy pronouncements, and his followers. That's what needs to be made clear in this entry. The lead needs to be rewritten to be less of an apologia of LaRouche, no matter how relentlessly his supporters on Wikipedia try to whitewash reality.--Cberlet 01:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no facts to check in Berlet's little essay -- it is all innuendo. It reminds me of "The Emperor's New Clothes": What, you can't see the "masked" anti-Semitic theories? What about the "coded" anti-Semitic theories? As far as Berlet being "marginal," this is a small thing, but very timely. --Don't lose that number 06:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Clark was representing LaRouche does not in any way diminish his expert qualifications. Clark appears to choose his clients on the basis of the political importance of the case (I'm thinking Saddam Hussein here,) not because he needs the money. --NathanDW 20:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What is significant is the fact that LaRouche is a convicted criminal. That he and his supporters claim this is the result of a vast government conspiracy deserves a small mention in the lead. The Clark quote and the rest of the discussion about the conviction belong lower in the body. This Clark quote stuff is just an attempt to misdirect readers from the fact that LaRouche is a convicted criminal.--Cberlet 21:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Two observations:

1. The discussion is becoming overheated out of proportion to the issue of the intro.

2. LaRouche is very controversial and therefore any assertion made about him (whether positive or negative) is going to be disputed. The best solution is to have assertions cited to notable individuals or organizations so that the reader may evaluate the source. In the case of Ramsey Clark, definately identify him. Cberlet is concerned that this may give too much credence to the claim that there was a political dimension to the trial and that it was not just a typical corrupt politician lining his pockets. I disagree. The intro still says LaRouche was convicted, and for every person who thinks that Clark is a crusader for justice there is a person who thinks he is a crank and professional protestor. My point is that the reader is better served by identifying the source than by concealing it, and it doesn't make the intro any longer. --Marvin Diode 14:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And yet the denial in the lead is longer than the statement of fact about the conviction. This is just wrong. It violates the basic premise of an encyclopedia. And I have always moved the complete quote from Clark lower into the body of the text for the reader to see. And it is not just Clark that claims a vast government conspiracy behind the convictions, but LaRouche himself and several of his accolytes writing in LaRouche publications. The pro-LaRouche editors game Wikipedia by relentlessly contesting any critical statement about LaRouche, and padding articles with material praising or defending LaRouche. It is a form of editing by attrition. Other editors wear out, and give up. Little by little the LaRouche-related pages are inexorably turned into propoganda for LaRouche rather than legitimate entries. Every attempt to make them NPOV is cause for a huge energy-draining discussion that sometimes takes months. This aspect of the editing dispute cannot simply be dismissed.--Cberlet 14:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

King's version is crisp and to the point. It is the superior version for a compromise.--Cberlet 21:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

King says the Clark statement is "standard attorney boilerplate." I can't accept that description, because Clark has had many high-profile political cases, and his statement says that the LaRouche case represents "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." To say this is "standard attorney boilerplate" does not seem like a serious viewpoint. --Marvin Diode 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What justifies a common claim of all convicted criminals--that they are the victim of a frame--taking up more space than the fact of the conviction in the lead? This is so totally outside the parameters of encyclopedia writing. It is POV to the max. What is the justification? Please explain in detail. Until I see a discussion about this justification, the King edit is far superior.--Cberlet 02:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that Cberlet is simply trolling here. He knows very well that the LaRouche case was controversial internationally. As I mentioned earlier, the open letter calling for his exoneration was signed by 5 former heads of state, numerous cabinet-level officials, a former US Senator, 30 former US Congressmen, 830 present and former state legislators from all 50 states. This makes the LaRouche case one of the most controversial political cases in memory, comparable with those of Nelson Mandela and Andrei Sakharov. I have a copy and can upload an image file on request, but that shouldn't be necessary, because Chip Berlet and Dennis King have both seen it many times -- there is even a summary of it on their "Justice for Jeremiah" website. Despite all this, Cberlet writes "The claim that LaRouche was a "political prisoner" only floats in the tiny pond of LaRouche supporters." I would have to say that this is just flat out dishonest, as was Cberlet's statement that he was "attempting a compromise edit to stop a revert war."[9] Cberlet, you came to this page with the intention of starting a revert war, and your edit summaries are a bad joke -- "Restore NPOV version." Give me a break. It is clear that you are attempting to impose your POV (that there was nothing unusual about the LaRouche trial, that he was just another crooked politician like Duke Cunningham,) and the quote by Ramsey Clark, which explicitly contradicts your POV, is an obstacle to your agenda. Of course, Dennis King comes along and says he "agrees with Berlet"-- Whoa! I didn't see that one coming! And he proposes a summary which is a complete distortion of Clark's comments. Clark's comments should stay. They are what makes LaRouche actually notable, and not just another politician like Duke Cunningham. Berlet and King should edit in good faith and stop trolling. --Don't lose that number 05:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on editing the text. Please stop the personal attacks. Only a tiny handful of people consider LaRouche a political prisoner. Comparing LaRouche to Nelson Mandela and Andrei Sakharov is ludicrous. This entry has for too long been biased in favor a defending and apologizing for LaRouche. That is not proper. This discussion keeps getting sidetracked. The issue is why the lead has to include more text defending LaRouche as a "political prisoner" than detailing his legitimate convcition as a crrok who preyed on the elderly through investment scams. That's the public record. There should be a short mention that he and his defenders consider the conviction flawed. That's NPOV.--Cberlet 20:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Suppose we mention that LaRouche's "defenders" included 5 former heads of state, numerous cabinet-level officials, a former US Senator, 30 former US Congressmen, and 830 present and former state legislators from all 50 states. That's certainly notable. --Don't lose that number 21:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Assertions about third parties would require third-party sources. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is undue weight to give that long a voice in the lead, which is merely supposed to be a summary of the article, to his hired attorney. The fact that the attorney was a famous and important person doesn't change this. Here's the version I put in, which was reverted:

LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. LaRouche's supporters and his attorney Ramsey Clark claim the convictions resulted from abuse of power in a concerted government effort to crush the LaRouche organizations.

I think it does a good job of addressing the concerns of LaRouche's defenders but without giving three times as much space to the defense and an attack on the government than to the charge itself, which is what that paragraph is supposed to summarize. nadav (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't know that Clark was hired. If you look earlier on this talk page, this has already been discussed. All that we actually know is that he represented LaRouche, and it could have been pro bono. No one has found a reliable source one way or the other, so we go only with what we know. I think that LaRouche's and/or Clark's critics are exaggerating the length of the quote. It is one slightly convoluted sentence. That comes to a total of one sentence about his conviction, and one sentence from Clark. Do you want to quibble over the number of characters? --Don't lose that number 22:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Add pro bono to my comment above. I still mean what I said, though. Your version and the quote uses strong language, which may sway the reader's opinion. There's no problem with that if it's used in the body of the article with more context, but it shouldn't be used in the lead, whose sole purpose is to summarize points already made later in the article. nadav (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead is full of strong language. Some of LaRouche's critics claim he is an anti-Semite, for example, and that's included in the lead. The best we can hope for is a relatively complete summary of the major controversies. --MaplePorter 00:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If those sorts of allegations are covered extensively in the body, then they should stay. Regarding the quotes: Since lead sections should conform to WP:LEAD, i.e. they should be cut-and-dry summaries of the article, there is almost never a reason to introduce quotes, unless they are themselves functioning as NPOV summaries of the material. nadav (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make two observations, first that WP:LEAD is a style guideline, and it says there that it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. It may be too difficult to find a summary of Clark's statement that is acceptable to both sides, in which case it might be necessary to use the quote. On the other hand, I would propose a different summary than the one by Nadav1, because the lead should make it clear what makes LaRouche notable. Clark is not simply saying that the convictions resulted from abuse of power in a concerted government effort to crush the LaRouche organizations. He is saying that, in his career as a specialist in cases where governments abuse the legal process to eliminate political opponents, this is the most extreme case he has seen. This establishes the notability of LaRouche in this regard. --Marvin Diode 06:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why we deleted the Buster Horton quotation. As for the Clark quote, I don't think anyone is opposing including it in the article. But it isn't necessary to quote him in the summary. I don't know of any article about a person who was convicted of a felony that quotes the subject's attorney in the summary. If we can't agree on either the summary or the quotation then we shouldn't include either. It's sufficient for the intro to say that he was convicted but maintains his innocence. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored the Buster Horton quote in the "criminal convictions" section. Otherwise, Will, you seem to be following Cberlet's tactic of saying "But gee, isn't LaRouche just an ordinary criminal, and isn't Ramsey Clark just an ordinary lawyer?" As I think everyone concerned knows full well, the answer to both questions is no. What makes LaRouche notable? That he ran for president without much chance of winning? Others have done that. Because he's a conspiracy theorist? They're a dime a dozen. Clark's quote sums up what really makes LaRouche notable -- it's the number one case in the history of the US where a combination of government and private sector forces (John Train et al) attempted to use the courts (and the press) to annihilate a political movement. --Don't lose that number 13:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, based on standard texts on the U.S. history of political reperssion, the above claim is utter hogwash. This is why supporters of cult leaders have no business editing pages to represent the marginal and crackpot views of the cult leader and the cult. This is true whether or not the editors consider themselves part of the cult.--Cberlet 16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

<-----Sorry, I am losing track of where what is. The Clark quote and the Horton quote belong lower on the page, not in the lead.--Cberlet 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I frankly don't understand the big fuss over the length of the Clark quote. It is not that long, plus it is very carefully worded and I don't see how any summary or paraphrase could be accurate without being as long as the quote itself. --MaplePorter 15:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The fuss is that the Clark quote in the lead is improper, unencyclopedic, and biases the entire paragraph in favor of a refutation of the fact of the conviction. It is little more than LaRouche propaganda. If it belongs on the page at all (which is dubious since there is already an entire page on the LaRouche conviction which itself is biased and POV in favor of LaRouche) then the Clark quote belongs lower in the text.--Cberlet 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose again moving all of the quotes out of the intro. As I said before, the intro should be a summary of the article, and it's better to place supporting materials, like quotes, in context. As for user:Don't lose that number's assertion about the motivation for the prosecution, that's original research. There's no objective evidence that the U.S. government tried to shut down the LaRouche movement. The government certainly haven't made any further documented efforts since the early release of LaRouche and the other conspirators. This debate and the associated edit war appear dilatory, and not likely to gain consensus. I hope I'll be proved wrong by editors agreeing to my compromise proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Will, you are misreprenting my comments. They are not OR -- they are a paraphrase of Clark's assessment. --Don't lose that number 00:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to base our work on the lead guideline, since there is a wide consensus of wikipedian opinion that it's good. I invite the LaRouche supporters to formulate an exact phrasing instead of this quote, so we can discuss it. Try to make it a general description of the reactions of LaRouche supporters, and not to focus too much only on Clark's opinion, since it is not expanded on in the body of the article. The phrasing should also be concise enough that it doesn't overshadow the rest of the paragraph. Here's my attempt:

LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. LaRouche's supporters and his attorney Ramsey Clark claim the convictions were due to a concerted government effort's unprecedented abuse of power to crush the LaRouche organizations.

nadav (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If we agree to this version, then the full Clark quote below is redundant. I think it is too long and detailed for the lead. Just my opinion. Do we offer such perks to every convicted criminal here on Wikipedia?--Cberlet 19:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not every convict starts a mass movement and has so many followers, and the lead should reflect that to some extent. nadav (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the summary is good, though we might use Clark's word "destroy" rather than the more picturesque "crush". I don't think the summary makes the quotation redundant later on. For the intro to be a summary there should be a longer treatment of the same material later in the article. Also, it nicely balances the jury-member's quotation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, Cberlet's objection to the Clark quote is that he personally disagrees with it. Of all the opinions voiced in this debate, that is the most "unencyclopedic." The summary is not bad, except that what makes Clark's opinion notable is his credentials, that being that he is former AG, and a specialist in political cases. I have no objection to saying that he was LaRouche's attorney -- clearly Cberlet and friends hope that this will discredit Clark, but big deal. --NathanDW 00:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the edits, not the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, there appears to be a tactic of lumping Clark in with "LaRouche supporters" to discredit him (sort of like what goes on in these discussion pages.) I know of no evidence that Clark is in fact a LaRouche supporter. I believe that he has some serious disagreements with LaRouche. If it is safe to generalize about Clark's approach to the law, it appears that he seeks out cases where he believes the legal process has been abused for political purposes. His substantial experience in this field makes his opinion an expert legal opinion, as opposed to the opinion of Chip Berlet. --Don't lose that number 00:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember that we are trying to summarize the article, not summarize the quote. As I said, there is almost never a reason to put a quote in the lead. Don't make this about Clark. Devote a whole section of the article to Mr. Clark if you want to, but until you do that, there is no reason to devote that paragraph to his opinion, and especially not in his own words. nadav (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried to take into account some of the concerns raised above in my new revision. I sincerely hope this will be acceptable. LaRouche supporters should realize that a compromise must be made, and no one is ever entirely satisfied with compromises. nadav (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC

What are our options and objectives for re-writing the lead?

It looks like some editors are proposing a big re-write of the lead. This could be a lot of work, and the present lead is the result of many compromises, some of them bad ones in my opinion. I am going to list some points that have been raised and provide my "take" on the matter:

1. Cberlet appears to want to re-cast the entire lead to make it more negative toward LaRouche, since he considers the present lead an "apologia." My view of this proposal is that it is unacceptable POV pushing. The present lead, while not perfect, is relatively balanced.

2. Will Beback says he would like to eliminate quotes. I'm not sure exactly what this is intended to accomplish -- WP:LEAD doesn't say that quotes are bad, but it does say that the lead should provide a summary. Nadav1 seems to be saying that quotes are inconsistent with a summary -- I can see his point, but in the case of such an unusually controversial subject, perhaps the best way of providing a summary is to provide contrasting quotes which illustrate the range of opinion. The section which contrasts the Heritage Foundation with Norman Bailey is an example of what I mean.

3. Don't Lose That Number says that he thinks the most notable feature of LaRouche is that, in Ramsey Clark's opinion, he was the target of an unprecendented legal assault. I don't think that this is LaRouche's actual "claim to fame," although it is an indication of his notability. I would like to see something in the lead about LaRouche's international activity. There was something there before about his standing in Russia and China, that was eliminated in an earlier bout of controversy. Since that time, much better evidence is available from LaRouche's recent trips to Russia and Italy. I would favor saying something like the following: "Although coverage of LaRouche in the Western media is generally sparse and negative in tone, he receives far more positive coverage in Russia, China, and many Third World nations, where his campaign to change US policy toward the rest of the world is viewed sympathetically." It might be appropriate to mention LaRouche's meetings with various heads of state and other dignitaries in this context, since this is also an important indication of his notability. --MaplePorter 11:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Our objectives for rewriting the lead are to make it NPOV and conform to standard Wiki policies. End of discussion. Please avoid personal attacks, even when couched in civility.--Cberlet 13:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are superior

The primary published source challenging the conviction of LaRouche is provided by the LaRouchites in a published collection of articles: "Have the Mass Media Brainwashed your Neighbor about Lyndon LaRouche?" Thus this text is appropriate:

• LaRouche and his defenders claim the prosecution was a politically motivated conspiracy involving government officials, numerous others, and a mass media brainwashing campaign.

The actual text includes a reference to the URL [10] and a link to the details lower on the page [11]. Whenever possible a lead should rely on these types of primary published sources, especially in a bio of a living person. In this case a letter from an attorney is an inferior source, and on this page is already elaborated on in detail with full quotes lower on the page. The collection cited in the new lead text contains articles by LaRouche himself.--Cberlet 13:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A lengthy debate over the section you didn't like has produced a new consensus version of that section. Continued attempts to make it conform to your POV is Tendentious editing. --MaplePorter 14:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am raising a different point and providing a superior primary source. Please do not move my text again. Please do not delete my subheading. Please discuss the text.--Cberlet 14:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This lead has been very thoroughly discussed. You have provided many different explanations for why you don't want Ramsey Clark mentioned. However, he is a well-known expert in the field about which he speaks, and I can't think of a more notable person to cite. --Marvin Diode 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Cberlet wants to start the controversy all over again from scratch. He has made the claim numerous times on this page that no one outside the LaRouche organization believes the trial was tainted. The evidence tells a different story, but Cberlet keeps trying to cleanse the lead of anything that contradicts his claim. He should respect the consensus and stop wasting our time. --NathanDW 15:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The most notable source is LaRouche himself and his organization. Look at this diff. The end result of weeks of discussion is that the lead is virtually unchanged, and once again favors pro-LaRouche claims over the fact of his conviction; the lead also highlights Clark as a former Attorney General (an appeal to false authority - Clark represents the interests of LaRouche); and now there are even more paragraphs of unchallennged LaRouchite propoganda. This is outlandish, biased, POV and clearly Tendentious editing on the part of the pro-LaRouche partisans. --Cberlet 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's preferable to give the opinions of the movement and LaRouche himself rather than his lawyer. nadav (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, firstly because LaRouche's opinions about his guilt or innocence are not especially noteworthy, secondly because Clark is an expert in the field of politically motivated trials and not simply "his lawyer," and thirdly because there is an element of POV-pushing in attempting to make it look like only LaRouche's supporters question the legitimacy of the trial. --NathanDW

Nathan, do you have any reliable sources who questioned the legitimacy of the trial, who weren't members or supporters of the LaRouche movement, weren't acting for him, and whose views about the trial weren't published solely by a LaRouche publication? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we even have a 3rd-party source for the Clark quote? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is Catch-22. The moment anyone says something favorable to LaRouche, they become "supporters of the LaRouche movement," like the disclaimer on this article about the German Defense Intelligence chief. You folks judge anti-LaRouche sources strictly by their notability, so you should judge other sources by the same standard. And given the political climate in the '80s, the idea that the US press would voluntarily cover an action to question the LaRouche trial is pretty far-fetched. As I said earlier, I can upload an image of the exoneration ad if you claim I am lying. --Don't lose that number 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

<----------The issue is that a primary source from the LaRouche group (including an article by LaRouche himself) is superior to an unpublished secondary source from the legal representative of the person. The main outcome of posting the Clark quote is an appeal to false authority--to claim that instead of Clark being an attorney for a convicted criminal, Clark is somehow more credible as a former US Attorney General. For any issue other than one connected to legal representation this would be true. Here it is just an appeal to false authority. The primary published source is always superior to a secondary source in a biographical entry here on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 14:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's cut the pretense, shall we?

This article was stable and undisputed for a long time. The recent kerfuffle began when Cberlet decided to add to the intro the characterization of LaRouche as "neofascist." That didn't last long, so he tried another disruptive tack -- censoring the view of Ramsey Clark. Cberlet has made it abundantly clear that he simply doesn't like Clark's opinion. Chip Berlet and his POV twin Dennis King were major cheerleaders of the LaRouche prosecution, back when the foundation grants were rolling in, back in the 1980s. The two of them resent any aspersions cast on the legitimacy of the trial, so Cberlet has launched an attempt to remove Clark's quote here, while King has launched a parallel effort to censor the opinion of Von der Heydte at United States v. LaRouche.

So, let's cut the pretense and wiki-lawyering. This is simply POV censorship. In response to questions raised above, the following is clear as day:

1. It is completely acceptable under both the LaRouche1 arbcom enforcement [12] and the Tsunami Butler request for appeal [13] to use LaRouche sites are sources for the Clark and Von der Heydte quotes. These were both open letters, released to the public, and these two individuals may be seen as LaRouche supporters, so they may be cited to LaRouche publications.

2. It is bogus to complain that too much space is being devoted to the rather brief quotes from these credentialed experts, particularly when much more space is devoted to quotes from Chip Berlet and Dennis King, whose claim to fame is that they both finished high school.

(unsigned, but posted by NathanDW)

Please avoid future personal attacks, NathanDW. Please focus on editing text using Wikipedia guidelines.--Cberlet 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, I have many more proposed changes to this entry and others. I just thought it polite to deal with one matter at a time. Next I intend to pursue the fact that the cited sources for the critics of LaRouche use the term "fascist," and it is POV to delete that from the list of criticisms, especially when the term is used in the titles.--Cberlet 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that Dking has reverted again with edit summary "restored proper version; it is long past time for NathanDW to be blocked from this page for his edit warring." First of all, I think that it is presumptuous to declare one version to be the "proper" version, since there is clearly a dispute. One of the things I particularly object to about Cberlet's version is the continual use of the word "conspiracy" to denigrate LaRouche's views.

LaRouche and his publications have detailed numerous conspiracy claims for decades. To suggest otherwise is outlandish. How ridiculous will this discussion get before the Arbcom sanctions are invoked?--Cberlet 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Then, it seems even more presumptuous for Dking to demand that NathanDW be blocked for edit warring. NathanDW has taken the time to argue his position on the talk page, while Dking just shows up to revert. Who'e the edit warrior? --MaplePorter 22:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

NathanDW has reverted without discussion repeatedly. That is easy to demonstrate. How ridiculous will this discussion get before the Arbcom sanctions are invoked?--Cberlet 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like some response to my proposal that LaRouche's relationship to Russia, China and the Third World be mentioned in the lead. --MaplePorter 22:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What relationship? Outside the lunatic assertions of LaRouche conspiracy fanatics there is no reputable published source to confirm these absurd claims. That's the proper response. How ridiculous will this discussion get before the Arbcom sanctions are invoked?--Cberlet 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead: criminal conviction

Let's continue the discussion about the lead (lede) and the criminal conviction of LaRouche.

The central issue is that a primary source from the LaRouche group (including an article by LaRouche himself) is superior to text from an unpublished secondary source from the legal representative of the person. The main outcome of posting the Clark quote is an appeal to false authority--to claim that instead of Clark being an attorney for a convicted criminal, Clark is somehow more credible as a former US Attorney General. For any legal issue other than one connected to legal representation of a client, this would be true. Here it is just an appeal to false authority. The primary published source is always superior to a secondary source in a biographical entry here on Wikipedia. LaRouche claims it all was a government conspiracy. Let him speak for himself.--Cberlet 16:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the "central issue." It's only your most recent tactic. You have changed your "central issue" numerous times. LaRouche is not an expert on politically motivated cases, at least the last time I checked -- therefore Clark's opinion is the more notable. No one one should be especially surprised to learn that LaRouche thinks the trial was rigged.

Cberlet, you have largely ignored every point raised by others in this discussion. I have brought up several times the prominent signers on the exoneration ad, and you continue to blithely insist that only members of LaRouche's organization question the trial. You also arrogantly dismissed MaplePorter's proposal that the lead mention China, India and the Third World. You claim there is no documentation that LaRouche is active there. I suggest that you read this (subhead: "Meetings with Third World leaders") and this, since the lead is supposed to summarize the article. --Don't lose that number 00:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We can deal with the outlandishly hyperbolic claims of the LaRouchites about LaRouche's importance later. For now we are discussing the issue of whether or not Clark is a superior source than LaRouche as to LaRouche's claim of a massive mass media brainwashing and government conspiracy. Under what Wikipedia guideline is an attorney's "open letter" a superior source than the person whose biography is the topic of the entry?--Cberlet 02:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not add to LaRouche's statement on the trial the opinion of a reliable independent source (not his attorney)? nadav (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the information on the trial should be moved to the trial page, which itself is heavily unbalanced in favor of the pro-LaRouche position. I think the lead here on this page should state the facts of the conviction, and then have a smaller amount of summary text (not quotes) drawn from the LaRouche official website on the trial. I have been concentrating on the lead, and as such have never removed the Clark quotes from this entry page,(I move them down in the entry) but I feel there is already too much on the trial on this page. This is the page on Lyndon LaRouche, we should quote him or his group's official statements as the superior primary source on his concerns about the trial. Clark's comments in an unpublished (except for LaRouchite press & publicity) "open letter" is a suspect and inferior source of information in this instance. Putting Clark's comments in the lead is an appeal to false authority, when it is little more than a publicity stunt by the attorney for a convicted criminal. Clark has a right to do this, however Wikipedia has no obligation to serve as a mouthpiece for propaganda.--Cberlet 14:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Where are the "outlandishly hyperbolic claims"? Can you carry on a normal discussion without constantly laying on the propaganda? The sections in the article, which I suggest that you read, are simply an account of the press coverage in Russia of LaRouche's activities, and the interviews in the China Peoples Daily. --Don't lose that number 06:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. Obscure anecdotal cites do not trump majority published material in which LaRouche, when he is not treated as a crackpot, is placed in a proper infinitesimally marginal and irrelevant context and perspective.--Cberlet 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why anyone would spend time (decades?) publishing books and attempting to reveal the hidden truth of LaRouche if he is "infinitesimally marginal and irrelevant". Also I'm not clear how claims by patently politically motivated and essentially self-published sources that describe hidden swastikas and secret meanings are any less "crackpot" than run of the mill freemasonry, illuminati and space alien conspiracy theory. This is along the lines of people who play the Beatles backward to show they are devil-worshippers. All these sources are exactly on par with each other as far as I can tell. This looks like a lot of nonsense. "Wikipedia has no obligation to serve as a mouthpiece for propaganda." Indeed. Fourdee 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is true that King and Berlet seldom address LaRouche's actual ideas or activities in their tracts. Instead, the emphasis is always on "exposing" the "hidden truth," which is on a par with standard conspiracism. --MaplePorter 14:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, I have spent far less than 1% of my time in the last 30 years writing about LaRouche, including articles in the Chicago Sun-Times, Des Moines Register, the New Internationalist, and the Encyclopedia Judaica -- hardly publications willing to allow sloppy "conspiracy theory" work to be published in their pages. The only source for the claim that I spend a substantial amount of time attacking LaRouche comes from unverified LaRouchite propaganda; and credulous people willing to relay unverified LaRouchite propaganda.--Cberlet 15:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think people are talking here about the PRA website, and of course the very substantial amount of time you spend promoting your views on Wikipedia. When were the Chicago Sun-Times and Des Moines Register articles published? Not very recently, I suspect. --NathanDW 15:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

NathanDW, you've been asked many times before to stop making negative personal comments about other editors. I'll ask you again to please comment only on the edits, not the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Will, would you kindly specify where you see a personal attack in Nathan's post? It seems civil to me. It's not as if he called someone a "credulous person willing to relay unverified LaRouchite propaganda." --Don't lose that number 20:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Negative personal comments don't belong on Wikipedia article talk pages. There have been many warnings, which seem to have gone unheeded. Future similar commnets may result in account blocks. I urge all editors to avoid making any personal comments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good policy, although it's so commonplace and selectively enforced that I think there should be a great deal of leeway for everything except the most egregious cases of namecalling. However, I'm not clear on the difference between attacking CBerlet as a published source and attacking him personally. I mean, he constantly uses terms like "lunatic" and "crackpot" and even stronger words to describe other sources. What's different about applying those to him as a source? I agree we should refrain from direct personal comments but surely there is some legitimate commentary, in the same vein as his, on his credibility as compared to these other sources? I'm just confused.

As to sources like "The New Internationalist", yes I would say it's about the most questionable source I've ever seen cited on Wikipedia. I noticed an article on their website attacking a book published from an actual publisher (you know, Random House, a publisher) about chairman Mao for pointing out that Mao was a dictator who killed a lot of people. Stalin also seems to get favorable coverage, if you can believe it. The New Internationalist seems to be nothing other than (to be generous) a mirror image of the sort of sources being attacked as "crackpot". Stalin? Mao? That's their fight for "global justice"? What kind of publisher is that to cite? And how is looking for "hidden meanings" and "secret swastikas" any different from any other conspiracy theory that is relegated to footnotes or separate articles elsewhere on wikipedia? Really seems like a double standard to me. Fourdee 23:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of The New Internationalist on this page or in the article. Where is it cited? Talking about the time an editor spends on Wikipedia is clearly directed at that person's involvement as an editor in Wikipedia, not their reliability as a source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's in this post. --NathanDW 01:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The mention had nothing to do with editing text is the point I think Will Beback was trying to make. I would be delighted if someone added text on LaRouche from my article in the New Internationalist. Here is the URL. I note that the Wikipedia entry on the New Internationalist is quite straightforward, and notes that the publishing group creates "materials for various United Nations and related bodies concerned with world development." The New Internationalist is hardly marginal.--Cberlet 02:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is another distraction that has nothing to do with the article. Can we all please just talk about this article and leave out the personal remarks? That includes newcomers to this page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, Will, I was serious about putting text from a more recent cite mentioning LaRouche and antisemitism on the page. But that goes to another section of text I feel is insufficient. For now, let's restart the discussion about the Lead description of the trial.

If Cberlet thinks the promotion of Stalin and Mao is not marginal I really am at a loss for what to say, except "wow". Every article I looked at on their site was from the extreme fringes of nutty political views, sometimes verging on delusion and/or lies. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what Mao has to do with writing the intro to this article. Since we're not using the the New Internationalist as a source at this time it is irrelevant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest,the article does use the New Internationalist as a source, where Chip Berlet is cited saying that LaRouche's attacks on the "neoconservative network" are anti-Semitic in some way. The summary in the article doesn't match the cite very well, and should be changed when the article is unprotected. --Marvin Diode 20:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead: Trial description text

I propose the following text:

• LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. LaRouche and his defenders claim the prosecution was a politically motivated conspiracy involving government officials, numerous others, and a mass media brainwashing campaign.

• Reference: "Have the Mass Media Brainwashed your Neighbor about Lyndon LaRouche?" [14]</ref> (details).

The fact of the conviction is a summary of material from reputable published sources, and the claim the conviction was politically motivated is based on the main source of information on the subject from the LaRouche group.--Cberlet 12:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That sentence looks pretty reasonable to me. One thing I've found helpful when a page is protected because of a dispute is creating another copy of it under talk (at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/New_version for example) and just making the edits you think are reasonable there, since it seems like there are going to be a number of proposed changes. Gives people something to look at, and there's no reason to revert war over it since it's not published. Just an idea. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 14:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing I noticed - it would be better to say "defenders maintain" than "defenders claim" since claim has a bit of a dimissive connotation. Perhaps "supporters maintain". -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 14:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with the present version of that section. --MaplePorter 14:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The protected version with the Clark reference looks good to me too. I'm not clear what happens with this (article protection) in the case that no compromise is really possible. My impression is that the admins are going back Cberlet up if it comes down to that. I think the easiest way to have some influence over the final version is through compromise and negotiation. Take the two positions and find some kind of middle ground. However if one or both sides are unwilling to negotiate, this is probably a waste of time and is going to come down to the admins enforcing what they think is correct (read: Cberlet's version). It might be more constructive to work with an itemized list of what both (or all) sides would like to see changed about the article so we can get a sense of the whole conflict at a glance. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's deal with one paragraph at a time, please. How is an unpublished secondary source from an attorney a superior cite to the official position of the individual and organization? Please discuss this question.--Cberlet 18:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not a brief mention of both? "LaRouche and others, including former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who defended the case, maintain the prosecution was part of a politically motivated campaign against LaRouche." -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 20:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the above deletes the actual assertions of LaRouche and his group while appealing to false authorty by mentioning Clark as a "former US Attorney General." The lead should have the briefest and most direct contentions, not unpublished secondary sources and not specious claims to authority that misdirect readers.--Cberlet 20:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "false authority". The man is a former US Attorney General. It doesn't get much more authoritative than that, for whatever such a person's opinions are worth - that's up to the reader. The fact is, this person, a former US AG, has gone on the record that in his professional opinion it was a wrongful prosecution. There's no "misdirection" there it's a simple fact and quite relevant. Perhaps we can move on to the next issue you have, I don't personally see this one going anywhere. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 20:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I thnk Cberlet's proposed text is a good compromise. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is neither good nor a compromise. It is an attempt to suppress one of the most notable facts about the LaRouche trial (and about LaRouche's bio,) which is that the trial attracted significant attention from legal experts as well as from other prominent personalities outside of the LaRouche movement. --Don't lose that number 21:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember, this is just the introduction. So long as we have the quote further down in the article nothing is being supressed. We can't put the entire article into the intro, otherwise there'd be nothing left for the rest of the page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is no sort of compromise at all. I didn't realize this is the exactly same text CBerlet has been pushing all along. "Compromise" usually involves you know... "compromise". I think it's quite significant that a former US AG says the prosecution was wrongful and that nicely sums up the matter. I'd like to offer again: :"LaRouche and others, including former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who defended the case, maintain the prosecution was part of a politically motivated campaign against LaRouche." Like I said, if there's no flexibility in cberlet's position then this is not going anywhere on the talk page and we might as well try to discuss something else. How can a dispute that resulted in an article protection be resolved with one side insisting on the exact same wording that resulted in the protection in the first place? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 00:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It all seems to come down to Cberlet's claim that mentioning Clark's credentials is an "appeal to false authority." I agree with Fourdee that it's not "false authority" -- it is real authority. --Marvin Diode 00:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

When Clark became LaRouche's attorney (his perfect right to so do), Clark lost all external authority and became an agent of LaRouche. He became a "mouthpiece" in popular jargon. That Clark's statement has never appeared in a reputable published source is also important. An unpublished "open letter" is secondary scrap paper.--Cberlet 01:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Clark was a significant federal government official and attorney who is professionally qualified to have opinions about the legitimacy of prosecutions. He's an expert. I don't see how he is any less impartial than your sources. Barring evidence to the contrary, we can assume the man has professional integrity and is giving his honest professional opinion. To me, "US Attorney General Ramsey Clark" has just a wee bit more authority than "Chip Berlet" but hey, everyone has a point of view. Anyway, since you appear to be unwilling to budge one inch on the text that caused the article to be protected, what should we do next? What demands do you consider negotiable and which are inflexible? I really don't see the point in repeating the same assertions over and over. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't quote Berlet in the intro. I propose again that we remove all of the quotes from the intro. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that may be an excellent solution. If the "conspiracy theorist, cult leader, and anti-Semite" (cite of Berlet) and the proposed "fascist" statement (and anything similar) can be relegated to the criticisms section of the article, perhaps the other editors involved can agree to limit the Clark citation to the section about the trial.

Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. (born September 8, 1922 in Rochester, New Hampshire) is an American political activist and founder of several political organizations in the United States and elsewhere, jointly referred to as the LaRouche movement. He is known as a perennial candidate for President of the United States, having run in eight elections since 1976, once as a U.S. Labor Party candidate and seven times as a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination.

LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole.

LaRouche is currently listed as a director and contributing editor of the Executive Intelligence Review News Service, part of the LaRouche movement. [33] He has written extensively on economic, scientific, and political topics as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis.

That sounds very fair to me - just leave uncontested facts in the article lead. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing the criticism from the Lead is simply unacceptable. It distorts the fact that the published criticisms of LaRouche (cult-leader, conspiracy theoriest, crackpot, antisemite, "Small-Time Hitler," neofascist) are already being misrepresented by deletion of "neofascist." The widespread published criticism of LaRouche is an uncontested fact. The only quote in that section is praise of the LaRouchite intelligence efforts by Norman Bailey (a quote that should be removed and placed lower on the page). The criticism of LaRouche is a truncated sumamry of numerous published sources. There is currently no quote critical of LaRouche in the Lead, and there should be no quotes at all in the Lead. COnsider the following entry:

• Spiro Theodore Agnew (November 9, 1918 – September 17, 1996) was the 39th Vice President of the United States serving under President Richard M. Nixon, and the 55^th Governor of Maryland. He is most famous for his resignation in 1973 after he was charged with the crime of tax evasion.

Why, look, there is no sentence reporting that Agnew claimed it was a politically-motivated indictment. Why? Because claims of innocence by crooks are hardly notable! The above suggestion by fourdee is not a compromise. The suggested text would result in the sanitation of this article by burying the widespread published criticism of LaRouche.--Cberlet 12:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you use that article as a comparison when Agnew was also accused of anti-semitism and there is no mention of it in the lead. I tend to think the lead should just be raw facts and that any opinions about the subject of the biography belong in subsections as appropriate. Also, the person in question claiming the prosecution was not fair is not a "crook" but a former US Attorney General who again I think carries a bit more weight than Chip Berlet. Further, if you want examples, consider Mumia Abu-Jamal - clearly mentions that his supporters dispute that he is guilty right in the lead. Lo and behold, Leonard Peltier is also called a "political prisoner" in the lead. Sure sure, those are legitimate claims, and the ones you disagree with are by "crackpots"... Anyway, are you willing to make any modifications to the contested material, or are we just wasting our time trying to find a compromise version? That's what's supposed to happen when the article is protected. We work together to find some kind of middle ground. You don't get everything you want, they don't get everything they want, hopefully everyone gets what is fair. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise is tempered by standard Wiki guidelines. The text we originally started discussing was wildly biased in favor of LaRouche. The text I am suggesting is based on what LaRouche himself and his organization state are the central features of their claim the prosecution was politically motivated. The last text suggested by fourdee was not a compromise, but would have resulted in an even more sanitized and biased article replicating the dubious claims of the LaRouchites. My proposal above is a reasonable compromise given the facts and standard Wiki guidelines.--Cberlet 21:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee's proposal is a reasonable one, if the consensus supports a "quote-free" intro. I think that the best options are a modified version of Fourdee's proposed intro, with some modifications which I will suggest below, or that we stick with the intro as it presently stands -- the claim by Cberlet that it is "wildly biased in favor of LaRouche" is, of course, laughable.

I would modify Fourdee's intro by acknowledging that LaRouche's ideas are controversial and the subject of much criticism, and by making a similar statement about the trial. I leave open the possibility of adding something about his international activity per the proposal by MaplePorter.

Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. (born September 8, 1922 in Rochester, New Hampshire) is an American political activist and founder of several political organizations in the United States and elsewhere, jointly referred to as the LaRouche movement. He is known as a perennial candidate for President of the United States, having run in eight elections since 1976, once as a U.S. Labor Party candidate and seven times as a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination.

LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. Numerous notable personalities from around the world have suggested that his trial was a form of political persecution.

LaRouche is currently listed as a director and contributing editor of the Executive Intelligence Review News Service, part of the LaRouche movement. [33] He has written extensively on economic, scientific, and political topics as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis. His ideas are highly controversial and the subject of considerable criticism.

I should add, however, that I think the intro is better as it currently stands. --Don't lose that number 21:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Lead

If we are going to rewrite the entire lead, I suggest the following:

• Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. (born September 8, 1922 in Rochester, New Hampshire) is an American political activist and founder of several political organizations in the United States and elsewhere, jointly referred to as the LaRouche movement. He is known as a perennial candidate for President of the United States, having run in eight elections since 1976, once as a U.S. Labor Party candidate and seven times as a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination.

• LaRouche is currently listed as a director and contributing editor of the Executive Intelligence Review News Service, part of the LaRouche movement. He has written extensively on economic, scientific, and political topics as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis.

• LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. LaRouche and his defenders claim the prosecution was a politically motivated conspiracy involving government officials, numerous others, and a mass media brainwashing campaign.

• There are sharply contrasting views of LaRouche. His supporters regard him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas his critics see him variously as a conspiracy theorist, crackpot, cult leader, anti-Semite, and neo-fascist.

That would be an NPOV lead.--Cberlet 21:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be the same material you have been insisting on all along but I'll try another approach. What's your reaction to 1) linking as many terms in the trial sentence as are linked in "crackpot" sentence 2) phrasing things a bit differently as I have already suggested ("maintain" vs. "claim" etc.) 3) maybe being more specific about the "conspiracy".

• LaRouche and his defenders maintain that the prosecution was a part of a politically motivated campaign to discredit LaRouche and dismantle his organization orchestrated by persons in the federal government, Pat Lynch of NBC-TV , the Anti-Defamation League, and journalists Chip Berlet and Dennis King, among others.

Not sure how everyone would feel about that, but there should be some balance in the two statements as far as number of links (which draws attention to the terms linked) and how specific the claims are. If we are to mention the specific negative accusations against LaRouch in a list of links, we should mention the specific allegations against his detractors in the same manner. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) Cut two or three of the negative words at the end and I would support this one. nadav (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The length of the claims of LaRouche about the political motiviation of the trial should not exceed the length of the description of the conviction. I would be happy to unlink all the words in the last sentence I proposed. I'll even give up the term "crackpot." And we could replace "politically motivated conspiracy" with "politically motivated corrupt intellegence operations," to borrow words from the LaRouche article. It's a compromise.--Cberlet 01:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche publications have never emphasized the role of King and Berlet, mentioning them only in passing as minor figures. It is only on Wikipedia that King and Berlet become a major theme, because they both edit here and self-reference a lot. Likewise, the charge that LaRouche is a neofascist comes only from King and Berlet and a few of their buddies, so it is certainly not notable enough to appear in the lead. --NathanDW 01:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The only biography of LaRouche published by a reputable national house has the word fascism in the title. Senator Moynihan used the term neonazi to refer to the LaRouchites. Neofascist is a compromise.--Cberlet 02:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of "crackpot" is good. "Neofascist," to me at least, is a meaningless epithet that doesn't convey much information. If that word is replaced or dropped then I would support CBertlet's version. nadav (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"LaRouche and his defenders" is misleading. It implies that only LaRouche's political allies questioned the trial, as opposed to persons who oppose political trials on principle. --Don't lose that number 06:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed a remark here by Cberlet that I believe violated BLP. Please remember the off-topic warning and stick to the subject of editing the article. --Marvin Diode 14:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything on the post below has been published in a variety of reputable sources already cited on the entry page. It does not violate BLP. It is based on the mainstream [perception of LaRouche and the LaRouchites. Please do not delete it again. It is part of the discussion about what text is appropriate and why.--Cberlet 15:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I "oppose political trials on principle." I object when the government shuts down publications, or broadcast media, no matter what the underlying political views. We need to draw a distinction between the civil libertarians who protested the shutting down of the LaRouche publications (myself included); and those people who think the criminal trial of LaRouche was a classic "political trial," which in most definitions revolves around the state prosecuting someone for their beliefs or their attacks on the state itself. Most people think LaRouche was put on trial for a ten year multi-million dollar fundraising and tax fraud criminal conspiracy that targeted the elderly for the solicitation of loans under unethical and fraudulent circumstances. Hardly a political trial--and quite similar to the Agnew situation, in which a well-known political figure is indicted for basic criminal activity. Only a tiny group of people consider LaRouche to have been a "political prisoner" in the classic sense--and most of them are allies of LaRouche, who is surrounded by a small totalistic army of fawning sychophants who maintain the deluded notion that he is an important political and philosophical leader. This is why seeking balance and NPOV on this and related pages is so difficult. LaRouche supporters live in a bubble of self-deception. In what most of us consider the "real world," the majority of people who have ever heard of LaRouche think he is a crook and crackpot. That is certainly the view of most authors who have written articles published or broadcast in sources generally considered by Wikipedia to be reputable and reliable. We need to bend over backwards to be fair to LaRouche in the (far-too-many) LaRouche related pages here on Wikipedia, but we should not be expected to drink the Kool Aid and provide credulous support for the hyperbolic claims of LaRouche and his followers. Fairness and accuracy is our goal, not credulous acceptance of unverified claims from LaRouche publications that unbalance an article and mislead readers.--Cberlet 13:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All the claims in the above paragraph can be found published in:

• "Larouche Exposed," – Pasadena City College newspaper.

• Berlet, Chip. "Protocols to the Left, Protocols to the Right: Conspiracism in American Political Discourse at the Turn of the Second Millennium." Reconsidering "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion": 100 Years After the Forgery, October 30–31, 2005, Boston.

• Berlet, Chip & Bellman Joe. "Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag", Political Research Associates, March 10, 1989.

• Berlet, Chip & Lyons, Matthew. Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, Guilford, 2000. ISBN 1-57230-562-2

• Fraser, Clara. Revolution, She Wrote, Red Letter, 1998. ISBN 0-932323-04-9. See chapter called "LaRouche: Sex Maniac and Demagogue".

• Gilbert, Helen. Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Restyled for the New Millennium, Red Letter, 2003. ISBN 0-932323-21-9

• Graff, Adam, "Ignore the Neo-Fascist Cult: Presidential Candidate LaRouche Has Evil, Criminal Intentions," Daily Nexus, U of C Santa Barbara, February 7, 2006

• King, Dennis. Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, New York: Doubleday, 1989. ISBN 0-385-23880-0 Online text at [15].

• Kirby, Terry, The cult and the candidate, July 2004 (The Independent of London)

• Mintz, John, and others: The Cult Controversy includes a 1995 series on LaRouche by John Mintz and links to other Washington Post articles on LaRouche.

• Mintz, John. "Ideological Odyssey: From Old Left to Far Right", The Washington Post, January 14, 1985.

• Witt, April, No Joke (the effect LaRouche has on young recruits) – Washington Post, October 2004.

• Wohlforth, Tim. "A '60's Socialist Takes a Hard Right", Political Research Associates, March16, 2006.

Please do not delete this well-documented discussion post.--Cberlet 15:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "discussion post." It's a bunch of histrionics that do not make your arguments one iota more convincing. As far as I can see, the discussion of the lead has not moved off of square one, which is that Cberlet wants to delete the Ramsey Clark quote, or any other mention of the fact that people outside of the LaRouche movement questioned the trial. He continues to deny that such people exist, without responding to the points offered by Don't Lose That Number and others. Cberlet claims that these people, as well as these and these, should be considered "a tiny group of people." The facts contradict this claim, and no amount of long-winded soap-boxing will change that. The soap-boxing is inappropriate and should stop. --MaplePorter 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP: "The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view." - most of those sources or articles fall under "advocacy journalism". The Washington Post has had significant fact-checking problems at times, and college newspapers are, to use Cberlet's term, "scrap paper" as appear to be most or all of the rest of his sources.

Anyway, please refrain from this sort of behavior, Chip. We were discussing a compromise on the lead and this just disrupts that. I really thought we were getting somewhere. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 20:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to make a valid point. Many published sources are far harsher on LaRouche than the entry here. It is already a compromise between postive and negative viewpoints, and it is unbalanced toward the pro-LaaRouche position.

Do editors seriously contend that the Washington Post is not a reputable published source for the purposes of editing this page?--Cberlet 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's see:

Washington Post is a valid source for this entry

Agree

1. --Cberlet 20:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Of course. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Obviously. Use it as much as you like (unless a specific article has been shown to be false by independent secondary sources) nadav (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

The bone of contention

I suggest that we not waste time debating Cberlet's talk page diatribes. It appears to me that the sticking point on the intro is the issue of how to characterize those who contested the legitimacy of the LaRouche trial. My view is that the Clark quote was the ideal way to do that, but I was willing to accept the (currently protected) shortened paraphrase of his quote, and then I was further willing to accept this formulation as a substitute for mentioning Clark: Numerous notable personalities from around the world have suggested that his trial was a form of political persecution. Cberlet's proposal, LaRouche and his defenders claim the prosecution was a politically motivated conspiracy involving government officials, numerous others, and a mass media brainwashing campaign, is unacceptable to me. I recommend that others comment on these four options, or suggest a fifth, and maybe we can make some progress.--Don't lose that number 23:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop changing the subject and answer the question above about whether or not the Washington Post is a valid source for this entry.--Cberlet 00:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is under an obligation to answer any questions or follow a particular line of conversation, and it seems to me that it is you who has diverted from the matter at hand, and just when we were getting some input (for example from nadav) as to what would be a good compromise lead. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 02:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with saying that Numerous notable personalities from around the world have suggested that his trial was a form of political persecution. is that we've never seen a reliable, 3rd party source for that assertion. Have we? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."[16] The Open Letter on exoneration is a published primary source. There is a warning at WP:NOR that "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." Therefore, we could discuss the most appropriate way to summarize in one sentence what is written here. --MaplePorter 10:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And yet neither LaRouche, a convicted criminal, nor the LaRouche network, with a long history of publishing distorted, conspiracist, and sometimes simply false information, are reliable sources.--Cberlet 17:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The petition has not been published in a reliable source. We can use LaRouche sources for the opinions of LaRouche and his associates, but not for the opinions of "numerous notable personalities from around the world". Primary sources must be used with great care, especially when they sources require interpretation. In this instance, we don't know if the purported signataries actually signed this letter, or some other document, we don't know who circulated this petition, or what they were telling potential signers, etc. All we know is that the LaRouche movement has made strnuous efforts to exonerate LaRouche, and that is what we can say. So let's rephrase that to say something like: Following his conviction his supporters made many efforts to exonerate LaRouche, including circulating petitions and holding hearings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So basically, the argument that you and Cberlet are making is that the open letter is some sort of lie. Do you have any evidence at all to back this up? Can Cberlet cite evidence for his claim that LaRouche publications publish "simply false information?" Do former heads of state typically sign a statement they haven't read? --Don't lose that number 18:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche publications do not meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and have a conflict of interest with the subject matter. I second Will Beback's comment. nadav (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The open letter also appeared in the Washington Post and Roll Call. Hence the term "open letter." --Don't lose that number 07:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any list of heads of state. Who's to say the unnamed heads of state actually signed this particular petition or that they knew any of the details of the case when they signed? Further, the movement has a history of petition fraud:

• A state investigation has found a complex organizational conspiracy in which political supporters of Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. were said to have acted illegally to place a referendum question on the Nov. 4 ballot. The allegations were contained in an affidavit that was unsealed Wednesday. The investigation, headed by state Attorney General John Van de Kamp's office, has focused on 14 LaRouche supporters who were said to have flown in from out of state to help put the question on the ballot. The proposal, which would have quarantined victims of AIDS, was defeated by the voters. An affidavit from John Horton, a special agent with the State Department of Justice, contends that the out-of-state supporters committed election fraud, perjury and conspiracy. Mr. Horton said in the affidavit that the out-of-state people not only acted illegally by circulating petitions for the referendum, but registered to vote illegally. California law says only state residents may solicit petition signatures. Mr. LaRouche, a conspiracy theorist, is a frequent Presidential candidate. [17]

The LaRouche movement has been accused of mischaracterizing events concerning elected politicians in ths past, such as the charge by Congressman John Conyers that they lied about their interactions with him.[18] So, for several reasons we cannot use "larouchein2004.net" as a reliable source for what "heads of state" have said. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What you are reporting here is not a legal case, it is an allegation in the press by John Van de Kamp's office. I think that it is safe to assume that if they had any actual evidence of misconduct, it would have gone to trial. As far as accusations against LaRouche are concerned, he has been accused of everything under the sun, up to and including a plot to assassinate Jimmy Carter using a exploding telephone (and this was on NBC-TV.)

These LaRouche articles have a long history of conflict between opposing POVs, and I think this new debate about sources, both here and at Talk:United States v. LaRouche, is just a new camouflage for the same old conflict. No one has questioned the open letter before, so it's a new tactic. If it is going to be a battle to exclude material, than I think we should consider Fourdee's point that under BLP, "The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view." The copious citations from Dennis King, Chip Berlet, Tim Wohlforth and Dennis Tourish, etc,, are certainly "advocacy journalism" if they are journalism at all. --MaplePorter 13:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a simple test: have LaRouche publications ever been found to be knowingly publishing false information? For example: has anyone successfully sued them for libel or slander? Those publications attack a lot of prominent individuals, so that would seem to be an obvious place to look. --Marvin Diode 14:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The call for looking for defamation lawsuits is a false standard. The standard is the copius reputable published record of conspiracist, misleading, hyperbolic, and false claims made in LaRouchite publications. Arbcom has already indicated that LaRouchite publications should only be used to verfiy what the LaRouchites claim to be true--not as a reputable published source for factual claims.--Cberlet 16:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be fond of simply making assertions without evidence. Please cite something from the "copius reputable published record" that says LaRouche publications have made false claims. --NathanDW 17:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see my posting above regarding John Conyers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Stanley I. Dale, "a political consultant from Kansas City, Mo., received a sentence of 30 days in county jail for fraudulently gathering signatures for a 1986 AIDS ballot initiative. ... The LaRouche organization hired Dale, a professional petition circulator, to help gather signatures to qualify Proposition 64 ... for the November 1986 California ballot. ... Dale hired out-of-state residents to circulate petitions and had them falsely state they were California residents. Only state residents can circulate petitions in California." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Will, your posting regarding John Conyers cites an anonymous staffer being quoted in a blog -- not WP:RS material. Then you mention the Stanley Dale case which I read about at Talk:LaRouche Movement. You were unable to present any evidence there that Dale had any affiliation with the LaRouche organization. The request by NathanDW was for a reputable source that says LaRouche publications have made false claims, so it would be helpful if you would specifically address that request. --Marvin Diode 21:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

NathanDW asked for any evidence. I provided it to him. As for the petition fraud, I presented a NYTimes article mentioning an investigation into the fraud, and a well sourced piece on prosecution of petition fraud of a LaRouche worker. If you choose to ignore these peice of evidence it would be no surprise. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Will, I'm not trying to be a nit-picker here. I do think it would be useful to ascertain whether there is a "copius reputable published record of... false claims made in LaRouchite publications," as asserted by Cberlet. I still don't think that the blog you cite about Conyers fits that description. Also, I went back to Talk:LaRouche Movement and re-read the section about Stanley Dale. What I found was a cite from UPI[19]. What it says is that "the LaRouche organization hired Dale, a professional petition circulator." This may be a reflection of poor judgement on the part of the LaRouche organization, but says nothing that I am aware of about the quality of the fact checking in their publications. Am I missing something? --Marvin Diode 12:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We are getting sidetracked. The point is that LaRouche publications can only be considered reliable as sources for the opinions of the LaRouche movement, not for facts about what happened to LaRouche or events of his conviction. This is because they are not independent of the subject. This is a general rule that is often followed on Wikipedia in controversial cases such as this. See Wikipedia:Independent sources. nadav (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Open Letter is a Primary source. In Wikipedia:Independent sources it says that it is unwise to base an article soley on a primary source. In this article, there is no danger of that. --MaplePorter 00:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, where do we see the list of "heads of state" who signed this open letter? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The names that appear on my copy of the ad are Gen. (ret.) Edgardo Mercado Jarrin, former Prime Minister and former Foreign Minister of Peru; Gen. (ret.) Joao Baptista de Oliveira Figueredo, former President of Brazil; Arturo Frondizi, former President of Argentina; Manuel Solis Palma, former President of Panama; and Dr. Abdelhamid Brahimi, former Prime Minister of Algeria. Ironically, these names also appear on the Justice for Jeremiah website, which is otherwise a vehicle for King and Berlet. --Don't lose that number 15:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid further vicious and tasteless personal attacks such as above. The Justice for Jeremiah website is a vehicle for the grieving mother of a young Jewish man who died after fleeing a LaRouchite conference during which he confronted the speakers about their obvious antisemitism. Shame on you Don't lose that number. Are Wiki admins willing to let this sort of tendentious nastiness continue indefinitely?--Cberlet 17:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the exoneration petition, here is a U.S. politician saying he was misled about the petition and asked to have his name removed.

• It has been reported that I signed a petition requesting that the president of the United States exonerate Lyndon H. La-Rouche. While attending the National Conference of State Legislators' annual convention, I spoke with members of Schiller Institute Inc. regarding La-Rouche. We spoke mainly about the exoneration of LaRouche. I was asked to sign a petition which I thought questioned the propriety of the court's decision to imprison LaRouche. I find now that I was misinformed and that the petition I signed requested the exoneration of LaRouche. I have reviewed the circumstances surrounding LaRouche's trial and the evidence presented. I am persuaded that the court's finding that LaRouche was guilty was correct. I have written the Schiller Institute Inc. and requested that my name be removed from the petition and not be included in any further effort to clear LaRouche's name. LERAY MCALLISTER Utah State Senator District 15 Orem The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Sep 6, 1994

This is why a primary source from an unreliable group cannot be relied on without additional information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we find a compromise?

Will, Cberlet and Nadav1, is there some formulation that you will accept that says that parties outside the LaRouche organization were concerned about political motivations behind the trial? I am trying to find a way to make some progress here, so that it doesn't slide back into edit war. --Marvin Diode 21:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Find a non-LaRouche reputable published source that reports this as true, and cite it. Otherwise move on.--Cberlet 01:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is funny, because Chip Berlet himself complains at length about Ramsey Clark's challenge to the trial in this article on his website. --Don't lose that number 15:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already suggested my article be cited, but someone else should do it. I have been looking for another source, but have not as yet found one. I appreciate the irony. I do not appreciate the repeated POV reversions.--Cberlet 17:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Talking points

Cberlet, is it your current position that neither Ramsey Clark nor any other notable personality actually made any public statement questioning the LaRouche trial, or is this just a topic you would prefer not to see discussed in the intro?

Here are my specific objections to the Berlet version:

• "LaRouche and his defenders" misleads by implying that no one outside of the LaRouche movement expressed concern about the political nature of the trial
• "politically motivated conspiracy" is a term used to dismiss LaRouche's view of the trial by associating it with "conspiracy theory"--Don't lose that number 13:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you propose in place of "LaRouche and his defenders"? It is factually accurate on its face, but perhaps another phrase would work as well. I am not a mindreader. What is your alternative text?

What do you propose in place of "politically motivated conspiracy?" It is a phrase that accurately represents the claims of a vast conspiracy against LaRouche by LaRouche and the LaRouche groups. It is not my fault that accurately summarizing the claims of a vast "politically motivated conspiracy" by LaRouche and his followers makes them sound like cranks and lunatic conspiracy theorists.--Cberlet 15:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would propose "The LaRouche organization, as well as some elected officials and legal observers from around the world, have suggested that his trial was a form of politically motivated misuse of the legal system." --Don't lose that number 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a misrpresentation of what is claimed in the primary sources on the cited page. It is a sanitization of the numerous conspiracy claims put forward by LaRouche and his allies at "Have the Mass Media Brainwashed your Neighbor about Lyndon LaRouche?". It is, however, better than the Clark quote.--Cberlet 15:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In what way is it better?--NathanDW 16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the phrase "politically motivated conspiracy", the author of "Has Your Neighbor Been Brainwashed About Lyndon LaRouche?" calls the efforts against LaRouche a "conspiracy", says that, "LaRouche and his associates were subject to political targetting, particularly by the Bush political apparatus". LaRouche himself writes, "...evidence which shows, that those prosecutions and correlated harassment of me and my associates, had been clearly fraudulent, politically motivated targetting." So "politically motivated conspiracy" seems like a fair summary of the LaRouche viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My question would be this: when the phrase used repeatedly in the quote is "political targetting," why would you prefer "politically motivated conspiracy"?

They say over and over that it was a conspiracy. There's no reason to avoid that term. Should we omit the term "conspiracy" from the government's charges, because it makes the feds look like conspiracy theorists? Obviously not. Perhaps a compromise would be that he believes he was "targetted by a politically-motivated conspiracy". I don't think "targetting" is a noun anyway. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a Gerund. --NathanDW 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

the "open letter"

I don't agree with the demand for a secondary source for the "open letter." I think that open letters of this type are inherently primary sources, and generally not reproduced in secondary sources (unless they become historically significant,) although secondary sources may comment on them. See the examples in Open letter. --Marvin Diode 00:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No reliable source has been provided for the claim that "some elected officials and legal observers from around the world" believe the trial was a politically motivated misuse of the legal system. Provide an independent, reliable secondary source for this claim. nadav (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources should be avoided wherever possible. Do we have even a single reliable 3rd-party source for one of these leaders having signed the letter? A memoir, etc? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy doesn't say "primary sources should be avoided wherever possible. It says that we should not base an article soley on primary sources.

Often, open letters are used to express a controversial minority viewpoint, and it is to be expected that the mainstream media organs would be reluctant to cover that viewpoint. That is why people write open letters in the first place. The Washington Post gave extremely negative coverage to LaRouche, yet they published the ad. I would imagine that they demanded stringent verification of the signatures before they would agree to sell the space. --NathanDW 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Any cautions or admonitions about primary sources are intended to guard against original research. Just quoting something or accurately paraphrasing it doesn't introduce original research. I'm still not clear why the PRA publications are considered reliable though, given the claims being made in the Norman Finkelstein article about Counterpunch being unreliable. How is "The Public Eye" or any other PRA material different from Counterpunch? This is "advocacy journalism" which is supposed to be avoided. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 02:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to see an independent source for the claim that "hundreds of elected officials from the US and other countries, insisted that LaRouche was jailed, not for any violation of the law, but for his beliefs." Ads are not acceptable sources for this type of claim. nadav (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The ad is not the source. The open letter is the source. --NathanDW 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's absurd to assert that the Washington Post, or any newspaper, reviews the claims made in the ads it runs. If the assertion is true we shouldn't have trouble finding one of these people who have mentioned it outside of the advertisement. Or if we can find a source which confirms the idead that the WP confirms all advertising claims. In the meantime, I think we can say with confidence that LaRouche circulated petitions and bought ads in an effort to gain exoneration. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The open letter should be verified by good souce. Otherwise, I don't trust it. nadav (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise on intro

Cberlet, you feinted toward a compromise version, which seemed to be acceptable to all who are currently editing, and then you went right back to the version which reflects your own particular POV. Both sides must bend a little to resolve this dispute. I prefer the Ramsey Clark version, and I am going back to that until you show some willingness to negotiate. --Don't lose that number 21:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This does not align with my view of what has been going on here. Sorry. We apparently have different working definitions of the term compromise. I despair.--Cberlet 02:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Compare the current version of this entry with the one from April 1, 2007. What we see is that the pro-LaRouche editors have continuously reverted back to including the Clark quote in the lead; and along the way have added more and more pro-LaRouche text. This is not a compromise, this is tendentious editing in a blatant and POV way. As editors we are being walked in circles by the pro-LaRouche editors. As it stands, the current version is far more unbalanced and cited to dubious LaRouche sources than the version several months ago. This is a pattern we have seen before. It is a pattern found improper by Arbcom. We should refer this matter back to Arbcom.--Cberlet 13:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, you appeared ready to compromise, and that version remained in place until you changed it yourself. --Don't lose that number 21:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how you come to this view. I find it remarkable and disturbing. It is not my understanding of what has happened at all. It is almost surreal.--Cberlet 03:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll on Lead

This lead is a more NPOV lead with better cites than the one using the Clark Quote:

• "LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. LaRouche and his defenders claim the prosecution was a politically motivated conspiracy involving government officials, numerous others, and a mass media brainwashing campaign.<ref>"Have the Mass Media Brainwashed your Neighbor about Lyndon LaRouche?" [http://www.larouchepub.com/exon/exon_toc.html]</ref>

Agree

1. --Cberlet 03:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
2. I am more interested in what LaRouche himself and his organization had to say than in the words of his lawyer. Ok, the lawyer was famous, but so what? We cannot treat him as neutral anyway, so there is no point in not going straight to the horse's mouth. nadav (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
3. I don't feel strongly either way, but on balance, that particular attorney is known for his controversial views, and in this case was acting for LaRouche, so his views are not entirely surprising. If it were an independent source, it would be a different matter. Can the LaRouche editors produce evidence that anyone other than the LaRouche movement and its supporters believed the prosection was a politically motivated conspiracy or an "unprecedented abuse of power"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Clark certainly should be mentioned in the article, but he doesn't need to be mentioned in the intro. The proposed text appears to be a fair summary of the viewpoints and verifiable facts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
5. I agree with Berlet that Clark's quote does not belong in the introduction. Also speaking as someone who has studied LaRouche for over three decades (unlike the LYM members who know NOTHING of the history of their own movement) I think Berlet's draft paragraph is dead-on accurate.--Dking 03:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
6. What Will Beback says. --Calton | Talk 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

For starters, there are these people, as well as these and these. --MaplePorter 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

See also this. --Don't lose that number 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What did the exoneration petition say roughly? Did it talk about the prosecution being a conspiracy and unprecedented abuse of power? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It says, among other things, that there is proof that "the government fraudulently charged, convicted, and imprisoned LaRouche and his associates, knowing they were completely innocent."[20] --Don't lose that number 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please realize that LaRouche publications are not held in high regard for information about other people's opinion on LaRouche. nadav (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

However, I see merit in the argument that an open letter is a primary source. --Marvin Diode 00:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I see it only as a primary source on the opinions of the LaRouche organization. nadav (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Plus those of the people who signed on to it. --MaplePorter 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction: the people who LaRouche supporters claim have signed it. We still don't have 3rd party sources for their actions or their views. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

1. --Don't lose that number 13:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC) The Berlet lead, quoted above, misleads the reader by implying that no one outside of the LaRouche organization gives a damn about the case. Plus, Clark's opinion is the most notable one I can think of.
2. I think the attempts to discredit Clark's opinion are ill-advised. --Marvin Diode 14:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
3. For both reasons. --NathanDW 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
4. SlimVirgin is right to say that Ramsey Clark "is known for his controversial views," but he is better known for his controversial clients. He specializes in political cases, and what he actually says in his quote is that the LaRouche case involved "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." So in other words, the LaRouche case is top of the list, according to a man who is the leading expert in his field. I would support restoring the exact quote, because the summary doesn't do it justice. Finally, it was Cberlet's bias against Clark that started this whole dispute, and that bias is extremely clear in this article that DLTN found. --MaplePorter 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Prefer the sound of the Clark quote (or a paraphrase of it) given his credentials. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
6. --Mr Keck 14:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Gelsomina 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Mr Keck has not edited this page in 2007. I do not think this is a valid vote, especially from someone who primarily edits pages here to promote LaRouche and attack Dking.--Cberlet 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As Fourdee has pointed out, you are entitled to your opinion, but you have no special OWNership of this article or its talk page. The purpose of an RfC is precisely to gain input from editors who are not parties to a dispute. Personal attacks on editors who respond are not helpful. --NathanDW 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relentless POV promotion of Lyndon LaRouche based on dubious propaganda is not helpful. This is why I believe this matter will end up at Arbcom.--Cberlet 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Abstain

1. .

Please vote or forfeit any claim to continue this discussion about this one paragraph during this round of discussion. Revert wars are a pointless waste of time. Endless discussions do not produce actual text--the point of Wiki. We need to move forward.--Cberlet 12:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please mark this box "[ ] Clark quote stays" or forfeit any right to express your opinion in the future. Seriously, who says 1) agree and disagree are the only two positions someone could have 2) anyone should answer your surveys 3) you get to decide who forfeits what on this article. Obviously a number of editors here prefer the Clark quote and have already (repeatedly) expressed as much. As far as ArbCom I think they should indeed be asked to review the use of "advocacy journalism" in contradiction with WP:BLP and any other unresolved problems here. Count me out of that though, I don't want any part of ArbCom sanctions. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points. My wording was inadequate and overly combative. I have rewritten it.--Cberlet 12:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with points 1, 2, and 3. Polls are only sometimes useful devices to see what kind of support the positions have. Consensus should still be built on arguments. If we cannot agree between ourselves, than yet another RfC will be needed. nadav (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Has there already been an RfC on this issue, and if so, what was the outcome? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, this is the RfC. It has been going on for a long time. --Don't lose that number 22:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant "forfeit any claim to continue this discussion" about the one paragraph during this phase of the discussion. I have fixed this above. I am tired of being walked in circles. I think it is clear that most of the active editors have reached a decision that removing the Clark quote and placing it lower on the page was appropriate. This has been reverted. I think there have been several times that a small majority of editors have favored some wording, and what happens is that some of the pro-LaRouche editors open up another set of complaints, and then slide around the fact that a majority of editors here have reached a consensus on certain text. These pro-LaRouche editors then restore the text they prefer. I find this not to be a form of consensus building. I find it a form of tendentious editing. I have already repeatedly expressed my opinion that this matter should be sent to Arbcom. I find it remarkable that other editors seem willing to accept obvious tendentious editing as "consensus building." I will continue to try to edit the LaRouche entries in a constructive way; but at what point are other editors willing to discuss the overall pattern of tendentious editing? The poll was an attempt to see if the pro-LaRouche editors are willing to step up and in a straightforward way take a clear position on some text; or if they will continue to refuse to take polls, which would reveal that they are a minority engaged in wearing other editors down until we give up and allow the LaRouche related pages to be returned to propaganda outlets for the LaRouchites. This pattern is why Arbcom intervened in the first place.--Cberlet 12:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy

I think the more salient issue is that PRA publications and perhaps even some mainstream newspaper articles may fall under advocacy journalism or other provisions of BLP. However with the removal of the worst terms like "crackpot" this is largely remedied. I am still deeply concerned by the "coded disclosure" section which really does not seem more credible than any other conspiracy theory. It doesn't strike me as credible research to speculate what someone really believes without concrete evidence. If there were a letter, a former associate, etc. who would lend some credibility to it that would be one thing, but this seems to be raw advocacy journalism and defamatory speculation. Also the section about Nazi scientists - keeping mind that the US government employed these people and von Braun led the space program for quite a while, this also seems to not entirely credible and just an attempt at guilt by association. These materials are all questionable in a BLP article I think. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that "coded discourse" should be included precisely from the BLP standpoint, because it sheds some light on the methodology of those that insinuate that LaRouche is anti-Semitic. The inclusion of this section helps balance the insinuations. On the "German scientists" issue I agree with you. --Don't lose that number 15:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, we could look at it and say: obviously these are not reliable sources and should not be included anywhere in the article. I definitely see what you're saying though, didn't think of it that way - makes good sense. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 18:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Four options

I'm not going to start another poll, but I would like to point out that there are four options (by my count) on the table here:

1. The original version with exact quote from Ramsey Clark. I have just re-read WP:LEAD and I see nothing there that would prohibit such a quote.
2. The version that is in place as of this writing, with paraphrase of the Clark quote.
3. The Cberlet version, with no mention of anyone outside the LaRouche movement being interested in his legal case.
4. this version, which was presented as a compromise -- no mention of Clark, but general reference to "elected officials and legal experts." --Marvin Diode 00:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is in my view a biased and misleading summary of the available options and the ongoing vote above. Give the poll a few days before launching another discussion please. There are other recent editors of this page who have not indicated a preference.--Cberlet 01:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is "biased and misleading" about it? Did he leave out an option? Point it out, and it can be added to the list. Otherwise, please refrain from such accusations. --NathanDW 01:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

This long-standing dispute is being aggravated by biased, self-serving, misleading and propagandistic edit summaries. Please chill out on this. --Don't lose that number 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do so. I agree.--Cberlet 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Another vote in the poll

I just added my vote in the poll (see above) on the side of Berlet, sanity and the American way.--Dking 03:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, is that what the poll is really about? --Gelsomina 13:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know how to make the poll count work with comments? Also, I was assuming that only those editors involved in editing this page during 2007 would be taking part in the poll.--Cberlet 12:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

NBC libel trial

Will, I recall that the amount of damages that LaRouche had to pay to NBC was reduced by Judge Cacheris, the trial judge, not by an appeals court. Your phrase "reduced on appeal" means, in legalese, that it was reduced by an appeals court. My memory may be wrong, but please check your reference.--Dking 00:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy journalism and BLP

Fourdee has pointed out that under WP:BLP, the use of advocacy journalists as sources should be avoided in BLP articles. I agree that this is a serious problem. I propose that for the time being, at least until the controversy over the lead is resolved, we have a moratorium on adding more citations from Dennis King, Chip Berlet, Dennis Tourish, and Tim Wohlforth. Later on we should begin to discuss removing some of the cites presently in the article, on a case my case basis -- some are more speculative and irresponsible than others. I see that in the Wikipedia article on Advocacy journalism the National Review is listed as well. --MaplePorter 14:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did Fourdee establish this fact? I don't see it on this page, much less in WP:BLP. All that BLP says is that the writing style shouldn't mirror that of advocacy journalism, not that publications engaging in advocacy journalismare unusable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense.--Cberlet 14:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be wise to avoid adding controversial material of any persuasion as long as this dispute persists. It would be helpful for all sides to cool down a bit. --Marvin Diode 14:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --NathanDW 16:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is any editor here seriously suggesting that the Encyclopedia Judaica is "advocacy journalism?" Is any editor here seriously suggesting that the Encyclopedia Judaica is not a reputable published source? If so, please state you reasons.--Cberlet 16:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As you may recall, you cited that section earlier on this talk page as evidence that Chip Berlet was still getting published outside of the PRA website. Ergo, it is self-citing. Plus, it hardly helps resolve the dispute at this article. Instead, it aggravates it. --NathanDW 16:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting new tactic: given the large and usually unchallenged assumption of power that WP:BLP enforcers are exercising, attempting to snow them directly must have seemed like a winner. Unfortunately for them, LaRouchites have a track record that can be pointed to. --Calton | Talk 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-citing, if the source meets our standards, is explictly permitted by WP:COI. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering the fact that this article has been through a month-long content dispute, injecting an excessively long, inflammatory and self-cited essay was probably not a prudent move. I have trimmed it to include the points that are actually relevant to the section, but in a concise manner that doesn't dominate the article with Berlet-POV any more than necessary. As for COI, I am reproducing a template below that appears on the COI page and seems very apropos. --Don't lose that number 21:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Action
Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page, or to file a request for comment.

LaRouche's followers want to single out "advocacy journalists" for banning from this article. This would mean you would have to ban every editorialist amd every news columnist who has ever commented on LaRouche, as well as any articles on him appearing in advocacy journals (Commentary, The Nation, Human Events, etc.). And what about advocacy scholarship (we already have the example of the LaRouchians not accepting in the Political Cult article a string of social scientists who disagree them them)? But there's an upside to this proposal: we could ban all citations to LaRouche publications without exception.--Dking 21:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

EIR would certainly count as advocacy journalism, so far as I can tell. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, that's why it may only be used as a source on the advocacy of the LaRouche movement. It would be perfectly legitimate to use Dennis King's book in the article Dennis King. --NathanDW 01:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just where does it say that advocacy journalism may not be used, so long as the source is reliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think avoiding an advocacy journalism tone is substantially addressed by removing the "crackpot" type references from the lead. There's however this "coded disclosure" subsection. I do not think the encyclopedia judaica is a reliable source for speculation on who is a crypto-nazi, or that there is any reliable source based on nothing more than conjecture. The nature of this material is defamatory and non-factual on the face of it. While it may not be libelous under the law since LaRouche is a public figure, I don't think it is in keeping with WP:BLP and WP:RS. Also the "V2 scientists" subsection is simple guilt by association. "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons." While it is certainly relevant that a given criticism of LaRouche has been published, going into detail about the allegation seems to me to give it more weight and credibility than it is due. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 02:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Judaica is an excellent source. What is the exact wording used in its entry? That LaRouche makes "original overtly anti-Jewish claims by using coded rhetoric"? If the source says this, then there is nothing wrong with it. nadav (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as Dennis King, Chip Berlet (I am not familiar with Wohlforth and Tourish) are concerned, these are the sorts of sources that you might not necessarily rule out, but you would treat with caution. They are known as "attack" authors (I would compare them to Kitty Kelley) and while they may be useful as a source of information, you would want to avoid quoting their hostile descriptions of their targets. --Mr Keck 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Judaica is the most reputable and current source about LaRouche's antisemitism. Please stop burying it in an earlier time period. Please stop moving the Encyclopedia Judaica materialto the bottom of the section. Please stop editing the material down to soften the criticism. There is already too much unverified pro-LaRouche propaganda on this page.--Cberlet 15:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not "an earlier time period," it's the criticism section. And it was trimmed as a compromise measure -- this article should not be a POV essay by self-citing critics. --NathanDW 16:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The material about LaRouche's antisemitism from the current and recently published Encyclopedia Judaica keeps getting moved to a criticism section that is for an earlier time period. It is now placed as a criticism in the proper time period: "1994 to present." The criticism from the Encyclopedia Judaica is recent and a highly respectable cite. Attempts to hide or object to criticism of LaRouche, the "notorious antisemite," are POV and smack of attempts to sweep bigotry under the rug. This is outrageous and frankly shameful.--Cberlet 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My compromise edit was entirely fair. It acknowledges that your theory was published in the Encylopedia Judaica, and summarizes the salient points, in the appropriate section, i.e., "criticism." We don't need to reproduce the entire article to fairly acknowledge your viewpoint. Also, your insertion of this material into the "1994 to present" section contained some highly misleading formulations: it says that beginning in 1994, charges of anti-Semitism continued to increase. That is incorrect. As I recall, they hit an all time high in 1986, the year a Jewish activist in the LaRouche movement, Janice Hart, won the Illinois Democratic primary. Just as an experiment, I did a Google news archive search of 1994 to the present. I set the search paramenters to look for references to LaRouche, excluding LaRouche publications from the search. I got 4,360 hits. I then searched for articles that mentioned LaRouche and also had the word "anti-Semite" or "anti-Semitism." I got 114 hits on that, and then I proceeeded to read the ones that did not require some sort of payment, and many of them do not refer to LaRouche as an anti-Semite -- they are referring to others. So the idea that there is a rising drumbeat of people calling LaRouche anti-Semitic is unfounded. The New York Times, in reviewing the book by Dennis King which puts forward theories that are for all intents and purposes identical to those of Chip Berlet, expresses its skepticism: "A number of loose ends hang out, not least of which is the fact that many members of Mr. LaRouche's inner circle are Jewish."[21]

So -- I think the present version of the Wikipedia article fairly acknowledges accusations of anti-Semitism, but I see no need to transform it into a soapbox for them. --Don't lose that number 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

<------ This is all ridiculous. Google searches do not trump the Encyclopedia Judaica. The deletions and burying of the published material appears to be a transparent attempt to be an apologia for antisemitism. Not encyclopedic, and to be honest, it is disgusting that any administratort here on Wikipedia would allow this to continue. Refer to Arbcom. --Cberlet 01:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that DLNT's compromise was rather generous to you. It would be much appreciated if you could deal reasonably with other editors, instead delivering incessant personal attacks. --NathanDW 01:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologia for antisemitism does not belong on Wikipedia. It is disgusting that this has been allowed to go one so long. LaRouche is a convicted felon and "notorious antisemite." Attempts to minimize these facts are POV and immoral. Every day that Wiklipedia allows this shameful propaganda and bigotry to continue is another day of shame for Wikipedia. --Cberlet 02:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what is so credible about the Encyclopedia Judaica. Especially when claiming, without any concrete facts, that someone is uses secret messages to promote anti-semitism. It's a biased source and apparently allows far-fetched claims that seem almost paranoid-delusional in nature. This is about like citing Nazi propaganda for evidence that Jews run the media. At any rate, it only appears to be used as a citation for one sentence in the conspiracy-theory section, so continuing to drop the name like it is a mainstream encyclopedia or it is even used to cite the claims seems a bit disingenuous. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this seems to be the new edit war now, superseding the "Ramsey Clark" edit war. I have several comments and observations:

• I have never heard of Encyclopedia Judaica, and it is not available on line. Does anyone other than Cberlet have access to the 2007 edition?
• Is Chip Berlet the sole author of the section which mentions LaRouche, or did Earnest Hearst and Jack Porter contribute something to that section?
• This line is clearly OR: "Meanwhile criticism of antisemitism in the LaRouchite publications increased." No source is offered. It is my sense that accusations of anti-Semitism have significantly decreased since the early 90s, for the simple reason that Dennis King and Chip Berlet no longer get much press coverage. The Bartley material appears to be mainly a way of getting back at Sy Hersh and the NYT because they went after the Straussians.
• I agree with this line by Cberlet: "These are not new charges of antisemitism, but stretch back to the mid 1970s." That being said, why does Cberlet wish to insert this material in the section "1994 to present"? It clearly belongs in criticism.
• The summary of the EJ material that DLTN prepared is fair and sufficient. Cberlet's demand that the entire section appear in this article seems tendentious and Undue Weight to me. --MaplePorter 14:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Judaica is world famous and highly respected. It is an appropriate and recent cite. Three pro-LaRouchite editors Marvin Diode, MaplePorter, and NathanDW continuously seek to minimize criticism of LaRouche on this page, to the point of introducing factual errors into the entry. The section to which the subsecion on Alleged coded discourse keeps getting restored is titled: "Criticism of LaRouche, 1979-1985." However the cited criticisms from the Encyclopedia Judaica, Wall Street Journal, and New Internationalist, all refer to criticsms of LaRouche's antisemitism since the year 2000. The subtitle "Alleged coded discourse" should be "Alleged coded antisemitic discourse" otherwise the subtitle misrepresents the core topic of the subsection.

The outcome of the repeated deletions and reversions is to minimize ther seriousness of the criticism of antisemitism and to bury and hide the criticism of antisemitism. This raises issues of prejudice and bigotry that should concern Wikipedia as a whole, and that need to be addressed through NPOV and balanced editing of the text. This appears impossible so long as Marvin Diode, MaplePorter, and NathanDW are allowed to edit LaRouche related pages.

I have asked Arbcom to review this matter. A review of their recent edits is instructive: Marvin Diode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), MaplePorter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), NathanDW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--Cberlet 17:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added "Don't lose that number" to the list since clearly he/she is as much a problem as the other three, not only on this article but other LaRouche-related articles as well.--Dking 22:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is proper for any of the pro-LaRouche editors to now start to edit the text to hide their errors and POV. Please stop this. Wait for a response from Arbcom. I have already notified Marvin Diode, MaplePorter, and NathanDW of the request for enforcement.--Cberlet 17:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the text to break the criticisms into two time periods, which fixes multiple errors.--Cberlet 18:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't "hide errors" on a Wiki (unless you're an admin)-- all previous versions of the article are still available and can be linked to. There is no need for two criticism sections. I would suggest that you cease and desist from making any more controversial edits now that you have started an ArbCom proceeding. --Don't lose that number 21:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

TNR profile

There's apparently a fresh profile of LaRouche in the 07/02/07 issue of The National Review. The entire text isn't available online,[22] but some excerpts are posted here: [23]. Judging by the title, "Odd Man Out: The loony who's staying home: Lyndon LaRouche", it is probably an unsympathetic piece. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It was published in The New Republic, not the National Review.

Clarke, Conor
"Odd Man Out; The loony who's staying home: Lyndon LaRouche"
The New Republic, July 1, 2007
Xelkman (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Also: "Nicholas F. Benton: How I Explain LaRouche", Falls Church News-Press, 28 June 2007. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Coded discourse section

I placed a link to a jpg of the picture of Queen Elizabeth and the Star of David that is referenced in the section on coded discourse.[24] "Don't lose that number" promptly deleted the link, saying "this is a controversial article. Please gain consensus on talk page before making major changes." Since when is a link to properly referenced material a major change? Apparently only when it seriously embarrasses the LaRouche organization, which this image clearly does. As to the request that I "gain consensus on the talk page," I carried on a long dispute with the LaRouche editors on this page (some of whom were later banned) earlier this year on precisely this section, which had been crafted to demean my work and distort my findings. I explained and gave abundant references for changes I made to this paragraph, but all to no avail. It was reverted numerous times in spite of my proper citations. Don't lose that number just wants me to waste more time in empty "consensus" discussion. The discussion has already taken place. These people have established a quasi-dictatorship over this page in defiance of Wiki rules, continuing an intensive harassment effort that has been going on since 2004.--Dking 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The proper citation for the Encyclopedia Judaica is provided. There is not a single editor here on Wikipedia in a position to insert the claim that as Chip Berlet I wrote a single word in the entry being cited. If any editor continues to rewrite the proper cite to make such a claim, I will report it as a specific matter to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.--Cberlet 17:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this all about? --NathanDW 19:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is written in plain clear English, NathanDW. Nowhere does it say I wrote the entire entry, or any specific section of it. It includes a few lines and then provides the proper full cite. I was one of several authors picked by the editors of the Encyclopedia Judaica to rewrite and update the entry on "Neo-Nazism," which is where the criticism of LaRouche appears. It is not appropriate to discuss the internal workings of the editing of the Encyclopedia Judaica, other than to point out that each entry was thoroughly fact checked and revised by multiple editors. I hope this helps explain how real print publishing of encyclopedias actually works.

Also, since the quoted author Bartley terms the LaRouchites' "Children of Satan" title "overt anti-Semitism," the continued changing of the subtitle to "coded" is a falshood, and grounds for citing both tendentious editing and plain vandalism. Furthermore, NathanDW, you might consider for a moment that your repeated attempts to hide, delete, or minimize the criticism of LaRouche for antisemitism, tends to leave the impression that you need to rethink your POV and attitude toward antisemitism itself.--Cberlet 20:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree heartily with Fourdee, who said "This is along the lines of people who play the Beatles backward to show they are devil-worshippers." --Don't lose that number 21:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop trivializing the evidence. See [25] and [26].--Dking 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Overt antisemisitm

Bartley terms the "Children of Satan" title "overt anti-Semitism. What part of this published statement is unclear? I have filed a complaint with the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard [27]. Especially on a BLP page, attempts to minimize, dismiss, or hide published allegations of antisemitism or any form of bigotry raise serious issues for a serious encyclopedia.--Cberlet 13:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim by Bartley is duly reported in my edit. However, we are not obliged to consider it authoritative, or to take it at face value. Bartley's article is mainly a defense of the Straussians, and an attack on Seymour Hersh and the New York Times. He then refers to the title of LaRouche's book on neoconservatism, "Children of Satan," as anti-Semitic. It is not -- it's about neoconservatism. To put it in the simplest terms, how believable is it to assume that a book with a big picture of Dick Cheney on the cover is actually about Jews?

Despite Bartley's disingenuous use of the word "overt," it is clear that he is making the same argument that Berlet's quotes make: criticism of neo-conservatives is actually coded anti-Semitism. It could be argued that these arguments are themselves anti-Semitic, as they trivialize real anti-Semitism. In fact, the ADL statement which Cberlet has recently added to the article doesn't cite any incidence of actual anti-Semitism by LaRouche, either; it simply lists opinions by LaRouche that the ADL considers politically incorrect, such as his skepticism about the official version of the 9/11 Attack story. However, I left that one alone. The stuff that is obvious "decoding," including the Bartley statement, belongs under "coded discourse."

It is ironic that Cberlet is invoking BLP here-- it is he that is attempting to "minimize, dismiss or hide" LaRouche's unambiguous statement of opposition to anti-Semitism by placing it at the end of the section. The BLP policy is intended to prevent defamation, not protect it. --Don't lose that number 13:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the BLP policy more carefully, please. It is also concerned with falsehoods, original research, dubious citations, POV bias, and revert wars.--Cberlet 15:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to attempt a compromise edit here, which will eliminate the "covert" category because it has become an arena of hair-splitting. I agree that under BLP it is important to have LaRouche's disclaimer at the front of the section. --Marvin Diode 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not read the revised text as a significant compromise at all. I have provided text that makes it more of a real compromise.--Cberlet 20:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are unacceptable. You attempt to "spin" LaRouche's rejection of anti-Semitism to make it appear dishonest. As for the summary provided by Marvin Diode, it is accurate -- all the examples cited deal with neo-cons, except for the stuff from Dennis King which is impossible to categorize, and I mean that in the nicest sort of way. --NathanDW 23:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I provided a summary at the beginning of this section:

Many of the allegations revolve around LaRouche's campaign against neoconservativism, because some leading neoconservatives are Jewish.

This is a completely accurate summary of the section which follows, and it is clear that the debate is over whether LaRouche is attacking neoconservatives, or attacking Jews. However, Cberlet reverted this summary, saying "this formulation is OR and many would find it bigoted." What on earth does that mean? --Marvin Diode 02:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, there are bigger things at stake than the fact that LaRouch doesn't like neoconservatives. Pigeonholing the criticism is OR and POV. Secondly, the second clause of the sentence is (at the least) badly worded and confusing. nadav (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to speculate as to what these "bigger things" might be? Because all I see from these cited commentators is speculation, or more precisely, innuendo. --NathanDW 15:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Allegations of antisemitism"

This article, "Lyndon LaRouche", is focused on the events in the subject's life. "Political views of Lyndon LaRouche" is focused on the subject's political, economic, and cultual views. (Perhaps it needs a more inclusive title.) A long section in this article, "Allegations of antisemitism", mostly duplicates material already in "Jews and the Holocaust", which is where much of it would belong if we maintain the distinction between the articles. Extended analysis of his writings and speeches should be in "Political views". All we need to say here is something like "in 19XX he published book Y, which covers the topics of Z, and has been called 'A' and 'B'." The material in the section that recounts deeds, such as speaking at the Zayed Center or publishing books, should stay but be focused on the actions and be placed in the chronological order of the article. I think that's the best way to keep the article readable and cogent, and to prevent excessive duplication with the "Political views" article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are there so many articles on a minor political figure like LaRouche? I would support cutting the number of LaRouche-related articles in half and cutting the length of the articles in half. Most of these articles consist of unverifeid claims of LaRouche supporters. There is a fundamental problem here that needs to be addressed.--Cberlet 02:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the bulk of the articles are on organizations or associates. For various reasons I don't think we can or should remove those. That leaves just five articles directly about LaRouche:

• Lyndon LaRouche 92k
• LaRouche movement 33k
• LaRouche's political views 78k
• U.S. Presidential campaigns
• United States v. LaRouche

The last two have clear definitions and are long enough and important enough to keep. So really the only articles that I can see losing are "Politicial views" or "LaRouche movement". However I think those have distinct focuses: one on views and one on organizations. It'd be hard to merge the contents to the bio without making an article that would be excessively long. We could merge those non-bios, but I think they're better separate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Then is it not proper to suggest that each of these pages mention the major substantial published criticisms of LaRouche and his movement?

• "A convicted felon for fundraising and tax frauds, LaRouche is seen by his critics as a conspiracy theorist, cult leader, and anti-Semite."

With so many pages, each needs this factual material for balance, with links to the entry where the main discussion takes place. So many of the LaROuche-related pages are unbalanced with unverified material from non-credible LaRouche publications and websites, that they are highly POV.--Cberlet 20:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should certainly identify the subject properly in each of the articles where is an important person. My point is that the treatment of some of his ideas, and their criticial reception, is excessive in this article. It's a natural progression to which we've all contributed. It may start out as "LaRouche is seen by his critics as an anti-Semite", but then someone says, "which critics?" Then we add material to name, then describe the critics. Then we add counter-criticism. Then we can't agree on summaries so we add verbatim quotes. Repeat. If we do that every time we mention LaRouche we'll never be finished. So in this article we should mention briefly the criticisms of his views, but direct the reader to the "Views" article for a full treatment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have no problem with the status quo. I think it is more misleading, from the BLP standpoint, to simply say that "LaRouche's critics claim he is anti-Semite," at which point the reader naturally assumes that LaRouche is bigoted toward Jews. With the detailed descriptions of the charges in this article, the discerning reader should be able to see the far-fetched nature of the claims. I think that the "Views" article is also OK from that standpoint -- I'm not happy with either, but I think that both are the best compromise that I am likely to see for the time being. I would oppose adding new "anti-Semitism" sections to other articles, both on the grounds of WP:UNDUE, and also because some editors see it as an oppportunity for self-promotion via LinkSpam. --Don't lose that number 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting adding new anti-Semitism sections to articles, just the opposite, I'm proposing getting rid of this one by merging it back into the mostly duplicate material at "Views". An alternate formulation which would be more NPOV is "LaRouche denies charges of anti-Semitism". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

True, I am not suggesting adding new sections to multiple articles, but I am suggesting we need to agree on a thumbnail description of LaRouche that is posted on most LaRouche-related articles and then links back to the appropriate main discussion.--Cberlet 23:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How about having a "LaRouche template" that links to all the other articles? Oh, wait a minute, we already have that. --NathanDW 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not talking about a template. I am talking about an accurate desription of LaRouche and the "LaRouche Movement." I suggest my side of the desription be: "A convicted felon for fundraising and tax frauds, LaRouche is seen by his critics as a conspiracy theorist, cult leader, and anti-Semite." Just add at the beginning a positive description of LaRouche based on reputable pubblished sources of about the same length, and we will simply stamp it onto every page. This will correct the false impression that LaRouche is a major political figure when the consensus of reputable pubblished sources that LaRouche is a crackpot and crook.--Cberlet 02:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that exact language would fly, but a short, neutral descrition of LaRouche that we can use to refer to him in other articles would be very helpful. Can editors propose language that would be acceptable to everyone? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My feeling that anything that is said about LaRouche, whether good or bad, is going generate substantial volumes of rebuttal. I would say leave well enough alone, let the template do the work. Alternately, this:

Lyndon LaRouche and his movement have generated much controversy. For more information, see Lyndon LaRouche.

--MaplePorter 06:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

<-----------Weasel words. The template has no content, and the above description is not sufficient. It would be like describing the Brownshirts as a controversial men's club.--Cberlet 14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet, if you choose to make comments that are deliberately provocative, belligerent, slanderous and generally asinine, who am I to complain? But it is unclear to me how you think this sort of thing is going to further the process of dispute resolution in these articles. --Don't lose that number 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that no one has endorsed Cberlet's plan to put new intros on all LaRouche articles, but he has already started an edit war to do so at the Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement article. --Gelsomina 00:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse it, though we should agree on the text first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Claim of political conviction?

I have never deleted the Clark quote on political conviction, and yet the actual text based on what LaRouche claims has been repeatedly deleted by the pro-LaRouche editors. This is not fair and has become tendentious and disruptive. Here is the text:

• LaRouche and his defenders claim the prosecution was a politically motivated conspiracy involving government officials, numerous others, and a mass media brainwashing campaign. [ref]: "Have the Mass Media Brainwashed your Neighbor about Lyndon LaRouche?" [28].

Is there any question whether or not this is factual or not properly cited? If not, please stop deleting it without discusion.--Cberlet 14:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that it is the LaRouchites who use the term "brainwashing." It is not the job of Wiki editors to rewrite LaRouchite claims to make them appear less crackpot. There is too much of that going on already.--Cberlet 14:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

An appeal for a change in your behavior

• [Note: The below was posted on the talk page of Cberlet in error.--Cberlet 13:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)]

I would like to appeal to you to modify your behavior. It often appears to me that, in your talk page comments, you are using belligerent and deliberately provocative language that seems calculated to intimidate other editors, and has the effect of exacerbating content disputes, rather than helping resolve them. I would particularly like to point out that in WP:CIVIL it warns against "Judgmental tone in edit summaries" and "Calling for bans or blocks." I think that if you would raise your issues on the talk pages, rather than being so quick to start edit wars, you would find that disputes would be much shorter-lived.

I am also concerned that you and your real-life associate Dennis King seem determined to promote and even impose a viewpoint at the LaRouche articles that is not consistent with main-stream opinion. While LaRouche has many critics and is considered a conspiracy theorist, etc., you have a particular line that he is an anti-Semitic fascist, despite his public campaigns against anti-Semitism and fascism. You continually cite obscure and dubious sources, including from your own writings on the PRA website, instead of utilizing the abundant mainstream sources that would not be disputed. It appears that this behavior is intended to use Wikipedia to "make a case," when an encyclopedia is intended merely to inform (see WP:SOAP.) --Don't lose that number 13:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: The above was posted on my talk page in error. It belongs here where the discussion belongs.

Note to Don't lose that number, in the future, please do not post self-serving memos either on my talk page or here. Thanks.--Cberlet 13:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As Will Beback often points out, it is appropriate to discuss the conduct of an individual editor on that editor's talk page, not on an article talk page. --NathanDW 15:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been invited to join a mediation, NathanDW, until you agree, please do not add more self-seving comments to my talk page. I do not engage in content-related discussions on my talk page. If you object to my conduct, agree to join the mediation. --Cberlet 16:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thumbnail sentence identifying LaRouche on numerous pages

See discussion on this page.--Cberlet 18:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What a ridiculously bloated article!

I don't know much about LaRouche, but from what I have read, he doesn't strike me as a major intellectual figure, yet this article is longer than most Prime Minsters, President, heads of state and towering figures of history - it's as long as Napoleon Bonaparte's article! 'And' he has a separate, extensive page dedicated to his view: Views of Lyndon LaRouche, which is fully protected from editing. Unbelievable. Interesting, amusing stuff, but just way too much when one takes the objective view. Proof Reader 01:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)