Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Kerry Endorsement?

There's an unauthenticated assertion that Lyndon LaRouche endorsed John Kerry in 2004.

Six weeks before the election he made the endorsement.

A John Kerry, elected into the White House by my methods, mobilizing the lower-80%-income households on behalf of a radical change in policy, back to policies associated with Franklin Roosevelt's bankruptcy reorganization/economic recovery, will function as President. [1]

I have no idea what he meant by "elected...by my methods" or "Kerry...will function as President", but it's clearly an endorsement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice of RfC(LaRouche, Et AL)

To All Interested Parties;

A RfC, has been initiated this day on all LaRouche articles. Dagomar 20:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this page. It's just an attempt to sidestep a delisted RFC. See discussion here also: [2] RxS 03:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain what was wrong with Dagomar's page? It seems to me that it is common to discuss disagreements about both articles and the approach of editors. --Gelsomina 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Continue discussion

The specific question that has arisen most recently is whether or not this printed publication:

Berlet, Chip, and Joel Bellman. (1989). Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag. Report. Somerville, MA: Political Research Associates.

Is a reliable published source for LaRouche related pages.

A printed report from Political Research Associates (PRA) is neither a publication "solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers." (See: WP:LIVING#Reliable_sources) Objecting to this PRA report is simply a misapplication of Wiki policy based on a POV disagreement with a well-discussed matter of PRA being a reliable source. It is.--Cberlet 12:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are simply searching for a loophole in the WP:BLP policy. I agree with the proposal by Dagomar in the (now-deleted) article RFC, that highly derogatory or contentious material produced by your organization should be included only if there is a second, independent, corroborating source. --Marvin Diode 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is quite clear: "solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers." Material from PRA is regularly cited and quoted by major daily newspapers, major weekly news magazines, network television, and scholarly books and journals. This is hardly "searching for a loophole." Other than tiny marginal "partisan websites or in obscure" publications, where can you find a cite from a reputable published source describing the work of PRA as marginal? There may be a few, but they are the exception, not the paradigm. Dennis King and I are the primary journalists writing about LaRouche. --Cberlet 14:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Great! Then whenever you want to include highly derogatory or contentious material produced by your organization in a Wikipedia article, all you have to do is show that this material has also appeared in one or more "major daily newspapers, major weekly news magazines, network television, and scholarly books and journals." That will serve as a second, independent, corroborating source. Problem solved. --Marvin Diode 15:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This type of glib and snide response is not constructive. We are supposed to be starting a discussion over with a change in attitude and an attempt at good faith.--Cberlet 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am absolutely 100% serious about this. Any material from your organization's website that has also appeared in "major daily newspapers, major weekly news magazines, network television, and scholarly books and journals" will get no complaint from me. On the other hand, if it hasn't appeared in those conventional media outlets, it probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia, particularly if it is highly derogatory or contentious. I think that we are getting at the heart of the BLP policy here. --Marvin Diode 21:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a straw argument. Yes, two sources are better than one, but what you keep sliding past is that the material in a print publication from PRA is not from a "website." And furthermore, even if it is just from the PRA website, that is still a reputable reliable source. If you disagree, please cite the applicable Wikipedia policy text from which you draw the conclusion that text that has not appeared in "conventional media outlets" violates BLP.--Cberlet 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that PRA constitutes a WP:RS for these purposes. It might make more sense to phrase it something like "according to Chip Berlet/PRA...". If we had a mainstream source it would certainly help matters. In general, we need to be very careful with BLP issues. JoshuaZ 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason that PRA would not be a reliable source? 00:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

PRA presents claims on its website that are far more extreme than what would be found in reliable sources, and it presents claims that are unverifiable. The latest dispute at "Political views" concerns allegations that LaRouche holds particular views, and these allegations are based not on any published material by LaRouche, but rather on anonymous sources. [3] This is not the sort of thing a reputable publication would do. Also, as has been emphasized, it says in BLP that "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution." Cberlet evidently thought he had done an end run around this policy by simply changing the cites in the Wikipedia article away from cites to the PRA website, to cites to printed versions of the same article. That makes no difference -- it is still "partisan" material that has not been, and would not be, touched by reputable publications. And beyond that, any "partisan website" could simply issue a print-out and say, "Oh, look, that policy doesn't apply to us, either."

It seems to me that the mindset here is all wrong. Instead of asking, "is this material appropriate for an encyclopedia," certain editors are asking, "is there some way I can sneak this material past the relevant policies, in order to use Wikipedia as a soapbox?"--MaplePorter 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times uses anonymous sources routinely yet we still view them as a reliable source. According to whom is PRA a partisan source? According to whom are its claims "far more extreme" than would be found in a reliable source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is hard to see an organization that by its own description studies a specific subset of the political spectrum and the threats that those groups represent as somewhat partisan. When BLP is concerned we need to excercise caution even when dealing with Lyndon LaRouche. JoshuaZ 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

<---------Reporters covering LaRouche sometimes use sources that are not named because the LaRouche group has a history of harassing, smearing, suing, and beating up their critics. By the logic above, we at Wiki would not accept material from scholars of butterflies on the butterfly page because they are too focused and partisan. Recall that LaRouche sued me (as Chip Berlet) for defamation and lost in a jury trial. Journalists cover a beat. My beat is apocalyptics, neofascists, and right-wing demagogues. Why am I being considered partisan when I do my job? This concedes too much ground to those who support fanatic groups here on Wikipedia. Just by covering a subject I become a partisan? I think not. My work on LaRouche has appeared in major daily newspapers and the Encyclopedia Judaica. If we let totalist partisans set the terms of reputable text, Wikipedia becomes an ad page for the most militant editors supporting controversial groups. This is a bridge too far.--Cberlet 01:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

PRA's mission statement says:

Political Research Associates is a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society. We expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights.

Their "core values" include:

Our work is even-handed, fact based, reliable, and not over-dramatized. Our commitment to mutual respect means that in our work, we do not caricature or demonize the followers of right-wing organizations, and we recognize the abilities of the movement's leadership.

It's not clear if they mean "progressive" in the political or the generic sense. I'm not sure if all the editors to this page would even agree that the subject is "right-wing" much less the leader of a movement that "undermines human rights".

That said, I don't think that all of this material is needed in the article. Even impeccably-sourced speculation on why he has a certain belief may go beyond the realm of biography. It would be better to keep this article focused on events to keep it a manageable length. To the extent that we need to discuss his beliefs (and their genesis) we have Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the PRA sentence Will quoted from above sounds pretty partisan to me. And if someone has been sued by someone else, even if they won the suit, that makes them almost partisan by nature (although in that case if the court made any findings of fact those are clearly a reliable source that could be used). In any event, Will's point is a good one which moots most of this. In any event, if someone can't tell from reading most of whats already in the article that Lyndon Larouche is preemptively not saying for BLP concerns even if courts have decided that most fun words like "crank" and "windbag" are not-actionable then I doubt that more such material is going to change their minds. JoshuaZ 01:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, JoshuaZ, let us analyze your position from a power structure perspective. People with lots of money sue their critics all the time. They seldom win their lawsuits, so these types of lawsuits are called SLAPP lawsuits (strategic lawsuit against public participation). The point is to silent critical coverage by journalists. So, using your logic, wealthy demagogues determine the text of Wikipedia entries simply by filing lawsuits. Can you explain why that is a good idea?--Cberlet 01:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't work in a number of regards. 1) Courts will often in defamation suits rule that the party being sued is in fact telling the truth (see Libel), which gives an unambiguous reliable source 2) courts will often rule against SLAPP lawsuits and which will make things look worse for the plaintiff in question 3) Wikipedia is not a venue for improving public policy but is concerned with what should constitute reliable sources. The bottom line is that the vast majority of the time if two people have been in litigation they are not going to be reliable sources about each other under almost any circumstances. In any event, this doesn't deal with the fundamentally partisan nature of PRA. Also, as Will has pointed out, there doesn't seem to be much need for this material here anyways. JoshuaZ 02:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I really challenge the idea that "The bottom line is that the vast majority of the time if two people have been in litigation they are not going to be reliable sources about each other under almost any circumstances." Please read the entry on SLAPP lawsuits. Aggressive totalist groups often employ lawsuits to silence their critics. The outcome of your position is that wealthy aggressive bullies get to determine the content of Wikipedia. Serious investigative journalists who get sued and prevail are suddenly suspect as biased. Setting the other issues aside, I wish you would take responsibility for the outcome of your position on this question. How come serious investigative journalists who get sued and prevail are sudenly not reliable? Please explain. Please do not dodge the question. It is at the heart of this debate.--Cberlet 03:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that complicated- once someone has been sued by someone they will almost certainly have long-standing residual emotional dislike of the person in question. This means that although they can be a reliable source, where BLP is concerned we need to be very careful since BLP requires us to use very reliable sources. In any event, one simple solution to this is to attribute the claims in the text to the journalist or source in question rather than report it uncritically. So it isn't as much of an issue as you seemed to think and in any event isn't something we have any options about. Our hands are essentially tied. If you want to change things, change the calculus of lawsuits, not Wikipedia policy. JoshuaZ 03:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a reliable source. Becasue this subject has sued a number of news sources (and lost every case) we should not assume that the suits changed their coverage, which the subject asserted was biased to begin with. Chip Berlet covered LaRouche before he was sued, and his coverage isn't obviously different before and after the suit. Further, this source isn't a one-person website. The article in question was co-written with another journalist and presumably reviewed by an editor. If it were itself libellous the subject could have sued, demanded a correction, or printed a rebuttal in one of his own publications. I'm not sure I understand what's meant by "where BLP is concerned we need to be very careful since BLP requires us to use very reliable sources". The entire article is a biography, and we agree that PRA is a reliable source for other material in it. I think the issue here really is whether or not this an extraordinary claim, one which would require extraordinary proof. Is it extraordinary to suppose that the subject would make an odd and offensive remark? If so, then an especially-reliable source should be used. However I'll repeat my position that we don't need material on the subject's views of women in this article. It's a stretch to say that it is a core concept of his, or that his relations with women have been so important to merit so much space in an encyclopedia biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you've convinced me that it is probably enough of a reliable source for this purpose. JoshuaZ 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Will Beback has overlooked one detail here, which is that this is actually a discussion about Political views of Lyndon LaRouche that was moved to this talk page at Cberlet's request. That being said, I think that Will is still correct when he says that "Even impeccably-sourced speculation on why he has a certain belief may go beyond the realm of biography." In this particular instance, it is not even speculation as to why he has a belief-- it is speculation about whether he has the belief in question, since there is no public record of LaRouche ever holding such a belief. This is the problem that I have with the Chip Berlet/PRA site -- it is rife with conspiracy theories, even as it denounces same. As MaplePorter said, if my memory is good, in the most-recently-deleted RfC, Berlet and King avoid discussing LaRouche's publicly documented ideas and activity, in favor of churning up murky speculation based on old, obscure and generally unpublished or anonymous sources. When dealing with BLP articles, I think speculation of any kind should be avoided. Stick to undisputed, established facts. --Marvin Diode 06:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't argue that the specific text belongs on this page, I am arguing that it is a bad policy to suggest that journalists are no longer reliable sources if they cover a beat or are targets of SLAPP lawsuits to silence them. Certainly, especially with a convicted felon, is is not persuasive to suggest that anytime LaRouche rebuts a criticism it becomes "undisputed, established facts." First person accounts of experiences in the LaRouche group are germane, even if people want to avoid being named due to the well-documented aggressive bullying of critic by the LaRouchites.--Cberlet 12:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many instances where I would not object to the use of PRA as a source, where they are actually acting as journalists. However, there are also many instances where they cross over the line into speculation (I think that the "mission statement" quoted by Will is a bit of a joke.) So, I think that the guidelines in WP:BLP should be strictly followed. Material from PRA that is "derogatory," "contentious," or a "conjectural interpretation of a source" should be removed, unless a stronger corroborating source can be found. As Cberlet has repeatedly said, there are cases where PRA material has been quoted in mainstream publications. Those are the cases where there should be no problem using PRA as a source. --Marvin Diode 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

<-- Marvin Diode is quoting selectively from WP:BLP. The full sentence reads:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research).

Material sourced from PRA is obviously not unsourced. PRA meets the standards of WP:V. Nobody is saying that this dispute is over "a conjectural interpretation of a source". Picking individual words out of a policy is not the best way to convey their meaning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just another attemnpt to rewrite the guidelines of Wikipedia. Where is this "mainstream" source rule located? Cite it please. It is OR and POV to claim that something published in print by PRA should be disallowed because a wiki editor claims certain sentences "cross over the line into speculation."--Cberlet 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:FRINGE, especially Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. --Marvin Diode 20:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That says:

The notability of a fringe theory should be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.

PRA qualifies as a verifiable and reliable source. What is the "fringe theory" in this instance? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You and Cberlet keep asserting that PRA "qualifies as a verifiable and reliable source." I am not convinced. A good example of a "fringe theory" is the material that sparked this discussion.[4] How does Chip Berlet know that a break-up of a relationship caused LaRouche to change his views? LaRouche generally attributes his views, particularly when they change, to various authors he has encountered whose ideas have impressed him. Is Chip Berlet a psychologist? Does he have any academic credentials of any sort, that would qualify him to engage in such speculation? Then he begans to talk about what LaRouche "apparently had concluded" about the problem of making a revolution being due to women, and quotes an anonymous source. I sincerely doubt that this sort of stuff would be tolerated in any other Wikipedia BLP article, and should not be tolerated in this one. Now, one thing I would like to add to the previous discussion. In addition to the fact that there is material on the PRA website that I believe is unsuitable as a source for BLP articles, for the reasons already given, the matter is complicated by the fact that all this stuff is being inserted in Wikipedia articles by Cberlet himself, which immediately raises the question of both WP:COI and WP:SOAP. Please don't dodge this issue. We have material that is clearly derogatory, appears in no other source, and is being aggressively added to Wikipedia articles by its author. I say, find another source that will vouch for this stuff, rather than judging it by the proclamations of its adherents, which keep getting reiterated in this discussion. --MaplePorter 22:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that my proposal should be applied to all contentious/potentially libelous/derogatory claims. Dagomar 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

May I interject something here? I think that many of the "LaRouche" articles are too long and too obscure. Why not make them slightly shorter, and stick to information that is universally accepted? After all, "Wikipedia is not a battleground." --Gelsomina 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Let's take the material one part at a time.

In 1972 LaRouche's second wife, Carol Larrabee (also known as Carol Schnitzer), left him for Christopher White, a younger man who was a member of the LaRouche network in Britain.

I think we can all agree that this is not a fringe theory. The next part quotes Chip Berlet and Joel Bellman:

[LaRouche's] previous conspiratorial inclinations had now grown into a bizarre tapestry weaving together classical conspiracy theories of the 19th century and post-Marxian economics. He began articulating a `psycho-sexual' theory of political organizing. Sexism and homophobia became central themes of the organization's theories….The problem with making the revolution, LaRouche apparently had concluded, was that women are castrating bitches. One former member left in disgust when she was told women's feelings of degradation in modern society could be traced to the physical placement of female sexual organs near the anus which caused women to confuse sex with excretion

So we are attributing it, not saying that this is true. That addresses the concern of User:JoshuaZ, who wrote above that:

...one simple solution to this is to attribute the claims in the text to the journalist or source in question rather than report it uncritically.

Now then, is the theory described by Berlet and Bellman exceptional? Based on the writings of LaRouche, it does not appear to be. For example, we quote him saying:

the classical case is the sexually athletic Macho who regards himself as a successful performer in bed, the Macho who has much to say and think respecting his capacities for various modes of penetration and frequency and cubic centimeters of ejaculations. The ugly secret of the matter is that he is almost totally sexually impotent.

Elsewhere in the same essay he writes:

Night after intervening night, the Macho beds his whore-wife with an inner sense of bloody violence and self-degradation. In the morning, this miserable existentialist arises from the bed of disgust and self- disgust. He looks with disgust at the sleeping figure of the woman with whom he has shared self-degradation, and trudges, bearing an awful load of anomie, back to the house where he lives with his madonna-wife and her children. He needs a drink so desperately, to seem to wash the wretched taste from his mouth, but the drink merely begins the cycle of the new day's recurring nightmare. Tonight, he will sleep beside his madonna-wife, after an evening of being patron to her children, and Friday night the homosexual, he will be back with his whore-wife again... Indeed, the more women he has bedded, the more acutely painful and real to him is the fact that he has never maintained a sexual relationship in which the woman was the conscious subject of his desire for her as she is...Probe his unconscious processes more deeply, bringing up for him what he has barely concealed from himself for so long, and his self-consciousness will know that all these women, his madonna-wife and his whore-wives, are surrogates for his possessive, sadistic mother. It is merely necessary to connect his infantile feelings from the ages of between approximately two and five to his adolescent and adult fantasies, and he must shriek with agony of despair that this, too, has always been true. He will also immediately understand that the preoccupation with the cult of the Virgin Mary is the cult of female sexual impotence, the cult of female sadism, and he will thereby also understand the feelings of bloody violence he has for all sexual acts, and the sense of rape he experiences in sharing the bed with his madonna-wife...More deeply, it becomes a sense of psychological death. More deeply explored, the infantile love of the Macho for a woman is often reified hatred of his infantile, sadistically possessive mother. It is reified because infantile hatred toward the mother is associated with a powerful dependency, such that infantile love and infantile hate become thus mixed, confused. The need to love becomes also the need to destroy, to degrade; one can love only a degraded woman (the whore-wife) and one can love the madonna-wife (the mother of her children) only by sensing this to be an act of degrading the Virgin. His madonna-wife must be chaste (i.e., a certain kind of Virgin), so that she does not deprive him of the feeling of rape in her bed. The woman, especially the madonna-wife, is a pure sadist in bed—she lures and rejects, both as her labile, sadistic mother lured and rejected her, as her mother lured and rejected her father, and taught her thus the way of a madonna with men. The whore-wife artifices the madonna-wife as caricature, as parody; she is sadistic, but is always finally conquered, the payment of price the veiled homosexual's consummate act of degradation of both the man and herself, the payment of the “gift” to the mistress her certification as a whore. [5]

Given that text, the material by Berlet and Bellman doesn't seem inconsistent with LaRouche's own theories, and does not appear to be an exceptional claim or a fringe theory. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that I am not following your logic at all here. First of all, you say regarding the breakup of LaRouche and Carol Schnitzer/Larrabee, you say "I think we can all agree that this is not a fringe theory." The problem is, no one said it was. The claim that was called a fringe theory was the claim that LaRouche changed his philosophy as a result of the break-up. That is pure speculation.

Secondly, you quote a long segment from LaRouche, but nowhere in that segment do I find the views attributed to LaRouche by Berlet's anonymous source. So what is your point? The fact that the dubious material is attributed to Berlet and Bellman doesn't suddenly make it OK. This stuff touches on so many Wikipedia policies that it should be treated with extreme caution, and yet you seem to be saying that we should have a carte blanche attitude towards material from the PRA website. There are many websites (including LaRouche's) that have a much larger paid staff than PRA, and yet they are regarded as partisan and therefore not suitable as sources. Is it your claim that PRA is not partisan? --Marvin Diode 14:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You overlook the well-established fact that LaRouche materials are full of factual errors and crackpot conspiracy theories making them unreliable for Wikipedia, except when used on a LaRouche-related page. Second, you are inventing a Wiki policy that does not exist: that to be cited on Wiki bio pages journalists have to provide a primary source for every conclusion they put into print. This is absurd. There is no such Wiki policy, as has been explained repeatedly. We are going in circles again.--Cberlet 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The material from Bellman and Berlet seems to cover the same type of concepts as the quoted text. "[W]omen are castrating bitches" appears to be a fair summary of "these women, his madonna-wife and his whore-wives, are surrogates for his possessive, sadistic mother" and "the infantile love of the Macho for a woman is often reified hatred of his infantile, sadistically possessive mother". Regarding the overall reliability of the Berlet material published by PRA, Berlet is one of the two most respected journalists covering LaRouche. If there's doubt about that I can assemble a list of all the times Berlet has been quoted on LaRouche by other reporters. Note, too, that an uninvoled editor droped in and agreed that Berlet is a suitable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback appears to be attempting to make a case that if a theory is plausible, it cannot be fringe. This is not what it says in WP:FRINGE, where we find the following: "In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual." In other words, regardless of how willing you are to believe Berlet's speculation as published by his organization, the fact that no other published source has covered it makes it unacceptable. It is also irrelevant, under WP:FRINGE, that some of Berlet's other theories have made it into mainstream publications (as Marvin said, those other theories would probably be acceptable for inclusion.) WP:FRINGE also says that Inventors of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventor of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. There is a clear pattern here of Cberlet using Wikipedia to promote theories that have not made it into conventional press, and are unlikely to do so. It is also clear that this is exactly the sort of thing that WP:BLP seeks to prevent: material about living persons that is derogatory should be especially carefully sourced. No matter how you parse the words, Will, it seems indisputable that Wikipedia policy is intended to prevent highly partisan authors such as Berlet from using Wikipedia as a vehicle to attack their targets, using speculation or conjecture that would be unacceptable in sources that are understood to be "mainstream" under WP:FRINGE. --MaplePorter 06:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The subject is known for having a variety of opinions that are often described as "fringe", "extremist", or "odd". Numberous courts and juries have ruled against the subject's assertions of libels and falsehoods. The subject has written in strong language about women dominating men, as well as sexual orientation, gender and familial roles, and sexual potency. I don't see any evidence that Berlet and Bellman's description of LaRouche's beliefs are inaccurate. Perhaps MaplePorter could explain how LaRouche's concepts of the "possessive, sadistic mother" and the "cult of female sadism" are different from the concept that "women are castrating bitches"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

PS:

"The obsession with shit and the endless stream of scatological and sadistic humor issuing from Marcus around this obsession, successfully and repeatedly reduced all the individuals in the sessions to the level of animals. They were forced to concede that a large part of their thinking could be reduced to a preoccupation with shit, and especially to the fear of this preoccupation. Women were hit particularly viciously with this form of reductionism, even to the point of tracing their sexuality to the proximity of the anus and the vagina with only the thin strip of the perineum distinguishing between the two. Marcus claimed that this anatomical peculiarity was the origin of women's feelings of degradation, since it gave rise to their confusion of the sexual act with the act of excretion. This was a radical departure" from" classical Marxism since it located identity not within the matrix of social-reproductive relations, but in bestialized anatomical reductionism. The degradation of women was further predetermined by the infantile relation a woman had to her mother where the first sexual encounter was imprinted on her memory as "the mother cleaning the shit out of her little vagina." This confusion of sexuality with shit led both men and women to cover up the odors associated with lovemaking; according to Marcus, this was the reason that women wore perfume and men smoked after making love. Needless to say, none of these assertions were challenged."
"True History of Lyn Marcus and the Labor Committees" 1975 Critical Practice: The Theoretical Journal of the International Workers Party.

That's sufficient to show that PRA isn't the only source reporting this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You consider this sufficient? You have managed to dredge up a source that is yet more dubious than PRA, the International Workers Party. Two bad sources may agree, but you are still flaunting Wikipedia policy. It looks to me like you are fairly desperate to use Wikipedia as a soapbox against LaRouche, if you have to resort to this sort of stuff.

A few other relevant points. Wikipedia policy doesn't ask that we present evidence that Berlet's and Bellman's theories are incorrect before excluding them; the policy is that "In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual." The International Workers Party is hardly an important mainstream group.

Finally, in answer to your question about the long quote from LaRouche: he's talking about the psycho-sexual environment among the members of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party back in the 1970s. You appear to extrapolating this to mean something about mankind in general. And it is the case that I find his theories about the PSP to be over-the-top, which is why I would not recommend that they be included in the article on the Puerto Rican Socialist Party, any more than I would recommend that Berlet's pyscho-sexual theories about LaRouche be included in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. --MaplePorter 14:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A: You made a big deal about the fact that the material appeared in "no other published source". That's clearly incorrect. BTW, it's the job of Wikipedia admins to flaunt policy. ;) We wouldn't have to do it so often if editors didn't flout policies so often.

B: Berlet is frequently quoted on LaRouche in mainstream media outlets. What source do we have that calls this material "non-mainstream"? According to whom is it fringe?

C: Despite its title, the essay is not limited to the Puerto Rican Socialist Party. ("There is only one phenomenon to compare with such pitiful caricatures of socialist politics; that is the even more pathetic performance of the Latin-American “Macho” in the bedroom. In fact, the political life of the PSP is the principle of the sexual impotence of the “Machismo” extended into the domain of political commedia...This is not strictly peculiar to Puerto Rico; all Latin politics is permeated with the same pathetic, self-defeating quality...Throughout, we shall state the psychological truth which every Latin can recognize in his own private thoughts as the essence of “Machismo” as sexual impotence.") If you want to add a disclaimer to indicate that he really meant that only the women of Latin America are castrating bitches then maybe we can find a neutral way of saying that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need a source that calls a theory "fringe" to establish that it is such. We need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the theory has not been "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual." That is what WP:FRINGE says, and that is Dagomar's proposal as I understand it. I think the proposal is reasonable and that we should agree to use it as the basis for consensus. It would be improper to try to make a case that material from PRA or related sources should be acceptable or unacceptable on a blanket basis; we should decide on a case by case basis, according to whether the material has appeared in, or been referenced by, "at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual." --Marvin Diode 00:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE does not apply to this situation. It concerns "theories":

We use the word theory in a very broad sense, including conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth.

The material in question is very different from the material covered by that guideline. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The following sentence in WP:FRINGE reads Some of the "theories" addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations. Berlet's speculation that LaRouche having a relationship break-up caused him to change his philosophical views is an excellent example. Some of the material discussed earlier about "coded messages" would also qualify, along with some of Berlet's more far-fetched "summaries" of the meaning of LaRouche's ideas. --Marvin Diode 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the Berlet/Bellman quote, which attributes their opinions to them. I've left out the connection to LaRouche's wife leaving him, as that appears to be the heart of this dispute and is more purely conjectural. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There is speculative attribution of views to LaRouche without solid evidence that he subscribes to those views, which I believe violates BLP. --Marvin Diode 00:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The quotation does not attribute views, it interprets the views expressed by LaRouche in the "Sexual Impotency" article and elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC responses

In from the RFC. Looking at the arguments here, I think I'll have to agree that Cberlet's theory that the breakup caused LaRouche's views to grow into a bizarre conspiratorial tapestry does fall on the far side of BLP. Other parts of the quote may be acceptable, as long as they can be properly matched up with actual LaRouche quotes. Sorry, Will.--SarekOfVulcan 13:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We're not in disagreement. I don't particularly support the assertion that the splitup led to the views on feminism either. I do support the use of the quote interpreting those views. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm confused. "It's a bogus arguement, but it's encyclopedic that other people have made it"?--SarekOfVulcan 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

They are two separate issues. One is whether we should use the quote:

[LaRouche's] previous conspiratorial inclinations had now grown into a bizarre tapestry weaving together classical conspiracy theories of the 19th century and post-Marxian economics. He began articulating a `psycho-sexual' theory of political organizing. Sexism and homophobia became central themes of the organization's theories….The problem with making the revolution, LaRouche apparently had concluded, was that women are castrating bitches. One former member left in disgust when she was told women's feelings of degradation in modern society could be traced to the physical placement of female sexual organs near the anus which caused women to confuse sex with excretion

The other is whether we should juxtapose the material on the subject's views on women with his personal history. While his history is undisputed, I agree that the juxtaposition implies a connection and is probably best left out. However the quotation makes no reference to that personal history. I assert that Berlet and Bellman are notable commentators on the subject, and that their interpretation of the subject's comments are informative. We present them in a neutral, attributed fashion. I dispute the assertion of user:Marvin Diode that the quotation is forbidden under WP:FRINGE, because that guideline does not apply to this type of issue. Here is a version of the material that I think is reasonable: [6]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you back up the "castrating bitches" part of the quote? I saw where you backed up the anus/vagina part above, so if you have this, too, I'd say you're mostly covered (and boy, how many diferent ways can I trigger Lupin's filter with this edit?????).--SarekOfVulcan 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with the works of LaRouche as the authors of the contested quotation are. However reading over the essay that I've quoted from above, "The Sexual Impotence Of The Puerto Rican Socialist Party"[7], I think it's reasonable to summarize LaRouche's description of Latin American women as "castrating bitches". Let's review what LaRouche says in that essay about the relation between women and men:

Tell the Macho his type is often a schizoid, make this clear to him, show him his miserable childhood swarming with sadistic mother and sibling and other surrogate-mothers, and his self-consciousness will acknowledge all this to be the truth of the bloody, tiring matador of an Ego in the bull-ring below. Yet, he whimpers, becoming angered at the person who has afflicted him with such self-knowledge: “I am helpless but to behave so. Don't you see; I can act only on the ‘sincerity of my feelings?'”
He will also admit—his self-consciousness will admit—that it is the same with the women with whom he has shared such a bed of alienation. Too often, he has heard a woman's voice in the darkness, asking him, “Are you finished?” in either such plain words or words which mean the same to his self-consciousness.
Probe his unconscious processes more deeply, bringing up for him what he has barely concealed from himself for so long, and his self-consciousness will know that all these women, his madonna-wife and his whore-wives, are surrogates for his possessive, sadistic mother. It is merely necessary to connect his infantile feelings from the ages of between approximately two and five to his adolescent and adult fantasies, and he must shriek with agony of despair that this, too, has always been true.
More deeply explored, the infantile love of the Macho for a woman is often reified hatred of his infantile, sadistically possessive mother. It is reified because infantile hatred toward the mother is associated with a powerful dependency, such that infantile love and infantile hate become thus mixed, confused. The need to love becomes also the need to destroy, to degrade; one can love only a degraded woman (the whore-wife) and one can love the madonna-wife (the mother of her children) only by sensing this to be an act of degrading the Virgin. His madonna-wife must be chaste (i.e., a certain kind of Virgin), so that she does not deprive him of the feeling of rape in her bed. The woman, especially the madonna-wife, is a pure sadist in bed—she lures and rejects, both as her labile, sadistic mother lured and rejected her, as her mother lured and rejected her father, and taught her thus the way of a madonna with men. The whore-wife artifices the madonna-wife as caricature, as parody; she is sadistic, but is always finally conquered, the payment of price the veiled homosexual's consummate act of degradation of both the man and herself, the payment of the “gift” to the mistress her certification as a whore. For the mistress, to discard the lover's gift is to destroy him totally—he never existed. He is merely an object, without inner life; he is dead.
“The witch” is a not-uncommon form of such a “Poltergeist,” in both men and women, since the more common potential psychoses and extreme manic-depressive “parasites” of this sort are modeled upon a parody of the mother- image. (The labile, possessive mother, or the “Schwaermerei” of a variety of surrogate mothers is a common basis for a “witch” image.) In no case is such an inferred image a mere construct; in all cases, discovery of such a Gestalt of a mental parasite-entity permits empirical demonstration of the existence of precisely such an entity. Indeed, the afflicted individual has often been aware of such a parasite within himself or herself long before, and in many cases the ingenuous appellation of the name of the parasitical entity has been made by close acquaintances (e.g., “she's a witch”) before then.
Sometimes—often enough—her fantasy is not specifically sexual at all, but rather one of pure female sadism. With the (typically) frigid woman, the gratification of sexual performances originates in the sense of power over the male whom she sees as essentially pathetic.
This pathetic (depressive) aspect of the Macho syndrome gives the sadistic woman the greatest pathological joy. Here she has the most suitable of victims, a wretched creature to torment with her “moods.” “Come here, Fido,” she grudgingly offers him in one moment, and in the next, “Sorry, Fido, I'm not in the mood. Let's discuss art, Fido. Down, Fido, don't you respect me at all!” What pure sadistic delight for her it is to be as impotently capricious as she chooses, to play cruelly with this helpless pet. He perhaps strikes her; she resents the blow, but delights in the evidence of the misery she has effected in him! Here is a man in whom she can evoke the most profound suffering.

The last two exceropts seem particularly relevant. I could quote further, but I think that "castrating bitches" is a fair summary of the way LaRouche has described these women. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, after reading Will's laborious argument, it would appear that you would have to conclude first that all Latin American men are Machos before you could fairly draw the conclusion that all Latin American women are "castrating bitches." The whole argument looks like an excercise in WP:SYNTH, and Will is going to an awful lot of trouble hoping to include material that is tremendously obscure. I think that Will's assertion that "that Berlet and Bellman are notable commentators on the subject, and that their interpretation of the subject's comments are informative" is simply an indication of his POV.

Secondly, it looks like Berlet and Bellman are engaging in hostile speculation about LaRouche's ideas in an attempt to smear him. I have tried to find the anus/vagina thing referenced in any publication by LaRouche, and I haven't found it. I am not reassured by the fact that B&B have an anonymous source that agrees with the International Workers Party on this -- in fact, I would not be surprised to learn that their anonymous source is the IWP. My view is that this stuff fails both WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE. I would like to also say that I agree with comment of Gelsomina that these articles are already too long, and we ought to be trimming some of the super-esoteric stuff, not finding excuses to insert more. --Marvin Diode 21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

MD to address your first point, the essay does indeed cover a broad swath of humanity, including Latin America, and, to a lesser degree, Italy and Spain. Re-read the first two paragraphs. Second, I don't think that anyone would say that the quotation from Berlet and Bellman is entirely neutral. That's why we attribute it rather than simply report their findings. I think we could shorten it and just quote a few phrases rather than presenting the material as a blockquote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem, Will, is that you are doing exactly the same thing that Chip Berlet does -- you are selectively combing the essay (Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party) for quotes that you hope will make your case, meanwhile entirely ignoring the central point of the essay. Back in the 1970s, LaRouche was strongly influenced by the ideas of L.S. Kubie, who wrote about neurotic distortion of the creative process. LaRouche tried to take a sociological approach to this idea, to find what sociological factors would prevent creativity (which he identified with political leadership.) The article you are quoting opens quite plainly with "We speak therefore of such impotence in “Macho” Left politics not to degrade the Latin revolutionaries, but to begin to rid them of this disease. To cure such a disease, especially such a disease of the mind, it is first necessary to identify the disease; to bring about the cure, it is first necessary to acknowledge the sickness." Yet, you are trying to make a case that LaRouche is simply either anti-Hispanic or anti-woman, neither of which is justified. Incidentally, LaRouche is not the first person to find fault with Machismo. --Gelsomina 05:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're familiar with LaRouche's work already. It's hardly necessary to "comb" the essay; it's replete with the kind of language that I've quoted at length. Frankly, now that I've had more time to study the material, I'd say that simply placing some excerpts from the "sexual Impotence" article into the section would be less neutral than quoting Berlet and Bellman's relatively mild summary. I see that LaRouche cites Lawrence S. Kubie often in his other writings. We can add something about that to the section. Regarding the opening of the essay, I'd compare it to the opening of Antony's eulogy for Caesar, "I come not to praise him but to bury him" (and then of course he goes on to praise him persuasively). The essay is addressed at the sickness of the men and women of the political class of Puerto Rico. But it doesn't stop there: the analogy continues:

This is not strictly peculiar to Puerto Rico; all Latin politics is permeated with the same pathetic, self-defeating quality....Nor is the problem limited to Latin American culture; the Italian Left ranges from almost as miserable down to more wretched than the Spanish “Machismo.” To an equal or slightly lesser degree, the entire population of the capitalist world is infected with the same impotence, and the consequent tendency to make Left political life a thinly-disguised reflection of that same sexual impotence.

It's not up to us to parse this essay and decide it's interpretation. That would be unsourced original research. The Wikipedia system is to cite the interpetations to verifiable 3rd party sources. In this case, Berlet and Bellman. If there are more interpretations then we can add those too. Though I've certainly read other indictments of machismo, I've never seen such a lurid one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Berlet and Bellman's "relatively mild summary" has any relationship at all to the essay by LaRouche. You were the one who brought up the essay, arguing that it somehow made Berlet and Bellman credible, and this argument is simply WP:SYNTH. We're back to question of whether Berlet and Bellman's comments should be excluded on the basis of both WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE, and to me the answer is clearly yes, unless a quote can be presented from LaRouche, or a mainstream source, that corroborates them. --Marvin Diode 14:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well let's see what we can agree on. Is it fair to say that LaRouche articulated a "`psycho-sexual' theory of political organizing"? Gelsomina appears to confirm that LaRouche was influenced by Kubies concept of "neurotic distortion of the creative process". Is it inappropriate to call the thesis of "Sexual Impotency" a "psycho-sexual theory of political organizing"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Dennis King appears to have made a similar observation about the interest of LaRouche in psycho-sexual concepts:

LaRouche also taught that the alleged pathology of the Jewish family, especially the mother's possessiveness, produces psychosexual aberrations in young Jews. A 1986 New Solidarity item, "Jewish Mothers in the Age of Aquarius," joked that homosexuality is the natural result.[8]

Since King's book was printed by a mainstream publisher that means the assertion that discussion of LaRouche's interest in this field doesn't fall under WP:FRINGE (not that it ever did, IMO). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that LaRouche articulated a "`psycho-sexual' theory of political organizing." I think it would be a good idea to re-title the section, since I don't think LaRouche ever had a strong interest one way or the other in feminism. When he was writing about psycho-sexuality in the 70s, he referred to his ideas as "humanist," meaning that he advocated a universal human identity for both men and women, as well as all ethnic groups etc. He opposed "particularism." He does acknowledge that women have special obstacles to overcome under present social conditions, when he says in the Puerto Rican Socialist essay that "Since the woman has a special, doubly-hard struggle to realize a socially potent intellectual life, it is necessary to go beyond mere self-consciousness of adult individual roles, to self-consciousness of the process of struggling against the special kinds of problems which confront women in their efforts to play a positive role in the socialist movement." Also, I don't think he has written much at all about psycho-sexuality since the 70s, but his organization must think that these writing are historically important because they have them all posted on the LaRouche Youth Movement website. --Gelsomina 13:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

The following is in the article.

“

It is unclear from LaRouche's writings whether he actually studied all these philosophers at such an age, or simply formed opinions about them based on general impressions.

”

This appears to me to be commentary (however reasonable). Who can we attribute it to? TableManners 06:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While we wait for an answer, I am removing it as OR. --Marvin Diode 06:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to remove it if it is uncited.--Cberlet 12:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Women and feminism

This RfC concerns a dispute at Political views of Lyndon LaRouche#Women and feminism. In the early 1970s, LaRouche published controversial comments about psychosexuality and political leadership. Chip Berlet, an investigative reporter known for covering LaRouche, co-wrote an article on the topic of LaRouche's views of feminism. Can we quote from that article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My question would be is it more of that hidden swastika nonsense or is it factual? Recounting (and briefly analyzing) things LaRouche actually said is fine; the advocacy journalism seems to be a pretty questionable and one-sided source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourdee (talk • contribs) 06:22, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be that it is nonsense, but much less problematic from a BLP standpoint. It is hopefully clear to the reader that Dennis King looks at galaxies and sees swastikas, and the reader will most likely conclude that it is an "eye of the beholder" sort of problem. It is much more troubling when Wikipedia says that "according to source King/Berlet/etc., LaRouche believes such-and-such," when we are dealing with sheer speculation. Any opinions attributed to LaRouche should be provably LaRouche's. --Marvin Diode 14:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

See above. The subject's theories of psycho-sexuality are reasonably well-documented. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the subject's theories of psycho-sexuality are not a matter of dispute. We were referring to other claims made by LaRouche's critics. --Marvin Diode 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Which claims are in dispute? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, can you please provide a citation to the particular Chip Berlet article you'd like to use as a source? Without seeing the specific article, all other editors can do is either endorse an interpretation of hearsay (if pro-inclusion), or assume bad faith on Berlet's part (an ad-hominem attack if anti-inclusion); neither is encyclopedic. Please free us from the horns of this dilemma by being specific about the article you had in mind. VisitorTalk 08:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The source is "Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag" by Chip Berlet and Joel Bellman, Political Research Associates, March 10th, 1989. It's been referenced in at least a couple of independent books.[9] Also this work,[10] though I'm not sure what it is. Also some blogs, including one that said, “Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag” is probably the finest and most concise piece of work on the LaRouche group that I’ve ever read... ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you were able to find blurbs for Berlet is irrelevant. LaRouche's EIR was described by Norman Bailey, a former senior staffer of the National Security Council, as "one of the best private intelligence services in the world," but its use as a source is still restricted to articles about LaRouche, because it is regarded as partisan. Berlet's articles are certainly no less partisan. --MaplePorter 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the content dispute is not over whether this article may generally be used as a source, but over whether specific speculations and theories which appear only in this article will violate WP:FRINGE or WP:BLP if they are included. Some editors, including myself, have recommended that theories which are highly derogatory in effect should be included only if they have been referenced in a mainstream source as well. --Marvin Diode 14:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dennis King's book is a mainstream source, published by a maor publisher, and it covers this material as well. Though I don't think WP:FRINGE applies at all, the fact that material on the subjects views of psycho-sexuality and women is referenced in a mainstream source makes that guideline inapplicable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Will, I think you ought to take a few minutes and re-read WP:FRINGE. It covers theories, not sources. A source may be generally acceptable, but a theory from that source may be not notable or acceptable, if it has not been "accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications." --MaplePorter 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the first sentence:

This page offers guidance on establishing which non-mainstream "theories" should have articles in Wikipedia...

No one is suggesting writing an article about LaRouche's theories of psycho-sexuality. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether that last post is intended to be facetious. The question at hand is whether certain of Chip Berlet's and Dennis King's theories regarding LaRouche pass the FRINGE test. The dispute intersects other policies as well, such as BLP. --Marvin Diode 00:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not facetious. WP:FRINGE refers to whether or not WP should have an article on a given theory. I don't see anyone sugesting we have an article on LaRouches' theories of psycho-sexuality, or on Berlet & Bellman's reporting on LaRouche's theories of psycho-sexuality. There's no question that LaRouche does discuss psycho-sexuality in a number of different writings because he uses that very term. What exact assertion is in dispute? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Will is apparently arguing that because of that opening sentence, WP:FRINGE only applies when there is an article about the theory in question, not when the theory is brought into more general articles. In practice, this is not the case. WP:FRINGE may not be the operative policy, but I have seen, for example, at September 11, 2001 attacks‎, that any kind of conspiracy theory or non-orthodox theory about the attacks is excluded from the article as non-notable. I think that the same logic could well apply to some of the theories of Berlet and King, which as I have mentioned before, often focus on revealing the "hidden truth" about LaRouche that no one would arrive at simply by reading his writings, or the coverage in the mainstream press. In other words, their theories have the same basic characteristics as the stuff they denounce as "conspiracism."

As far as which assertions are in dispute, the one that has been most recently disputed is Berlet's claim that "LaRouche apparently had concluded... that women are castrating bitches." He's putting words in LaRouche's mouth, and this is unacceptable under multiple Wikipedia policies. I think that the Nick Benton article should be discussed here too, although Benton is more restrained in his language than the Wikipedia editors who have "summarized" him to make the insinuations more explicit. Certain "non-mainstream" theories might be acceptable if they don't stray into defamation, but the ones that Will is promoting are, in my opinion, defamatory. The Benton article implies that LaRouche caused a friend of his to commit suicide. --MaplePorter 06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't contain anything about castrating bitches now. Is there anything currently in the article that's in dispute? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

At least three times I've asked about any specific problems with Political views of Lyndon LaRouche,[11][12][13] and haven't received any complaints about material that's currently in the article. So I assume this RfC is succesfully concluded. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just taken a look at the current version, and it looks like most of the disputed material is now gone. I saw a few problems, which I changed: first of all, I believe that it is disputed whether LaRouche "has theories about female domination of men," so I changed that to say that LaRouche's critics say he has such theories. Also, from what I can tell, "The Politics of Male Impotence" was actually an unpublished internal memo, so I edited the section to say that. Previously it was worded in such a way that made it appear that this was a published article by LaRouche. I haven't had the time to actually wade through the photostats that Chip Berlet posted, and I think it would be helpful if someone could do that and provide a better summary of what was in the memo. --Marvin Diode 05:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

<------According to Wiki policy, it is better to cite a published summary than conduct original research. Since this has already been done, I propose the summary of LaRouche's views be "women are castrating bitches."--Cberlet 14:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Australia

Lately I keep getting junkmail from Citizens Electoral Council, a Rouchite entity in Australia. (I'm in California and have no connexion to Australia.) Has he moved or something? —Tamfang 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The LaRouche Movement has affiliated groups in many countries. Our article on the Australian group is at Citizens Electoral Council. I'm not aware of LaRouche himself ever visiting that continent and he certainly hasn't moved there unless it's a secret. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"No conceivable reason to allow fair use?"

Will Beback just removed an image with the edit summary "rm fair use image - no conceivable reason to allow fair use." Could you explain this, please? --Marvin Diode 21:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The image is replaceable, in that both people are still alive. There's no critical commentary about the photo itself. The people in the image are not the subjects of this article. There's no source listed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to add commentary to address your concerns. The image depicts King and Berlet at LaRouche's trial, which is relevant to LaRouche's bio. It's unlikely that it is replaceable, since such an event is probably not going to happen again. The source is listed. --MaplePorter 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the image as long as the cutline is accurate. King and I took a train down to DC to celebrate the incarceration of convicted felon BLP violation redacted Thatcher131 13:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Lyndon LaRouche. We did not attend the trial, but we wanted to applaud and cheer as he was led off to jail.--Cberlet 00:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

DC? I thought the trial that led to LaRouche's conviction was in Virginia, and that he was not given bail during the trial. Was he let out prior to his incarceration and then turned himself in to authorities in DC? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We took a train to DC. Union Station. I came down from Boston, and met Dennis on the train in New York. After we arrived in DC, we took the Metro to Alexandria, Virginia for the sentencing. LaRouche was led out the back door of the courthouse after being sentenced. That's where the picture was taken by LaRouchites. :-) --Cberlet 01:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to include our photos on this page, at least have the backbone to decribe why we were there. What is being disputed? BLP violation redacted Thatcher131 13:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC) All from reputable published sources.--Cberlet 03:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And to think that some people say you edit here with an agenda! --Gelsomina 15:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, enough of these sly personal attacks. Cut it out. I deleted the copyrighted image that was posted as form of political POV cyberstalking.--Cberlet 13:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why the change of heart? You seemed only to happy to include it just hours ago. What changed? Was it because your POV additions were removed by other editors, or was it all just to prove some kind of point. Arkalochori 00:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please wait until consensus/a decision is reached on whether or not it falls under fair use. Sfacets 14:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in fighting over an image that will deleted shortly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why will it be deleted? Who makes the decision, and how would you know in advance? --MaplePorter 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#user:MaplePorter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the fair use ratinale of this image - it could be argued that the circumstances in the photo can not be reproduced - the photo depicts two outspoken critics of LaRouche after a relevant event in his biography. The Photograph is located in the criticism section of the article, and both subjects are mentionned in the article. Per WP:FU "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." are acceptable. Sfacets 01:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not how fair use works, it would only apply if this page was about Dennis King or Chip Berlet. It is not. There is no substantive commentary on Dennis King or Chip Berlet or the event. Fair use does not extend this far. It never has.--Cberlet 02:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Time to archive?

Can we archive an earlier section of this talk page? It's getting pretty long. --Marvin Diode 14:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

poor references

You have about 80 links that are unlabeled, non-ref links in the articles. That is really shitty. I am going to convert them over to refs. It will take hours get the titles and dates for them. Please respect that.--RidinHood25 00:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the http://dennisking.org/ web site has been down for months. I am really uncomfortable with the 15 links to that site that this current article has. It is too many considering that there are plenty of other sources about the subject. Maybe we can just point to that web site or make two or three points based on that site and let it go at that.--RidinHood25 00:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We can probably get webarchive links to dennisking.org. I don't think 15 is too many out of over a hundred, considering that King wrote the only full-length biography of the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for labelling the links. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Yeah, there is one archive.org link to the major King book. The rest...feh. The pages are there in the archive.org site. I really do not trust these one-man web sites that focus on one other man: there is often objectivity problems. I would rather have a dozen more newspaper articles on the subject rather than another dozen pages from King.--RidinHood25 02:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I object to the wholesale deletion of numerous references to a website that has been down for a few days; espcially without any attempt to find cites from other sources such as King's book. And the snide personal attacks on King and his work are objectionable. Feh indeed.--Cberlet 02:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh, I'm sure Mr King writes some very nice articles ;) Sfacets 02:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So, then, everyman a King? :-0 --Cberlet 03:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete all references to links that are down. The right way of handling them is at Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RidinHood25 says that the web site dennisking.org has been down for "months." That is not true. It has been down for one week. It is now back up under the name lyndonlarouche.org If "dennisking" is changed to "lyndonlarouche" in the web paths, the relevant files will be there. One reason I changed the name is because I figured Lyndon is such a great economist, statesman, historian, mathematician, philosopher, psychologist, musicologist and criminal mastermind that he really deserves a web address of his own.--Dking 18:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this can also be seen as a deliberate deception on your part, trying to lure people to your site by posing as part of the LaRouche organization. Did you find that "dennisking.org" wasn't generating much interest? --Masai warrior 21:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that should be a fight for another time and venue. Arkalochori 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ponder our complicity in a distorted Wikipedia structure

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

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

The system rewards and promotes:

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

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

I am leaving for one month to commemorate the anniversary of Kristallnacht, which is on November 9th; after which I will reconsider my options, especially regarding the failure of Wikipedia to deal with the protracted and multi-year manipulation of Wikpedia by supporters of the BLP violation redacted Thatcher131 13:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Lyndon LaRouche, especially on the entry, Views of Lyndon LaRouche.

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

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

(Chip Berlet)--Cberlet 12:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are the supporters of LaRouche whom you wish to see "dealt with"? --Marvin Diode 14:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs a way to fight groups from aggressively imposing their POV other than with other groups fighting aggressively to impose their own POV. Both groups believe their POV is the NPOV. Both seek to write and interpret policy and accuse the other of violating policy. Chip, anything you can think up to help Wikipedia find a better solution than the one Wikipedia has currently would be a step in the right direction. Add any ideas you have to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiquality . Thanks. I think we need revision tagging (stable versions), a content arbcom manned by volunteer university profs, and other ideas provided at the WikiQuality page I just linked. Can you drum up significant financial contributions contractually earmarked for an independent evaluation of issues concerning bias where the amount and the details are part of the submitted proposal and subject to acceptance by the Wikimedia Foundation? Care to try? WikiMedia and Wikipedia are slowly moving towards accountability and professional standards. Too slow, but it's the right direction. WAS 4.250 13:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Section on anti-semitism is incomprehensible

The section on anti-semitism is incomprehensible. I was reading the article on LaRouche while writing a piece on Ann Coulter whose increasingly derranged attacks appear to me to be ever more LaRouche like by the day. Since Coulter has recently branched out into anti-semitism I was looking to see if there were some bankable comparisons.

Instead I find a conspiracy theory about spiral galaxies. While it is true that neo-Nazis do use codes to signal their views (e.g. 88 for Heil Hitler) that does not mean that everyone who uses the number 88 is an anti-semite. Without more context it is impossible to tell whether this is a genuine issue or simply the result of speculation as adled as LaRouche's own. --66.31.39.76 13:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the latter is probably the case. But I have another issue with this article. In the "criticism" section, it more or less implies that Dennis King and Chip Berlet are or were leftists. I don't think that they were ever leftists in the conventional sense. They should be identified with their affiliation with the drug culture or drug legalization movement, in Berlet's case because he was Washington bureau chief for High Times magazine, and King's case because of his long-time association with the Yippies. --Leatherstocking 15:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested on LaRouche's views on Jews or other topics, then the best article to read is Views of Lyndon LaRouche. That article focuses on what he wrote, including his philosophies, historical and economic analyses, etc., while this article focuses on what he did. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The section on antisemitism is retarded. Look at this nonsense: He claims that certain photos of barred spiral galaxies and of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory plasmoid experiments which appeared in LaRouche's New Solidarity newspaper and Fusion magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika" and of the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest. Lyndon LaRouche is crazy enough without having to interject other people's crazy conspiracy theories into the article about him. LaRouche denounces antisemitism, LaRouche does not protest at Israeli embassies or anything like that. he thinks the Queen of England is behind everything, he probably thinks she's behind Zionism too for all I care. Is everyone okay with removing it? Shii (tock) 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're familiar with the source materials and can improve the material then feel free. But please don't remove sourced material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Shii, I respect your intentions which I believe are consistent with WP:BLP. But I think it would be more defamatory to simply say that "critics claim he's anti-Semitic," leaving the reader to assume the worst. Better to provide a glimpse into the reasoning of said critics, which I agree does bring to mind the term "crazy conspiracy theories." --Marvin Diode 08:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed hundreds of mainstream media articles on LaRouche, and I'd say that he is much more freqently called an "anti-Semite" than a "cult leader". I'm not sure the description is only made by critics, but if we call virtually all of the mainstream media "critics" then it applies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Both of you guys-- I see your reasoning. However, the section should be cleaned up.

Will, I disagree strongly with your characterization of LaRouche criticism. Looking at the sources cited in refs 1 and 2, you see that most of the criticism is mostly calling LaRouche crazy, with only a side reference to the fact that the ADL considers him a crypto-anti-Semite. The exception is Berlet, Chip & Bellman Joe. "Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag" which does not read to me like a reliable source; its language is somewhat paranoid. Example:

And why do most mainstream media outlets refuse to use terms such as "anti-Semite" and "small-time Hitler" when court actions have resulted in those terms being found not defamatory but "fair comment?"

Perhaps because such terms are both wrong and mean-spirited? Anyway... Marvin is right, better to keep a full explanation of how the claims of anti-Semitism are conjured up. Shii (tock) 19:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The full discussion of LaRouche's views on Jews is in Views of Lyndon LaRouche, which covers his philosphy. This article is focused on the deeds of the subject. As for the description of LaRouche as an "anti-Semite", we can add dozens of newspaper citations if you think it would help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that LaRouche has written millions of words in his life, and to single out anti-Semitism among various labels people ascribe to him gives far too much weight to irresponsible critics like Dennis King. What's wrong with just "conspiracy theorist"? We shouldn't overuse the word "anti-Semite" into meaninglessness. In the case of both LaRouche and David Icke the crypto-anti-Semite supposition should be explained in the body of the article but not given unneeded weight in the lead. Shii (tock) 04:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a few opinions on this subject if I may. First of all, please don't take offense, Wikipedia has a sort of cultish worship of published sources. Don't get me wrong, I realize that there must be some sort of criteria that limit what can be introduced into an article, so it is reasonable to require that it come from a published source. But on the other hand, let's not kid ourselves, the major media lie all the time, mostly by repeating things that they know to be lies, like the WMD in Iraq. The cultism at Wikipedia comes from what appears to be shared delusion that if it has been published, it's gospel, when in fact the major media are owned by characters like Rupert Murdoch who buy them because it gives them the power to make or break people. Now, bear with me, because I'm coming to my point. LaRouche has critics, by which I mean people who have taken a dispassionate look at his views and see defects in them. One example would be Daniel Brandt (oops, I understand that he's a bit of a bogey-man around here.) However, most of the people who are referred to in this article as "critics" are not critics at all. They are Enemies with a capital E. These are people who would be beside themselves with joy if LaRouche caught a bullet. Now, my answer to Shii's question about why they call LaRouche an anti-semite. They answer is simple. LaRouche's organization is led primarily by Jews, and has been for almost 40 years. The charge of anti-Semitism is intended to demoralize them, upset their families, and so on. It's not criticism, it's psychological warfare. That's my two cents worth. --Leon Pringle 07:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The characterization of LaRouche as an anti-Semite is certainly not limited to King. On the contrary, it's one of the most common characterizations made, and is made by the leading mainstream media sources.

...[T]he New York Times published a series of articles stating that members of the US Labor Party, which LaRouche founded, have "initiated gang assaults at rivals' meetings, taken courses in the use of knives and rifles at an anti-terrorist school and produced private intelligence reports on antiapartheid groups in the United States for the Bureau of State Security of South Africa." The Times series also branded LaRouche as an anti-Semite.
- FRINGE CANDIDATE OR A THREAT?; ; THE LYNDON LAROUCHE CAMPAIGN; Charles Kenney Globe Staff. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Feb 17, 1980. pg. 1
LaRouche has been denounced as an anti-Semite and a hate monger, and Democratic Party leaders have publicly disavowed any affiliation with him.
- LaRouche backers laud Illinois upsets; NENE FOXHALL, Houston Chronicle Political Writer. Houston Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). Houston, Tex.: Mar 22, 1986. pg. 27
Calling Mr. LaRouche a fascist and an anti-Semite, ...[Sen. Daniel] Moynihan said the party should follow the example of Democrats in Washington Heights and Inwood who identified candidates for the school board as LaRouche supporters and defeated them by publicizing Mr. LaRouche's political theories. ... There was no way Mel Klenetsky could win the Democratic nomination from me, Mr. Moynihan said. But, he added, it would be a hollow victory if we got there by allowing a fascist, anti-Semitic conspiratorial element to be further legitimizted as an element in our party...In a telephone interview yesterday, Mr. Klenetsky called Mr. Moynihan's statements smears, gossip and slander. He said that both he and Mr. LaRouche were vigorously opposed to fascism and anti-Semitism.
- MOYNIHAN DENOUNCES LAROUCHE, KERR, PETER. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Mar 24, 1986. pg. B.
[LaRouche] said the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization that considers him an anti-Semite, has always "attacked me on behalf of the drug lobby." He said the news media had been "intoxicated into believing its own lies" - that he is a Nazi and an anti-Semite; and he dismissed one question as the ravings of a "drug-pusher."
- LAROUCHE SPEAKS HIS MIND Larry Eichel. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Apr 10, 1986. pg. A.18
Many people have a hard time figuring out what the LaRouchites really believe in. Are they right-wingers or left-wingers or just plain nuts? How can they be anti-Semitic when so many of them are Jews? It sounds confusing, but it can be explained...To gain support of other right-wing extremist groups and distressed farmers, they came up with an anti-Semitic pitch: Jewish bankers are the cause of their woes. But because many of the longtime members are Jewish, they had to be brainwashed, stripped of their heritage, convinced that the organization and its world-saving mission was more important than family and dignity.
- FOR LAROUCHITES, IT'S ALL A HOAX; Mike Royko. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext). Chicago, Ill.: Apr 14, 1986. pg. 3 <
A small-time Hitler," the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith said of LaRouche two years ago. LaRouche sued for libel, but a jury sided with the prominent Jewish organization, which considers LaRouche a leading anti-Semite.
- Authorities See Pattern of Threats, Plots Dark Side of LaRouche Empire Surfaces; KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 14, 1986. pg. 1
In reply to your Jan. 22 editorial, I think it sufficient that I make but two crucial points. First, since I am not an anti-Semite, as some have suggested, reporting of the assertion that I am anti-Semitic tarnishes the publication, such as your own.
- I'm not anti-Semite, Larouche says; The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Jan 30, 1995. pg. B.2
Mr. LaRouche is a magnet for criticism. He has been accused of being a cult leader, fascist and anti-Semite -- all of which he and those around him vehemently deny.
But Bob Baker, a Virginia-based agriculture activist who is associated with Lyndon LaRouche -- a convicted U.S. felon who is well-known to Jewish groups -- is still scheduled to speak at the show being held at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre next month. "In the case of Lyndon LaRouche, you make it guilt by association," Irving Abella, a York University professor of Canadian Jewish history, said last night. "This is a man who is anti-Semitic, has a history of criminal activity and has expressed extreme views."
- Health group in hot water over second speaker. Krista Foss. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Feb 23, 2001. pg. A.19
...Lyndon LaRouche, an American rightwing extremist condemned by leading Jewish organisations as an anti-semite.
- Mystery death of anti-war student: Family calls for new German police inquiry after crucial questions left unanswered. Hugh Muir. The Guardian. Manchester (UK): Jul 12, 2003. pg. 14
In a Dec. 11 letter to Dunn, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe said LaRouche was not a legitimate Democrat because of expressed political beliefs "which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic."
- Democrats bar LaRouche from Utah primary. Dan Harrie. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Jan 8, 2004. pg. B.6
Hailed by backers as an economist and philosopher and denounced by detractors as a conspiracy theorist and anti-Semite, LaRouche has run for president...
- LaRouche donation upstages other issues ; Johnson apologizes again during 37th District candidates' debate; WILLIAM LAMB, STAFF WRITER. The Record. Bergen County, N.J.: Nov 1, 2007. pg. A.10

So there you go. Newspapers in three countries, quoting various notable sources, saying that LaRouche has been called "anti-Semitic" over 27 years, and that he's been denying it regularly. There are at least 200 more citations in the same archive that include LaRouche and anti-Semite that don't mention King. This is a widely-held view point, and NPOV requires that we include it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done a re-write on the intro to make it clearer and rewritten the King section to focus on the core of his assertions, and to make it shorter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Using the Big Lie against Dennis King

Once again (second posting above), the LaRouche editors are allowed to spread the old drug lobbyist-dealer-smoker lie against me with impunity, even though it is not relevant to the discussion at hand and is totally at variance with Wiki discussion page policy. My answer to this standard refrain (memorized and repeated by LaRouche Youth Movement members who know nothing about me) is at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/biglie.htm In capsule, convicted felon LaRouche--not me--was the one who worked for cocaine dictator Manuel Noriega and had the alliances with Carlos Marcello, Tony Pro, the Melis, the Patriarchas, Mitch Werbell, John Cody (the Gambino man in Local 282), and heroin banker Michele Sindona.--Dking 00:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I said you had a long-time association with the Yippies. Do you deny this? --Leatherstocking 01:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we can consider the source of these accusations. Maybe he has an association with some individuals, but how you'd stretch that affiliation into his being an alleged advocate of drug legalization, a label so important that it is stronger than his identification a leftist I have no idea. He is a writer, one article in a certain magazine does not make an allegiance. He is pretty clearly left-leaning (Progressive Labor Party) but the relevance of this to his published works which are what is of importance here is minimal. --arkalochori ^|talk| 02:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Arkalochori says about me: "He is pretty clearly left-leaning (Progressive Labor Party)." Just to set the record straight: My relationship with the PLP ended 34 years ago. For many years I have considered myself pretty much a political moderate, left-leaning on some issues, right-leaning on others.--Dking 14:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, thirty years is a long time after all. Again to Leatherstocking, I don't see the connection between knew five yippies becoming he was an advocate of drug legalization. --arkalochori ^|talk| 00:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say he was. I said two things: that he shouldn't be identified as a leftist (he says he's left leaning on some issues, right leaning on others -- but the idea that he's a "moderate" is a bit much.) I also said that he and Berlet should be identified with the drug culture or drug legalization movement -- maybe "counterculture" would be better. Hippies maybe. BTW, "Big Lie against Dennis King" is quite melodramatic and grandiose, reminds me of LaRouche. --Leatherstocking 18:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is all this defame Dennis King and Chip Berlet stuff allowed on this page? It has no relevance to the subject at hand, which is about creating a truthful autobiographical article about Lyndon LaRouche--a convicted felon whose past ties to drug traffickers and associates of organized crime have been well documented.--Dking 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the claim that the assertion that LaRouche is a fascist or anti-semitic is a "fringe" concept, proposed only by a couple of critics. I saw this quote from Oct. 29, 2007, by Democratic New Jersey Assemblyman Gary Schaer:

In a written statement, Schaer said: "For more than a generation, Lyndon LaRouche's neo-fascist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic remarks and writings have been well documented by numerous groups committed to fighting prejudice and bigotry."[14]

The view certainly isn't limited to only a few opponents. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Left vs Dropped Out

When does Wikipedia use "dropped out" and when does it use "left" when describing departing a college without a degree? Uncle uncle uncle 20:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Kronberg

With all due respect, I think the Kronberg material is getting a bit long. We should try to limit it to one or two lines of background plus the parts that directly relate to LaRouche himself, especially anything LaRouche has done or said in response. We have a whole article on Kronberg, so we should avoid devoting too much space to him here. the material on Molly Kronberg appears tangential and I think we should remove it entirely, or simply say that his widow blames LaRouche, or however it's best summarized. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I just shortened that section before I read this comment. --Terrawatt 14:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a short reference to the Molly Kronberg interview back into the Kronberg section. --Hardindr 21:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Which I reverted as a mistake. The link to the article is sufficient. --Marvin Diode 03:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The deletions by Marvin Diode are not acceptable. They are POV and based on marginal and idiosyncratic original research. Furthermore, there is an extensive pattern of tendentious editing. --Cberlet 03:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the deletions by Cberlet, who is obviously Chip Berlet? It looks like he and Dennis King are trying to present themselves here as scholarly types. I laughed when I saw King's edit summary about "the literature." So then Cberlet deletes a sourced quote from King because it is obviously a bit zany. I can guarantee you that if he found a zany quote from LaRouche, he would insist that it be included. --Niels Gade 15:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm: [[15]] --Cberlet 16:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Zany quotes from King may be better included in the article on King. This article is about laRouche, so we want the material which is most helpful in creating a full biography. We already spend too much space on the anti-Semitism issue in this article. It's already covered in greater depth in the "Views" article. I think the swastika imagery information is interesting, but not important enough to include in this biography that's too long already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Will Beback, Cberlet and Dking are trying to "spin" this section to make the accusations appear more plausible than they actually are, and this treads upon WP:BLP. For example, in Will's re-write of the section, he simply takes a number of King's more dubious claims, such as "LaRouche shifted his emphasis from the Rockefellers to the Jews," and states them as fact. Perhaps the one thing we agree upon is that the section is unnecessarily long. The "swastika imagery"section, however, is not merely interesting -- it sheds important light on King's methodology, and where something as serious as allegations of anti-Semitism is concern, this should not be sanitized. --Marvin Diode 21:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The point of my edit was to include the major points of King's assertions about LaRouche regarding anti-Semitism. This article isn't about King's methodology. If we have reliable sources that discuss his methodology we should include that in the article on King. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Molly Kronberg interview, I thought that it was more appropriate to leave it out altogether since it is in the linked article. But if Cberlet and Hardindr insist on adding to this article, then the other material [16] about her support for Bush and her apparent conflict with her husband's views belongs there also, under NPOV. --Marvin Diode 21:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true. The particular text I deleted is POV, misrepresents the underlying cites, and violates WP:SYNTH. --Cberlet 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I just read pages 75-77 of King's book. I find that the claims inserted into this entry use selective quotions in a way that do not reflect the complicated arguments being made by King, and instead trivialize them. As such, I have deleted them pending a full discussion.--Cberlet 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that your latest version just tries to put a positive "spin" on King's "complicated arguments." --Niels Gade 00:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the chapters of King's bio of LaRouche dealing with Jews? What do you think his main points are? How would you summarize it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

King on LaRouche on Jews

Proposed version by Will Beback

Here's my version of the summary of King's assertions about LaRouche's view of the Jews.

Dennis King cites LaRouche's connections with neo-Nazi and fringe ultra-conservatives, including Willis Carto, and Ken Duggan, as being a reason that LaRouche shifted his attention from the Rockefellers to the Jews in the mid-1970s. However King also notes that there were anti-Semitic writings before then. King reports that some Jewish members quit the movement due to anti-Semitic jokes, Holocause denial, and a perceived resemblance between LaRouche's writings and Mein Kampf. To placate others, King asserts, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew": " To be a real Jew, he suggested, one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community."[17] King compares LaRouches' writings with various Nazi and other anti-Semitic tracts going back to the 1890s and finds a common themes of connecting Jewish power with the British Empire. King points to assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families.[18] Daniel Pipes has contradicted some of King's assertions, writing: "Dennis King insists that [LaRouche's] references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really `code language' to refer to Jews. In fact, these are references to the British." [ref Pipes, Daniel, Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From, Simon & Schuster (Free Press), 1997, p. 142] noting that "LaRouche places a British-Jewish alliance at the center of his conspiracism."[Pipes, p. 137]

I think that properly and neutrally summarizes the two chapters of King's book that deal with this issue. Can anyone who's read the material suggest ways of improving it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Will Beback version

That is a complete and totally NPOV and fair summary. Kudos.--Cberlet 00:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more.

"Dennis King cites connections" is conspiracist wording; what exactly consitutes

a "connection"? "Cites" sounds authoritative, when based on what I have seen from King, "alleges" would be the case.

Your summary baldly states "LaRouche shifted his attention from the Rockefellers to the Jews" as fact, when this is undoubtably another allegation from King.

"To be a real Jew, he suggested," is written in such a way as to imply that it is LaRouche doing the suggesting, when in fact it is King doing so.

"King points to assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families." In fact, it is King that is suggesting that the families LaRouche criticizes are Jewish, and it is King that is claiming that it matters. One can criticize the Rothschilds as bad businessmen without giving a hoot whether they are Jewish.

"Pipes, however, also criticizes LaRouche's antisemitism," is OR -- the quote from Pipes says that "LaRouche places a British-Jewish alliance at the center of his conspiraism.[sic]," which does not necessarily mean that Pipes even claims LaRouche is anti-Semitic. You are again baldly stating that LaRouche is anti-Semitic as fact, when it is an allegation.

You have omitted King's analysis of "coded messages," presumably because it embarasses your POV-team. This is unacceptable -- it is a trademark methodology of King. --Marvin Diode 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see about fixing those problems:

Dennis King asserts that LaRouche made connections with neo-Nazi and fringe ultra-conservatives, including Willis Carto, and Ken Duggan, and so shifted his attention from the Rockefellers to the Jews in the mid-1970s. However King also asserts that LaRouche had written anti-Semitic commentaries before then. King reports that some Jewish members quit the movement due to anti-Semitic jokes, Holocause denial, and a perceived resemblance between LaRouche's writings and Mein Kampf. To placate other Jewish followers, King asserts, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew": "To be a real Jew...one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community."[19] King compares LaRouches' writings with various Nazi and other anti-Semitic tracts going back to the 1890s and finds a common themes of connecting Jewish power with the British Empire. King points to assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families.[20]

That addresses your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd points. Regarding your fourth point, the text I wrote:

King points to assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families.

is intended to summarize this text:

The LaRouchians listed what they believed to be the key institutions of British power in the twentieth century--the Fabian Society, the Round Table group, the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the British Secret Service, etc. Each was said to be under "Rothschild" control. In a pamphlet on the British aristocracy, LaRouche aide Chris White wrote that the scions of the Rothschild family "preside over" the British organs of power: The "evolution of the Rothschild family and its outlook" has determined the "evolution and outlook of the British political system."

How would you suggest summarize that point, which appears as part of a general explanation on LaRouche's view of the connection between important Jewish families and the British Empire? Regarding your 5th point, I didn't alter the text about Pipes. On further investigation I think we can improve our summary of what he says and should make it a standalone paragraph. Regarding your last point, I don't see "coded messages" mentioned in either chapter. According to whom is it King's trademark methodology? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The "coded messages" are found in Chapter 10 [21]. At least one commentator, Daniel Pipes, has found King's decoding notable, plus your own summary notes that King also thinks "Venetian" is code for "Jews." You use, in your above comment, the summary "King points to assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families," and then you quote a text from LaRouche which doesn't mention Jews at all, but does mention the Rothschild family. Please recall my above comment about how it is possible to criticize the practices of the Rothschilds without giving a hoot about whether they are Jewish -- your statement, and presumable King's, imputes a motive to LaRouche which is defamatory. --Marvin Diode 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't find "coded messages" used as a term in that chapter either. Could you please quote the text you're referring to? Does Pipes call "coded messages" King's "trademark methodology"? If so can you give a reference for it? My summary didn't mention Venetians. As for the Rothschilds, they are Jewish. They control the main institutions of British power. Therefore a Jewish family controls the British Empire. It is certainly possible to criticize the Rothschilds and other Jewish banking families without being ant--Semitic, but that's beside the point. This paragraph is only intended to summarize King's view of LaRouche, not to decide whether LaRouche is in fact anti-Semitic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of the problem of relying on LaRouchite publications for facts. King does talk about masked antisemitism in his book, but you would need to actually have a copy of King's book in front of you to find the references. Since the LaRouchites are incompetent hacks when it comes to research, we see that various chapters from King are put forward as proof, when in fact it is just another example of why LaRouchite publications are not considered a reputable source. Happy hunting. Hint--look for the Queen!--Cberlet 02:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

King's Chap. 10 doesn't really concern Jews or anti-Semitism, so I don't know why we'd cite that material anyway. If we had a section of views of LaRouche's purported fascism then it would be relevant. It's not relevant to anti-Semitism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I can't find "symbolic scapegoat" in Chapter 17, nor does the word "euphemisms" appear in Chapter 29. I'm left with the impression that whoever wrote that version hasn't actually read the book in question, and neither have the editors who keep restoring it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your impressions are false. Both "symbolic scapegoat" and "euphemisms" were added to the article by User:Dking.[22][23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.245.109 (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Those were words used in a summary of several chapters, and did not mention "coded" which is the term used by LaRouchites to disparage the work of critics detailing antisemitic tendencies.--Cberlet 13:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand which part of the previous comment you are disagreeing with. --Niels Gade 21:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The words were not quotes from the King book, but used by King in a summary. The comments by Will Beback were thus accurate.--Cberlet 21:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback said he thought that the words were added by someone who had not read the book, yet it appears that they were added by the author of the book. --Niels Gade 21:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please strop this nonsense, it is a waste of time. Will Beback wrote that whovever wrote the disputed version of the summary of King's book did not refer to the proper chapters, and overall the text misrepresented King's views. Move on. We are dealing with text that will properly reflect King's views. See below.--Cberlet 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed version by Marvin Diode

Having taken a look at Niels' draft, I would like to withdraw this and endorse Niels' version. --Marvin Diode (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is my version of the summary, which was intended to correct the defects in Will Beback's. The refs have been removed because the software gave me an error message:

Dennis King asserts that in order to hide anti-Semitism, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew." According to King, LaRouche thinks that to be a real Jew, "one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community." King also claims to have found "euphemisms," "semantic tricks," and examples of "symbolic scapegoating" in LaRouche's writings that he claims confirm the allegations of conventional anti-Semitism. For example, King claims that LaRouche's published attacks on Henry Kissinger include a disguised form of anti-Semitism. King further says these examples bolster his argument (which also references certain images used in LaRouche publications) that LaRouche is a neofascist whose world view secretly centers on anti-Semitism and includes a "dream of world conquest." He claims that certain photos of barred spiral galaxies and of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory plasmoid experiments which appeared in LaRouche's New Solidarity newspaper and Fusion magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika" and of the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest." He also points to a 1978 illustration in New Solidarity of Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David -- and certain headlines (in more recent LaRouche publications) such as "How the Venetian Virus Infected and Took Over England" -- to bolster his argument that LaRouche's attacks on a "British" oligarchy are often coded attacks on international Jewry. This latter claim is disputed by author Daniel Pipes, who writes: "Dennis King insists that [LaRouche's] references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really `code language' to refer to Jews. In fact, these are references to the British."

--Marvin Diode 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Marvin Diode version

Hopelessly biased and fails to reflect main contentions of King in an NPOV way. Trivializes antisemitism of LaRouche. Ignores long history of coded antisemitism in public discourse that became common after WWII. Other version by Will Beback is far better.--Cberlet 15:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am confused by your comments here -- on another post you made today, you say that coded antisemitism is "the term used by LaRouchites to disparage the work of critics detailing antisemitic tendencies," and yet here you say that this version "ignores long history of coded antisemitism." --Niels Gade 21:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And the questions about misquotations hasn't been addressed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Which are the questions that hasn't been addressed? Could you specify any misquotations? --Niels Gade 21:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are discussed under "Proposed version by Will Beback" above. The direct quotations don't match the references listed in the article. Marvin's version does not appear to be a correct summary of what King has written about LaRouche's alleged anti-Semitism. At least he's dropped the unsupported claim of "coded messages", but it still isn't a fair saummary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that King requires nearly this much verbiage. How about a simple one-line description: Journalist Dennis King has written a book-length conspiracy theory which alleges that LaRouche, who opposes both fascism and anti-Semitism, is covertly an anti-semitic fascist. That ought to be enough. --Terrawatt 22:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

King wrote the only full-length biography of LaRouche published in a reliable source, so he deserves as much space as anyone. That said, I agree that the paragraph can be shortened by sticking to what King says about anti-Semticism, rather than bringing other material into it. The overall section shouldn't be too long as the topic is covered in the "Views" article. Rather than dwelling on what King says I'd rather quote Royko, Moynihan, the ADL et al. to show that this is a viewpoint held by a variety of notable commentators. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(Irrelevant aside) I have been asked to participate in this discussion but I don't want to, because I need to complete a lengthy paper on the meaninglessness of the term "jihadism" by Sunday evening, and I am utterly fed up with the wiki model of consensus which guarantees that this stupid topic will be argued again and again for years to come. I think the wording "critics have variously seen him as a conspiracy theorist, an anti-Semite, or the leader of a political cult" is sufficiently neutral and should be preserved. Otherwise, godspeed to you all Shii (tock) 22:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose mediation as the quickest and most painless way of resolving this. --Marvin Diode 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be easier if we simply discuss the matter here. There are several outstanding questions about your proposa;, and you haven't addressed my responses to your questions about my proposal. If we're not discussing things here I'm not sure what a mediator can do to help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am unclear about what the "outstanding questions" are regarding my proposal. I looked back over your earlier comments and couldn't find what you refer to as "misquotations," unless you are talking about the use of the terms "euphemisms" and "symbolic scapegoating." I'm not particularly attached to those terms -- they apparently were added to the article by Dking. ---- Marvin Diode (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback. The version by Marvin Diode is not as good as the version by Will Beback. I propose we move on. This is starting to go in circles.---- Cberlet (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If Marvin isn't attached then let's remove them since they aren't in the sources listed. Regarding the spiral galaxies, that material doesn't appear in a discussion of LaRouche purported anti-Semitism. Since that alleged anti-Semitism is the focus of this section, I think we should limit ourselves to citing discussions of it. We should also summarize King's main points. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaving out the parts that Marvin isn't attached to, the parts that don't concern anti-Semitism, and the Pipes material, here's Marvin's version:

Dennis King asserts that in order to hide anti-Semitism, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew." According to King, LaRouche thinks that to be a real Jew, "one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community." King says that LaRouche's published attacks on Henry Kissinger include a disguised form of anti-Semitism. King further says these examples bolster his argument (which also references certain images used in LaRouche publications) that LaRouche is a neofascist whose world view secretly centers on anti-Semitism ~~and includes a "dream of world conquest."~~ He also points to a 1978 illustration in New Solidarity of Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David to bolster his argument that LaRouche's attacks on a "British" oligarchy are often coded attacks on international Jewry.

I think we can do better, but this is better than what's in there now. Let's keep wokring on it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does the quote "dream of world conquest" come from? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I found it, in Chapter 10 of King's book. However it doens't concern anti-Semitism so we should delete that too. While King does connect LaRouche's anti-Semiticism to an interest in fascism, I don't think we should get into that in this section. If we're going to explain Kings view of LaRouches' view of the connection between the British Empire and Jews, I think we can do better than that example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed the heading because this appears to be a section on comments on Marvin's version. Marvin said he wasn't attached to the sentence about euphemisms, yet you seem to have deleted a lot of other sentences too. It looks like you did this because you want to limit the discussion to anti-semitism charges, and I don't see the point to this. I think King's theory, which seems to be an agglomeration of guilt by association claims to suggest that LaRouche is a Nazi, should be dealt with as a whole. It could be done within the anti-semitism section, I don't see a big conflict. The Pipes material should stay, definately relevant. I recall there being more from Pipes in the last version Marvin did before they froze the article, maybe Marvin forgot to include it. The galaxies stuff should stay, too -- so much of the article is dominated by King's beliefs that it is appropriate to examine his methods. The section on German scientists (elsewhere in criticism) is very strange; it is partly factual, and partly some sort of innuendo that since LaRouche worked with the scientists, and the scientists worked for the German government, and the German government was Nazi, then LaRouche must somehow be pro-Nazi. In the Living Persons policy it warns against guilt by association claims, and if you feel you must include such claims by King, you should make sure that they are identified as such, so that it doesn't appear that Wikipedia gives credence to this technique (this would be my main criticism of the Will Beback version.) --Niels Gade (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course this material should be limited to anti-Semitism. The title of the section is "Allegations of anti-Semitism". Are you proposing changing it to "Allegations of anti-Semitism and fascism"? If so there are other allegations of fascism we should include too. If not we should keep it limited to anti-Semiticism. I'm not proposing deleting the Pipes material outright, I just left it out to simplify the editing of the stuff from King. I've got the Pipes book on order and will undertake a re-write once I've got it. If there are 3rd-party sources that addres King's methodology those would be appropriate in the article on him. As is standard with neutrality, we should make it clear that we aren't calling the subject anti-Semitic but are just reporting what is being said in reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If that is so, I suggest that you delete the sentence right now, written by Berlet in the present version, which says that Pipes "recognizes that LaRouche is an anti-Semite." --Niels Gade (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is protected so we can't change anything for a few more days. As I said before, I have the Pipes book on order and should be able to write a paragraph on his views of LaRouche and anti-Semitism next week. In the meantime, much of the book is available online courtesy of Google. I'm not sure Cberlet has done the best job of summarizing Pipes statement on p.137 of Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes from . which reads in part: "Lyndon LaRouche places a British-Jewish alliance at the center of his conspiracism..." I think we should leave aside the Pipe matter until later and focus on the King material for now. Do we agree to limit the overall section to the allegation of anti-Semitism, or do editors want to expand it to include allegations of fascism? I prefer to keep it limited because of space issues, and because we already have the "Views" article, but I'm flexible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be limited to those options. I favor Niels' proposal. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're abandoning efforts to improvement the text you previously edit-warred over? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to leave out Pipes entirely on this page. It would be a good compromise.--Cberlet (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Pipes apparently devotes considerable attention to LaRouche. Since he's a respectable figure and his book is a discusses some of LaRouche's conspiracies, he's a valuable and reliable source. However I agree that we should stick to the most important allegations. Leaving Pipes out entirely would leave a void, but if we want to devote space to the issue I think Moynihan and others are more prominent commentators. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion by Niels Gade

I think that the formatting of the criticism section is artificial. I propose the following. First, drop the subheaders. Start with a general paragraph that reviews criticism from various parts of the spectrum, Heritage Foundation, etc. Then Will's list of people who simply say "LaRouche is antisemitic," such as Moynihan, with a link to the section in "Views of Lyndon LaRouche." There should be a short paragraph on the ADL (and also the Australian ADC -- there is a noteworthy link in the CEC article to their attack on LaRouche, where their reasoning is that he attacks a particular family that is Jewish, and they say he "hopes' this will rub off on Jews in general. This is similar to King's argument about the Rothschilds.) Then a section on King, Berlet, and Wohlforth, who all make similar charges (including fascism,) and a discussion of their guilt-by-association and decoding techniques. The German scientists section should be shortened and combined into this section. The other notable decoding charges such as Bartley should be in this section too. I think that subheadings are generally unnecessary. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments of Niels Gade version

Why don't you write up a draft here of what you have in mind? --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would object to ad hominem attacks on critics of LaRouche. A "discussion of their guilt-by-association and decoding techniques" would require 3rd-party sources that I doubt exist. I don't think that grouping criticisms by critic is better than grouping it by type of criticism. This article isn't about the critics, it's about LaRouche. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done a preliminary version. As it turns out, grouping criticisms by critic is the same as grouping by type of criticism. I found that there were numerous allegations of antisemitism in the first part of the section, so that it then seemed strange to have another section called "allegations of antisemitism." The entire section was sort of a patchwork quilt that was obviously something built up over time by many different writers. I tried to make it more coherent but I'm sure it still needs lots of work. --Niels Gade (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's quite long and should have sub-sections in it for readability and organization. The problems start with the first sentence, which makes an unsourced and hard to verify assertion presented in a odd way:

The most common criticism of LaRouche in the mainstream press is that he is a conspiracy theorist, with some authors charging that this veers off into antisemitism.

Does even a single author claim LaRouche "veers off into antisemitism"? Is the ADL an author or a part of the mainstream press? Further, it ignores the discussion we've had above, including readding the misquotations in this text:

King also claims to have found "euphemisms,"[14] "semantic tricks,"[15] and examples of "symbolic scapegoating"[16]

It doesn't properly summarize what Pipes has to say. It doesn't quote the most notable commentators, like Moynihan and Royko, but instead focuses on the comments of lesser, though still significant, individuals. I can't see why Linda Ray deserves a long quotation. It's better to summarize than to quote, and this material is too long already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we're goig to have a consolidated "criticism" section it should give the best-possible overview of the criticims of the subject. A number of individuals have complained that LaRouche and his group defrauded them of their savings. Many of them testified in court, and their stories have been reported in the mainstream media. We can't leave them out of a general criticism section, especially since their criticisms led to criminal prosecutions.

·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of these comments and disagree with others. However, I'd like to suggest that we carry on this discussion here, so that we can examine the draft and the comments without having to jump from page to page. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I reject that suggestion since it is built around an already biased piece of text. We need to stay here and work out a proper NPOV text, not be lured off to an editing forum set up by one side or the other. Read Lakoff on framing. If one adopts the frame established by one side of a debate to have the debate, then the side that first framed the debate always has the advantage.

It seems that Will Beback is attemption an NPOV version. We should work with that version, taking into account the specific issues rasied by Will Beback above.--Cberlet (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have re-written my proposed draft of the criticism section, taking into account the comments of Will and Marvin. --Niels Gade (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The version we are working on is on this page. See below.--Cberlet (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed version by Cberlet

Here is my rewrite of the Will Beback version:

Dennis King observes anti-Semitic writings by LaRouche trace back to the early 1970s, although the Rockefellers were the main target at the time. King argues that LaRouche's emerging connections with neo-Nazi and fringe ultra-conservatives, including Willis Carto, and Ken Duggan, were the main reason that LaRouche shifted his focus to the Jews in the mid-1970s. King reports that some Jewish members quit the movement due to anti-Semitic jokes, Holocause denial, and a perceived resemblance between LaRouche's writings and Mein Kampf. To placate others, King asserts, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew": " To be a real Jew, he suggested, one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community."[24] King compares LaRouches' writings with various Nazi and other anti-Semitic tracts going back to the 1890s and finds a common themes of connecting Jewish power with the British Empire. King points to assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families.[25] Daniel Pipes has contradicted some of King's assertions, writing: "Dennis King insists that [LaRouche's] references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really 'code language' to refer to Jews. In fact, these are references to the British." [ref Pipes, Daniel, Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From, Simon & Schuster (Free Press), 1997, p. 142] Pipes also notes, however, that "LaRouche places a British-Jewish alliance at the center of his conspiracism."[Pipes, p. 137]

We can work with this.--Cberlet (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Cberlet version

That looks good to me. Thanks for improving it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are my comments to the Chip Berlet version:

Dennis King observes anti-Semitic writings by LaRouche trace back to the early 1970s asserts "anti-Semitic writings" as fact, when it is an allegation. This tactic is continued throughout the Berlet version:
LaRouche's emerging connections with neo-Nazi and fringe ultra-conservatives: allegation presented as fact. Incidentally, if this goes into the article, it should be balanced with the George/Wilcox view that "Although the transient relationship is frequently mentioned to illustrate "links" and "ties" between LaRouche and the extreme right, it was brief and fleeting. Given their respective personalities, a union of LaRouche and Carto would be a miracle under any circumstances."
LaRouche shifted his focus to the Jews in the mid-1970s: allegation presented as fact.
King reports that some Jewish members quit the movement due to anti-Semitic jokes, Holocause denial, and a perceived resemblance between LaRouche's writings and Mein Kampf. This is something that King alleges, not something he "reports."
King points to assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families. This is in fact an assertion by King, not LaRouche.

However, I agree with Niels that it is a bit silly to be confining our discussion to re-writing a paragraph that is supposed to focus on allegations of anti-Semitism, when much of the earlier part of the section is also about allegations of anti-Semitism. There should be a re-write of the entire criticism section, and I think Niels has made a useful start. If Chip is going to insist that it is impermissible to discuss this, we should start the mediation now. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Those issues are easily dealt with:

Dennis King asserts that anti-Semitic writings by LaRouche trace back to the early 1970s, although the Rockefellers were the main target at the time. King says that LaRouche made connections with neo-Nazi and fringe ultra-conservatives, including Willis Carto, and Ken Duggan, which were the main reason that, acording to King, LaRouche shifted his focus to the Jews in the mid-1970s. King asserts that some Jewish members quit the movement due to anti-Semitic jokes, Holocause denial, and a perceived resemblance between LaRouche's writings and Mein Kampf. To placate others, King asserts, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew": " To be a real Jew, he suggested, one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community."[26] King compares LaRouches' writings with various Nazi and other anti-Semitic tracts going back to the 1890s and finds a common themes of connecting Jewish power with the British Empire. King points to what he says are assertions by LaRouche that all of the main power centers in Britain are controlled by Jewish families.[27] Daniel Pipes has contradicted some of King's assertions, writing: "Dennis King insists that [LaRouche's] references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really 'code language' to refer to Jews. In fact, these are references to the British." [ref Pipes, Daniel, Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From, Simon & Schuster (Free Press), 1997, p. 142] Pipes also notes, however, that "LaRouche places a British-Jewish alliance at the center of his conspiracism."[Pipes, p. 137]

That should take care of each of the complaints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing that strikes me about this stuff is that there is no actual evidence of anti-Semitism. If King is to be believed, LaRouche 1) knew some anti-Semitic guys; 2) wrote some articles on Britain that remind King of other articles, written by some anti-Semitic guys; and 3) criticized some Jewish families and the policies of the state of Israel. However, this seems like an accurate depiction of King's message. I suggest that it be merged with Niels Gade's longer piece on the other page. --Terrawatt (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Our job isn't to prove or disprove LaRouche's anti-Semitism, it's just to report what notable people have said in that regard. 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs)

Categories: Talk archives