Talk:Synarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents
Archive
Archives


[edit] Recent edit warring

Loremaster, calling LaRouche a "revisionist historian" is Original Research, prohibited under Wikipedia policy. LaRouche has been called many things, but never that to my knowledge. And the article is about Synarchism. If people want to read Chip Berlet's rants, they can follow the link to Lyndon LaRouche. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisionist history carries both positive and negative connotations. Historical revisionism has both a legitimate academic use and a pejorative meaning. Within the academic field of history, historical revisionism is the critical reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards rewriting histories with either newly discovered information or a reinterpretation of existing information. The assumption is that history as it has been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate. The pejorative use refers to illegitimate manipulation of history for political purposes, for example Holocaust denial.
Although I agree that describing Lyndon LaRouche as a "historical revisionist" may be problematic, there is nothing pejorative in simply stating that LaRouche "revises history" when this in fact what he is doing. There would only be a problem if we were to say that LaRouche "negates history". Therefore, I will continue to restore the sentence that is in dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether your analysis is correct or incorrect. Wikipedia does not permit the inclusion of Original Research. You must use only opinions that have already been published in reliable sources, and you may not incorporate your own unsourced opinions. Also, please don't re-add off-topic material such as Berlet's opinions about LaRouche. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If more sources are needed I will had them. However, I haven't included original research. I have dispassionately stated facts therefore I'm restoring my edits and will continue to do so until this matter is resolved once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proceed with caution

Loremaster, you're not exactly a newbie around here, yet you don't seem to grasped a number of core policies. So, let me explain in very explicit way how they affect your edits:

  • WP:NOR: You may have an absolutely burning conviction that Lyndon LaRouche is an "historical revisionist," or that he is "engaged in historical revisionism." However, you may not add this to the article unless you have a reputable source that says, explicitly, that Lyndon LaRouche is an "historical revisionist," or that he is "engaged in historical revisionism." No matter how well reasoned your personal view is, it is considered Original Research unless it has been published.
  • WP:BLP: Since we are dealing with Living Persons, any characterization of a living person must be backed up by an A-1, absolutely trustworthy source. Until recently, Wikipedia was pretty lax about this, but I believe the community is getting much more serious on BLP. My view, having seen and participated in many discussions on this topic, is that Chip Berlet and his organization should be avoided as sources when it comes to BLP. Note also that BLP violations may be removed on sight without violating the 3RR rule, whereas if you edit war to restore them, you run the risk of being blocked.
  • WP:SYNTH: You may have an absolutely burning conviction that LaRouche is being accused, by some source, of something that seems to you very similar to his own definition of synarchism. However, unless the source explicitly says that "LaRouche is a synarchist," you are in violation of policy if you add it to this article. this edit is an example of a violation of SYNTH, because you are making your own claim that it is "similar to synarchism." It is off-topic and irrelevant. It is also a violation of BLP and NOR.

I am personally doubtful that this article needs to mention LaRouche, but as you can see from the edit history, some people feel strongly about it, and there are published sources where he discusses synarchism. I also think that we should avoid adding yet more material on Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre -- what we have is fine, but more would put it in the Undue Weight zone. --Marvin Diode (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. I don't have "absolutely burning convictions" when it comes to Lyndon LaRouche. For what's it worth, I'm neither "pro-LaRouche" nor "anti-LaRouche". When someones engages in the critical reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards rewriting histories with either newly discovered information or a reinterpretation of existing information, this is the textbook definition of "historical revisionism". Lyndon LaRouche is clearly doing this when he describes a wide-ranging historical "movement", "organization" or "phenomenon", involving a Martinist cult and their ideological descendants. I am simply making a neutral statement of fact when I say that LaRouche is "revising history".
  2. I can and will provides sources that state that LaRouche does engage in historical revisionism even if this isn't necessary in light of my explanation above.
  3. You have revealed both your "interest" in Lyndon LaRouche and your bias against his critics, Chip Berlet and his organization, so I feel justified in questioning your own objectivity.
  4. I have never said that "LaRouche is a synarchist" so I don't need a source to support such a statement. If the LaRouche movement is similar to LaRouche's own description of synarchist, it is not only ironic but more than relevant. However, I agree that it is original research to suggest it so I will find a better way of informing readers that LaRouche's thoughts on synarchism are dubious. It would be a disservice to them not to.
  5. It is not up to you to decide whether or not an article has enough material on Lyndon LaRouche or Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre.
--Loremaster (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have "proceeded with caution" and phrased a compromise (respectful of Wikipedia guidelines) which all reasonable watchers of the Synarchism article should be able to accept. I'm moving on since I don't have anything more to add. --Loremaster (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus needed

Guys, instead of writing "you need to change" or "you're wrong", how about "Here's a source which says X"? That is the simple basis for building a foundation for including a point of view. POVs are made neutral when someone produces a "Here's a source which says Y" counter. Both are best included in the article. Obviously none of your beliefs will be changed, but surely there are a number of issues you all can agree on, right? Please, find the common ground which you all agree is true. Name calling and reversion warring doesn't do anyone a bit of good. It impedes forward progress on the article, and discourages potential new helpers. I'm not familiar with the topic, but a cursory look at the debates indicate these points are without consensus:

  • Is the statement Lyndon LaRouche is a revisionist historian relevant to the article? How important is it? Isn't it enough to describe what synarchism is without saying who uses it?
    • If it is relevant, how should it be stated? Would it be better to edit Lyndon LaRouche instead?
  • Should the coverage of Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre be increased or decreased? Should the emphasis of his influence be changed?
  • The secret elite seems to be even further from the article's topic? True/False? Why or why not?
  • Are there any other points of dispute?

—EncMstr 04:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement Lyndon LaRouche is a revisionist historian is irrelevant, and a BLP violation which should be removed without waiting for consensus. The same goes for Loremaster's new version, Several critics have accused Lyndon LaRouche of holding a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history, and rewriting history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. He doesn't identify the critics, which of course are Dennis King and Chip Berlet. I am familiar with their writings and they don't say what Loremaster attributes to them, specifically the phrase which he links to Historical revisionism (negationism). Otherwise, they are not suitable sources under Biographies of Living Persons, and the whole last edit that Loremaster made is off-topic. I guess that just about sums it up for me. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem identifying critics. However, it seems that Terrawatt and Marvin Diode have appointed themselves authorities on the suitability of the critics of Lyndon LaRouche (who are all citable and notable published journalists and academics). This is unacceptable. --Loremaster (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a higher standard for the reliability of sources where BLP issues are concerned. This has been the subject of an ongoing discussion at WP:RSN#Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates. But on the other hand, there's no need to debate the suitability of the sources when the material itself is off-topic. This is an article about synarchism, and you are trying to take it off in some other direction. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Terrawatt is engaging in wikilawyering. This article is not a biographical article about Lyndon LaRouche. It's about his views on synarchism and how his views should be understood. I've made my case and it's now up to a Wikipedia administrator to judge. --Loremaster (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. I have provided sources but apparently any source critical of Lyndon LaRouche is biased and therefore unacceptable.
  2. I don't know why people keep bringing up the statement Lyndon LaRouche is a revisionist historian since I stopped using it a long time because I recognized that it was problematic. However, I argue that it is important that readers who stumble upon the Synarchism article understand that LaRouche isn't reporting history but revising history.
  3. I think it is revelant in the sense of informative to note that LaRouche's credibility in general and his views on the subject of synarchism in particular are dubious.
  4. The coverage of Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre is acceptable to me. The only thing that could be added to the subject is how his ideas have influenced modern political philosophy.
  5. "Rule by secret elite" as one definition of synarchy is relevant in light of its use by LaRouche and many other writers. The fact that Lyndon LaRouche condemns rule by a secret elite yet, according to his critics, advocates rule by an enlightened elite is not only ironic but relevant in the process of judging the value of his opinions.
  6. As I explained earlier, I am satisfied with the current version of the article and I will move on if my edits stand or are expanded upon rather than deleted due to bias.
--Loremaster (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please: make this easy for me. I've tried to sum up what's been answered so far, but the answers are at least an order of magnitude more complex than I expected.

  • Is the statement Lyndon LaRouche is a revisionist historian relevant to the article?
Terrawatt: No
Loremaster: No with qualifications
  • Should the coverage of Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre be increased or decreased? Should the emphasis of his influence be changed?
Loremaster: No
  • The secret elite seems to be even further from the article's topic? True/False? Why or why not?
Loremaster: False

Is this correct? —EncMstr 05:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be incorrect insofar as Loremaster appears to remain committed to getting some version of the "revisionist historian" formulation into the article. Loremaster makes the following comment: However, I argue that it is important that readers who stumble upon the Synarchism article understand that LaRouche isn't reporting history but revising history. It appears to be an important objective for Loremaster to link this section to the Wikipedia article Historical revisionism (negationism). Loremaster added source citations to King and Berlet, but to my knowledge they don't make this claim. Perhaps Loremaster could quote a passage on this talk page from a published source where this claim, that LaRouche "isn't reporting history but revising history," is made. Otherwise, it's Original Research.
Loremaster also asserts: I have provided sources but apparently any source critical of Lyndon LaRouche is biased and therefore unacceptable. This assertion is false. I will accept any criticism that appears in a reputable, published source, such as the New York Times or Washington Post, both of which have harshly criticized LaRouche for decades. However, I still would like an explanation of why any of this is relevant to the topic. In my view, if Loremaster wants to challenge LaRouche's credibility, the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" ought to do nicely -- LaRouche has been called that many times in reliable sources. Also, a link to LaRouche's bio would be appropriate. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. As I explained before, I am neither an apologist nor a critic of Lyndon LaRouche and/or his movement. It is because the Priory of Sion article links to the Synarchism article twice that I decided to improve the latter. In the process of editing this article, I realized that the section containing the views of Lyndon LaRouche on synarchy lacked context. Providing a critical view of LaRouche provides that context.
  2. When someone speculates about a wide-ranging historical "movement", "organization" or "phenomenon", involving, among others, the East India Company, Napoleon Bonaparte, Bertrand Russell, Adolf Hitler, the British royal family and the Beatles without pointing to any historical evidence or citing works of historical scholarship; one is clearly not reporting information that can be found in mainstream history books. Readers of the Synarchism article would be misinformed if they did not know this and simply took LaRouche's speculative views (if not propaganda) at face value.
  3. I have provided sources and will provide more if necessary. However, I don't think someone with a bias as Marvin Diode clearly has should be the arbiter of what is and isn't a good source. A published academic, however controversial he might be, is a good source.
  4. Lastly, in light of Marvin Diode's preoccupation with guidelines surrounding living people, I am perplexed that he would tolerate Lyndon LaRouche being described as a "conspiracy theorist" but not a "historical revisionist". Is this because Lyndon LaRouche has proudly described himself as a "conspiracy theorist"? I don't know. I'm just asking.
--Loremaster (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It's because reputable sources have described LaRouche as a "conspiracy theorist," so that characterization is not in dispute. I know of no reputable source that supports your claim that he is a "historical revisionist." Please note (in response to your claim that you have "provided sources and will provide more if necessary") that it is not a question of how many sources you list -- it's a question of whether any of them specifically back up your claim. Please quote a passage on this talk page from a published source where this claim, that LaRouche "isn't reporting history but revising history," is made. Otherwise, it's Original Research. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... Reputable sources have described LaRouche as a "conspiracy theorist" yet you never asked for sources. Why is that? Regardless, as I said before, I am not proposing that we should include my opinion that LaRouche is a "historical revisionist" or that he "isn't reporting history but revising history". I am proposing that we should include the accusation by some critics that LaRouche has engaged in "politically motivated historical revisionism". I will quote a passage on this talk page from a published source as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The disputed sentences should be removed on BLP grounds until such evidence is provided. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Since it might take me something to get a copy of the books I read a few years on the subject, I am willing to accept the following compromise text in the meantime:

Holding a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history, American political activist Lyndon LaRouche regularly uses the word "synarchy" to describe a form of government where political power effectively rests with a secret elite. He describes a wide-ranging historical "movement", "organization" or "phenomenon", involving the Martinist Order and their ideological descendants. He claims that during the Great Depression an international combination of American financial institutions, raw materials cartels, and intelligence operatives such as John Foster Dulles, installed fascist regimes throughout Europe (and tried to do so in Mexico) to maintain order and prevent the repudiation of international debts. LaRouche identifies Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney as a latter-day "synarchist", and claims that the "synarchists" have "a scheme for replacing regular military forces of nations, by private armies in the footsteps of a privately financed international Waffen-SS-like scheme, a force deployed by leading financier institutions, such as the multi-billions funding by the U.S. Treasury, of Cheney's Halliburton gang." However, several critics have accused Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement of advocating "a dictatorship in which a 'humanist' elite would rule on behalf of industrial capitalists."

--Loremaster (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The last sentence is irrelevant to the subject. It is also sourced to Chip Berlet's website (although not cited) which is inadequate for a claim about a living person, and on top of that, the claim is an asinine, malicious slur. It creates the impression that you are making a sly attempt to revive your earlier claim that LaRouche is some sort of synarchist, which if true, I suppose, would make it relevant, but since it's false, the point is moot. If you want to discredit LaRouche as a source on the nature of synarchism, why not take Marvin's suggestion and substitute something along the lines of "However, LaRouche is often described in the press as a conspiracy theorist." That is factually correct and can be sourced to mainstream publications. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm no longer interested in debating this dispute with someone has uncompromising (and biased) as Terrawatt. I think I have made my case and offered an acceptable compromise. It's up to a Wikipedia moderator to decide now. That being said, I prefer using the sentence "holding a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history" rather than calling someone a "conspiracy theorist". Furthermore, the sentence which is critical of what LaRouche advocates is relevant in light of his views on elitism. --Loremaster (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, you seem to have a penchant for infiltrating wildly misleading Wikilinks. For example, in your proposed edit, you have taken the phrase "prevent the repudiation of international debts" and inserted a link to United_States public debt#Amount of foreign ownership of U.S. debt, which is completely irrelevant. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Although I am willing to admit error if I inserted the wrong Wikilink (External debt would in fact have been the right one), the accusation that I have "a penchant for infiltrating wildly misleading Wikilinks" is groundless and shows bad faith. --Loremaster (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

<--------- I have repeatedly warned pro-LaRouche editors about continuing to spread the lie that the website of Political Research Associates is "Chip Berlet's website." Please desist. It is a violation of BLP, along with being false.--Cberlet (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial topic

I've made my last major edits to the Synarchism article, specifically the Rule by a secret elite section. I've rephrased the sentence that was considered controversial and provided two good sources for it. I consider this "controversy" to be a product of the pro-LaRaouche bias of some editors. However, I'm hoping they will be able to overcome it to end this needless dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial topic" means you discuss the edits before you make them, rather than trying to create a fait accompli. If you want to play around endlessly with the Saint-Yves d'Alveydre sections, you have my blessing. The rest of the article I'm reverting to where it was when it was unprotected. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restored all my edits that are not controversial. The following sentence is the one in dispute:

who is perceived as a conspiracy theorist and political cult leader by his critics,[1][2]

  1. ^ Mintz, John (1985). "Ideological Odyssey: From Old Left to Far Right". Retrieved on 2008-04-17.
  2. ^ Berlet, Chip; Lyons, Matthew N. (2000). From Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. Guilford Press. ISBN 1572305622. 

I ask all reasonable observers to comment on the pros and cons of adding this sourced sentence to the Rule by a secret elite section to describe Lyndon LaRouche. --Loremaster (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you consider it necessary? LaRouche has been called everything under the sun, so I would question why you select that particular formulation, and why it is relevant to the topic of the article. Frankly, after all the recent wrangling I see reflected on this page, I would suggest you stick with the present version of this article, declare victory, and move on. --Niels Gade (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not it is intentional, I'm concerned that the Synarchism article is disseminating Lyndon LaRouche's conspiracy theories matter-of-factly as if there are the views of a respected academic historian, as if they are or could be accepted by a majority of scholars in that field. Readers of the Rule by a secret elite section deserve to be informed of LaRouche's credibility in order to better understand and judge his views. --Loremaster (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
My sense is that the reader is likely to take the entire article with a grain of salt, especially after reading about how Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre associates Synarchism with "ascended masters" in subterranean caverns from the land of Shambhala and Agartha, who supposedly communicated with him telepathically." --Niels Gade (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Although that's possible, the section in question has nothing to do Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre. --Loremaster (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I support adding the material suggested by Loremaster.--Cberlet (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't. It's gratuitous and biased. I would, however, support the restoration of "activist and conspiracy theorist" in place of "dissident." --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
So "political cult leader" is gratuitous and biased but "conspiracy theorist" isn't?!? Despite how derogatory this term is, you have stated that you approve the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" to describe LaRouche because there are several reputable sources, which are very critical of (or "biased" against) LaRouche, that can be cited to support its use. The same can be said about term "political cult leader", which only refers to a leader of a group on what is generally considered to be the political fringe. By the way, the use of the term "dissident" is has been reappropriated by some. --Loremaster (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
"Dissident" would be fine by me, but it looks like you are angling for something more pejorative. "Cult leader" is used only by attack sites like PRA; your WaPo source doesn't endorse it per se. LaRouche, of course, scorns the "cult leader" label. He also scorns what he calls "populist conspiracy theories" of the John Birch Society type.[1] But on the other hand, he insists that there are actual conspiracies, some of which he supports, such as the conspiracy which led to the American Revolution. So if you need something more pejorative than "dissident," I would say that "conspiracy theorist" is not entirely unfair. I oppose the "cult leader" description. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I am honestly not using the word "dissident" pejoratively (on the contrary, I would personally love to be considered a dissident). It simply seems to be the best word to describe LaRouche from a neutral perspective. Furthermore, there is a difference between a "cult leader" and a "political cult leader". I consider the latter less pejorative. But ultimately it doesn't matter since the issue is reporting (while citing sources) what critics have said about LaRouche in order for readers to able to judge the credibility of his views. It seems that both you and Marvin Diode have a bias for LaRouche and a bias against PRA. Unlike the two of you, I'm simply presenting the facts, however awkward they may be. --Loremaster (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm dropping the term "conspiracy theorist" to directly describe LaRouche since I've moved it to an introductory sentence. Therefore, I am now suggesting the inclusion of the following sentence as a good compromise:

, leader of a movement considered by some to be a crypto-fascist political cult,[1][2]
  1. ^ Mintz, John (1985). "Ideological Odyssey: From Old Left to Far Right". Retrieved on 2008-04-17.
  2. ^ Berlet, Chip; Lyons, Matthew N. (2000). From Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. Guilford Press. ISBN 1572305622. 

Thoughts? --Loremaster (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than being a compromise, it appears to be more tendentious than your last proposal. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... I actually agree. Let me think about an alternative. --Loremaster (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
LaRouche has been called a Communist, an anti-Semite, anti-Irish, a "wealthy Jew," a liberal, a conservative, an "unrepentant Marxist-Leninist," ad nauseum. The place to catalogue and weigh the various malicious characterizations is at the Lyndon LaRouche article. It's superfluous here. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If you read what I wrote carefully, you will notice that "crypto-fascist political cult" is what the LaRouche movement is being called not him. That being said, I am will to offer something less tendentious:
, leader of a controversial movement on the political fringe,
Factually accurate and neutral. The best compromise? --Loremaster (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I note that political fringe redirects to "extremism." Delink it, and I'll support the edit. Incidentally, why do you insist on so many links? They should be used only when they are actually informative, not for purposes of innuendo. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a matter of opinion since I think these links are, er, extremely informative. That being said, I added the sentence you approve. I consider this particular dispute now resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no unbiased justification for the removal of Berlet's book as a source for this statement. Is a Wikipedia administrator going to intervene to put an end to these transparent attempts by pro-LaRouche editor to whitewash Wikipedia articles? --Loremaster (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In short: no. See your talk page. —EncMstr (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine. Can you perhaps explain to me whether or not there is anything wrong with the source I used for the compromise statement everyone seems to be able to accept? --Loremaster (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There is an extensive, on-going debate at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about whether Chip Berlet/Political Research Associates is a suitable source, especially where BLP issues come into play. Mainstream sources are available to support the "fringe" characterization; I recommend this one. --Marvin Diode (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
But the problem with taking that debate into account is that some of the participants, including you, have a pro-LaRouche bias. --Loremaster (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I have had little to do with actually writing LaRouche-related articles. But I will say that the Chip Berlet productions seem to me to be too venomous and propagandistic to be used as a source about LaRouche or any other Living Persons under WP:BLP, and I have objected to their use in a variety of circumstances. There are undoubtably people on both sides of the the Reliable Sources debate who are biased, so your claim about that debate is sort of meaningless. Do you have an objection to the mainstream source that I propose? --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
My point is that your opinion about the worth of this source is not a fact. Berlet is a notable, published academic. The fact that his writings might be "too venomous and propagandistic" is a POV that anyone could argue about any source they disagree with. That being said, Berlet's book is not being quoted from but simply cited as source. You're making a dispute out of nothing. --Loremaster (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It was a simply question, Loremaster. Why would you prefer to cite Berlet, when a mainstream source is available? --Terrawatt (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Simple answer: Berlet is more comprehensive than most mainstream sources that tend to be superficial. --Loremaster (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Too simple: mainstream sources tend to be more responsible, and less likely to fling inflammatory charges without evidence. Berlet has a penchant for constructing defamatory fairy castles out of pure speculation. The WP:BLP policy on sources is intended to prevent precisely this sort of thing at Wikipedia. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Again this is your opinion not fact. You're simply wikilawyering to exclude a source you are biased against. Regardless, as I said before, Berlet's book is not being quoted from but simply cited as source. So this is taking your bias too far. --Loremaster (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Loremaster, please let me call your attention to this passage from the beginning of WP:BLP. I would ask you to pay particular attention to the final sentence. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

– WP:BLP

Marvin Diode, please let me call your attention that citing Berlet's book as source for the no longer controversial sentence does not in anyway violate the Wikipedia guidelines you quoted from. You are simply engaging in wikilawyering. By the way, being critical of a living person's movement is not the same thing as being critical of the living person in question. --Loremaster (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this was discussed elsewhere, and I think the consensus was that the BLP policy applies to eponymous movements as in this case. But my question for you, Loremaster, is the following. You say that the source citation doesn't matter, because the sourced claim is non-controversial. If that were really true, you would have no problem using the New York Sun as a source. However, you seem very insistent upon bringing in Berlet as a source, which suggests to me that there is an inconsistency in your argument. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. My point is that 1) Berlet is the most extensive source on the subject while others sources tend to be superficial, and 2) I think it is outrageous how pro-LaRouche editors are manipulating Wikipedia guidelines in order to whitewash any critical mention of LaRouche on Wikipedia so, although I am willing to make compromises, I am not going to roll over. It's a question of principle for me: Readers are entitled to know the facts. --Loremaster (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Berlet is a very dubious source, because he engages in a great deal of speculation and innuendo. He is definately on the fringe of "LaRouche criticism." Now, elsewhere on this page, you say this: "I'm not "pro-LaRouche" nor am I "anti-LaRouche." And yet, you insist that only Berlet is an acceptable source. Your story doesn't add up. --Niels Gade (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion of Berlet is nothing more than an opinion. Regardless of what you think of him, Berlet is a citable published academic. He has extensively written about LaRouche. That's the reason why I am citing him rather than someone else. This has nothing to do with being "pro-LaRouche" or "anti-LaRouche". I don't care about him, his movement or his critics. We could be having the same dispute about Mother Theresa vs Christopher Hitchens and I would be defending the use of the latter as a source even if I worshiped the former as a saint. So find me someone who has written on LaRouche as extensively as Berlet has and I will cite him instead since I only care about being ruthlessly comprehensive when it comes to sources and not letting you or any of the pro-LaRouche editors whitewash this article. By the way, it is because of strong critics like Berlet that the sentence about the LaRouche movement being controversial makes any sense and is necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding another an edit war

I would like to move on since I'm satisfied that the current version of the Rule by secret society section of the Synarchism article is relatively well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, and neutral. Although people are welcome to improve it, deletion of disputed content or references should be done after a discussion has been engaged and a consensus reached. Can we at least agree to this rather than engaging in another edit war? --Loremaster (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, and your views on the question of the disputed source are distinctly in the minority. I don't know whether one version has to have 100% approval to be "consensus," but I would suggest that you respect the majority view. As to the other edit, about the "power behind the throne," perhaps you should explain what you are trying accomplish. It does seem peculiar and the link is inappropriate. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not my view is in the minority, my view is still one that none of you pro-LaRouche editors have been able to legimitately refute as demonstrated by the fact that no one responded to my last intervention in the section above for weeks. As for my edit about "power behind the throne", if you read LaRouche's essay, it seems that he was critical of the powerful interests who backed and/or funded Hitler. Therefore, the expression "power behind the throne" seems appropriate since its refers to "a person or group that informally exercises the real power of an office". That being said, if one argues convincingly that it isn't appropriate, I would have no problem deleting it. --Loremaster (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I recommend that you delete it. You are adding your own gloss to the material cited in the source, and although it may be plausible it still falls under the category of original research. The phrase is also awkward. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You have an extreme interpretation of the NOR guideline which you seem to selectively use whenever you are unsure whether or not a new edit threatens your intepretation of LaRouche's views. That being said, since I agree that the phrase sounds awakward, I will delete in favor something better. --Loremaster (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I have a feeling that pro-LaRouche fanaticism will always threaten the stability of this page (and I have better things to do then waste my time undoing vandalism), I've decided to drop the Berlet book as a source in favor of the Washington Post article mentioned in a section above. I therefore consider this dispute and controversy over. --Loremaster (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)