Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Views of Lyndon LaRouche, has edited Wikipedia as
Cberlet (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Views of Lyndon LaRouche, has edited Wikipedia as
Dking (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.


Contents

[edit] How about this

"Nor have his economic theories attained any kind of recognition. The LaRouche-Riemann Method, an economic model that LaRouche calls "the most accurate method of economic forecasting in existence," has gone unnoticed by the social science indexes. Many former members admit to not understanding it." from the Washington Monthly. Seems like a reliable source, and moreover, it seems to be true, which kind of begs the question why theories that are unnoticed have so much notice on Wikipedia. Gives the appearance that both the pro's and the con's want to use up as much Wiki space as they can grab, irrespective of the notability of any of this. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The basic question is whether you think LaRouche is sufficiently notable to merit an article about his views. If not, there should be a vote to delete. If so, his views should be presently objectively and accurately. The Washington Monthly article is a smear, sponsored by people who are familiar with LaRouche's economic theories and wish to suppress them. I'm not going to argue that the Washington Monthly shouldn't be used as a source, since I understand how things work around here. But the press coverage of LaRouche in Russia and China clearly demonstrates that in other parts of the world his ideas on economics have "attained recognition." --Niels Gade (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This is silly. There is no evidence from reputable published sources that LaRouche is anything other than a crackpot theoriest, politically impotent, and non-notable other than as a convcited felon and cult leader. I have no idea why LaRouche has more Wiki pages than Francis Bacon. It is outlandish.--Cberlet (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The above editors illustrate my point quite nicely, I think. Seems to be a breakdown in the system. Out of a spirit of openness, I would have no complaints of a paragraph or two under this heading. Larouche, a convicted felon and minor party politician believes Queen of England, Rothschilds, drug lords, bla bla bla; gone unnoticed, bladibla; end of story. I can't imagine that the Wiki community wouldnt support and kindly enforce such an entry (I mean what, has the Supreme Court issued an injunction against deleting this crap?). But, seems to moi, that, as the saying goes, it takes two to tango, and the prodigious amount of server space afforded this silliness is the end result of some tacit agreement to carry on a conflict that no one other than the players really cares for simply because it is of benefit to the players involved (who spend ample amounts of space trying to convince us minions that it is truly really super duper important and the end is near if we don't heed (pick one)). Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


I have seen a pattern develop over time, where a LaRouche article remains stable for a while, then Cberlet adds something provocative and derogatory (generally self-cited,) and then other editors rush to add rebuttal material. In this way the articles grow like a coral reef. I think that they could all be shortened. However, I wouldn't support what Boodlesthecat appears to be suggesting, which is to simply use dismissive material from LaRouche's more mainstream critics. Niels Gade's point appears to be correct, which is that outside the U.S. LaRouche is more warmly received. I'd like to see shorter, yet also more neutral articles. There is enough non-controversial material available to cover LaRouche without constant assaults on BLP. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I want to make my position clear. I support deleting all the LaRouche-related articles on Wikipedia except for Lyndon LaRouche. I would be happy to flag them all for a vote for deletion, is that is what a mjority of editors here want. The only reason I have not done this is out of respect for Will Beback.--Cberlet (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
While there have been a few positive press reports from Russia and China, I haven't seen any that have given serious attention (or recognition) to the "LaRouche-Riemann Method". I don't think we cn blame Cberlet for the amount of space devoted to that unrecognized theory. That material was written by user:The Power of Reason, believed to be a sock of user:Cognition. As one editor commented in the AfD for the standalone article, "Unfortunately LaRouche is a charismatic kook, and it is better to document his kookery than censor it." Regardless of what we think of LaRouche or his views, there's merit in documenting the views. Regarding Glade's view of the Washington Monthly article, this article has a section devoted to "LaRouche vs. the media". If we ever wanted to make this article longer that'd be a good place to start. Overall, I think this article serves as a useful catch-all for views which we'd otherwise devote space to in LaRouche's biography and other related articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the Eugene V. Debs article serves as a good model for structure and size (no actual similarities intended). No endless sidelines and the "wit and wisdom" etc. And this is an article on someone whose writings and life actually are influential. So Will Beback, I ask ya--what exactly IS the "merit in documenting the views" of Larouche (in abject contravention of notability and a zillion other guidelines) in an encyclopedia (much less the real world)? I don't at all buy the strawman "it is better to document his kookery than censor it" claim. Is every possible configuration of words that could theoretically be in wikipedia "censored" by virtue of not being included? The argument to make this a "catch-all for views which we'd otherwise devote space to in LaRouche's biography" begs the question. Just do the latter! Again, I'm baffled by why this is such a seeming conundrum when there are very clear guidelines on the matter, and simple enforcement procedures. It still makes me think there is some committment, some unwritten agreement to make this far far bigger than it is in real life. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Taking first the issue of the number of LaRouche-related articles: Many of the articles exist because they fit some definition of notability. The political parties, (Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität, Citizens Electoral Council, European Workers Party, North American Labour Party, Party for the Commonwealth of Canada, U.S. Labor Party) and California Proposition 64 are inherently notable. Several of the LaRouche associates, such as Robinson and Bevel, are independently notable. Many of the other articles on people or organizations could be merged into the umbrella article, LaRouche movement. (It's questionable to what extent groups like WLYM should be regarded as independent groups anyway). Then there are the articles about LaRouche himself: the bio, the views, the presidential campaigns, and the trials. I think we've done a reasonable job, as a dysfunctional ad hoc committee, of avoiding too much overlap between those articles but an unconstrained editor could coordinate them better. The presidential campaigns and trials received extensive press coverage and I don't think we devote excessive space to them. We don't even begin to include all that we could say about the campaigns with the many lawsuits and battles over FEC money, ballots, debates, etc. The trials are covered pretty well and I think it's one of the best articles on LaRouche topics that we have. We could merge the trials and campaigns into the bio but it wouldn't be easy. Lastly, there's this article. Since LaRouche's views on many issues are complicated and obscure it isn't easy or quick to explain them. By analogy, the complicated plot of a poor movie may take longer to explain than the simple plot of a great movie. I think this is the worst of the LaRouche-related articles but it is accurate and neutral. My overall conclusion is that, like many complicated living figures, we may have to wait until a decade or two after his passing before we can gain proper perspective on his life and impact. Until then these articles are a work in progress. While the fighting over the content is disruptive, the existence of these articles doesn't harm the project and serves as perhaps the best neutral resource about the man and his movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Winterberg and LaRouche in 1985.jpg

Image:Winterberg and LaRouche in 1985.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed this. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit by an administrator

{{editprotected}}

I see that this article has a long "Dennis King" section, longer than necessary in my opinion. I spotted a misleading section, which I think could be corrected easily with a few minor changes. I will quote the section as it presently reads, and then show how I think it should be changed:

(present version)He associates the elite's medieval form with Italian banking families, primarily Jewish ones, that he blames, according to King, for poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague.[11] [12] As to the modern elite, LaRouche has connected it with a cabal of mostly Jewish banking families in London.[13] [14]. According to King, LaRouche has described this elite in many of his articles as an alien race hostile to the human species.

(proposed new version)He associates the elite's medieval form with Italian banking families, primarily Jewish ones according to King. King asserts that he blames this elite for poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague.[11] [12] As to the modern elite, LaRouche has connected it with a cabal comprised, according to King, of mostly Jewish banking families in London.[13] [14]. LaRouche has described this elite in many of his articles as an alien race hostile to the human species. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

N Not done Please establish consensus for this change. Happy‑melon 15:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No. Not acceptable. It is the fifth anniversary of the death of Jeremiah Duggan. Uncritical LaRouche advocates already dostort NPOV on Wikipedia far too much. No more. Basta! LaRouche's notorious antisemitism is well documented. --Cberlet (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
And what does any of this have to do with the proposed edit? --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The current formulation was arrived at following extensive discussion (see above). I don't think we should ask for chnages until we've agreed upon the proposed text. I don't think the proposer has adequately explained the need for the changes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The changes I am proposing are small, but intended to correct an inaccuracy in the text. LaRouche refers to Italian bankers. It is King's claim that they are Jewish. However, the way the article currently reads, it makes it look like the "Jewish" identification comes from LaRouche. This is a simple matter of accuracy in reporting a source. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be very similar to the edit proposed by banned user, user:Masai warrior, back in October. How is it different? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It is very similar. Masai Warrior's proposed version goes as follows:
He associates the elite's medieval form with Italian banking families, which according to King are primarily Jewish ones. King writes that he blames them for poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague. As to the modern elite, LaRouche has connected it with a cabal of banking families in London, which according to King are mostly Jewish.
However, the fact that it is similar to a version proposed by a banned user is a diversion, and appears to be an attempt at guilt by association. My views on this are as follows: there are three possible ways to attribute the claims. One would be to LaRouche himself, which I think is highly unlikely -- there is certainly nothing in the cited sources to justify it. Another would be to attribute it to King, who clearly wished to impute anti-Semitic tendencies to LaRouche. Another would be the approach taken by some editors in the debate last October, which was "since LaRouche has been accused of anti-Semitism, he probably intended an anti-Semitic slur even if he didn't say it directly." However, this approach cannot be attributed at all, because it is Original Research. Therefore I support the proposed change. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that Masai warrior/Anti-Gorgias correctly summarizes the material. And I don't think it's an important enough distinction to thrash out further, considering the already considerable attention given that paragraph. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If you are accusing me of being a sock for a different editor, please withdraw your personal attack. And then please be specific about in what way I am "incorrectly summarizing the material." In fact, I am not summarizing the material at all. I am simply clarifying who said what. I am frankly very surprised that anyone wants to argue about it, because it appears to me to be an open-and-shut case. And I also reject the idea that it is unimportant. My impression is that Wikipedia wants very much to avoid misquoting public persons. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the changes you propose improve the article, or make it more accurate. From my reading of the essay, it appears to me that LaRouche is the one who is asserting that an Italian family, involved in banking, was responsible for "poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague". We discussed this last year at great length. It's tendentious to keep bringing it up without providing any fresh evidence or arguments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be evading his question. It's a pretty fabulous leap from LaRouche attacking one Italian family, which is not in dispute, to the claim that the families of the medieval elite are "mostly Jewish," which is clearly King's own contribution to the discussion. In response to Anti-Gorgias, it is true that in theory Wikipedia says it wishes to avoid misrepresenting Living Persons, but in practice it is far different. Note the comment by Jimbo Wales's ex, Rachel Marsden, where she says that "Wikipedia is nothing more than the biggest and most prolific defamation machine that the world has ever known, run by people with varying degrees of personality disorders."[1] Oh-- and Will should withdraw his personal attack on Anti-Gorgias. --Niels Gade (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Whose question? This is the exact same issue we already discussed at #Basis for removal of OR and #Attribution (above). This dispute is one of the main reasons this article is now locked. There was no consensus for this proposed change in October and there isn't one now. No fresh evidence or arguements are being provided. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The question by Anti-Gorgias, in which he asked you to be specific about how he is "incorrectly summarizing the article," is the one that you appear to be evading. And as you wrote on October 10, "This is a longterm project. We might not get this article right today, this year, or even before the subject's death." But I see no reason to delay fixing something that needs to be fixed -- misquoting someone to insinuate that they are antisemitic is a BLP issue, and BLP policy is to fix such violations, with or without a real or imagined "consensus." --Niels Gade (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No one has yet explained to me why my proposed change is even controversial. LaRouche never said that the "elite" that he describes is "mostly Jewish." That's a fact. Dennis King, on the other hand, has made that claim. Fact. Therefore, it should be a simple editing job to point out that the claim comes from Dennis King. Does anyone dispute this? --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Other than Jewish Italian banking families, who does LaRouche blame for "poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague"? It appears to me that the ones he blames are primarily Jewish. I don't see the misquotation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
He mentions one family, and from that, "it appears to you" that the families in the elite are primarily Jewish? First of all, that is logically absurd. But secondly, as Marvin points out, it's original research. That's two good reasons to change the edit. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody cares about how it appears to you, the proposed change is about how it appears to King. -- Naerii 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Anti-Gorgias' suggestion here, it's a trivial matter to attribute claims to the people who make them rather than stating them as fact. -- Naerii 22:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

<-----Here is some more published material on the subject. I look forward to the section on LaRouche's antisemitism greatly expanded:

  • In the 1970s, the LaRouchites’ anti-Jewish propaganda was relatively explicit, as in LaRouche’s 1978 article "New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism," which declared that "The B’Nai B’rith today resurrects the tradition of the Jews who demanded the crucifixion of Jesus Christ , the Jews who pleaded with Nero to launch the ´holocaust´ against the Christians."[5] Gradually the LaRouchites developed increasingly sophisticated ways to invoke antisemitic themes while still maintaining deniability.
  • The LaRouchites borrowed conspiracist elements from various sources to produce their own Manichean picture of world history. For thousands of years, they argued, the good "humanists" had been locked in a power struggle with a vast conspiracy of evil "oligarchs." In ancient times, the oligarchic conspiracy was centered in Babylon; later it shifted to Venice; in modern times it was centered in Britain’s royal House of Windsor. This narrative evoked standard elements of antisemitic doctrine: that Jews had dominated ancient Babylon and that Jewish banking families controlled the British government. Sometimes the LaRouchites highlighted prominent Jews as members of the conspiracy, such as "[Henry] Kissinger ’s friends, the Rothschild family, and other representatives of Britain’s financial power." At other times, they portrayed Jews as unwitting tools of the oligarchs, as for examp
  • In the 1970s, LaRouche and his followers described the British oligarchs as a separate "species" and often referred to people of color as bestial or subhuman..."Zionism is that state of collective psychosis through which London manipulates most of international Jewry."
  • --Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons. 2000. Right–Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press.

--Cberlet (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I was under the impression that you weren't allowed to cite yourself? -- Naerii 03:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect.--Cberlet (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The really clear issue here is that this entry has been sanitized by POV warriors for LaRouche. Some have already been banned from Wikipedia, yet their sanitization campaign remains as flawed, biased, and grotesque apologia for LaRouche in this entry and others. LaRouche is described in real publications that have a backbone and a sense of morality as a "notorious antisemite". Only on Wikipedia is a bigoted propaganda campaign allowed to rewite reality to favor a neofascist, antisemite, and convicted felon. It is a disgrace. Wiki administrators should be ashamed. Jimbo apparently doesn't care that this is the outcome of macho libertarianism run amock.--Cberlet (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
We cannot categorically state that LaRouche is an anti-semite, especially if he disputes this himself, only say that some people have said that he is. This is a simple case of attributing claims to their source. Your opinion about which publications have morality and backbone is not relevant. -- Naerii 03:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not suggesting we violate Wikipedia rules. I am suggesting we follow them. What has happened on Wikipedia is that pro-LaRouche single purpose POV warriors have relentlessly struggled to create misleading unbalanced POV entries on LaRouche, his associates, and affiliated organizations. The pages have become a major source of international propaganda for the group, minimizing his antisemitic and neofascist theories. A reputable published source would never allow its pages to be used in this way. The text about the LaRouchites on Wikipedia contains far too many words for his importance (almost nil) in world politics. There is more text here on the LaRouchites than many major world figures. The text is continuously sanitized in a way that calls into question the majority viewpoint of scholars and journalists. The reason this situation exists is that administrators, the arbcom, and Jimbo lack the backbone and moral clarity to enforce the rules set by the Wikipedia community. There is a reluctance to take on a small group of determined cult fanatics with endless hours to nitpick each LaRouchite entry line by line until it portrays LaRouche and his minions in a more favorable light. Editors wear down and give up. So Wikipedia becomes complicit in assisting a "notorious antisemite" and one of the world's leading purveyors of antisemitic propaganda and neofascist theories. If Wikipedia rules were enforces, this would not be the case. It is directly relevant to the situation throughout Wikipedia, and on this entry.--Cberlet (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Cberlet, your continual soapboxing is not helpful and is in fact entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is a very specific issue, as Naerii said, of attributing claims to their source. I have to wonder why you are so reluctant to attribute claims to their sources. For example, it strikes me as odd that your keep repeating the formulation that LaRouche is a "notorious antisemite" while neglecting to mention that you are quoting yourself. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

<--------"notorious antisemite" or variation used to describe LaRouche before publication of EJ.

For the record. Also, there are dozens of cites to major reputable published sources describing LaRouche and his views as antisemitic. Attempts to deny this are disgraceful and mendatious.--Cberlet (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: is anyone here talking about removing criticism? I can't detect any such proposal. As far as I can see, the only issue is attributing criticism. So I think Berlet's comments are a red herring. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I am talking about adding attributed material to balance this page. The current page entry does not have enough balanced material, minimizes or brackets all criticism of LaRouche, and is otherwise a propaganda outpost of the LaRouchite Internet presence. It is a disgrace. The issue is the relentless and POV rewriting of sentences on this page over many months to produce content that misrepresents the reality of what LaRouche writes, what LaRouche says, and the fact that most reputable published sources state that LaRouche, on balance, is a crackpot and an antisemite, and his denials are bogus. If this page cannot be made to conform to Wikipedia standards by the addition of a proper balance of NPOV material, it should be deleted. Let's discuss this for a few days.--Cberlet (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You may be talking about adding more material, but nobody else is. I suggest you pursue your RFC below, but avoid making further comments to this particular discussion unless they are germane to the very specific topic of Anti-Gorgias' proposed edit. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I just reviewed your last 500 edits, Marvin Diode. It appears that the vast majority are directly related to Lyndon LaRouche, his front groups, or claims made by his network. Almost all of them reflect the LaRouche perspective. You appear to be a single purpose POV editor. Why do you think you should be allowed to continue to edit LaRouche-related articles here on Wikipedia. I think it is obvious that you are violating basic Wikipedia policies.--Cberlet (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Berlet, are you here to argue against the atribution of the claims about the medieval elite to Dennis King? If so, you haven't provided a reason. What would you hope to accomplish by not attributing these claims? And if you are not here to address this question, why are you wasting everyone's time? --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's see, Anti-Gorgias, every single edit you have made to date on Wikipeida is on a LaRouche-related page. --Cberlet (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I would say we have a consensus, the only people opposing are not addressing the issue. -- Naerii 00:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hardly, what we have is a bevy of single-issue pro-LaRouche editors and a handful of others who refuse to see the obvious problem.--Cberlet (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently what you refer to as the "obvious problem" is a problem other than the one under discussion here. You have yet to address the problem under discussion. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the underlying problem is directly related to this topic: another attempt by single-issue pro-LaRouche POV warriors to sanitize or minimize any reference to antisemitism or other bigotry on the part of LaRouche or his many front groups. Do you dispute that you are a single-issue editor here on Wikipedia, Marvin Diode? Do you dispute that other published authors have written about LaRouche's grand conspiracy theory that stretches from Aristole and Babylonian rabbis, through Venetian Jewish money lenders, to British elites in league with the Rothschilds and other Jewish banking familes? We do not need to rewrite one sentence, we need to restore the NPOV material explaining what LaRouche writes, what LaRouche claims it means, and--with attribution--what almost all of the non-LaRouche published journalists and scholars conclude: that it is a restatement of classic historic antisemitic bigotry. So I am discussing the topic.--Cberlet (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Less of the ad hominem, please. I for one am not a "single issue pro-LaRouche POV warrior" and I don't think that attributing claims to their source is an attempt to sanitize or minmise LaRouche's alleged antisemitism. If anything, determined efforts to state claims as fact without attributing them is POV-pushing (and a violation of BLP, too). -- Naerii 21:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Stating the facts is not an ad hominem attack. Check the edit history. Can you honestly say, User:Naerii, that I have mis-stated the record? If I have I apologize to both you and User:Marvin Diode. Please review the record of edits by User:Marvin_Diode here. Have I mis-represented them in any way? If I have not, then I would think that you owe me an apology, not the other way around.--Cberlet (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
"another attempt by single-issue pro-LaRouche POV warriors to sanitize or minimize any reference to antisemitism or other bigotry on the part of LaRouche or his many front groups" <- I support this edit and I think you'll find that I'm not a POV pusher. dismissing people who are making valid statements that comply with policy as POV warriors simply because you disagree is ad hominem in my view, i'm afraid. can you actually address the arguments being presented here? i.e. the fact that in the section quoted it is King claiming that LaRouche is an antisemite. Frankly I don't give a damn either way if the people in the discussion here are SPAs or not, they are making valid points and I agree with them. There's a page somewhere about commenting on content, not the editor. Maybe you should read it? -- Naerii 20:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Naerii, it's nice to see a fresh face here. However it's not clear whether you've had an opportunity to familiarize yourself with the previous discussions or with the essay that is the subject of this dispute. This dispute was discussed last year in the following sections of this talk page: #Misrepesentation, Evasion, Orwellian Summaries, and Wiki Sanitation Squads, #Common-sense summaries, versus esoteric revelations of encrypted meanings in LaRouchian texts, #Why I'm reverting certain deletions, #Basis for removal of OR, #Reply to LaRouche apologists, #More deletions of properly sourced statements, #"Mostly Jewish" bankers, and #Attribution. The essay can be found at Secrets Known Only To The Inner Elites.doc. Could you confirm that you've read this material? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I have now. I stand by what I have said. -- Naerii 21:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In your own words, how would you summarize LaRouche's statements about Jewish Italian bankers in the Middle Ages? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
He thinks that that Italian bankers 'controlled' the papacy and that they were scared of France because they were the only political force that could threaten their control; he believes that some of the bankers who were Jewish had 'converted' to Christianity to benefit from being in control of the papacy and that one had gone as far as purchasing it; he also believed that they controlled a big piece of Mediterranean trade. Is this a test? -- Naerii 23:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason I ask is that the issue is how to summarize this view of LaRouche, and how much of that assessment of that view is attributable to Dennis King versus which is apparent to any reader. You appear to agree that LaRouche considers at least "some" of the bankers in question to have been Jews. The current text says the involved banking families were "primarily" Jewish. As far as I can tell, LaRouche doesn't mention any non-Jewish ones. Do you see any non-Jewish families that he blames for "poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wrote from memory. But I see your point and I concede. -- Naerii 01:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
LaRouche mentions Italian bankers. That's it. Any further categorization is malicious speculation, innuendo and Original Research. Also, LaRouche doesn't blame anyone for "causing the Black Plague" -- that formulation comes to us courtesy of Dennis King. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, LaRouche blames the Jewish Guelph bankers for creating the "circumstances of the Black Death," and for forcing aside the non-conspiratorial Jewish money lenders. -LaRouche, Secrets, p. 35.--Cberlet (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Cberlet, please refrain from posting tendentious and/or BLP-violating material as edit summaries. According to Wikipedia article Guelphs and Ghibellines, "The Guelphs and Ghibellines were factions supporting, respectively, the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire in central and northern Italy during the 12th and 13th centuries." It says nothing in that article, nor LaRouche's, about the Guelphs being Jewish. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention the Black Guelphs. Should it? Otherwise this thread is getting off topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Not off-topic. Core theme of LaRouche. See below.--Cberlet (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Or better yet, what possible relevance could it have? -- Naerii 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the "it" you're referring to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not a test, it's a filibuster. Will Beback is an administrator, and he knows very well what it says in BLP. As an administrator he has an obligation to remove the section in question altogether, without waiting for a "consensus," because as everyone involved in this discussion can clearly see, the distortions of one of LaRouche's most extreme and irresponsible critics are being presented as fact. Will Beback and Cberlet know that if this material is attributed to Dennis King, the reader is likely to take into consideration the reliability of the source. Therefore they prefer to avoid a discussion of attribution by throwing up a smokescreen of obfuscation and personal attacks on other editors. --Terrawatt (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Zowie, this is getting juicy! Black Guelphs! I was going to rent The Name of the Rose tonight, but if Blockbuster doesn't have it, I'ma just gonna hang around this discussion! Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
There's already a bunch of "according to King" and the like scattered around the material in question. A reader would have to be suffering from severe short-term memory loss not to realize the source of the analysis presented in the text. - Merzbow (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The distinction between LaRouche's actual views, and King's "spin," is unclear. And, perhaps intentionally so, if you consider the steaming pile of horseshit from Chuck Fager that Chip Berlet has posted below. Nothing that LaRouche writes in that essay is anti-Semitic, but Dennis King and Chip Berlet have a long history of "explaining" LaRouche in an intentionally deceptive way. I also agree with Terrawatt that all this verbiage is evading the issue of my proposed edit, which is quite straightforward.
I hereby request that if anyone has a specific objection to my edit, respond below. Otherwise my edit should be added to the article. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Specific objections to proposed edit change:
You haven't shown that your edit is more accurate then what is now in the article. Per the discussion above, the version in the article appears to be reasonably accurate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think that qualifies as a specific objection. And with the exception of yourself and Cberlet, who have done nothing but change the subject, all the participants in the discussion above have supported the proposed change. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If you don't think it's an objection then can you point to where Anti-Gorgias has explained his reasoning? Regarding supporting the change, I believe that Naerii changed his mind once he'd read the essay in question. The only editors who appear to agree to this are the pro-LaRouche editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I asked Naerii on his talk page (User talk:Naerii) whether your claim was correct, that he now opposes my edit. He responded saying "I don't oppose it no, I just decided to give up."
The proposed change is clunky. Moving the first "according to King" to the beginning of that sentence would address any potential objection without breaking up the flow or changing the meaning. It doesn't have to be right next to the "primarily Jewish", as I mentioned before, to be obvious that it's King's analysis. - Merzbow (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's a good point. How about this version:
According to Dennis King, LaRouche associates the elite's medieval form with Italian banking families who are primarily Jewish. King asserts that he blames this elite for poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague.[11] [12] Similarly, King claims that LaRouche has connected the modern elite with a cabal of mostly Jewish banking families in London,[13] [14] and that LaRouche has described this elite in many of his articles as an alien race hostile to the human species. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd combine the first two sentences, and condense some of the latter material (fixing the tense as well, and changing claims->says), so:
According to Dennis King, LaRouche associates the elite's medieval form with Italian banking families who are primarily Jewish, whom LaRouche blames for poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague.[11] [12] Similarly, King says that LaRouche connects the modern elite with a cabal of mostly Jewish banking families in London,[13] [14] an elite LaRouche describes as an alien race hostile to the human species.
But if people don't want to touch the last sentence I'm fine with that also. - Merzbow (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Your version is fine. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Second admin opinion requested - per this comment I would support removing the entire paragraph until a BLP- and POV-neutral wording can be established. Happy‑melon 15:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see Will and Chip's opinion on the latest version proposed above... - Merzbow (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Merxbow's version does appear to be an improvement over the existing text, and I'd support it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Happy Melon - I'm an admin and I specifically endorse that edit. ViridaeTalk 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I think for the time being this specific edit is accurate, but the entire section is still biased toward an apologia for LaRouche because we are not citing the multiple sources that state clearly that LaRouche's grand conspriracy theory of history is rooted in antisemitic claims plucked from assorted right-wing and pro-Nazi sources. This is once again the death of a thousand edits, in which, like the Rodney King videtoape in front of the jury, each blow to the text is justified as reasonable, and the end result over time is a wildly ludicrous entry that 99% of print encyclopedia editors would flush down a toilet.--Cberlet (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Happy Melon, as an admin, I've also been requested to look into this situation and frankly, I'm of the opinion here that the paragraph in question be excised, as requested per possible BLP issues - Alison ❤ 00:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Alison, could you explain the BLP issues that you see with this matrial? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe Alison's course of action is the wisest choice, because regardless of whether the claim is attributed to Dennis King, it is defamatory: it attributes to LaRouche views that he does not hold, with the intention to make him look like an anti-Semite. --Terrawatt (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Terrawatt doesn't know what views LaRouche holds any better than the rest of us. King is the foremost expert on LaRouche, so his opinion is more valuable than anonymous Wikipedia editors. If Alison could explain her reasoning that would help, but I don't think that a paragraph describing one of this theories is necessarily a violation of BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, Will. As it stands, the paragraph is seriously ambiguous. Depending on one's perspective, it can be read as an indication that LaRouche is antisemitic; he blamed Jewish banking families for poisoning Popes, etc, etc vs. he blamed banking families, primarily Jewish, for poisoning Popes, etc, etc. Add to that the fact that it's simply King's opinion that he felt that to be the case (second version) rather than "King stated ...", then a separate sentence stating the poisoning, black plague, etc. The disputed paragraph is currently a whole lot more weaselly than the suggested revision, IMO. Given that it's a biography of a living person here, we're making pretty strong statements by painting this man with the anti-semitism brush given that we're using a cite from one source, and doing so in an ambiguous way. Understand though, that I'm approaching this from a completely neutral place here; I was requested to look at this matter via my talk page and I've absolutely no knowledge nor interest in the subject matter. I'm merely appraising this based on the evidence I see here, the way it is written and re. the previous dialogue above. IMO, it needs to either be deleted or edited as suggested, to remove the ambiguity around the matter of King's opinion vis-a-vis anti-semitism - Alison ❤ 06:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It appears you haven't read the underlying essay which is being summarized. I can't blame you for avoiding that - it's not fun reading. (If you want to, here it is. [2]) This article isn't quite a biography, it's mostly a critical analysis of writings. Is it a BLP violation to say that a writer paints Jews (or Guelphs) in a bad light? No, not if he does so. I agree with everyone here that Merzbow's revision is a worthwhile improvement. I disagree with removing it due to BLP. Let's just post the revision and settle this endless debate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Will, you are making a number of rather wild assumptions here. Since when is this article "mostly a critical analysis of writings"? The title suggests it to be a simple enumeration of LaRouche's views, which IMO would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have read the essay in question. It is a BLP violation to cherry-pick an example of where LaRouche mentions a Jew in a bad light, and then extrapolate that to a universal attack on Jews. You would be on far more secure footing to say, based on this essay, that LaRouche has a beef against Italians, but frankly, that would be ludicrous also -- the fact of the matter is that he has a beef against oligarchies. That you could safely say. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
As LaRouche's writings about people who aren't in his good books tend to focus on attacking them, we wouldn't have a Views of Lyndon LaRouche article without critical analysis by experts on LaRouche and his like. There's no BLP violation in using reliable sources. John Nevard (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Content removed in this edit. Admins feel free to restore any content which is not a violation. Happy‑melon 08:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Guelph Nobility as Jews in LaRouchite Lexicon?

This is a core theme in LaRouchite lore. It is discussed throughout King's book. It is also mentioned in this review that may be more helpful:

  • Part of King's achievement is that he has carefully unpacked LaRouche's loony-sounding rhetoric and lays out its underlying meaning in convincing and sinister detail. Take the one about the Queen. In King's deconstruction, it is shown to have a definite, specific meaning, which is something like this: In the LaRouche fascist version of reality, the drug trade, like practically every other evil in the world, is controlled by an ancient, international conspiracy of Jews. This Jewish cabal also controls England. The Queen being England's symbolic head, she is ipso facto up to her tiara in narcotics marketing. Q. E. D., Q. E. 2.
  • Sure, this is crazy. But not new, and not harmless. King's major effort is to show how LaRouche's ideology consciously follows classic fascism, especially its anti-Semitism, and how his many confusing-sounding slogans--talk of such stuff as the struggle between his neoplatonic humanists and the black Guelph (i.e., Jewish) nobility--make sense once you do a little background reading and fill in the context of current neo-Nazi jargon and euphemisms. Crafting such code phrases is evidently a minor industry in Germany, where open Nazi and anti-Semitic agitation is illegal--and where, by the way, LaRouche's wife and second lieutenant Helga Zepp LaRouche is from, and where he maintains a villa and many connections.
  • --Chuck Fager, "LYNDON BURNING," Washington City Paper, July 14, 1989.

If folks want to discuss why this is relevant to the repeated attempts to sanitize this entry and minimize LaRouche's antisemitism, we can start on this new thread. More, from LaRouche himself:

  • ...we must look back to the time of the Hohenstaufen Emperor Frederick II, and examine, in that light, the subsequent relative depravity into which European civilization was degraded through the Venice-directed, oligarchical Guelph League's wars. The essential motive for those wars, was the perpetuation of the globalized form of the feudal system, against, initially, Frederick, but also, from the start, against the entirety of that upsurge of Europe traced from Alcuin and Charlemagne, through the period of the building of the great cathedrals in the Augustinian spirit displayed at Chartres.[27]
  • During that period of more than a hundred years following the same period as the German defeat of the Mongol invasion, at Wahlstatt, in 1241, through the period of the Black Death pandemic in western Europe, the Guelph League's depredations reduced the numbers of parishes and level of population by approximately one-half. The hundred-odd years between the launching of those Guelph League wars and the consequent mid-Fourteenth-Century New Dark Age, identify the barest essentials of the moral and physical self-degradation from which the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance uplifted Europe.
  • The policies of the Guelph League, were paralleled, later, by the methods deployed by Venice...
  • ...until about thirty-five years ago, Christian civilization was greatly corrupted from two principal sources....chiefly the influence--including the financial, so-called charitable contributions--of the simony practiced by such wealthy oligarchically inclined rentier-financier families, which has been the chief instrument thrusting corruption, in such forms as modern existentialism, into the Christian churches. This phenomenon has been especially notable since the mid-1960s.
  • As the United States' history illustrates the same paradox, the Classical legacy was the greatest legacy of its time, but, after the murder of Alexander, it harbored a parasite, an alien enemy within, an enemy akin in nature to our slave-holders and Wall Street gang. Hellenistic culture became thus vulnerable to its conquest by that intrinsically evil "New Babylon," which became known, otherwise, as the Roman Empire.
  • Thus, beginning at about the time of the Roman murder of Archimedes and the later death of the greatest scientific mind of that time, Archimedes' correspondent Eratosthenes, that creation of the Delphi cult of the Pythian Apollo known as Rome, emerged as an echo of both ancient Delphic Sparta and old Babylon, as the imperial New Babylon, sometimes known among Christians as "The Whore of Babylon." That pagan Rome erupted, thus, to power throughout the Mediterranean more generally
  • ...It was this alternative to the evil inherent in Rome and in the flaws of the prevalent form of the Jewish outlook at that time; it was a Christianity whose ministry to all mankind, has, despite all else, thus far saved mankind from the doom otherwise inhering in the legacy of that "New Babylon" known as the Roman Empire
  • --Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Jesus Christ and Civilization," September 22, 2000.

More soon.--Cberlet (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

...So, when the smoke clears, we find that the only connection between Guelphs and Jews is in Cberlet's title to his latest digression. This is cheap, clumsy propaganda. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Case in point

Not exactly, blow the smoke away, and read the entire essay, and other works by LaRouche, and what you find is that LaRouche, repeatedly, states that an evil core of Babylonian Merchant-Userers arrived in Rome, then formed an alliance with the Black Guelph Nobility, moved on to become Venetian Merchants, then a Dutch Rentier-Financier Oligarchy, which then takes over Britain. For example, LaRouche states:
  • “I elaborate the highlights of the matter in ‘Science & Infrastructure.’ The Federal Reserve System, which was introduced to the U.S.A. from London, by Cassell's New York agent Jacob Schiff, has been intended to function, increasingly, as a disguise for that European style in central banking which was introduced to the Netherlands and England as an Anglo-Dutch clone of the Venice model of a financier-controlled imperial maritime power.”
So it's the Jewish elites who track back to a cabal in Babylon who control the Queen today, according to LaRouche. This is a classic right-wing antisemitic conspiracy theory.--Cberlet (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
An excellent example of why Chip Berlet cannot be trusted to edit Wikipedia. In his mind, "The Federal Reserve System, which was introduced to the U.S.A. from London, by Cassell's New York agent Jacob Schiff, has been intended to function, increasingly, as a disguise for that European style in central banking which was introduced to the Netherlands and England as an Anglo-Dutch clone of the Venice model of a financier-controlled imperial maritime power" = "it's the Jewish elites who track back to a cabal in Babylon who control the Queen today." This is what Chip refers to as a "summary." --Terrawatt (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course the encyclopedia can omit theories of Black Guelph's from being covered on the basis of it's abject non-notability. But then we wouldn't get treated to learned deconstructions of same. Hence, referring back to the unwritten agreement between these two sides, we must endure both, in all their Guelphian non-notability. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You appear to find your repeated trivialization of antisemitism amusing, [User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]], but what is your specific constructive suggestion regarding this entry?--Cberlet (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete it. That's what one does with crackpot antisemitism with zero notability. And despite your repeated innuendos, I find this ridiculous squabbling about about loon bird theories, and attempts by some professional "critics" of the theories to give them prominence merely to highlight their own "critiques" to be what actually trivializes antisemitism, and what I find downright offensive. There. Now I'm not amused. Is that better? Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's see, is there any editor here whom you have forgotten to personally attack? --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Is this entry's text NPOV or biased

Is this entry's text NPOV or biased?

Please allow new editors to offer an opinion first.--Cberlet (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the disagreement about whether the page is NPOV when talking about a simple issue of attributing sources, but yes it seems to me that the page is biased against LaRouche [and this is coming from somebody who doesn't like the man]. -- Naerii 17:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem too bad to me. My main criticism is that it looks like Dennis King and Chip Berlet have edited the article and used it to promote themselves and their views too much. I am surprised that they are allowed to edit it, given that their extreme bias is not exactly a secret. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Could be trimmed somewhat, but generally balanced. But let's please try to avoid calling LaRouche names on the talk pages. True or not, it could invite BLP trouble and only serves to polarize the debate further. - Merzbow (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll just repeat my opinion that nobody cared about a while back, which is that this ridiculous article exists in all its pufferied prodigicality as the bastard child of a deal between the advocates of the truly barely-to-non-notable theories of Larouche and the advocates of the critics (actually, apparently, the very critics themselves) of the barely-to-non-notable theories of Larouche. Wikipedia has become their own private, joint stock publishers. So, what I opined on Feb 5 was:
But, seems to moi, that, as the saying goes, it takes two to tango, and the prodigious amount of server space afforded this silliness is the end result of some tacit agreement to carry on a conflict that no one other than the players really cares for simply because it is of benefit to the players involved (who spend ample amounts of space trying to convince us minions that it is truly really super duper important and the end is near if we don't heed (pick one)).
I still agree with me. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
So, to sum up your view, Boodlesthecat, people known in the real world in most reputable published accounts as antisemites are morally equivalent here on Wikipedia to people who criticize their antisemitism. Do I have the correct?--Cberlet (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I said anything remotely approaching your "summary" where?? I suspect your abject failure to grasp the rather simple point I was making is evidence of the rather simple point I was making. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you too. -- Naerii 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that Cberlet is editing an article in which a source that he wrote is being used as a source. What's going on here? Cberlet, why are you involved with this article? Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Further comment, Cberlet's source appears to be anti-LaRouche, and Cberlet appears to be pushing for an anti-LaRouche tone for this article, judging from what I read in the article and here on the talk page. Cberlet, there are 2M+ other articles in Wikipedia, I invite you to go edit where you don't have at a minimum an appearance of COI. Cla68 (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
In this case, the stuff sourced to Chip is from actual published books and papers that he authors or coauthors, so I don't personally have an issue with it. (Contrast this to another well-known editor, active on the global warming pages, who likes to quote from his own blog entries, which conveniently he can create on demand...) - Merzbow (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly. The stuff sourced to Chip is from actual web pages that he authors or coauthors, which conveniently he can create on demand at Political Research Associates. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Some of the links are to websites, but they simply contain verbatim reprints or excerpts of the aforementioned books and papers. The assumption is that those books and papers are being vetted/fact-checked/whatever by PRA or the publishing house. If he was just writing random stuff on a page and linking to it, then I'd object, but he isn't. Plus, the opinions in these books/papers are attributed to the authors in the text, so it's clear to readers who is making the claims. - Merzbow (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. This, for example, does not appear to have been published anywhere but Berlet's own website. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, publiceye.org is not "Berlet's" website. I (in my non-wiki persona as Chip Berlet) am neither the Executive Director nor Research Director at PRA. I am a Senior Analyst. The Report mentioned above was published in print format by PRA many years ago.--Cberlet (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Damn right. I don't see an issue with his participation here either as long as he is mindful of avoiding conflicts of interest. Being a recognized and published expert on the topic, Chip is exactly the sort of editor Wikipedia needs and cultivates and is doing exactly what is expected of him vis-a-vis policy as far as I can tell. Odd nature (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see User:Andries, who as an anti-Satya Sai Baba activist has been considered too conflicted, although expert, to edit the SSB pages by ArbCom as recently as last week. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Chip edits recklessly like a man with a vendetta and seems to be oblivious to avoiding conflicts of interest. --Polly Hedra (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that characterisation bears any resemblance to the person I have seen active on Wikipedia for the past several years. In interacting with him I've found he's careful to be fair and accurate in his representation of sources. As for the fact that he cites his own work - that doesn't constitute a COI - he is the sort of expert editor we so badly need. Depth of knowledge of the subject is no reason to disqualify an editor from editing a subject. Guettarda (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No one said that it was. On the other hand, fanatical POV-pushing and incessant violations of BLP are a different matter. It may be that Cberlet is better-behaved at articles unrelated to LaRouche. But does this strike you as the sort of objective and neutral reasoning we need? --Terrawatt (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that most participants in this talk page are in a position to criticize each other about "fanatical POV-pushing". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Will, you have a history of running interference for Cberlet's policy violations. You appear to be casting aspersions on Terrawatt. Can you present an example of a case where he violated policy? --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk pages exist to discuss articles, not editors, If you want to discuss editors please use their user talk pages or any of the other forums or dispute resolution pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes it is relevant to assessing an article's POV to consider the declared POV of major editors. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
If that's the aim we should consider the POV of all involved editors, but I don't think that's really helpful on an article talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you being deliberately obtuse, Will? We have people who are major RW critics of this person heavily involved in editing this article. Now, nobody like LaRouche, almost certainly with good reason, but that doesn't mean that this would be a lovely story if anyone stumbled across it. Pretending it isn't there is absurd. Working out a way to ensure this article visibly benefits from their contributions but without stacking the deck (which is how I am afraid it does appear to the uninvolved) is absolutely something we need to discuss on the talkpage. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not being obtuse, but you seem to be forgetting or ignoring the fact that this topic has been the target of a stready stream of either independent editors or sock puppets who are strong supporters of LaRouche, and who not only burnish his reputation on pages like this but also spread his ideas and points of view into articles across Wikipedia. If you want to assess POVs then assess all POVs, not just those of some editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, that's a peculiar assertion. I've been watching these pages for a year now. There were some quotes added to Lyndon LaRouche from Russian and Chinese press accounts that were pretty favorable. Other than that, I have seen nothing that could remotely be considered "burnishing." Mainly I have seen other editors fending off repeated BLP assaults by Cberlet, Dking, and Will Beback. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) And you seem to be forgetting or ignoring that this is the case with dozens of similar cases and semi-organised advocacy groups. (More possibly, you are simply unaware of this.) There are ways of handling disruptive editors who push POVs, and I encourage you to take this to the community and get consensus for them. I can guarantee, however, that if more people knew - I only realised this fully just now - that a permanently protected series of articles was heavily edited by someone who is closely associated professionally with a RW campaign against the living person who's the subject of that series... all special pleading aside, it looks bad. If you don't see that, perhaps you need a bit of a break and a look at the rest of the project. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, this topic has been the subject of three ArbCom cases and numerous other enforcements. User:Herschelkrustofsky has been found to have used countless sock puppets, and very likely continues to do so. If you can think of a way of dealing with HK that the community hasn't already tried then that would be a big help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've spent a little time looking into that. However, the community seems to think its policies have evolved to deal with this kind of thing. Article probation, topic bans, uninvolved admins handing out enforcement that is checked on later, all this should perhaps be given a shot, definitely before we let an article descend into permanent protection. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It does _look_ bad, but looks aren't everything. Do Chip's edits violate core policies like RS and NPOV? I don't believe they do (aside from one or two slipups that can be put to frustration; we all have those moments). Is he pushing a POV? Given that reliable sources universally take a negative view of LaRouche and his career, this does indeed appear to be the neutral formulation of such. If COI is to be interpreted as a stand-alone prohibition against editing by those with a real-life stake in one or the other side, regardless of other violations of policies, then indeed Chip and others like Jossi and about ten other editors I can think of should go. But I read COI as only providing a solid basis for punitive action in the presence of encyclopedia-hurting edits. - Merzbow (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
And how do we measure encylopaedia-hurting edits? I measure them by repeated referencing of non-peer-reviewed material/material without clear editorial control or a statement of responsibility. Given the fact that Chip - whom, let me again say, I read with interest and tend to agree with most of the time - is referencing material off publiceye, I think we have a problem.
The simple truth is that LaRouche has received enough negative attention in unimpeachably reliable and independent sources over his long career for us to write satisfactory articles. We don't need this level of detail/analysis, nor should we have them, if sources other than publiceye don't have them. In my opinion, soapboxing either way - even a way I agree with - hurts the encyclopaedia. Chip, understandably, doesn't have the objectivity to know when the line is crossed, and it is absurd and unfair to expect him to. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a compromise would be to accept references to Chip's books and articles from independent organizations but not to papers from PRA (where he works), as long as he's an involved editor. It's interesting to see what's going on with the Prem Rawat ArbCom case, in which Arbs are evenly divided as to the necessity of recommending that jossi, employed by a Prem Rewat organization, avoid editing related articles. That's a far more severe restriction than this particular compromise would involve... - Merzbow (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
PRA appears to meet the standards required for a reliable source. While it may be unseemly for authors to cite their own works, I don't think that other editors should be prohibited from adding verifiable material from reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Will, I've seen you post about 20 times now that "PRA appears to meet the standards required for a reliable source." I think that may be wishful thinking on your part. What you will find in Berlet's self-published materials (let's call it like it is) and in Dennis King's foundation-funded book, that you won't find in mainstream sources, is the supposed technique of deciphering hidden meanings in LaRouche's publications. As in this example which I mentioned above, Cberlet finds a quote from LaRouche where LaRouche refers to "Cassell's New York agent Jacob Schiff," and then Cberlet triumphantly proclaims that he has found proof that LaRouche is attacking "the Jewish elites" and that "this is a classic right-wing antisemitic conspiracy theory." You would never find this sort of thing in a mainstream publication, but it is common fare at PRA. So, I think that it would be entirely reasonable to do as Relata refero says, and stay within the bounds of "unimpeachably reliable and independent sources" -- let's face it, this is already Wikipedia policy, see WP:REDFLAG. I submit that those editors who feel that the use of "unimpeachably reliable and independent sources" cramps their style are a problem for the project, because they are trying to use Wikipedia for the promotion of fringe theories and defamation. --Terrawatt (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
To repeat over and over again the outright lie that material published by Political Research Associates is "Berlet's self-published materials" does not make it true. It constitutes a personal attack, and violates BLP. I am tired of it. Please stop it User talk:Terrawatt. --Cberlet (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Chip Berlet's personal blog is now hosted by PRA. [3] --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Many reliable sites host blogs. Almost every major newspaper hosts the blogs of their journalists. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Material about LaRouche's anti-Semitic theory of history should be restored

I note that Happy-melon, a Wiki administrator, has cut the guts out of the description of LaRouche's anti-Semitic theory of history on grounds of "BLP concern." What BLP? This is an article about LaRouche's ideological views--the heart of his ideology is his theory of a struggle of two elites, one of which (the evil one) he defines as being an alien species and which he persistently equates with Jewish names and with families that either are Jews, part-Jews, Jewish converts to Christianity, or folks who created the Jewish faith for cynical reasons.
LaRouche said these things--after months of debate his followers have been unable to establish otherwise and I thought the fight over this paragraph was over and done. Would Happy-melon please explain exactly what the BLP concern is that caused this excision of important and properly sourced information at a time when the article is blocked from editing by anyone except admins?--Dking (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not LaRouche's anti-Semitic theory of history, it's yours. Try reading the discussion, beginning with Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Request for edit by an administrator. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Lyndon LaRouche has been widely referred to as an "anti-semite". It's not something that Dennis King invented. We've been over this ground before. I suggest that we all just move on. This article is protected and we're not going to make any changes to it unless there's a consensus (barring admins dropping in and doing what they think necessary). Let's just accept that this article isn't perfect and find some even less perfect articles to work on instead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The relentless rewriting of history and fact to satisfy the mistaken application of BLP in a way that is a blatant apologia for antisemitism by the LaRouchites is not acceptable. Wikipedia has become a major international vehicle through which the LaRouchites promote the idea that LaRouche is not an antisemite. If Wikipedia is going to promote antisemitism through deletion in this entry, at the very least it needs a dispute flag. If Wikipedia chooses to accept historical revisionism to mask antisemitism, then at least it should indicate that there are a few editors who object to the lies.--Cberlet (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Who are you trying to kid? A few lines of clumsy, half-baked innuendo have been removed. There are still plenty left. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Cberlet, you may request a {POV} tag be applied to the article. Happy-melon might be willing to do so. However tags don't fix anything and POV tags are supposed to only be up so long as there's a active discussion going on. I don't know about you but I'm happier with the peace and quiet that the protection brings. There's already plenty on LaRouche's views on the role of Jews in history. I suggest again that we should just let this article stay where it is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)