Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/Archive 3

Mediation, arbitration, requests for clarification, and other discussions about the LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement, AN/I, 2005-8
Enforcement, Hershelkrustofsky socks, Sep 19, 2008 Enforcement, MaplePorter, Sep 19, 2007 Clarification, Nathan/DLTN, July 23, 2007 Enforcement, Herschelkrustofsky (HK) Clarification, Tsunami Butler", Apr 1, 2007 Clarification, Appeal, Jan 24, 2007 Clarification, ManEatingDonut, Nov 22, 2006 Clarification, LaRouche, Oct 23, 2006 HK probation, Apr 15, 2006 HK/BirdsOfFire, Mar 31, 2006 HK blocked, Sep 29, 2005
Arbitration 2006
HK banned, May 5, 2006.
Arbitration 2005
N_ and others, Nov 2005. Cognition's statement, Nov 22, 2005. Modification of LaRouche 2, Dec 23, 2005. HK indef probation, Dec 23, 2005 LaRouche 2, Jan 25, 2005–Feb 17, 2005. LaRouche 2 talk LaRouche 2 evidence LaRouche 2 proposed decision LaRouche 2 proposed decision talk
Arbitration 2004
LaRouche 1, July 4—Sep 13, 2004. LaRouche 1 talk LaRouche 1 evidence LaRouche 1 evidence talk LaRouche 1 proposed decision LaRouche 1 proposed decision talk
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Med cabal talk, Feb 17, 2007 Med cabal/Tsunami Butler, Nov 26, 2006
Mediation 2004
HK and AndyL, July 3, 2004 HK and DJSupreme23, Jun 14, 2004 HK and Adam Carr, Nov 15, 2004 HK and SlimVirgin, Dec 16, 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche Lyndon LaRouche 1, Jan 17–Jun 17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 2, Jun 20–22, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 3, Jun 21–24, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche draft, June 24-25, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 4, Jun 25–July 5, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 5, Jul 05–Aug 1, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish, June–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche HK list, July–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche HK list archive Lyndon LaRouche 6, Aug 6-9, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 7, Aug 11-17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche omissions, Sep 9-10, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 8, Aug 18–Sep 28, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 9, Sep 18–Oct 11, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 10, Dec 2004–Jan 20, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche archive, material missing Lyndon LaRouche 11, Jan 20–Jul 19, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche 12, Jul 2005–Nov 12, 2006 Lyndon LaRouche 13, Nov 2006—Feb 18, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 14, Feb 18, 2007 - August 1, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 15, August 8, 2007 - November 18, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 16, November 20, 2007 - Lyndon LaRouche 17 Lyndon LaRouche 18
Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement Political views temp Political views 1, Aug 21–Nov 29, 2004 Political views 2, Dec 2004–Jan 11, 2005 Political views 3, Jan 2005–Oct 02, 2006 "Cooked quotes", Jan 22–23, 2005 Political views mediation, Feb 27–Mar 04, 2006 Political views 4, Oct 23, 2006–Oct 11, 2007 Political views 5, Oct 11, 2007–Nov 28, 2007 Political views 6, Nov 28, 2007–Apr 12, 2008 Political views 7, Apr 15, 2008–Sep 24, 2008
Talk:Amelia Boynton Robinson Talk:American School (economics) Talk:American School (economics)/Archive 1 Talk:American School (economics)/Archive 2 Talk:Anti-Defamation League Talk:Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität Talk:Dirigisme Talk:Helga Zepp-LaRouche Talk:Jeremiah Duggan Talk:Jeremiah Duggan 1, Nov 14–Dec 6, 2004 Talk:Jeremiah Duggan 2, Dec 2004–Jan 2005 Talk:John Train Salon Talk:Kenneth Kronberg Talk:LaRouche Movement Talk:LaRouche Youth Movement Talk:Schiller Institute Talk:Schiller Institute/Archive 1 Talk:Synarchism Talk:Tavistock Clinic Talk:Tavistock Institute Talk:Tavistock Institute 1, Nov '04–June '06 Talk:LaRouche criminal trials Zayed Center
Template talk
Template talk:LaRouche Template talk:LaRouchetalk
Categories
HK sockpuppets

Anatomy of a "Cut-and-Paste Job"

The essential problem with Cberlet's role, in editing the LaRouche articles, is that he is not participating as a Wikipedia editor, but to promote his own theories -- or, to use his words, "documenting my claims that LaRouche is a fascist, antisemitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, crackpot, and crook."

Here is the complete passage from LaRouche's speech, as quoted in EIR:

1. "We have another purpose in fighting AIDS, for our fighting AIDS--for our inducing people to do what they should have done anyway without our speaking a word. Government agencies should have done this. There should be no issue! But government agencies didn't! That's the issue. Why didn't they? Because of a cultural paradigm shift. They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States. (I don't know why they're "gay," they're the most miserable creatures I ever saw! The socalled gay lobby, 8% of the population, the adult electorate; the drug users. There are 20 million cocaine sniffers in the United States, at least. Of course it does affect their mind; it affects the way they vote! They ought to be taxed 100% of their income, on the basis of not having earned it, and on the basis of the fact that we need the money to fight the effects of their habit.
2. "But the issue, the deeper issue, is that the government and the people, the general electorate, in terms of the political machines of this country, have no morality. Here is a question, which was settled in the middle of the 14th century and afterward -- the question of public sanitation on issues of epidemic and pandemic disease. Every government in the world is well-informed of that and the penalties of not invoking that policy. We have statutes on the books of the federal government, on the state and local level throughout the country, on this matter. The decision to be made on AIDS should have been automatic. Anybody who did not make that decision acted in defiance of the law, and should be accountable for any person infected! That is, if you're infected, if a member of your family dies of AIDS or is infected with AIDS, you should be able to sue members of the federal government, personally, for millions of dollars in each case -- damages! Because it was their negligence, willful negligence, in defiance of statutes, which caused this; not the law -- the law was fine! If they had followed the law, your friend wouldn't have been infected with AIDS.
3. "What was the problem? The problem was the cultural paradigm shift. If someone comes up and says, "Yeah, but you can't interfere with the civil rights of an AIDS victim" -- what the devil is this? You can't interfere with an AIDS victim killing hundreds of people, by spreading the disease to hundreds of people, which will kill them, during the period before he himself dies? So therefore, should we allow people with guns to go out and shoot people as they choose? Isn't that a matter of the civil rights of gun carriers? Or, if you've got an ax -- if you can't aim too well, and just have an ax or a broad sword -- shouldn't we allow people with broad swords and axes to go out and kill people indiscrimately as they choose, as a matter of their civil rights?
4. "Where did this nonsense come from? Oh, we don’t want to offend the gays! Gays are sensitive to their civil rights; this will lead to discrimination against gays!
5. "They’re already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They’ll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they’re beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up -- which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It’s a matter of children’s civil rights!"

LaRouche is making the point that if public health officials cannot intervene to prevent someone from transmitting AIDS through sexual contact, because transmitting AIDS through sexual contact is considered a "civil right," then the same illogic could be used to justify all sorts of violent crimes, even those perpetrated by homophobes. However, Berlet initially quoted only the last two paragraphs, in order to suggest that LaRouche was in fact endorsing violent crimes perpetrated by homophobes. To to make certain that the Wikipedia reader would arrive at that mistaken conclusion, Berlet added his own explanation: "He has called for draconian measures against persons with AIDS, and scoffed at civil liberties and civil rights concerns, writing that people who physically attack gay people are merely exercising their civil rights." This is, as I hope other editors can see by looking at the context, a deliberate misrepresentation. SlimVirgin came obsequiously to Cberlet's defense ("You asked him for the context of the gay quote, which he gave." In fact, he didn't. He gave a citation, so that I could laboriously look it up and transcribe it.) Later, Berlet attempted to salvage the situation by adding yet another out-of-context paragraph, the first one, without providing a (...) to indicated that he had omitted the second one. --HK 01:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of context problems... HK, I think it was you who added this line into the article:

LaRouche seemed later to modify his views. In a town meeting which was webcast on December 11, 1999, LaRouche said:

And you go on to quote two paragraphs from LL. But you've cut off the sentences that start the first paragraph:

Don't let them play one against the other. Like this question of so-called homosexuality.

LaRouche's phrase so-called homosexuality implies that he does not believe such a condition exists. When the page protection is lifted we need to add the full quote to give it the proper context, which seems to me to show that LaRouche has not modified his views at all. -Willmcw 20:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I tried to remove that line from the article, but my edits were being reverted by SlimVirgin, seemingly within seconds, so take another look at the page history. With respect to the two paragraphs you mention, what LaRouche is saying is that he does not believe that the issue of homosexuality is relevant to the discussion of AIDS. This is abundantly clear from the rest of the quote. You seem to have a bit of difficulty, Willmcw, in understanding LaROuche, because the significance of CBerlet's manipulation of the other quote seems to elude you. --HK 15:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does get confusing when many hands are working at once. I'm not sure which line you are referring to. I recommend that the entire quotation be dropped. I don't see what modification of views it is suppoed to represent. I also suggest that we cut the quotes in the LaRouche & Gays section down to two, maybe a paragraph each. More than that is just piling on. This article is way too long already. We can move the others over to wikisource. Regarding the above quotation- the added material, which includes lines like

" They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States."

hardly makes LaRouche appear to be indifferent to gays. Again, adding more material does not change the context, it only reinforces the message that LaRouche makes homophobic remarks. All we need is one or two choice sentences as examples for the article, not several long rants. More is not better. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Context versus quotation

While it is useful for us editors to review the context of a direct quotation, this Wikipedia article is not a compendium of source material. Quotes that are more than a short paragraph in length belong on Wikisource. If the context modifies the meaning, than it can be summarized. In the case of the Baseball bats & gays quote, I suggest that it can be boiled down like this:

In a speech printed in EIR on the topic of fighting AIDS, LaRouche said:

They’re already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They’ll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they’re beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up -- which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It’s a matter of children’s civil rights!
:citation

I don't think it's necessary to include hundred of words just to show that he has endorsed violence against gays. -Willmcw 02:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think using just the short quote arguably makes it look even worse. The quote is fine as it is, in my view. It was two paras; Herschel provided a third, so now it's three. The extra paras he's provided today don't change the meaning. Will, if you want to change it back to just that one para that you suggest, it's fine by me so long as we reach an agreement and all stick to it. Cberlet, please use ellipsis (...) if you're leaving words out or skipping to another paragraph just for clarification purposes. Herschel, I know what the quote meant. The context you provide doesn't change the meaning. And stop insulting me. What with your insults to Cberlet, your use of his name when asked not to, your insults of me, your promotion of Lyndon LaRouche, and your attempts to insert pro-LaRouche material into Chip Berlet and Dennis King which are not "closely related" articles, anyone who wants to mount an ArbCom case against you will not be short of material. SlimVirgin 02:32, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Leaving off the ellipses in that one paragrpah was not intentional. Just a typo. I have used ellipses in the past. I think HK is being unfair and misrepresenting what has happened here. I posted the vast majority of the lengthy LaRouche quotes along with cites; said I would post more along with actual image files of the pages at the PRA website on Monday (today as I write this); and offered to post the tiny fragment I missed from one article in my first scan that now HK is claiming he has been forced to "laboriously look...up and transcribe." This all stems from the series of personal attacks on me by HK whereby he has falsely charged me with what is called in journalism "cooking quotes." I have demonstrated that the quotes I posted are real, provided the citations, and posted lengthy excerpts to put them in context. I think that most reasonable people would agree with what Willmcw has posted above. As promised, here are the pages where I posted further documentation. Click on the links to see the image files and longer quotes.

Illionis Attorney General's office letter Full cites to articles and editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times [1]

Creating a Republican Labor Party (democracy quote) antigay quote in LaRouchite Illinois Tribunal [2] --Cberlet 02:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Chip. As far as I'm concerned, you've done more than enough. You and Will can decide how much of the quote to use. I would like to see the two paras you first inserted, or the three that are currently there, but if you and Will want just one, that's fine too. What other issues are there to sort out here?

Herschel, I feel you and Weed need to stop editing these pages, because this is causing a lot of disruption and unnecessary work. If we were to ask the ArbCom, I believe they would agree and would impose it on you, because they were only one vote short of that before, the ArbCom has changed quite significantly since then; and you have caused quite a bit of disruption since that time. For this reason, I'm asking you to impose the restriction on yourselves voluntarily. I'm wondering whether you could find another editor to, as it were, look out for LaRouche's interests on your behalf, but without actually being a LaRouche member or supporter. Would that work for you, assuming we could find someone? I'm making this proposal as an attempt at dispute resolution, which all parties are required to do before approaching the ArbCom. SlimVirgin 03:00, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I goofed. Here are the actual links and topics:

Illinois Attorney General's office letter

Full cites to articles and editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times

[3]

Creating a Republican Labor Party (democracy quote)

[4]

Antigay quote in LaRouchite Illinois Tribunal, July 7, 1986, editorial page

[5]

--Cberlet 02:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Those links make the other quotes fine by me too. Also Herschel, I'm correcting what I wrote above: when I suggested "an editor to look out for LaRouche's interests," I meant to say Wikipedia's interests and the NPOV policy, and to make sure that what is written is accurate, instead of you doing it. It could be an editor of your choice, so long as that person agrees (obviously) and isn't associated with the LaRouche organization. SlimVirgin 05:04, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Herschel and Weed, you could ask for an advocate to take your place on the LaRouche-related pages you agree not to edit. This isn't the same as mediation where a compromise is sought between editors. This is asking for someone to represent your views and probably wouldn't take long to organize. More information can be found at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance and there are a list of editors willing to be advocates at Wikipedia:AMA Member Statements. I assume you could approach one of them directly. Please think about it. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 05:30, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

The idea of having an ombudsman of sorts for these pages is in fact rather attractive to me, since I work full time and it is very burdensome to attempt to respond to the hundreds of edits which SlimVirgin in particular is making. However, I think the idea is problematic, because the job would require very extensive knowledge of the history of LaRouche and his ideas, and as Snowspinner has pointed out, there are no neutral sources.

Additionally, for the idea to work, SlimVirgin and CBerlet, whose POV is every bit as partisan as mine, would necessarily also have to agree to withdraw.

Frankly, I was satisfied, at the conclusion of the last round of POV wars with AndyL, that the LaRouche articles had attained NPOV status. It might be useful for editors to go back and look at the mid-October versions. --HK 15:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The October version was overwhelmingly biased in favor of LaRouche, especially the links. We have invested far too much time in a collective process to go backward. HK is now editing the Lyndon LaRouche page to insert pro-LaRouche material. I will agree to focus only on editing this page as a collaborative effort if HK and Weed agree to stop inserting pro-LaRouche material on other pages until we reach an NPOV point on this page.--Cberlet 16:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, I didn't suggest an obmudsman. You already had that with Snowspinner and it didn't work. The idea of mediation in Wikipedia is to find a compromise between the two parties. That can't work in the case of material published by the LaRouche organization, or edits made without references by LaRouche supporters, because if something is false, it's false. An arrangement only to insert 50 per cent of it is nonsense. That's why all the LaRouche articles read so badly. I suggested that you appoint an advocate for yourself, which is a different proposition. But as you've turned it down on the grounds that no one, in your view, is knowledgeable enough, and no one is neutral, we can move on. Please act on Cberlet's request to stop editing the other LaRouche articles until we've reached an agreement on this one. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 21:18, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Chip, your information about LaRouche is much appreciated. The only thing I would caution against is appearing to be self-promoting, so it would be helpful if criticism of LaRouche came mostly from other published sources. Using quotes from LaRouche, as you've been doing, is the best evidence of his views, of course. I would also say that it isn't necessary to rehash every little point. The page is 7,088 words, which is too long, so it needs to be cut, in my view. I feel the John Train Salon claims have caused a problem, because Berlet has the right to refute them as he's being accused; and the refutation is involving reference to earlier Berlet articles and their connection to the LaRouche conviction, a connection Herschel and Weed are objecting to. Therefore, I suggest we either delete or reduce the John Train allegations, and not bother to refute them; do a general copy edit for better English, then stop editing this page. Is that agreed? Does anyone have other issues? SlimVirgin 22:20, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, thank you for quoting the LaRouche log about NBC, but I would like to have confirmation of this from non-LaRouche sources. The ArbCom decision did not give you the right to insert unverified information into Wikipedia articles, and if you got that impression, you misunderstood their decision. I'm not doubting that there were NBC programs on LaRouche, and they may have mentioned Kissinger, Carter, and Palme, but I'm finding it hard to believe that NBC actually accused LaRouche of murdering Palme, and of planning to murder Carter and Kissinger. If they did, there are bound to be non-Larouches sources for this, and I'm asking you to supply one. I've looked myself but can't find any. SlimVirgin 22:47, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Democracy

I still have one issue relating to the question of whether or not LaRouche has ever bashed democracy. I provided one quote, which has been contested as to meaning. I would appreciate it if HK would respond to this quote. What does this mean to you HK?

...numbers, as such, [cannot] be determining factors in human society; [our policy] denies the right of numbers to govern by means of periodic consultations; it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men who cannot be levelled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal sufferage. Democratic regimes may be described as those under which the people are, from time to time, deluded into the belief that they exercise sovereignty, while all the time real sovereignty resides in and is exercised by other sometimes irresponsible and secret forces."

Doesn't this bash democracy?--Cberlet 23:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've posted links to the archives of the LaRouche Talk pages, on Lyndon LaRouche, Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, and United States v. LaRouche, as there has been a lot of cross-posting, and there are some worrying omissions from the archives. I may create a template so that the list looks tidier. I see now that the John Train allegations have been causing trouble for about six months, so it is definitely time to bring that issue to a close. Herschel, in your previous discussions of the Palme, Kissinger, and Carter murder or attempted murder claims, you say those claims arose out of the John Train meetings, and subsequently went swirling around (I think was one of the expressions you used). You make no mention of NBC making those accusations.

Herschel, for the record, I note that you've accused editors in the past of being biased against LaRouche in various ways, or of being activists etc. Also, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from archiving Talk pages related to LaRouche. You at various times said you were "closing" or "retiring" a conversation, then you deleted it. SlimVirgin 00:34, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, I'm having trouble finding material in the archives. You seem to have moved a lot of material and installed it elsewhere out of context. For example, can you tell me what happened to the following, and why you moved it? On August 19, you deleted this discussion [6] about LaRouche's alleged Holocaust denial from Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues and moved it to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List/archive1 [7]. Then on October 11, you moved the entire Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues to Talk :Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List/archive1, [8] which makes me wonder why you extracted the Holocaust denial discussion and moved it separately. You later moved Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4, where it is out of context and I can't find the Holocaust denial discussion.

There is some discussion about Holocaust denial in Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive7 and I've also looked through Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/fullarchive, but I still can't find this material. Could you let me know where you archived it please, and why you removed it from its context? I apologize if it's there and I have simply overlooked it. It's hard to be certain after looking at diffs for a couple of hours. I've restored it to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues, and I've put Talk :Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List/archive1 on the template too. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 10:39, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

HK continues to post self-serving responses to previous discussion into the interior of this page without leaving a note at the bottom. I was under the impression that we were being asked to make sure that any responses had to be either at the bottom of the page, or noted at the bottom of the page. If I am wrong, please advise me.

Also, I would lke to know which quote about democracy HK would consider a more accurate representation of LaRouche's views. The "episodic majorities" quote or the "periodic consultations" quote?

"episodic majorities" quote

"The human species is not a collection of chickens, cows, pigs, sheep and so forth. Therefore, ‘pluralism’ and other British notions of ‘democracy’ are fit only for British aristocrats, not for self-respecting human beings such as the citizens of the United States...The essence of republican organization, including republican parties, is the mobilization of a majority of the citizens as a conscious force engaged in direct deliberation of the policymaking of the nation, of discovering which policies are in fact currently in the interest of the nation and its posterity. By creating a republican labor party of such trade unionists and ethnic minorities, we shall end the rule of irrationalist episodic majorities, of British liberal notions of ‘democracy.’ "

"periodic consultations" quote

...numbers, as such, [cannot] be determining factors in human society; [our policy] denies the right of numbers to govern by means of periodic consultations; it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men who cannot be levelled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal sufferage. Democratic regimes may be described as those under which the people are, from time to time, deluded into the belief that they exercise sovereignty, while all the time real sovereignty resides in and is exercised by other sometimes irresponsible and secret forces."

I have answered numerous questions from HK, I think it is fair that I ask HK to answer this question so we can begin to debate my interpretation of these quotes.--Cberlet 17:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The second quote is a fragment and it is difficult to determine the context, so if it wouldn't be too much trouble, please supply the context. As it stands, I prefer the first quote. However, the real issue here is that what CBerlet seeks to do here is not to provide a quote that is representative of LaRouche's views on democracy -- I could find one if the consensus is that one is necessary -- but rather, a quote that can be "spun" to support his POV theory that LaRouche is an authoritarian who opposes democracy (as Weed pointed out, CBerlet evidently thinks that it is undemocratic to propose that trade unionists and ethnic minorities be brought into the electoral process). For those readers who actually care what LaRouche thinks, I think that it would be fair to say that LaRouche would weigh in on the side of the "republic" in the "democracy vs. republic" debate, which is succinctly summarized elsewhere in Wikipedia. --HK 21:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have posted several pages of context around the first quote at

http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/Scans/republabpty/republabpty-pp6-10.htm

My argument is that LaRouche's discussion of what is wrong with democracy is similar to the organicist and integralist positions of Benito Mussolini. This is more clear in the larger quote in context. My favorite section is where LaRouche is praising the Platonic idea that the lower third level of society--the merely "existentialists" level--should not be allowed to vote, and LaRouche states: "In the United States today, we permit adults on the third level to enjoy the rights of citizens, of course-we even permit existentialists to run for public office and to teach in schools and universities-which is a dangerous error." He bemoans the democratic legacy that allows the Platonic lower third level of people to be classified as citizens who can vote. LaRouche and his followers, of course, are the Platonic Golden Souls. I think that both quotes express the fascist idea that the organic leader should assess the will of the integralist masses, and does not need to be bothered with the numeric polling of elections. LaRouche is denouncing pluralism, not embracing actual republicanism. He simply redefines organicism and integralism as republicanism.

I find the discussion hard to follow with the comments appearing in mid stream. I am going to start posting the location of my additions in the "Edit Summary" box. Perhaps that will help.--Cberlet 00:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Assorted responses to issues raised above

Since Slim and CBerlet have complained when I post responses to questions directedly below the questions (as I believe is customary at wikipedia), I will post responses here.

• Re: Slim's renewed proposal that the Train material be deleted: this is non-negotiable. The fact that a very significant portion of what is called "criticism" of LaRouche emanates from a relatively tiny group of people is in fact highly relevant to a discussion of LaRouche's views, especially as "analyzed" by persons such as Chip Berlet (I speak of him now in his capacity as source, not editor. I think that it is highly inappropriate for him to be wearing both hats.) Regarding the argument that this should be deleted "because the article is too long," the last person to make this argument was CBerlet, and within a week he was adding an entirely new section on "LaRouche and gay people." My suggestion would be that if one wants to demonstrate a sincere concern for space considerations, one might begin by removing something which supports his or her own POV. --HK 01:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, the thing to do to shorten the article is first of all to remove the unverified stuff, which is almost always the material you have contributed. SlimVirgin 05:36, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Willmcw says, "I don't think it's necessary to include hundred of words just to show that he has endorsed violence against gays." The point here is that LaRouche has not endorsed violence against gays. The quote out of context was intended to suggest that he has.

• Re: Slim's comments about Snowspinner: Snowspinner's mediation was in fact highly successful. You don't like the outcome, because you have a rather extreme POV on this subject. Additionally, Slim, you are attempting to arrogate to yourself the role of mediator here ("Thank you, Chip. As far as I'm concerned, you've done more than enough. You and Will can decide how much of the quote to use.") when in fact, you are a party to the dispute. It is ironic, in a grotesque sort of way, that you should suggest that Weed and I stop editing this page because it "is causing a lot of disruption and unnecessary work." In other words, we are impeding the progress of a POV re-write of the article by your team, as it were. This discussion needs a real mediator.

--HK 21:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall making any comments about Snowspinner. Where are they?

We don't need a mediator. We need you to stop editing these pages, so the remaining editors can make the pages NPOV. SlimVirgin 05:36, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

---

HK, I've read and re-read the "baseball bats & gays" quote and still believe that LaRouche is asserting that (children?) have the right to defend themselves against AIDS-infected pedofiles by beating gays with baseball bats. If other quotes from LaRouche were less homophobic it might be possible to consider it a slip of the tongue during what appears to be a rambling speech. But since he makes his animus clear, here and elsewhere, I think that I am interpreting it correctly. Is there additional context? Was this the end of the speech or did he speak more on the topic? I suppose we can take a vote of editors to see what the consensus is on the meaning if that is contentious. As I said before, I think that excerpting just the last couple of sentences is sufficient to avoid belaboring the issue. I think we should find a short quote from the gay community on how his policies have been regarded there. And a short quote from LaRouche showing that he really isn't a homophobe, if you can find one. That's all this article needs as far as these quotes go. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the quotes from LaRouche back up Cberlet's interpretation of their meaning. I also agree that we don't need to quote too much, though I'd say a couple of paragrahs, whereas Will would prefer one, but I'll support either. If no one objects, I'm going to ask for the page to be unprotected, as Herschel doesn't seem to have raised any new objections. If anyone disagrees with me, please let me know within the next couple of hours. Thanks, SlimVirgin 00:35, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. LaRouche writes as he speaks. When he says "It's perfectly moral" to beat gays, he's satirizing the opposition to invoking Public Health laws in the case of people with AIDS, whom he says are both murderers and deadly weapons. That, he says, trumps their civil rights. The last sentence implies that not restricting people with AIDS is the moral equivalent of not restricting attacks with baseball bats. Not entirely sure, as the quote is pretty convoluted, but that was how I understood it in my first and second readings. Of all the parts of that quotation, I think that's the least anti-gay. That is not the way in that quote is anti-gay. DanKeshet 09:40, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Convoluted is right. Since this one quotation's meaning is disputed, perhaps we can find another excerpt to settle on. How about this one, from the same speech, with a possible context:

Regarding the failure of government agencies to enact quarantines [or "more stringent control measures"] for AIDS infected persons, LaRouche has said:

[Government agencies] did not want...to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States. (I don't know why they're "gay," they're the most miserable creatures I ever saw!)

It's short and clear. -Willmcw 10:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dan, you didn't say whose interpretation you disagreed with. I don't think I gave an interpretation, and I don't know whether the others did. Yes, it is clear that LaRouche is using irony, but it is not clear to what extent, and he makes no effort to make it clear, despite knowing (he must have known) that what he was saying was highly controversial. This is why I feel we should not just use the one paragraph about cricket bats but must use it in context - although not too long a context. LaRouche is comparing people with AIDS to people who carry axes or loaded guns; then he's saying we shouldn't be surprised if AIDS victims start being beaten up because government won't act to restrict them; but then goes further and seems to equate AIDS victims with gay people, then further still, with pederasts; and then talks about children's rights to attack pederasts. I think we should use the quote, not interpret it, and let the readers make up their own minds. SlimVirgin 10:09, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Having said that, I should add that I'll agree to any quote that's accurate, relevant and properly referenced, so if the rest of you can reach an agreement, don't let me hold things up. SlimVirgin 10:18, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

The role of Wikiopedia is not to provide source material so that readers can make up their own minds. That is the role of Wikisource. This article is now 13 pages long, and perhaps still not comprehensive. Remember, this is just one quote we're talking about. There are several other long quotes in the article that also need to be excerpted or removed. -Willmcw 10:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would normally agree with you, but in the case of LaRouche it's important to provide quotes, as Herschel himself has often pointed out, instead of interpreting what he's saying, especially when the quotes are so hard to interpret. But I do agree with you about the length problem. It's over 7,200 words. SlimVirgin 15:11, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Slim: I was replying Willmcw. All I was saying was that the bit at the end was meant as satire. DanKeshet 18:08, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Dan. SlimVirgin 18:10, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky's archiving

Herschel, I saw you addressed my question on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche, but didn't answer it because I must have expressed it badly, so I'm clarifying below. Which page would you prefer to discuss this on to avoid cross-posting? SlimVirgin 23:32, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, I'm having trouble finding material in the archives. You seem to have moved a lot of material and installed it elsewhere out of context. For example, can you tell me what happened to the following, and why you moved it? On August 19, you deleted this discussion [9] about LaRouche's alleged Holocaust denial from Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues and moved it to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List/archive1 [10]. Then on October 11, you moved the entire Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues to Talk :Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List/archive1, [11] which makes me wonder why you extracted the Holocaust denial discussion and moved it separately. You later moved Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4, where it is out of context and I can't find the Holocaust denial discussion.

There is some discussion about Holocaust denial in Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive7 and I've also looked through Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/fullarchive, but I still can't find this material. Could you let me know where you archived it please, and why you removed it from its context? I apologize if it's there and I have simply overlooked it. It's hard to be certain after looking at diffs for a couple of hours. I've restored it to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues, and I've put Talk :Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List/archive1 on the template too. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 10:39, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

When the edit wars ended in October, I moved my the remainder of my list of objections, those which had not been resolved earlier, to what is now called Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List/archive1 (Closed issues). Issues that were resolved earlier, were moved earlier. --HK 15:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, sorry I must have expressed my questions badly, so I'll make them clearer.

• I would like to know why you moved anything (resolved or unresolved) out of the Talk pages, and out of their context?
• I know you moved the Holocaust denial material to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List/archive1. But as this list wasn't displayed anywhere, no one would have known to look for it. So my second question is: where is the Holocaust denial material in the regular archives e.g. Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive1 etc., or Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/fullarchive? Or is it in the political views archive? SlimVirgin 23:32, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

The list was in fact displayed numerous times in the regular talk page. The idea of creating a seperate group of pages for discussion of the list came from User:MyRedDice, and I would suggest that you address your concerns to him. This is beginning to look like a tactic to simply overwhelm me with requests for this and that; I don't have the seemingly unlimited amounts of time to devote to Wikipedia that you do, and my priority is going to be to respond to POV edits from your team. --HK 01:26, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you'd make it a priority to answer the question about the Holocaust denial material. Regardless of whose idea it was to move it, where did you place it in the Talk:Lyndon LaRouche archives? SlimVirgin 01:34, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've requested that the page be unprotected, because Herschelkrustofsky doesn't seem to be raising further objections to the validity of the gay quotes, and the other editors seem to agree that they are genuine. SlimVirgin 01:34, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Herschel has protested against the page being unprotected, on the grounds that he is too busy editing other pages to concentrate on this one. That isn't a reason to leave a page protected, as you know. You must either come to this page to discuss your remaining oncerns, or I will again ask for page unprotection tomorrow, and will offer the lack of discussion on this page as evidence of your attempt to take ownership of this article. You are the only editor who believes Cberlet quoted inaccurately. You cannot, as one individual, stop him from inserting accurate material. SlimVirgin 05:40, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Slim, Herschel. The "holocaust denial material" is at: Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/Jewish issues#Jewish_deaths_in_the_Holocaust and Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/Jewish issues#LaRouche,_Holocaust_Denial_and_anti-Semitism. I don't know what happened to it in the interim, but that's where I archived it. Martin 12:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the missing LaRouche material about his alleged Holocaust denial [12] which Martin said can be found at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues -- I recently restored it to this archive when I found it had been deleted by Herschelkrustofsky on August 19, 2004. I continue to wonder what the general archiving practises were at that time, and why Herschel was allowed to remove things and move discussions out of context. The archives are in a complete mess as a result; a lot is missing; the rest is not in chronological order; and Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/fullarchive is nowhere near complete. There may be an innocent explanation, but Herschel has so far declined to offer one. SlimVirgin 18:54, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Objection

I also believe that Berlet quoted inaccurately, through fallacy of composition. The problem can be solved if the previous paragraph is included, as in This version of the article, so that it is clear that LaRouche is not endorsing violence against gays. Weed Harper 16:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of obviously antigay quotes in LaRouche publications from the 1970s through the 1980s. I have cited two antigay documents by LaRouche and one from the LaRouchite Illinois Tribunal. This discussion is Orwellian. Am I to be forced to post dozens of quotes to prove what is obvious? This is in addition to the claim by me and other LaRouche critics that his views, at least in the 1970s and 1980s, were substantially similar to the organicism and integralism of fascist intellectuals in Italy, and other countries. The tactic here is to obfuscate and wear editors down until they agree something is NPOV when it is actually heavily biased in favor of LaRouchite rewritting of their own history. --Cberlet 16:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WH and CB, rather than the long quote now used (along with other too-long quotes), here is an excerpt from the portion provided by HK. Is it agreeable to both of you to use this instead?

Regarding the failure of government agencies to enact quarantines [or "more stringent control measures"] for AIDS infected persons, LaRouche has said:

[Government agencies] did not want...to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States. (I don't know why they're "gay," they're the most miserable creatures I ever saw!)

To my eye this quotation is short and clear. Any objections? -Willmcw 19:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK with me as a valid compromise position.

There is still a sentence in the gay section that is very misleading:

The argument in support of Proposition 69 which appeared in the Voter's Guide published by the State of California said that "These measures are not new; they are the same health measures applied, {by law,} every day, to every other contagious disease." [7]

State of California Voter's Guides contain assertions from both proponents and oppponents of a Proposition. The current phrasing imples the words cited were endorsed or issued by the State of California. They were not. This should just be cited as a proponent claim from the LaRouchites, just like the claims of opponent Bruce Decker cited in the preceeding paragraph.--Cberlet 20:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would accept Willmcm's quote without the ellipsis and without his editorial comment, which implies that the measures would have enacted mandatory quarantines, which is false. I would accept this:

"We have another purpose in fighting AIDS, for our fighting AIDS--for our inducing people to do what they should have done anyway without our speaking a word. Government agencies should have done this. There should be no issue! But government agencies didn't! That's the issue. Why didn't they? Because of a cultural paradigm shift. They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States."

I would also accept this formulation for the California voters guide:

The argument written by supporters of Proposition 69 which appeared in the Voter's Guide published by the State of California said that "These measures are not new; they are the same health measures applied, by law, every day, to every other contagious disease."

I believe that the original had italics rather than brackets. I would recommend that the same basic formulation be used for Bruce Decker's comments if they indeed appeared in the voters' guide, and that the two opposing comments be juxtaposed.

Regarding the search for quotes: the basic problem arises from the fact that editor CBerlet, like his real-life counterpart, activist Chip Berlet, is not interested in presenting a neutral, informative, encyclopaedic account of this controversy. He wishes to promote his arcane theories about LaRouche, and thus must search for a quote that he hopes to "spin". If there are so many homophobic comments by LaRouche, I am certain that CBerlet could have found one that didn't have to be "cooked."

I note also DanKeshet's comments above; evidently he, too, "gets it." I would disagree, however, with Dan's assertion that LaRouche "writes as he speaks" (although he tends to use extremely elaborate constructions, whether writing or speaking.) In the disputed quote, you are reading a transcript of spoken remarks, and I'm sure that the lack of spoken affect makes the irony less obvious. But, Dan was able to understand it nevertheless. --HK 21:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Additional objections

• • I'd like it to be clear that the Illinois Tribunal is not a "LaRouche publication." I had never heard of it; the only reference on the internet comes from Chip Berlet. I would accept the formulation "a newspaper published locally by LaRouche supporters", although I have seen no evidence that that is in fact the case.

Images posted previously, as requested:

http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/Scans/misc/iltribkkk.jpg

New Solidarity described as parent newspaper.

I have added additional images showing that the paper was published by LaRouche

Find them on this page:

http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/context_quotes.html#gays

You have to click on the links!

--Cberlet 00:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • I would like CBerlet to post a photostat of the alleged article in "New Solidarity" so that I can verify that 1) such an article actually exists, and 2)that we don't have another case of manipulated context. I followed the link to the Chip Berlet site [13], only to find the same fragmentary, out-of-context presentation, and no photostat.

Done

Find them on this page:

http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/context_quotes.html

You have to scroll down and click on the links!

--Cberlet 00:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--HK 22:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, let's get the name of the LaRouche proposition right. It was Proposition 64.

Let's look at the quote from a law review:

"69. See Martha A. Field, Testing for AIDS: Uses and Abuses, 16 AM. J.L. & MED. 34, 45 n.44 (1990). In California, Lyndon LaRouche gained sufficient voter support to place Proposition 64 on the November 1986 ballot, although the proposition was soundly defeated. Voters Have Say on Referendums, CHI. TRIB., Nov. 6, 1986, at 12. Proposition 64 would have required public officials to quarantine anyone carrying the AIDS virus, and would have forbidden AIDS-infected individuals from teaching or attending public school. Id. The state health director recognized that the language of the proposition could be interpreted to mandate testing of all 27 million California voters. Id. at 45. Echoing views similar to Proposition 64, North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms commented that, in order to contain the spread of AIDS, quarantine would be necessary. Bennett Would Detain Some Carriers of AIDS, N.Y. TIMES, June 15, 1987, at A13."

http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/45/malloy.html

--Cberlet 22:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First of all, there were two, identical initiatives, props. 64 and 69. Secondly, they were worded very carefully: they simply restored AIDS to its former position on the state list of communicable diseases, subject to public health law. Your quote may be from a law review, but it is speculative and wrong (and probably influenced by the propaganda spread by persons such as yourself). Quarantine would in fact be one of many options available to the health department, but I would not care to second guess them as to how they would proceed, were AIDS to be placed in their jurisdiction. --HK 22:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HK, Can we find a neutral source for the text of the proposed law and the ballot statement? If not then we should not include them. As for the quarantining, every commentator on the initiative mentioned the quarantine aspects. Again, without performing our own analyses it is not an issue we can decide. We can report that PANIC claimed it did not require quarantine and opponents said it did. It is not for us, as editors, to establish the truth. -Willmcw 01:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is a neutral source:

Editorial

San Francisco Examiner, June, 29, 1986, p. A-12

Let’s tell LaRouche to get lost

THE NOVEMBER ELECTION already was shaping up as a fire-spitting affair with several abrasive collisions materializing, and then here came Lyndon LaRouche's outfit to make things worse. The AIDS initiative placed on the ballot by the efforts of LaRouche followers would represent, were it approved, a sickness of public policy almost as bad as the disease itself.

It is an old-fashioned hateful witch-hunting proposition and hence it may, by stirring fears and antipathies, raise the pre-election heat to a degree that is both uncomfortable and unwholesome.

But this can be mitigated if the point becomes vividly clear, well beforehand, that a sizable majority of the California public is repelled sufficiently to tell LaRouche and his entourage to get lost. Let us all try to be a part of this early rejection of an extremism that makes more wrenching the mortal sadness of AIDS and offers, instead of relief, a monstrous form of ostracism.

In its exclusionary sweep, the proposal exceeds anything ever contemplated in this country, in respect to a disease that is non-communicable by any casual contact (by agreement of the leading experts in medicine and research). The state ballot proposal, for which the tenacious LaRouche people collected some 630,000 signatures, seems aimed at sealing off people with the AIDS virus (including all those who do not have the AIDS sickness) from the rest of society.

Hence we see a chilling vision of police-state methods. Health officials would be empowered to scoop up and test anyone even suspected of carrying the virus. Those carrying it could be made to stay in their homes, or in special centers. School-age children with the virus would be barred from school, and adults would be excluded from jobs as school teachers, administrators or commercial food handlers. Their travel might be restricted. Quarantining on this scale could require a sizable use of police power.

Mayor Feinstein rightly calls the proposition "misguided and hysterical," especially since it "flies in the face of all sound medical opinion." It will gain votes, though, from many people who fear AIDS and do not take time to analyze, and from prejudiced people wanting to inflict repression on gays, who bear the principal brunt of the lethal malady. But surely most citizens will see right away that it has nothing to do with necessity or reality, only with delusion and penalizing.

LaRouche followers, who have claimed, for example, that the queen of England is into drug dealing, are no strangers to delusion. They should not be allowed to inflame this state with this irrational initiative, and they won't if enough people denounce it often enough.

That provides plenty of neutral material.--Cberlet 02:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More Quotes for Balance

"The LaRouche Initiative (Prop 64) would open up a witch hunt in the workforce and make the containment of AIDS more difficult than ever."

John F. Henning, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

"The UFW sees Proposition 64 as a threat to the job security and public health of every Californian. We resolve to bury this initiative."

Cesar Chavez, President, United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO

"Health professionals believe that Proposition 64 would seriously hurt their ability to treat and find a cure for AIDS. Current medical efforts based on years of research will be undermined by the fear generated by this irrational proposition."

Helen Miramontes, R. N.. President California Nurses Association

"It is hard to take Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. seriously, but it can be dangerous to ignore him... not many people took Adolph Hitler seriously when he wrote his twisted manifesto, Mein Kampf."

AFL-CIO News, April 5, 1986

The LaRouche forces have to be stopped in California. They are a band of provocative thugs with a long history of attacking Blacks, women, unions, Jews, Chinese and gay people--whoever is a convenient scapegoat at a given time."

Coalition of Black Trade Unionists

I think these need to be considered. --Cberlet 02:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prop. 64

I have found the full text of California Proposition 64 online (I believe from EIR). However, the text refers to two specific California state regulations, which I could not find. Does anybody know how to obtain an online version of those laws (which may by now have been revised or revoked)? I tried California findlaw but came up with nothing. DanKeshet 19:16, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

If you have a reference to the Prop 64 text I can look at it and see if I can track down the referecned laws. However I am not sure that we should be trying to resolve this ourselves. For the purpose of the article, isn't it enough to say that "proponents describe the proposition one way, while opponentes described it otherwise"? Are we going to argue over the legal ramifications? Is any here a lawyer? But it would be worthwhile to provide the link, if nothing else. -Willmcw 21:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

http://www.aboutsudan.com/issues/biological_holocaust/aids/aids_prop_64.htm I have no reason to believe that this site is inaccurate.

The text is accurate (I compared it to an actual original signature petition from California), and the Attorney General's office had to review the wording before it was put on the petition for signatures, so I think it is safe to assume the language is correct as to the applicable laws at that time.--Cberlet 23:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This reference "Administrative Code Title 17, Part 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1" may be to this section of the code: [14]. I can find many references to " Health and Safety Code Section 3123", such as in the section on "Typoid Fever" [15], but I cannot find the section itself. The sections appear to have been renumbered, but I can't tell whether section 3123 was repealed or just moved. (Here is the whole Health and Safety Code - no 3000s at all [16]) But again, for us to make our own determination of the hypothetical effect of this initiative would be original research. For this article, it is enough to say that opponents called it a quarantine effort and supporters denied that allegation. We can mention that other, contemporary writings of LaRouche support "isolation" of AIDS carriers. -Willmcw 23:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this is heading in a good direction, but we have an issue of "proportional reality" (I don't know what else to call it) with the concept of encyclopedic balance. In an article on "Flat Earth Theories" would you give equal weight to opponents and proponents? This happens with issues such as "Creationism v. Evolution" and Holocuast Denial. In an aricle on the Holocaust it would be wrong to give equal space to Holocaust historians and Holocaust deniers. Proposition 64 was almost universally condemend. That needs to be siad. Also, the LaRouchite claim that HIV was spread by insects or the implication in Prop. 64 that HIV was spreaf like the flu was, in fact, psuedo-science. I think that fair and accurate is a better standard than pica pole balance in the matter of Prop. 64.--Cberlet 00:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CB, I have no problem with listing additional criticisms of the initiative, the widespread condemnation of PANIC, a review of various LaRouche theories about AIDS, etc. I just don't want us to get boggged down with trying to decide, on our own, what the actual policy implications of the law would have been. We aren't equipped to do that. -Willmcw 00:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FYI - I've copied the Prop 64 text to a page on Wikisource California_Proposition_64_(1986). Once we have the article back we can add it to list of links. -Willmcw 02:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We don't need to decide what the policy implications would be, but when we have so many quotes about it, it's good to provide the reader with links to satisfy their curiousity. Consider this reader interested. DanKeshet

Good source

A good online source for LaRouche's writings and a vast collection of LaRouche- and LaRouche-movement multimedia content is the LaRouche Youth Movement website, especially Books and classics.

Another Cook job

Thanks to Chip Berlet for posting the photostats of the New Solidarity article on his website, but what it reveals is that his edited version of the quotes is unacceptably misleading. Visitors to this talk page should take the trouble to compare the photostats [17] [18] [19] to the quotes he posted in the article [20]. For example, the omitting of the sentences "The impact of this pattern of developments on Britain's youth gangs of violence-prone football fans is predictable. One can read their general line of thinking in advance." By omitting these lines and cutting to "Since the idea of of touching the person of the carrier is abhorrent," Berlet makes it look like LaRouche is expressing his own views, instead of views that LaRouche is attributing to Britain's youth gangs. This sort of trick is sadly typical of the stuff on Berlet's site. Weed Harper 01:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You mean the article titled "Teenage Gangs' Lynching of Gays is Foreseen Soon." Gee, seeing the whole thing is even worse than the excerpts. Can you show us the part where LaRouche condemns violence against gays? -Willmcw 02:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Malicious Statements and Personal Attacks Need to be Corrected and Action Taken

Weed and HK have stated the following:

HK: (as Weed pointed out, CBerlet evidently thinks that it is undemocratic to propose that trade unionists and ethnic minorities be brought into the electoral process)."

This is false and malicious. This is another in a long series of personal attacks that violate Wikipedia policy.

I am in the National Writers Union, have worked for unions, and was a shop steward in a union. I have worked with ethnic minorities ranging across the color line; and worked with trade unionists, white ethnics, and Blacks and other people of color, on the Harold Washington for Mayor campaign in Chicago. When PRA founder Jean Hardisty and I left Chicago, there was a small going away dinner attended by Mayor Washington who personally thanked us for our work exposing bigots like LaRouche. But then the LaRouchites wrote editorials blasting Washington using nasty and vicious language.

Have editors here at Wikipedia decided that repeated and flagrant violations of the policy on personal attacks do not apply to HK and Weed? When was this decision made? I have repeatedly been charged with inventing quotes. Then, when I post the context for the quotes, there is a demand for an image file. Then, when I post the image file, HK and Weed state that the text does not mean what 99.9% of the editors here at Wikipedia would consider a fair and accurate reflection of the views of LaRouche and the LaRouchites.

When are editors going to stand up against this?--Cberlet 03:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether editor Cberlet adores or hates trade unions, or whether the person Chip Berlet is a liar or a messiah, and it does not matter. Our task here is to edit articles, and it is inappropriate for anyone to engage in personal attacks on other editors, or to post libelous statements about any person. Please, let's keep our attention on the article at hand. I would hate for us to have to waste our time, and the time of administrators and aribtrators, mediating personal disputes. -Willmcw 05:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From the archives [21]:

The essence of republican organization, including republican parties, is the mobilization of a majority of the citizens as a conscious force engaged in direct deliberation of the policymaking of the nation, of discovering which policies are in fact currently in the interest of the nation and its posterity. By creating a republican labor party of such trade unionists and ethnic minorities, we shall end the rule of irrationalist episodic majorities, of British liberal notions of ‘democracy.’ "

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. “Creating a Republican Labor Party.” Citizens for LaRouche, circa 1980.

I think this cleary is evidence of LaRouche's disdain for electoral democracy. Comments? --Cberlet 21:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have two comments: first, that LaRouche appeared to be aware of the danger of Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America" a decade and a half before Gingrich became prominent. Second, that your argument, that this quote represents evidence of a "disdain for electoral democracy", is a joke. LaRouche is talking about organizing labor and minorities, who have been ignored by the dominant parties for decades, and bringing them into "direct deliberation of the policymaking of the nation." You find that undemocratic? Weed Harper 01:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--HK 15:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My apologies to Weed Harper. I now can clearly see that it was HK who turned Weed's legitimate question into a personal attack on me.

HK: (as Weed pointed out, CBerlet evidently thinks that it is undemocratic to propose that trade unionists and ethnic minorities be brought into the electoral process)."

That is not what Weed said at all. Weed simply asked a provocative question. I assume that HK will now apologize to Weed also, so that we can follow the advice Willmcw posted above. I'll try to take a few deep breaths before typing. :-) --Cberlet 18:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since Berlet never answered my provocative question, Herschel should be forgiven for assuming that he "evidently" believes that. It seems to me that the libelous statements are the ones being made about LaRouche. Weed Harper 21:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche sued regarding a number of such statements and lost. SlimVirgin 21:50, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting this here for discussion until unprotection

Berlet has added another quote from Berlet over at Lyndon LaRouche. I removed it. It is non-biographical, but perhaps would be appropriate for "Political views" when it is unprotected. I doubt it, however; Berlet should find a surrogate (there are some obvious candidates) instead of posting his own theories and attributing them to "critics", otherwise it looks like a clear case of "original research." Here is the passage in question:

LaRouche critics, however, suggest that LaRouche organization publications on Iraq are one way that conspiracism and anti-Semitism are incorporated into some Arab and Muslim commentaries, especially through the use of stereotyped descriptions of the neoconservative network and their power.[22] Weed Harper 21:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have quoted it instead. It's an important point if you want to use the previous quote about an Israeli nest, or whatever it was. The consequences of making such statements need to be pointed out directly under it, not on a different page. That is very much a biographical issue, as it shows how irresponsible LaRouche is being. SlimVirgin 21:50, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Temp

We could spend a year talking about the article - let's get back to editing. I've prepared a short draft of a possible LaRouche/Gays/AIDS section at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Temp. It is about a third the size of the original, and I hope we can keep it short (and later shorten the other sections too). May I suggest that we edit that version and once we've achieved consensus we can lift the protection and move it to the article? (I'm not sure that I've incorporated all the disucssion here). -Willmcw 01:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your draft is excellent, Will. It's succinct (hurrah!) and fair. I made some suggestions in square brackets. Normally I would just have added the quotes myself that I think are needed, but I don't want to add to length. Well, maybe I should find them anyway, and not rely on others to do that. Thanks for doing this work. SlimVirgin 02:24, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and comments. I cleaned it up a bit in response. Regarding quotes, I don't see the need to quote LaRouche extensively. There are websites that have his collected works already. Regarding his change, can someone please explain how his view on "so-called homosexuals" have altered? I feel it is necessary to make some kind of reference to the passage of time, in 1986 this was the issue that was the most important, a few years later it was inconsequential- rarely mentioned. It seems like he lost interest, or recognized the changed reality. -Willmcw 02:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will, I added the second Africa/Aids quote, which I think should be there for balance, because he does indeed seem to have modified his views, though his saying he doesn't think homosexuals exist as a category indicates he still has some odd ideas, but no matter. Regarding the first quote, I still think it shouldn't be taken out of context. However, this is just my opinion, and I won't push it; if the rest of you can reach consensus, I'll go along with it. SlimVirgin 02:48, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I value your opinion, but you haven't told me how the longer quote changes the meaning, or how LaRouche has changed his views on AIDS or gays. For the section to be twice as long, it should have something close to twice the information, and I don't see how the extra text adds anything. But then, I'm pretty dumb. ;-) Can you explain it to me? Cheers, Willmcw 05:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will, go with whatever consensus you can get with the others, because I'm not going to push one way or the other. My opinion is that LaRouche may very well have changed his opinion. In the earlier quotes, notwithstanding that there's some irony, he sounds contemptuous of gays, and in the second quote, he doesn't. Whether the change is genuine, is not for us to guess. If we're going to use a gay quote that makes him look bad, we should also use a gay quote that makes him look better. As for the first quote, it's complex, there's a degree of irony or satire, though perhaps not much, so it's probably important to quote it more or less as said. I disagree that AIDS became inconsequential as an issue. A substantial portion of the world is dying because of it and LaRouche, whether genuinely or not, professes to care about that, so why leave that bit out? SlimVirgin 08:12, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

If you really think that LaRouche changed his attitude, then let's just say so in 25 words or less. Such as: In a later speech, LaRouche took a less harsh approach to AIDS sufferers, saying they deserve to get medicine even if they are homosexuals. or whatever captures the essence of the quote. And then add a link to the Wikisource where the relevant speech can be found. I'm all for depicting LaRouche as fairly as possible, but let's try to keep this article down to something that a person can read in a weekend. :-) -Willmcw 08:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What's the consensus over this issue? Can the editors who agree with Will please say so here, so we can make a decision? SlimVirgin 18:28, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think I'll split the editors' ideas. I would cut the first quote where Will wants to and leave the second quote long as Slim suggests. It would be more fair for the pro-LaRouche view to let him speak for himself and let people decide if his views have changed.--Cberlet 18:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll go along with that. SlimVirgin 18:57, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

OK, that sounds good. -Willmcw 21:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Sound of champagne cork popping) Looks like a deal! Does anyone mind if I request page unprotection? SlimVirgin 22:10, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I mind, because you have not addressed HK's proposed version. Not suprisingly, I prefer that one. If you have objections to it, please spell them out. Weed Harper 22:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschel's approach to the issue has been debated ad nauseam over the last few days, Weed. The page can't stay protected forever, and we appear to have reached a consensus. Will kindly wrote a new version of that section; I tweaked it in one direction, Cberlet tweaked it in a compromise direction; then Will and I agreed to Cberlet's tweak. Consensus editing. The way Wikipedia should work all the time. SlimVirgin 23:55, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Weed, are there any specific issues you have with the draft on the /Temp page? -Willmcw 03:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Consensus editing?

Three people who share a POV is not "consensus editing." Other than Berlet saying that my alternate version is unacceptable to him, there has been no response to my proposed alternate version, let alone discussion "ad nauseum."

I have the following issues with the Slim/Will/Berlet version:

• • It begins with an unattributed accusation. A neutral version should begin with a description of the PANIC initiatives, and make clear that LaRouche's attacks on the "" were in the context of the debate over public health measures.

• • My request that the "Illinois Tribunal" be identified as a production of local LaRouche supporters has been seconded by Weed -- any objections?

• • Will's characterization: "If they do not, the liklihood is, he writes, that lynch mobs of teenagers will form to to save the human species from extinction" is misleading. LaRouche was warning that the population could become irrational, not cheerleading British gangs.

Actually, if the opening paragraphs were dropped, and the section simply began with "LaRouche activists formed", it would be relatively NPOV.

--HK 16:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HK, I've tried to address some of these issues in the 1/17/05 draft-

• changed topic sentence to make it more neutral
• changed illinois tribunal reference and showed relevance
• I have not changed the teenage gangs reference. If you read it, LaRouche says that the teenage lynch gangs might be seen by future historians as "the only political force which acted to save the human race" [23]. This goes beyond saying that the "population could become irrational". By putting words into the mouths of the future historians, he is giving us his own opinion. -Willmcw 09:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HK's alternate version

I have proposed an alternate version, with the following modifications. It begins with a neutral version of the PANIC controversy, rather than the formulation by critics. I have dropped the Illinois Tribunal quote, for two reasons: 1) since there are quotes available from LaRouche himself, they should be preferred, and 2) I doubt whether the Tribunal is an authorized "LaRouche publication." Regarding Willmcm's version, it is not correct that LaRouche has "dropped AIDS as an issue." I have used a different section of the 1986 speech than proposed by Will or Slim, in order to keep it short, but it includes the word "faggots" which I hope will satisfy Will and Slim. --HK 14:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Illinois Tribunal is an authorized LaRouchite publication. I have posted image files documenting that fact at the http://www.publiceye.org website. Illinois Tribunal was an insert into the national LaRouchite newspaper distributed in Illinois. I continue to protest claims by HK that I am inventing, cooking, or misrepresenting LaRouchite material. The issue arose in a debate over proof that LaRouche and the LaRouchites in the 1970s and 1980s published much antigay material. Originally HK argued this claim was false. When I documented it, he quibbled. Now he wants to delete it, but sticks in one more personal attack by stating "I doubt whether the Tribunal is an authorized "LaRouche publication." It is. I have documented it. Stop claiming otherwise.

I want to make the record clear. Every single time HK has claimed I have engaged in inventing, cooking, or misrepresenting A LaRouche or LaRouchite quote he has been shown to be wrong when I posted the context and image files at the http://www.publiceye.org website. Personal attacks on me are unfair and violate Wikipedia policy.

I am very willing to have other editors arrive at a compromise text. I am not willing to allow pro-LaRouche editors to rewrite the history of the group, wear editors down with endless objections, and use personal attacks during the collective editing process. All violate Wikipedia policies and practices.

HK's alternate version is not acceptable to me. I think the version being edited by Slim and Will is far more fair and accurate.--Cberlet 17:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the photostat of the New Solidarity article that Berlet posted, and the transcript of the EIR article that Herschel posted, and it is clear to me that in both cases CBerlet manipulated the context to make it appear that LaRouche intended to say things which he clearly did not. This is not a personal attack; it is an observation about an editing practice which is unacceptable. In the case of the Illinois Tribunal, the IT refers to New Solidarity as the "parent publication" of the IT. Herschel said that he would accept the formulation "a newspaper published locally by LaRouche supporters" which seems reasonable. I can also see the point of his argument that since there are quotes available from LaRouche himself, why not go with those. Weed Harper 21:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding using LaRouche quotes versus LaRouche Supporter quotes: LaRouche, like any politician, is important because he has followers. Larouche often expounds on his ideas in circuitous speeches which do not lend themselves to excerpting. With many philosophers it is the followers, restating the master's words, who are accessible to the general public. Other articles about LaRouche reference the views of supporters so they are not irrelevant. Lastly, I've tied the quote into the candidacy of Janice Hart to make it more relevant. Thanks for your comment. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good will on the part of other editors. I might add that someone recently posted a quote from Hanan Ashrawi (sp) saying that LaRouche is "voice of reason." Well, turns out it wasn't Ashrawi, but some flack from the Syrian Times, and the "reasonable" view of LaRouche is that the Iraq war was a product of Israeli sympathizers in the administration (which is arguable, but which is an important part of the context). That misquotation was corrected with no charges of bad faith to the editor who had placed it there. Heck, we all make mistakes. Let's just focus on making good articles, not on criticizing our fellow editors. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will, if you will check the page history on "Lyndon LaRouche" [24], you will find that I corrected my mistake on Hanan Ashrawi within five minutes. Berlet is still defending his mistakes. --HK 16:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes. Me too. I have not made mistakes along the lines of inventing or misrepresenting quotes. HK also claimed "LaRouche was cited by an editorial in Al-Jazeerah as '[a]mong the US voices of reason.'" This was a substantial misrepresentation since the source was not an editoral by Al-Jazeerah (which would have been highly significant) but an op-ed in the Syrian Times. HK did not correct that...as a glance at the history page reveals. This discussion can get so Orwellian. HK, we obviously disagree, and it is easy to flame. Could you please stop posting gratuitous attacks on my integrity as a journalist and editor here? I will try to be more civil as well.--Cberlet 19:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jan 17 version

I've tried to incorporate the discussion here in a new draft of a section on AIDS & Gays on the temp page, Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Temp. It clocks in at just over 600 words. [Version B: 685 words] Any comments? -Willmcw 06:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) [-Willmcw 09:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)]

Yes. First of all, I don't think that "Homosexuals" are an "important issue for LaRouche and his supporters." AIDS, however, is an important issue. Your intro is misleading. You say that "LaRouche has repeatedly written that governments must actively "isolate" AIDS patients from the general population" which is a POV way of saying that LaRouche has called for a public health approach -- a neutral formulation would say that LaRouche has called for a public health approach (which covers a broad spectrum of things: contact tracing, etc, as well as possibly quarantine, but that his opponents say he has a hidden agenda (ie quarantine everybody). (Why is it that LaRouche's critics always attack his "hidden agenda", rather than his "agenda"? It smacks of a conspiracy theory.) And, you are still "spinning" the New Solidarity quote to make it look like LaRouche is endorsing "teenage gangs." He isn't -- he's warning that such a thing could be the consequence of failing to go with public health measures.

I am still waiting for someone to respond to Herschel's version. Weed Harper 14:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WH, thanks for your comments. Per your sggestion, I have dropped "homosexuals" from the lead sentence. It's true that AIDS, not homosexuals, has been the important issue for LaRouche. I also added the word "warns" to the lynch mob paragraph. Even before the draft never said that he endorsed lynch mobs. Howver in the article he does write that future historians will endorse it and that looks like an endorsement to me. Anyway, that's not mentioned. Regarding "isolation", that's the word LaRouche uses. I haven't seen a quote from him calling for contact tracing. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find the latest version of the Jan 17 article generally acceptable. I would make the following suggestions: Instead of LaRouche has repeatedly written that governments must actively "isolate" AIDS patients from the general population, I would recommend "LaRouche and his spokespersons have advoicated measures to restrict contacts of infected persons with uninfected persons[25]," which is more accurate as well as being a direct quote. I would further add "...the LaRouche organization has praised Cuba's AIDS treatment program as a model to be followed." The link I am providing here is very useful, because it spells out very clearly what sort of policy LaRouche advocates, in contradistinction to the way his policies have been characterized by his opponents, such as Chip Berlet. --HK 21:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"We must identify and isolate the carriers of the AIDS virus, until we are assured that those infected are no longer capable of transmitting the virus," is an accurate, direct quote from LaRouche himself in "A Program for America" (page 7). I think that I have accurately paraphrased that thought, also expressed on other occasions. Regarding Cuba, I'm not sure the relevance. Cuba used quarantines but you have been arguing that LaRouche did not want quarantines. Also, when did the appreciation for Cuba begin? In 2000? I though LaRouche hated communism and other totalitarian state systems. And it seems like an isolated mention. If used, it would have to be couched as "A LaRouche supporter on one occasion has praised..." If you really want LaRouche's followers to go on record supporting Cuba, I suppose we could add it add after the last LaRouche quote. All in all, I don't see what it brings to the article. If nothing else, we can certainly place the Tennenbaum article in the list of links at the bottom. -Willmcw 22:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've just read over the Tennenbaum article to the end. HIV-AIDS Can Be Stopped! He talks about "the murderous perversity of the campaign of deliberate disinformation and sabotage against public health measures" that is spreading "the dangerous lie, that condoms protect against the transmission of HIV." Also this, which harkens back to LaRouche's 1980s advocacy of using directed energy weapons at the HIV virus,

In addition to what can be done with the present-day approaches of biology and medicine, much more powerful methods could be brought to bear against HIV-AIDS, if the revolutionary potentials of optical biophysics (the nonlinear spectroscopy of living processes) were to be tapped. Optical biophysics opens the way, in principle, to attacking the problems of disease and aging of tissue at a much more fundamental level than molecular biology, namely, at the level of changes in the characteristics of electromagnetic action underlying the living process as a whole.

While I hate to make this section any longer, a couple of sentences on the medical and scientific views of LaRouche and his follows may be necessary to make this section comprehensive. Separately, the endorsement of Cuba's authoritarian approach on this issue should probably be referenced in some other sections on his political views. -Willmcw 22:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will, you are jumping to some rather sweeping and unwarranted conclusions here. Why would you assume that, because LaRouche endorses Cuba's AIDS program, that LaRouche also endorses Communism and Totalitarianism? That's the sort of reasoning I have come to expect from Chip Berlet. And with respect to Cuba's AIDS program being "authoritarian," I spoke last year to the head of the Public Health department at a university in a South American country. He told me that he had worked in Cuba for five years on their AIDS program, and had nothing but praise for it, describing it as very humane, in contradistinction to most countries that simply passed out condoms and told people that they were on their own. --HK 18:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, on the face of it a system which relies on large-scale involuntary measures seems "authoritarian" to me, but maybe that's the wrong word. Anyway, that aspect is a side issue. I don't think anyone in 1986 or 1988 was offering Cuba as an example. If the overall LaRouche organization now approves of the way Castro runs his county's AIDS program, then I suppose it would be worth including. But since there's only one reference I don't think it's significant. -Willmcw 19:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Originally I meant the section below under the horizontal rule to be part of this section of the discussion. I typed three dashes to indicate a long and complicated section. It was HK (Revision as of 21:41, 17 Jan 2005) that added a fourth dash to turn it into a horizontal rule that "isolated" and "quarantined" my comments.  :-) I hope they will be considered anyway. --Cberlet 23:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing that out, but I think we all caught that. BTW, a good "interface" for following convoluted (multi-phase?) discussions like this is the Page History. Just hit the "Last" button next to an edit and you'll see what was added. Anyway, since we have a quote in which LaRouche virtually advocates the formation of lynch mobs, do we also need one where he virtually advocates beatings? I'm not sure that one is more inflammatory than the others, but the meaning of the lynch mob quote is clearer. I'd suggest referencing the Feinstein quote in the Prop 64 article. -Willmcw 01:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That works for me, I was more concerned about the suggestion that Prop. 64 represented the "Public Health" position. --Cberlet 02:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prop 64

Calling the LaRouchite approach to AIDS a "Public Health" approach contradicts the factual record. Prop. 64 had no support in the actual Public Health community:

Opponents of Proposition 64 included:

Organizations

California Medical Association California Nurses Association California Hospital Association California Public Health Officers Association American Practitioners In Infection Control California Psychiatric Association League of Women Voters National Organization for Women San Francisco Medical Society Alameda County Labor Council Service Employees International Union-State Council California Labor Federation AFL-CIO

Elected Officials: U.S. Senator Alan Cranston U.S. Senator Pete Wilson Lt. Governor Leo McCarthy Congressman Ed Zschau Congresswoman Sala Burton Congresswoman Barbara Boxer Congressman Tony Coelho Congressman Vic Fazio Congressman George Miller Congressman Don Edwards Congressman Henry Waxman Congressman Doug Bosco Mayor Tom Bradley, Los Angeles Mayor Dianne Feinstein, San Francisco Mayor Lionel Wilson, Oakland Mayor Tom McEnery, San Jose Mayor Anne Rudin, Sacramento Mayor Everett Souza, Santa Clara Mayor Carole Singer Peltz, Sausalito Mayor Gus Newport, Berkeley Vice Mayor Susan Hammer, San Jose

Added Comments:

The Illinois Tribunal was the official publication of the LaRouche organization in the state of Illinois. It is misleading to say that it was just published by LaRouche supporters. It is a way to distance the quote from the organization.

If we are going to keep cutting the most inflamatory quote from LaRouche about assaulting gay people, then we need to balance the attempt to soften what Prop 64 was about with this quote from the S.F. Examiner posted above:

"In its exclusionary sweep, the proposal exceeds anything ever contemplated in this country, in respect to a disease that is non-communicable by any casual contact (by agreement of the leading experts in medicine and research). The state ballot proposal, for which the tenacious LaRouche people collected some 630,000 signatures, seems aimed at sealing off people with the AIDS virus (including all those who do not have the AIDS sickness) from the rest of society.

"Hence we see a chilling vision of police-state methods. Health officials would be empowered to scoop up and test anyone even suspected of carrying the virus. Those carrying it could be made to stay in their homes, or in special centers. School-age children with the virus would be barred from school, and adults would be excluded from jobs as school teachers, administrators or commercial food handlers. Their travel might be restricted. Quarantining on this scale could require a sizable use of police power.

"Mayor Feinstein rightly calls the proposition 'misguided and hysterical,' especially since it 'flies in the face of all sound medical opinion.'"

Let's remember that at that point in time, the LaRouche group was claiming that AIDS was spread by insects. --Cberlet 21:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It looks as if there is enough material and sufficient merit to have a stand-alone article on Prop 64. There are already articles on a number of important state propositions, successful and unsuccessful, so it would not be unusual. I'll get at least a stub going. -Willmcw 23:08, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See also: California Proposition 64 (1986) -Willmcw 00:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet and Original Research

I think that much of the material that Berlet is introducing into the LaRouche articles should be considered Original Research, as in Wikipedia:No original research. He is taking theories which he invented and posted on his own website, and posting them here, even though they have not "become a permanent feature of the public landscape." As an example, at "Political Views", Berlet says that according to critics Matthew Lyons and (surprise!) Chip Berlet, LaRouche should be considered a neofascist according to the definition of palingenesis. The only person who has ever suggested a connection between LaRouche and palingenesis is (surprise!) Chip Berlet. Likewise, Berlet keeps trying to insert material from his website which is misleading, and I don't care if editor CBerlet feels insulted, the website is misleading. In the "Lyndon LaRouche" article, Berlet inserted a passage that I have now removed: In 1975 LaRouche denounced non- Western music (and other cultural forms) in China as "ideological relics," "barbarian", and "hideous muck." But if you follow the links to Berlet's website and scroll to the bottom of the page, you finally find the actual quote from LaRouche, which is a denunciation of the Cultural Revolution, not Chinese music. I agree with Herschel that material from Chip Berlet's website should be corroborated. --Weed Harper 14:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::::Now we are having the same discussion on two pages...ported over from the Lyndon LaRouche page. If the pro-LaRouche editors are willing to stop editing that page until we finish this page, it would be a lot easier. I have already agreed to this idea.

When writing for an encyclopedia, an editor should not introduce original research, and should weight the article based on published materials. If that were true for this page, 90% of the text would be critical of the LaRouche network. Published material includes books, reports, and articles that are not self-published. I have had many articles on LaRouche published by reputable and reliable publications. These are appropriate to cite. Right-Wing Popuilsm in America was published by a respected publisher of scholarly and trade books. The text Matt and I wrote about LaRouche and fascism was published in that book and the publisher gave us permission to put it on the web. This is from the book:

"Though often dismissed as a bizarre political cult, the LaRouche organization and its various front groups are a fascist movement whose pronouncements echo elements of Nazi ideology.[1] Beginning in the 1970s, the LaRouchites combined populist antielitism with attacks on leftists, environmentalists, feminists, gay men and lesbians, and organized labor. They advocated a dictatorship in which a 'humanist' elite would rule on behalf of industrial capitalists. They developed an idiosyncratic, coded variation on the Illuminati Freemason and Jewish banker conspiracy theories. Their views, though exotic, were internally consistent and rooted in right-wing populist traditions."[26]

Chip Berlet & Matthew N. Lyons, Right-Wing Populism in America, p. 273.

The material on the PRA website (not my personal website) that is text from LaRouche publications is there because pro-LaRouche critics have repeatedly claimed that I have invented, cooked, or misrepresented the quotes I use. These false claims are clearly shown as false by reading the quotes in context. If someone want to corroborate these LaRouchian quotes they can becasue the cites are given. If someone finds a typo, I will fix it.

The quote from LaRouche about China is a denunciation of the Chinese cultural revolution for not being agresssively socialist enough and eradicating the "hideous" and "bestial" culture of pre-revolution China and replacing it White European culture. This ethnocentric and racist text by LaRouche is clear if read in context:

"What has happened in China during recent years is efficiently understood from the vantage point of the worst horrors which might have occurred to the imaginations of Soviet leaders during the 1924-1930 period, during which a peasant-based counterrevolution remained a grave internal danger. In effect, the Peking regime has embraced such a peasant counterrevolution. All the cognitive and related cultural achievements of capitalist development in music, philosophy, and so forth, are symptomatically denounced as 'Western' in favor of the philosophical and cultural ideological relics of pre-1949 China’s long barbarian past. Out of this hideous muck comes first a reactionary, actually counterrevolutionary rejection of the working class of both the Soviet sector and the advanced capitalist sector in the guise of the Lin Piao 1965 theses. Then—since 1971—there appears the bestial risus sardonicus of the brutalized oriental rural peasant village-commune, dripping with the ideological slime of old oriental despotism’s recurring manic-depressive cycles of brief dynastic rises followed by awful decline and decay. This oriental despotic infrastructure, of course, was the Old China up through the time of the Chinese Communists themselves gave the unspeakable Kuomintang the boot—the China of Confucianism, Taoism, 'cheap human life,' rural labor-intensive agonies, and hideous chauvinisms. That hideous old crap is now revived and embodied within Peking’s policy..."[27]

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "What Happened to Integration?, The Campaigner, (Journal of the National Caucus of Labor Committees), Vol. 8, No. 8, August 1975, pp. 5-40; quote from section "The Maoism Parallel" (pages 26-27).

Note that on that page is an explanation that LaRouche himself, at Middlebury College, denied uttering the words attributed to him that appear on this page. Follow the link to the transcript and read what LaRouche said about the quote and me.[28]

I urge other editors to read the full quote and then we can discuss an appropriate text to describe this and the many other writings of LaRouche that use "Classical Culture" as a way to promote European ethnocentrism and racism.--Cberlet 15:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem with your point, Weed, is that you use LaRouche publications as sources, which are LaRouche vanity publications producing ideas and theories that LaRouche has invented; and the ArbCom has ruled they count as original research except on pages closely related to LaRouche. On the other hand, Cberlet is an established journalist and researcher who has been published many times and not just by PRA; and in any event, PRA is a company he works for, not his own. Finally, the only reason he's putting all this stuff up on the website is because you and Herschel keep questioning the contexts of the quotes he has offered. We could perhaps agree to stop using, and even delete, Cberlet material if you will stop using, and will delete, all the LaRouche material. SlimVirgin 20:52, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Why not put all the quotes from Berlet in the Chip Berlet article and introduce them by saying, "Chip Berlet has produced many highly original, novel and downright peculiar theories about what Lyndon LaRouche actually believes, as opposed to what LaRouche says he believes. There is an ongoing dispute between Berlet and LaRouche about the nature of LaRouche's beliefs." --HK 21:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But let's please be careful not to suggest that LaRouche has produced any original, novel or downright peculiar ideas. SlimVirgin 22:31, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Of course he has. But, I don't suggest that we put them in the Chip Berlet article. They should be discussed in this one. --HK 17:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

Since the "LaRouche & AIDS" section seems to be nearly done, are there any other issues about this article that need to be resolved in order for the protection to be lifted? -Willmcw 20:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Two issues, that flow out of the same disagreement.

LaRouche, Democracy, and Fascism

I argue that using recent scholarly definitions and a careful reading of LaRouche material, he proposes an authoritarian and organicist oligarchy of elites to resolve the tension between labor and management. This is similar to corporatism in Italy, and integralism, as others have observed. It is not accurate to say he has never said anything against democracy.

LaRouche, Eurocentrism, and Racism

LaRouche's comments about Black, Puerto Rican, and Chinese culture are notorious.

--Cberlet 22:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since there are still substantial issues, and they are not confined to one section, I'm copying the entire article onto the Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Temp page. Looking at the TOC of the 44k article, I wonder why the 'Core beliefs' and 'contrversial views' are in separate sections. Can we cut this down and reduce the duplication? This article is far too long, IMO. -Cheers, Willmcw 23:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "core beliefs" and "controversial views" approach was Snowspinner's idea, and I think it is a good one. It is intended to resolve the peculiar problem that LaRouche's critics assert a different version of LaRouche's ideas than do LaRouche's supporters (this is more or less what Weed was saying about the LaRouche "agenda" vs. the LaRouche "hidden agenda" asserted by his critics.) It is further complicated by the fact that some of the "hidden agenda items" asserted by the critics are contradictory; for example, CBerlet is pushing the line that LHL's criticism of China's Cultural Revolution makes him a racist, whereas the formulation in an earlier version AndyL said that LaRouche's praise of the current Chinese government makes him an authoritarian. Which causes me to wonder, would LaRouche have been an authoritarian if he praised the Cultural Revolution, and a racist if he criticized the current Chinese goverment? --HK 02:11, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Contents [hide]
• 1 Core beliefs of LaRouche
• 1.1 LaRouche on economics
• 1.2 Political philosophy
• 1.2.1 Fascism
• 2 Controversial Views of LaRouche
• 2.1 LaRouche and Marxism
• 2.2 LaRouche's conspiracy theories
• 2.3 LaRouche and feminism
• 2.4 LaRouche on AIDS and Gays - January 17B version
• 2.5 Criticism of LaRouche's economics
• 2.6 LaRouche and the Jews
• 2.7 Is LaRouche a fascist?
• 3 LaRouche's critics
• 3.1 John Train Salon
• 4 External links

For the record, I don't agree with current LaRouche and AIDS draft, so it isn't accurate to say it's nearly done. You have swung it too far in favor of Herschel's version. If you want to retain your AIDS draft, then I suggest another section will have to be written on LaRouche's views on gays. But as this article is too long, AIDS and gays should be dealt with together, but properly. SlimVirgin 00:21, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I realize this is just a "Temp" page we're editing, but still... A few days ago you thought it was a good improvement, now you're throwing all that effort away? Another section has to be written? Jeez, we can't even write ONE! What a waste of time. -Willmcw 00:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, since the LaRouche/AIDS section is apparently not nearly complete, I've reverted it back to where we last left it. Please suggest specific changes to make it better. Separating AIDS and gays is a logical edit, if editors think it necessary. -Willmcw 00:41, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did not say the version you have chosen was a good improvement. (1) There was a section in the current article that CBerlet and I agreed with. HK didn't like it. (2) Even though HK is representing the views of a very tiny minority (read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), you created a temp page to find a compromise, and you incorporated some of HK's concerns. (3) I disagreed with your version. (4) CBerlet suggested another compromise version. I agreed with it. You agreed with it. We had reached a consensus. Page protection should have been lifted at that point, and we should have moved on. Instead (5), in response to input from Weed Harper, also representing a tiny minority view, you continued to change the draft to suit the LaRouchites.

You cannot now use that version as the starting point, and there's no point in getting into a revert war about it, because it will not last on the page itself. This is what happens when you compromise too much instead of sticking to Wikipedia's policies. What started off as a section on LaRouche and gays now barely mentions his views on gays. We should therefore start with a clean slate, and find a version that fairly represents what LaRouche has actually said, using some of the quotes Cberlet has supplied the contexts for, and not any editor's analysis. Alternatively, start with the version you, Cberlet and I agreed upon.

The one thing I do agree with you about is that this is a complete waste of time. Again, I urge you to read through the Template:LaRouche Talk archives. You will see that all of this has been discussed before. They wear editors down; cause editors to fall out, seeking to divide and rule; drive editors away entirely, then continue pursuing them around Wikipedia in other areas, trying to create disputes there too. In the seven months HK has been here, they have made four or five requests for mediation with different (very good, scholarly) editors, two requests for arbitration, and have caused one editor almost to leave Wikipedia completely. They insult and abuse editors who stand up to them, attacking anyone who shows knowledge of the LaRouche movement as an "anti-LaRouche activist." They have accused Cberlet of dishonesty by cooking quotes, and me of dishonesty by knowing they'd been cooked, but pretending otherwise. They are system gamers and what they're doing amounts to intellectual terrorism. I will not support it, even if I'm the only person left saying that. SlimVirgin 01:07, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

As far as minorities and majorities are concerned, according to my count, there are 2 hard core anti-LaRouche editors, 2 hard core pro-Larouche editors, and one moderate anti-LaRouche editor (that being Willmcw.) Whether Slim has conducted a poll, a Google search, or is channeling the souls of millions of unknown LaRouche opponents, I still count five editors, and I know of no reliable way to assess who has more allies outside of this talk page.

I have indicated that Will's version is acceptable to me, and that goes for the updated version found here. I probably shouldn't have said that it was acceptable, because that immediately made it unacceptable to Slim 'n' Chip, probably adding a week more of wrangling. The subsequent changes made by Slim are unacceptable, because they include the "cooked" quotes from New Solidarity. --HK 02:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

READ Wikipedia:Neutral point of view! It is not a question of how many editors are editing the page. It is a question of what been reported by publications, journalists, researchers, academics out there IN THE REAL WORLD. In the real world, almost no one believes LaRouche. Therefore, his views should NOT be represented in the Wikipedia as though they are substantial, accepted, minority views. Stop trying to label me as a hardcore anti-LaRouche editor. I am a hardcore pro-Wikipedia editor, and I am simply asking all editors to stick to Wikipedia's policies. SlimVirgin 02:47, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

There are no "cooked" quotes! This is part of the Orwellian intellectual terrorism that HK engages in. Will is actually trying to be a fair editor, but is up against a systematic campaign to bully editors. We should just submit this record to the Arbitration people. This record will demonstrate what the LaRouche proponents are really doing here.--Cberlet 03:20, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A farcical quality

It's been a while since I visited this page, and it has developed a farcical quality. I can't believe that Chip Berlet has to come to Wikipedia now to drum up business. That unnamed individual who supposedly underwrites Political Research Associates must be tightening the purse-strings. And, I am absolutely certain that SlimVirgin can see that Berlet cooked the quotes, but yet he treats him like the Professor fawning over Marlene Dietrich in "The Blue Angel." --Caroline 21:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CC, thanks for restoring the material that I accidentally blanked. Regarding your comments above, divisive personal remarks do not help us edit an article. If there are specific issues you have with the article then let us know. But attacks on your fellow editors are neither welcome nor tolerated. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will, you moved the Jan 17 gay/AIDS version instead of the current one. The Jan 17 version has not been agreed upon, so I have restored the current version. I feel we should start again, looking at the tone and structure of the article as a whole first, and decide what our sections are to be, because the piece is too long. We also have to make a decision as to how much of the piece should be dominated by the LaRouche movement's views, and how much by the views of others.

Chip, as you're the only LaRouche expert here, and also the only professional encylopedist, would you be prepared to create a subpage and write what you believe the Wikipedia article on Lyndon LaRouche and/or Political views of Lyndon LaRouche ought to be? It would be interesting to compare your versions with the current ones. The problem with this editing process is that you're trying to fit your knowledge into a structure that was written by, or in conjunction with, the LaRouche editors. If you could be freed from that structure, what would you produce? It would be a lot of work though, so feel free to ignore this suggestion. SlimVirgin 00:33, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Minority views

From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

SlimVirgin 10:58, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

It would seem that most of Berlet's theories would belong in the third category. --HK 20:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The condemnation of Lyndon LaRouche and his followers is nearly universal and worldwide in terms of material published in commonly accepted reference texts. The proponents of LaRouche are a tiny group that live in a bubble of admiration. I started out here merely asking that the text be reduced to 50% self-published claims by LaRouchites and 50% material from commonly accepted reference texts (all critical of LaRouche). This apparently is not OK with HK, who insists on inserting material with no independent verification. I think it is clear that HK is not capable of participating in this process in a way that is even remotely connected to the goals of Wikipedia. He has already repeatedy violated the strictures placed on him by the Arb. committee. He continues to enagage in personal attacks. He continues to claim that I cook quotes when it has been shown to the satisfaction of anyone but a LaRouche fanatic that the quotes are accurate and my interpretation of them is fair. Why is this being tolerated?

Will: In an entry on the Holocaust, would you find it acceptable if the Holocaust Deniers were allowed 50% of the text space to post their views? Would it be OK to allow them to constantly rewrite the text so that their claims ended every section, thus giving those views more weight? I think not.

Let's get back to editing. Let's be fair to the LaRouchites, but let's be editors of a serious encylopedia.

In the meantime--once again--I ask that HK and Weed and the other pro-LaRouche editors stop editing other LaRouche-related pages and just work on this page. I am willing to just work on this page. What's the problem with that? Let's finish the work on the text on AIDS and Gay people. Here is a proposed format

Majority view from material published in commonly accepted reference texts.

Quote from critic.

Quote from LaRouchites.

Summary

Then we move on to another section, until the article is edited. --Cberlet 12:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slim: I don't know how to create a Temp page, can you create one for me to edit and tell me how to do it?--Cberlet 13:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You can have a Temp page here or in your own user space. If the former, go to the search box on the left hand side. Type in (you can choose the words after the slash) Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Cberlet and press "go". A page will come up with a link saying that page doesn't exist - click here to create it (or words to that effect). Simply click on that link, and start writing on the blank page. Alternatively (and this is what most people do for personal drafts), create a page in your own user space by typing User:Cberlet/LaRouche draft, click on go, same procedure. Again, you can choose the words after the slash. Hope that helps. SlimVirgin 23:20, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Cberlet's proposed format above. Please let's concentrate on one page at a time. As this one is protected, we must edit this one, or ask for unprotection, because we're currently abusing the protection process. We should aim to make this article the sort of thing you'd expect to read in the Encyclopedia Britannica, if they had enough space (by which I don't mean it should be so long no one will read it). SlimVirgin 23:25, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Editing by Sections

Let's start with this section:

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Gays & AIDS

Here are the remaining sections to edit after we agree to the above section:

Republicanism v. Fascism

Racism or Higher Culture?

The Brainwashing Incident

Let's edit them in order

We can do this!--Cberlet 03:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chip, it's a good idea. What I'd suggest is to get a structure going first, and a rough estimate of desired length. Suggestion: Intro, Marxist period; Change of views, Conspiracy theories (issues like John Train Salon included here), Allegations of brainwashing, Gays and AIDS, Attitude toward Jews (including here the views about the British establishment and "international Jewry"), Attitude toward women; The LaRouche movement around the world (say something about the Schiller Institute and LYM, methods of recruitment, how many followers, how is movement financed). Then we can have LaRouche rebuttal sections, or we can intersperse LaRouche position throughout the text. I'd prefer the latter, so long as it doesn't lead to claim, counter-claim, and counter-counter etc. Suggest your own section headings if you want because you're the expert. I was thinking structure would be a good thing to pin down so we can pace ourselves in terms of word length, as we tackle each subject. SlimVirgin 04:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Berlet's theories

If you think that I am going to accept the replacement of this article with a knock-off of Chip Berlet's web site, you are dreaming. I indicated that I would accept Willmcw's (relatively) neutral re-write of the AIDS section. It is a basis for discussion. A total re-write by Berlet is out of the question. --HK 15:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not just the gay/AIDS section that needs attention. Material that should be discussed has been left out: for example, the brainwashing allegations against the movement; the period when LaRouche thought the CIA had brainwashed the membership; his belief that people want to assassinate him; how the membership is recruited; how it finances itself. You've prevented these issues from being examined in Schiller Institute, LaRouche Youth Movement, and the National Caucus of Labor Committees, so they can only go here or in Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin 17:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't "prevented them from being discussed" anywhere, but I agree that this is the appropriate location for such a discussion, except for how the movement finances itself, which is already discussed in Lyndon LaRouche. If you want to add more material there, I have no objection, provided that it comes from a reputable source. Meanwhile, I propose that we agree to use Will's AIDS section, and unprotect. --HK 01:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche/Temp&oldid=9385104 was the version that Will wrote and I wrote suggestions on. Will, Cberlet and I then reached an agreement, which was we'd have what Will wanted of the AIDS quote, and what I wanted of the apparent LaRouche change-of-heart. Then you objected. If we're going to use any of the gay drafts as a basis, it should be this one; though I believe Cberlet may have in mind writing another. SlimVirgin 01:50, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Stop Complaining and start discussing this draft

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Gays & AIDS I propose we post it and move on to editing other sections. --Cberlet 02:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with that version. SlimVirgin 02:42, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Slim: Let's go with it. As for the major re-edit, I agree we need a structure, but let's not worry about length at first. If we can agree on content that is too long, it will be easier to reduce the length later. Do you have a suggested outline?--Cberlet 04:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of this (feel free to change the names of the headers: I mean them here only as areas):

• Biographical intro
• Early life
• Marxist period
• Change of views (when, why, in what form, personal reasons for change)
• The brainwashing incident
• Conspiracy theories
• Allegations of brainwashing of recruits
• Gays and AIDS (agreed)
• Attitude toward Jews (the views about the British establishment and "international Jewry", allegations of Holocaust denial),
• Attitude toward women (if there's enough to warrant a section)
• The LaRouche movement in the U.S. and around the world (National Causus of Labor Committees; the Schiller Institute; LYM; how many members; methods of recruitment, how is movement financed)
• LaRouche rebuttal sections (or we can intersperse LaRouche position throughout the text. I'd prefer the latter, though it makes it harder to write)

SlimVirgin 04:21, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Some of this seems to replicate material on the Lyndon LaRouche page, perhaps some of it can be referenced on that page and the detials moved here?--Cberlet 04:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll go along with any structure you suggest that gets us moving. If you think some of these issues are best on Lyndon LaRouche, we could leave them there and reference them here, or vice versa. The biographical intro and early life is repetitive and so can mostly refer readers to Lyndon LaRouche, except insofar as you believe his early personal circumstances affected his political views, assuming enough is known about the former. Or perhaps it's more appropriate to say here what the political views are, and not to expound on how they came to be, leaving that analysis to Lyndon LaRouche. You might think the personal circumstances that surrounded his move away from Marxism should be left on Lyndon LaRouche too. I'll go along with your preference. (For my own part, I wouldn't have separated these pages in the first place, because the man IS the politics, but I'm not suggesting a merger.) SlimVirgin 12:22, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of "Cooked Quotes"

The issue of "cooked quotes" is essential to the question of whether Berlet's web site should be considered a reputable source. I have assembled the evidence on a special page: Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence of "cooked quotes". I have edited for clarity some material contributed by Herschel. Weed Harper 07:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Weed, could you say which parts you have edited for clarity, please? SlimVirgin 09:05, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

I shortened Herschels "Anatomy of a cut and paste job", leaving out comments that I thought were unnecessary, and I put in the italic and bold formatting. Weed Harper 21:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Next Steps

What about making temporary copies of both pages, and then moving blocks of text around until it looks reasonable, we reduce duplication, and only the most important and salient material is on the Lyndon LaRouche page? Can you make the Temp pages? Last time I made a mess of things.--Cberlet 03:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've made Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox and Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox. Don't worry about having made a mistake. I just did the exact same thing!  :-) SlimVirgin 06:10, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

OK: Here are the first "sandbox" drafts of three pages, and their associated links:

Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

United States v. LaRouche

Talk:United States v. LaRouche

Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox

There are still some (((missing paragraphs))).--Cberlet 16:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you try to replace a Wikipedia article with a Chip Berlet article, rest assured it will be reverted. --64.30.208.48 18:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous threats. How endearing. Collect them all...--Cberlet 23:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That IP address is one that the Herschel/Weed Harper account uses. SlimVirgin 03:11, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

A proposal concerning the issue of Chip Berlet and original research

Chip Berlet AKA User:Cberlet has been systematically loading both Lyndon LaRouche and Political views of Lyndon LaRouche with quotes from articles that he has written. Between quotes from Chip and quotes from his siamese twin Dennis King, the articles resemble more and more an essay promoting their shared, idiosyncratic theories. The Slim 'n' Chip team has often attempted to justify CBerlet's edits by claiming that Berlet's material has appeared in "mainstream" publications.

Fine, then. As I indicate to Will above, I will not remove any quotes from Chip that have appeared in "mainstream", read "mass circulation" publications. That would include the publications Will asked about as examples: Time, the Washington Times, Washington Post, or New York Times. It would not include some publications that have served as a venue for the King/Berlet theories, such as High Times. It emphatically would not include leftist conspiracy-theory blog sites that are cloned from PRA.

In this way, the mass-circulation press can serve as sort of a "filter" to determine which of the King/Berlet theories are "mainstream", and which are esoteric, arcane, idiosyncratic, and generally unacceptable in Wikipedia under the Wikipedia:No original research guidelines. --HK 16:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is not what the NPOV page describes as the standard criteria.--Cberlet 18:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is at issue is not the NPOV policy, but the Wikipedia:No original research policy. --HK 02:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you do your homework, you will see that it is not considered original research for the purposes of Wikipedia if it has been published by a reputable and reliable publication or organization, even if I, as the author, post it--as long as I post it in the third person..--Cberlet 03:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates are regarded as experts in their field by other professional researchers and journalists. He is allowed to quote himself from his own publications, and that includes reports published by PRA, so long as (a) he quotes himself in the third person; and (b) he does not self-promote in an unnecessary or irrelevant way. Also, cut out the remarks about him being King's Siamese twin. Most intelligent people share these views about LaRouche, not just Berlet and King. SlimVirgin 03:11, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, your POV with regard to LaRouche is no mystery. Chip, it is the reputability and reliability of your organization that is being disputed. If you can find yourself quoted in a mass-circulation publication there will be no dispute. --HK 03:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox

There is another version of this article, Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox, that some editors have been working on. I am going to hide the comments and post it here. Substantial material has been moved between the Lyndon LaRouche bio and that version, in order to make a more logical division between the topics. The sandbox version is a bit rough in places, but I'm sure we can smooth it out. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Four months later

This has been the quietest talk page in Wikipedia for the last four months. Who'd have guessed that five months ago? When I merged in the VfDed articles I glanced over the article. It is the worst of all the LaRouche articles. No offense to any editor, but there are sections that have little or no apparent meaning. "LaRouche-Riemann Method", "Culture and identity" (what exactly is the point of that anecdote - that some people are more talented than others? How did LL "collaborate" with Brainin and why does it matter?) It is hard to discern, in some places, what the reception has been to his ideas, or which are the most important.

We'd started working on a major revision but we all may have had LaRouche-fatigue after the ArbCom matter was settled. It's time to finish the work, or at least make some more progress. This article is longer than his significance warrants, especially since it is overflow from other articles. There's lots of good information in it. Some parts were the result of contentious editing, but may seem unnecessary in six months later. Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox I'm going to start playing in the sandbox again. There are many notes from our previous editing to guide us. An early step will be to re-organize it into the most logical structure. All editors are welcome to contribute productively. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's time to get it sorted. I'll start by doing a copy edit in the sandbox. Feel free to revert anything I do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've just reverted User:The Platonist's addition of the LaRouche photograph with Martin Luther King. I did this because LaRouche was never actually photographed with Martin Luther King, and to reproduce this collage would be to publish a piece of LaRouche propaganda. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Request for clarification

What the dickens is the "sacralization of politics"? --Stain

It's a book. See also, www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/GENSAC.html, the publisher's blurb, and Political religion. Gentile's thesis is basically that the Italian fascists made politics into a religion. -Willmcw 03:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Gentile's thesis is controversial but widely read and has many proponents. The argument is that a key element of totalitarianism is the raising of a political (or other) struggle to a cosmological level so that it attains the form of a "poliical religion." Note that this is different from a "politicized religion," although in neofascist groups such as Christian Identity you have an example of both. See: Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2004, (Winter), special issue on Fascism as a Totalitarian Movement; in which Gentile wrote a lead article and then several commentators (including me) wrote lengthy responses.

concerning the legal Term "fair comment"

I was wondering if somebody might be able to explain to me why there were reverts of the following paragraphs:

1:

LaRouche has never explicitly repudiated the views expressed in the 1978 article, and in the 1980s, the Supreme Court of New York state ruled that calling LaRouche an anti-Semite was "fair comment".

To this original paragraph was then the following added:

This ruling was in accordance to a U.S. Supream Court ruling that makes it clear that a public figue as a plaintiff must proofe that the opinion statet, even if untrue and harmful, was stated maliciously-with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm the plaintiff. As long as this proposition can not be met the opinion is called "fair comment". That means the court did not qualify the statement of calling LaRouche an anti-Semite but judged if there was proof of mailcious intend etc. on the side of the defendend. The plaintiff in this case was LaRouche.

2:

LaRouche has never explicitly repudiated the views expressed in the 1978 article, and in the 1980s, the Supreme Court of New York state ruled that calling LaRouche an anti-Semite was "fair comment".

To this was then added:

Fair comment is a legal term used in defamation cases. It does not reflect the common language use of the words fair comment.

Both changes were reverted without diskussion. In case number 2 it was reverted with out explanation just the statement of the reverting.

So if somebody could help me with creating a less controversial paragraph that includes the information of the legal term fair comment?

I notified both reverters...

--Zirkon 13:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

In the mean time i have changed the paragraph to version nr.2.

--Zirkon 16:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop trying to invent a way to explain a court decision when none is needed. --Cberlet 17:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I do know of at least one case where the words fair comment were misinterpretet. This means an explanation is nessesary or the paragraph is missleading. i am certain nobody wants to lead people to false conclusions about the statement "fair comment". Your answer to the argument?

--Zirkon 17:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I will revert your changes at 19:00 UTC. But I hope of course that within that timeframe you will give me a constructive answer - so that we can make the paragraph better. I am still looking for your help in doing so.

--Zirkon 18:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted to version number 2. I am aware of the short commings of two simple added sentences and ask anybody to cooperate with me on building a more integrated paragraph that includes the facts that Fair comment is a legal term with special implications, so that no one arrives at seemingly logical but false conclusions. This call for help includes cberlet and slimvirgin.

Thank you in advance for your help and constructive advice.

--Zirkon 19:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Zircon, in adding your own understanding of the term "fair comment" and what the judge may have meant by it, you're doing original research, which is not allowed. If you want to expand, you'd probably have to quote from the judgment itself, or quote something that one of the lawyers said before or after the case. The point of the no-original-research policy is that any analysis has to come from another reputable published source, and as this is a legal analysis, it would have to be a legal source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry in advance for crossposting.

So i wrote on your talk page:

I was just using the term as obviously the Washington Post understood it. I am revering to this paragraph in this article:

In October 1980, a New York State Supreme Court justice dismissed a defamation suit the NCLC had filed against the Anti-Defamation League and ruled that calling the NCLC anti-Semitic is merely "fair comment" or a matter of opinion.

Is this original research?

I mean if the WP understood that this was a special term and clarified it for its readers should we not do the same? Yes it does not say the judge used the legal term "fair comment" - instead the WP puts it so that it is implicitly seen as a legal term. Please tell me if you can come up with other conclusions.

--Zirkon 20:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. I can't see where the W/Post explains the term. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. You seem to be trying to advance a personal opinion of yours, or build a case, and neither is allowed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I understand your confusion. Please explain therefore to yourself your understanding of the words "is merely "fair comment" or a matter of opinion."

What exactly does that mean?

If "fair comment" would be used in the common way it would qualify the statement anti-semitic. If on the other hand it is "a matter of opinion" can it be at the same time a "fair comment"?

I dont think so - what do you think?

--Zirkon 21:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd say fair comment means a matter of opinion, both in law and in layman's terms. The judgment means that it's not defamatory to call LaRouche an anti-Semite. Anyway, the W/Post article wasn't about the LaRouche case, so to refer to it is building a case (or it would be, if it supported your position, though it seems not to). I encourage you to read Wikipedia:No original research as that will make things clearer for you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

So we add "or a matter of opinion" to the words "fair comment"? It seems to be a good compromise for the time being.

About not defamatory calling LaRouche an anti-Semite - this is not the case in Germany - nor following the legal definition of "fair comment" is it okay to do that in America. Just so you know... Ah well actual malice is so hard to prove...

--Zirkon 21:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Just one more comment on this:

Have you tried just googeling "fair comment"?

And do you really believe the N.Y. Supream court would use the words "fair comment" as a judgement without intending to use them in their legal definition?

Do you really believe that?

Sleep over it and we will talk again.

--Zirkon 00:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's not go through another endless round of discussion over pointless issues. The court ruling is a matter of public record. Attempts to craft apologia for the long track recond of LaRouche's antisemitism are POV. This page threats LaRouche fairly.--Cberlet 02:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating answer. Unfortunatly not putting my concerns to rest. So let me ask you too:

1)

Do you believe that the N.Y. Supream Court would use the words "fair comment" as a judgement without intending to use them in their legal definition?

2)

Following your long career as a journalist Mr.Berlet did a court ever use the words "fair comment" without refering to their legal definition?

3)

And would it not be very unlikely that a court would use a such words without explicitly intending to use it as a legal term. Especially since it is the highest court in N.Y..

4)

Finally Mr. Berlet would you substantiate your implicit case that as Silmvirgin put it "The judgment means that it's not defamatory to call LaRouche an anti-Semite."?

Since the court ruling is a matter of pulic record as you put it - it should be easy to find the sentence in that court ruling that does prove that the words "fair comment" were in fact meant as the layman and Slimvirgin understands them.

Thank you in advance Mr. Berlet for your kind help in making this a better paragraph...

--Zirkon 10:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This is pseudo-legal gibberish. The term is well-established in law. This page accurately reports the judge's ruling. We cannot ever establish what was in the judge's mind. There are times whan a claim about a public figure is so outrageous and false that the protection of "fair comment" concerning a criticism of a public figure is transcended. The judge ruled that LaRouche was not able to show the claim of antisemitism was so outrageous and false that "fair comment" was not a protection. Stop this ridiculous nit-picking.--Cberlet 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Berlet for your enlightening answer. Following your paragraph your answers to my questions are:

1)

Do you believe that the N.Y. Supream Court would use the words "fair comment" as a judgement without intending to use them in their legal definition?

Answer: No. ( The term is well-established in law. This page accurately reports the judge's ruling) and no (implicit in your interpretation of the use of "fair comment" in this case)

3)

And would it not be very unlikely that a court would use a such words without explicitly intending to use it as a legal term. Especially since it is the highest court in N.Y..

Answer: I don´t know. Because the court used an ambiguouse term. (We cannot ever establish what was in the judge's mind.)

Well I do believe we are making progess Mr. Berlet. Refering to question Number 1 I propose that we change the paragraph to reflect our common understanding that this is a legal term.

Refering to question Number 3 I see a direct conflict with your answer to question Number 1. Please clarify your statement so that it cannot conflict with statement Number 1.

Unfortunately missing are answers to the questions 2 and 4.

so I will ask them again:

2)

Following your long career as a journalist Mr.Berlet did a court ever use the words "fair comment" without refering to their legal definition?

4)

Finally Mr. Berlet would you substantiate your implicit case that as Silmvirgin put it "The judgment means that it's not defamatory to call LaRouche an anti-Semite."?

( I could not get a to a clear answer from your interpretation of the use of "fair comment" in the LaRouche case.)

Thank you again for your clear answers to the questions I asked you. I really hope that we will soon reach a common ground on which a better paragraph can be established.

----Zirkon 18:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to add my two bits to this ongoing mess: Zirkon asked me on my talk page to help clarify the discussion here of fair comment. I don't know too much about defamation law, so I can't really help with that. But to correct a key misconception:

The Court of Appeals is the highest court in the State of New York; please see the article on state supreme courts. The Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction (meaning the trial court) for most cases. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court is the intermediate appellate court. New York has this weird situation because previously when it was a colony of the United Kingdom, the local town and county courts had jurisdiction over most matters. Then litigants would appeal to the Supreme Court of the colony, and then to the Privy Council in London. The Privy Council still has jurisdiction over colonial matters, although it has been gradually losing power as the Queen's former Dominions continue to create their own Supreme Courts (as New Zealand did recently). So what happened was that when New York declared independence from the Crown, then there was no more Privy Council. Hence, they had to create a new court to appeal to, which ended up being the Court of Appeals. --Coolcaesar 16:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that is very helpful. I forget that most people are not aware of this peculiarity of the New York State judiciary. Unless, of course, if they watch "Law and Order," in which case they see the signage for the trial courts list them as parts of the NY Supreme Court. Here is some text that may help put this issue of the judge's ruling in context:

" But in 1980, the Supreme Court of New York agreed with the ADL that the publications of LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party could be qualified as anti-Semitic.... Judge Michael Dontzin of the New York Supreme Court ruled that: 'Upon consideration of the voluminous evidence presented to the court, it is clear that ADL's characterization of plaintiffs as anti-Semitic constitutes fair comment. Plaintiffs have continuously expressed highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith and have connected them with plaintiffs' critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies.' " justiceforjeremiah.com/larouche_network_canada.html.

So Judge Dontzin essentially ruled that as a public figure plaintiff, LaRouche failed to show that the claim by ADL was so outrageous and false that the normal protection of "fair comment" for criticisms of public figures could not be transcended, and thus the case ended.--Cberlet 18:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

To explain how this works, I cite here two related aspects of what a public figure in the U.S. has to contend with in order to win a defamation case:

"Fair comment: this common law defense guarantees the freedom of the press to express statements on matters of public interest, as long as the statements are not made with ill will, spite, or with the intent to harm the plaintiff." www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/definition.html

"Actual Malice is what plaintiffs in the public eye have to prove in order to win a libel case. Actual malice is the act of publishing or broadcasting statements with prior knowledge of the inaccuracy of the statement or a reckless disregard for the truth." www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/definition.html

The statement from Judge Dontzin show elements of both, and since we cannot know what was in the judge's mind, we have to rely on just citing the "fair comment," statement, or include the longer quote in the article, which is what I would prefer.--Cberlet 18:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Berlet for posting the missing link in this search for a better and less missleading paragraph.

I will now cite the quotation of the ruling:

'Upon consideration of the voluminous evidence presented to the court, it is clear that ADL's characterization of plaintiffs as anti-Semitic constitutes fair comment. Plaintiffs have continuously expressed highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith and have connected them with plaintiffs' critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies.'

As you can see there is no indication the judge did not use the term "fair comment" outside of its legal meaning. The legal term "[fair comment]" is defined in wikipedia. On this article there is also a weblink to a legal services Website that is echoing the essentials of the wikipedia article.

Conclusions:

A)

I presume therefore that we have established beyond doubt the meaning of the legal term "fair comment". Furthermore that we have established that "fair comment" was used with full intention in its legal definition by the judge.

B)

Concerning the paragraph in question I therefore suggest changes that reflect these new found insights. Details will soon follow.

C)

Concerning your personal definiton of "fair comment" i ask you to substantiate your claims concerning this case. Please post legal definitons that change our view on this topic.

D)

Concerning my questions Nr. 2 and Nr. 4 I would still like to know your answers since they could clear up misconceptions that people harbour.

Thank you again for your very valid help in this mission of making this a less missleading paragraph.

--Zirkon 19:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but I find the style and content of your comments to be incoherent and incomprehensible. I am not interested in playing intellectual chess, I am interested in helping write a factual NPOV article. Therefore I have simply added the comments by the judge. People can follow the link to fair comment if they so desire.--Cberlet 19:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Your article had changed while I was working on mine therefore I will add the following:

Conclusion C:

This is your own definition of "fair comment": "LaRouche failed to show that the claim by ADL was so outrageous and false that the normal protection of "fair comment" for criticisms of public figures could not be transcended, and thus the case ended"

I repeat: Concerning your personal definiton of "fair comment" i ask you to substantiate your claims concerning this case. Please post legal definitons that change our view on this topic.

About actual malice:

I dont see any notion of this in the quotation. Following this it was not part of the court ruling. Which is enough to not bring it into the diskussion. Following the definition of "fair comment" there are also logical reasons for not doing so.

Your comments Mr. Berlet?

--Zirkon 19:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous waste of time. Pedantic. Pointless. Attempt to rewrite history. You asked for my comments. I have answered honestly.--Cberlet 19:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes you really are opinionated but willing to talk.

Concerning the paragraph we might still have our differences and mediation might be nessasary, but this is the way things are and - considering your answers - will be.

However sometimes it is nessary to be pedantic,

after all nobody wants to misslead people,

which is the reason why this was and will not be pointless

nor will it be seen as an attempt to rewrite history.

But lets leave this for others to judge...

Willmcw would you like to comment?

SlimVirgin would you like to comment?

--Zirkon 20:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I note that Zirkon created a Wikipedia page on fair comment that mischaracterised the actual complicated legal meaning of the term in a way that supports the LaRouchite line on the New York defamation case. The page is now being edited to reflect a more accurate definition and discussion. It would be helpful if Zirkon created a User Page so that we could discuss some of these related matters there, rather than filling up this disucssion page. Also, could Zirkon please stop writing in a form reflective of e. e. cummings poetry? It fills up a lot of space and makes meaning difficult to comprehend. Paragraphs are a more traditional form.--Cberlet 20:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict: I wrote this before reading Cberlet's comment). I'm not sure what you're getting at, Zirkon. If anyone wants to look up fair comment, they can check out the article, which you helpfully started. Thank you for doing that. If you want to add after "fair comment" in the article something like "which means x, y, and z," you'd have to add a fairly lengthy explanation, and there would be a danger of it becoming original research i.e. collecting known facts to build a case. The case you want to build here is presumably that LaRouche isn't really an anti-Semite, or that the court didn't really say he was. But as Cberlet points out, we can't get into speculating what the judge did or didn't intend to say (except that, as you say, the term "fair comment" would, of course, have been used in the legal sense). If you can find something in the judgment that you feel is a fairer representation of the ruling, by all means add it, but you'd probably have to find a quote from the judge, or a quote from a reputable newspaper interpreting the ruling. But we can't rely on dictionary.com to say what the judge meant in this case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Considering the posting of Mr. Berlet from 20:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC): I note that your concerns about "fair comment" have not been put to rest. I find that interesting. Therefore I believe I have to ask the following questions:

C: This is your own definition of "fair comment": "LaRouche failed to show that the claim by ADL was so outrageous and false that the normal protection of "fair comment" for criticisms of public figures could not be transcended, and thus the case ended"

I repeat: Concerning your personal definiton of "fair comment" i ask you to substantiate your claims concerning this case. Please post legal definitons that change our view on this topic. Do I have to assume you dont want to do point C?

About actual malice: I dont see any notion of this in the quotation. Following this it was not part of the court ruling. Which is enough to not bring it into the diskussion. Following the definition of "fair comment" there are also logical reasons for not doing so. Would you please answer to this statement following your problems with "fair comment"?

4) Finally Mr. Berlet would you substantiate your implicit case that as Silmvirgin put it "The judgment means that it's not defamatory to call LaRouche an anti-Semite." ? Would you like to answer question Nr. 4 now Mr. Berlet?

I understand that reading through the whole thread is difficult for the casual reader i therefore will soon write a summary of the discussion so far. In doing so the questions asked to Mr. Berlet will be easier to put into a meaningfull context. And thank you Mr. Berlet we really did make progress today! Zirkon 23:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no need for a summary, but please take note that your comments are hard to read when spaced out (in more than one sense, perhaps). I've reformatted. If you want people to read them, please write in normal paragraphs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Zirkon: here is what I posted on the fair comment page that you keep trying to rewrite to make it seem that LaRouche is not a notorious anti-Semite:

I have rewritten the explanation of fair comment in the U.S. once again to make matters more clear. In most states, the "fair comment" defense requires a factual basis. "The privilege of 'fair comment' for expressions of opinion depends on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based" according to U.S Supreme Court Justice Brennan who wrote the ruling in Times v. Sullivan. This is based on Alabama law. I do not have the laws of New York state handy, but since you are attempting to write an apologia for [Political views of Lyndon LaRouche|Lyndon LaRouche] on another page based on a New York lawsuit, you would first have to show that under New York defamation law, "fair comment" does NOT require a factal basis. I do not know if it does or does not. In any case, the judge in the LaRouche case who ruled it was not defamation to call LaRouche anti-Semitic is clearly indicating the defendants introduced sufficient evidence to butress the factual basis of their opinion that LaRouche was an anti-Semite.

Feel free to dig up published commentaries on the defamation laws of the state of New York, otherwise your original research has no place on this page.--Cberlet 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Berlet! After I have seen your last statement I decided to just stay silent for a while to see if there would be corrections or other comments and to hope in doing so to defuse the situation.

Unfortunatly you seem to have misinterpreted my silence. I believe you expected that I would argue immediatly against your statements and in not doing so I further believe that you assumed i had lost interest in the matter after the comments you have made...

In order to keep a civil discussion I hope you will make certain corrections in your statements.If you dont make those corrections your statements will induce fallacies in to the reader. I am certain that this is not your intention. If you should not make the corrections I will obviously point out the potential fallacies to the reader. And thank you in advance for cooperation in cleaning up this misunderstanding.

--Zirkon 18:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Your complaints are without any merit whatsoever. Please stop trying to rewrite the facts of the laws of defamation to apologize for LaRouche's antisemitism.--Cberlet 00:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Administrator SlimVirgin: Following your remarks on my Talk page I realise that there is a certain difficulty on your side in following my intentions. I therefore ask you to state the points you do not understand. I also would like to ask you to explain to me what you do mean with the following words: "...hard to read when spaced out (in more than one sense, perhaps)." I assume we will work through this together? --Zirkon 20:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

---

After Mr. Berlet had enough time to answer I shall proceed with pointing out the problems I have with Mr. Berlets remarks.

Quotes from Mr.Berlet are in quotation marks and itallic.

“Zirkon: here is what I posted on the fair comment page that you keep trying to rewrite to make it seem that LaRouche is not a notorious anti-Semite:”

1) That is a false statement. Please point out my attempts to rewrite your edits. If you cannot do so please change your words.

2)Please do not try to devine my intentions for other readers in this matter.

Further comments:

This is not the place to talk about guessed intentions in order to place a person in to a certain corner in the dabate. This discussion was about the question if it should be pointed out that “Fair comment” is a legal term. Again this is not a fight about political views or the powers of something versus the powers of something. Trying to create such perspective is corrosive to any seriouse debate.

Such a behaviour is useful for a demagogue to rally his troops for a confrontation. It is impossible not to call such a behaviour disruptive.

“I have rewritten the explanation of fair comment in the U.S. once again to make matters more clear. In most states, the "fair comment" defense requires a factual basis. “

...“a factual basis”... Following your edit of the article “Fair comment”. It is a common law defence in court ... “a protection for robust, even outrageous published or spoken opinions about public officials and public figures.”

If you use the words “a factual basis” in conjunction you will come to the following conclusion:

“In most states the “fair comment” defense requires a factual basis.”[to be] ...”a protection for robust even outrageous published of spoken opinions about public officials and public figures.”

"The privilege of 'fair comment' for expressions of opinion depends on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based" according to U.S Supreme Court Justice Brennan who wrote the ruling in Times v. Sullivan. This is based on Alabama law. I do not have the laws of New York state handy, but since you are attempting to write an apologia for [Political views of Lyndon LaRouche|Lyndon LaRouche] on another page based on a New York lawsuit, you would first have to show that under New York defamation law, "fair comment" does NOT require a factal basis.”

A)

As demonstrated beneath your argument that I would ...”first have to show that under New York defamation law, "fair comment" does NOT require a factal basis.” is a strawman argument.

It is allways usefull to view a statement from both sides:

a)So if I am able to show that New York law needs factual evidence I am able to prove that the judge based his judgement on facts upon which “...a protection for robust even outrageous published of spoken opinions about public officials and public figures.” can be based.

b)If I am able to show that NY law does not need factual evidence I am able to show that the judge based his judgement upon heresay/gossip upon he granted “..a protection for robust even outrageous published of spoken opinions about public officials and public figures.”

If you read the discussion above you will find that you have gone on a tangent. I still argue that it is nesessary to include a sentence about the fact that “fair comment” is a legal term. I do not know if you intentionaly set out to offer a strawmen argument but rather did not reread the whole discussion. Perhaps I should have gone on and posted a summery against Administrator Slimvirgins wishes...

B)

Following the words... “...since you are attempting to write an apologia...” I have to say the following:

Again you are trying to put me into a corner. Please do not attempt to do so. If I want to make my political afiliation clear I will do so. You will not point out my intentions for me as this is not the correct way to debate a topic. I believe in doing so you are displaying disruptive behavior as I am forced to defend myself and not the topic at hand. Making an Ad Hominem argument is not acceptable in this forum. Please delete the relevant words.

“I do not know if it does or does not. In any case, the judge in the LaRouche case who ruled it was not defamation to call LaRouche anti-Semitic is clearly indicating the defendants introduced sufficient evidence to butress the factual basis of their opinion that LaRouche was an anti-Semite.”

Following this statement I will repeat this:

“In most states the “fair comment” defense requires a factual basis.”[to be] ...”a protection for robust even outrageous published of spoken opinions about public officials and public figures.”

Now - following the established definition of “Fair Comment” - that does not “qualify” the statement “antisemitic” opposed to what the article (that you found) says:

“But in 1980, the Supreme Court of New York agreed with the ADL that the publications of LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party could be qualified as anti-Semitic.... “

While all of this is strictly of topic, it indicates that the definition of “fair comment” or “qualified” for the ADL are different than the definitions we know. This should be investigated.

“Judge Michael Dontzin of the New York Supreme Court ruled that: 'Upon consideration of the voluminous evidence presented to the court, it is clear that ADL's characterization of plaintiffs as anti-Semitic constitutes fair comment. Plaintiffs have continuously expressed highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith and have connected them with plaintiffs' critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies.'”

This points out that the common law defence “fair comment” was acceptable to the Judge. If anything it would be the definition of “Fair Comment” that could be in question here.

Following the citation what happened was that the defendends had the oppinion that expressing “highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith...” and connecting these views with “...critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies.' ” is anti-Semitic.

Since there was evidence presented to the court that there were statements by the plaintivc that were highly critical in the described manner and since the plaintive could not prove that the statements by the defendend were made with “actual malice” the defense of “fair comment” was granted.

So the court ruled about granting the defense “fair comment” not about the question if expressing “critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies in connection with “highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith” qualifies you as an anti-semite.

In other words not the interpretation of the facts was disputed but if the facts themselfs were false or not. Interpretation of facts (or expression of fact based oppinions) is a matter of free speech as long as it is a matter or person of public interest.

It is unfortunate that the words “Fair Comment” are so easely missinterpreted. But a simple sentence added to the relevant paragraph will make things clearer for the reader.

Feel free to dig up published commentaries on the defamation laws of the state of New York, otherwise your original research has no place on this page.--Cberlet 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Following my statements above I shall not do so.

In Summery:

Mr. Berlet I ask you to do the following things:

A: Please delete this statement:

....“that you keep trying to rewrite”...

In the given context any reader will believe that somekind of edit war took place. Which was obviously not the case.

Reputation is the most precious of commoditis in an online community. Please do not put me in to a position where I have to defend myself against statements that are not accurate or are missleading in the extreme to save my reputation. I consider this disruptive to the discussion of the topic at hand.

B: Please do not try to use ad hominem arguments to lead the dabate astray. This is disruptive behavior. Please stop your attempts to guess my intentions. Please stop using bold statements that define your point of view on the debate. This serfs no purpose in debating the topic but displays demagogic behaviour. Example follows:

“Attempts to craft apologia for the long track recond of LaRouche's antisemitism are POV.”

Cberlet 02:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the article "Fair Comment":

“I note that Zirkon created a Wikipedia page on fair comment that mischaracterised the actual complicated legal meaning of the term in a way that supports the LaRouchite line on the New York defamation case.” Cberlet 20:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Following this statement it is nessesary for me to show that my own work (the copyedited version of Willmcw) does in fact echo the understanding of fair comment from the external source and does not mischaracterise it. I will do so in the fair comment forum.

--Zirkon 13:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I am very sorry, but much of --Zirkon's text appears to me to be pseudo-intellectual gibberish. I apologize for not being able to make sense of it. It still seems to me to be a lot of verbiage that results in the same situation that existed before: fancy footwork by a POV warrior out to defend LaRouche from the obvious and well-documented published claim that LaRouche is an antisemite. We do not need to misrepresent the law of defamation to arrive at that conclusion.--Cberlet 13:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I see. Thank you for your timely and interesting reaction Mr. Berlet. I have three questions to you Mr. Berlet:

• Following your statement you will not stop me from adding that “Fair comment” is a legal term?

• Following your statement you will delete the statement: ...”that you are trying to rewrite”... (see summery)?

• Following your statement you will use demagogic tatics to promote your point of view (see summery)?

Thank you for your answers and for helping to make this a better article.--Zirkon 13:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I find unctuous faux courtesy from someone challenging me to be annoying, and would prefer it if we just exchanged thoughts in simple language. You have posted trick questions that have no merit in editing an encyclopedia article. It is not a game I play. Please try to learn how to post text here on Wikipedia, it makes your text easier to read, takes up less room, and allows for people to follow the flow of ideas in a structured manner. As a courtesy, I have provided a reformat of your text as an example. I hope it is useful.--Cberlet 14:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr Berlet as always I am gratefull if somebody else is doing the hard work of editing the wikipedia artikls for me. You have to understand that I was in a hurry to answer your statement and did not precheck the article in its actual outlook. Considering the idea of trick questions. This is indeed a very interesting question to ask – are the questions I asked after your short statement really trick questions?

What would be the nature of such a trick question?

Would it not be a deceiving question? A question in which you would have to answer in a way that would be reveiling or damning no matter what?

• Question Number 1 is simple and can be answered with a simple yes or no. In doing so you would simply allow me to introduce the fact that “fair comment” is legal term into the paragraph. What would be the potential problem? That is for you to answer.

• Question Number 2 is also simple, but needs the actual reading of my statements (admitedly time constraints could stop you from doing it). Actually answering in the affirmative could lead to future backlashes as one could allways point that you were not accurate in your postings and actually admited it by removing the offending phrase. Answering in the negative could on the other hand lead to an arbitration commitee and to unknown shores.

• Question Number 3 is difficult. As it is a question that goes directly to your stile of answering questions and making statements. When people feel passionate about an issue they tend go on to a metaphorical soap box. However making speeches or bold statements is not what building an encyclopedia is about. So the question could also be: Will you continue making statements that are basicly devisive and destructive to the debate or will you go back to work constructivly on the topic at hand?

Thank you again for making the editing. And thank you for your constructive work in middle part of this long dabate. (That at least you have to grand me)

--Zirkon 15:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

'Bold textSorry to add another layer of complexity to an already complex argument, but... Both arguments in this case are completely void because they are trying to imply that the court ruled on whether or not LaRouche's views were anti-semitic. They did not do this. The ruling that the court made was on the comment that LaRouche's views were anti-semitic, which they ruled was fair comment. When the British courts ruled on the Marquess of Queensbury's claims that Oscar Wilde was posing as a sodomite they did not have to establish that Wilde was or wasn't a sodomite, but merely that he may have appeared to be one or that such a comment did not damage Wilde's reputation. It is possible to see LaRouche as an anti-semite and it is also possible to see him as merely being highly critical of prominent Jews and Zionism as he is of many things. I'm personally of the view that LaRouche probably is an anti-semite, but the court ruling does nothing to support or detract from this. I hope that clears up a bit of confusion. - moodsformoderns

Thank you for your input Moodsformoderns. As you can see in the following paragraph I did follow your line of understanding of the legal term "fair comment":

Now - following the established definition of “Fair Comment” - that does not “qualify” the statement “antisemitic” opposed to what the article (that you found) says:

“But in 1980, the Supreme Court of New York agreed with the ADL that the publications of LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party could be qualified as anti-Semitic.... “

While all of this is strictly of topic, it indicates that the definition of “fair comment” or “qualified” for the ADL are different than the definitions we know. This should be investigated.

“Judge Michael Dontzin of the New York Supreme Court ruled that: 'Upon consideration of the voluminous evidence presented to the court, it is clear that ADL's characterization of plaintiffs as anti-Semitic constitutes fair comment. Plaintiffs have continuously expressed highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith and have connected them with plaintiffs' critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies.'”

This points out that the common law defence “fair comment” was acceptable to the Judge. If anything it would be the definition of “Fair Comment” that could be in question here.

Following the citation what happened was that the defendends had the oppinion that expressing “highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith...” and connecting these views with “...critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies.' ” is anti-Semitic.

Since there was evidence presented to the court that there were statements by the plaintivc that were highly critical in the described manner and since the plaintive could not prove that the statements by the defendend were made with “actual malice” the defense of “fair comment” was granted.

So the court ruled about granting the defense “fair comment” not about the question if expressing “critical views on Zionism, Zionists, Mid-East foreign policy and international monetary policies in connection with “highly critical views about prominent Jewish figures, families and organizations, such as ADL and B'nai Brith” qualifies you as an anti-semite.

In other words not the interpretation of the facts was disputed but if the facts themselfs were false or not. Interpretation of facts (or expression of fact based oppinions) is a matter of free speech as long as it is a matter or person of public interest.

It is unfortunate that the words “Fair Comment” are so easely missinterpreted. But a simple sentence added to the relevant paragraph will make things clearer for the reader.

And here is the understanding of "fair comment" of Mr.Berlet before he changed the wikipedia article "fair comment" (how he understands "fair comment" today is not quite clear - see above):

"(...) There are times whan a claim about a public figure is so outrageous and false that the protection of "fair comment" concerning a criticism of a public figure is transcended. The judge ruled that LaRouche was not able to show the claim of antisemitism was so outrageous and false that "fair comment" was not a protection. (...) --Cberlet 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)"

I hope I could clear things up for you. It should also be noticed that the paragraph is still as Mr. Berlet left him some months ago. I will soon make changes that reflect the legal nature of the words "fair comment".

--Zirkon 19:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this consistant with Wikipedia policy?

On October 18, Sean Black removed the word "obsessively" from the section called "Women and Feminism," with the memo "Rm POV word." On the same day, Cberlet put it back, with the memo "Restored word expressing opinion of critics." The following day, I went back to the Sean Black version, because his point seemed reasonable to me. I put as a memo "Who are these critics? Cite sources please." Minutes later, Cberlet put "obsessively" back, with the rather flippant memo, "or we could simply reinsert the word obsessively." What's going on here? As I understand it, the use of neutral language, and the citing of sources, are official Wikipedia policy. I count 9 references to "Chip Berlet" in the article. Is he the same person as the editor? Perhaps many of the unsourced opinions in the article are also those of Chip Berlet. Does he control this article? Is this consistant with Wikipedia policy?

--80.74.131.252 01:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Try actually reading the article before making a (false) complaint. I did not reinsert the word "obsessively," I added quoted text with a cite to a published article. --Cberlet 02:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes he controls this article. A gang of several adminstrators goes around and blocks articles and blocks editors whenever someone tries to stop the views of Chip Berlet or his High Times colleague Dennis King from being the sole views represented on LaRouche. The only discussion they are willing to engage in is making threats and snide, rude comments. They don't even read the comments posted by editors who don't belong to their narrow out-of-the-mainstream POV clique. Cognition 20:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I see that you have responded to my request for a source by adding yet another quote from Chip Berlet. Aren't you just quoting yourself? It seems like you have an axe to grind. Also, another section of anonymous opinions that I removed with a request for a source was simply re-added by Snowspinner, with no source provided. At the top of this talk page it says:

"From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Again I ask, is the way that this article is being handled consistant with Wikipedia policy? --80.74.131.252 15:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet is, it seems to me, a leading critic of LaRouche, so there is nothing wrong with quoting him as a critic of LaRouche. (Note: I am referring to quoting published works by him, rather than his work on wikipedia per se). john k 16:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Chip Berlet is one of the sources any of us would add to this article, so whether he or someone else adds that material is irrelevant. Editors are allowed to quote and refer to their own published work, so long as it's relevant, notable, published by a credible publisher, and referred to in neutral way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I also agree, but that's because Chip Berlet leads the cabal, and the mind control chip he implanted in my brain makes me agree. Snowspinner 17:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's probably not mind control chips. But when it comes to explaining the conduct of the Dennis King/High Times crowd, it might be the dope. Cognition 19:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Which you're not supposed to realize. Now you'll have to be re-programmed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's all true but one should take care not to privilege Chip as an editor. He still has to follow the rules (I'm not saying he hasn't). Chip should take care as well to recognise that he has a clear bias in this area, although I recognise that in this company asking that editors have an awareness of their own biases is going to fall on deaf ears. -- Grace Note.

Snowspinner's joke is funny. But that doesn't excuse him for putting in a quote, in quotation marks, with no source cited.

It seems to me that Lyndon LaRouche is not stingy with his opinions, he will talk to anyone who will listen. There are thousands of articles by him on the internet. But author/editor Chip Berlet says that he knows an anonymous person who says that LaRouche has opinions about the anus and the vagina, yadda yadda yadda, that have never been published, and he puts this in an encyclopedia article. This is not encyclopedia writing, this is tabloid journalism, and there is too much of it in this article, which is why I am putting up the announcement of disputed neutrality. --80.74.131.252 15:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a NPOV tag is appropriate for this - perhaps factual accuracy, or better yet, unverified. Snowspinner 02:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It is a quote from a published report. That's what matters. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.--Cberlet 13:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I have been able to find out, no such ideas have ever been published by LaRouche, and this is supposed to be an article to inform people about LaRouche's views. I don't think this article is neutral under Wikipedia policy. I found that an example of things to be avoided at Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms is "Critics say that..." I found seven examples of this in the article, usually with very inflammatory accusations. The readers of this article ought to know who is making these accusations. Also, there is one case where a critic other than Chip Berlet is identified, and that critic is Jean Hardisty. However, when I followed the link to Political Research Associates, I learned that she is a close collaborator with Chip Berlet. So it looks more and more like all the criticism in this article comes from a close knit group. There are other critics of LaRouche, like Michael Rubin and Robert Bartley, who are well known, but their opinions are not included in this article. I searched Google news for Chip Berlet and only got one hit. Again, this does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article; it should verifiably reflect broad based, main stream opinion, not the special theory of one person or group.--80.74.131.252 15:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Google news isn't the place for news on Chip Berlet. Try articles related to the marijuana High Times subculture. Or far-left extremist outfits like the Communist Party. Or the Wikipedia arbitration case brought against him by User:Rangerdude-- a libertarian and no supporter of LaRouche-- for aggressive POV waring. That being said, Chip Berlet is NOT mainstream. In fact, the views of LaRouche-- in the tradition of Franklin, Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, FDR, MLK, et al, are the kinds of views that resonate much more strongly among most hard-working, moral American families than Berlet's far-left and pro-drug legalization agenda. Cognition 20:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If it is OK to cite Michael Rubin writing about LaRouche on the online Frontpage website, it is OK to cite Chip Berlet writing in a published report from Political Research Associates. Do you honestly think that bean-counting hits on Google News is serious research? I am happy to delete what I posted and replace it with the word "obsessive." This is an article about LaRouche, not an ad for for his views. Critical views are appropriate in an encyclopedia. --Cberlet 15:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

As the person who initially removed "obsessively", I'd like to say that I'm pleased with that bit as it is now- It's well cited, and clarified as the view of a prominent critic (Berlet). I'm in favor of removing the NPOV tag.--Sean Black | Talk 22:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, you were right to take the word out. Cites are always better than POV-sounding words.  :-)--Cberlet 22:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I put the NPOV announcement there because I saw too many anonymous opinions attributed to "critics," which is against Wikipedia policy as I understand it. I am in favor of there being criticism in the article, but anonymous criticism makes it look like propaganda.

Here are the opinions that I think should be attributed. I don't see why the authors of the article wouldn't want to simply put the attributions in. Then the article would be fine, and I would be in favor of removing the announcement.

• "Several critics of LaRouche argue that his ideas about economics are not original and are similar to the policies of Germany under Bismarck; and the corporatism of Italy under Benito Mussolini, Spain under Francisco Franco, and Portugal under Antonio Salazar."

• "As for moving from the left to the right, historically a number of fascists started out as socialists, and critics argue this is the case with LaRouche."

• "According to his critics, LaRouche's personal egotism is a significant force driving his politics."

• "LaRouche's critics claim he is a "disguised anti-Semite," in that he takes the classical anti-Semitic conspiracy theory and substitutes the word "Zionist" for the word "Jew", and ascribes the classical anti-Semite's caricature of the evil, scheming Jew to particular, named, Jews and groups of Jews, rather than to the Jews as a whole."

• "His critics claim that he attributes to the ADL "the classic crimes of the sterotypical Jew of the anti-Semitic imagination," although he has also referred to the ADL as the "FBI's private asset."
  • You're conflating criticizing the ADL with anti-Semitism, which is a technique to distort the truth. LaRouche has many Jewish associates and supporters. I am Jewish myself, by the way. LaRouche supports an independent Jewish state. He is a supporter of Israel and an admirer of true Israeli patriots like Ben Guriorn and Rabin. LaRouche opposes the murderous clique surrounding fascist terrorists, though, like Jabotinsky, Begin, Shamir, and Sharon, whom he considers true enemies of the Jewish people, because they are the ones breeding anti-Semitism by fooling people with their lie that they somehow represent the Jewish and Israeli people. Cognition 20:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• "What LaRouche supporters see as praising classic culture, LaRouche critics see as a bias against non-White, non-European, non-patriarchal, non-heterosexual cultures and identities."

I also have two questions for Chip Berlet regarding the sourcing of quotes attributed to LaRouche.

• The description of the "Chinese culture" quote does not seem to match the quote that it is describing. It seems to me that LaRouche is attacking the Maoists by saying that they reject Western culture as in favor of pre-revolutionary culture. The Wikipedia article says that LaRouche is condemning China's pre-revolutionary culture, which seems to be wrong. There is a missing quote mark that further confuses things.

• The quote about the "ghetto mother" is attributed in such a way as it looks like it was published. I went to Chip's web site and looked at it, and it looks like a type written or mimeograph page. The attribution should somehow indicate where it actually came from. And as in the case of your "anus" quote, don't you think Chip that if your theory really is strong, you could find an example to prove it that LaRouche actually published? It seems you are trying to prove your point with gossip. --80.74.131.252 00:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Gossip? Nice cheap shot. And totally false. All of these questions have been answered repeatedly. And the editors here have summarized the published work of a number of LaRouche critics. You need to do some research and homework before raising the questions yet again, when they have been answered repeatedly. For example, the ghetto mothe quote is from a published document issued by the LaRouche group, which you would have known if you had spent a few minutes actually reading the relevant material. And, just in case you are not aware, anonymous questions on LaRouche pages generally do not get a lot of sympathy, because of a history of abuses by LaRouche supporters. --Cberlet 02:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

What a farce. Even if the comment were his, it doesn't tell us anything. It's possible to pick anything out of context in order to distort the truth when an author has written so much and given so many lectures as LaRouche. (It's safe to say that every month LaRouche typically writes more content for scientific and economic publications than most Wikipedia editors have ever read in their entire lives.) This is a classic technique known to the professional propaganist. Cognition 20:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not looking for sympathy. I am pointing out what seem to me to be deviations from Wikipedia policy, as stated in Wikipedia:Cite sources and [Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms]]. That's all. --80.74.131.252 15:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering why it is taking so long to get a reply to my question about the anonymous opinions. Snowspinner, when I took out the unsourced quote "His critics claim that he attributes to the ADL "the classic crimes of the sterotypical Jew of the anti-Semitic imagination,"", it only took you 2 minutes to put it back in. Why is it taking you so long to explain why you think this is justified under Wikipedia policy?

--80.74.131.252 21:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed/original research

I see than an editor has added the "totally dipsuted" and "original research" tags to this article. Can we please have the specific problems with this article which warrant those tags? Please note that published material by Berlet does not count as original research. Which factual matters are in dispute? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:No original research and I found that it says this: ""Original research refers to theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any unpublished interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas ..." It seems to me then that the numerous anonymous opinions that I have pointed out must also be considered original research, because we have no way of establishing that they have been published in a reputable publication. If the authors would provide sources for these opinions there would be no problem.

PS Cognition please do not put more rebuttals to the anonymous quotes in my list. Those criticisms may be valid or invalid but the main point is that they are anonymous.

--80.74.131.252 16:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the answer, but you are not the editor who added the tags. That editor needs to state his reasons. -Willmcw 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the original research tag, as the only thing cited was Berlet's works, and I think everybody agrees that it's not OR.--Sean Black | Talk 02:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The Original Research page says "Original research refers to theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any unpublished interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas" and some of Chip Berlet's arguments appear on his web site only, like the part where he says that when LaRouche attacks the policy of Maoism he is also attacking ancient China culture. But mainly I think that all the anonymous opinions which cannot be verified must be original research.--80.74.131.252 16:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This statement is simply false and distorted. Some of my harshest criticism of LaRouche appear in the book I co-wrote, Right-Wing Populism in America. The study I wrote with Bellman was published as a printed report. Summaries of widely-held claims appearing as published comments that LaRouche is a neofascist, cult leader, antisemite, sexist, racist, and lunatic are appropriate. There is a difference between a legitimate summary and an "anonymous" claim. That LaRouiche is a convicted crook is a matter of public record.--Cberlet 16:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Chip's a pubished author, a prominent critic, and widely regarded as an expert in the field, so therefore it does not qualify as original research.--Sean|Black 21:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be original research for Chip to add the material himself. I assume he has not done so, thus making the tag patently absurd. Phil Sandifer 22:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I try not to add my own material to Wiki pages, but do it rarely when there are no readily available sources on an obscure topic; and when someone pops onto a page and claims that a particular claim already posted is either false or not cited and thus should be removed. That's what I have tended to do on the LaRouche pages. Periodically their supporters show up and delete material, claiming it is not cited or that it is false. Several times I have had to post images of pages from LaRouche publications at www.publiceye.org to prove that a particular quote is real and not taken out of context.--Cberlet 22:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me but I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that the anonymous opinions in this article are justified under Wikipedia rules? I went and read the article called "Chip Berlet." It seems that Chip Berlet has published many books and is considered controversial, and has numerous critics. LaRouche too has published many books and is considered controversial, and has numerous critics. However in the Wikipedia article on Chip Berlet each criticism is carefully attributed. There are no inflammatory accusations with no source to verify. Why should the article on Political views of LaRouche not be written to the same standard of quality? I don't see why the authors of this article would be unwilling to simply add sources for the anonymous quotes I listed on this page. --80.74.131.252 02:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please identify what you think are "anonymous opinions". Virtually everything in the article is sourced, from Berlet, to LaRouche himself, and everything in between. I really don't think that repeatedly making vague accusations of original research solves anything.--Sean|Black 02:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There are numerous sources cited on this page, and many of them track back directly to a LaRouche or LaRouchite publication. While I am controversial at times, my byline has appeared in the New York Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, and Des Moines Register. I have written for a number of scholarly journals and edited books. LaRouche, on the other hand, has been published primarily by his cohort of groveling syncophants.--Cberlet 02:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I'm removing the OR tag.--Sean|Black 02:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have listed them once before on this page. Here they are again. They cannot be verified.

• "Several critics of LaRouche argue that his ideas about economics are not original and are similar to the policies of Germany under Bismarck; and the corporatism of Italy under Benito Mussolini, Spain under Francisco Franco, and Portugal under Antonio Salazar."

• "As for moving from the left to the right, historically a number of fascists started out as socialists, and critics argue this is the case with LaRouche."

• "According to his critics, LaRouche's personal egotism is a significant force driving his politics."

• "LaRouche's critics claim he is a "disguised anti-Semite," in that he takes the classical anti-Semitic conspiracy theory and substitutes the word "Zionist" for the word "Jew", and ascribes the classical anti-Semite's caricature of the evil, scheming Jew to particular, named, Jews and groups of Jews, rather than to the Jews as a whole."

• "His critics claim that he attributes to the ADL "the classic crimes of the sterotypical Jew of the anti-Semitic imagination," although he has also referred to the ADL as the "FBI's private asset."

• "What LaRouche supporters see as praising classic culture, LaRouche critics see as a bias against non-White, non-European, non-patriarchal, non-heterosexual cultures and identities."

--80.74.131.252 16:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. You may have a point there. I'll see what I can do.--Sean|Black 22:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked. Please read the article again, as all of your quotes are cited.--Sean|Black 22:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sean has gone to the trouble to check the claims of lack of sourcing. I think it is s serious issue that the anonymous critic apparently does not even bother to read the text carefully enough to see that the claims of lack of citation are--to be blunt--bogus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cberlet (talk • contribs) 03:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Chip. I invite anyone else to review the article, and the disputed quotes above, to ensure that it's accurate and sourced.--Sean|Black 03:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign. A bit tired.--Cberlet 04:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Happens to the best of us :)!--Sean|Black 04:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I am mystified that you would insist that they are cited. For example:

• His critics claim that he attributes to the ADL "the classic crimes of the sterotypical Jew of the anti-Semitic imagination," although he has also referred to the ADL as the "FBI's private asset."

Who are these "critics"? They are not named. What is the source for the quote "the classic crimes of the sterotypical Jew of the anti-Semitic imagination," ? No publication is mentioned.

In each case where "critics" are mentioned in my list the critics are unindentified. Perhaps you don't understand what I am asking. If highly inflammatory accusations are being made, the reader should know who is making them. I am asking that the authors of the article identify the "critics."

This is the correct thing to do under Wikipedia policy. An example of an undesirable Weasel Term at at Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms is "Critics say that..." --80.74.131.252 16:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Arguing with a conpiracy theorist is like trying to toilet train a badger. It annoys the badger, and you get covered in crap.--Cberlet 17:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to insult this person. He or she seems to make a reasonable request. If you follow the link to "avoid weasel terms" you will read the following:

A weasel term (or weasel words) is a phrase that hides bias in a statement by attributing an opinion to anonymous sources. Weasel terms give a statement the force of authority without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without a weasel term, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed.

This seems to fit the aforemention list of statements like a glove. Therefore the POV notice should stay until those statements are removed, or the critics are identified. --NathanDW 04:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

As I already said, they are. Read the whole article, and don't pick one sentence from a well sourced paragraph to support your viewpoint.--Sean|Black 22:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sean, I did in fact read read your posts, along with all the others, before adding one of my own. If you know the identities of the critics in the examples cited, please add them to the article and that will go a long way toward solving the neutrality problem. I realize that the names of critics such as Berlet, King and Lyons are mentioned in connection with other opinions or quotes, but the opinions mentioned on the list above are anonymous. I also think that it is inappropriate for you to decide all on your own that the dispute over neutrality has been resolved, so I would like to ask you to refrain from deleting the notice until matters are settled. --NathanDW 18:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that Cberlet has provided an attribution for one of the anonymous opinions. That is a step in the right direction. Meanwhile, I have looked at a variety of dispute notices and I am posting "neutrality disputed" on this article, because the remaining anonymous quotes suggest bias under the guideline of "avoid weasel terms." Snowspinner, if you believe that this is the wrong notice, I would appreciate it if you would suggest an alternative, rather than deleting it with a flippant comment. --NathanDW 18:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet and Snowspinner have had plenty of time to provide citations for the anonymous opinions. Cberlet did provide a citation for one of them. If they do not want to provide citations for the other opinions, they should be removed. There is plenty of well-sourced criticism of LaRouche available, and I will substitute properly sourced criticism if the citations cannot be found for the unsourced criticism. --NathanDW 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. Cberlet and others have had another call upon their time recently due to an ArbCom case. If you have properly sourced criticisms that are noteworthy then go ahead and add them. The removal of whatever unsourced criticisms remain can be handled as a separate issue. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sean Black, I am being patient, but I am not abandoning my request for neutrality, so please do not remove the announcement again until this has been worked out. --NathanDW 16:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I read the articles on Wikipedia policy carefully before I attempted to make any edits. Does anyone else do this? Yesterday editor SlimVirgin deleted the neutrality disputed announcement from "Political views of Lyndon LaRouche," without participating in the discussion on the talk page. If that editor had read the talk page, it would have been clear that there were serious reasons for the neutrality dispute. Then SlimVirgin simply deleted criticism from the "Chip Berlet" article, also without participating in the talk page. This seems like it could be considered biased editing.

Willmcw told me that I should put material about the John Train Salon in this article, so I will. --NathanDW 06:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Note to BirdsOfFire: In several instances on various LaRouche-related pages you have called for cites and facts when they already exist, in some cases on the same page, just lower in the article. It is appropriate to demand cites. It is not appropriate to demand cites when they already exist.--Cberlet 18:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche's Conspiracy

More details on Lyndon LaRouche's conspiracy theories from a www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/fid_924_lar_mozart.html Fidelio artical on Mozart, and wlym.com/PDF-77-85/CAM7811.pdf an old Campaigner issue which seem to suggest that this conspiracy predates Aristotle, back into Egypt and Sumeria (though, it is possible that the Aristotlians refined these ideas). Also, the British Empiricists are supposedly an extension of the Venetian Dynasties (which ultimately links them to the Roman Empire).

He also has a unique perspective on the Freemasonic conspiracy, in which Continental Masonry (the "true" Freemasons) where and probably still are at war with the Anglo Masons (well duh). This means that he has made distinctions between the Masonic orders, this is rare amongst conspiracy theorists (who tend to over generalize).

There are two things I do dissagree with him on. First (though I do not have assertive evidence for these preposals): His adherence to pure rationality (See: Continental Rationalism) states that ideas can emerge purely without perception. I am not sure if this is wholly possible (birthing somebody in a sensory depravation tank could only reveal whether or not this is), though there is good evidence from remote viewing and other forms of ESP and intuition that could indeed suggest an objective Pleroma.

Secondly: As a Christian, and somebody who has studied evil/sin (one and the same, simply means malfunction, or "foul ball"), their is a little problem concerning the dichotemy between the spiritual and the material. I agree on Gnosticism being incorrect in seeing the Spiritual and the Physical as inherantly incongruent (remember, Gnosticism is the religious cult based on Platonism in which our substantial universe is at odds with The Form of Good). I agree that inherantly and ideally the pragmatic world an extension of the idealic and are mostly one and the same (this would be Panentheism). However, LaRouche ignores Christianity's most basic tennent, being that man (and the universe he lives in) has been estranged from God. This universe is in danger of dying out and man with it unless he accepts God's assistance (which requires humility, since it is bassically admitting inherant incompetance and dependancy, which is particularl hard for males since this has a catrating effect). And this is not merely a Biblical assertion. Any sight of evil in this world will varify this (particularly in hospitals, prisons, nature shows/safari, and traveling freakshows). So while I agree with LaRouche in principle on this, I must dissagree with him that that is presently so (and the Bible is relevant, since he professes Christianity).

Otherwise though, when I first read one of his pamphletes (Children of Satan) alongside another pamphlet dealing with industry and a trip to India (I believe this is strategic, showing him to be Politically/Fiscally Far left and Socially Far Right, where they respectively count) was extraordinary, I have never seen anything like it before. I was struck by the insight of those articles (these where things I had, myself, suspected myself, but lacked the vocabulary or evidence to express it). IdeArchos 02:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but the purpose of this page is not to discuss LaRouche's ideas in the abstract. Rather, it is to discuss this article about his ideas. If there is any specific detail of the article you'd like to discuss, please do so. There are a number of forums elsewhere to discuss LaRouche and his ideas. Thanks, -Will Beback 05:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

www.factnet.org/discus/messages/4/13197.html is an intersting forum on various aspects of LaRouche's movement. -Will Beback 07:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That was rather considerate of you, thanks very much, looks like a good place.

IdeArchos 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Queen involved in drug trade

I have carefully read Wikipedia:Verifiability and I ask other editors to do the same. It says that statements which are not properly verified may be removed by any editor, especially if the article is about a living person. This article is one of several that make the claim that LaRouche says the Queen of England is involved in the drug trade. The only acceptable verification for this claim is a quote from LaRouche. Cberlet has attempted to use articles that he himself wrote as a source for this claim, but those articles also do not offer any documentation. If you say that LaRouche said it, you must demonstrate that LaRouche said it.

LaRouche has said many controversial things. I began reading Wikipedia some months ago because I was puzzled by things I read in his pamphlets. However, I am now more puzzled, because the Wikipedia articles seem to focus more on things that Chip Berlet claims that he said, but for which no evidence is presented. Isn't LaRouche controversial enough without embellishment by his critics? --NathanDW 16:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a published cite:

"Most of the 22 active and retired government and military officials interviewed said that they have been wary of speaking with the LaRouche associates.

"It may seem far-fetched that a group that says that Walter F. Mondale is a Soviet secret police "agent of influence" and that the queen of England is involved in international dope-dealing could be "useful" to top federal government officials.

"But a number of government officials say much of the group's intelligence is accurate. The LaRouche outfit has had more than 100 intelligence operatives working for it at times, and copies the government in its information-gathering operation, ex-members and other knowledgeable sources said."

John Mintz, 1985, "Some Officials Find Intelligence Network 'Useful'," Washington Post, January 15, online at: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/larou1.htm

--Cberlet 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

John Mintz saying that they believe it is no different than you saying they believe it. If a viewpoint is being attributed to LaRouche and/or his supporters, there must be a quote from LaRouche and/or his supporters. If no such quote exists -- and there are libraries of quotes from LaRouche, you have one yourself -- then we are simply looking at some critics maliciously circulating or repeating a false rumor. --NathanDW 21:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Does not matter. Mintz is a legitimate reporter at a mainstream daily newspaper. The charge appears in print. LaRouche is a convicted felon and crackpot with a long history of lying. Compare the sources. The claim meets Wiki source requirements. --Cberlet 03:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hertzberg and LaRouche

I removed Hertzberg from the list of Jewish leaders LaRouche "dialogues with." While it is true that Hertzberg was interviewed in EIR, he has since disavowed any support for LaRouche and is deeply disturbed by LaRouche's extremist and possibly anti-semitic views. This is my first edit on Wikipedia, so be gentle. BrevisLux 21:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I Remember

Actually, I did want something specific to mention (but forgot along the way). I wanted more concentration on LaRouche's Venitian/Roman/Egyptian claims, since according to him, this is where the whole British oligarchy emerged from. It was really a matter of emphasis (and the fact is that there is some mention of this in the article, though not enough to really show his conspiracy theory in depth). The Gnostic stuff shows what he considers the main problems with his enemies' views (basically, he feels that pagan materialism and Gnostic Manicheism hold a common view that the physical and metaphysical worlds are ireconcilable and thus have nothing to do with the other (thus, justifying their immorality).

Both of these where mainly intended for the "Politics" section, mainly for clerification into what his whole ideology and the nature of the conspiracy. Basically, it is not merely the British.

 Again thanks

IdeArchos 03:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Original Research revisited

Hello. I came here as a reader who was looking for critical analysis on LaRouche and his beliefs. I'm in no way a LaRouche supporter. I'm simply looking for information. What I've found here at this article is troubling. The fact that so many of the external links go to the website of Chip Berlet is quite distrubing. What's more disturbing is that many of the links to his site aren't included as a citation of what the views of LaRouche's critics are, but rather as a verification of what LaRouche's own views allegedly are. (Those sort citations should be made directly to LaRouche's own work or at least to a reputable news source that at least attempts to present issues with a neutral tone.) And the fact that Mr. Berlet has been quoted in some mainstream media articles does not mean that anything that he or his organization publishes becomes a reputable news and information source. What's even more disturbing is the fact that Mr. Berlet himself has been extensively editing this article. This allows him to use Wikipedia - with its large reader-base and its appearance of neutrality - as a mouth piece and soapbox to influence a much larger audience than his no-so-well-known website would be able to without Wikipedia. What's perhaps most disturbing is that - judging form the discussions on this and other talk pages - these issues have been raised repeatidly for quite some time now but little seems to have changed. Mr. Berlet apparently has the support of Slim Virgin and some other infulential people at Wikipedia, so he's been allowed to continue the practice of doing orginial research, publishing it on his own blog, and then including it here at Wikipedia. This situation needs to be honestly and openly addressed by the broader Wikipedia community - with people weighing in who don't have much in the way of prior association with either camp.

As for this article, I think it needs to be pretty much re-written. The resulting article will likely be a whole lot shorter if it is limited to more mainstream soruces. Neither Berlet and his allies' publications, nor LaRouche's are reputable news and information soruces, so citations to either should be kept at a minimum and limited to a verification of the *opinions* of both LaRouche and his critics. Facts should all be cited to mainstream media sources. Given that LaRouche is most often ignored by the mainstream media, there will probably be less extensive coverage, but that's ok. Wikipedia's coverage of individuals and their views should be proportionate to their relative notability. And while LaRouche certainly has some noteriety as an excentric fringe personality, he ranks pretty low on the notability scale compared to many, many others in American politics - most of whom have much less extensive coverage on Wikipedia. The best way to maintain Wikipedia's credibility, and to prevent these articles from being uesed as soapboxes by LaRouche's supporters *or* his opponents, is to limit their scope to what can be reasonably included under an honest interpretation of both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy. AnonIPuser 20:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

PS - I look forward to responses from people who can honestly claim some real detachment on these issues. AnonIPuser 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I came to Wikipedia because I have been exposed to LaRouche's ideas and I find them obscure and overly full of difficult historical analogies -- but what I found here is just what you describe. Not helpful explanation about LaRouche, but all kinds of theories from Chip Berlet that seem to have very little to do with LaRouche's actual ideas. It seems like Berlet is reluctant to attack LaRouche for LaRouche's actual ideas, so he pretends that LaRouche is some sort of right-wing populist and attacks him for that. This is not very convincing to me, and it also casts doubt on the reliability of Wikipedia as a source of objective info. --NathanDW 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, all of the LaRouche articles are like this one. --NathanDW 20:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The book I cowrote with Matthew N. Lyons on Right-Wing Populism in America was published by a major publisher: Guilford Press. That the publisher allowed the section on LaRouche to be published on the website of Political Research Associates hardly means that it only appeared on a "blog." The same is true with the report co-authored with Joel Bellman, a respected journalist, Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag. This report was published in print form by Political Research Associates. Many of the cites on this and related pages track back to the PRA website because for months supporters of LaRouche claimed I was misrepresenting LaRouche's own views, and I was forced to scan in several key documents and post them on the PRA website. I find it unfortunate that I am repeatedly subjected to vicious derogatory comments about my professional work outside of Wikipedia, and face the constant attempt to conflate my Wikipedia editing with nasty and demeaning claims that question my inegrity as a journalist and scholar. These claims may be coated in sugary pseudo-polite language, but they are false and reprehensible personal attacks nontheless. Major scholarly publishers, mainstream newspapers (including the New York Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, and Des Moines Register), and several print encyclopedias find my work to be professional and informative. Ask me to defend my claims and provide cites, but please stop the nasty personal attacks.--Cberlet 20:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The only person I see making a nasty personal attack right now is you, Mr. Berlet. I have said nothing about you as an individual, rather I have criticized your editing practices here. "I was forced to scan in several key documents and post them on the PRA website." Nobody "forced" you to do that. But when you did that, you were carrying out original research. And that's fine for your own website, but not for Wikipedia. If one of the "mainstream newspapers (including the New York Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, and Des Moines Register)" had reported specifically about you scanning those documents and verifying the alleged quotes, then that could be included and cited. Also, the fact that an article was "published in print form by Political Research Associates" doesn't really mean a whole lot. All it means is that your organization paid to have your words applied in toner on some paper. That doesn't mean that your essay became a mainstream information source. One more point for now - One thing that I'm really curious about is if your research is really so notable, howcome it doesn't naturally find its way into Wikipedia on its own? Most notable writers and theorists don't spend considerable ammounts of their time editing Wikipedia - for the simple reason that anyone who's very notable will have an audience for their statements and ideas without having to post it themselves on Wikipedia. As such, they find it much more efficient to spend their time writing and speaking - knowing that they can rely on the mainstream media and others to publicize their ideas for them. AnonIPuser 22:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: please stop the nasty personal attacks.--Cberlet 01:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This article should present LaRouche's ideals only. Critics can be placed in Critics of at the end in links. It should not be used by Cberlet or anyone, left or right to debate his views. FACTS, that is all that is important here for his political views. God knows, this man, is constantly being attacked here based on Berlet and Company's analysis alone; without outside (of PRA) analysis of Berlet and his motivations counterbalancing this. For example, the biography on LaRouche should not be a smear campaign against the man. This is an encyclopedia, not a political website. Every statement by him or about him does not beed explanation to the contrary. Critics of his biography, or especially here can be placed in the cites or links section or in a brief section at the bottom. Let's make this an honorable site and not an attack site on people and their beliefs. --Northmeister 21:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's back up here. If AnonIPuser, Northmeister, NathanDW, and/or anyone else could tell us what specific problems you have with the article, and how you think they can be fixed, that would be very helpful.--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this before with LaRouche supporters and I daresay we'll go through it again. AnonIPuser, of course the research organization Cberlet works for pays to have his articles published, just as the New York Times pays to have its reporters articles published. The important point is that he is a known researcher who has been published by a number of research and news organizations, including the one he currently works for, which makes him a reputable source for Wikipedia; and in addition, he is known as an expert on Lyndon LaRouche. He has not engaged in original research that I have ever seen, and your post above shows you haven't understood our NOR policy. So please, if you have particular sentences within this article you would like to question, post them here, but if you continue to attack individual contributors, you'll be ignored (by me, anyway), and possibly blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Cberlet always respond to any criticism of their methods by accusing you of being a LaRouche supporter. It's like Bush accusing all his critics of being pro terrorist. --NathanDW 02:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NathanDW contributions have nothing to do with why we might think that, of course. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please take a look at my contributions. The only things I have ever ADDED to Wikipedia are some material on Daniel O. Graham, because I know something about him, and this criticism to the Chip Berlet article: "Online Journal Associate Editor Larry Chin charged that "Berlet is a gatekeeper who has made a career out of slandering and attacking whistleblowers, researchers and critics of the US government, of every political affiliation."www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/ResponseFromOnlineJournalAssociateEditorLarryChinToRivaEnteenReChipBerlet.htm"

Otherwise, I have simply responded to things I saw in the Lyndon LaRouche articles that violate Wikipedia Policy (which I have read.) This includes:

• Opinions attributed to anonymous sources, or Weasel Terms (see Avoid Weasel Terms)
• Quotes taken out of context or "spun"
• Improper citations (such as in Jeremiah Duggan, where Cberlet put inaccurate "summaries" cited to sources which said something completely different)

This does not make me a "LaRouche supporter." If makes me an opponent of propaganda and a supporter of Wikipedia policies. --NathanDW 01:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read what has gone on before and am quite sure that those who established this site would not be to pleased with the way it is used to discredit people for insisting that an article that is suppose to be about Lyndon LaRouche's political ideas be about THAT and from multiple sources not just PRA. PRA is the same group that has also called other prominent persons 'names' and taken quotes out of context, mixing them up with Nazis, Fascists, and even calling David Horowitz an Anti-Semite. This group is not exactly credible, especially if your going to judge Lyndon LaRouche not credible enough on historic matter. I would suggest instead of jumping the gun on these things you read the history behind Berlet and company and their smear campaign against certain individuals who propose a certain view or oppose a certain view. Much of their work comes close to being not only questionable but downright slander and liable to the extreme. As to your above statement, one just because someone is interested in particular subjects gives no credence to call them a supporter of anyone or thing. Two even if NathanDW is a LaRouche supporter, that makes him no different than someone being a Bush, Perot, or what-ever supporter. All political people have supporters, usually for ideas they hold. To discredit someone for being a supporter without judging their contributions based on MERIT of those contributions is wrong. Now the NOR policy. The Conspiracism page completely violates that policy. I would like to know your full affiliation and just how you became an administrator in the first place. To actively seek out and attempt to destroy the material of certain persons over and over again and use this site to forward political agendas is not only wrong but against policy. You have a history of this as well as others I've been reading about. I became interested in this whole mess when I was accused of being a LaRouche supporter just for questioning the poorly done producerism page (which has conflicting definitions of producerism and is a neologism that traces either to Berlet himself or Fazio) and for edits I made on other pages. I would like you to know that if persons such as yourself or others are going to make false allegations, then your going to have to show proof of this; and indicate why this matters at all. The MATERIAL matters...is it factual or is it not. Material from Chip Berlet, especially pertaining to this page is suspect, read your own policies. --Northmeister 02:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

From Northmeister: "even calling David Horowitz an Anti-Semite." This claim is either based on inferior research or is simply an outright lie. Never happened. See: User_talk:Cberlet#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21 Apologies are optional.--Cberlet 02:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

When I am wrong I admit it. It was over SPLC which your links and links from there show the controversy. The point I make above I stand by though from everything I've read from you, I agree with their analysis. --Northmeister 03:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, again: Let's calm down our rhetoric. If you have specific complaints about the article, not the contributors, please list them here. Otherwise this just a flamewar that I will remove in due course.--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have complaints Sean, but if I list them then I will only be attacked once again for doing so. My concern is mainly authenticity and multiple sources and the structure of this article. This article should be about beliefs that are POLITICAL, not beliefs that are personal to LaRouche or about out of context statements made that are not official beliefs. This should only be about those beliefs. Links for Critics of these beliefs should be listed. I'll start there. But like I said, the same tactic as was used above on NathanDW has been used on me...thu calling me a LaRouche supporter in an attempt to rid my edits (I am not associated with that organization, though I know of them and their work on history and economics is competent,) of use, because of the Wiki policy on using LaRouche material; that's despite the fact I never once use such material or said I was affiliated with this group. Lumping into a group I do not belong to is not right, nor is it on anyone. This is a witch-hunt and McCarthyism and I reported these tactics to the Board. --Northmeister 03:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Restoration and why

I restored the version with the above details. It is important first because the said person's including myself all agree as people have before agreed. This article is titled to much toward one particular perspective and using material that is from 'less than reputable sources'. The original questions of the argument are legitimate. I consider deletion of that material akin to covering up the points made. This is not so much an issue over Mr. Berlet, but over a credible encyclopedic article about Mr. LaRouche's political views. The objections to the article listed are well detailed above and in the past. These are legitimate complaints and should be heard...I will repost the most relevant complaints from above, a record needs kept on this witch-hunt going on and the use of Wiki-pedia in this manner. --Northmeister 04:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

POINTS concerning this article:

"I count 9 references to "Chip Berlet" in the article. Is he the same person as the editor? Perhaps many of the unsourced opinions in the article are also those of Chip Berlet. Does he control this article? Is this consistant with Wikipedia policy?"

• • "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." -Why is this policy not being enforced? Besides Mr. Berlet and those associated with his books and website, who else concurs with his opinions to make them not fit into the category above?

Here are the remaining sections to edit after we agree to the above section:

Republicanism v. Fascism

Racism or Higher Culture?

The Brainwashing Incident

Let's edit them in order

We can do this!--Cberlet 03:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)"

• • The point of this article is not to critic Mr. LaRouche's politics, but to display them as they are truly represented. The manner and glee in putting together certain parts of this article are not honorable and I question the inclusion of each of those sections as part of this page, they might belong elsewhere, not here.

"except insofar as you believe his early personal circumstances affected his political views, assuming enough is known about the former. Or perhaps it's more appropriate to say here what the political views are, and not to expound on how they came to be, leaving that analysis to [[Lyndon LaRouche] by Slim Virgin"

• • This is my whole point of contention. Chip Berlet and his 'belief' has no place in this article per above, maybe elsewhere. The point SlimVirgin made is excellent, it is my point. It is appropriate to say "here what the political views are, and not to expound on how they came to be, leaving that analysis to Lyndon LaRouche" This is my issue. Express his political views, no analysis of them. An encyclopedic article should be straight, neutral, and to the point on the issue it deals with.

I will stop here for my points, because the above says it all for me. These are legitimate points about this page and need addressing and not in a manner to discredit the messenger so to speak who brings these things up. I would ask others to put their contentions down straightly as I have done. I expect the above questions to be answered fairly. --Northmeister 04:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish to also add each of the points made from PubliceEye website or those associated be backed up with other sources not associated with that website. Further the stuff on Gays on down needs to be deleted, as it is smear and contains nasty stuff like attributing that his wife left him so he became anti-feminist. This is POV and it is a nasty smear. This is not fit, nor the stuff below as it presently is written. Just provide FACTS of his political beliefs, no analysis of his beliefs. Let Berlet do that on his website, which can be provided as a link in a Critics of link section. The Fascism stuff needs reworking too, to start. --Northmeister 05:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To answer your questions: Yes, Chip Berlet and Cberlet are the same person. Berlet is a foremost expert on the topic, and we're fortunate to have his input. We allow adherents and detractors to edit articles, and there is no problem so long as each editor follows policies on NPOV, NOR, sock puppetes, etc. In this instance, there is no reason to believe that Berlet does not represent the mainstream view of the subject. Outside of controlled media there is no discernible positive publicity about the subject. Regarding your other issues, if LaRouche has had significant policies on gays or AIDS then this article should cover them. Some folks have complained about the censorship of LaRouche's theories here, but this is the primary article that covers them. Let's not omit anything that needs to be here that we can fit in. -Will Beback 09:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind Mr. Berlet's input; but the points he makes are not mainstream. He is associated with a group the PRA, which is a political watchdog group that takes things 'out of context' and attempts to label people. If this article or any with Mr. Berlet's contributions are to be balanced...there is a need for other sources to back what he has to say up. Mr. Berlet has been criticised and represents a fringe view. The definition given by the founder of a minority opinion applies to him. He has attacked Fulani, Perot, Buchanan, Horowitz in addition to LaRouche. His group is organized with that purpose in mind. The website is no different if not worse than LaRouches website and has come under increasing criticism for it's McCarthy like tactics against individuals on the left (especially) who decide to work with people on the right (a noble thing to achieve results, ie. the Constitutional Convention, all Peace Treaties ever signed etc.) in compromise over areas of agreement. Such individuals working together, such as Fulani and Buchanan in 2000, does not mean those individuals share common belief on everything, but they shared a common belief on the Reform Party stances; taking out of context statements, putting them in a ill-gotten context, and then linking all these individuals with the tyrannical and oppressive philosophies of Nazism and Fascism is their tactic. This is not proper for Wikipedia and Mr. Berlet is the only one (and his PRA associates) who seem interested in doing this. Without further backup from credible sources other than Mr. Berlet (who represents a fringe view) then it is inappropriate per wiki policies to quote him alone or to cite him or those at PubliceEye or PRA or associated sites; especially on a page of someone he is engaged in smear campaign against. That applies also to his philosophy pertaining to Buchanan and others he and PRA attack. I'm ok with his citations as long as other citations are used outside of websites or books associated with his organization; and as long as the LaRouche, Buchanan, Perot and other persons he attacks are allowed to indicate their citations pertaining to this subject. --Northmeister 15:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course - Berlet's views are not mainstream, because they are the only well-researched views to speak of on the subject. The problem is that the subject is a crackpot conspiracy theorist who has attracted a cult of followers, and so, really, no views on the subject, including the subject's own, can be considered mainstream. What Berlet's views are, on the other hand, is researched, and they are vastly more mainstream than anything LaRouche has ever said and will ever say. Phil Sandifer 22:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't care to debate whether this person is right or that one is more right, that's not my point. I am asking that the wiki policy on a non-mainstream small minority (of one and a few associated with the one at PRA) be enforced. Also the above statement is your opinion, pure and simple and I am not debating opinions. I've read some of Chip's stuff since coming here due to being accused of being a LaRouche supporter and that whole mess and I stand by my assertions of his credibility. But that is really not my point, nor should it be. Debating who is more mainstream or not? I don't wish to do that. Just enforce the policy of wikipedia and be fair and honest. This page in particular should reflect LaRouche's political views as he has stated them, there doesn't need to be analysis of them by a critic of one or a few (that violates policy), just present the views and let the reader be informed. In the links section, present links from critics to Mr. Berlet's site to allow the reader to be informed of Chip's assertions and PRA's assertions. This is how neutral is done. Either enforce Wiki policy on this (I've already contacted the board of Wikimedia on this because of my concern to fairness and accuracy) or take my above advice and do it fairly. Let's not make wikipedia anyones ground or debate's over politics. Just report and the reader will decide. --Northmeister 01:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what policies you've been reading, but none that I recognize. Nowhere does it say that a subject's views must be repeated verbatim without criticism. In fact, WP:V says quite the opposite:

• Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• [S]ources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities.
• [S]elf-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. (Executive Intelligence Review counts as self-published as do the LaRouche websites, because he appears to have full editorial control.)
• Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves ... so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources (my emphasis).

So in fact, we've probably included more from LaRouche himself in these articles that we had to, given that the words "unduly self-aggrandizing" and "contradicted by other published sources" could be LaRouche's middle names. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bluntly put, if Berlet's views are not mainstream enough or notable enough to be in this article, then this article is not mainstream or notable enough to exist. Phil Sandifer 02:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What I see being raised in this discussion is that Chip Berlet has a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that PRA should be considered a "self-published source." The policies you are raising (WP:V) apply to him too. Online Journal Associate Editor Larry Chin charged that "Berlet is a gatekeeper who has made a career out of slandering and attacking whistleblowers, researchers and critics of the US government, of every political affiliation." www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/ResponseFromOnlineJournalAssociateEditorLarryChinToRivaEnteenReChipBerlet.htm --NathanDW 01:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Then you see wrongly. Cberlet works for a research company. He does not have full editorial control and is therefore not a self-published source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What errors of fact in my work can you cite? In 35 years of writing published material I have made mistakes, but other than the opinions of a handful of critics (mostly conspiracy theorists and some right-wing zealots) I have seen no evidence to support the claims being made here about the overall integrity and accuracy of my work. I am really tired of having my professional integrity and accuracy attacked by editors who are unable to supply actual evidence.--Cberlet 02:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point Phil and SlimVirgin your not neutral in this stuff as is obvious by your name calling above. I don't want this discussion to amount to who is more credible, I want a fair and honest report on Mr. LaRouches views. Such items as on his wife and Mr. Berlet's analysis that he became anti-feminist is outright wrong for this page. There is a difference between stated political views and the reasons behind them. The only man who knows why LaRouche thinks as he does is Mr. LaRouche, not Mr. Berlet or King or anyone else. They've written books about him from the fringe and the stuff added here to 'political' views are from their source material. Lyndon LaRouche was a political candidate for President and deserves mention in one article that is fair and accurate, with links to criticism of him going to his critics websites. The entire LaRouche article does not need to contain point counter point, smear, out of context statements used in a ill-gotten way, or other material from one group of individuals and association. Does that not make sense? I agree there are far to many articles on this website about him, there should be one and it should contain an honest biography and statement of his principles, with a link section to his critics. If a fringe organization such as Mr. Berlet's is allowed to publish their material on wikipedia it is only fair and honest to allow Mr. LaRouche's people to do the same. If PublicEye is allowed as a source, then it is only fair and honest to do the same for the Larouche websites. The most important thing for an encylopedia is accuracy and backup with other sources. So if material is used from either, backup sources from outside of their organization must be provided in lieu of their inclusion. This is fair, balanced, and neutral according to wiki policy. Further, individuals should not be allowed to accuse persons of being what they are not without evidence to the same. I find it very offensive that some of my edits in the past had been taken out claiming they were 'LaRouche ideas'. This type of thing was called a name once and condemned, namely McCarthyism and the man Dwight D. Eisenhower condemned it. That is what Mr. Berlet is engaged in if you go to his site; and that is what is currently going on here at Wikipedia. False accusations, stalking of individuals, making accusations as to the authenticity of Mr. LaRouches ideas base on Mr. Berlet and his associates alone. I do hope you see yourselve's for what your doing. This is my last statement on this. I will not edit this page however. I will leave that to people who know Mr. LaRouches ideas politically and who are credible on this subject. SlimVirgin, Will Beback, Cbertlet are all part of a clique out to ruin the reputation of wikipedia in the name of a witch-hunt using Chip Berlet's material alone. I will not participate in this and I CONDEMN it with every being of my SOUL. --Northmeister 02:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Enough. If you disrupt this talk page with personal attacks once more, I will block you from editing for 48 hours. Fair warning. If you want to discuss, discuss- but no moreof this.--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not anti-semitic to say "the Jew"

It is POV to say that the use of the expression "the Jew" is anti-Semitic. Here is an example of this use that is clearly not anti-Semitic: www.israelnewsagency.com/jewisrael194800.html SlimVirgin put back in that LaRouche says "the Jew" which is a usage typical of anti-Semites. I think this is particularly propagandistic on her part, because the article in which LaRouche says it is an article attacking anti-semitism. I am removing that sentence. --NathanDW 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The example you give above is just another way of saying "the individual Jew": it's a turn of speech. That wasn't how LaRouche meant it. Regardless, I've removed it as original research, but I've retained that he used the expression, because he did. We can let the reader judge how he meant it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I see that SlimVirgin has deleted all the material about the mediation. I think that this is a questionable decision. Here is the new location: Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Twrigley. I have been meaning to say something, and I'll say it here. The problem is that when I or Northmeister or anyone else asks those three editors (Cberlet, Will Beback, SlimVirgin) to comply with Wikipedia policies by providing veriable sources, the same thing always happens: stalling, stonewalling, and accusations that anyone who asks for veriable sources is a LaRouche supporter. I have many criticisms of LaRouche, but I don't see that as justification for bad sourcing or propaganda techniques (quotes out of context, "spin.") I also agree that material that is sourced to Chip Berlet should have been published in a mainstream publication. I do agree that PRA is a "fringe" website, and much of what is on it could never possibly appear in a a mainstream publication. --NathanDW 16:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The two known experts on LaRouche, whether you like it or not, are Chip Berlet and Dennis King, which is why they're under constant attack by LaRouche supporters. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

NathanDW, keep in mind what is happening. Right now your under 'surveillance' by these people "Hmmmm. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=BirdsOfFire&offset=0&limit=500, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=NathanDW&offset=0&limit=500, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Herschelkrustofsky&offset=0&limit=500, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Northmeister&offset=0&limit=500,Something amiss?--Cberlet 02:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)" which is un-wikipedia like; they continue to insist on a reading of Arbcom decisions against the wishes of Mr. Jimbo Wales "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." among other statements he has made concerning targeting people who hold certain views; they continue to disrupt any article associated with Lyndon LaRouche or they think is associated with him (evidence of unified small group with a purpose and mission of ill-repute and disruption);they have been involved in Arbcom rulings in the past brought by several editors against their tactics;they are associated with Mr. Chip Berlet;they continue to assert Chip Berlet and Dennis King are the only persons of knowledge regarding Mr. LaRouche despite the evidence that such said individuals and those associated have run a constant smear campaign against not only LaRouche but the Republican Party, the Reform Party, David Horowitz, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Fulani among others;their assertion that these two said individuals material be used (despite being a very small minority opinion and very much slanted) is like asserting that Marx be used as the only credible source for discussion of Capitalism -absurd and fraught with deception. In the end, I tried to mediate this case and SlimVirgin refused mediation. I never intended to edit this article but to defend editors who would, from the same sort of treatment I have received since arriving at Wikipedia..a McCarthy like treatment that is not honorable nor according to wikipedia rules. That said, my advice is to continue with your efforts, back yourself up with evidence, and work with those who will work with you. Be fair, honest, and to the point. These tactics of theirs will be exposed for what they are since their actions speak as loud as their words do. --Northmeister 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you name another third-party expert on LaRouche that we can use as another source, if you feel Berlet and King aren't enough? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt has done objective research on LaRouche. You can check it out at www.namebase.org. I don't think too many people think that King and Berlet are objective researchers. They are more like the media version of Mafia hitmen. If anyone has any illusions they should check out this article: www.larouchepub.com/exon/exon_add1_train.html --BirdsOfFire 16:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm, that article was written from a pro-LaRouche point of view, by a supporter who has no journalistic or acedemic credibilty that I can see. So that's not a reliable source on King and Berlet's reliablity.--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not the one upholding material from a source in question for being a 'very minority view' that is not holding to consensus here. The burden is not upon I but upon editors who add material to an article. I question only the authenticity of Mr. Berlet's views in his books in lieu of the history of himself and Mr. LaRouche. I have no problem with the use of such said material if it is backed up with published and credible academic sources outside of Mr. Berlet, Mr. King and those associated with him. I make this request considering the very 'fringe' nature of PRA and their associated sites and persons. It is a fair request to protect the reputation of wikipedia from being used a political launchpad for anyone, including LaRouche people. --Northmeister 18:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Then please, by all means suggest some "published and credible academic sources outside of [sic] Mr. Berlet, Mr. King and those associated with him," who are experts on LaRouche. But if, as you say, the "burden is not upon [you] but upon editors who add material ..." then I suggest you leave it up to those editors, and as you're not here as an editor of the article, perhaps you could stop taking up the whole talk page with your complaints? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I do leave it to those editors who have added material cited to Mr. Berlet, King and associates alone. If those editors can't provide sources outside of the stated individuals and associations in question for their 'fringe' nature, then that material needs to be removed until such said individuals provide citations outside of PRA and related sites or associations. If such citations are provided then it is legitimate for inclusion. I also petition to have this article moved to the Lyndon LaRouche biography, as Mr. LaRouche, although controversial does not warrant several articles here at Wikipedia per his influence upon American society or the world community. --Northmeister 02:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The material cited has been published. Find reputable published sources and edit text. Complaining on this page in endless circles is a waste of time.--Cberlet 02:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right, that it is a waste of time. Surely, you have sources outside of your own material that you've used to gather evidence for your books. I am interested in those sources. The reason for interest is because I find it hard to accept your research because it is not mainstream. All I need is sources added to this article which indicates outside collaboration and support of your theory about LaRouche and the quote you provide. It is not unreasonable to ask for those. In all likely-hood you have them if you've done credible research, in which case you can provide them and the matter would be closed. Any material from credible newspaper's, magazines, other published books, or from the source of your information would help to discern the accuracy of your conclusions. To base an article, that is so negative against an individual in parts, upon your assumptions and conclusions alone is not only un-scientific but is morally wrong. If someone is out there to back up what you say, let the community know, indicate the source of the material beyond your published works. Many published works exist, and the best can point to examples of other academics and published sources concerning the subject matter at hand. What is at hand here is your accusations of fascism, anti-woman ideas, and so forth of Mr. LaRouche which belong in merit if there is credible evidence for this, but not particularly in his political views article but in his biography and with outside research. All I ask is confirmation of what you say. I am no advocate for the man and did not know of him until wikipedia and my experiences here. That said, my native sense of justice cannot ignore that much of the material on LaRouche here at Wikipedia is from one source and associates of that source and from none other; particularly regarding a persons motivations and honor. Let us have sources and let this matter rest. --Northmeister 02:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

<--------I have read LaRouchite publications on a regular basis since 1975. I have interviewed scores of former members. I have interviewed dozens of critics of LaRouche. I have attended events and heard LaRouche speak in person. I gathered information from a wide vaiety of sources. Then I wrote articles and book chapters that were published. I have watched videos of LaRouche speeches. I read their websites. I study and write about fascism, conspiracism, antisemitism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and right-wing populism. What matters is that I did not self-published these articles and book chapters. They are in print, from whence they can be cited on Wikipedia. Much material that is damning to LaRouche on Wikipedia was produced as a result of LaRouche defenders claiming I or some other editor had misquoted LaRouche or taken his quotes out of context. This is not true. Either 1) edit using Wiki guidelines, 2) suggest an alternative wording for a sentence or paragraph backed by reputable published cites, or 3) stop wasting all of our time with vague complaints that are little more than personal attacks on me and my research. Edit or stop complaining. Please!--Cberlet 04:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

All right then. I accept your statements above on a good faith basis. I have no intention of editing as I have said before. I wish you and the others to be cordial with those who do wish to edit this page and allow room for reason. I have had my say and will write no more about this. I ask that you extend the same sort of consideration I've given you to NathanDW and others in the future. That is all I ask. Thank You. --Northmeister 05:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I found out about the Alexa test (Wikipedia:Google_test#Alexa_test) which is supposed to help decide whether a website is a suitable source. I checked the Political Research Associates on the Alexa site www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=www.publiceye.org and it seems that this should not be considered a suitable source. --NathanDW 16:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The page you are referring to covers whether a website is notable enough to have an article, in the absence of other information. It does not concern whether an organizatoin that has a website is sufficient to user as a reliable source. That is covered by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -Will Beback 21:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I checked that myself. Seems to me that there is a lot of stuff used by Political research that should not be. They should not be used because they do not have a high rating compared to EIR. --IAMthatIAM 16:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not the way things work around here. Nice try. -Will Beback 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Time to remove the flag.--Cberlet 22:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism and other criticisms

I think Wikipedia is in danger of showing a structural bias in the way it distributes accusations and counter-accusations about people across their respective entries. Most of the criticisms of LaRouche, which basically seem to me to boil down to slurs, smears and vague innuendo and insinuation, backed, if by anything, with tenuous quotes, should be briefly summarized in Larouche's article and fully documented in the entries' of the respective authors of those criticisms.

As it is, entries can be "philibustered" if a few extremely partisan editors show up and start demanding that every single, pedantic claim of theirs is inserted for "balance". Eventually these claims become the "debate" surrounding the subject, and this debate takes precedence to the subject itself.

There really is not a SINGLE piece of evidence in the article for any categorically anti-semitic statement made by Larouche, just vague innuendo. Concepts like "classical theories" of anti-semitism are utterly bogus. Debates about the nature of fascism have no intrinsic relevance to the article's subject and it seems to me are basically included, once again, as a form of innuendo.

Wikipedia ought to be an encyclopedia, and it can't selectively become a running blog on a political struggle on a message board with quasi-encyclopedic semantics.

I agree with the above comments, and I note that Chip Berlet, who is both an editor for this article and the single most quoted critic, has removed the long standing "disputed" tag without offering any response to the issues raised, so I will put it back. --172.190.55.189 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree -- this is not an agreed-upon position, and I am removing the {{totally disputed}} tag again based on the following: A lot of work was done by a number of editors on the article to create better balance, and it seems to be much improved. If there emerges more of a consensus that the article is still imbalanced, we should put the tag back, but its purpose is to show a large division of opinion -- not that a few people find it imbalanced.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the author of the first post to this sub thread. I appreciate the need to show a wide division of opinion. I just feel that there's a certain prejudice being manifested against Larouche as a political fringe dweller that I find disturbing. The prejudice is a lower threshold for what constitutes important and reasonable criticism of himself and his opinions. If the critics really are interested in the quality of the encyclopedia and not their own agenda of smearing Larouche, let them create a sub-article for their own views of Larouche's views. For the record, I don't like Larouche. I think he's a demagogue, a dilettante and an irresponsible historical revisionist. Nonetheless I'm interested in his ideas, and I want a reasonable article!

Thankyou --Tarma 2002 18:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading the section in question I see that it neutrally reports what two major critics say about him. Later on it neutrally provides information which contradicts their criticism. Do you think that we should omit the info entirely? LaRouche's positions are often described by himself or his followers in a complicated or indirect manner, and they have changed over the decades. -Will Beback 20:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is very dubious to describe them as "major critics." They have a small, cult-like following among LaRouche-haters, but no major presence in the media, or academic credentials. If I am not mistaken, neither of them has graduated from college. There is criticism of LaRouche in the mainstream media, but it does not reflect these oddball theories that are given so much weight at Wikipedia. --NathanDW 01:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there more major critics of LaRouche then Berlet and King? If so then please name them. -Will Beback 04:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert L. Bartley, for example. Pulitzer prize winner. --NathanDW 15:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Bartley also describes LaRouche as being anti-Semitic.

• Sometimes it is overt anti-Semitism; with "Children of Satan," Mr. LaRouche has chosen an Aryan-nation phrase for Jews (descendants of Cain, who was the result of Satan seducing Eve, in this perfervid theology). At other times, often in the hands of accusers who are Jewish themselves, it is a charge of secret loyalties. The Jews, or Israel, or the Likud have conspired to take over American foreign policy.[29]

However that article does not so much criticize LaRouche as it criticizes media outlets for using some of the same concepts and terminology as LaRouche. I also note that the LaRouche movement discounts Bartley just like it discounts Berlet and King, in this case callimg Bartley "an asset of the Mont Pelerin Society" [30] -Will Beback 22:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought there was something weird in the charge that LaRouche is anti-Semitic. For example, in this quote from Bartley, he says it is "overt anti-Semitism" that LaRouche uses the phrase "Children of Satan," but on the cover of the "Children of Satan" pamphlet they had a picture of Donald Rumsfeld, who wasn't Jewish last time I checked. Bartley's argument seems to be the same as that of Berlet in the Wikipedia article. Bartley also says (it is difficult to follow his logic) that this sort of overt anti-Semitism can be practiced by Jews. This reminds me of the very first time I ever heard of LaRouche, which was on a TV show Geraldo Rivera used to have back in the '80s. He interviewed a general who called the LaRouche organization "a bunch of anti-Semitic Jews," which I thought at the time was rather unusual. --ManEatingDonut 13:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dennis King

I am asking people who edit this article to read one chapter from Dennis King's book, which is available on the internet,[31]

Many of the charges LaRouche makes against his opponents seem far-fetched to me, but they are tame compared to Dennis King's diatribe. He makes every conspiracy theory I have ever seen look sober and prudent by comparison. Read the chapter and then tell me why anyone should take this guy seriously, let alone consider him a suitable source for Wikipedia. --NathanDW 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your POV opinion of King has no weight here.--Cberlet 03:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you don't need to take my word for it. Just read this [32] and draw your own conclusions. --NathanDW 19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Your POV opinion of King has no weight here on Wiki since King's book was published by a major reputable publisher. A federal jury found that calling LaRouche a "small-time Hitler" was not defamatory.--Cberlet 20:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

POV edits

This page increasingly is being edited to remove cited material and include dubious assertions that serve to sanitize the published material critical of LaRouche. This page needs to be NPOV, not a blog for people who are upset by published criticism of LaRouche.--Cberlet 03:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is customary to be specific when making a POV complaint, citing both the offending edits and the relevant Wikipedia policy. --ManEatingDonut 07:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And I will be specific as soon as I finish removing the fawning advertisements and plugs for LaRouche from the other page where we are discussing this.--Cberlet 13:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)