Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/Archive 9

Moving "Ideological figures"

I've proposed moving the LaRouche movement#Ideological figures section to this article. None of the "figures" are participants in the LaRouche movement, and the lists reflect the views of LaRouche and his followers. Therefore the material makes more sense in this article.   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

:Bad idea. This article is already bloated with esoterica. Maybe you could dump "psychosexual organizing" to make room for it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not a useful response. The "movement" article is focused on organizations and personnel, so it's a bad fit there.   Will Beback  talk  05:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: Note that the "Psycho-sexuality and political organizing" has seven citations, so it's among the better sourced sections. There are several sections without even a single secondary source. We can start removing the unsourced sections shortly.   Will Beback  talk 

:::The "ideological figures" would seem to be more appropriate in this article than where it is. But a list format is not very informative. It would make more sense to incorporate the "figures" under the various relevant headings such as science, economics, etc., with an brief explanation of why LaRouche endorses or opposes them. --Maybellyne (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rolf A. F. Witsche

The Disintegration of the World's Financial System by Rolf A. F. Witsche is published by Lulu, a self-publishing company.[1] The book is self-published.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

:Removed. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Research

:::::::::Your "scratchpad" is quite an impressive project. It must have taken a big investment of time to assemble such a collection of malicious rumors and unfounded allegations. I say "malicious" and "unfounded" because there is not one single arrest or conviction, so the whole enterprise is just an exercise in defamation. --Maybellyne (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've split this off because it's not directly related to the above discussion. (And really the matter is better discussed on talk:LaRouche movement.) As for the research, I've only used those sources that I believe qualify as reliable by the usual Wikipedia standards. They are all either mainstream newspaper reports or books issued by reputable publishing houses. Any that aren't certainly won't be used in material added to an article. More research is always better.   Will Beback  talk  05:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::Clearly you have access to some sort of press clipping service that is unavailable to the rest of it. If you would take a portion of the time that you use hunting for scandalous gossip, and use it instead to satisfy your own demands for secondary sources on LaRouche's views on economics, you could save the rest of us a lot of aggravation. --Maybellyne (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on one project, and when I'm done I'll find another. As for economic material, it's not my focus but what I've seen in passing won't help the existing material much. In fact that's part of my concern. The economic proposal of LaRouche's that I see the most coverage of (and even then it's just passing mentions) is placing the U.S. back on the gold standard. Yet I don't see that anywhere in this article.   Will Beback  talk  18:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

China Youth OnLine

"The Present International Financial System Cannot Be Saved,"

I see that this is being added as a source. How do we know what it really says? Does anyone here read Chinese? Do we know if this is original reporting, or if they simply copied a LaRouche-movement biography?   Will Beback  talk  06:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

:I would welcome input from a Chinese speaker, but Google Translate is sufficiently clear for most of the article. The LaRouche PAC website has some translated sections[2] -- you can compare them to the Google version if you want to claim they are cheating or embellishing. I believe the article to be original reporting, but I find it odd that you raise the question, when so many of the sources that you argued for in the "AIDS" section, such as the Sunday Herald Sun of Melbourne, Australia, were clearly not original reporting, but simply copied from Chip Berlet instead. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Clear?

• LaRouche himself has a healthy and civilized reshape the mission of the West to restore since the Renaissance has been distorted beyond the Western civilization, the essence of Plato's philosophy to restore the kind of initiative to explore the humane spirit of the laws of nature, in theory, to the rehabilitation Riemann and other German scientists to create a "physical economics" policy to restore at the time of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal approach, control of financial capital for the industrial rehabilitation of low-interest loans to re-create the spirit of the Americans glow.

Maybe we should just quote that in the article.   Will Beback  talk  08:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

For the moment, to us English speakers, this is gibberish. Let's wait and see. If these matters are notable they will have been reported in more accessible languages. The value of such a distant source is questionable. It's like quoting an Indian newspaper about Mark Sanford.   Will Beback  talk  08:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: We can also hold off on cutting the sections where there's a chance this might be relevant.   Will Beback  talk  09:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

:::I looked at WP:RS and could find no criteria for evaluating the "distance" of a source. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We should always try to use the best sources available. WP:RS and WP:V both say, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". Since we're not sure what the source actually says, we can't use it as a reference. If the only people who feel this way about the topic are in China then we should think about how to attribute their views, once we've found a reliable translation.   Will Beback  talk  18:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::Newspapers are political. The Chinese press is influenced by the Chinese government, which has apparently made a decision that an open discussion of LaRouche's ideas is in its interest. The American press are controlled by corporations, that apparently have made a decision that an open discussion of LaRouche's ideas will harm their interests. China Youth Daily has a daily circulation of nearly one million, making it bigger than most American papers, and 2 million if its online edition is included, so its importance should not be scoffed at. It is not impossible to decipher the Google translation. For example, I would be confident that "to the rehabilitation Riemann" refers to Riemann's "Habilitation Paper," which LaRouche has cited hundreds of times as a seminal influence on his thinking. It would be better to get a Chinese speaker to translate -- does Wikipedia have any available? --Coleacanth (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "open discussion", but that's not really relevant. The National Enquirer has a large circulation too, but circulation alone does not establish a source as being reliable. Aside from the issue of the translation, I am also concerned that the biographical sketch is probably just provided by LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Will, a pattern is beginning to emerge here. When a newspaper article says something negative about LaRouche, you insist upon the sanctity of newspaper sources, but when a newpaper says something positive about LaRouche, you express grave concerns that LaRouche somehow controls the source. I have looked at web resources and it looks to me that the CYD is a highly respected publication. If you think that it is unreliable, you should take it to the noticeboard. And in the case of the material that you deleted from Lyndon LaRouche, even the crappy Google translation is clear enough: July 2007, LaRouche issued a warning to the world once again that unless the United States, China, Russia and India together the four countries to reshape the world financial system,金out of control, otherwise, is sweeping through the world of a serious economic crisis will soon be arrival. At that time, Wall Street was "up the sound," bullish on the occasion, many people scoff at the warning, but after just one year, LaRouche's prediction come true once again. I'm restoring my summary of that, because I don't see any basis for claiming it doesn't mean what my summary said. --Coleacanth (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Coleacanth, do you read Chinese? I don't. We don't know what the article really says, or how close it is to LaRouche's own press releases. Maybe we should take this to the RSN and see what others think.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#China Youth On Line.   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::::In the meantime, Will, it wouldn't hurt for you to take another look at WP:SAUCE.--Leatherstocking (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Editors who post on Wikipedia Review like to refer to that page, for some reason, perhaps because it was written by a WRer. IN any case, I am treating all Chinese newspapers equally.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::Some say that witches, heretics and communists enjoy reading WP:SAUCE, but as to whether they speak the truth, I do not know. As for myself, I do not always read WP:ESSAYS, but when I do, I prefer WP:SAUCE. Stay thirsty, my friends. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche PAC has published an article in which most of the Chinese Youth Daily piece is translated.[3] With crosschecking using the Google translation, I am confident that we establish what it says, and the citations I placed which were deleted by Will Beback can be restored. BTW, Coleacanth was mistaken about a reference to the Habilitation Paper of Riemann, but the actual quote is still usable. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

::We can also cross-reference it with the translation at User:Jim101/Sandbox. --Leatherstocking (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the translation by Jim101 be our standard translation, as it's is presumably more netral that the LPAC translation, and ore intelligible than the Google translation.   Will Beback  talk  18:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What sort of material are you proposing adding from the article?   Will Beback  talk  06:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

::Nothing in particular. As you may recall, I put it in various footnotes to satisfy all the banners you put up. --Maybellyne (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes aren't decoratiions. If there is a specific assertion in the CYDOL piece that you want to add to the artilce then we can use it as a source for that. Don't just add footnotes to random sentnces.   Will Beback  talk  18:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, footnote shouldn't be added just for the sake of having another footnote, and everythig from this source needs to be fully attributed. Unless these are removed from their current format I'll rewrite the material based solely on the China Youth Daily material, since that is the only 3rd-party source we've found.   Will Beback  talk  19:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting to note, it's a piece about reforming western culture from Xinhua on 2003. The important part about this piece is that much of the rhetorics and metaphors are identical to the current China Youth Daily piece, which means he has has been an important person for the Chinese propaganda department for a very long time. Jim101 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This on Dec. 2008, a joint interview between China Central Television and Chinese Biz News (an Chinese American paper run by Tyloon Media Corporation) about the current economic crisis. Jim101 (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

One thing to note about Chinese sources is that even if it is an mainstream independent paper, like Chinese newspapers in the States or Hong Kong, they still tend to take some forms of party line (unless they are Falun gong newspapers, but they were never mainstream enough). Anyway, the Chinese news service provided by western media were never interesting enough when compared to Xinhua or CCTV (BBC would never carry entertainment/sports news about China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan), while a lot of Chinese communities want to maintain good relations/loyalty with the "motherland". So even if it is indenpendent, we still have to be mindful of the "party line". Jim101 (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that extra research and background. It's very informative.   Will Beback  talk  17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If I have time, I can help translate the other two pieces. The piece from CCTV is a real interview, very detailed about his bio and his political/economic views plus how much the Communists actually believes in his view. The piece from Xinhua talks about his reformation on cultures and his conspiracy theory about 9-11. I would recommand the CCTV piece over the China Youth Daily piece with regards to his notablity in China, but more resources never hurts. Jim101 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this article has now appeared in tens of thousands of other publications and websites. [4] It is clearly now a phenomenon that goes beyond the question of the China Youth Daily. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Still, he is still fringe when you talk about economics even in China. China's most authoritative finacial magazine, Caijing and Worker's Daily, has almost no reference on his name. So the only thing can be concluded about LaRouche is that he is a media sensation in China with the Communist taking a special interest in his political and geopolitic views. As the title economist that all the Chinese media assigned him to, its better not to take it at face value. Jim101 (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, this is interest. Economic Daily, a Chinese newspaper runs directly by the Chinese State Council to broadcast economic policies of the Chinese government, wrote a complete bio piece on LaRouche in 2006, and judging the time stamps on all my research, this is actually one of the earliest places where mainstream Chinese publications started to refer him as a "famous economist".

Also, one of the sources I provided, Chinese Biz News, has strong business relationship with Xinhua and personal relationships with Leni Rubinstein. My best guess is that the Communist was intrigued by LaRouche through informal personal connections like this, arranged a few private meetings, and finally decided to publicly endorse LaRouche on the eve of U.S.–China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, to strengthen its own platforms domestically. Jim101 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hatonn

At first glance this book seems as reliable as some others used for the article. The Mother of All Webs Who Gotcha! By Gyeorgos C. Hatonn. It contains primary sources from the ICLC. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  08:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

:It looks to be self-published. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing because there was an "American West. Publishers" with an excelletn reputation.[5]. But it may have gone out of business. The current publisher of that name prints the "Phoenix Journal".[6] I don't yet see a direct link between Hatonn and the publisher, but that's plausible. It's a bit of a semantic argument, but since he didn't write the ICLC memos it may not quite count as self-publishing.   Will Beback  talk  18:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

More complicated than I thought. Apparently Hatonn is a celestial being who transmitted his commentary via shortwave radio to a woman named Doris Ekkers, who did the transcription. The publisher was a third party, George Green.[7] So it would appear that it isn't self published after all.   Will Beback  talk  19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

:::I'm familiar with this guy. He published a series of conspiracy tabloids including "Contact" and "Phoenix Liberator." I assume that you are making this proposal in jest. --Coleacanth (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The book/journal in question appears to contain a long document or publication from the ICLC, with interleaved commentary from Hatonn. Documents of this type are hard to find, so if this is a true copy then it could be a helpful primary source for one or another article. Lack of primary sources isn't the main problem though.   Will Beback  talk  21:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There have been complaints about relying on Western mainstream press and ignoring the reports from Russia and China. Now it appears that the subject also has a following among celestial beings, according to what may qualify as a reliable source. If so, and I see no source that contradicts it, then it might be worth summarizing some of Hatonn's points.   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::Perhaps you could find a source that says this is funny? --Maybellyne (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you had a sense of humor. Anway, it's probably as good as some other sources proposed for this article.   Will Beback  talk  10:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Triple Curve

Amtrak Reform Council

• The Amtrak Reform Council's restructuring plan, United States Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads

Who is speaking or writing this? What is the context? The Google link is uninformative. It appears to be a submisison from the Executive Intelligence Review.[8] If so, I don't see how it can be viewed as any better a source then what is printed by the EIR directly.   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

:Not a better source, but it establishes notability, regardless of who provided the testimony. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really. What we're looking for are refrencs in reliable 3rd-party sources. EIR is not such a source.   Will Beback  talk  18:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

:::And EIR is not the source -- the Congressional Record is. BTW, please try to be civil in your edit summaries. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have evidence that the Congressional Record edited and revised the EIR statement then they might be considered the source. However it appears that they printed the EIR statement verbatim. So we have proof that the EIR submitted that report, but it is not a 3rd-party statement and it does nothing to establish the notability of the Triple Curve. And there was nothing uncivil in my edit summary.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The referenec was attached to this sentence:

• The "Triple Curve", or "typical collapse function", is an economic model developed by LaRouche which purports to illustrate the growth of financial aggregates at the expense of the physical economy and how this leads to an inevitably collapsing bubble economy.

But in the little snippet in Google the source doesn't appear to say anything like that so I've removed it. As I said before, footnotes aren't decorations. They are supposed to lead to references that will verify what we're writing in the article. And on the matter of secondary sources, we still need a significant one for the Triple Curve material.   Will Beback  talk  18:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::Will, it looks to me like you are trying to write a whole new body of policy to your own specifications. You are the one that insisted that the sections on economics must have secondary sources, as a demonstration of notability, and as editors provide them, you fight like the dickens to disqualify them. The "Amtrak" source is completely adequate to show notability; it was not edited by LaRouche, and the actual editors clearly had discretion as to what to include or not include. The reference to the "triple curve" is unmistakable, and it doesn't have to be a comprehensive explanation in order to show notability.

The primary sources that are already cited provide very adequate explanations of LaRouche's economic theories. LaRouche's main notability is as an author/ideologue, and it is clear from a list of his published books at Lyndon LaRouche that his emphasis is on economics. It is beginning to appear like you have your own personal agenda as to how you would like to have LaRouche depicted in these articles, much like User:Cberlet and his crusade to have the articles dominated by his own esoteric theories. I would suggest that you stop making unreasonable demands on other editors when there is no basis in policy for doing so. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

1) A written statement by the EIR is not a 3rd-party source. 2) The snippet I could see did not support text that was cited to it. Either quote the text that you are citing, or add the footnote to something that is verifiably in the statement. 3) Please avoid making personal remarks. Civility is a requirement.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::You asked for sources to prove notability. All that is needed to proved notability is a mention of the subject. Maybe we should simply have an introductory sentence that says what the Amtrak book says, although it shouldn't be necessary to be that fussy about it. --Coleacanth (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources should be the basis for all material on Wikipedia. See WP:PSTS. So far we have zero 3rd-party sources for this concept. Just because Larouche says something doesn't make it notable, even if his magazine calls it well-known. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources.   Will Beback  talk  06:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. LaRouche is notable as an economist; this is an article about his views; it shouldn't be necessary to have a secondary source to validate each individual detail of LaRouche's views on economics. "Common sense" would include mature judgement about which of LaRouche's views on economics receive the most emphasis in his published works. --Coleacanth (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis. However if you want to assert that the Triple Curve is particularly emphasized in his writings then it's up to you to show that. I've seen it mentioned here and there, but I don't see it routinely used and explored in depth. I suggest you compile research in Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouch/Triple Curve to show that it is more notable than any of the dozens of his other theories, pronouncements, and forecasts.   Will Beback  talk  07:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Pending that I'm going to attribute this. But if we don't find reliable secondary sourced in 3rd-party publications that discuss this proposal then it should be cut down to a sentence and placed alongside other miscellaneous proposals.   Will Beback  talk  19:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have the following proposals to make: first, that "LaRouche-Riemann model" and "Triple curve" be combined into a section called "Economic forecasting." LaRouche's views on forecasting are clearly notable, because he has been credited by multiple sources for having forecast the 2007 financial collapse. LaRouche never discusses forecasting without mentioning the L-R model and triple curve. Also, Jim101 has provided this translation of a section of the China Youth Daily article: His basic points about the unavoidability of the current US ecocnomic crisis are: the production of real goods is constantly dropping, but the credit supplies is steadily increasing, the real and nominal economies form two curves with one going up, while another one going down, which creates a great contrast. When the nominal economy greatly overstates the real economy, the world will fall into a economic crisis. That needs to be tweaked for English usage, but it applies to the triple curve (even though the author simplifies it into two curves, treating the monetary aggregates and financial aggregates as one thing.) As far as the gold standard is concerned, that should be incorporated into New Bretton Woods, but with care, because there are many different versions of a "gold standard" and LaRouche explicitly rejects some of them. --Coleacanth (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with handling the topics covered in the China Youth Daily piece together in one section, which will simplify things because then we only have to attribute them once. We can include their assertions that he supports American style capitalism, that he's made X number of accurate predictions, etc. We can drop the existing text that only comes from the LaRouche sources. I'm not sure what the best title would be. "Economic policies and forcasts"? We could compile his past and current forecasts. China Youth Daily asserts that some number have come true, so it's a notable topic.   Will Beback  talk  10:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

::There is absolutely no basis in policy for deleting the material that comes from LaRouche sources, and from the standpoint of common sense, it's a bizarre suggestion. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This article should be based on reliable, 3rd-party sources. That's what I've been saying for weeks now. And despite weeks of looking the best sources we can find for some of these is a Chinese Communist Party youth newspaper. OK, then that's what we'll use.   Will Beback  talk  19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

::::You've been saying this for weeks now, but others don't agree. The policy page you referred me to (WP:PSTS) says that Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. In an article about the views of a specific individual, it seems rather obvious that published works by that individual are an important source. Your opinion counts, but you shouldn't dictate to others when the policy says otherwise. --Coleacanth (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:PSTS says, first and foremost:

• Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

As for LaRouche's writings on the topic, they seem pretty slim. In fact, the only other source for Triple Curve in the text is a link to this article "Information Society: A Doomed Empire of Evil" which doesn't even mention to topic.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::It's amazing how much stuff you can find when you want to find it. Try these: LaRouche Explains How He Developed the `Triple Curve', Hyperinflation! Better Study LaRouche's Triple Curve,Collapse Function Typical Collapse Function --Coleacanth (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

One of those only mentions the Triple Curve in a footnote, and the other gives only a brief explanation. You wrote above that this is the economic theory of LaRouche's to which he gives the "most emphasis." If this is all he wrote about it then it hardly even deserves a sentence.   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gold standard: The press coverage of even this often-mentioned issue is perfunctory at best. Surely if these economic theories are noteworthy they will have been discussed in economic journals or books. Instead we have a Chinese CP youth newspaper. Anyway, there's the primary sources of the subject's campaign books. One of them I skimmed recently (1984?) discussed his gold standard plan, which I recall stipulated pegging the ratio at $700/oz. It's worth a sentnece or two, along with the Triple Curve and the LaRouche-Riemann model, etc. I think we can shorten the economic material substantially, while still covering more topics.   Will Beback  talk  11:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In "A Program for America," the 1985 campaign book, Larouche says that the first point of his proposed monetary reform plan is to:

• Restore the U.S. dollar to a gold-reserve basis (estimating the proper fixed price of monetary gold at $750 an ounce). page 281.

He goes into a more detail on subsequent pages (and perhaps elsewhere in the book too). FYI, the price of gold in 1985 was in the $290-$340 range.   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

One of LaRouche's main works on enonomics is presumably his 1995 book, So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? Several pages of chapter seven are devoted to the issue of the gold-reserve moentary system. I don't see any mention of the Triple Curve though. So that theory must be newer than 1995. Where is LaRouche's fullest explanation or discussion of the Triple Curve?   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Article text

The "Triple Curve", or "typical collapse function", is an economic model developed by LaRouche which purports to illustrate the growth of financial aggregates at the expense of the physical economy and how this leads to an inevitably collapsing bubble economy.(graphic)

According to this model, speculative gains in financial markets are sustained by diverting monetary flows out of the real economy, into financial markets. This is sustained, increasingly, by looting the economic basis through large-scale attrition in basic economic infrastructure, and by driving down the net after-inflation prices paid for wages and production of operatives. Thus, the charting economic data should show a "Triple Curve":

• A hyperbolic curve, upward, of financial aggregates;
• A slower, but also hyperbolic curve, upward, of monetary aggregate needed to sustain the financial bubble;
• An accelerating, downward, curve in net per-capita real output. This reflects the accelerated looting of the physical economy's base to sustain the financial bubble.

Discussion

The material on the Triple Curve currently has two, unattributed sources.

• "This curve represents 1966-1971, approximately, the zero point--...since that time, especially since 1971, the characteristic has been that the per-capita real component of US production and consumption has been in a phase of accelerating decline. During the same period, we've had a growth of the total financial aggregates. For example, today, that means that, compared with about $41 trillion-equivalent, in terms of official reports, of world gross domestic product, of all nations combined--$41 trillion --that in short-term alone, the total amount of financial aggregate today, in short-term obligations, is over $400 trillion--in other words, at least 10 times the amount of the total annual product of the world as a whole. And that does not include all debt." (Lyndon LaRouche, excerpted from "Storm over Asia, Take Two", EIR, Sept. 15, 2000) The reality, which many people do not wish to see, is that the world financial system is in the midst of a hyperinflationary spiral, like that of Germany, 1923. (Coming soon-- "pop goes the bubble!") The above version of Lyndon LaRouche's Triple Curve was first presented at a conference in the Autumn of 1995. (Caption: But now, look below: The Collapse Reaches a Critical Point of Instability) This is the same curve as above, but now look at the area of the same curve at a critical point, the point at which the rate of monetary expansion rises more rapidly than the rate of financial expansion. That is the condition into which Germany had entered over the interval March-October 1923. It is the phase at which the rate of hyperinflationary spiral of financial assets, itself fed by wild-eyed monetary expansion, erupts as an accelerating form of hyperinflation of commodity prices. We see this now with oil and natural gas prices, for example.
  • "World Economic Crisis" Schiller Institute, No author, no date, copyright 2001. [9]

• His basic points about the unavoidability of the current US ecocnomic crisis are: the production of real goods is constantly dropping, but the credit supplies is steadily increasing, the real and nomial economies form two curves with one going up, while another one going down, which creates a great contrast. When the nominal economy greatly overstates the real economy, the world will fall into a economic crisis.
  • China Youth Daily Online, "The Current World Finacial System is Unsalvageable" (现行的世界金融体系已经无可救药), by Ju Hui (鞠辉), 2009-07-24 Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/China Youth Daily

The text does not appear to be a correct summary of those sources. Let's base our writing on the 3rd-party source we have, the CYD, and keep it to about that length or shorter.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

:There's no reason to do that. The Chinese source is a reference to the triple curve, not an explication of it. Our objective should be to make the idea understandable in the most concise way possible, and I believe my edit does that just fine. As discussed elsewhere on this page, the use of primary sources is a matter of common sense. For this idea, common sense dictates the use of a primary source, and the Schiller Institute page is quite adequate. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese source is our only 3rd party source. One of the jobs of such sources is to show us the relative importance. I'm sure we can do just as good a job as they did to explain the thin in under a hundred words. As for the Schiller page, it doesn't seem to say the things we're saying. If that's the best LaRouche source for the thing then we shouldn't go beyond what it says. And we need to attribute the views of both sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Where do we get this from?

• This is sustained, increasingly, by looting the economic basis through large-scale attrition in basic economic infrastructure, and by driving down the net after-inflation prices paid for wages and production of operatives.

I don't see that in either source. Coleacanth added this material calling it "sourced".[10] Where's the source?   Will Beback  talk  22:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

:::Colecanth chose the wrong source. I googled those sentences and found them to be a direct quote from LaRouche. It should of course be attributed as such. I have re-added them with source and attribution. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the discussion. You've proposed that the China Youth Daly is a reliable source, so I don't understand why you deleted the material based on its reporting. The text was an accurate summary of their description. Their article is the sole 3rd-party mention we have anywhere for this 14-year old theory. Please restore the text, or participate in the discussion about improving it.   Will Beback  talk  06:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose this text.

• In 1995, LaRouche presented his Triple Curve Collapse Function.[SI] According to China Youth Daily Online, LaRouche's main point is that when the real economy (production) drops while the nominal economy (money and financial instruments) goes up there will be an unavoidable economic crisis. [CYD]

I believe it's accurate, has as good sources as we can find, and gives weight appropriate to its coverage in 3rd-party sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to add one more detail to show that it is his point since he is not denying it:

• In 1995, LaRouche presented his Triple Curve Collapse Function.[SI] According to an interview with China Youth Daily Online, LaRouche's main point is that when the real economy (production) drops while the nominal economy (money and financial instruments) goes up there will be an unavoidable economic crisis. [CYD] Jim101 (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought this came from a biographical sketch that preceded the interview. Or is the whole article a summary of the interview?   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::I believe that the latter is the case. Also, I think that there is more of the article that is not showing up on the initial page when we view it with Google Translate. Jim, is there another page of the article? Could you give us a link to it? --Coleacanth (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever after paragraph two is a summarization of the interview, and there is no other pages. Jim101 (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added Jim's summary of the CYD article in the appropriate spot. This section is now well-sourced, concise and reasonably complete, and in my opinion the only thing it lacks to achieve perfection would be an image of the curves themselves, which would make the whole thing far easier to follow. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed it down to the CYD summary, plus the over-long LaRouche quote. It's still excess weight, but it's better.   Will Beback  talk  17:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: [11] --Harry Angstrom (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

LPAC videos don't help here. What we need are reliable third-party sources.   Will Beback  talk  06:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche-Riemann Method

I've trimmed the material on the LaRouche-Riemann Method becasue there are no 3rd-party sources that mention it. (The CYD article just talks about bringing the study of Riemann into culture.) The old text didn't actually explain it any way - it just repeated some of LaRouche's predictions. If we can find reliable 3rd-party sources we can expand this based on those.   Will Beback  talk  17:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) :In this edit[12], you deleted material with secondary sources, although your edit summary says "no secondary sources." In this edit[13] you removed the date in which LaRouche announced that the collapse had occurred, which is a notable event -- if you need sources that say so, I'll add them. Incidentally, the section title is "economic forecasting." In this edit[14], you introduced a series of grammatical, English usage and typographical errors, calling it a "better summary." I can't see much difference aside from the errors. Perhaps you need to take a deep breath and count to ten before editing, because you are getting very careless. I have restored the previous version, please discuss changes here. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)  :::I thought that you had done a "blind revert" of my edit, and you had not done so, so I apologize. The corrections I have made are minor. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the secondary source that supports the information about the LaRouche-Riemann Method? Also, please don't do blind reverts - if you have a problem with particular text then address that - but there's no need to revert other changes as well.   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

:::You deleted this statement: LaRouche is said to have applied these ideas to develop an approach to "physical economics." That is in the source, and appropriate to the section. I will go back now and laboriously restore all the material you deleted, piece by piece, and correct the errors you introduced, one by one. Please do not commence edit warring in the middle of this work which you are asking me to do. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So the source is CYD? If so it needs to be attributed. It says:

• LaRouche believes that western culture needs a reform, one that return the culture back to the value of enlightenment, with philosophy that follows Plato's tradition of exploring natural laws and realities, principles based on Riemann's "Physics Economy" and politics based on Franklin Roosevelt's policy.

It doesn't say anything about the "LaRouche-Riemann Method". I would summarize it, so far as Riemann goes, as:

• According to an interview in CYD, LaRouche believes that western culture should be reformed to include principles derived from Bernhard Riemann'd concepts.

How would you summarize it? It doens't seem ot have anything to do with economic forecasting, so perhaps it should be moved to a more general section. Also, why did you delete the reference to LaRouche being a successful economic forecaster?   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. The context is on western culture reform. Jim101 (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::The Google translation does not say "physics economy," it says "physical economy," which makes more sense, given that LaRouche professes to be a "physical economist." Also, Riemann did not present any theory of economics, so "Riemann's 'Physics Economy'" makes no sense in context. The LaRouche translation says "to revive the work of the German scientist Riemann as the basis for the study of 'physical economy.'" Jim, could you take a second look at your translation of that passage? --Coleacanth (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

物理 translates as follows:

• Noun: Physics (the study of)
• Adj: Physical

Now, in Chinese, it is rather rare for 物理 to be used as an adjective, at least without the particle 的 (of). A more appropriate adjective would be 物质. Given the context, usage and Riemann's profession, I believe 物理经济学 was meant as "Physics Economy (the discipline/study of)" or "Economics based on studies in Physics". I reworded the translation in case there are any more confusions. Jim101 (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dennis King's book, Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, mentions this method twice:

• In 1986, LaRouche wrote that his personal contribution to SDI had been to demonstrate that it was affordable. Obviously the United States could pay for a "first-generation" system. The problem lay in the costs of deploying second-, third-, and fourth-generation systems if the Soviets developed countermeasures. LaRouche claimed that he had proven, via his LaRouche-Riemann economic model, that the "spillover" of SDI technologies into the civilian economy would produce profits fully offsetting SDI's cost. He had thus proposed "a 'crash program' . . . as the best way to cause this 'spillover' to occur." In other words, LaRouche had proposed that the Reagan administration adopt one of the key points of his own Grand Design: pay-as-you-go total mobilization. Ch. 9

• A woman in the organization gained a job in Drexel Burnham's international economics division. While trying to ferret out information about its links to the mythical Dope, Inc. conspiracy, she picked up valuable information on gold trading that was incorporated into NCLC economic intelligence reports. She also acquired a knowledge of Drexel's economic models, which LaRouche and his aides reworked into the so-called LaRouche-Riemann economic model. Ch. 25

I know that LaRouche accounts don't like using King, but it may be the only 3rd-party source that mentions this method.   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

:Is "LaRouche accounts" a snide way of referring to editors with whom you disagree? As far as your suggestions go, the first quote is supposedly just a paraphrase of a primary source, while the second one is useless because King has no competence in economics. He is simply using innuendo, as he does throughout his book. I think the economics section is adequate as it is. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to help. Another account asked above for my help in tracking down sources. If there are no 3rd-party sources for this stuff it should be cut way down. See the discussion of "weight" below.   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

:::Right, I'm sure you are. The China Youth Daily reports on LaRouche incorporating Riemann's ideas. I think that's sufficient. The section on LaRouche-Riemann is very brief. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, so we can report that CYD says LaRouche says he thinks American cutlture should be reformed by the promotion of Riemann's idea. But that source makes no mention of the "LaRouche Riemann Method", which is what we're discussing here. I've propsoed keeping a mention of the method, but trimming it down to a short sentence. If you can find a third-party source that says more then we can add more.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::I will be providing some shortly. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Weight

Given that the sole 3rd-party mention of LaRouche's "LaRouche-Riemann Method" are a few words a long sentence found in a summary of an interview (presumably conducted in English, then translated into Chinese, and now translated back-whew!) I suggest that we should just devote a sentence to the LaRouche-Riemann Method and to Physical Economics. I suggest something like:

• LaRouche has developed the "LaRouche-Riemann Method" of forecasting and a theory of "Physical Economy" based on the writings of Bernhard Riemann.

It could be a bit longer, but this does not appear to be a notable concept that merits more space than it receives elsewhere.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection on the term "Physical Economy" given the lost-in-translations possibility you pointed out. But if another editor want to challenges the statement, I have no ways of defending it. In another word, don't get to attach to it without a better source. Jim101 (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

::I have been working my way through Russian sources, and I find that they all talk about "physical economy," including a number of academic papers who cite LaRouche as an authority and in some cases the "founder" or "patriarch" of the discipline. Therefore I think there should be a paragraph on "physical economy." --Coleacanth (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Show us the sources, with neutral translations and we can summarize them.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool it

I would like to ask other editors to slow down. The level of aggression and incivility seems to be mounting. There is no hurry to change these "LaRouche" articles; they have gone through a period of relative stability, after years of being a POV battleground. I would ask other editors to refrain from issuing ultimata in the form of deadlines, etc. because there is no hurry. I have requested intervention from the Mediation Cabal because outside input seems to be key to resolving the many new disputes that seem to be erupting. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's contradictory to say there's no rush, and that the material is stable. It's stable because there hasn't been a rush to fix it. The time has come. I've been complaining about this article for years, and I've been warning for weeks that there is significant material in this article that is under-sourced and has no adequate indication of notability. So there's no rush, but now that we've had those weeks to find sources it's time to move forward with fixing this article.   Will Beback  talk  05:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Leatherstocking, if you are actively researching a topic and need more time to find source then I'd be happy to delay working on that section. I hadn't gotten the impression that further waiting would bring in more significant sources. In any case, if new sources appear covering material we've deleted we can easily write new material based on those, and check back in the article history to see if we've left out anything.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

::You seem to be on Wikipedia nearly 24 hours a day. How or why you do that is anyone's guess. In my case, I have a normal life, with a job, etc. I have been to the library twice to look things up per your demands. You have access to some newspaper archive which is not available on the net (correct me if I'm wrong.) You could be meeting your own demands for sources, but I have the impression that you are only willing to look up derogatory coverage. --Maybellyne (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I see what Leatherstocking meant about the mounting "level of aggression and incivility". I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply saying that the time has come to clean up this article and reduce the coverage of non-notable concepts. If you want to help that's fine, and if you want to watch that's fine too.   Will Beback  talk  19:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Socks

Checkuser and behavioral evidence have revealed that Maybellyne, Coleacanth, and Harry Angstrom are socks of banned user Herschelkrustofsky, and so I've crossed out their comments here.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of views on economics and science

In deleting material sourced to LaRouche's own writings, Will Beback is inventing policy de novo. He has decided, with no support from other editors, to remove material about LaRouche's views on economiics and physical science.diffdiff The use of the edit summary "per talk" appears to be delilberately misleading, because their was no consensus for this new policy on this talk page. In an article about LaRouche's views, the use of LaRouche's own writings as a source are an obvious choice for clarity and verifiability, provided that their notability has been established. In the case of LaRouche's views on science and economics, the notability has been amply demonstrated, so the deletion of sourced material from those sections is unacceptable. It creates an serious imbalance in the article, since economics and physical science are the subject's stated profession. The use of LaRouche sources is specifically permitted in this article by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche#Remedies and the use of primary sources when appropriate is affirmed as well at WP:PSTS. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We've been over this before. The material I deleted has never been referenced in secondary sources. Those were obscure views of LaRouche that aren't even discussed extensively in LaRouche sources. This is a "weight" matter and we shouldn't just pick ideas out of his thousands of pages of writings and speeches without some basis for choosing them. There are plenty of notable ideas of LaRouche, and this article is far too long, so there isn't room for non-notable concepts, beyond mentioning that they exist. We use LaRouche sources extensiely in tihs article, where appropriate. This article is a work in progress, and we'll add more economic views of his that have been reported on, like his support for the gold-reserve currency and the abolition of the IMF. There are also a number of "views" in the biography article that should be moved over here. And at the same time there may be unnecessary or redundant material in the "Zionism, Jews, and the Holocaust" and "Psycho-sexuality and political organizing" sections. So let's keep adding secondary sources and trimming materials that have none.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I proposed the edit back on the 6th. See #Weight above. You didn't make any objection. HK's sock, Coleacanth, said he was working on a Russian source. If he finds it I'm sure it'll show up here and we can summarize its contents.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

::Yes, we have been over this before, by which I mean you have announced your personal opinions as if they were a combination of policy and consensus. You are targeting the two sections which to my mind are most notable, economics and science. The most comprehensive and up-to-date coverage we have of LaRouche's views is in the Chinese and Russian sources your banned editors found, and it's clear that in those countries, they are interested in LaRouche due to science and economics, unlike the 25-year-old American articles you have given such exceptional weight to because they say he made disparaging remarks about gays. The Economics and Science sections were also the most concise and cogent parts of the article; you claim to be concerned about article length, and yet you just imported a massive, unsourced trivia section from another article.[15] I am getting the idea that you either harbor a lot of prejudice against LaRouchian economics, or else perhaps you feel that even the acknowledgement that he has views on science and economics gives him too much credibility. Whatever it is, it has thrown the article out of balance and violated NPOV. --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm targetting the entire article. It needs a complete overhaul. I'm moving some views from other articles because they fit better here, but many of those may need to be re-written or deleted eventually. As I said, let's keep finding reliable secondary sources (English, Chinese, Russian, or Romulan) and using those as the basis for our writing.   Will Beback  talk 

::::No, let's not. Let's use the sources that provide the clearest and most verifiable account of LaRouche's views. Misrepresentation of his views is an ever-present BLP danger. Therefore, in my opinion, primary sources are the least problematic, while secondary sources confirm that the ideas are notable. Please restore the deleted material on science and economics. If you feel the need to shorten the article, I would recommend that the "historic figures" go immediately, followed by most of the "conflict of elites" and "psychosexual" sections. --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources. You've said yourself several times how complicated it can be to decipher LaRouche's writings. That's another reason we need secondary sources. However, in the interest of compromise, and to keep the improvements moving along, I'll delete the unsources entries in the ideological figures section. However because so many of LaRouche's theories revolve around particular people it may make sense to organize part of the article into section on individuals or organizations (Nelson Rockefeller, IMF, House of Windsor)   Will Beback  talk  06:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::As I said above, the use of primary sources is the "least problematic" option. I have also not opposed the use of secondary sources. What I oppose is your deletion of material that was clear, concise, demonstrably notable, and sourced to LaRouche himself. As far as "improvements moving along," I see nothing but a relentless drive to re-write the article so that it conforms to your personal POV. Please restore the deleted material on science and economics. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Who picked those topics to write about? This article is too long already to be adding material on obscure topics just because a Wikipedia editor thinks thy're interesting. If the material is "demonstrably notable" then please demonstrate its notability.   Will Beback  talk  19:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::See survey of press coverage. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any mention in those of the LaRouche Riemann Method or Triple Curve. Which sources discuss those? Since this material was mostly added before that section was created, I doubt that it seriously affected the drafting of this material.   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::The press coverage establishes the notability of LaRouche's forecasting. Once that is established, it is unnecessary to demonstrate that every phrase, word or punctuation mark used in the Wikipedia article comes from a secondary source. Primary sources will do just fine. There is no basis for a claim that journalists are better qualified to explain LaRouche's theories than the subject himself. Please restore the sourced material you deleted under "economic forecasting." --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that a few words in a newspaper establish notability of a topic to the extent that we should devote hundreds of words on it derived from primary sources. That's the opposite of what an encyclopeida is about. We should be condensing what we find in secondary sources instead of expanding on it significantly. Primary sources are OK to use in very limited ways, but they shouldn't as the basis for our writing. Our main sources should be secondary sources. The amount of space they devote to a topic should guide our judgments on weight issues and define the scope of our coverage.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::You've got major press coverage in Russia, China, and Italy, plus lesser coverage in places as disparate as Argentina, saying that LaRouche correctly forecast the financial crash of 2007. If that's not notable, I don't know what is. Certainly not the fact that he said bad things about gays. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's summarize those sources then. If he's gotten "major press coverage" about these ideas there should be sufficient information in them for this article.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Since 1974, LaRouche has gained recognition in the highest political and financial circles throughout the world through his influence in sponsoring a new, gold-based monetary system to replace the decaying International Monetary Fund.
  • Will the Soviets Rule During the 1980s?, Lyndon LaRouche, 1979, p.196

While I wouldn't use this as a source for the self-serving claim of recognition in the highest circles, it's an indication that LaRouche was once closely associated with some sort of gold-based monetary system or gold standard. It's not clear when he dropped this item from his agenda, but I've come across mentions of it in many older references.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Economics section

The "Economics" section, excluding the forecasting section, has about 769 words but only one secondary source, Good old China Youth Daily, which is used for just 67 of those words. Surely there must be other sources? There are a couple in Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources#Economic theories and programs. So far the best I've found is International Trotskyism by Alexander. However since that book was written in 1991 it won't have the newest theories and programs. If we can't find better I suggest we use it as the main source for this section.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

:See above. There is no basis for a claim that journalists are better qualified to explain LaRouche's theories than the subject himself. The book can be mentioned to establish notability, and as far as what it might add to an understanding of LaRouche's views, we'll have to see what it says. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of International Trotskyism is available on Google.[16] If LaRouches economic views are notable they will have been described in multiple secondary sources. Other than that book, I don't see many in depth discussions of them though, in either journalistic or scholarly sources. There's the one paper, listed below, on the physical economy, but until we see the actual text we can't determie how relevant it is.   Will Beback  talk  18:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

:::The book is clearly recycled "views of Dennis King and Chip Berlet." Your suggestion that we base the section on it reinforces my suspicion that you are aiming to systematically convert this article into "More criticism of LaRouche." --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's published by Duke University Press, and so qualifies as a highly reliable source. I assume that your assertion that it's "recycle views" is based solely on your own judgment. I haven't read the work closely, I just saw that it has substantial discussion of LaRouche's policy proposals. If there are better sources then let's use those too.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Source for "Physical Science"

::I have restored the above research contributed by User:Epistemologically Yours for the following reasons: first, Will Beback took all of four minutes [17] to positively ID this as a banned user, and I seriously doubt whether he had sufficient time to contact a checkuser to confirm this. Secondly, WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits does not call for reverting talk page posts, only edits. Finally, even if it did, this post is obviously helpful, and I would have thought it would be welcomed by Will Beback, who is extremely concerned about the lack of secondary sources. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved the actual citation to the /sources page. If you think that was posted by a brand new editor you're not as smart as I thought.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Primary sources

*Should material authored by Lyndon LaRouche be excluded as source material for the article Views of Lyndon LaRouche? Leatherstocking (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Should topics that have never been discussed in secondary sources be given entire sections in this article?   Will Beback  talk  18:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors

This dispute isn't about using LaRouche as a source for LaRouche. It's about how much space we should devote to topics that a Wikipedia editors thinks are important, but which reliable secondary sources have either ignored or barely mentioned. If it's a topic where there is significant interest from secondary sources then we should use those as our main sources and add material from primary sources sparingly. Secondary sources should be our guide to how much weight to give topics. This article is over-long already, and there is more material to add, material that is well-covered in secondary sources. So there isn't room for long interpretations of primary sources on obscure topics.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

:Your position, as you describe it here, is quite different from what you are doing in practice. Compare Version A of "economic forecasting," from yesterday, to the Version B as it appears today (all deletions yours.) LaRouche's economic forecasts are presently his chief point of notability ( see survey of press coverage.) The claim that is is a topic which has been ignored by reliable secondary sources is false. So is the claim that Version A contains "long interpretations of primary sources." It is clear and concise. A few weeks ago, you were asking for secondary sources to establish the notability of topics, which could be supplemented by primary sources (which is what you say above you are for at this time.) However, when secondary sources were supplied, you first fought to exclude them, and when the consensus at WP:RS/N was for their use, you changed your position to demand the deletion of the primary sources regardless. On top of that, you also deleted a number of references from secondary sources, including the reference from the Chinese Youth Daily to LaRouche's views on "physical economy," as well as the reference to Bernard Riemann which is also there. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That material is now based on the single secondary source which mentions it. That source, an official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party's Youth League, only devotes a few words to the topic, so it's hard to believe that the LaRouche-Riemann method is LaRouche's "chief point of notability". Some of the material at Lyndon LaRouche#Financial crisis of 2007–2009 that you mention might be better moved here, which would make the section longer if that's what you want.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

:::I believe that what I said was "LaRouche's economic forecasts are presently his chief point of notability." That being the case, I have no problem turning to primary sources for a description of how he makes a forecast. Re your other comment, praise of LaRouche, like criticism of LaRouche, belongs in the bio. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You've asserted that this is his chief notability, but none of the sources say so. Thee are far more sources that discuss other aspects of his notability. If the specific economic policies and theories are notable then they will ahve ben discussed in reliable sources. I just found another highly reliable source that has a relatively long discussion of what it characterizes as the three main points, and allof those are either left out of this article or are just mentioned in passing. So let's focus on what we can find in reliable secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::I believe that what I said was "LaRouche's economic forecasts are presently his chief point of notability." Most of your preferred sources seem to be circa 1986. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This article should cover the most prominent views of LaRouche, regardless of when he or his momvement were promoting them. Otherwise we'd be guilty of "recentism". But, for what it's worth, LaRouche chief point of notability presently is probably his characterization of Obama as Hitler.[18] Yet we have nothing in here about LaRouche's views on health care. That's why we need to use secondary sources as our guide for which topics to cover rather than focusing on those that a Wikipedia editor finds interesting.   Will Beback  talk  19:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the last 24 hours there has been at least five times the normal number of visits to this article and the LaRouche bio.[19][20] While it's possible that the spike in traffic is due to people wanting to read about LaRouche's economic forecasts, I think it's more likely connected to the incident at a Massachussetts town hall meeting conducted by Barney Frank. As seen in video clips being posted on numerous blogs, Frank deals with an apparent LaRouche supporter who claimed that LaRouche had already defeated the health reform measure. While I don't know about what's going on in Russia, this might be the most attention the LaRouche movement has received in the U.S. in a long time.   Will Beback  talk  04:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

• If one of LaRouche's economic ideas or positions is mentioned in a reliable secondary source, such as the Chinese newspaper mentioned above, then it can be mentioned in the appropriate article. In that case, a primary source can be used to provide more information, but needs to make it clear that it is coming from LaRouche or his organization. For example (not a direct comparison, but somewhat similar), I recently initiated an RfC over including Freeman Dyson's name in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. The original impetus for including Dyson's name was an article in the New York Times [21], but then I used a primary source, an essay by Dyson himself to further explain his views. In effect, I used a secondary source to establish the notability of the topic (Dyson) as related to the article (list of scientists...) then used the primary source to more fully explain the topic. In the Dyson RfC, editors are commenting on whether, in their opinion, Dyson is actually opposing the IPCC's position on global warming. As far as this article goes, it's more straightforward, if a secondary source gives an economic policy of LaRouche, then it should be considered for inclusion here, then use LaRouche's own words to explain it in greater detail. Cla68 (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Question #1: "...if a secondary source gives an economic policy of LaRouche..." What do you mean by "gives"? Is there a word missing?   Will Beback  talk  07:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Question #2: Does a single mention a few words long in a secondary source justify hundreds of words of material from primary sources? How should weight be evaluated when in some cases we have over a hundred secondary sources for a topic while others have only one or two?   Will Beback  talk  07:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Question #3: Three out of the four people who've responded to the RfC concerning Dyson so far appear to disagree with you, saying that the primary source is too vague to interpret. LaRouche's concepts are often complicated, making secondary sources all the more important so we don't have to interpret the primary sources on our own. How s that case different than this one?   Will Beback  talk  08:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1: Gives information on. I guess there was a word missing.

2: That question appears to be outside the scope of this RfC, according to the questions listed at the top of the RfC.

3: If a reliable secondary source mentions a stance, idea, or whatever from LaRouche, a primary source can be used to explain it in greater detail. For example, if a PRC newspaper states, "Chinese leaders met today to discuss the Eurasian land bridge project with representatives from LaRouche's organization. China and its people place great hope in completion of the project and prosperity for everyone...yada yada yada." In order to explain better just what this Eurasian land bridge is, you might, if no further secondary source info is available, have to use a LaRouche source to add something like, "LaRouche's organization explains that the Eurasian land bridge is a project to...[whatever it is]". Cla68 (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. Re: #2, one of the questions asks whether a few words in a secondary source justifies an entire section containing hundreds of words of material derived from primary sources. Re: #3 I think you misread my question. If the primary sources are hard to interpret, then isn't it better to rely on secondary sources? You seem to be saying that primary sources are preferable to secondary sources, and may be used if there are no secondary sources available. That seems exactly the opposite of WP:PSTS.   Will Beback  talk  04:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Will Beback has now contributed a series of edits described as "formatting" which consist of highlighting the quotes from LaRouche critics, particularly Chip Berlet, by putting them in quotation boxes. This is consistent with a trend in his edits toward de-emphasizing LaRouche's views, the ostensible topic of the article, and moving toward a disguised "More criticism of LaRouche" article. This violates NPOV as well as WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

When I've edited sections for other reasons I've put block quotes into quotation boxes for consistency. We shold have all the quotations formatted consistently - either way is fine with me.   Will Beback  talk  17:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

::The article is entitled "Views of Lyndon LaRouche." Put his views in boxes, consistently if you like, but not those of Chip Berlet. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Is that based on something in the WP:MOS? I don't know why we'd treat some quotations differently from others. That doesn't seem like an NPOV approach.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

::::It's based on WP:SENSE. The topic of this article is "Views of Lyndon LaRouche," and we presume that the reader wishes to learn something about those views. Although you personally might prefer the views of Chip Berlet, it would be inappropriate to give a particular emphasis to those views in an article about a different person. Perhaps you would care to start a new article on Views of Chip Berlet, rather than persist in transmogrifying this one. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've changed all the long quotations to the simple blockquote format instead of the disputed template:quotation. Does that resolve the POV dispute?   Will Beback  talk  09:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

::::No. As I said, the highlighting of critics' opinions was "consistent with a trend in [your] edits toward de-emphasizing LaRouche's views, the ostensible topic of the article, and moving toward a disguised "More criticism of LaRouche" article." To resolve the dispute, you can start by restoring the material you deleted from "economic forecasting." --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no basis for selectively putting some of LaRouche's quotations into boxes and not others (it was about half and half, with no rhyme or reason). NPOV requires that we present all significant views, and I don't know of any policy or guidelines that says we should highlight some quotes more than others. In fact, it seems to specifally wanr against doing things like that. If you disgree about this formatting issue we can take it to a noticeboard. As for the economic forecasting section, let's compile the secondary sources we ahve on the topic and summarize those. We already have a thread above discussing that seciton. As for Berlet, I don't think I've added anything significant from him. Excuse me for saying so, but you seem to be a bit obsessed with him.   Will Beback  talk  18:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::Not to the point where I would go around putting quotes from him in boxes for emphasis. Please restore the primary-sourced material you deleted from "economic forecasting" and "physical science" -- you have demonstrated no basis in policy for these deletions. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than restoring it's more appropriate to keep deleting. There is still too much poorly sourced material in this article. It's over a 100k! This article's length should be cut in half. So find some secondary sources for the stuff you want to keep and let's delete the rest.   Will Beback  talk  16:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::::I've made plenty of suggestions for areas that can be cut, including esoterica such as "conflict of elites" and "psychosexual organizing" which could be summarized in a few paragraphs. There is no point in keeping what's left of the "historical greats" section you imported. The "AIDS" section which you demanded is overly detailed and could be further summarized. However, LaRouche is referred to in recent press coverage as an important economist -- the Russia Today piece says "America's greatest." To be targeting the economics section for cuts is clearly inappropriate and smacks of a POV agenda. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The view that LaRouche is America's greatest economist likely falls into the category of fringe views, and so should not be given excessive weight. The AIDS section merits the space because it received enormous attention, was the lead item of the LaRouche platform for a long time, involved the most people, etc. The "conflict of elites" appears to be a central theme in LaRouche theories. I haven't gotten to it yet, but I'm sure that it and the "psychosexual organizing" section can be improved too. As I say, let's keep searching for secondary sources. It doesn't appear that you've found many, but your help would still be appreciated.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources

From the website of Dubna International University[22]google translation:

The experience of teaching the «Physical Economy» of Lyndon LaRouche in several universities of Russia shows that students learning the foundations of a new science allows them to master basic economic knowledge, the basic principles of economic relations in society, scientific methods of analysis of economic phenomena and processes at different levels - from companies and organizations to systems of international economic relations. In addition, this research helps to understand the other economic theories and concepts, in particular, to understand the destructive nature of ideology, widely advertised in our recent years, of economic liberalism... Lyndon LaRouche, in developing the concept of physical economy, has shown convincingly the failure of both neo-Malthusian concepts, and theories of the so-called «zero-growth» and the suspension of scientific and technological progress. He justifies the connection between scientific and technological progress, human labor-saving, increased productivity, growth and increasing population density per unit area.

Lyndon LaRouche - the greatest American economist, a prominent politician, one of the first to struggle with the financial oligarchy and its major institutions - the World Bank and IMF. He has no equal in the field of economic and financial forecasts. He predicted our Russian default of 1998, a year ago, speaking in Moscow at a hearing in the State Duma - the collapse of world stock markets.

— Russia Today[23]

His most significant professional achievement has been a 1948-1952 research project resulting in the discovery of what became known later as the "LaRouche-Riemann method" in economics. In 1994 he was elected a member of the Universal Ecological Academy of Moscow, on the basis of this work.

— LaRouche official bio[24]

References requested for assertion "With the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1972, LaRouche warned that key financial institutions of the world were committed to a revival of Schacht's policies, first in the form of intensified exploitation of the Third World, and increasingly with respect to the economic policies of the more wealthy nations toward their own populations": Steinberg, Jeffrey, Freeman, Richard, and Schlanger, Harley, George Shultz: Godfather of Bush and Schwarzenegger, EIR, February 25, 2005; LaRouche, Lyndon, Larouche Addresses Youth Cadre School: This Planet Will Never Forget Me LaRouchePAC, August 14, 2004; Steinberg, Jeff, LaRouche Declares War On the British Empire, EIR, March 13, 2009

I assume this was left by Coleacanth/HK. Though he is banned from editing here, I've left this material. However he should not engage in further dialogue here until his ban is lifted.

It's considered dangerous to use an abstract as a source, so can anyone post the relevant text on Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources? As for the Russia Today, "the greatest American economist"? Well, it qualifies as a reliable source, but it doesn't go into any detail so it is of limited use. And the last blocked source is larouchepub.com - not the kind of secondary source we're looking for. As for the last part, they are written decades later, and they each only contain a part of the final assertion, and if so may be original research. At best we could say something like, "In the 2000s, LaRouche sources stated that LaRouche had predicted..."   Will Beback  talk  11:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

::"larouchepub.com - not the kind of secondary source we're looking for" - exactly whom do you mean by "we"? Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for this article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Self-publish sources should not be used for unduly self-serving claims.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

::::...But they are just dandy for documenting LaRouche's views, including that his "most significant professional achievement has been a 1948-1952 research project resulting in the discovery of what became known later as the "LaRouche-Riemann method" in economics." --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Who wrote this resume? LaRouche? I don't see any attribution. It's dated 1995, and it says that his ninth forecast was in the process of coming true. Ah yes, the great financial collapse of 1995. When he made the forecast in 1994 he said it would come "soon", "it will almost certainly occur during President William Clinton's first term in office". Sure we can say that a document labeled his "resume" claimed in 1995 that the LaRouche Riemann method was his most significant "professional" achievement. And we can say that in 1979 he said his most significant achievement was his promotion of the gold standard. We could fill an four entire articles with the claims he's made about himself. But instead of dong that let's try to keep focused on giving concise summaries of secondary sources, giving weight in proportion to their actual (not claimed) prominence.

Oh, and I did more research on the essay at the top. It's written by T. Muranivsky, who was president of the Schiller Institute in Russia. It's not exactly a 3rd-party source.   Will Beback  talk  16:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::It wasn't published by the Schiller Institute, is was published by a university. You can note Muranivsky's affiliation in the attribution. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a little mysterious as to what it is. Maybe the preface to a translation of a book title Physcial Economy by Lyndon LaRouche? However I can't find that book in either language. Did the university publish it?   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have partially unraveled the mysteries of Google Translate, and posted a raw translation of the Russian Academy of Sciences article at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/Russian Academy of Sciences. I think it amply covers any requirement for secondary sources in the Economics section. It looks more comprehensive than the Chinese article, plus Google Translate seems to have less trouble with Russian. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. A couple of questions. Who wrote it? What is the title of the article? What is the publication? Just becasue it appears on a university website doens't automatically mean it's been published by them. We can find all kinds of documents on unoiversity websites.   Will Beback  talk  17:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, we should probably avoid pasting in entire copies of articles, for copyright reasons. Just show the parts that are relevant and indicate the ommissions with ellipses [...].   Will Beback  talk  17:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the author is "GG Pirogov", but I haven't found out who he is. The title of the overall work may be "Methodological seminar LPI REPORTS, NUMBER 2. Part 2" It's hard to tell if that's a journal, or if these are lecture notes, or what. As for the date, it appears that the page was last modified in 2003, which only gives us a latest possible date (assuming their server's clock has the correct date). I can't help noticing, though it's stil hard to decipher the text, that the material there is radically different from what we have in this article. For exmaple, the author seems to spend time dealing LaRouche's views on economic statistics and market baskets, which we don't even mention. Overall, I'm not sure how well we can use a garbled translation. But assuming that we can either get a better translation, or pick out the parts that do make sense, and that this is a reliable source, then we have two significant overviews of LaRouche's economic views that we can use as the basis for the economics section, International Trotskyism being the other. Using either or both would result in a section that's quite different from the existing content. Let's keep trying to find out more abot this source, and a better translation, and also seek out more secondary sources before we start re-writing the section.   Will Beback  talk  18:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We're still discussing the Pirogov source, and there are still unanswered questions about its character. We should not simply tack it on as a footnote to material drawn from primary sources. Instead, if this is a reliable secodary source, we should summarize what it says with fresh text. Here's another problem. The Google translation says:

• The physical economy as the Platonic epistemological basis for all branches of human knowledge

However that is not text written in the secondary source- it's just the title of a cited work. So it'd be sloppy scholarship to say that it's a secondary source. (If the cited source, from EIR, is relevant we should look to that primary source directly). So once we've agreed on how to treat this source, let's go through and summarize what it says.   Will Beback  talk  17:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

::::I removed the disputed footnote. However, you used that footnote as the basis for a "blind" or "sterile" revert, of the sort that you and Georgewilliamherbert are always admonishing others about. Please heed your own advice. As far as Pirogov is concerned, I found a reference in the LaRouche science mag[25] which clears up the mystery. "FIAN" is the Russian Acronym for Lebedev Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which holds a standing seminar on economic modeling, initiated in 1995 by Profs. G.G. Pirogov and D.S. Chernavsky. The cited source is a paper delivered at that seminar. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what information you added from this source, or why it justified the restoration of a large amount of material drawn from primary sources. Can you explain the changes you made in this edit?[26] I don't see any explaaniton or discussion on this talk page. I'll remove the primary-sourced info and lets start again with the secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Poorly sourced material

An editor has added a large amount of original research derived from primary sources, saying "see talk". But I don't see any explanation. Is the theory here that this article is exempt from core Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V and WP:NOR?   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

:Please. My edit summary says "reverted deletion of sourced material." The material in question has for the most part been there for years. As I have said every time this line of argument comes up, the use of LaRouche sources is specifically permitted in this article by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche#Remedies and the use of primary sources when appropriate is affirmed as well at WP:PSTS. Although we might have hoped for more participation in the RfC above, the one editor who responded agreed that once notability has been established (and in the case of laRouche's views on economics and science, it's an open and shut case,) primary sources are in. They are not "original research"; they are verifiable quotes from the subject of the article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It is your text because you are the one defending it and you are the one who keeps re-adding it. Therefore the burden is on you. If you are going to appeal to history, then maybe we should consult the archives and see who write this stuff to begin with. I'm sure we both can guess who that was.

The use of primary sources to illustrate a topic in a secondary source is allowed, but this section is an overview of selected LaRouche theories. There is no basis for choosing these topics over others. I've already detailed some of the theories identified as the most important by reliable secondary sources which are omitted or barely mentioned, while you're insisting on keeping ideas that are not mentioned in any secondary source. That's the original research. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on secondary sources. I'm not objecting to using the intelligible parts of the Pirogov seminar. I even added material from it which you deleted. But creating a long section almost entirely from a mix of primary sources with no objective criteria for inclusion is inappropriate.   Will Beback  talk  06:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Rare mention of LaRouche's views in the NYT

Apparently LaRouche doesn't like Ezekiel Emanuel; see [27]. This may be worth mentioning since it was picked up by a reliable third-party source. *** Crotalus *** 16:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, though it's probably too indirect to use as a source.

• Former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska has asserted that Dr. Emanuel’s “Orwellian” approach to health care would “refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm and the disabled who have less economic potential,” accusations similarly made by the political provocateur Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr.

LaRouche's movement has received substantial media attention in the past month due to their Obama=Hitler campaign against health care reform. We'e added a "health care" section to the article.   Will Beback  talk  16:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The lead used to give examples of his views, per WP:LEAD, and now doesn't. Is there a reason for this? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I 'm sure it should be rewritten, as should the "overview" section, which appears to be hodge-podge of selected views. The lead of the "overview" is especially odd, dealing solely with a rarely expressed view on the nature of government. I've been collecting some of the LaRouche movement political platforms, which are one type of list of leading LaRouche proposals. We should keep looking for similar lists of theories and proposals from 3rd-party sources, and use those as the basis for the overview and to some extent as an outline for the article.   Will Beback  talk  03:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources, for such sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I see that some specific views were removed from the lead in 2007 by uninvolved (?) editor Arkalochori. [28] The views were not necessarily LaRouche's most notable. Once we've put the article together better I think we should restore a paragraph to review the views that are most frequently mentioned in reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Slovo

• Menshikov, Stanislav, "The crisis is galloping on the planet," Slovo, October 17, 2008, unedited Google translation

What is "Slovo" and where can we see the original text?   Will Beback  talk  08:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a Russian weekly. Here's the original source: [29] --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any information on the magazine so we can evaluate it? For example, who is the publisher? I can't find any reference to it on Google.   Will Beback  talk  16:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::::Bear in mind that I don't speak Russian, and I have been getting the knack of using Google Translate. Slovo ("Word") is a weekly "social-political" newspaper. On their masthead they feature this endorsement: "Over the years," the Word "rightfully earned a reputation as one of the most competent media, marked the high stamp of professionalism, skill and unfailing taste ...." In every room of your newspaper you can find information, filled with love for Russia, its people and its spiritual roots . Newspaper features state patriotism, value judgments, the high level of copyright enforcement. -- Chairman of the Federation Council SM Mironov. An interview with Slovo's founder and editor-in-chief, Viktor Linnik, may be found in the English-language "Russia Today,"[30] and here's another in English from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation [31]. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. Per these two sources,[32][33], it appears that in the mid-1990s there came to be three different Pravda newspapers, and that one of them was renamed Slovo in 1998. Linnik may also be its owner.   Will Beback  talk  17:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny Picture

The picture used on this page :"File:EAP demonstrerar mot EU - 2008-05-01 - 2.jpg" with the description: "Posters in Lisbon,Portugal" actually shows posters in Stockholm, Sweden, protesting against the Lisbon treaty. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.176.68.94 (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that mistake. I've pasted in the original file description as a caption, which has the correct information including translations of the posters.   Will Beback  talk  16:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Platforms

I've conducted research about the political platforms on which LaRouche and LaRouche candidates have run. Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources#Platforms. (Any similar political views or proposals reported in 3rd-party sources should be added.) These are among the most prominent and widely reported views of LaRouche. I'm going to restructure the first section of the article ("Overview") to summarize them. Most of the entries in "other views" would be included.   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary details from primary sources

Per this edit, [34], what criteria are we using to determins which details from primary sources are unnecessary? I'd like to have a consistent standard for when we start reducing the details from primary sources. If there's no standard, then why was the material deleted?   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:These are editorial decisions, for which there is no formula. The objective should be to get the subject matter across as clearly and succinctly as possible. The material I deleted was put there during a POV battle between Dennis King and one of your banned LaRouchites, and in my considered opinion, it is superfluous. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Virtually everything in this article was added by HK, or someone engaged in a dispute with him or his socks. Perhaps we should strip away everything from primary sources added under those cicrumstances and rebuild the article based on secondary sources, per WP policy.   Will Beback  talk  19:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::Or perhaps not. Save the wheat, ditch the chaff. There is much solid content in this article, marred by the residue of long-standing POV wars. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

According to what criteria do we decide which material is "wheat" and which is "chaff"?   Will Beback  talk  20:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The entire section was baed entirely on primary sources, in violation of Wikipedia policy. It has been tagged since July. Since there's no indication that these are among his notable views, I've deleted the section. If anyone wants it back it should be re-written using reliable third-party sources as the basis.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the lede

I think that yesterday's changes in the lede[35] have taken it further away from NPOV. I agree with the comments of Ocaasi, Cla68 and Lar about the neutral way to present views, which is present them objectively first and not mix them with the opinions of critics. I think that the opinion expressed by Bill in this edit summary, where he says "moved conspiracy theories to top. They are the important thing about his movement and its views. The rest is just window-dressing," is an example of what should be avoided under Wikipedia:ASF#ASF: making the views of critics into an official Wikipedia POV. I also just read WP:LEDE, which says to avoid material that is overly specific and does not appear in the body of the article. The lede ought to be a general summary of the subject matter. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh.

1) I provide someone who makes the general statement that LaRouche is an antisemite/holocaust denier.

2) You want specific statements of his as examples. I provide them.

3) You say specific examples aren't allowed to go in the lead.

4) I become a sad panda.

Rather than picking up on edit summaries from two months ago, focus on the article. My edit summaries are not part of the article, nor was my summary against the rules.

NPOV requires that we present both sides of a dispute. There are no "objective" sources; therefore his views cannot be presented "objectively" unless they are responded to. BillMasen (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

::Hey, I didn't write the policies, but I think they should be followed. Also, you initiated a Request for Comment on the neutrality of the article, and you got what I think are some very insightful responses. I think you should incorporate the suggestions that were made. Looking back at the earlier version of the article before the re-write, it does seem to me to have fewer NPOV problems than the present version. Delia Peabody (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Recap of neutrality dispute

When the re-write was done and there was an RfC on neutrality issues, a number of important points were made by uninvolved editors.[36] One suggested that a better title woudl be "Controversial criticisms of views of the LaRouche movement," because the space devoted to allegations and interpretations by critics is greater than the exposition of actual views. It has been claimed by one editor that this is unavoidable because of a lack of neutral sources, but I am skeptical of this claim. In one quick web search I found this interview[37], which I suggested could be used for balance, but no one has taken me up on my suggestion. If no one wants to write a summary of the interview, I would be willing to do it myself.

Another editor said that "Using characterization of views by critics makes everything muddy." There are some sections in the article which I think do not belong because their relationship to LaRouche's views is so far removed. For example, the new criticism which was added yesterday[38] involves speculation based on the lecture notes taken by a guest at a conference. There is no way to verify that this has any meaningful relationship to views of LaRouche. There is also a reference in the "Psychosexuality" section to the claims about LaRouche's views by "anonymous disaffected ex-members" -- also unverifiable. WP:RS#Quotations says that "Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source." In these cases, we are not dealing with direct quotes (obviously,) or even paraphrases. However, it seems to me that the same conservative approach should apply.

It might be possible to arrive at a more balanced article by removing some of the more dubious or off-topic allegations by critics, combined with adding material from relatively neutral sources such as the Daily Bell interview. However, I see one other possibility, which is simply to return to the old version of the article[39]. All editors here have agreed that it appropriate to use primary sources on topics where secondary sources have commented. It looks to me that the material that was removed from the old version was exactly that. Odd things came about as a result, such as the section which is criticism of LaRouche's "claimed classicism" but does not provide the reader with any clue about what is meant by "claimed classicism." The old version may have been too long, but it was more balanced. Delia Peabody (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this RFC referred to an earlier version of this article. Since then it has been changed substantially by myself and several other editors, partly in response to the RFC. I suggest another RFC if you want to guage support for your own suggestions for changing the article. BillMasen (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I think that there has been some improvement, but there are still problems that were raised that have not been addressed. In the discussion above called "criticism section," you indicated that you might be willing to separate the verified views from those views alleged by critics. I think that it would be helpful if you were to do that. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Delia, please don't quote sock puppet accounts. That user is banned and his views don't count.   Will Beback  talk  09:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

::::I quoted Cla68 and Lar. If one of them has been banned, I was unaware of it. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. They were quoting the sock, and then you quoted them.   Will Beback  talk  04:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::I took a second look at their comments, and I could not find anything that would suggest to me that they were quoting anyone. Delia Peabody (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I cited a LaRouche movement article which details their commitment to classicism. Neither the word claimed nor the word classicism are difficult to understand. I can't be held responsible if an editor does not understand them.

RS quotations applies to quotations. You are very inappropriately applying it to someone's views as a whole. It is specifically about sourcing quotations, not about ascribing opinions. Duggan's notes record his impression of what he was told, which was deemed significant by a reliable source. You may think it is unfair to draw conclusions from Duggan's notes; with respect, I am afraid that your opinion of what is fair or what "seems to you" does not count unless backed up by policy.

Just because we have not seen these notes ourselves does not give us the right to remove them. If a LaRouchite has disputed their provenance, that can go in the article. So far no-one has.

It is not up to you to decide what accusations are "dubious". That is OR. Regardless of your intent, the effect of your suggestions will be to whitewash criticism of LR and to muzzle his opponents.

Your entire assessment of this article is underwritten by one section of a guideline, RS quotations. Your proposals violate both OR and verifiability, which are both policies. I have never agreed that the article can be primarily based on primary sources, which it was before. Nor would I be able to override policy in that way if it was my wish.

I am getting tired of constantly debating this mistaken, obstructive interpretation of a guideline. If you wish to rewrite the article, do so. If your rewrite does not comply with WP:V and WP:OR, and the rest, it will not stand. BillMasen (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

::Bill, you are using an incorrect definition of OR. OR is when an editor adds facts or analysis to an article that do not appear in a published source. What we are discussing is quite different. Every editor makes judgments about which sources to include or exclude, and how much emphasis to put on the facts or analysis taken from each of those sources, based on multiple criteria. Making such judgments is not OR -- it is simply editing. You have made many such judgments with respect to this article, and several editors have expressed concern about some of the ways the article has been changed. That's why there is a neutrality dispute. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We do not have absolute power to judge what to include. I can't include the whole of Feldman's article because that would be a copyright violation. I quoted those parts because they do not repeat what other critics of LR have said, and because they relate directly to LaRouche's views. I don't think I misrepresented what Feldman said.

If there is reliably sourced, relevant content, then we cannot remove it. I do not see how the report that LaRouche said there is an evil Jewish elite (Duggan's notes) can possibly be irrelavent.

You want to judge whether this statement is true or likely to be true. That's not for you to decide. BillMasen (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

::::Bill, I went to the cited source for Feldman's remarks(www.holocaustresearchproject.org) and it appears to be a self-published website/blog. I attempted to add a link here and it triggered Wikipedia's Spam Filter Notice, which informed me that www.holocaustresearchproject.org is on a Wikipedia blacklist. Can you provide any other information that might make this website acceptable under Wikipedia's sourcing policies? Delia Peabody (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That project appears to have been created by "Carmelo Lisciotto and Chris Webb", not by Feldman.   Will Beback  talk  04:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not self-published. As I noted before, Feldman is an academic of 20th century history, so his opinion is relevant. Unless you can demonstrate that Feldman didn't write the piece, it is notable for inclusion. BillMasen (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::::There is a page on the University of Northampton website[40] which lists the writings of Feldman, indicating which have been published and which only appear on that website. The article Bill quoted is in the latter category. WP:SPS saus that "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer," so I will remove it following the instructions at WP:BLP. This could be further pursued on a noticeboard but from what I have seen here, if it is necessary to have more criticism in the article there should be no difficulty in finding other criticism of Mr. LaRouche that has been published in a reliable newspaper or book. Delia Peabody (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

But it isn't self-published. The site isn't published by Feldman. If you're going to remove it, please raise the issue on the WP:RS/N rather than just taking it away. BillMasen (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've requested that the Feldman article be whitelisted. There is a massive backlog there, so it might be a while before it's answered.MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#www.holocaustresearchproject.net.2Fessays.26editorials.2Flarouche2.html.23_ednref9 BillMasen (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::Bill, the instructions at BLP are that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I'm not sure how you are defining "self-published" -- I understand it to mean without editorial oversight. The pages you are using carry disclaimers saying that the opinions "do not necessarily represent any collective opinion of the Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team, or the University of Northampton." The fact that there are at least two other individuals involved in running the site does not make it a reliable source -- if that were the case, then the LaRouche websites would also be reliable sources. Delia Peabody (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand it to mean a source which is written by the party that publishes it. Your characterisation of the situation is incorrect. Feldman is not one of the "other individuals" running the site; it quite clearly says "guest publication". BillMasen (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There was recently a big article on LaRouche in Corierre della Sera. I haven't been able to find it online, maybe there is a lag time before it goes on the web. However, Corierra has done a number of quite substantial articles on LaRouche in the past. Here's a link: http://sitesearch.corriere.it/forward.jsp?q=larouche Angel's flight (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably, I don't speak Italian, perhaps someone who does could point us in the right direction. BillMasen (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

criticism section

A number of editors have objected to the fact that LaRouche's proposals and the criticsim of them is contained in the same section.

The alternative is to have his views first and then a criticism section. This can be done, but assuming we adhere to all the relevant policies (verifiability in particular) this is limited to elucidating what is said in the secondary sources. The result will be a relatively short section of LaRouche's views, and a relatively long section of criticism. No doubt this would also draw criticism from LR's fellow travellers, but there simply aren't enough secondary sources to make the two sides appear equal. BillMasen (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

::My solution would be to use primary sources on those topics that have been determined to be notable by secondary sources. Other editors have suggested this as well. I think that it was a good idea to pare down the lede, and I also think that examining other "Political views of..." articles was a good idea, too. I took a look at some of them, and I think that using them as a model can help with this article's neutrality issues. One thing I noticed was that interviews are frequently used as sources. There are some already used in this article, but we could get more detail from them. A search of the web also turned up this one, which I think could provide some very useful material. Delia Peabody (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In the old days, articles commonly had "criticism" sections. But the trend now is to integrate the criticism in with the other material, so that an NPOV presentation is made, rather than splitting the "pro" and "con" views. Separate sections as still allowed, but they aren't optimal. See WP:CRITICISM.   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

::This is an unusual case, because it's not a biography, it's a "views" article. To avoid confusion, I think it would be useful to avoid mixing what are verifiably LaRouche's views with other views being attributed to him by hostile or "partisan" sources, especially when we're talking about alleged "veiled" views. Delia Peabody (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If it will get this article to a point without the NPOV tag but without going back to its former unverifiable mishmash state, then I think that we can overlook that criticism essay (not a policy or guideline). BillMasen (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, every serious lexicographer knows how to handle situations where words like "allegations,partisan,hostile,accusative, alleged, veiled, etc." appear. He keeps his hands off and tries to keep his reputation as a serious and trustworthy source alive. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, unless you're saying that "allegations" are never true or Wikipedia should never report them, I can't understand what you're saying. It's worth noting that LaRouche does nothing but ascribe hidden agendas to people and groups. Except that he's always wrong :) BillMasen (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Allegations" are claims which lack proof. That is why serious lexicographers do not incorporate them in their books. "Partisan, hostile, accusations" are as well a no-no,

because they originate in most cases from someone, who has a COI with his subject, as for example Chip Berlet has, the originator of the "hidden agenda" - story, and also Feldman, who used Berlet's story for his theory. Now, any unproven or biased view has no standing in a real encyclopedia, i feel that some editors use the cheap excuse of "noteworthy" for including views that are not proven, but merely "of interest". Unproven claims, as "interesting" as they may be, are cheap, sensationalist thrills, but not the content of an encyclopedia, which praises itself as an alternative to, for example , the "Encyclopedia Britannica". 81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If "an unproven or biased view" has no place in an encyclopedia, then LaRouche certainly doesn't have a place in it. Incidentally LaRouche does not merit an entry in the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Feldman did prove his point by directly quoting LaRouche's holocaust denial, a point which neither you nor any of his supporters has provided a convincing response to.

If it were up to me, I would actually prefer not to use the word "allegation" for something as bleedin' obvious as Feldman's point that LaRouche denied the holocaust (and holocaust deniers are of necessity antisemites).

It seems to me that you want to suppress criticism of LaRouche in this article. BillMasen (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: a lexicographer writes a dictionary. This is not a dictionary. BillMasen (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It is always good to have someone so opinionated to talk to.But please, it is very late over here and with all those weird accusations i might find no rest. Now, you accuse me of trying to "suppress criticism". Wasn't it you who tried to quote an interviewee out of

a EIR interview as a "proof" of LaRouches alleged antisemitism? Did you try to invent "proof"? If I can help this article by "suppressing invented criticism" im wholeheartedly satisfied. As for the point about the relevance or even the neccesity of this article, no, i dont yet see why it is worth keeping. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You're behind the times. I certainly did misread that interview, and I haven't tried to hide it.

Seems to me you're not focusing on what's important. You've already told us that you don't want criticism of LR to remain in the article, so an "accusation" relating to that is unnecessary.

LaRouche denied the murder of 4.5 million people and he's still hasn't owned up to it. What do you have to say about that? Didn't your hero in fact make a rather big boo-boo? Or was he right? BillMasen (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You are again inventing statements. I did not say that i want no criticism of LaRouche in this article, it is an accusation of your own. Please accept this. I cannot reply to your second paragraph, mainly because it is unintelligible. But please be aware that i will stay focussed on invented criticism, COI criticism and bad faith editing. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was being extremely clear. LaRouche said that only 1.5 million Jews died through "slave labour" in ww2.

Thus, he denied the holocaust.

Was he wrong? BillMasen (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As i said, i am here to improve on invented criticism, COI criticism and bad faith editing. Your very obvious hostility to me indicates that there is a lot to do. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I should repeat what I said earlier, that in when dealing with an accusation as serious as anti-semitism, there is no room for imprecision or carelessness. So Bill, let me remind you that we don't know what "LaRouche said" in this instance -- we are discussing an unsigned editorial from 32 years ago. And that editorial itself is ambiguous -- it says that 1.5 million Jews died from slave labor. It does not say that no Jews died from outright extermination. Also, Feldman does not make the same extrapolation that you are making, and he does not accuse LaRouche of either outright anti-semitism or outright holocaust denial -- he uses the terms "veiled anti-semitic conspiracism" and "a coded form of holocaust denial." So, be careful not to let your zeal take you beyond what is said in your sources. In fact, I would urge everyone to leave their personal opinions at home and concentrate on accurately representing what is in the sources.

I think it's unfortunate that the earlier discussion was archived, because newcomers will have difficulty knowing the context for these remarks. For their benefit, here is a link to the discussion about Feldman[41] and here is a link to the comments made in request to the RfC over the neutrality of this article[42].Delia Peabody (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Newcomers? What newcomers? If there are any, they can see the archives just like with any talk page.

As for this article, the text is question is not attributed to LaRouche. It says: An editorial for the Campaigner said that six million Jews did not die, only one and a half million. That seems like an accurate summary of the text in question. There are other sources who make the accusation of LaRouche and his movement being antisemitic if editors think that the Feldman work is insufficient. But let's not start making the article longer again and undoing Bill's hard work.   Will Beback  talk  09:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

:::I made a slight adjustment in the wording, to bring the article in line with Feldman's careful phrasing[43]. However, my main concern in my comments above was not the article. It was with personal opinions being expressed on this talk page. Talk pages are also covered by BLP. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP was designed to protect wikipedia from legal jeopardy regarding libellous statements. It has long been ruled fair comment by the courts to call LR an antisemite, and I have no intention whatever of retracting that. If you think that I broke WP's rules, there are appropriate forums in which to raise that (not here). BillMasen (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't cite that passage as an example of "coded form of holocaust denial. He introduces it by saying, "Going even further than this endorsement of a crude anti-Semitic forgery over a century old, LaRouche also claims that traditional understandings of the Holocaust are ‘hoaxes’: ". So it's an example of treating the holocaust as a hoax.   Will Beback  talk  20:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The sentence you have to summarise is Going even further than this endorsement of a crude anti-Semitic forgery over a century old, LaRouche also claims that traditional understandings of the Holocaust are ‘hoaxes’. BillMasen (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I just thought it might be instructive to see the LaRouchian non-response to LR's denial. It was.

I've pointed out before Delia that it is Feldman's interpretation which is important, not Wikipedia's. And he says LaRouche believes traditional understandings of the holocaust are hoaxes, and accuses him of holocaust denial. What possible significance can it be if it is "coded denial" or not? You really should read more about the general subject of holocaust denial. If your concern is Israel's foreign policy, people like LaRouche will not help you to make your case. In his Campaigner article, supposedly about Israel and "Zionists", there is not one mention of Palestine or the Palestinians.

Even though it is cited as LaRouche's statement, and is an editorial of a paper which LaRouche edited, I have ascribed it to his movement which is also the subject of this article. I cannot go further in diluting Feldman's remark without doing violence to the meaning. LaRouche says that 6 million jews did not die, only 1.5 million through slave labour; he could not say any more clearly that 4.5 million did not get murdered in gas chambers. But it is not you I must convince.

I do not particularly appreciate suggestions about my "zeal" etc. If you have ideas to make the article more neutral, please implement them and we will have something to work with. The concern with my opinions, my edit summaries, my talk page comments and everything except the article text is not productive. BillMasen (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to archive the page because the page was very long and i was tired of scrolling all the way down. As will said, there's nothing to stop anyone looking at the archives, that's why they're there. BillMasen (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the text to direct quotes of the bleedin' obvious. Yes, I redacted the quotes with ellipses; the whole thing is still viewable on the link. Please don't make me quote the entire thing, we don't want this article to go back to being war and peace. BillMasen (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A refusal to accept redactions was a hallmark of HK. I'll be interested if any of the "I'm not HK" editors make the same point.   Will Beback  talk  14:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It took two weeks, but it happened.[44].   Will Beback  talk  11:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Moar

When the re-write was done and there was an RfC on neutrality issues, a number of important points were made by uninvolved editors.[45] One suggested that a better title woudl be "Controversial criticisms of views of the LaRouche movement," because the space devoted to allegations and interpretations by critics is greater than the exposition of actual views. It has been claimed by one editor that this is unavoidable because of a lack of neutral sources, but I am skeptical of this claim. In one quick web search I found this interview[46], which I suggested could be used for balance, but no one has taken me up on my suggestion. If no one wants to write a summary of the interview, I would be willing to do it myself.

Another editor said that "Using characterization of views by critics makes everything muddy." There are some sections in the article which I think do not belong because their relationship to LaRouche's views is so far removed. For example, the new criticism which was added yesterday[47] involves speculation based on the lecture notes taken by a guest at a conference. There is no way to verify that this has any meaningful relationship to views of LaRouche. There is also a reference in the "Psychosexuality" section to the claims about LaRouche's views by "anonymous disaffected ex-members" -- also unverifiable. WP:RS#Quotations says that "Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source." In these cases, we are not dealing with direct quotes (obviously,) or even paraphrases. However, it seems to me that the same conservative approach should apply.

It might be possible to arrive at a more balanced article by removing some of the more dubious or off-topic allegations by critics, combined with adding material from relatively neutral sources such as the Daily Bell interview. However, I see one other possibility, which is simply to return to the old version of the article[48]. All editors here have agreed that it appropriate to use primary sources on topics where secondary sources have commented. It looks to me that the material that was removed from the old version was exactly that. Odd things came about as a result, such as the section which is criticism of LaRouche's "claimed classicism" but does not provide the reader with any clue about what is meant by "claimed classicism." The old version may have been too long, but it was more balanced. Delia Peabody (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this RFC referred to an earlier version of this article. Since then it has been changed substantially by myself and several other editors, partly in response to the RFC. I suggest another RFC if you want to guage support for your own suggestions for changing the article. BillMasen (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Don't get me wrong, I think that there has been some improvement, but there are still problems that were raised that have not been addressed. In the discussion above called "criticism section," you indicated that you might be willing to separate the verified views from those views alleged by critics. I think that it would be helpful if you were to do that. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still ok with that. But frankly, I am bored of editing this article for now. Feel free to take a stab at it and we will see where we are. BillMasen (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd object to edits that "separate the verified views from those views alleged by critics", since the editor proposing that refuses to acknowledge that quotations which don't appear in official LaRouche publications can be accurate. That is a different matter from separating critical responses to the movement's views. Where that type of separation is desirable it should stay within a section.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Seperation within a section seems like a good idea. I'm merely pointing out that I'm finished with the heavy lifting for now. BillMasen (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I'm sorry, but I think you may have misunderstood my comments. I don't "refuse to acknowledge that quotations which don't appear in official LaRouche publications can be accurate." I simply think we need to be careful and use common sense. I think BLP must be taken seriously, not just to avoid lawsuits, but to build public confidence in Wikipedia as a resource. I have been working on another controversial BLP and I know that there is always a tendency for these articles to become what Ocaasi at the RfC called "a bit of a hitpiece." I know you are both sick of me bringing up WP:Reliable Sources, but I think that it is well thought out and applies to exactly these situations. The current version says that "Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source." So my motto (borrowed from Ronald Reagan) is "Trust, but verify." I should also say that I have no objection to including criticism in each section. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to assert that some sources are partisan then you need to indicate which ones and what the partisanship is. Critics are not automatically partisans.   Will Beback  talk  02:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Actually, they are. The use of the word "partisan" in this context would mean either "pro-LaRouche" or "anti-LaRouche." Most critics, however, make non-controversial claims and carefully document their quotes. As I said, it's a matter of just being careful and using common sense. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to exclude informaiton on the basis of "partisanship" then we should have a reliable source for making that determination, not our own opinions. Also, you'd better double check the meaning of "partisan" before applying it so loosely.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that being anti (or pro)-LaRouche makes one a partisan. You could fairly argue that Berlet and King are partisans as they make a career out of criticising people like LaRouche (even though IMO they are right). But sources like the Daily Mail, Guardian etc have almost nothing to do with LaRouche in their daily business. I'm sure they are both critical of scientology; they are not, however anti-scientology "partisans" (whereas Anonymous are partisans). In any case, are you going to attempt to rewrite this article? I'm not doing it in the near future. BillMasen (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Done. Delia Peabody (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Chip Berlet made some fair amount of money out of being "professional critics" and newspapers make fair amounts of money out of having something sensationalist criticism to publish and sell. Thus, the argument that newspapers are less partisan because they "have nothing to do with LaRouche" fails, big time. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It would make a much bigger sensation for a mainstream newspaper to defend LaRouche :0. There is no particular reason why they would make money particularly out of attacking LR. BillMasen (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper make (or lose) money by reporting a large amount of information every day. WP:V does not require that sources be published by non-profit organizations who sell their publications at cost. If there are reasins to dispute specific quotations then we can address those, but this discussion is just dealing with hyypotheticals and won't resolve anything.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)