Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 18

Add to Category:American criminals, noting his felony convictions (fraud, hiding income, and tax evasion) and record of imprisonment (15 year sentence)

Category:American fraudsters, Category:American money launderers, and Category:American white-collar criminals also befit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Unsigned, this would be quite a retarded and misinformative thing to do, especially as only those who are loving of humanity as maybe Pol Pot would actually put this fraudulent conviction up. Also, if you care to look, there are the FBI documents on this, showing it is a pure set-up. If you wish to write something non-truthful, at least have the balls to sign it.--77.128.223.150 (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia interview

{{editprotected}}

Please add the following to the section "India, Russia, and China": On August 21, 2008, LaRouche was interviewed on Russia Today, the globally-broadcast English-language TV network sponsored by the Russian government. The topic of the interview was the 2008 South Ossetia war.[1] --Polly Hedra (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The text should perhaps include something of LaRouche's statement We proably can trim the description of RT. How about, In August 2008, LaRouche was interviewed on Russia Today, a Russian government TV network, on the topic of the 2008 South Ossetia war. LaRouche said it was a British-led operation, coordinated by George Soros and supported by the U.S., intended to crush Russia.[2] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::::That quote is out of context. It makes LaRouche look silly, by making it appear that he thinks Russia could be crushed by an attack on South Ossetia. What he actually said was "It's part of a British-led operation with American support, which was intended to crush Russia by a series of encirclement actions, typified by what happened in Poland just recently." He refers to the decision to place American missiles along the Russian border in Poland. --Polly Hedra (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we could add the words "part of". Also: those missiles in Poland are a product of the SDI inititiative - didn't LaRouche promote anti-missile defense in the 1980s? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Missiles played no role in LaRouche's SDI. They're not of much value for defense. --Niels Gade (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it considered desirable to report on specific interviews this man has given and to report his statements?  Sandstein  07:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You've got a point. We have articles on many academics and experts who appear as "talking heads" on news programs and we don't report on their every appearance, even on more prestigious programs than RT. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::It is evidence of the fact that LaRouche, who is treated as a pariah in his native land, is counted among "academics and experts" over at the other superpower. Therefore, it is more notable than your typical example of "academics and experts" being interviewed. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Are any other interviews with RT cited in WP biographies? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined for lack of consensus. Please re-add {{editprotected}} only after consensus has been achieved.  Sandstein  21:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This interview is very notable because relations between the U.S. and Russia are at a dangerous low point, and it is significant that Russia chose LaRouche as an American commentator to feature at this moment in history. I don't see any reasonable objection to adding two sentences about it to the article -- it complements what is already there in the Russia, China and India section. I propose this version: In August 2008, LaRouche was interviewed on Russia Today, a Russian government TV network, on the topic of the 2008 South Ossetia war. LaRouche said it was "part of a British-led operation with American support, which was intended to crush Russia by a series of encirclement actions."[3] --Polly Hedra (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC) :Please state any objections. If I don't hear any after a couple of days, I will put the template back. --Polly Hedra (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't put the template back until there's a consensus. As for your draft, you left out Soros. As for the whole thing, I'm still not convinced that this is noteworthy. As I aksed before, do any other WP biographies go out of their way to mention interviews with RT? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Well, it seemed that all discussion had stopped, which makes it hard to reach consensus. I agree that Soros should be in there. I already explained why this particular interview is more notable than other interviews, because of the war danger between the U.S. and Russia. I don't know or care whether other WP biographies go out of their way to mention interviews with RT. --Polly Hedra (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

When I checked the site I saw that they conduct at least a couple of interviews a day. Talking on an obscure propaganda network for 2 minutes isn't really notable. Frankly, I think the most interesting thing about it was that the interviewer was trying to get him to say it was started by the U.S. while LaRouche had a different agenda. But we can't say that of course. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::The Wikipedia bio of James Abourezk reports that he was interviewed on the Al Manar TV network, which seems to be an analogous situation. But rather than argue legal precedents, I think that it is notable that while there is a pattern of negative press coverage of LaRouche in the US (amply documented in this bio,) there is also a pattern of positive press coverage in Russia. Of course, their TV networks are "propaganda networks," whereas our TV networks are unblemished and pure. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The biographies aren't comparable. The Abourezk article is about a former senator and congressman. This article is about a former felon who never won a single election in his life. That article is unusually short, this one is unusually long. That article quotes an Arab-American on on Arab politics, while this proposal would quote a New Englander with no credentials about a place he has never been to. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::It's also not comparable because Al Manar represents Hezbollah, which is a regional group with limited influence, while Russia Today represents one of the world's two superpowers. However, I think it's silly to try to make up a formula to decide what to include. Each case is different. In this case, Russian and the US may be headed for war, so it is of particular significance that RT interviewed LaRouche at this moment in history. And what Marvin said is true also, it demonstrates and documents a pattern which is notable as well. By the way, I notice that every time I edit a new article or talk page, you show up right away to contradict me. Are you "shadowing" me? --Polly Hedra (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::Congratulations! You've been Wikistalked. --Terrawatt (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If we have a source describing this pattern of poor coverage of LaRouche by the U.S. press, and favorable coverage by the Russian press then that'd be useful for the article. We shouldn't try to make that point on our own, as that would be original research. There are probably over 1000 english-language TV networks worldwide, not including the public access channels that every local cable company carries. The subject managed to get a brief interview on one of them, which received zero notice outside of this page. Claims that this interview is important because the U.S and Russia may go to war is based on speculation. Would his views on UFOs be relevant because ETs may land someday? It's the same logic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Decisions about notability are an exercise in editorial judgment. Can you present a Reliable Source that says explicitly that "LaRouche's boyhood conflict with the Quaker Church is notable enough to be in a Wikipedia bio"? You can't. (Frankly, I don't think that particular material is notable enough. But I digress.) These are judgments made by editors, so your demand for a source that says it should be included is just a debator's tactic. --209.247.5.137 (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a biography. Its topic is the events in the subject's life. We have another article especially for the subject's views. The events of the subject's youth and religious upbringing are obviously biographical information. Appearing for a couple of minutes on a minor network is not a particularly important event in the subject's life. If you think that his views of the situation in Georgia are notable then make that argument on the talk page of the other article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I compared Wikipedia biographies of three political activists of comparable notoriety. The John B. Anderson bio briefly discusses his education and wartime experience, keeping it to two short paragraphs. The Ralph Nader bio devotes a short paragraph to Nader's family, no wartime experience. In the case of Ross Perot, there is no "early life" information at all. In each case, the focus is on the subject's political activities, including the most recent ones. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Do they mention every TV interview that the subjects have ever had? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche not an economist or philosopher

Why is LaRouche identified as an economist and a philosopher? He has only a high school diploma, has never published a paper in any scientific or philosophic journal and has no awards or recognition of any kind from the professionals in economics and philosophy. In short, he has no intellectual credentials of any kind. You don't get to be a doctor or a lawyer without credentials. Likewise in the intellectual disciplines. Arguably, one could be an economist without academic credentials, but at minimum, one would need to have published papers in scholarly journals. He has never published a peer-reviewed paper. Everything he has published has been self-published. Furthermore, his essays are very poorly written. They evidence a complete lack of intellectual discipline. Furtherstill, economics is a mature science. It is based on advanced mathematics. However, LaRouche only knows arithmetic. He couldn't be familiar with anything other than the most basic concepts of economics. He has all of his followers believing that he knows advanced math, but he never uses anything other than arithmetic in his essays. If he spent the several years that is required to learn advanced math, why doesn't he use it? He doesn't even know economics. Leading people to believe that he knows math and economics is a form of fraud. Notice that he has multiple convictions for other forms of fraud. M Payne (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the first paragraph and a half be changed (in line with the above criticism and for other reasons of accuracy and relevance) to read as follows:

Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. (born September 8, 1922 in Rochester, New Hampshire) is an American activist, author and publisher who has founded several political organizations and periodicals in the United States and elsewhere (the organizations, which officially sponsor his periodicals, are jointly referred to as the LaRouche movement). LaRouche is known as a perennial candidate for President of the United States, having run in eight elections since 1976, once as a U.S. Labor Party candidate and seven times as a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination.

There are sharply contrasting views of LaRouche, who has written prolifically on economic, philosophical, political and historical topics for his periodicals or in books published by his followers. His supporters regard him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas critics...

What do people think?Dking (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::You put forward your view earlier that LaRouche should be called a "publisher," at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#LaRouche's occupation. It's original research. As far as your claim that LaRouche has no credentials, that holds true only if you have a major WP:BIAS against non-NATO countries. LaRouche was elected a member of the Universal Ecological Academy of Moscow in 1994,[4] and was the featured speaker at an event sponsored by the Institute for Social and Political Studies (ISPI) of the Russian Academy of Sciences 1n 1995.[5] Like it or not, he is considered an "economist and philosopher" over there. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not surprising, the only source for those assertions is LaRouche himself. I also note that LaRouche associates Laurence Hecht and Webster Tarpley have also been given posts at the Ecological Academy, though I don't know what academic achievements they've made to qualify. Getting back to the topic, LaRouche has been called many things. What he does for a living is edit the EIR, according to his own statements and his financial filings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The assertion about addressing "an event sponsored by the Institute for Social and Political Studies (ISPI) of the Russian Academy of Sciences 1n 1995" is reminiscent of the claim that he addressed the Russian Duma. If I recall correctly, it turned out that he had actually spoken to some minor caucus or committee. We'd need to have some kind of objective, 3rd-party confirmation for these self-serving assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche is considered an economist by many because they don't know that he lacks credentials. I have always known him to be a crackpot, but even I thought he had a PhD and had published papers in scholarly journals, until I looked into his background. Unless you make a pointed inquiry, he comes across as having credentials. He is very good at insinuating things. All of his followers believe that he knows advanced math. If you tell them that this is wrong, they literally laugh. He constantly speaks as if he has this background. However, he doesn't. He has learned a few things, enough to persuade the naive, but he doesn't really even know algebra. Notice the significance of this: economics is a mature science. It is based on advanced math. Without this background, he couldn't have read anything other than the most basic texts in this field. He not only lacks credentials, he lacks the knowledge. Incidentally, I am not Dennis King, and I am prepared to prove that to the editors of Wikipedia. I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia; I still haven't found out how to contact the editors. BTW, what is a "WP Bias"? M Payne (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::::To find out about WP:BIAS, follow the link. But since you are a newcomer, you should follow these links as well: WP:NOR and WP:V. The way things work here is that you can't put material in an article unless it has been published elsewhere in what is deemed to be a "reliable source," which in practice usually means the news media. Are the news media always reliable? I don't think so, but that's the way things are done here. By the way, here's an irony for you: per Wikipedia rules, LaRouche may be called "American philosopher, economist, and political activist" because he was referred to as such on a TV news program, Russia Today. Is it possible that Russia Today called him that because it says so in Wikipedia? Yes, it is possible. But hey, once it's in the news media, its Verifiable. --Niels Gade (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche has been called many things on TV news programs, I'm sure. Why pick these particular terms? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::Because M Payne opened this section by asking "Why is LaRouche identified as an economist and a philosopher?" I am illustrating my point about "reliable sources." --Niels Gade (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant why pick those terms for the article. If the criteria is having been mentioned in the news, we could compile a list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::See Irony. --Terrawatt (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevance? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case, Wikipedia would endorse dissemination of false information. If the media (mistakenly) refers to a nondoctor as, supposedly, an MD, that person now deserves this status in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia needs to reconsider this rule. Obviously, a doctor is a doctor only if he/she has proper credentials, not if something has been said in the media. It's not the media that has the "say so" here. It is academic and governmental institutions. Also, as any real intellectual will confirm, a single citation for a controversial comment is insufficient. If you are going to claim, for example, that astrobiologists believe that there are many life-bearing planets in the universe, you need to provide numerous citations. Furthermore, if we are going to go on the basis of what the media says, shouldn't we add that LaRouche is widely characterized as a crackpot? There are numerous citations for this. M Payne (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection question - locked until 2037?

Where was the consensus established to allow for protection of this article for, well, forever? It's set to expire it's full protection in the year 2037. rootology (C)(T) 23:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The protection for this article was applied in repsonse to this request: [6]. It followed similar long-term protection of Views of Lyndon LaRouche, discussed here: [7]. It was dicussed again here: [8] To my knowledge, none of the editors who've been involved in editing these articles have complained. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, you miss a few things in your absence. Thanks, I was curious about that since I remember this one being "indefinite" but couldn't remember why. And there are 9,999 RFARs and threads all over on it, so I was lost where to look. I'd mentioned it as an analogy on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop and the evidence page and wanted to make sure I wasn't totally off base, thanks. rootology (C)(T) 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP

I'm removing three links to PRA under provisions of WP:BLP. No change to article content. For further reference please see this discussion, this discussion. See also the BLP reference in this ArbCom clarification. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've reverted. The situations aren't comparable at all. Berlet is a noted critic whose opinions are frequently included in major magazines and other commentary. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

::Then let's use those citations, and not the ones from PRA. As far as the situations being not comparable, there's no consensus on that. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10#Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing my point. Not that these specific claims have been repeated by Berlet but that Berlet is taken very seriously by normal sources (for example in the last year or so The New Republic has interviewed him twice on related matters). That makes his opinions notable and relevant in this context. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Over at Talk:George Soros, when the New Republic was attacking Soros, it was an unreliable source under BLP. Which is it? --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Berlet is a respected researcher working for a respectable organization. Editors here have a history of deleting reliable sources, making it necessary to have multiple sources for contentious claims. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::Will, you've expressed your personal admiration for PRA so many times it has become like a mantra. However, you have not presented convincing evidence to back up your claims. There have been numerous discussions of PRA, and there has been no consensus that it is a source adequate for backing up damaging claims about living persons. The way that Tom Harrison put it here,[9], "It's up to whoever wants to include the material to demonstrate the reliability of the source and the suitability of the material for the biography." --Terrawatt (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make personal comments. I'm sure you wouldn't like to have your own purported preferences discussed here either. As for the material, I don't recall seeing any decision that PRA is not a reliable source. Until the community makes such a decision it meets the criteria for a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::And I don't recall seeing any decision that AntiWar.Com is not a reliable source. The point is that the BLP policy, as interpreted by admin Tom Harrison, says that the burden of proof is on the person who adds or restores the material, which in this case would be you. At PRA, Chip Berlet has no meaningful editorial oversight, which is why at PRA he does things like call Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan neo-Nazis. I don't think that would fly at, say, The New Republic. Incidentally, you discuss other editors' purported preferences all the time, by referring to them as "LaRouche editors." --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC) ::::::::"The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." -- WP:BLP. Plus, I am puzzled by why Will is making such an issue of this, since my edit doesn't even affect the text of the article. And, I didn't touch any citation where Berlet appears in a reputable source, so there are still a massive number of Berlet cites in this article. --Terrawatt (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrawatt, why did you delete this? Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort by Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons, New York: Guilford Press, 2000. That does not appear to have been published by PRA. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:Because the cite contained a link to PRA. But I see your point -- I have retained the cite, without the link. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete the link? Are you asserting that the material on PRA is a copyright violation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:::At Wikipedia:External links, it says that in biographies of living people the links are subject to the same rules as the text. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So - how does a link to the text of a reliable source represent a BLP problem? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm not conceding that Berlet's essay is a reliable source, but you can make a legalistic argument that since it was published in a book, it is in compliance with Wikipedia's rules, so I'm not contesting it. However, when you link to PRA, you link to the whole site, not just that essay. Then this applies: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." --Terrawatt (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And what part of the PRA website is objectionable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I see it's been deleted yet again. Please give a full explaantion for these deletions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Are you kidding? The whole site is a regular festival of defamation. For two non-LaRouche examples, take the ones cited by Marvin above. Berlet calls Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot neo-Nazis. As an experiment, why don't you try adding that to the Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot bio articles, and see what kind of response you get from the editors there? You can tell them PRA is a reliable source. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

By that same logic we'd need to delete all of the links to EIR, etc. Do you deny that it contains derogatory informaiton on living people? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::The only links to EIR that I am aware of are in articles about the LaRouche movement. By the same token, I would find links to PRA in articles such as Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, etc. entirely acceptable. They are an acceptable source for the opinions of those subjects. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference where the links are. According to your logic, they are still violating the BLP policy and must be deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::Rather than attempting to twist my logic for your own purposes, you should read WP:HARM. It makes the whole issue breathtakingly clear. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The logic is already twisted. I'm trying to straighten it out. WP:HARM is just an essay and has no particular standing. Even so, it's hard to see how a public figure like LaRouche would be harmed by linking to PRA. OTOH, the Larouchepub website contains derogatory information about non-public citizens, including Wikipedia editors. I can see real harm being done there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

<-- After asking for clarification at Wikipedia talk:External links#ELs must be in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies, the opinion there is that the conveninece links to reliable sources aren't covered. Therefore I'm going to restore the links to PRA, as they are sources for this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC) :Having looked over the discussion there, I see no consensus whatsoever to support what you wish to do. In fact, you yourself at one point in the discussion affirm that we should not link BLP articles to attack sites. PRA is an attack site.

My main concern is that the policy, whatever it is, be applied in a uniform manner across the board. The standard that I am looking at right now is the discussion at Talk:Chip Berlet. My sense is that inflammatory comments by LaRouche and sourced to LaRouche are fine at Lyndon LaRouche and related articles, inflammatory comments by Raimondo and sourced to Raimondo are fine at Justin Raimondo and related articles, and inflammatory comments by Berlet and sourced to Berlet are fine at Chip Berlet and related articles. However, opinions about living persons by these commentators don't belong in the bios of the living persons themselves. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to not include a convenience link to the PRA copy of Right-Wing Populism in America and so I have restored it. It is a reliable source and, despite your claim, the PRA is not an attack site. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

:::It most certainly is an attack site, and under the living persons policy it is your job to prove that it is suitable. Why is it so desperately important to link to it? It isn't necessary for sourcing anything in this article. --Polly Hedra (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's an attack site the burden is on you to prove it. Until then please stop deleting the link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::It's an attack site -- this page is sufficient proof. Chip wants you to download and distribute a flyer, with a cartoon of LaRouche, opening his shirt to reveal a Nazi insignia. I rest my case. BTW, Wikipedia policy with respect to BLP is that the burden of proof is on the editor seeking to "add or restore" contentious material. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and file an RfC or post to a noticebaord if you think that the deletions by these accounts is justified. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The way that Tom Harrison puts it over at Talk:Chip Berlet is as follows: It's up to whoever wants to include the material to demonstrate the reliability of the source and the suitability of the material for the biography. This hasn't happened, in spite of lengthy discussion recently above and in the past. I don't see further discussion being useful. The same standard should apply here. Question for Will: why are you making an edit war over a link which isn't even necessary to document the text? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The deletion is unjustified. The source qualifies as a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

But is a source for the goose also a source for the gander? :-) *Dan T.* (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What kind of sauce are you talking about? If it's a reliable sauce then it should be good on all kinds of fowl. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair is fowl, and fowl is fair. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fair game now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche not an economist again

Can anyone explain why the discussion relating to LaRouche as a supposed economist and philosopher produced no changes in the article? I'm new to this Wikipedia editing. Thanks. M Payne (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a long story. Briefly: WP works on consensus, and a couple of editors disagreed with your viewpoint so we never agreed on new wording. Meanwhile, it was discovered that both of those editors were really "sock puppet" accounts of a banned editor who shouldn't have been posting here to begin with. They've now been blocked. Since that was a muddle I suggest we restart the discussion and seek a solution that we all agree on. I suggest we try to keep the term "economist", but somehow identify it as a self-description. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Will, thank you for the corrections. However, I do want to urge you to reconsider your position on identification by self-description. Think about any other professional designation; we don't allow this without proper credentials. This applies perhaps most especially to economists, but if we don't use this criterion for philosophers also, then anyone qualifies and the term becomes meaningless. Keep in mind that this man has only a high school diploma and has never published any paper in a peer-reviewed, philosophic journal. And to belabor a previous point, he lacks the intellectual discipline to even prepare a philosophic document. Philosophy, contrary to some popular misconceptions, is not rambling speculation. These documents are carefully and rigorously prepared; they are simply not empirically based (due to the nature or the subject matter).69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed economist and philosopher. He is neither, and to add "self-described" would make him look bad, I think. We do say at the end of the lead that he has written extensively on these topics. The question is whether he would be recognized as an economist by other economists, or as a philosopher by other philosophers. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

SlimV, thank you also. He may have written extensively on these topics, but his essays do not constitute contributions to economics and philosophy. He is completely ignored by the professionals in these fields, and the reason is that he won't submit to peer-review. This is like trying to be a builder without getting building permits or practicing medicine without a license. Getting published in peer-reviewed journals is not entirely easy, but anyone who makes a sincere commitment to a field will succeed. Even intellectuals of modest ability get regularly published in the journals. You have to have the proper training and you have to be willing to accept criticism. Real intellectuals don't have a problem with this. In fact, they appreciate and voluntarily seek out criticism, often prior even to first submission of a paper. Even genius-types routinely seek criticism from their friends and colleagues prior to submission of a paper. It is the amateur who can't/won't accept criticism. Minor point: we should not refer to "other" economist and philosophers. Since he is neither, the professionals are not "others." However, I would agree that if certified economists and philosophers view LaRouche as an economist or philosopher, then my argument has a problem. I would only add that I would want to be sure that such people really do have proper credentials themselves and know that LaRouche does not. I suspect that many people, even some professionals in economics and philosophy, assume that he has proper credentials. (Another minor point: notice that for these Wikipedia articles, you have to be willing to submit to a kind of peer-review. It's just simple, common sense.)69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My signature doesn't seem to be showing up properly here.The above two posts addressed to Will and SlimV were by MPayne.69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Still learning the ropes here. The above two posts addressed to Will and SlimV were by MPayne.69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Think I got this time (forgot to log in). Will, thank you for the corrections. However, I do want to urge you to reconsider your position on identification by self-description. Think about any other professional designation; we don't allow this without proper credentials. This applies perhaps most especially to economists, but if we don't use this criterion for philosophers also, then anyone qualifies and the term becomes meaningless. Keep in mind that this man has only a high school diploma and has never published any paper in a peer-reviewed, philosophic journal. And to belabor a previous point, he lacks the intellectual discipline to even prepare a philosophic document. Philosophy, contrary to some popular misconceptions, is not rambling speculation. These documents are carefully and rigorously prepared; they are simply not empirically based (due to the nature or the subject matter).69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed economist and philosopher. He is neither, and to add "self-described" would make him look bad, I think. We do say at the end of the lead that he has written extensively on these topics. The question is whether he would be recognized as an economist by other economists, or as a philosopher by other philosophers. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

SlimV, thank you also. He may have written extensively on these topics, but his essays do not constitute contributions to economics and philosophy. He is completely ignored by the professionals in these fields, and the reason is that he won't submit to peer-review. This is like trying to be a builder without getting building permits or practicing medicine without a license. Getting published in peer-reviewed journals is not entirely easy, but anyone who makes a sincere commitment to a field will succeed. Even intellectuals of modest ability get regularly published in the journals. You have to have the proper training and you have to be willing to accept criticism. Real intellectuals don't have a problem with this. In fact, they appreciate and voluntarily seek out criticism, often prior even to first submission of a paper. Even genius-types routinely seek criticism from their friends and colleagues prior to submission of a paper. It is the amateur who can't/won't accept criticism. Minor point: we should not refer to "other" economist and philosophers. Since he is neither, the professionals are not "others." However, I would agree that if certified economists and philosophers view LaRouche as an economist or philosopher, then my argument has a problem. I would only add that I would want to be sure that such people really do have proper credentials themselves and know that LaRouche does not. I suspect that many people, even some professionals in economics and philosophy, assume that he has proper credentials. (Another minor point: notice that for these Wikipedia articles, you have to be willing to submit to a kind of peer-review. It's just simple, common sense.)69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My signature doesn't seem to be showing up properly here.The above two posts addressed to Will and SlimV were by MPayne.69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Still learning the ropes here. The above two posts addressed to Will and SlimV were by MPayne.69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Think I got it this time (forgot to log in). The above posts to Will and SlimV were by me. M Payne (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche was described by the Associated Press as an economist in 2003. [10] Does this qualify as a credible source?

In regards to the above discussion, I'll cite something from the Wikipedia article Economist: "It is more difficult to define the professional category of 'economists' than to define regulated professions such as engineering, law or medicine. While a lawyer, for example, may be generally defined as a person possessing a law degree and state license to practice law, there is not a legally-required educational requirement or license for economists. In some job settings, the possession of a Bachelor's or Master's degree in economics is considered the minimum credential for being an economist. However, in some parts of the US government, a person can be considered an economist as long as they have four or more university courses in economics. As well, a person can gain the skills required to become a professional economist in other related disciplines, such as statistics or some types of applied mathematics, such as mathematical finance or game theory."

My understanding is that LaRouche while still relatively young worked as a data consultant for the shoe industry regarding issues of economic efficiency, and in fact was quite successful in this capacity. Adlerschloß (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Source? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Currently all I can find on his "success" in consulting is the claim that he was able to retire in 1964, at age 42, as a millionaire. [11] This website, full of personal and political musings, clearly doesn't qualify as a source we could include in the article, but perhaps Dking or Cberlet could help with more information on this subject. Becoming a millionaire in the early 1960s seems to signify a great deal of success having been reached in one's chosen profession, which in LaRouche's case did deal with applied economics. Adlerschloß (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a counterpoint, or should I just go ahead and add the description back to the article? Adlerschloß (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That source also contains other characterizations of LaRouche and his movement. Do you propose including all of them or just the ones favorable to the subject? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include them all, and most of the negative characterizations in that article actually already are included here. Everything in the article seems fair to me, and not slanted in any extreme way for or against LaRouche. Adlerschloß (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::There is a recent news special on Russia TV that calls LaRouche an economist: [12] Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that LaRouche retired at age 42 in 1964 as a millionaire, I don't believe this is true and never heard it from anyone I interviewed about his earlier life. My understanding is that, after separating from his wife, he lived off his girl friend Carol--she worked, he wrote political treatises. I have interviewed people who visited their apartment on Morton Street in Greenwich Village circa 1967, and from the description it doesn't sound like a millionaire's apartment. The source for the 1960s millionaire story, one Mark Evans, is not a citable source since his remarks were only posted on the web and from the wording of his essay I don't think he really knows much about LaRouche.

However, I believe you could say LaRouche had become a millionaire, in a sense, by the late 1970s, through his indirect (ideological, not legal) control of a major computer software company and his direct control (as the chairman) of the NCLC's various income-producing activities, including the peddling of intelligence reports. As to the 1980s and thereafter, I would say that anyone who succeeds in raising over a quarter of a BILLION dollars during those decades, even if he spends most of it on non-income-generating political efforts, and who lived in millionaire style housing except when in prison, could be fairly described as a millionaire.--Dking (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Another neutrality problem?

I see that Will Beback removed the section "LaRouche Youth Movement" with memo " rm useless section -see template." Why is it that he did not also remove "Jeremiah Duggan" and "Kenneth Kronberg," who are also on the template? It appears that positive info is "useless," whereas negative info is not. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section because all it did was mention the existence of the WLYM, which is neither positive nor negative. The main template also links to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The main template also links to Jeremiah Duggan and Kenneth Kronberg, so I suggest that you either remove them too, or restore the Youth Movement with a bit more substance. Also, what's up with this edit? "Opposed the war" describes an "activity," not a "view," but it looks like someone was aiming to remove a positive comment from the Syrian press. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying that one is opposed to something is not an action. Organizing a demonstration is an action. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

::::Why not just re-write that section, emphasizing the relevant activity? For example, prior to the war, the LaRouche organization distributed 10 million leaflets and pamphlets against it. [13] It stands to reason that the Syrians would praise LaRouche for doing something, not just having a "view." Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I see some statements in this article which are questionable. What is the proper way to challenge them? Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That depends on what makes them questionable. What problems do you see? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

::Never mind, I wanted to make the "citation needed" message, but once I went into the edit mode I could see how to do it. One other question, though: I notice that the "citation needed" comes with a date, and some of them are very old. For example, "His ex-wife and other SWP members from that time dispute this.[citation needed]" is dated from April 2007. If it doesn't have a citation by now, I think it should just be eliminated, since it is sort of gossipy anyway. Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have applied {fact} tags to a sentence that already has a citation. Have you checked the reference? Also, there are many sources listed that aren't cited inline, so some things that are marked as unsourced simply need their citations improved. Have you read King's Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism? The text is online here:[14]. It is a reliable source that covers LaRouche's mid-life in great detail. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Is there an in-line tag for a dubious, biased or disputed source? I ask because I think it is out of line to claim that Danny Graham "conceived" the SDI, and then source it to Graham's own website. For a claim like that, you need an uninvolved, third party source. As far as Dennis King is concerned, I am familiar with his work. He tends to over-interpret his data to make it conform to his conclusions. He may be a useful source for factual tidbits, but I would not consider him reliable on any sort of analysis. --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Graham & SDI

DanielGraham.net appears to be both self-published and also a dead site -- not a suitable source. I'll re-write that sentence with better sourcing. --ClarkLewis (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:The article should not make an editorial pronouncement about who has a better claim to authorship of the SDI, LaRouche or Danny Graham. As I understand it, that would be original research. If there is a source that can be quoted that says "It was Graham, not LaRouche," fine, but editors are not reliable sources and should not insert their own opionions. As it stands, the article reports that Graham's organization and Mira Duric say it was Graham, while LaRouche's organization and General Scherer say it was LaRouche. That's neutral, and there should be no further attempts to slant it. --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Graham was the primary driver in High Frontier, which developed the proposal that evolved into Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Whatever LaRouche may or may not have promoted, it was not "the SDI". Is there any reason you think "However, immediately thereafter, the mice went to work." adds to the typical LaRouche quote in the section? John Nevard (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Your opinions are clear enough, but they shouldn't go into the article without sources. The authorship of SDI is clearly disputed. Graham's version would have used only kinetic energy weapons (anti-missile missiles, shrapnel,) whereas LaRouche's would have used only directed energy weapons (lasers, particle beams.) Neither was built. As far as the mice are concerned, they're in the quote, and I see no reason to censor them. --ClarkLewis (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The particular proposed implementation doesn't matter. Graham is widely noted as the man who pushed Reagan to develop his SDI proposal, that is to say the SDI. LaRouche's claims are nothing but that, claims. John Nevard (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

By their fruits you shall know them. It would appear that we have another LaRouche sock puppet attempting to conform this article to the LaRouche organization's fantastic conceptions. The stuff I removed was clearly not relevant to an article on LaRouche--I kept the part of General Scherer's quote that WAS relevant to LaRouche. The quote from Edward Teller calling LaRouche a "poorly informed man with fantastic conceptions" appeared in a cover article in The New Republic by myself and Ronald Radosh, and again, in my book on LaRouche. The accuracy of the quote was never disputed by Dr. Teller, and LaRouche never sued us about it. (My website includes a PDF of a letter from Dr. Teller to General Graham which also expresses Dr. Teller's negative attitude to LaRouche.) The attribution of the LaRouche organization's interest in beam weapons to scientists in the Fusion Energy Foundation rather than to LaRouche himself corrects an absurdity by which LaRouche claims to be the father of SDI. LaRouche has only a high school education, has no background in physics or higher mathematics, and could not possibly comprehend the physics behind particle beam weapons. If LaRouche was a rational person, he would recognize that the distinction I added between the beam weapons approach and the lower-tech High Frontier approach implicitly puts the FEF physicists in a better light than did the previous wording (of course these physicists have since left the LaRouche organization and repudiated their former leader). The accusation that changes I make to the article should be removed on grounds that I have "a massive conflict of interest," merely reflects the fact that I disagree with LaRouche--and have sufficient background knowledge to back up my disagreements with facts. The question is, are we going to allow yet another sock puppet to waste everybody's time on this and other LaRouche-related articles?--Dking (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I infer from your comments that you are in fact Dennis King. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for your to carry out your war against LaRouche. If your edits are factual, fine -- you'll notice that I didn't revert the edit where you added sources on the ADL. But this is not a playground for you to delete sourced material that offends you (for example, "Removed LaRouche's statement that essentially impugns Graham's patriotism. This article should not be used to wildly trash public servants under the cover of false even-handedness.") That one is particularly ironic, because you advertise yourself as an opponent of cults, and Graham served on the advisory board of CAUSA. I will have no problem with you adding material that is properly sourced, by which I mean, not to yourself. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:SCOIC. --ClarkLewis (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This source was just added to the article:

• Sputnik of the Seventies: The Science Behind the Soviets' Beam Weapon, New York: U.S. Labor Party, 1977 (pamphlet).

Is this pamphlet in a library somewhere? Is it in a private collection? How can we verify its contents? If the editor who added it could scan or photograph the relevant pages then that would help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Sputnik pamphlet was cited in my book. In addition, a picture of its cover is provided on a LaRouche web page at http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/sdi.html --Dking (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, here's a brief description of the pamphlet's contents by a former executive director of the Fusion Energy Foundation (and still a LaRouche follower) at the main LaRouche website. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3110sdi_timeline.html --Dking (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Material added by User:John Nevard

Here is the material in question: In 2008, LaRouche commented on US Presidential candidate Barack Obama, "You'll find Obama's ancestry, if you chase his family tree, everybody's climbing and swinging from the branches there--from all over the world! All parts of the world! This guy is the universal man. Every monkey in every tree, from every part of the world, has participated in the sexual act of producing him. And he works for organized crime--which is a branch of British intelligence."<ref>[http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-obama.htm "Look up the Principle Which Generates the Concept: Saturday Dialogue with LaRouche, Pt. 1"]. 13 April 2008</ref>

1. What evidence do we have that this was actually written by LaRouche? It does not appear on any LaRouche website. WP:V says that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Is Dennis King's personal website a published source?

2. How is it notable? Do we routinely include LaRouche's assessment of various presidantial candidates? If it's not notable, does adding it to the article constitute trolling? --ClarkLewis (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Your criticisms are entirely irrelevant to the policies you've cited, and the information is relevant. However, it doesn't fit WP:BLP guidelines. Probably appropriate to VoLL. John Nevard (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche and SDI

I have removed the material by Scherer and Gallagher about LaRouche engaging in back channel discussions with the Soviets. However, I left the quote in which LaRouche himself asserts it in his attack on Gen. Graham, since it is legitimately reflecting, in this context, LaRouche's own state of mind. The Scherer and Gallagher material appeared only in LaRouche's EIR, which is not an acceptable source under Wiki rules for factual information, only for state of mind. The things they assert happened have been reported nowhere in acceptable published sources. Neither of them provided any sources for their allegations. Paul Gallagher is a convicted felon (see the Wiki article on the LaRouche criminal trials) and has no more credibility than his fellow convicted felon, LaRouche.

Do I think LaRouche engaged in some kind of talks with the Soviet embassy in the early 1980s? Probably. He had talked to them before, as The National Review revealed in 1979. But there is no acceptable reference to cite for the occurrence of early 1980s talks, and certainly there is no reference that would back up LaRouche's assertions that he was acting at the request of the U.S. government or that his dealings with the Soviets had anything to do with Ronald Reagan's adoption of Star Wars. Indeed, numerous citations can be found in the NY Times and elsewhere that much of the intrigue LaRouche engaged in during the 1980s was done at the behest of con men falsely claiming to be representatives of the intelligence community. Perhaps LaRouche really had some deal with the National Security Council under Judge Clark in 1982 that would make these particular alleged meetings different; but we really don't know, and Wiki shouldn't be in the business of publishing factual allegations that cannot be properly sourced.

I kept Scherer's comment that he thought LaRouche was the "originator" of Star Wars and an "expert." Arguably this material should be removed because it is only sourced to EIR, but perhaps someone can find a publication that re-quoted it. At any rate the material that remains reflects Scherer's general opinion on LaRouche's status in the world, not detailed factual allegations.--Dking (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

:Once again, given your obvious conflict of interest, I am asking you to abide by Wikipedia:SCOIC and post any proposed changes to the article on this talk page for discussion, rather than making large, controversial edits. You are mistaken in your claims about the "back-channel." NSC staffer Richard Morris confirmed it in testimony before the Federal Court in Alexandria in November, 1988. Perhaps you were even present. Even without that, Scherer's professional qualifications speak for themselves; he is a far more credible source than anything you have cited, and it is perfectly reasonable to use LaRouche sources for his comments (in my opinion, the lack of coverage of these things by the US media is a stain on their integrity.) --ClarkLewis (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dking is only adding material from reliable sources. It isn't a problem for him to add articles he wrote over 20 years ago, especially when they are directly relevant to the topic. IIRC, Scherer was fired for inappropriate activity, so his credibility isn't unassailable. Please give the source for this 1988 testimony. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Actually, it is a problem, given his conflict of interest. Wikipedia:SCOIC asks that he post proposed changes on this page for discussion, which is an entirely reasonable suggestion. I haven't heard of "inappropriate activity" by Scherer, so please enlighten me. I don't have access to the 1988 testimony, and I was under the impression that you do, since you have all those quotes on the "criminal trials" article -- this article[15] says that "In court testimony at LaRouche's railroad trial in Federal Court in Alexandria, Virginia in November 1988, Morris described LaRouche's collaboration with the Reagan White House on seven still-classified national security projects. The U.S.-Soviet back-channel talks, leading to President Reagan's March 23, 1983 SDI announcement, topped the list." That should give you enough to find it. Finally, in an edit summary, Dking says that EIR is not an acceptable source for this article. That's preposterous. --ClarkLewis (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

DKing is making useful edits, and I think that is the main issue here. COI is a red herring and, I would suggest, this is not the place to take up the issue.--Janeyryan (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This demonstrates how ridiculous Hershy's latest claims are. John Nevard (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this section at the moment is that it mentions Graham, who has one of the best claims to inspiring Reagen's SDI plans, and LaRouche, who has no real claim to have done so. It should probably mention the others involved, and not just by slandering Ed Teller by associating him with LaRouche after the latter latched on to a perversion of his ideas. John Nevard (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"populist"

Editor Mrdie made an unsourced addition to the intro, indicating that the subject is "clearly populist." It's not clear to me. A search of LaRouche writings turns up this: "Contemporary populism is typical of that form of mental disease."[16] --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that he is populist. I admit it is original research though. As for reasoning, Populism is a very broad term, and it encompasses people from LaRouche to Huey Long to Patrick Buchanan to Mussolini, etc. and I seriously doubt LaRouche would favorably associate with Buchanan or Mussolini. LaRouche's views are pretty much the very definition of populism though, the people united against the oligarchy/elite/etc. As I said however, considering how 'open' this term is, it can be used to describe many people. I didn't mean to offend anyone or incite anything. Berlet did describe him at one time as populist though, and I think still does. (Though you'd need to contact him on that) --Mrdie (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)</>

Find a good source and we can add it to the article. I've seen LaRouche called many things, but I don't recall "populist" being one of them.   Will Beback  talk  18:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did Grampa Simpson vote for him?

I forgot ( I was stoned ) but it was hilarious.

216.164.63.182 (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Economist???

It would seem the titles of "economist" and "philosopher" have reappeared in this article. As La Rouche has no advanced degrees or any other professional credentials in either subject, I don't think it appropriate that any encyclopedic entry on this man's life imply expertise where none exists. I thought this was sorted out last year. Nightg1 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed he hasn't.Professional economists and those with even a moderate background in the subject find his opinions pretty unrelated to economic theory in its present (or past) form. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed repeatedly in the past. For example, Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 11#Economist?, Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 18#LaRouche not an economist or philosopher, and Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 18#LaRouche not an economist again. Based on my experience with the literature, it appears that the subject has been called an "economist" by multiple reliable sources. (Unlike "philosopher", which he is hardly ever called outside of self-published sources). While he has no academic credentials in the field he has written at least one book on the topic and he apparently worked for a while as an economic analyst of some sort. It's really not up to us to decide what he is - we're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Pecora Commission

My very brief edit on the call for a Pecora Commission was reverted on grounds of being "non-notable." It might have been non-notable last Fall, but I think it is notable now because it has been echoed by so many others, including Sen. Byron Dorgan, Bill Moyers, Paul Krugman and Nancy Pelosi. --Coleacanth (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the Senate moved to create such a commission yesterday.[17] --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  18:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

:::My edit doesn't claim that LaRouche was responsible for the Senate action. It simply says LaRouche called for a new Pecora Commission 8 months ago. At the time, it was a typically obscure LaRouche utterance, but now that it has "caught on," I'd say that it is notable. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's notable then it will have been noted in a reliable secondary source. So far as I can tell, it's only been reported in LaRouche's own publications. If we reported everything that those publications say about LaRouche this article would be a million words long. We already link to those publications, so if readers want to learn about all of the subject's "calls" then those'd be the best places for them to visit.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

New categories

An editor just added these categories for a second time:[18]

• Category:Antisemitism
• Category:Anti-Zionism
• Category:American pacifists

The same editor recently removed Category:Antisemitism from another article, labelling it a "smear category".[19] Contentious categories like this require reliable sources. I've already reverted the additions once, and will do so again unless adequate sources are provided.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Contentious categories should only be used in the absence of evidence to the contrary. I think "anti-Zionism" should go also, because I think L may have changed his views on Zionism. --Leatherstocking (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I had gone ahead and removed two while leaving the "anti-zionist" category because that one seemed fairly well supported. Is there a source for his changed views?   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

:::I found an EIR article that discusses "good guy" vs. "bad guy" factions within Zionism at http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2920_jabotinsky.html --Coleacanth (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche is barely mentioned in that article, which appears to depict most Zionists as misguided for not following the Americn System.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

External links

Trimmed down EL sect, added {{No more links}}. If some of these are useful, they should be incorporated into the article as sources. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Menshikov

Why on earth is this mentioned in the lede? This looks like a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:LEDE. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You consider Menshikov to be less notable than, for example, the Heritage Foundation? --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to mention that Menshikov has spoken at one or more LaRouche movement events, so is not an impartial commentator.   Will Beback  talk  20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I think that the most helpful thing that you could do would be to write a new BLP of Stanislav Menshikov, to replace the one that you just (Ctrl-click)">deleted as part of your never-ending feud with the LaRouchies. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If he's genuinely notable then someone unassociated with the LaRouche movment will write one. I have no feud with "the LaRouchies", and I'd remind you to assume good faith and avoid baseless charges.   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

:::::TallNapoleon may not like Menshikov's brand of economics, but he is clearly a respected figure who has been quoted in major US media and co-authored a book with John Kenneth Galbraith, in addition to his published works in his native country. --Coleacanth (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't know the first thing about him, I just know that that weird little statement didn't belong in the lede. Also, he's redlinked--why is that if he wrote something with Galbraith? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I don't know, but Google has a cached version of a Wikipedia article on him: (Ctrl-click)">[20] --Coleacanth (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So, TallNapoleon, your argument for deleting it from the lead is that you personally disagree with the view expressed by Menshikov? --Coleacanth (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead should reflect the article. Let's move the Menshikov and Heritage Foundaiton mentions down, and then discuss them. While we're at it, it'd be nice to find a third party source for the Menshikov quotation rather than just a LaRouche website.   Will Beback  talk  07:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cole, I'm not informed enough to disagree with Menshikov. I just know that, per Wikipedia policy, which states that ledes should essentially be a summary of the article, Menshikov does not belong in the lede. That quote just stuck out like a sore thumb. Move it down. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's my two cents: The Heritage Foundation comment seems fairly representative of commentary about LaRouche in the US, while the Menshikov comment seems representative of (especially recent) commentary about LaRouche elsewhere, especially in Russia where his fans seem to have more access to media organs. TallNapoleon has not presented a convincing argument for deletion; both comments summarize what appears in the article. Therefore I support keeping the intro as it has been, especially since we have seen a period recently where there has not been the usual fussin' and fightin' at this article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If the quote's gonna be in the lede, it needs some more context to it. For instance, "LaRouche's popularity is growing throughout the world. For instance, this dude Menshikov says..." with a more formal tone, obviously. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

the quote needs context, such as who the person is and the context for the comment. That's more than belongs in the lede. If we can establish taht then tlede might summarize it by saying something like, "LaRuoche has been praised by a Russian academic."   Will Beback  talk  02:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if we would have a reliable secondary source on Menshikov, this cannot be in the lede. If Menshikov is not notable enough to have his own article, why would his opinion about another person be so important that it would be in the lede?  Cs32en  02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point.   Will Beback  talk  02:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::But then, you're the one that deleted the article. --Coleacanth (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? Wikipedia has guidelines on writing the introductions of articles. WP:LEAD. I'm just suggesting that we follow it.   Will Beback  talk  06:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point about Menshikov, Cs. If he's not notable enough to have his own article, his opinion isn't notable enough to be in the lede. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::::My point is, it doesn't make much sense to delete the article and then argue that the person isn't notable because he doesn't have an article. In case TallNapoleon and Cs32en aren't following this, here's the article (which was deleted yesterday.) --Coleacanth (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

HK's sock added the name and then created an article to establish notability. HK is a banned user who wasn't even supposed to be editing at all because he was such a POV pusher from the beginning. Wikipedia can write a fine biography of Lyndon LaRouche without him.

That's now history so let's focus on the future of the article. Detailed quotes like this relaly don't belong in the lead. Let's move them down to a later section and place them in whatever context seem appropriate.

Whether Menshikov is notable as a commentator on LaRouche isn't solely determined by whether his name is blue or red.   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy page with criteria for article notability at WP:NOTE, and Menshikov passes that test with flying colors. As far as the allegations of socking are concerned, the more I learn about this, the more flimsy the evidence appears -- this stuff reminds me of the Salem Witch Trials. And even if we assume that the article was written by a sock, you must have known about this for over a year. I believe you made some edits to that article yourself, a long time ago. Why would you wait to delete it until the precise moment that someone was challenging the notability of Menshikov? And why would you delete it yourself, instead of going to one of the boards and asking for an uninvolved admin? --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the page to discuss HK's socking. As for this article, is there any reason why we shouldn't move the Heritage Foundation and Menshikov quotes to the body of the article?   Will Beback  talk  18:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is even any socking to discuss. But please answer my two questions about your deletion of Stanislav Menshikov. --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of improvements to Lyndon LaRouche . Let's stay on-topic. Is there any further objection to moving the quotations down to the text of the article, and adding approriate context there?   Will Beback  talk  19:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced Menshikov's opinion of Larouche is noteworthy for Larouche's biography. Might it be more appropriate on one of the sub-pages? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a media section in the "Views of Lyndon LaRouche". Perhaps an interntational section would be appropriate. I am concerned about excess weight. Menshikov does seem like a rather obscure figure. So many prominent individuals have expressed opinions that quoting a foreign academic from a country where the LaRouche movement has little presence does seem like a stretch.   Will Beback  talk  06:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

:::He seems like an "obscure figure" to you? Have you tried a Google search to learn something about him? He was a member of the Soviet Central Committee, worked as an economist for the U.N., has published many books in both Russian and English, was a commentator for the New York Times, was interviewed several times by David Brinkley, and his book with Galbraith was reviewed in Foreign Affairs[21]. Compare that to the numerous critics that are given big coverage in this LaRouche article, most of whom barely register on the notability scale. --Coleacanth (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you write a draft Wikipedia article on Menshikov. If you put a {{under construction}} template on it, I will argue against any premature deletion of the article for two weeks. We should continue this discussion after the article has been written (or has been deleted), because we would know more about the actual notability of Menshikov at that point.  Cs32en  20:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Participants in the discussion should be aware that the Menshikov article has been un-deleted, and is now going through the conventional Articles for Deletion process: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanislav Menshikov.--Leatherstocking (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've fully protected as a result of the latest bout of edit warring. Not aiming this at anyone in particular, but I think it's supposed to go something like: Discuss → Consensus → Edit rather than the other way around. Kevin (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue of Menshikov's notability has been settled, at least with respect to his having a Wikipedia article. Are there still unresolved issues here? --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's good that we now have an article on Menshikov, which also gives us some information on his relationship to LaRouche: "The English translation of Menshikov's book, The Anatomy of Russian Capitalism, was published by LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review and includes a forward by LaRouche." His opinion is thus not an independent opinion, so its inclusion in the lead of the article would not be appropriate. A reference to Menshikov may, in my view, appear in the body text of the article.  Cs32en  18:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What constitutes an "independent opinion"? LaRouche seems to have only supporters and critics, I haven't seen any comments that would be considered "neutral." I thought that the article intro as it has been over the recent period was fine, because it had a balance of comments from critics and supporters. What criteria do you propose as far as what sort of opinions are permissable in the intro? I could see removing all assessments, both positive and negative, but that would be a rather dramatic change. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Independent does not mean neutral. Someone who has not related his work or his reputation to LaRouche would be an independent observer. The publication of Menshikov's book by the LaRouche company EIR documents that Menshikov is not independent. His notability, however, does not solely depend on LaRouche, so his opinion may be included in the article's body, in my view.  Cs32en  20:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

::Menshikov has worked with a very broad array of people, and had his books published by many different publishers. He clearly likes LaRouche, but that does not mean that he is affiliated with LaRouche. For example, Menshikov has also worked with the Dalai Lama, and LaRouche condemns the Dalai Lama. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Menshikov is not a clone of LaRouche, but he's not independent either. We don't cite John McCain's opinion about Sarah Palin in the lead of the Sarah Palin article, for example.  Cs32en  22:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Menshikov and Russian sources

I just looked at Wikipedia:Lead section, and I don't see anything there that would disqualify the use of Menshikov's quote. You want something in the lead section which would indicate why LaRouche has a following, and in recent years LaRouche has developed a very good reputation as an economist in Russia, among other places. You could try to come up with a summary of what the article says about this, but it seems simpler to quote Menshikov, who is notable as an economist. You do have the Heritage Foundation quote, which is representative of conservatives in the US who oppose LaRouche, so it seems appropriate to have a representative of an opposite viewpoint. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of that stuff should go to the "Criticism" section, and this section should then be renamed "Views on Lyndon LaRouche". The lead may then contain a short summary of this section, possibly without citing any particular view expressed by any individual. The article is about LaRouche, finally, not about "Various viewpoints on LaRouche".  Cs32en  23:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone objects to adding Menshikov's views to the text, where his association with the subject can be explained so as to put the comment into context. But adding all of thatto the lead would take excessive space. The lead should summarize the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Since it looks like the debate about having it in the lead is over, I'll put the Menshikov quote in the Russian section. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How can we verify the Russian language article?   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Could you propose a line or two of text to summarize LaRouche's popularity as an economist in Russia and other countries -- possibly something about him forecasting the financial crisis of 2007–2009? --Coleacanth (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, what sources are we summarizing? Who provided the translation?   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That LaRouche seems to have some support from Russia is probably noteworthy. We would need some Russian speakers here, I guess, as this interview is the one article from a notable source that you can find rather easily. We should probably not rely on a few English websites to assess the relevant opinions expressed by Russian institutions or sources. We probably would need some help from WikiProject Russia.  Cs32en  14:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. However it doesn't really say anything about the popularity of LaRouche in Russia. All we could say based on it is that LaRouche has been interviewd briefly on Russian TV about the financial crisis.   Will Beback  talk  18:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It actually doesn't say much, and certainly not that he is popular in Russia. That LaRouche is being interviewed by a notable Russian source (he has not been interviewed by a major U.S. news company, to my knowlegde) may be an indication that there are useful Russian reliable sources reporting on LaRouche and about how he is being seen in Russia. I suspect that opinions on LaRouche in Russia are more diverse than in other countries, but I haven't seen any reliable independent sources that would evidence this. As for the characterization in the lead, I would stay with the words from news reports (the New York Times says "extremist"), for example, but I would also mention that LaRouche has some support within Russia, if reliable sources that provide evidence of such support can be found. I have no particular interest in this article, however, so I will not look for such sources, or ask other people to do so. My point is that we should not insert any speculation about potential support from Russia, but rather look for appropriate Russian sources.  Cs32en  18:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with those points. FWIW, the same page that hosts the LaRouceh interview alos contains links and summaries of many other interviews. Many of the interviews seem to be justifications for the invasion of South Ossetia, which is understandable from a state-run company. Other Americans who are interviewed include Alexander Cockburn and Paul Craig Roberts. I don't think we'd say that either of those men are popular in Russia based on those interviews. It's well known that there has been animosity between the Russian government and Eduard Shevardnadze, who is also interviewed.

One point of correction - LaRouche has been interviewed in the U.S. media. In Aoril 1986 LaRouche held a press conference that was widely reported. Here's a Good Morning America interview from a month later.[22] 1986 was the zenith of his career, in which his movement achieved its greatest electoral success but also when the raid and indictments happened which led to his eventual conviction. Moving forward fifteen years, here's an interview held on the morning of 9/11/2001 with a Salt Lake City radio show.[23] Here's an interview on a New Hampshire radio station the day after (it appears to have been previously scheduled).[24] So he still gets a little attention from the media in the US.   Will Beback  talk  19:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know about the ABC interview in 1986. By saying major news media, I rather thought of something like Charlie Rose...  Cs32en  20:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche does not appear on the list of Charlie Rose's guests.[25] 20:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful to recruit a Russian speaker. Meanwhile, the Chinese interviews are in English. Also, the quotes from Guilio Tremonti are verifiable, as are the ones from various countries about LaRouche predicting the financial crisis. So it would be appropriate to say something about LaRouche's views on economics being regarded as notable in countries outside the U.S. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do the Chinese interviews say anything about LaRouche's popularity in Russia? Anyway, the article already has material on LaRouche's reception in other countries. See Lyndon LaRouche#India, Russia, and China for example.   Will Beback  talk  19:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::I had asked you to propose a brief summary of that section and the financial crisis of 2007–2009 section for inclusion in the lead paragraph. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't make it clear that it was for the lead. Let me review the article and suggest something.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just checking in to say that I am working on this. I won't have be around the computer for a few days but I expect to finish when I'm back. Since the page is stil protected there's no rush.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::The page is unprotected now. Is the Heritage Foundation quote to be removed on the same grounds as Menshikov? --Coleacanth (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd meant to get to this by now. I'll take a stab at fresh text to summarize this material.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead proposal

In order to remove POV quotations from the lead and to better summarize the contents of the article, I suggest that we remove this text:

• The Heritage Foundation has said that he "leads what may well be one of the strangest political groups in American history".[9][10] In 1984, LaRouche's research staff was described by Norman Bailey, a former senior staffer of the National Security Council, as "one of the best private intelligence services in the world".

And replace it with:

• Based in the United States, LaRouche also has ties to notable political and cultural organizations in Canada, Germany, Australia, and France, and has been interviewed or spoken in India, Russia, China, Mexico, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, and other countries. Among the issues that LaRouche is most closely associated with are: SDI, AIDS, space colonization, and fusion power.

The lists shouldn't be exhaustive. These seem to be the main issues that come up in 3rd-party sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

::I totally disagree with the "issues that LaRouche is most closely associated with" part. His reputation internationally is for his economic theories and proposals. I would say "opposition to globalization, promotion of a New Bretton Woods system, proposals for giant infrastructure projects, and for his economic forecasts, particularly of the 2007-2009 financial crisis." --Maybellyne (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, then as a compromise let's omit that sentence entirely.   Will Beback  talk  06:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The list of countries also seems highly arbitrary, and omits some of the important ones, such as Italy, Australia, Argentina. I would propose the following: There are organizations which promote LaRouche's controversial ideas in numerous countries throughout the world. In recent decades there was been particular attention to LaRouche's economic theories and proposals in Russia, China and India, with some commentators crediting him with being the first to forecast the Financial crisis of 2007–2010. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot Australia. I don't think there are notable organizations in Italy and Argentina. Leatherstocking's proposed text is less NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  18:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually thought that lead was good and well balanced before the Menshikov quote was deleted. At the beginning of this talk section I proposed that you write something about LaRouche's popularity as an economist in Russia and other countries, and him forecasting the financial crisis of 2007–2009. I was thinking that it would fill the gap left by the Menshikov quote. It seems to me that the two reasons LaRouche is known is because he went to jail, and because he was right about the crash. Anyway, your new text seems to have gone off in an entirely different direction. --Coleacanth (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The crash prediction has been reported in a couple of foreign papers, if I understand correctly. Other aspects of the subject's life have been reported in dozens of papers in the subject's country. Putting a barely reported assertion in the lead would be undue weight. We never found eany real evidence of the subject's popularity as an economist, except that he's been interviewed a few times, which is what I summarized. The proposed change is NPOV and does a better job of summarizing the article than the existing quotaitons, which aren't even in the text (and are just single opinions anyway).   Will Beback  talk  03:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Philosopher"

I know this term gets thrown around loosely, and it's not just used for professional philosophers. But Lyndon LaRouche a philosopher? You gotta be kidding me. Hairhorn (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We've previously discused whether or not he's an economist, but there are many sources for that. I only see one previous discussion of "philospher", and that's here: Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 18#LaRouche not an economist or philosopher. I see the only accounts endorsing the use of the term are sock puppets of a banned editor, and the only source to support the term comes from a state-owned Russian TV show, which is probably a dubious reference. (I checked the newspaper clippings I've got and the only citation close is a humoous description of LaRouche as a "philosopher king" due to his Platonist views.) I think we can omit the term unless there are better sources for using the term.   Will Beback  talk  19:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes a state-owned Russian TV show a "dubious reference"? I would think that a connection to a government would confer notability. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any better source?   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked first. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If there's only a single source from a foreign country's state-owned broadcast company then I don't think that's sufficient for the lead. We have many other titles that are far better sourced.   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We should attribute this characterization to the source, and it should not be in the lead of a long article, if there are no other sources that say he's a philosopher. If LaRouche has more support from some parts of Russian society, that would itself be of interest to the reader.  Cs32en  20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cs32en's proposal seems sound. FWIW, the current user of "philosopher" in the lead was added by a rarely used account, Throbbing Stallion (talk · contribs), as recently as April.[26] I don't see where the editor engaged in any discussion of his addition.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking back further, it appears that the first time it was added was back in September 2007.[27] The responsibile editor, Rafael Sanzio (talk · contribs), may be the same person as "Throbbing Stallion", and may also be the same banned Cognition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In any case, it's not a solid, well-discussed addition.   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence on which to base these allegations of sockpuppetry? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The main point is that neither account discussed the edit before or since. But the resemblance between accounts is there for anyone to see.   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any further discussion here. When the protection is lifted from the article I'll remove the word from the lead. If folks think that the Russian TV claim is notable then it can be added, with attribution, to the body of the text.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Defunct Link to remove after un-protect

The paragraph

"LaRouche has claimed that "the FBI was orchestrating its assets in the leadership of the Communist Party U.S.A., to bring about my personal 'elimination'", LaRouche Speaks.net citing a document obtained through the Freedom of Information Act."

in the chapter "Operation Mop-up" uses a defunct link to "larouchespeaks.net". This domain is defunct and was turned into a spam site. Schweinebärmann (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

:A replacement link is easily found: [28] --Maybellyne (talk) 06:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)<

Evidence for Electoral Results?

The article claims LaRouche claims received 22% of the Democratic primary vote in Arkansas in 2000 and 11% in Kentucky. I'd really like to see some evidence for these wild claims which this deranged sect is fond of making in an unintentionally self-parodying style worthy of cheap comic opera or two bit professional wrestling. When I was a college student in the 70s we would sometimes see their bereft glass showcase in the student union containing copies of their cult newspaper with screaming headlines like "Millions Rally to LaRouche!". Sadly, at that age, of course, there are lost souls who are ripe to come under the undue influence of groups like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.241.5 (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

While it may seem remarkable, it is true. Gore was running for the Democratic primary with little opposition. LaRouche generally came in last. Probably LaRouche was the only candidate in Arkansas besides Gore, so he got the entire protest vote.[29] However LaRouche received no delegates because the party officials ruled that he was not a party member.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Economist title

Don't you have to have some credentials to be described as an "economist"? Shouldn't it be clear that LaRouche describes himself as an economist, although he has no credentials in the field. I don't see how Wikipedia can properly call someone an economist who doesn't have an advanced degree in economics any more than some backyard experimenter can be called a chemist or a physicist. The profession of economist has well-defined standards, none of which are met by LaRouche. There is a differnce between an economist and an autodidact who has read a few books about economics, and I don't see why Wikipedia should confound the distinction.Cas70 (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but he has been called an economist by reliable sources. It would be inappropriate for use to decide that someone can only be an economist if he has an academic degree. FWIW, this issue has come up in regard to other people who don't meet certain professional standards, like Joe the Plumber, who isn't a licensed plumber.   Will Beback  talk  04:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche might accurately be called many things, but economist is not one of them. I thought the entry was supposed to be neutral. No neutral observer with any knowledge of what an economist is or does could possibly describe LaRouche as an economist. You've described him as he would like to be described - a description with little basis in reality. If you allow his imaginary self-descriptions to stand why not explain that anyone with any economic training would consider him a crackpot. In bending over backwards to be fair to LaRouche you are doing naive readers a great disservice in that they are likely to take away the impressdion that LaRouche really is an economist, whereas I'm sure you know as well as I do that he is most emphatically not. Why lie?Cas70 (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Clearly, any source that describes LaRouche as an economist is ipso facto not reliable.Cas70 (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make that argument, you'll need to disclose your identity and your professional qualifications, so we can weigh your opinion against those of the professionals who do describe LaRouche as an economist. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I will do that with alacrity if you will first tell the name of one real, professional economist who would describe LaRouche as an economist. I am certain there are none. However, I think you could properly describe LaRouche as someone who writes on economic topics, which is quite a different thing from being a professional economist. To call LaRouche an economist is preposterous and is a disservice to Wikipedia readers who might be ingenuous enough to believe it to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cas70 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Is Stanislav Menshikov a real economist? I'm not entirely sure, but the claim is now made. I'm not convinced; he may just be a LaRouchian (there are fringe groups in Russia, as well), but the claim is at least plausible, now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to tell me the name of one member of the guild in good standing who'll vouch for LaRouche as an economist. I should think Menshikov deeply compromised by his association with the LaRouchian movement.Cas70 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Cas70 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That may not be fair. If Menshikov really is an economist, then it would be improper to consider him discredited just because he is associated with LaRouche. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll give my credentials but I'm not about to give my name for fear of crazed LaRouchians showing up on my doorstep because I've dissed their master. I have a Ph.D. from Columbia and have been published by good academic presses such as Cambridge. I was merely browsing through Wikipedia, and when I came upon the first sentence of the LaRouche piece, I was met by the absurd claim that he was an economist. I thought I'd be a good citizen and correct information that was clearly false, but I have subsequently found that even absurdities have their stubborn defenders. I've always told my students not to trust everything they read on Wikipedia, and it seems I'll have a cautionary tale from this experience to reinforce that warning. So, I give up. You can write that he holds the home run record and is the most renowned composer since Beethoven if you want. I'm out of here.Cas70 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Menshikov is not a suitable source, but there are plenty of newspapers that have called LaRouche an "economist", perhaps only because that's what he calls himself, but the fact remains that it is used in reliable sources.

• LaRouche, an economist from Virginia, is an independent presidential candidate whose name appears on ballots in 18 states - including Washington - and the District of Columbia for the Nov. 6 general election.
  • Seattle Times. Seattle, Wash.: Oct 24, 1984. pg. A.2
• It may be easy to dismiss LaRouche and his people -- perhaps with a joke as I did in Lima -- as mere innocuous lunatics. After all, anyone who claims, as he does in his autobiography, to be "the most controversial among the influential international figures of this decade," or the only "original thinker" among "the leading candidates for the U.S. presidency since 1945," or "the leading economist in the world today," is difficult to take seriously.
  • "The Americas: Lyndon LaRouche's Latin American Connection", Sergio Sarmiento,, Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Sep 1, 1989. pg. 1
• For the past 40 years he has promoted off-the-wall economic policies that have been largely ignored by economists and the public alike but have attracted a small army of believers -- mainly younger people known in political circles as LaRouchians. ... It is hard to pin a label on someone like Mr. LaRouche, described widely as an economist and political activist.
  • "Democrat on the dark side", Peter Morton, Washington Bureau Chief. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Jun 16, 2005. pg. FP.8
• Such conspiracy theories are the staple diet of EIR, which, despite its businesslike name, is produced by Lyndon H LaRouche, a 76-year-old cranky economist, convicted fraudster and cult leader who believes Henry Kissinger, the former US secretary of state, and the Queen are engaged in a conspiracy to subvert the world by flooding it with Aids and drugs.
  • "Rebel spy is drawn into the Fayed web" David Leppard and Nicholas Rufford , Sunday Times, May 16, 1999:12.
• Economist and author Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. is a Democratic candidate for president of the United States. ... Occupational experiences: Management consultant and economist, 1947 to 1948 and 1952 to 1972; founder, Executive Intelligence Review Weekly, 1974; co-founder, Fusion Energy Foundation, 1975.
  • LaRouche angered by party policies MICHIGAN PRIMARY, MICHAEL ROMANCHEK " South Bend Tribune, February 17, 2000
• A self-styled economist, he has detailed his theories involving economic, political, and social issues in a number of publications. ... CAREER: Politician, economist, business consultant, editor, and author. L. H. LaRouche Research, Boston, MA, vice president and management consultant, 1942-66; affiliated with G. E. River Works, Lynn, MA, beginning in 1949; management consultant, 1952-72; affiliated with the George S. May Company, 1955-58; worked in computer-complex installations and software design. National Caucus of Labor Committees, founder, 1969; U.S. Labor Party, presidential candidate, 1976, chair, 1977-79; Democratic presidential candidate, 1980; National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC), Washington, DC, chair of advisory committee, 1980-83, presidential candidate, 1984, 1988, and 1992; congressional candidate for 10th congressional district, VA, 1990. Member of International Advisory Board of the Schiller Institute.
  • Contemporary Authors Online biography, Source: Contemporary Authors Online, Gale, 2002
• LaRouche said he has survived the threats on his life because he has protection from U.S. government officials who consider him the nation's best economist. "Even when they don't like me, they consider me a national asset, and they don't like to have their national assets killed," he said. LaRouche has no college degrees, but claims to have a perfect record for predicting the world economy. He said the current economy is similar to that of 1339 because it is on the verge of collapse. He believes the public lacks the political will to stop the collapse, and that once it occurs, he can solve the problems by putting the Federal Reserve into bankruptcy, returning to the gold standard and creating major building projects to provide jobs.
  • Election 2004 / Outsider making his 8th White House bid / LaRouche says he'd fix economy; RACHEL GRAVES, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau. Houston Chronicle. Houston, Tex.: . pg. 4
• LaRouche appears to have no scientific qualifications (he describes himself as an economist), but his publication has run numerous articles ridiculing, or purporting to refute, the notion of global warming.
  • "Bellamy's on thin ice, but that can happen in a tangled web", John Naughton , The Observer May 22, 2005:7

And so on.   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

One possible compromise would be to say he is a "self-styled economist" or "self-taught economist".   Will Beback  talk  20:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds sensible.Cas70 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If there's no objection we can go ahead with that compromise.   Will Beback  talk  01:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

:::I'm confused. How do journalists become the ultimate authority on who is, and who is not, an economist? Incidentally, if journalists are the authority, the New York Times should have its say: "Mr. LaRouche, an 80-year-old economist, has raised more than $3.7 million over the years, much of it through small donations and the Internet."[30]And what makes Stanislav Menshikov, who has credentials out the wazoo, "not a suitable source"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maybellyne (talk • contribs) 06:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Many policians get contributions, but that doesn't make them economists either. Maybellyne forgot to quote the next sentence, which ends by mentioning that he served "5 years of a 15-year sentence for mail fraud and defaulting on more than $30 million in loans from campaign supporters." Apparently, LaRouche has not received any formal training beyond whatever he got as an undergraduate before dropping out of college. Wikipedia's article on Economist says:

• ..there is not a legally-required educational requirement or license for economists. In some job settings, the possession of a Bachelor's or Master's degree in economics is considered the minimum credential for being an economist. However, in some parts of the US government, a person can be considered an economist as long as they have four or more university courses in economics. As well, a person can gain the skills required to become a professional economist in other related disciplines, such as statistics or some types of applied mathematics, such as mathematical finance or game theory.

LaRouche isn't known to have been trained in anything. What expertise he has is self-taught.   Will Beback  talk  06:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A few minutes spent trying to decipher any of LaRouche's writings on economics would convince any impartial observer that he is no economist, even using a very elastic definition of the term. Try figuring out what the LaRouche-Riemann method is, for instance. A few minutes of that will put you deep into Jabberwocky land. Bernhard Riemann must be rolling in his grave to have his name associated with such tripe. To call LaRouche an econimist would be tantamount to calling a little child playing with a stethoscope a doctor just because he imagines he is one. If Wikipedia wants to be truthful I don't see how it can do other than call him a "self-described" economist.Cas70 (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)