Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:00, 17 February 2011

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

	Lyndon LaRouche is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 22, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Politics B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "LaRouche for president: The campaign that keeps on going". Loudon Times-Mirror. January 27, 2004.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Can History Be Open Source? Misplaced Pages and the Future of the Past". The Journal of American History. June 2006.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Sierra Madre Actor Takes a Stand Against LaRouche Propaganda". The Sierra Madre Weekly. December 1, 2009.

• Talk page archives
• Talk page index
• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Books

The lead actually isn't as bad as I thought it would be. The rest of the article, I didn't really have the patience to plow through. Regardless, as I mentioned on one previous occasion, the biggest problem with the LaRouche articles is the lack of any reliable, neutral academic sources on LaRouche and his movement. We have a bunch of newspaper articles, and one polemical anti-LaRouche book, but no scholars of political science (or new religious movements) seem to have published anything much on this topical area. Even on a controversial new religious movement ("cult") like Scientology, we have unbiased material from professors of comparative religion. There is nothing like that here, and I wonder if writing an article that meets both WP:NPOV and WP:V might simply be impossible. *** Crotalus *** 21:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• A search on Google Books turns up a title called "Lyndon LaRouche: A Study in Political Extremism" by Carol M. Riggs (George Mason University, 1996). Unfortunately, I could not find this on Amazon, nor is an ISBN listed on Google Books. Has anyone seen this book or knows what it contains? If published by a university, it might serve as a reliable source on this article. *** Crotalus *** 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Riggs book is in FR, but I've not seen it. There are good sections about LaRouche in several books, e.g. George Johnson's Architects of Fear, which is quite detailed, and which I've been using here. Also see Robins, Robert S. and Post, Jerrold M. Political Paranoia: The Psychopolitics of Hatred. Yale University Press, 1997. SlimVirgin 22:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Worldcat, Riggs' work is an MA thesis for George Mason University. Doctoral dissertations are regarded as reliable sources, but i don't think masters theses are awarded the same status.   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The best recent scholarly biography of LaRouche is a fairly long entry in Robert J. Alexander's International Trotskyism 1929-1985 Duke University Press, 1991 ISBN 9780822310662.   Will Beback  talk  03:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I recently obtained photocopies of the relevant pages. I'll add citations to it soon.   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexander is a good find, thank you. I've added it. SlimVirgin 03:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't able to read the whole section on LaRouche in Alexander on Google Books. How heavily does Alexander rely on Berlet and King as sources? I see a reference to King on p.947 and 949 in the Google Books preview, which is troubling; to what extent is Alexander independent of the two keystone anti-LaRouche authors? What I was hoping to find was something similar to the academic sources by comparative-religion scholars on New Religious Movements, which avoid pejorative terms and instead describe what their subjects believe. Even the most widely criticized religions usually have a sympathetic ear in academic sources, but it appears that this is not true for LaRouche. *** Crotalus *** 16:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think more to the point is the fact that Alexander was active in at least three organizations (Socialist Party, LID and SDUSA) that bitterly opposed LaRouche in the 70s, and there are number of similar cases where authors that fit this description (like Tim Wohlforth) are given disproportionate weight in the article. Angel's flight (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A) The King book is a reliable source in and of itself so citing is is not a problem, whether we do it directly or whether it's cited by a book we cite.

B) According to whom were the Socialist Party, LID and SDUSA "bitterly opposed" to LaRouche in the 1970s?

C) The Alexander book is published by a university press, and thus is among the highest quality sources available.

D) No source is entirely neutral. If we had to rely on 100% neutral sources throughout Misplaced Pages it would be a much smaller encyclopedia. We would certainly have to exclude all self-published sources.

E) If editors think the Alexander book is unreliable then they are invited to make their case at RSN.   Will Beback  talk  19:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Crotalus, none of the reliable sources has anything positive to say about LaRouche that I've been able to find, because his organization is highly troubling. The newspapers of record are The New York Times and The Washington Post, because he used to live in New York and now lives in Virginia. The academics base their work on the output of those newspapers, and on what LaRouche himself has said, which is consistent with the newspaper reports; he often boasts about the issues that others find problematic.

Some articles if you're interested in reading about the mainstream perception of his movement. I've added one book (George Johnson) that looks more closely at the ideas, and you can read a fair bit of it on Amazon:

• Montgomery, Paul L. "How a Radical-Left Group Moved Toward Savagery", The New York Times, January 20, 1974.
• Blum, Howard. "U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy", The New York Times, October 7, 1979.
• Johnson, George. "The 'New Dark Ages' Conspiracy," Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics. J.P Tarcher, 1983, chapter 10, p. 187ff.
• Mintz, John. "Ideological Odyssey: From Old Left to Far Right", The Washington Post, January 14, 1985.
• Lynch, Pat. "Is Lyndon LaRouche using your name? How the LaRouchians masquerade as journalists to gain information", Columbia Journalism Review, March/April 1985.
• Witt, April. "No Joke", The Washington Post, October 24, 2004.

SlimVirgin 07:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

More mainstream sources:

Time magazine

• Politics From the Twilight Zone By Richard Stengel;Lee Griggs/Chicago Monday, Mar. 31, 1986
• Larouche's Tangled Web Monday, Jun. 09, 1986
• Card Tricks: Uncovering a LaRouche scam By Anne Constable Oct 20, 1986

Others:

• Publish and Perish: The mysterious death of Lyndon LaRouche's printer By Avi Klein Washington Monthly, November 2007
• Odd Man Out; The loony who's staying home: Lyndon LaRouche. July 2, 2007 The New Republic
• Beast-man politics February 2004 by James Bowman

There are more articles behind firewalls, but the tone is the same in those. Overall, the subject has received far less attention in the past twenty years than in the prior twenty.   Will Beback  talk  10:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Goldwag

I disagree with making the Arthur Goldwag material invisible. You are asserting that there is some sort of inaccuracy in what he says, and I don't know that there is, but on the whole I found his description of LaRouche to be accurate and unusually neutral. Plus, as I understand it, the standard is "verifiability, not truth" -- Dennis King's book is riddled with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods, but it is still used as a source throughout this article, presumably because it is published and falls under "verifiability, not truth." I will continue to look for sources -- the CYD also describes the ideological shift -- but I think we should keep Goldwag for now. Angel's flight (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

He's not a good source for this. If you want to write about the change of economic direction, it's a good idea, but you need a secondary source who writes about what happened then, not a tertiary source who uses quotes from a current website to describe how LaRouche saw things in the 1970s. SlimVirgin 05:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

A primary source would seem to be the most accurate, but I thought there was some objection to that. The fact that it appears in a secondary source (is there such a thing as a "tertiary" source?) should establish it as something worthy of inclusion. And again, Dennis King quotes and misquotes LaRouche when it serves his purposes, and there seems to be no objection to using King as a source. I thought that WP:V was the ultimate guideline. Angel's flight (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Per V and NOR, you need a good secondary source, though you can augment it with a primary source (LaRouche) within reason. Goldwag is a tertiary source, and he has mixed and matched his timeframes, so the section made no sense. SlimVirgin 08:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you say that Lerman is also a tertiary source? I think your view is debatable. I also don't see how Goldwag has "mixed and matched his timeframes" -- that seems to be your personal interpretation. Goldwag merely provides a concise description of LaRouche's orientation from the early 70s to the present. Angel's flight (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Childhood anecdotes

What criteria are you using to decide which details about his childhood go into the article? It seems highly subjective and perhaps intended to build some sort of OR psychoanalytic theory. Considering the length of the article, I have difficulty understanding why accounts of his childhood are necessary or appropriate. Angel's flight (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

He has written about it, as have others, so it clearly mattered to him, and it's normal to start biographies with the early years. It's odd that you would object to it, because it humanizes him, makes him interesting. I'm about to add to it some descriptions of how he came across to others. SlimVirgin 08:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, what criteria are you using? You have removed as much as you have added. Angel's flight (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Angel, LaRouche's Myopia may provide the key element for understanding his affinity for long term forecasts and his historical explanations: He simply compensates for his short-sightedness by looking "metaphorically" into the future or into the past. It is so simple. (or am i kidding?) Cheers! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Lebedev Institute

What evidence do we have that the Pirogov source is reliable? How do we know what it really says?   Will Beback  talk  05:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

See . It appears that the publication was a result of workshops conducted jointly with the Schiller Institute. One of the issues includes an article by Rachel Douglas, who is not known as a scholar in English or Russian. What do we know about Pirogov? Since these are foreign sources, it's hard to know what we're looking at. The burden is on whoever wants to add this to establish that it's a reliable, noteworthy, and independent source.   Will Beback  talk  06:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added something; it's more or less what Angel's flight wrote, though I've tightened it; see here. I included Pirogov, but it's not clear that it's appropriate, and I still can't see where he says those things on this page. Can someone point it out to me? Also, what is the citation date? SlimVirgin 07:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No, this is a Schiller Institute conference. It's not appropriate to present that as though it's an independent source. SlimVirgin 07:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to this line of argument. You both seem to be arguing that the Russian Academy of Sciences has become a self-published organ of the LaRouche movement, because one or more LaRouche-affiliated researchers spoke at a seminar there. This is an extremely novel and POV-driven interpretation of policy (and reality.) This controversy has come up before at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Pirogov. It might be appropriate to take this to the RS noticeboard. Angel's flight (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The partial-sentence quote which you removed may be found at the very beginning of Pirogov's essay here:Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/russian#Lyndon_LaRouche_and_his_physical_economy. Angel's flight (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The source you want to cite is listed here in English, the GG Pies (Piragov) paper from the Methodological seminar LPI, number 2, part 2. It appears be part of a Schiller Institute (LaRouche movement in Germany) conference; see here in English, Methodological seminar LPI, number 3. It's therefore not appropriate to cite material about LaRouche from there as though it's an entirely independent source. And I still can't see where the source material is on that page. I can see the title, but not the paper. SlimVirgin 03:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the fourth and final essay on the page. If your computer doesn't have enough RAM to load the entire translation, trying scrolling down to the last section (with headline "ЛИНДОН ЛАРУШ И ЕГО ФИЗИЧЕСКАЯ ЭКОНОМИКА") and paste that section into your Google Translate box. However, you need not do that, because I did it for you here: Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/russian#Lyndon_LaRouche_and_his_physical_economy. I found a LaRouche site which provides some information on the seminars here:. Please cite a Misplaced Pages policy that says that the presence of LaRouche researchers at the seminar makes the transcript unreliable. The hosting site is the Russian Press Agency NETDA on behalf of the Lebedev Institute Physics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. I think it would be nice to hear from some credentialed experts in a article that is otherwise dominated by a bunch of aging New Left types that were fighting LaRouche back in the 70s. If you think that the Lebedev Institute is somehow tainted by LaRouche contact, then we should take this to the noticeboard. Angel's flight (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You want to use as a source—for a contentious (albeit positive) claim in a BLP—a Google machine translation of a speech, unpublished except on a conference website, by an unknown person at an overseas conference that was funded in whole or in part by the LaRouche movement. And not only use it, you want to present it as an entirely independent academic source. I can't imagine any experienced editor supporting you in that. SlimVirgin 08:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

SV, please leave the well unpoisoned.Thanks. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The burden is on those who wish to use a source to prove that it is reliable and significant. Using non-LaRouche sources, what do we know about the author of this source, Pirogov, or the seminar that published the material? It does not appear that the Lebedev Institute was the sole or even the primary publisher, and it's unclear what the role was of the Schiller Institute in the seminar. We need more information to evaluate this obscure, foreign language source, and to establish its prominence. Even if it is somehow reliable, it may be too unimportant to devote any significant space. We only report significant points of view, not everything ever published.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see what we have: Tim Wohlforth, a former SWP activist who now writes pulp fiction... Dennis King, a former PL activist who now does... who knows? Robert J Alexander, a former Socialist Party, LID and SDUSA activist who admittedly became a university prof... it seems more the case that we are reporting opposing points of view, not necessarily "significant" ones. I have opened a thread at WP:RSN. Angel's flight (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Will, this is the same argument type as SV and it has come up a dozen times by now. There have been tons of Gigabytes of information already provided, but still you deny their existance. And please, IF we would report ONLY "significant" points of view, then what is the childhood anecdote about Larouches Myopia about? Significant, Indeed!81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you please recap the info about the Pirogov paper? You seem to be more familiar with this talk page than I am.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

After a discussion on WP:RSN

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lebedev_Institute_of_Physics_of_the_Russian_Academy_of_Sciences_.28FIAN.29_.2F_Russian_.D0.9D.D0.95.D0.A2.D0.94.D0.90_.28.22NETDA.22.29_news_agency

it was established, that G.G. Pirogov was, confirmation pending, a "Political scientist, specialist in research on socio-economic and political processes, the challenges of globalization. Author of several monographs, including two-volume monograph entitled "Globalization and civilizational diversity of the world" (2002). Member of the Scientific Editorial Board of the multi-volume edition of "World economic thought. Through the prism of the ages. " In 5 volumes (2004-2005). The author of the translation into Russian of two books (as well as the notes thereto) of the Nobel Prize for Economics Dzh.Stiglitsa."

One can thus safely say, that Pirogov is more than qualified to assess the value of economic analyses and thus can be considered a reliable source. It was furthermore established, that the translation in question was factual and correct. I thus see no more reason to further delay the reintroduction of the Pirogov-material. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You're overlooking the editors who said that seminar presentations are not reliable sources, especially for a BLP. Furthermore, the material that you want to add is an extraordinary claim not found in any mainstream source. Per WP:REDFLAG, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources.   Will Beback  talk  19:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What WB calls an "extraordinary claim" is in fact called by competent people, a "Long Term economic forecast". They are the life blood of most Think Tanks, universities and economic institutions. They are NOT "extraordinary", they are daily routine. As for the editors saying seminar presentations are not reliable, i (as well as another editor) say they are, and indeed they are in most cases the only way new knowledge is promulgated.81.210.206.223 (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Predicting a currency collapse 11 years in advance is exceptional. How many other "economic forecasters" have done so? If you can show that it is a routine activity then I'll revise my opinion.

Seminar presentations are primary sources: one person's view without the oversight of an editorial board.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Predicting a currency collapse 11 years in advance is exceptional" (This is an opinion)

"How many other "economic forecasters" have done so?" (This is irrelevant) "If you can show that it is a routine activity then I'll revise my opinion." =(This is a mix-up of 2 arguments, i said economic forecasting is routine, i however did not say, that forecasts of financial/monetary collapses are routine, this is your invention. Forecasts of this type are, albeit seldomly, made by futurologists or senior economists like Gerald Celente. Anyway, DO i have to convince WB? Is this an attempt to WP:OWN this article? 81.210.206.223 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages operates by consensus.

The assertion that the subject correctly predicted the currency collapse eleven years prior is a remarkable claim. If it weren't remarkable we wouldn't be discussing its inclusion. (Nobody cares if the weatherman correctly predicts tomorrow's rain.) A remarkable prediction like that should have independent sources. We don't even know when or how this alleged forecast was made.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Query

From what I saw at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, the main basis for whatever support LaRouche enjoys here and overseas is his economic theories, proposals and forecasts. I have looked in this article for coverage of them, and found the following: cursory mentions of an Oasis Plan 1975, a three step program in 1976, a brief summary of programs under "National Democratic Policy Committee," Eurasian Landbridge proposal in 2002, and an economic forecast in 2007. Is it really the case that among all the sources that were used to compose this article, that is all we have? Delia Peabody (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Delia, would a subheading "Economic Proposals" for each decade 1960-2010 solve the problem?81.210.206.223 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the life of the individual. The "Views" article is about the views of the individual and his movement. Let's avoid muddying the waters.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, some of it is about the individual. Much of it is gossipy speculation about the internal affairs of LaRouche-related groups, or the nonsense about another member marrying LaRouche's former girlfriend. Since LaRouche is a political activist, is it not safe to assume that he engaged in specific political campaigns while all this is going on? Inquiring minds want to know. Angel's flight (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

His political campaigns are covered in Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns   Will Beback  talk  02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean campaigns for public office, which are by nature non-specific. I mean campaigns for things like legislation that he authored, or someone else's legislation that he sought to defeat. What were the issues of the day that occupied his and his organization's time? Other than scandals, real or alleged? Angel's flight (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

His proposals are covered in the "Views" article.   Will Beback  talk  02:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not about the "views" and by the way, the article has long ago left the sphere of being about the "life of the individual". You know it, everyone knows it. Right now, proposals are mixed into THIS article with no consistent principle. A special subheading might help. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If too much material about views, proposals, etc is in the article now the remedy would be to move that material to the more appropriate article, not to add more.   Will Beback  talk  00:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that there was "too much" material in here, that is what you said.Please stop putting words into my mouth. I am asking for a principled way to structure the proposals.

If you want an article about a politician that mentions no views and/or proposals you might also want an article about a horse that does not mention its legs. Cheers! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If the material on horse's legs grows so long that it is sufficient for a standalone article then it's no longer to devote much space to them in the main article.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that analogy works, because it fails to take into account how WP:NPOV (and WP:BLP) applies here in a manner that it wouldn't there. Excluding or minimizing LaRouche's own views might have the effect of giving undue weight to his opponents. In this manner, a separate article on his views could become a de facto POV fork in disguise. *** Crotalus *** 16:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This article includes significant coverage of LaRouche's views of himself, the topic of the article. LaRouche's view on other topics are covered in the other article.   Will Beback  talk  19:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As for structure, the article follows a straightforward chronological structure.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Recap of neutrality dispute

Over the past weeks I've taken a much closer look at this article, so I am posting an updated survey of neutrality issues, and a summary of observations made by myself and others. During this same period the article has been rewritten in parts by SlimVirgin, and I would say that most of the changes have been for the better, but problems remain.

• There are substantial unresolved "weight" issues, which were the original reason for the neutrality dispute. Responses by the two editors who control the article have been indicative of the problem:
  • When the question is raised about the long and detailed discussion of unproven allegations by LaRouche's opponents from the 70s, it is argued that anything from a published source on these topics is appropriate and necessary for inclusion. On the other hand, when there is a request for greater coverage of LaRouche's political or economic intiatives, it is argued that "We only report significant points of view, not everything ever published." As Crotalus put it, "Excluding or minimizing LaRouche's own views might have the effect of giving undue weight to his opponents."
  • Then there is the question of what belongs in this article as opposed to other LaRouche-related articles. When the original attempt was made to move criticism of the NCLC and US Labor Party to National Caucus of Labor Committees and US Labor Party (), it was rebuffed, with the argument that "It's appropriate for a biography to discuss a subject's activities and the public responses to them." When a proposal is made for greater coverage of LaRouche's political activities (as oppposed to real or alleged scandals,) the response is that we have other articles for those topics.
  • Events which would be of obvious biographical interest are given short shrift. For example, why did LaRouche meet with Mexican President Lopez Portillo and Indian President Indira Gandhi? Surely they were not just a social calls.
• Other problems:
  • Misplaced Pages:ASF#ASF says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Some of SlimVirgin's recent edits are retrogressive in this regard. For example, He joined the next year, adopting the pseudonym Lyn Marcus for his political work; King writes that this was to avoid problems with employers or the FBI was changed to He returned to Lynn in 1948, and the next year joined the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), adopting the pseudonym Lyn Marcus for his political work to avoid problems with employers or the FBI. Dennis King's book contains many errors and fabrications; his claims, if they must be included, should be attributed without exception.
  • WP:BLP says that biographies should avoid having a tabloid quality. For example, the speculation sourced to Paul L. Montgomery that LaRouche changed political direction because his ex-girlfriend married another member of the movement is pure TMZ. The very old and never-proven allegations about "ego-stripping" and brainwashing receive extremely lengthy and detailed treatment in the article. BLP says "it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Also, WP:NOTSCANDAL says to avoid "Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." I would not say that this article is written purely to attack LaRouche's reputation, but I would say that it is written primarily to do so. Angel's flight (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dennis King's book contains many errors and fabrications...

I'm not aware of any determination that King's book is inaccurate. Can you provide evidence of this charge?   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. LaRouche frequently characterized his opponents during the 70s as "proto-fascist," despite their claim to be leftists. He mocked their supposed opposition to fascism in an article called “Solving the Machiavellian Problem Today,” (New Solidarity, July 7, 1978), saying "It is not necessary to wear brown shirts to be a fascist….It is not necessary to wear a swastika to be a fascist….It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist to be a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one!" Dennis King slyly takes this quote out of context and implies that LaRouche was in fact recommending that his readers become fascists. This is a clumsy and malicious trick, and King is still so pleased with it that he features it on the opening page of the online version of his book on his own website. In case anyone may think that this is merely a careless oversight by King and not a deliberate misrepresentation, King reveals the truth toward the end of his book, saying "As LaRouche, referring to his enemies, said in a 1978 speech: 'It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist to be a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one.'" Now that I have provided a typical example at your request, would you mind responding to the substantive issues I raise above? Angel's flight (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics