Misplaced Pages

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:07, 28 February 2011 editThincat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,971 edits →Image of poster: rationale← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:11, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,935,511 editsm →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
<!-- ((bot-generated}} -->
{{Talk header}}
{{Controversial}} {{Controversial}}
{{Article history|action1=FAC
{{Talk header}}
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=B|listas=Larouche, Lyndon|priority=Low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=low}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=23:21, 22 December 2005 |action1date=23:21, 22 December 2005
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Lyndon LaRouche/archive1 |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Lyndon LaRouche/archive1
Line 12: Line 9:
|currentstatus=FFAC |currentstatus=FFAC
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|blp=other|listas=Larouche, Lyndon|1=
{{onlinesource|year=2004|section=January 2004
{{WikiProject Biography| politician-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Virginia| importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes |American-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|NH=yes|NH-importance=Low}}
}}
{{Annual readership}}
<!-- ((bot-generated}} -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 26
|algo = old(61d)
|archive = Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive %(counter)d
}}<!--Automatically goes to a new archive page if the archive is over 250 kB, threads with no new comments in the last two months get moved to the current archive page. Archiving is done once a day around midnight UTC-->

{{Press
|year=2004
|section=January 2004
|title=LaRouche for president: The campaign that keeps on going |title=LaRouche for president: The campaign that keeps on going
|org=Loudon Times-Mirror |org=Loudon Times-Mirror
|date=January 27, 2004 |date=January 27, 2004
|url=http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=10876575&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506040&rfi=6 |url=http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=10876575&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506040&rfi=6
|year2=2006
}}
{{onlinesource|year=2006|section=June 2006 |section2=June 2006
|title=Can History Be Open Source? Misplaced Pages and the Future of the Past |title2=Can History Be Open Source? Misplaced Pages and the Future of the Past
|org=The Journal of American History |org2=The Journal of American History
|date=June 2006 |date2=June 2006
|url=http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html |url2=http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html
|year3=2009
}}
{{onlinesource|year=2009|section=Featured |section3=Featured
|title=Sierra Madre Actor Takes a Stand Against LaRouche Propaganda |title3=Sierra Madre Actor Takes a Stand Against LaRouche Propaganda
|org=The Sierra Madre Weekly |org3=The Sierra Madre Weekly
|date= December 1, 2009 |date3= December 1, 2009
|url=http://sierramadreweekly.com/featured/sierra-madre-actor-take-a-stand-against-the-larouche-propaganda-camp/ |url3=http://sierramadreweekly.com/featured/sierra-madre-actor-take-a-stand-against-the-larouche-propaganda-camp/
}} }}
<br clear="all" /> <br clear="all" />
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Lyndon LaRouche}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Lyndon LaRouche}}
<inputbox>
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche
break=yes
width=60
searchbuttonlabel=Search Lyndon LaRouche talk archives
</inputbox>
*] *]
*] *]
Line 45: Line 52:
*] *]
*] *]
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive index|mask=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive <#>|Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive<#>|leading_zeros=no|indexhere=no|template=<template location>}} {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive index
|mask1=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive <#>
|mask2=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive<#>
|mask3=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Australian media coverage
{{LaRouche Talk}}
|mask4=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/works
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|mask5=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|leading_zeros=no |indexhere=no |template=
|counter = 23
}}
|algo = old(100h)
{{LaRouchetalk}}
|archive = Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive %(counter)d
{{Broken anchors|links=
}}<!--Automatically goes to a new archive page if the archive is over 120 kB, threads with no new comments in the last 7 days get moved to the current archive page. Archiving is done once a day around midnight UTC-->
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (Mann-Chestnut hearings) ]. <!-- {"title":"Mann-Chestnut hearings","appear":null,"disappear":{"revid":608302989,"parentid":608287400,"timestamp":"2014-05-13T00:32:13Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
}}


== Suggestion for a remedy == == Policies and sources ==


===Content policies===
<s>
See ] and ]:
I don't see any way to avoid the problem that Crotalus points out, that the article relies on LaRouche's opponents for content. This may not be an optimal situation, but I think that enlightened editing could produce a neutral article that does not become a platform for the opponents' views.


"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ...
BLP says that articles should be written "conservatively," and in a highly controversial article such as this one I think we should take that seriously and then it should be possible to keep conflict to a minimum. The standard that I used in working on the "Views of LaRouche" article was ]. When we are relying on LaRouche's opponents for source material, I think the biggest problem area is going to be when these opponents are attributing views to LaRouche but framing them in such a way as to discredit him. I also think that it is undesirable to include allegations by opponents about the internal workings of the organization, because it is hearsay and likely to be biased information. The "conservative" course of action is to write an article based on information in the public record -- I think this is what makes the "LaRouche Criminal Trials" article successful, because it is very ''factual'' and does not rely upon anything that cannot be verified.


"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—
I went on Amazon and looked at the George Johnson book and found it to be a mixture of biographical information and sardonic commentary. I think a neutral BLP could be crafted by emphasizing the biographical information and de-emphasizing that which is contentious. In the case of the Johnson book, for example, I would omit that comment where LaRouche's followers "denounced him as part of a conspiracy of elitists that began in ancient Egypt," since I'm pretty sure the LaRouche people would take exception to how that is worded, and I am also skeptical of Johnson's commentary about the "briefings." I also think that perhaps Johnson's analysis of LaRouche's views belongs in the "LaRouche's views" article, but that's a different issue. On the other hand, I saw a lot of non-contentious, useful content, and Johnson provides at least a partial answer to the question that was raised about why LaRouche met with the Mexican President.
# it is not unduly self-serving;
# it does not involve claims about third parties;
# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
# the article is not based primarily on such sources."


===Sources===
I can only see snippets of the Jackson book but I suspect that it might also be possible to glean solid biographical information from it without adopting the author's polemical tone. ] (]) 11:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''
LaRouche lived all his adult life in New York (1953–1983) or Virginia (1983–present), which means the two major ] are ''The New York Times'' and ''The Washington Post''. Both have written extensively about him, including several extended investigative and analysis pieces from the 1970s to the 2000s. These articles provide the structure of much of this article—in that we highlight what they highlight. For their archives on LaRouche see below. For the books we use see ].

:Why did you remove that he had formed relationships with Ku Klux Klan supporters? The source () says: "By promoting this abstruse ideology Mr. LaRouche has developed alliances with farmers, nuclear engineers, Black Muslims, Teamsters, pro-lifers and followers of the Ku Klux Klan." You removed the Ku Klux Klan from that list, and placed it instead in his list of foes. Can you explain? It's an odd thing to remove given that his former head of security was a Klansman.

:He may have made statements against the Klan itself, of course, if you want to clarify that (it's hard to find a group he hasn't made statements against at some point). <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 15:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>::In ''Architects of Fear'', page 22, Johnson says "LaRouche counts among his enemies not only international bankers, the Federal Reserve, and the Trilateralists, but also Ken Kesey, Bertrand Russell, ''Playboy'' magazine, the Nazis, the Jesuits, the Zionists, the Socialist International, and the Ku Klux Klan." So I guess it's both. However, following the link to the Klansman I think you mean, ], he is not described as "former head of security" for LaRouche, but only a consultant. ] (]) 15:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''

:::I believe he was described by the police or courts as head of security, or former head (I forget which), when LaRouche was arrested. I've tweaked your Klan edit for flow. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>:::Incidentally, I don't think inclusion of these sorts of lists is helpful in moving the article toward neutrality. Any political commentator has "likes" and "dislikes," but I think that lumping disparate targets together in a list like this is a method of "framing" by LaRouche's opponents that is intended to seem comical. It isn't necessary to include it in the article, in my opinion, or if it is necessary, it should go in "Views of LaRouche." ] (]) 16:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''

::::The article is currently slanted toward LaRouche, because we don't include a great deal of the criticism, and barely mention it in the lead. It's not for us to decide what's appropriate. The reliable sources decide that. We highlight what they highlight, so long as the quality is good. You can't claim that all the reliable sources are "opponents." <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

*''...the article relies on LaRouche's opponents for content. ''
LaRouche considers almost everyone an opponent, including the mainstream press. We should not tailor the article to exclude those whom LaRouche has attacked, or who have criticized LaRouche or the movement. We're here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>:I think it's fair to say that the book-length treatments upon which much of this article relies are authored by what outside observers would call "opponents". C'est la vie. I must respectfully disagree with what SlimVirgin says about "highlighting". When a Misplaced Pages editor extracts 5 or 6 lines from a 400-page book in order to use them in the article, this is an entirely independent editorial decision, not dictated by the book's author. I am proposing some guidelines for how those decisions might be better made, to create a more neutral article, adhere to BLP, and lessen the tendency toward disputes among editors. Do you disagree with my suggestions? I'm asking that they be discussed. ] (]) 14:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''
::No, I don't agree with your suggestions, which are based on speculation and your own personal views. Misplaced Pages has a procedure for identifying reliable sources. We don't need a special set of rules for this page. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>:::I'm sorry you disagree. The rules for identifying reliable sources are not at issue here. The problems with this article, in my opinion, are problems of NPOV and BLP, both of which govern how reliable sources are used in articles. I don't advocate any "special rules" for this page. I am suggesting that we agree on an approach for the application of NPOV and BLP, because it seems that quite a few editors have expressed concerns about this article coming up short with regard to those policies. ] (]) 22:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''
::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but your suggestions seems to be that you will determine which reliable sources are "opponents", and then we will treat those sources differently. If so, I object to that. If there is an objective determination that some sources are unreliable, then that's a different matter. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>:::::If the term "opponents" makes you uncomfortable, disregard it. I think the suggestions I am making about how to better conform to NPOV and BLP should be applied to ''all'' reliable sources, and in my opinion, this article will be substantially improved as a result. I'd like to request that you respond to the suggestions themselves, which I will re-state without any reference to "opponents": ''BLP says that articles should be written "conservatively," and in a highly controversial article such as this one I think we should take that seriously and then it should be possible to keep conflict to a minimum. The standard that I used in working on the "Views of LaRouche" article was ], and I propose that views attributed to LaRouche, whether directly quoted or not, be verifiable from original sources. I also think that it is undesirable to include any allegations about the internal workings of the organization, because it is hearsay and likely to be biased information. The "conservative" course of action is to write an article based on information in the public record -- I think this is what makes the "LaRouche Criminal Trials" article successful, because it is very ''factual'' and does not rely upon anything that cannot be verified.'' ] (]) 23:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''
::::::::I am very content to follow ], ], ], and ]. You are creating new rules which I do not accept. You are making assertions with no basis, such as saying that all sources which discuss the movement's inner workings are likely biased and rely on hearsay. "Hearsay" seem to be a derogatory term for common reporting. If a source is reliable then we should use it, if not then not.
::::::::I assume there are specific sources or assertion that you're concerned with. Rather than creating new rules in the abstract, it'd be more productive if you specified anything in the article that violates the core Misplaced Pages policies so we can address them directly. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>:::::::::Again, I am not "creating new rules." I am trying to encourage a conceptual discussion of what BLP means when it says "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively." I don't think this article is written "conservatively," compared to other BLPs of controversial individuals. If I need to break it down sentence by sentence, I can do that, but I thought it might be useful to approach it more generally first. ] (]) 00:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''
:::::::::::"Conservative" isn't defined in the policy, but in the context it seems to mean "carefully". However you are suggesting additional rules, such as arbitrarily deciding that some sources are from opponents and that sources that describe the internal working as are likely to be biased. None of that is in the policies. I think we'll be fine if we follow them as written. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::Obviously, the King and Berlet books are reliable sources, but also appear to be works of opinion. The issue is that since this is a BLP, we try to give the subject the benefit of the doubt. In my opinion, this means that criticism can be applied more liberally to the "LaRouche movement" article than here. This article, in my opinion, según Delia's suggestion, should be more of a dry recital of the events of LaRouche's life and platform, and the contrary opinions of his actions should be contained, for the present, in the articles that focus on his politics of his and his followers. ] (]) 10:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::Seconded. This may mean the introduction of a sentence in the introduction that shows how the Larouche article are forked, like in "This article is about the views of Lyndon LaRouche. For an overview of his organization, see LaRouche movement, and for the man himself, see Lyndon LaRouche", likewise "This article is about Lyndon LaRouche. For an overview of his organization, see LaRouche movement, and for the Larouche criminal trial, see "LArouche criminal trials". ] (]) 15:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The King book doesn't appear to be any more a work of opinion than most biographies. It was widely and favorably reviewed when it was published, and since then it has been cited by most other writers on LaRouche. The fact that LaRouche and HK seem to hate King should not affect our use of it. I don't know what Berlet book you're referring to, but if we use a Berlet source we can do so appropriately. Again, this all seems rather abstract. If someone wants to propose an edit that'd be fine, but I don't see how this hypothetical discussion helps anything. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 11:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Remember that the "King Book" is not a "biography" by any standards. ] (]) 15:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Sez who? Every library and database I see calls it a biography. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I dare to call it, respectfully, an "UFO on its flight of fancy from LaRouche to secret Nazi bases below the polar ice". Seriously, how did those UFOs end up in a "Biography"? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Sources and structure ==

;Sources
A couple of people have asked about the sourcing for the article, so I'm describing it here for future reference.

LaRouche lived all his adult life in either New York (1953–1983) or Virginia (1983–present). That means the two ] for information about him are ''The New York Times'' and ''The Washington Post''. We are lucky in that regard, because they are two of the most authoritative newspapers in the world, and they have both written extensively about him, including several major investigative and analysis pieces from the 1970s onwards. They have a tendency to be somewhat understated in their writing, the ''Times'' in particular, which is helpful here. Their articles provide the backbone and focus of much of this article—in the sense that we highlight what they highlight—augmented by academic and other writers, and on occasion by LaRouche himself.

Their archives on LaRouche can be accessed here:


*, before 1981. *, before 1981.
Line 113: Line 87:
*, before 1987. *, before 1987.
*, 1987–present. *, 1987–present.
*Mintz, John. , ''The Washington Post'', includes a series on LaRouche. *Mintz, John. , ''The Washington Post'', includes a series on LaRouche
== Spelling error ==

In addition to the above, the main books we use—books about him, or with chapters or significant sections on him—are listed ].

;Content policies
The content policies (], ], and ]) say we should reflect the views of reliable ]s, and should highlight issues in rough proportion to their inclusion in those sources. ]s may be used to augment secondary sources with caution, though not for anything contentious; see ] and ]. Self-published sources by LaRouche may also be used with caution for anything non-contentious to augment secondary ones, subject to ]. Looking at each section in these terms:

;The lead
The current lead is arguably a violation of NPOV and ] in that it leans in favour of LaRouche, doesn't adequately reflect the views of the best sources, and omits several significant controversies. We do mention the cult issue, the antisemitism, and the fascism concerns, but only in passing. It's obviously difficult to write about these issues, because they inevitably look entirely negative, which explains the lead's current approach.

;1960s
This relies on some of LaRouche's own writings, but the issues aren't contentious, so it seems fine to do that.

;1970s and 1980s
The 1970s reflects the mainstream coverage well, except that we don't touch on the distinctive language he's known for, which is an issue we should consider developing (succinctly) in future. We should also develop the concerns about his relationship with the Soviet Union, and perhaps add something more (very briefly) about his philosophy.

The 1980s is okay too, except that the section on the Strategic Defense Initiative is sourced mostly to LaRouche, so that should be re-sourced. The NBC lawsuit section could perhaps be developed, because it was pivotal in a number of ways. His relationship with Bailey wasn't as straightforward as we portray it (he sued them, or they sued him, I forget which), so we should tidy that up, and make sure we're not lifting what he said about LaRouche out of context.

;1990s and 2000s
LaRouche was most active until his imprisonment in 1989, when he was 67. He has been less active since then, so has been written about less during the 1990s and 2000s. We include a few things in the 2000s that secondary sources haven't covered, which isn't ideal. The most coverage was triggered by Jeremiah Duggan's death and the Obama healthcare issues. If I were writing this alone, I don't think I'd split the 2000s into five sections, but I'd have to look through the newspaper archives again for ideas about how best to structure it. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small>

:The '']'' is unusual in that they make most of their archives available without a paywall. OTOH, they don't have a good way of searching for them as their archive search goes to a paywall site. Luckily, they're searchable through Google. Many of them are wire reports originating from other sources. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 01:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

===Comments===
:I have come across some biographies by now, good, bad and really bad ones. Bad biographies usually are prone to fall into many traps, like psychoanalytical fancy, or they highlight minor episodes and cover up major events.
I stated earlier that I agree with Cla68's point that a biography should be a "dry recital of the events in a person's life". If we decide what to exclude or include, what to highlight and what to neglect, this decision is not entirely onto us and may not be based upon our personal preference. I thus cannot agree that LaRouche is known for a "distinctive language". What does that mean? I am totally at a loss here. Also, where does the claim that LaRouche was "less active since 1989" come from?
:What does "active" mean in this context? Did the output of published papers decline since 1989? Where there less campaigns going on? What is the source for that particular claim? I would also claim that from 2000 to the present the Duggan Case has received attention from the media, but was it a major event for the subject of the biography? What about the 2001- campaign against the Neoconservatives? What about 2002? This Schiller-Institute Website "International Interventions" lists many activities of LaRouche in 2002. Same here for 2003 What about his 2004 presidential campaign? Activities in 2005: , 2006: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/lar_related/2006/lar_list_2006.html, 2007: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/lar_related/2007/lar_list_2007.html, 2008:http://www.schillerinstitute.org/lar_related/2008/lar_list.html. What about ] in 2010? Now, I do not claim that ALL those events and campaigns have equal importance, but they have been, albeit partially, covered and received recognition in the mainstream media. ] (]) 21:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::I don't think "less active" is accurate. However he received much less attention in secondary sources after his conviction than before it. The lists that 81.210.206.223 posts are all from the Schiller Institute, which is not a secondary source for LaRouche. Per ], prominence in secondary sources is how we determine how much weight to give topics within an article. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>:::As an experiment, I did Google news searches on Kesha Rogers + LaRouche (,) "Jeremiah Duggan" + Larouche () and "Kenneth Kronberg" suicide + Larouche (.) However, ] also says "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." So the question regarding Jeremiah Duggan may be how significant Jeremiah Duggan is to the subject of this article, not whether LaRouche is significant to the subject of the Jeremiah Duggan article. Also, I have a question for Slim and Will -- can you give me an example of any other BLP article in which a similar percentage of space is given to the opinions of critics? ] (]) 00:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''
::::According to whom are the sources we use in this article critics?
::::Google hits are too crude a measure to use as a standard. A passing mention gets the same weight as an in-depth profile. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>:::: I have entered the query ""larouche critic Dennis King" SITE:washingtonpost.com" in google and right now my cursor hovers over the search button. And i WILL press it...] (]) 01:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::Could you explain what means you are using to calculate the relative "prominence in secondary sources" of individual topics under ]? And is it the case that you see nothing in this article that you would consider "criticism" or "the opinions of critics"? ] (]) 01:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''
:::::::King is a critic, but also the best available source. However even that source is only use twelve times, out of more than 120 citations, or fewer than one tenth. Since King is so widely cited by other reliable sources, we could use that book much more without giving it undue weight. Regarding DUE, it's pretty clear in the policy: ''Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. '' By extension, if 200 sources mention LaRouche's presidential campaigns then those should get more space than his congressional campaign mentioned in only a couple of sources. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 02:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::''Since King is so widely cited by other reliable source ...'' Would those all be critics too? After all it wouldn't be surprising to find critics of any particular subject referencing each other now would it. ] (]) 08:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::One can imagine all sorts of scenarios, but doing so doesn't help us build an encyclopedia. Our aim is to use the best possible sources, and one common measure of a source's reputation is how often it's cited by other authors. But we've already discussed the King book a few dozen times on this page. It's been established as a reliable source. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 08:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Its not a question of the King book but whether by quoting other critics that are in effect simply referencing King, one isn't in effect a acting a bit like the grocer with his thumb on the scales. ] (]) 19:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Our job, as Misplaced Pages editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::That may be hard to do if one is stuck in a feedback loop, and just as an observation some seem to be complaining that it is so strong there is a perceptible squeal emanating from the articles. From what I read here the impression is that he is more loopy-lou than most American politicians, definitely into lala land, are there no redeeming features? ] (]) 21:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::::As I said above, this article is kinder to him than the sources are, in that we've left out or minimized some of the significant controversies. The normally understated ''New York Times'' had an article about him on its front page in 1974 with the word "savagery" in the headline, and it's been downhill from there.

:::::::::::::This has little if anything to do with Dennis King. We could remove everything sourced directly or indirectly to him, and the substance of the article would be the same. And in any event, his book is widely regarded as reliable. It's only the LaRouche movement that has started the unreliability meme, but they smear everyone who criticizes them, so it would be unwise to take that seriously without an independent source. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 22:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I see. So as with ] a total rotter with no redeeming features at all. ] (]) 23:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::All we can do here is go by the reliable sources, and make sure they're high quality for anything contentious, which is what we've done. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 23:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Not one redeeming feature at all? Amazing even a stopped clock is right at least once a day. But it seems that here we have disproved the old adage that something cannot be sliced so thinly it only has one side. BTW what was the result of the earlier questions regarding reliability of foreign language sources? ] (]) 00:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::It's not the purpose of Misplaced Pages articles to specifically seek out damning or redeeming qualities in biography subjects. As I wrote above, we just summarize reliable sources. If there are sufficient sources which say that the subject loves dogs and bunnies, or donates to African orphans, then we can add that.
:::::::::::::::::The preponderance of views at RSN seem to say that the Pirogov seminar paper is not a reliable source for a BLP. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Regardless of purpose, having made 600+ edits over 5 years to this article have you really not come across a single article, fact, comment or whatever, from a RS that wasn't ] in some way? ] (]) 01:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::John, this page is here so we can discuss the contents of the article, and specifically the source material. If you want to discuss it, the sources do have to be read. We can't read them for you. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 01:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::{{outdent}}There appear to be 120 sources used in the article, it has been edited on and off by two people over a 5 to 6 year process, and they have both been instrumental on deciding what is or is not a RS concerning the article. Now after all of that time there is a neutrality tag on the article. Rather than ferreting through 6 years of arguments in diverse places, it seems reasonably to ask those two people, that are the undoubted experts on the matter, whether there have ever been any positive RS concerning this guy, that are incorporated into the article. So far neither of the article experts have been able to point to a source that presents this person in a favourable light at all. One doesn't need to read 100s of sources, and the minutia of discussion going back 6 years to conclude that a process that over 6 years has not discovered a single positive feature about a person is truly remarkable. ] (]) 11:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::What's a "positive RS"? What's a "positive feature"? Can you give examples? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 11:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Playin' stupid is not helpful WB, on the contrary.] (]) 14:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Well I suppose I have my answer as to why this article has a neutrality tag plastered all over it. But good grief fellow, is it really the case that the editor of a BLP page, of five years standing, and having made 600+ edits to the page, countless talk page contributions and battled through a number of notice boards, is incapable of recognising when a source is making a positive comment about someone, or when the subject of the article they edit is said to have been right about something, anything at all. ] (]) 21:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I really don't know why you're even asking the question about "positive RS" and "positive features". The article is full of both. We frequently cite the subject's autobiography. If that isn't a "positive RS" then what is? As for "positive features", we mention all kinds of achievements that most people would consider positive, like meeting foreign leaders, running for political office, proposing legislation, and so on. So if that's what you're looking for then re-read the article and you'll see it's already there. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::**shrug** None of what you mention are achievements or particularly positive. We've all met foreign leaders. My wife's sat on a podium with Putin, I've shook hands with the Queen of England - I have a super8 film of my sister talking with her mother, and the for President. ] (]) 23:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::So then I have to ask again: what are you looking for that isn't in the article? Please be more specific than just "positive". &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::That presupposes that I actually give damn about the minutia of this article - News I don't, and even if I did why would I want to spend time battling over it across numerous notice and incident boards? My sole interest was why this article is incapable of balance, and you have adequately answered that in the above discussion, thanks. ] (]) 09:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::I see. You haven't read the article and you don't care about it. Yet you have a strong opinion about it. You asked about positive material and sources, I pointed you to some, but I didn't respond quickly enough or those aren't what you meant by positive, so therefore you understand fully the problems with the article. Thank you for participating in this volunteer project where everyone is welcome. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 09:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::I believe there was some recent discussion about using some non-English sources to add some neutral or positive content to the article? ] (]) 02:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::The only recent discussion of a foreign source concerned Pirogov, and the preponderance of input at RSN was that the seminar paper is not a reliable source. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::That's not how I remember it. Ah, from three weeks ago, it appears to have been archived. There was an Arabic and Chinese source. Are these two sources currently used in the article? Also, the discussion on the Pirogov source at the RS Noticeboard was split as to whether it was reliable or not, which means we have to decide amongst ourselves here whether we use it or not. ] (]) 04:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::There are many sources that we don't cite. We could write an article several times this long and still not use them all. We should rely mainly on the best available sources.
:::::::::::::::::::::::How do you figure the RSN discussion of Pirogov was split? Almost all of the uninvolved editors seemed to say that the seminar paper wasn't appropriate. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 05:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::A lot of facts are hard to describe as negative or positive. The subject met with world leaders. The subject sponsored a state initiative on AIDS. The subject ran for president. Are these positive or negative? They're neither. They're just facts. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 02:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I posted the main newspaper archives above. The only way to learn about him is to read the articles. It's a lot of reading, but there's no unfortunately no shortcut if you want the information (independently of this article) and a sense of the scale and flavour of the coverage. I didn't see your earlier question, sorry. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 00:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

===NPOV tag===
I'm intending to remove this, unless an editor not associated with the LaRouche movement gives very specific examples of how NPOV is being violated, examples that are actionable within the policies. The tag was added recently because someone wanted the Russian/Chinese section to be restored, and it was, bar one source that didn't gain consensus here or on the RSN. Even that material arguably shouldn't have been added, but it's there now.

The tag has been used inappropriately for years by various LaRouche accounts as a bargaining chip, and it's not something we should be encouraging. Discussions can always continue without tagging. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 13:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>:Looking back at the talk page archives to ], it seems that the reason for the tag was not so much lack of the Russian/Chinese section (that was Angel's Flight who has been blocked.) The original reason was more general issues of weight which I don't think have been resolved. I attempted unsuccessfully to address them in the "suggested remedy" section above. I will summarize what seems to me to be problematic:
:*The original issue was higher weight given to the 1970s than the recent decades. It is said that there is less coverage of recent decades in secondary sources. At the risk of raising a sensitive issue, an 8-part interview in the main Chinese government paper was probably read by more people than all other sources combined. Also, as has been pointed out, there is no coverage of the Kesha Rogers primary win, which got significant coverage including at least one in-depth write-up in the U.S. (''Time'' magazine.) I think there needs to be some transparency here in examining the criteria for giving "weight" to sources.
:*It seems to me that there is more space in this BLP devoted to criticism than in any other BLP I have looked at. Put aside for a moment the controversy over whether the sources cited are called "critics." Criticism can come from non-"critics", and more importantly, factual information as opposed to opinion can come from "critics." My suggestions above, boiled down to essentials, were that this article could be brought better into conformity with BLP by reducing the ratio of opinion to factual information in the article.
:I think it is important that these issues be resolved and I support keeping the tag until such time as that has been accomplished. ] (]) 15:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''

::Let me ask you to address this from another starting point. Which criticism of LaRouche in this article do you think is legitimate, well-sourced, and appropriate for this article? <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 15:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>:::For "well-sourced," I would say that after an initial scan of the article they all look OK except for one. An allegation that unnamed members of the NCLC attacked an unnamed paraplegic member of the SWP with clubs is sourced to an opinion piece in the ''Washington Post'', which in turn attributes the story to ], a rock and roll magazine. In my opinion, that's too weak a source for an exceptional claim. For "legitimate" and "appropriate", I think the allegations of anti-Semitism under "Ideology: Plato, Aristotle, allegations of fascism, anti-Semitism" qualify, and I would retain a significantly shortened version of the Blum/Montgomery allegations which I think presently receive undue weight. I am concerned about the number of unsubstantiated allegations in the article. I am also concerned about numerous characterizations of LaRouche's views - my first reaction is that they belong in the "views" article, and secondly, I would want to check them against original sources for accuracy. I must say on the question of Dennis King that I found the example of misquoting that was given by Angel Flight to be disturbing. ] (]) 15:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''

::::*I'll look at the ''Washington Post'' paraplegic point again.

::::*Which allegations are unsubstantiated (in the sense of unsourced or poorly sourced)?

::::*You're welcome to add any primary sources to footnotes to augment the secondary sources, but you have to be careful you don't engage in OR. If the ''Post'' says LaRouche said "X," and you find in a primary source that he said "sort of X," you may not be looking at the material the ''Post'' looked at.

::::*I don't understand your point about King. That quote isn't in the article, and very little in the article, and nothing contentious, relies on King.

::::*The Blum/Montgomery material is important. It was a major, two-part investigation in the ''New York Times'', introduced by an editorial written (as I recall) by the editor-in-chief, and it appears to have caused or contributed to the demise of the U.S. Labor Party.

:::::*Montgomery and Blum. , ''The New York Times'', October 7, 1979.

:::::*Montgomery, Paul L. and Blum, Howard. , ''The New York Times'', October 8, 1979; courtesy copy .

:::::*''The New York Times''. , editorial, October 10, 1979, courtesy copy .

:::::*Also see Montgomery, Paul L. , ''The New York Times'', January 20, 1974.

::::*To argue that our coverage of it is UNDUE is wrong-headed. We highlight what the good sources highlight. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 15:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

{{od}} The paraplegic allegation: this is about a period in the 1970s in which LaRouche and his followers were physically assaulting left-wing activists in the streets and during meetings with bats and clubs. This is not denied by LaRouche, though he says he was not the instigator. Several arrests were made in the New York and Philadelphia areas, and it stopped. One of the victims was reportedly disabled.

*Our article says: "Writing in ''The Washington Post'' that year , Stephen Rosenfeld said LaRouche's ideas belonged to the radical right, neo-Nazi fringe, and that his main interests lay in disruption and disinformation. The NCLC had been terrorizing a number of people on the left, he wrote, including Noam Chomsky, Marcus Raskin, and Lester Brown, and had attacked SWP Party members in Detroit with clubs, reportedly including a paraplegic member."

*The source is Rosenfeld, Stephen S. , ''The Washington Post'', September 24, 1976. is information about Rosenfeld.

*The source says:

:<blockquote>For a long time I thought the NCLC (LaRouche) was just a bunch of harmless left crazies who phoned a bit too often to report that the Rockefellers were cannibalizing the world. Not until ''Washington Post'' reporter Bill Chapman's story of September 12 did I realize that for some years the NCLC has been terrorizied a broad center-left band of the political spectrum: ], ], ], ], the Community Party, United Auto Workers, and so on.<p> Then I found two other factual accounts worth reading, Charles Young's "Mind Control, Political Violence and Sexual Warfare: Inside the NCLC" in the June ''Crawdaddy'' ... In a typical detail, reported by Young, NCLC goons in an attack on a Socialist Workers party meeting in Detroit "beat a paraplegic with clubs."</blockquote>

*The ] feature was Young, Charles M. "Mind Control, Political Violence & Sexual Warfare: Inside the NCLC," ''Crawdaddy'', June 1976, pp. 48–56, and it said:

<blockquote>Incidents are too numerous to mention, but among the choicer ones were disruption of a Martin Luther King Coalition meeting in Buffalo where they beat a women who was seven months pregnant; a riot at Columbia where about 60 NCLCers stormed a stage during a mayoral debate in a failed attempt to assault the CP candidate, and an attack on an SWP meeting in Detroit where they beat a paraplegic with clubs.</blockquote>

There's also Hyatt, James C. Hyatt, "A Communist Group Uses Fists and Epithets To Battle U.S. Unions," ''Wall Street Journal'', October 7, 1975.

It would be worth getting hold of these. And also William Chapman's ''Post'' story. In the meantime, we can add in-text attribution to our article. It might be worth looking to see whether Chomsky has ever written about this. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 20:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:FWIW, I have a copy of "U.S. Labor Party: Far to the Left Of the Far Left" by William Chapman, ''The Washington Post'', September 12, 1976. It's a bad copy of a scratched microfilm, but mostly legible. It includes a substantial amount of material on violence and verbal attacks by LaRouche's movement against unions and leftist groups, as well as other background.
:Regarding HK/Angel's flight's assertion of a misused quote, I don't see it. While King did quote a line without giving extensive context, that isn't necessarily an error. He didn't assign any specific meaning to it and readers can interpret it for themselves. It's not an example that proves the book unreliable.
:As for charges of anti-semitism, they are so commonly made that they deserve some discussion.
:The New York Times material is important and cited by many other authors. We can add more citations for much of that material, which isn't exclusive to the Times. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>@SlimVirgin: The claim from ''Crawdaddy!'' is a good example of what I mean by "unsubstantiated allegations." The alleged attackers are not named, the alleged victims are not named, the persons making the allegations are not named, and of course, there are no arrest or court records. BLP says "Be wary of sources... that attribute material to anonymous sources." When you say "Several arrests were made in the New York and Philadelphia areas, and it stopped," you are quoting Dennis King, but when I followed the link to King's book, I also found no specifics, and significantly, no mention of any convictions. I think that it might be appropriate to mention that there were many allegations, coming from both sides, but even if they were published in a reliable source (not ''Crawdaddy!'') I would still think that under BLP, it would be neither legitimate nor appropriate to give anonymous allegations weight beyond just that.

On the question of UNDUE, you say once more that "We highlight what the good sources highlight." You make it sound like the source comes with instructions as to which sentences or paragraphs are to be inserted in Misplaced Pages, and the editor does not need to use any personal discretion or judgment at all. I find this very difficult to accept. From the Blum/Montogomery articles we have a very lengthy section which says basically that LaRouche was paranoid about being assassinated and had armed bodyguards. I find this to be very unremarkable. It was probably true of a majority of militant leaders at the time -- and possibly with good reason, when you consider how many activists actually were assassinated, including even minor figures like ]. Giving such a long and detailed account makes it look like LaRouche must have been far more gun-crazy than other militants (many of which liked to have themselves photographed holding firearms.) It's an example of something I think could be UNDUE. ] (]) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''

:I've seen Chapman's article in the Washington Post now, and added details from it. We had those details (Chomsky et al being threatened) sourced before to Stephen Rosenfeld, who was referring back to the Chapman article. I also added in-text attribution for the material Rosenfeld cited from Crawdaddy. Delia, when the Washington Post publishes serious allegations in this way, we follow suit because it's a high-quality news source. We can't start dissecting whether their journalists got things right, or whether they ought to have cited other organizations.

:The majority of militant leaders didn't believe the CIA, KGB, and British royal family were plotting to kill them over a period of 30 years plus. And now that you mention it, did someone remove from the article that he recently accused the royal family of wanting to assassinate him? <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 15:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>:::I see now that you have added even more in the way of anonymous allegations in . Some of these allegations don't even directly name LaRouche -- you have one that only says "Piven was almost pushed down a flight of stairs by someone calling her a fascist and CIA agent." You have also gone on to use ''Crawdaddy'' as a source, which I think is very ill-advised. Don't you think it would be appropriate to look for consensus before making an edit like that? It's certainly not likely to help resolve the neutrality dispute. ] (]) 15:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''

::::Once again—they appeared in the Washington Post, they do name LaRouche and his followers, and they're consistent with stories that appeared in many publications, including other high-quality ones. The director of the FBI even confirmed the violence issue personally, and LaRouche did not deny it. Our article can't make light of it because the LaRouche movement is objecting.

::::I added this because you felt the Rosenfeld story alone wasn't good enough. So I added another. Now you complain about the second. But, as you know, there are lots of articles about this, written by good, independent journalists. Almost every major press story about LaRouche around that time focused on, or alluded to, these issues. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 15:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

::::A few weeks ago, there was a discusssion on WP:RSN whether a published seminar paper by academic G.G. Pirogov (senior politologist, leading researcher at the Lebedev Institute) , in which he gave an introduction to L.Larouche's philosophy and accomplishments. This source was initially termed "obscure" and "exotic" and not regarded as as "reliable". Now comes "Crawdaddy!", 25 cent countercultural rag and is being pushed as a "reliable source" because "high-quality" sources have used it? What does that say about the "high-quality sources"? Why is there some much haste in putting in a rocknroll tabloid and rejecting a scientific presentation?] (]) 16:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::It was in the Washington Post. Had the Post or any other reliable publication chosen to highlight what Pirogov said, we would have used it too. Please read the policy, ]. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 16:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::Right now, the article is violating NPOV even more than ever.If a purported "biographical article about a living person" is found to contain the information, that "someone was nearly pushed down a stair" then i truly wonder what this has to do with the subject of the biografy. I hope for a sincere effort to resolve this and other severe breaches of neutrality.] (]) 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::'']'' is itself a reliable source, even it was "countercultural". &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 02:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

===Proposed edit===
<s>
Unlike the reports that LaRouche had bodyguards, which I don't think are very notable, I think the meetings with foreign leaders are quite notable. I am not aware of any other radical leader from the US who managed to do that, and I am surprised that the sources presently in use in this article have so little to say about it. The chronology for this section is presently wrong, because Gandhi died in 1984, so LaRouche did not meet with her in 1985. I would like to propose that it be moved and expanded as follows:

<blockquote>LaRouche and his wife Helga met with Indian Prime Minister ], and Mexican President ] in 1982.<ref>Small, Dennis, , Executive Intelligence Review, Feb. 27 2004</ref><ref name=Mintz85>{{harvnb|Mintz|1985}}.</ref> LaRouche continuted to have frequent contacts with Indira Gandhi up until she was assassinated in 1984.<ref>Singh, Jasjit, Indo-US relations in a changing world: proceedings of the Indo-US Strategic Symposium, Lancers Books, p.84</ref> LaRouche met with López Portillo to warn him about attempts by international bankers to wreck Mexico's economy.<ref>{{harvnb|Johnson|1983}}, p. 208.</ref> A Mexican official told ''The New York Times'' that LaRouche had arranged the meeting with Portillo by representing himself as a Democratic Party official.<ref>.</ref> However, Portillo continued to maintain a relationship with LaRouche, appearing with Zepp-LaRouche in Mexico in 1998,<ref>López Portillo appeared with Zepp-LaRouche in 1998, saying "I congratulate Doña Helga for these words, which impressed me, especially because first they trapped me in the Apocalypse, but then she showed me the staircase by which we can get to a promised land. Many thanks, Doña Helga. Doña Helga—and here I wish to congratulate her husband, Lyndon LaRouche.... And it is now necessary for the world to listen to the wise words of Lyndon LaRouche. Now it is through the voice of his wife, as we have had the privilege to hear. How important, that they enlighten us as to what is happening in the world, as to what will happen, and as to what can be corrected. How important, that someone dedicates their time, their generosity, and their enthusiasm to this endeavor."</ref><ref> Cerda Ardura, Antonio, ''Siempre!'', December 10, 1998</ref> and endorsed LaRouche's candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1999, according to the LaRouche movement in 2004.<ref>.</ref> LaRouche also met with Argentine President Raúl Alfonsín during this period.<ref name=Mintz85>{{harvnb|Mintz|1985}}.</ref> Turkish Prime Minister ] reportedly met with LaRouche in 1987, then reprimanded his aides who had mistaken LaRouche for the Democratic Presidential candidate.<ref>"Turkish Leader Meets LaRouche By Mistake," ''San Francisco Chronicle'', July 30, 1987, p. 13.</ref>

{{reflist}}</blockquote>

I think that these meetings should probably be given even more weight than this. ] (]) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''

:I was concerned about this part that's already in the article; it will have to be confirmed or removed. "However, Portillo continued to maintain a relationship with LaRouche ... and endorsed LaRouche's candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1999, according to the LaRouche movement in 2004." Sourced to , February 27, 2004.

:LaRouche published this after Portillo died. We need an independent source that said Portillo maintained a relationship with LaRouche and endorsed him. Self-published sources by the author of a BLP subject are allowed, so long as they don't mention third parties and aren't unduly self-serving. See ].

:I have no problem with the bits you want to add that appear in independent sources. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 15:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::I agree with SV that the info from the LaRouche publication is a little shaky. Perhaps it could be worded as, "After Portillo's death a LaRouche organization publication, ''Executive Intelligence Review'', stated that LaRouche and Portillo had maintained a relationship and claimed that Portillo had endorsed LaRouche's presidential candidacy." The article is long enough that it wouldn't be UNDUE to include the claim, but I can also understand other editors saying that inclusion of the claim is unnecessary. ] (]) 00:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>:::I have added the material, but removed the contested line about a campaign endorsement. It can be restored if there is consensus. ] (]) 12:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''

::::You've included material that's sourced only to LaRouche. The problem is not only that we're not allowed to do that (see ]), but also, using common sense, if the meetings or statements were notable, or occurred in the way described, someone else would have reported them too. So it's best to use that someone else as a source. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 13:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

===Sources for the edit===
Before adding anything, you need to make sure it relies on independent secondary sources. LaRouche sources can be used to augment, so long as they don't mention other people:

<blockquote>LaRouche and his wife Helga met with Indian Prime Minister ], and Mexican President ] in 1982.<ref>Small, Dennis, , Executive Intelligence Review, Feb. 27 2004</ref><ref name=Mintz85>{{harvnb|Mintz|1985}}.</ref> LaRouche continuted to have frequent contacts with Indira Gandhi up until she was assassinated in 1984.<ref>Singh, Jasjit, Indo-US relations in a changing world: proceedings of the Indo-US Strategic Symposium, Lancers Books, p.84</ref> LaRouche met with López Portillo later that year to warn him about attempts by international bankers to wreck Mexico's economy.<ref>{{harvnb|Johnson|1983}}, p. 208.</ref> He advised the Mexican President to suspend debt payments, to implement ] and to nationalize the banks.<ref>Rodrguez, Martin, , ''Noticias Urbanas'', December 5, 2008. "LaRouche se había encontrado con el Presidente de México José López Portillo y le había aconsejado suspender los pagos de la deuda, declarar un control de cambio y nacionalizar la banca."</ref> A Mexican official told ''The New York Times'' that LaRouche had arranged the meeting with Portillo by representing himself as a Democratic Party official.<ref>.</ref> However, Portillo continued to maintain a relationship with LaRouche, making a joint appearance with Zepp-LaRouche in Mexico in 1998.<ref>López Portillo appeared with Zepp-LaRouche in 1998, saying "I congratulate Doña Helga for these words, which impressed me, especially because first they trapped me in the Apocalypse, but then she showed me the staircase by which we can get to a promised land. Many thanks, Doña Helga. Doña Helga—and here I wish to congratulate her husband, Lyndon LaRouche.... And it is now necessary for the world to listen to the wise words of Lyndon LaRouche. Now it is through the voice of his wife, as we have had the privilege to hear. How important, that they enlighten us as to what is happening in the world, as to what will happen, and as to what can be corrected. How important, that someone dedicates their time, their generosity, and their enthusiasm to this endeavor."</ref><ref> Cerda Ardura, Antonio, ''Siempre!'', December 10, 1998</ref> LaRouche also met with Argentine President ] in 1984.<ref>Rodriguez, Martin, , ''Noticias Urbanas'', December 5, 2008. </ref> Turkish Prime Minister ] reportedly met with LaRouche in 1987, then reprimanded his aides who had mistaken LaRouche for the Democratic Presidential candidate.<ref>"Turkish Leader Meets LaRouche By Mistake," ''San Francisco Chronicle'', July 30, 1987, p. 13.</ref></blockquote>

;Sources
{{reflist|class=1}}


I started checking this and the first thing I saw is that is used as a source for the first point, but Mintz doesn't mention those meetings. Now, that was probably a mistake with the Harvard referencing; perhaps you intended to link it to another Mintz story in January 1985 (I will look at what the others say shortly). But could we write a version here on talk first that very clearly doesn't rely on LaRouche publications at all, and where everything in the edit is definitely in a good secondary source? <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 13:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


;The article already says:

{{quote box4
|quote = LaRouche met with Argentine President ], Indian Prime Minister ], and Mexican President ] in 1985.<ref>Mintz, John. , ''The Washington Post'', January 15, 1985.</ref> A Mexican official told ''The New York Times'' that LaRouche had arranged the meeting with Portillo by representing himself as a Democratic Party official.<ref>Toner, Robin. , ''The New York Times'', April 4, 1986.</ref> Portillo continued to maintain a relationship with LaRouche, and endorsed his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1999, according to the LaRouche movement in 2004.<ref>Portillo, Jose, Lopez. , ''Executive Intelligence Review'', February 27, 2004; note: published posthumously.</ref> Turkish Prime Minister ] reportedly met with LaRouche in 1987, then reprimanded his aides who had mistaken LaRouche for the Democratic Presidential candidate.<ref>"Turkish Leader Meets LaRouche By Mistake," ''San Francisco Chronicle'', July 30, 1987, p. 13.</ref>}}

;Sources for the above:
{{reflist|class=1}}


;Checking new paragraph's sources
*"LaRouche and his wife Helga met with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and Mexican President José López Portillo in 1982."
:*'''Secondary source''': Mintz, John. , ''The Washington Post'', January 15, 1985:
::*"LaRouche himself has had private meetings with Jose Lopez Portillo when he was Mexico's president, Argentine President Raul Alfonsin and the late Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi."

*"LaRouche continued to have frequent contacts with Indira Gandhi up until she was assassinated in 1984."
:*'''Secondary source''': Singh, Jasjit. , Lancer Publishers in association with Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, 1992, p. 84:
::*"America, Israel, Pakistan and Britain were the states alleged to have an eye on Cokambo(?); it may have been a coincidence, but the American political cultist, Lyndon LaRouche, had earlier grouped these four states together in a cabal to encircle and weaken India. LaRouche had frequent contacts with Indira Gandhi before her assassination and his own subsequent imprisonment for tax fraud."

*"LaRouche met with López Portillo later that year to warn him about attempts by international bankers to wreck Mexico's economy."
:*'''Secondary source''': Johnson, George. ''Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics''. Tarcher, 1983, p. 208:
::*"In June 1982, LaRouche flew to Mexico City, under the auspices of his National Democratic Policy Committee, and gained an audience with Mexican president Jose Lopez Portillo, to warn him about attempts by international bankers to wreck the Mexican economy. Both the American Embassy and the Democratic Party issued disclaimers. LaRouche, they said, was not an important American figure, as the Mexican newspapers apparently assumed. He just acted as though he were one. Earlier that year, LaRouche met with India's prime minister, Indira Gandhi. LaRouche believes developing countries, such as India, are especially vulnerable to the oligarch's plot."

*"He advised the Mexican President to suspend debt payments, to implement ] and to nationalize the banks."
:*'''Secondary source''': Rodrguez, Martin, , ''Noticias Urbanas'', December 5, 2008:
::"Two years earlier , LaRouche had met with Mexico's President José López Portillo and advised him to suspend debt payments, to declare a change control and nationalize the banks." Not clear whether this is a reliable source; and is it Argentinian? It would make more sense to use an American or Mexican source for the Mexican president meeting an American politician."

*"A Mexican official told ''The New York Times'' that LaRouche had arranged the meeting with Portillo by representing himself as a Democratic Party official."
:*'''Secondary source''': Toner, Robin. , ''The New York Times'', April 4, 1986:
::*I can't see what this says.

*"However, Portillo continued to maintain a relationship with LaRouche, making a joint appearance with Zepp-LaRouche in Mexico in 1998."
:*'''Secondary source''': An interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Antonio, Cerda Ardura. , ''Siempre!'', December 10, 1998:
::*It won't let me read the whole thing, so I can't see what it says that supports this sentence. You also added a LaRouche source, but we can't support the edit with that.

*"LaRouche also met with Argentine President ] in 1984."
:*'''Secondary source''': Rodriguez, Martin, , ''Noticias Urbanas'', December 5, 2008:
::*But we don't need this, because we already have the ''Post'' (see above).

*Turkish Prime Minister ] reportedly met with LaRouche in 1987, then reprimanded his aides who had mistaken LaRouche for the Democratic Presidential candidate.
:*'''Secondary source''': "Turkish Leader Meets LaRouche By Mistake," ''San Francisco Chronicle'', July 30, 1987, p. 13:
::*I can't see what this says.

It looks as if the material confirmed by secondary sources is roughly what's already in the article. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 15:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>:Well, no, it doesn't. The article, as it was, did not mention the content of the meetings with Lopez Portillo. It had the dates wrong. It didn't mention LaRouche's wife being at the meetings, or her subsequent public appearance with Lopez Portillo. ''Siempre!'' says "La presidenta del Instituto Schiller Internacional y esposa del político estadounidense Lyndon LaRouche (expreso político en su país, quien sostiene que la oligarquía británica es la principal causante del actual caos económico mundial), estuvo en México para dictar, el 30 de noviembre, una conferencia magistral en la Academia de Economía de la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografía, la cual fue comentada por el expresidente José López Portillo," which means "The president of the International Schiller Institute and wife of American politician Lyndon LaRouche (former political prisoner in his country, who argues that the British oligarchy is the principal cause of current global economic chaos), was in Mexico to present, on 30 November, a conference lecture at the Academy of Economics of the Mexican Society of Geography, followed by comments by the ex-president Jose Lopez Portillo." I have no idea why you think an American source would be better than an Argentine source on the topic of Mexico. I hope you will be so kind as to restore the material now. ] (]) 15:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''

===Addition===
So I restored the edit to the article, leaving out the self-published sources, and the interview in ''Siempre!'' that didn't seem to support the edit (if it did, it would help if you could post below what it says). Also left out Rodriguez, Martin, , ''Noticias Urbanas'', December 5, 2008, because it's not clear what the source is, but we also don't need it because we have other sources for the Portillo meeting. The :

{{quote box4
|quote = ===1982–1985: Meetings with world leaders===
In 1982, LaRouche had private meetings with Mexican president ] and the late Indian Prime Minister ], maintaining frequent contact with the latter until her assassination in October 1984.<ref>For the meetings, see Mintz, John. , ''The Washington Post'', January 15, 1985
*That LaRouche kept in touch with Gandhi, see Singh, Jasjit. , Lancer Publishers in association with Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, 1992, p. 84.</ref> George Johnson writes that LaRouche warned Portillo about attempts by international bankers to wreck the Mexican economy, meeting him under the auspices of LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee. Both the American Embassy and the Democratic Party issued disclaimers; a Mexican official told ''The New York Times'' that LaRouche had arranged the meeting by representing himself as a Democratic Party official.<ref>For Johnson, LaRouche's warning to Portillo, the National Democratic Policy Committee, and the disclaimers, see Johnson, George. ''Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics''. Tarcher, 1983, p. 208.
*For the statement from the Mexican official to ''The New York Times'', see Toner, Robin. , ''The New York Times'', April 4, 1986.</ref> LaRouche also met President ] of Argentina in 1984, and Turkish Prime Minister ] in 1987. According to the ''San Francisco Chronicle'', Özal reprimanded his aides who had mistaken LaRouche for the Democratic Presidential candidate.<ref>For Özal reprimanding his aides, see "Turkish Leader Meets LaRouche By Mistake," ''San Francisco Chronicle'', July 30, 1987, p. 13.
*For the Alfonsin meeting, see (above).
*For the year of the Alfonsin meeting, see Rodriguez, Martin. , ''Noticias Urbanas'', December 5, 2008.</ref>}}

{{reflist|class=1}}

<font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 16:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>:You deleted a significant feature, which was ""He advised the Mexican President to suspend debt payments, to implement exchange controls and to nationalize the banks." Your reason seems to be that the source is Argentine, which I think is a pretty weak reason, especially since you retained the same source for the year of the meeting with Alfonsin. You also deleted the material about LaRouche's wife, which is confirmed by ''Siempre!''. There is no reason to delete the SPS sources because you already have secondary sources. Frankly, I don't see how you have presented an argument for any of the material you deleted. Please restore it. ] (]) 16:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''

::My reason was that I couldn't see whether the source was appropriate; do you have a Mexican or American newspaper reporting on this? I also can't see why it's significant; we already have sources for the LaRouche-Portillo meeting. And I couldn't see what ''Siempre!'' said, as I told you. Can you post the relevant sentences here?

::We can't use self-published sources for information about third parties. Please see ] and ], which are policy. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 16:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

{{od}} This seems to be what Delia wants to add to the section:

<blockquote>''Noticias Urbanas'', a publication in Argentina, wrote that LaRouche advised Portillo to suspend debt payments, implement exchange controls, and nationalize the banks.<ref>Rodriguez, Martin, , ''Noticias Urbanas'', December 5, 2008.</ref></blockquote>

{{reflist|class=1}}

It's not a good use of our time to have to keep discussing publications where we're not even sure what they are, in countries not related to the events we're discussing, and which rely entirely on interviews given by the LaRouche movement. The last point wouldn't matter if the secondary source were a good one, and it would matter less if this were about Argentina, but the three things jointly aren't really what we mean by a reliable (and appropriate) source. Delia, can you not look for more mainstream sources for your edits? <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
::My Spanish isn't very good, and Google's is even worse. I'm trying to figure out the meaning of the last two paragraphs of the ''Noticias Urbanas'' article.
<blockquote>Los antecedentes de este hombre indican que fue quien prologó en 1993 junto al carapintada Mohamed Alí Seineldín el libro "El complot para aniquilar a las Fuerzas Armadas y a las naciones de Iberoamérica", donde se critica explícitamente al juicio a las juntas bajo el argumento de que "los integrantes de la junta militar, y por ende toda la institución castrense, fueron enjuiciados por osar enfrentarse a los británicos y por librar la guerra contra la subversión comunista". Las presuntas vinculaciones de LaRouche no terminan ahí. Se lo asocia a una red de apoyo solidaria con el militar argentino Jorge Olivera, denunciado por delitos de lesa humanidad, el cual logró eludir a la Justicia italiana.

Andino no duda en calificar esa información de "imprecisa". Y al finalizar, el dirigente señala que el movimiento larouchista, más que social, es un movimiento de ideas, que en lugar de buscar la masividad intenta mantener la calidad: la conformación de cuadros para el mundo que viene.</blockquote>
::It sounds like someone has asserted that LaRouche is associated with General Jorge Carlos Olivera Róvere, who was "Vice-Chief of the 1st Army Corps during the military dictatorship". But it also seems to say that the source is imprecise or inaccurate. Does anyone here have a better idea of what it says? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

:::: "The alleged links of LaRouche does not end there. It is associated with a support network in solidarity with the Argentine military Jorge Olivera, accused of crimes against humanity, which eluded the Italian justice. Andino not hesitate to describe this information 'inaccurate.'" <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 23:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Thanks. I see that ''EIR'' ran a piece on Olvera in 2000, though it's not available online: ''"The British Empire Retaliates Against Argentine Lawyer". The case of Argentine lawyer and retired Army Maj. Jorge Olivera, who tried to bring Britain's Margaret Thatcher to account for war crimes.'' So it does appear that LaRouche is pro-Olivera, FWIW. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


:There's an article from 1989 which gives a more detailed account of LaRouche's involvements in Latin American politics: "The Americas: Lyndon LaRouche's Latin American Connection" By Sergio Sarmiento. ''Wall Street Journal''. New York, N.Y.: Sep 1, 1989. pg. 1. I can send a copy to anyone who wants it. It's a about 1000 words long, and written by "Mr. Sarmiento, Spanish-language editor of Encyclopaedia Britannica Publishers Inc., is also a newspaper columnist and radio commentator based in Mexico." &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

:::I'd like to see a copy of that if it's no trouble. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 23:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Sent. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are two articles from '']'' that mention the Olivera-LaRouche connection: June 29, 2008 , and February 27, 2004. The archives apparently include several more on LaRouche. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is especially focused on LaRouche. Horacio Verbitsky July 14, 2002 &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 06:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There's some connection between LaRouche and ], "an Argentine army colonel who participated in two failed uprisings against the democratically elected governments". Here are more articles from Argentina: &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

:From EIR: ''...it spotlights imprisoned Argentine military hero and LaRouche collaborator, Col. Mohammed Alí Seineldín, as the only national leader not discredited by Argentina's economic disasters and corruption of the past decade. LaRouche has said repeatedly that the leader capable of steering Argentina away from genocide is former Army Colonel, Mohamed Alí Seineldín. The Malvinas War hero, who has endorsed LaRouche's New Bretton Woods proposal, has been locked up in jail for 11 years, a political prisoner of an Anglo-American oligarchy terrified that his nationalist principles and broad appeal, extending well beyond military circles, could rally Argentines around a program to rebuild the shattered nation.''
:Here's another: May 10, 2002 Fabian Fernández
:I can't tell if this is a blog or what, but it has a long article on LaRouche. 01/12/2002 Wilson García Mérida
:Seineldín's website has a number of articles about LaRouche. There's a list at the bottom left of the page. He calls LaRouche the "amigo y pensador de la humanidad". This article might be interesting too.
:Last but not least, Dennis King has a page devoted to the connection, thankfully in English. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 11:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>::Come on, Will, ''push!'' ''Push'' that POV! How close together are the contractions? ] (]) 15:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''

::::Please don't post trolling messages. If you have something to say to improve this article, then fine. But that's just pointless. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 20:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
::::It looks like LaRouche's "collaborations" with Seineldín and Olivera have received as much or more attention in the Latin American press as his friendship with Portillo. I think they would merit a sentence each in the "World leaders" paragraph. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 20:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
:Here's an older one from '']'' with a brief mention of LaRouche: June 8, 1993 AFP
:Here's a long piece on LaRouche in Brazil, in ''A Nova Democracia'' Nova Democracia: August 2003 Rosa Bond. Much of it is cribbed from King, but the parts about Brazil are obviously original.
:LaRouche is mentioned in the because of the book ''El Complot para aniquilar a las Fuerzas Armadas y a las Naciones de Iberoamérica'', to which both LaRouche and Seineldín contributed. He's also mentioned in their reports on and , in addition to other countries. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 20:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>::''Of course'' the sources are "cribbed from Dennis King," because ''those are the only kind of sources you search for!'' If you were to spend 5 minutes looking for non-defamatory sources, this article might be half-way neutral. Do you realize that your automatic response to a neutrality dispute is to frantically search for more negative material? ''Push'', Will, ''Push!'' ] (]) 22:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''

:::One of the sources borrows background material from King, but the rest of the material in the article is obviously not taken from that book. I've been searching on two terms: "Jorge Olivera" and "Mohamed Alí Seineldín". Both of those are mentioned on LaRouche websites, so the connections are not "allegations" that the LaRouche movement perceives as negative. They are proud of the connections, and apparently view them as a positive. Am I wrong about that? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

===Meetings with World Leaders===
<s>
I am starting a new section because the old one went off-topic. I think that the meetings with various sitting presidents would have to be considered exceptionally significant events in the subject's life, but we don't have anything in the article about why they took place. SlimVirgin, you declared that ''Noticias Urbanas'' was a "poor source," and that it "relies entirely on interviews given by the LaRouche movement," but I see no evidence to back up either claim. In any event the sentence sourced to it is non-controversial: "LaRouche advised Portillo to suspend debt payments, implement exchange controls, and nationalize the banks." If you don't like ''Noticias Urbanas'', I see no reason why we couldn't use a primary source for that, because it doesn't involve third parties. I think it would be important also to find out why LaRouche met with Gandhi as well, since we know that that relatonship too was an on-going one. You also removed the material from ''Siempre!''. You asked for the relevant section to be translated, and I provided it. Here is is again: ''La presidenta del Instituto Schiller Internacional y esposa del político estadounidense Lyndon LaRouche (expreso político en su país, quien sostiene que la oligarquía británica es la principal causante del actual caos económico mundial), estuvo en México para dictar, el 30 de noviembre, una conferencia magistral en la Academia de Economía de la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografía, la cual fue comentada por el expresidente José López Portillo'' ("The president of the International Schiller Institute and wife of American politician Lyndon LaRouche (former political prisoner in his country, who argues that the British oligarchy is the principal cause of current global economic chaos), was in Mexico to present, on 30 November, a conference lecture at the Academy of Economics of the Mexican Society of Geography, followed by comments by the ex-president Jose Lopez Portillo.") That establishes that the relationship continued from 1982 until 1998, which I think is significant and belongs in the article. The fact that the rest of the article is not available on the website doesn't matter, because a useful fact has been established. ] (]) 15:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''


== A few specific proposals that may help resolve the dispute ==

<s>
I think it is possible that arguments from me and other editors about undue weight are being misunderstood. It is not a question of whether the Washington Post is a reliable source or not. WP:DUE says "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." In the case of this article, I would say that "depth of detail" and "quantity of text" both apply.
*I believe that we should reduce -- not expand -- the number of anonymous allegations in the article. BLP says "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." An example of "weasel words" would be that someone received an anonymous phone call that could have been from LaRouche activists, or was harassed by someone who used similar verbiage to that of LaRouche activists -- these don't belong in the article, regardless of the source. Multiple sources making anonymous allegations doesn't make them any less anonymous. I suggest that the appropriate way to handle it is to briefly note that allegations have been made without detailing them or otherwise giving them undue weight.
*The section on "briefings" is pure opinion. I would say from reading it that these are simply persons who disagree with LaRouche's viewpoints, so they call the briefings "flights of fancy," "hate-filled," etc. This I find inappropriate for an encyclopedia, at least not in such extended length and detail. We need more factual information, less opinion.
*Condense the sections about LaRouche having armed bodyguards and LaRouche-affiliated activists having verbal or physical clashes with opponents. The elaborate detail in these sections is undue weight.
*Some topics are getting insufficient weight. I would expand the section about LaRouche forecasting the financial crash 2007 - 2008. His forecasts apparently received international recognition -- I found it in the ''People's Daily'' interviews, for example. I think some of you have access to news archives. Could you check on ?
*Add a section on Kesha Rogers' primary election win, which was covered extensively in ''Time'' and other reliable sources. ] (]) 12:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''

:Delia, I'd like to ask again that you read the content policies: ], ], ], and ]. They work together, so they need to be read together. The problem we're having on this page is that some editors either aren't reading the policies, or aren't reading the sources, so to some extent we keep talking past each other. If we all do two things: (a) use only reliable ]s, and (b) stick closely to the content policies, then almost all disagreements will be resolved easily.

:Material published in, say, ''The Washington Post'' is regarded by us as reliable. There's no point in continuing to argue that they didn't name ''their'' sources; or that they did and their sources weren't good enough. They saw fit to publish it, and that's all we go by. It would help a lot if you would stop arguing that we ought to remove material from these news organizations, because it means we just go round in circles. UNDUE very clearly doesn't apply to this, because several good newspapers (e.g. Post and NTY) covered these issues extensively, with front page articles, long investigative pieces, analysis pieces, and editorials written by the editor-in-chief or the editorial board, and these not just once or twice, but many times over a decade or longer.

:If you want to expand something by all means post the sources for it, in case we've left out things (e.g. Kesha Rogers) that the reliable sources cover. I tried to look at as you asked, but I'm afraid I can't see it. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 16:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

::I added a section on ], as you suggested we should. See . It's based on ''Time'' magazine, ''The Washington Post'', ''The Economist'', and a video of her speaking that the ''Post'' links to. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 17:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

<s>:::You wrote that ], ], ], and ] all work together, but in practice you seem to be saying that we use only WP:V and ignore the other policies ("They saw fit to publish it, and that's all we go by.") The fact that allegations appear in reliable sources tells us that this should be noted in the article, but at the same time BLP tells us to avoid repeating specific allegations from anonymous sources, and DUE (NPOV) tells us not to spend paragraph after paragraph elaborating on them. I am suggesting that with a concise summary ("tightening") you can satisfy all the different policies at the same time. ] (]) 14:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''
::::See part of BLP - ], which gives this example: '' A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source.'' That seems directly analogous. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
:
<s>::::"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article." Allegations made by anonymous parties are by nature not well-documented. ] (]) 15:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''

== Tag ==


self-defence Correct spelling is: self-defense <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)</small>
I've removed the tag, which has been added many times by LaRouche accounts over the years. It's clear that the material from the ''Post'' and ''Times'' can't be removed or minimized within NPOV, because it reflects the overwhelming majority view about LaRouche. Any other details that need to be added can be discussed without the tag being used as a bargaining chip once again. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 20:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


==Living person biography-lock==
<s>:Excuse me, but the NPOV dispute is not about removing material about the ''Post'' and ''Times'', and the NPOV tag is not being used as a "bargaining chip." Other than you and Will, it looks to me that every visitor to this page has commented on the lack of neutrality, and as the tag says, it shouldn't be removed until the dispute is resolved. If it will help, I will initiate a RFC, because I am beginning to feel like I am having difficulty getting a response from you and Will. In the meantime, I have moved the latest thread about unresolved issues to the bottom of the page. ] (]) 21:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''
He's been dead since last year. So why is there still the tag about his being a living person? Are the cultists responsible for keeping that lock there?] (]) 02:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


:Even though I am one of the leading published critics of the LaRouche groups,I am uncomfortable with using the term "cultists" to refer to other Misplaced Pages editors. Can we simply refer to them as "pro-LaRouche editors?" ] (]) 12:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
::Delia, you're one of the LaRouche accounts, perhaps the same person as before. That's becoming clearer with every post you write. As such you ought not to be editing the article, in part because of the ArbCom cases, and in part because you have a COI.
::], good conduct is most important in Misplaced Pages.
::I see no editorial dispute. Anyone can make edits to Misplaced Pages. Everything I see labels him as deceased. What is the issue? ]] 12:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Fair enough. I am alright with Berlet's suggestion.] (]) 18:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
::::Blue Raspberry, the point is: when you put the cursor over the lock symbol it says the article is protected for living persons. As you said, he does not appear to be living, so should we not remove that lock?] (]) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Dogru144}} Sorry, I missed your message a year ago.
:::::{{ping|Lectonar}} ] in 2016. The tooltip on the lock does say that it is in place as a biography of a living person. LaRouche has been in heaven since February 2019, so no longer living. Per the request here, could we try without semi-protection until and unless problems arise? ]] 00:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
::::I plain missed that he died. Anyway, this article's subject was a big topic in Misplaced Pages once, with big problems. Which makes me not very comfortable with complete unprotection. So I will meet you in the middle: I will put it on pending-changes protection, so that everyone can edit it, but there will be a little stopper for vandalism trying to trickle in. The frequency of edits as it is now will not put too much of a strain on pending-changes reviewers. Note: any admin who wants to unprotect completely: go right ahead, no need to ask me. Cheers and happy editing. ] (]) 06:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Lectonar}} Great response, thanks! ]] 20:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


It's locked so the perjorative and non-objective tone STAYS. Stop complaining. He was nuts. Right? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::The article can never be neutral for the LaRouche movement, because they have beliefs about LaRouche not shared by anyone outside the movement. It the article became neutral in their eyes it would violate NPOV and V. The LaRouche accounts have made over 1,000 edits to the article, and that's only counting the known accounts, and not counting the IP edits. The edits invariably try to slant the article in favour of LaRouche in a way that violates the content policies, and when they're challenged they slap the tag on. It can't continue forever. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 22:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


== Lydon LaRouche ==
<s>:::In addition to being a personal attack, this gives the appearance of being a tactic to chase away newcomers and maintain ownership of the article. As I mentioned, every person who has commented, other than you and Will, has noted the lack of neutrality in this article. ] (]) 22:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''


It is clear that the LaRouche movement and organisation, founded by its name giver, is a political fascist sect. They practice brainwashing. Sometimes they function as suborganisations and thus try to avoid prosecution. Directly or indirectly they are responsible for many destroyed existences, even up to deaths and suicides. A dangerous organisation! Stay away from them and anyone supporting or trivialisinf them. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::I haven't seen Delia break or bend any rules. There was a double revert today, however, over the NPOV tag. I hope that won't happen again. I believe it's an editor's right to add/keep an NPOV tag until there is consensus on the talk page to remove it. ] (]) 23:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


== ] has an ]==
:::::It isn't an editor's rights to do that; otherwise practically all articles would be tagged. See ]. Delia is a LaRouche account, there's no point in pretending otherwise. This means he's almost certainly one of the same small group of LaRouche employees (one person, or maybe two) who've been causing a problem with this article since 2004. If he works for LaRouche, he has a clear COI, and shouldn't be editing it. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 23:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 20:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
== "Intelligence network" ==


== Supreme Court cases? ==
<s>
Please explain the basis for . In your last discussion post, you seemed to be accusing me of wanting to "minimize material from the ''Post''", and yet it appears to me that this is exactly what happened with your own edit. I was struck by the fact, when I read the ''Post'' article today, that it seemed more balanced than the Misplaced Pages article. But in your edit you moved the material I added from the ''Post'' in a way that gives greater weight to ''Mother Jones'' and other relatively obscure sources than to the national figures interviewed by the ''Post'', and you reformulated the material from the ''Post'' in a way that makes it appear less positive. ] (]) 22:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)</s>'' <small>sock of banned user &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>''


This page currently says "At least ten appeals were heard by the United States Court of Appeals, '''and three were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court'''", and the page ] vaguely implies similar things. However, I am having a devil of a time actually finding any LaRouche-based SCOTUS cases or decisions (with the exception of United States v. Kokinda, which is tangential). I am hoping someone can point me to those cases, and we should cite/link to them on this page or the criminal trials page. However, I suspect that none exist, and what this[REDACTED] article may be trying to say is that appeals were made to the Supreme Court, which denied them; if that's so, then none of the cases were ever '''heard''' by the Supreme Court. That would explain why I can find, eg, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/1989/01/01/sg890463.txt, but no follow up. ] (]) 12:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
== Image of poster ==


:I haven't been able to find any either. I guess the description on the other page ], "three were appealed to the ]," is the more accurate one. ] (]) 15:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
A link in this article to a commons photograph of a poster ] was deleted by a bot because the image had been deleted on commons. However, the image was subsequently restored though I have no idea of the rationale. I am merely reporting this; I have no view on whether the photograph would improve the current article. ] (]) 10:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for spotting that. I've re-added it to the most relevant part of the article, where it's already mentioned. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 10:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::OK. I have now found the undeletion rationale. and the image was then moved leaving a redirect. ] (]) 11:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:11, 12 November 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lyndon LaRouche article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
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.
Former featured article candidateLyndon 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
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
WikiProject iconVirginia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States: New Hampshire Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (assessed as Low-importance).

Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:


Toolbox
Mediation, arbitration,
requests for clarification, and
other discussions about the
LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement,
AN/I, 2005-8
Arbitration 2006
Arbitration 2005
Arbitration 2004
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Mediation 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Template talk
Categories
This box:
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Policies and sources

Content policies

See WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS:

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ...

"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Sources

LaRouche lived all his adult life in New York (1953–1983) or Virginia (1983–present), which means the two major newspapers of record are The New York Times and The Washington Post. Both have written extensively about him, including several extended investigative and analysis pieces from the 1970s to the 2000s. These articles provide the structure of much of this article—in that we highlight what they highlight. For their archives on LaRouche see below. For the books we use see here.

Spelling error

self-defence Correct spelling is: self-defense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.251.31 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Living person biography-lock

He's been dead since last year. So why is there still the tag about his being a living person? Are the cultists responsible for keeping that lock there?Dogru144 (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Even though I am one of the leading published critics of the LaRouche groups,I am uncomfortable with using the term "cultists" to refer to other Misplaced Pages editors. Can we simply refer to them as "pro-LaRouche editors?" Chip.berlet (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
No personal attacks, good conduct is most important in Misplaced Pages.
I see no editorial dispute. Anyone can make edits to Misplaced Pages. Everything I see labels him as deceased. What is the issue? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am alright with Berlet's suggestion.Dogru144 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Blue Raspberry, the point is: when you put the cursor over the lock symbol it says the article is protected for living persons. As you said, he does not appear to be living, so should we not remove that lock?Dogru144 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dogru144: Sorry, I missed your message a year ago.
@Lectonar: You applied semi-protection in 2016. The tooltip on the lock does say that it is in place as a biography of a living person. LaRouche has been in heaven since February 2019, so no longer living. Per the request here, could we try without semi-protection until and unless problems arise? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I plain missed that he died. Anyway, this article's subject was a big topic in Misplaced Pages once, with big problems. Which makes me not very comfortable with complete unprotection. So I will meet you in the middle: I will put it on pending-changes protection, so that everyone can edit it, but there will be a little stopper for vandalism trying to trickle in. The frequency of edits as it is now will not put too much of a strain on pending-changes reviewers. Note: any admin who wants to unprotect completely: go right ahead, no need to ask me. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@Lectonar: Great response, thanks! Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It's locked so the perjorative and non-objective tone STAYS. Stop complaining. He was nuts. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.211.14.248 (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Lydon LaRouche

It is clear that the LaRouche movement and organisation, founded by its name giver, is a political fascist sect. They practice brainwashing. Sometimes they function as suborganisations and thus try to avoid prosecution. Directly or indirectly they are responsible for many destroyed existences, even up to deaths and suicides. A dangerous organisation! Stay away from them and anyone supporting or trivialisinf them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliachay (talk • contribs) 19:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Supreme Court cases?

This page currently says "At least ten appeals were heard by the United States Court of Appeals, and three were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court", and the page LaRouche criminal trials vaguely implies similar things. However, I am having a devil of a time actually finding any LaRouche-based SCOTUS cases or decisions (with the exception of United States v. Kokinda, which is tangential). I am hoping someone can point me to those cases, and we should cite/link to them on this page or the criminal trials page. However, I suspect that none exist, and what this[REDACTED] article may be trying to say is that appeals were made to the Supreme Court, which denied them; if that's so, then none of the cases were ever heard by the Supreme Court. That would explain why I can find, eg, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/1989/01/01/sg890463.txt, but no follow up. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any either. I guess the description on the other page LaRouche criminal trials, "three were appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court," is the more accurate one. 23impartial (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche: Difference between revisions Add topic