Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jacona (talk | contribs) at 15:24, 2 July 2014 (→WP:BLPN regarding "controversial" in first sentence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.

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

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Virginia Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

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

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

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

• Talk page archives
• Talk page index
• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Australian media coverage
• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/works
• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research

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.

• The New York Times, before 1981.
• The New York Times, 1981–present.
• The Washington Post, before 1987.
• The Washington Post, 1987–present.
• Mintz, John. "The Cult Controversy", The Washington Post, includes a series on LaRouche.

Interviews and original research

This is for the benefit of 69.243.1.208 who is presumably a new editor and unfamiliar with policy. This editor is edit-warring to restore this material, which comes from an interview. We stay away from using interviews as source material (see WP:PRIMARY.) We avoid using primary sources because it puts the Misplaced Pages editor in the position of selecting a few sentences from a long interview, because that editor finds them appealing, or hopes to make some sort of point. Instead, we prefer secondary sources, because some author with credentials and/or editorial oversight, whose identity may be verified by Misplaced Pages readers, is making an informed decision that the lines in question are of particular interest. See also Misplaced Pages:No original research. Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Fursov redux

Volunteer Marek has removed the Fursov quote on the grounds that "he is a crazy conspiracy theorist who thinks the Boston Marathon bombing was orchestrated by the US government." I did a web search and I found no evidence that he has said that. I did find that he has said some things about Ukraine which are likely to run counter to Volunteer Marek's ideology. If there is a reliable source saying that he said something weird about the Boston Marathon (either than that the US ignored intel provided by the Russians, which is common knowledge,) please post it. If there is reliable secondary source that is BLP-worthy and says Fursov is a nut, please provide a link to that. Otherwise, please refrain from deleting sourced material which has already been extensively debated, translated, etc. on this talk page. Joe Bodacious (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

. Sigh. You made me link and give google juice to stuff that's better unlinked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Searching through the Talk page and archives leads me to believe there has never been a consensus to add Andrey Fursov to this article. So I would wait until one develops, or just leave it out. There have been many attempts to put 'reviews' in this article that were nothing more than LaRouche paid advertisements or Schilling Institute ravings. Dave Dial (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at the source in question, http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fterra-america.ru%2Fintellektuali-nazivaushie-larusha-fashistom-ne-yavlyautsya-intellektualami.aspx and what I'm wondering is has anyone that can read Russian verify any of this? Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. However the source isn't being quoted. A machine translation of the source is being quoted. There is no indication that this is a machne tranlation until you click the link. Further per WP:NOENG at the section "Quoting non-English sources" it specifically says not to use machine translations for Biographies of living persons.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The matter of translation was a subject of a previous discussion. I can't find the link right now, I can post it later. If you type in "Fursov" into the search archives box in the talk page templates above you can find it - a few clicks away. The point though - and this was the point made in that previous discussion - is that regardless of whether Fursov is being translated correctly or not, he is simply not a reliable source of the kind that you'd want to include in an Encyclopedia article. Because he's a conspiracy guy and all. Who thinks that the Boston Marathon bombings were the work of US government. And other stuff (that discussion took place, IIRC, before the Boston Marathon bombings and it concerned other wacky things he said). So it really doesn't matter if it's being translated correctly or not. It's just WP:FRINGE stuff.

The only way I can see of including that quote is if we say "According to the conspiracy theorist Fursov..." or something like that. But per WP:BLP it just makes more sense to leave it out altogether.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The BLP violation is a bigger deal. I'm not familiar with his fringe views on the Boston bombing but I would have to review them. Honestly since it's unrelated to the topic at hand I'm not sure that disaqualifies him. He is apparently a well known Russian Historian. Without verifying your position that is what comes to mind.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess that depends on how you define "well known Russian Historian". None of the Russian historians I know of take him seriously or are even aware of him. He's got a degree though I guess.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't define that. And really you haven't offered up much to define that with. You mention his fringe positions. I'm just not sure calling the world flat removes your reliability to call the moon round. That be a long and painful conversation that I honestly feel you want to have and certainly I don't want to have it. The above policies I mention however offer a pretty straight forward case. That case can be worked around by for instance offering something other than a mchine translation. But then in the case that there's more to look at. If this machine translation were acceptable I would ask what is the relevence and what is being said. His opinion on Western critics of LaRocuhe may fall under being a significant minority POV but in that case a question of notability Pops up. But "Fursov said that in Russia not so many people know of Larouche, although, of course, the important thing is not the quantity, but the quality." I'm not sure what that means. I have assumptions but I think as this seems to be a primary source and the assumptions would basically be original research. I missing the relevence behind it's inclusion. A small undetermined group in Russia like LL. But then as I said I don't have a proper translation to really ask anything. But I think we both currently agree that this shouldn't be in the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, if you would be so kind as to scroll up the page just a little, or click here if you prefer, you can find the first Fursov discussion, which didn't happen all that long ago. The translation is not by a computer, it was made by User:Amble at the Russian Reference Desk. I followed the link to Marek's video and I am unimpressed -- what he says is ambiguous and could be easily interpreted as a claim that the US simply exploited the bombings to change the subject from other, more embarrassing topics. Compare that to some of the truly outlandish claims by Chip Berlet or Dennis King which are all over this article -- and neither of them is a credentialed academic. Since we are giving so much weight to those claims, I think it is appropriate under NPOV (if we can't simply remove them under BLP) to allow Fursov to rebut them. We can't call Fursov a conspiracy theorist based on Marek's opinion, due to the rule against Original Research. In fact, I'm still waiting for any reliable secondary source that might discredit Fursov. Joe Bodacious (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You sourced it to a machine translation. When someone clicks your source they go to the machine translation. "Fursov said that in Russia not so many people know of Larouche, although, of course, the important thing is not the quantity, but the quality." I wondering how this is relevent. It really sounds like inane banter. As far as the rest of what he says, I'm sure why it should be removed even if he is a conspiracy theorist. The question I would pose is if he's represnts a significant view point ( minority or otherwise). Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't source it to anything, I'm not the one who added it. The line for which you are wondering about relevance was added much later by Binksternet, who mistakenly thought that it was negative and was therefore eager to add it. User:Amble was asked to clarify the translation, and it turned out that it meant something different than what Binksternet thought. As far as I am concerned, that sentence is useless and should be removed. The part about people who call LaRouche a fascist should stay, as long as we are also quoting the people who call LaRouche a fascist. Joe Bodacious (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaking we have a consensus here to leave out, "Fursov said that in Russia not so many people know of Larouche, although, of course, the important thing is not the quantity, but the quality." As for the machine translation as a source you were the last person to restore that information so it does really follow you. If you go to restore it at any point use the original source instead of the machine translation. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is a consensus to omit that section. The section which was there earlier, where Fursov refutes the Dennis King claim that LaRouche was secretly a fascist, should stay under NPOV, unless the King claim is also removed. The only argument that has been offered against the Fursov quote is Volunteer Marek's personal opinion, based on a tortured interpretation of a YouTube video, that Fursov is "fringe." Dennis King's book is available online and I have read parts of it -- King jumps to the wildest and most extraordinary conclusions based on the wispiest evidence, which to me is the hallmark of a conspiracy theorist, AKA "fringe." King also has no credentials of any sort that I am aware of, whereas Fursov has a Phd in History, is the Director of Russian Studies at Moscow University, and is a member of the International Academy of Sciences. Under the circumstances, I can think of no policy-based reason to retain King's BLP-problematic accusation while excluding Fursov's refutation. I hope that some of the edit-warriors who have been deleting it will provide us here with some explanation. Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Small corrections: Fursov is affiliated with the Moscow Institute for the Humanities; and it's not at all clear that membership in the International Academy of Sciences is a meaningful credential. --Amble (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@DD2K and Binksternet: I have participated extensively in this discussion, and provided policy-based reasoning for including the original Fursov quote. The two of you have avoided the discussion like the plague, and simply reverted on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. I think that it is time you demonstrated good faith and provided some sort of rationale. Under the circumstances, I think it is particularly ironic that DD2K continually reverts using "no consensus" as an edit summary (and then leaves an "edit war" warning on my talk page.) I've been watching these LaRouche-related pages for a couple of years now and what jumps out at me is that Fursov's view is highly characteristic of coverage of LaRouche in the establishment media of Russia and China, whereas in the establishment media of the U.S. and Europe the typical denunciations of LaRouche have grown much milder over the past several decades. It seems that there are some editors here that are nostalgic for the 1980s and want to make Misplaced Pages a showcase for Dennis King, etc. But NPOV dictates that we include all significant points of view "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias." Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not been discussing the issue here because Volunteer Marek, Amble and Serialjoepsycho have been bringing up the points I am concerned with.

Coverage of LaRouche has not grown milder. LaRouche is an old man now but he is still injecting controversy into the world. In the 2010 book Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices, editor Roger Chapman selected Chip Berlet to write the section on LaRouche. Berlet does not describe LaRouche in "milder" terms. See page 315. Editor Kathlyn Gay does not describe LaRouche in "milder" terms in the 2011 book American Dissidents: An Encyclopedia of Activists, Subversives, and Prisoners of Conscience: An Encyclopedia of Activists, Subversives, and Prisoners of Conscience. Gay says on pages 377 to 380 that LaRouche continues to engage in confrontational politics in the 2000s, comparing Obama to Hitler, continuing with his charge that Jews are conspiring to take over the world, and that US and UK banking policies are fascist. Gay's sources include LaRouche's own writing as recent as 2010, and writing about LaRouche from Marc Ambinder's 2009 article in Atlantic, Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons in the 2000 book Right-wing Populism in America, and April Witt from a 2004 article in the Washington Post Magazine. She also uses the Dennis King book, showing that it still has relevance. In any case, there is no factual basis for your assertion that LaRouche is denounced in a "milder" fashion in recent years. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You have participated, but you refuse to listen. There have been several long time editors that have objected to adding this to the article. Whether the reasons are WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. Just because you believe the reasons aren't good enough, doesn't mean you can edit war to continually add the disputed section. Once it's challenged, you should not re-add the disputed material until consensus is formed. Or you can take the issue to another venue. But to refuse the reasoning of other editors, while continuing to insert the disputed material is edit warring. And will eventually lead to a block, topic ban or both. Dave Dial (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It's difficult to reach consensus without any discussion. First, I'd like to point out that neither of you are offering a reason to exclude the Fursov material. Marek said that in his personal opinion, Fursov was a "fringe" commentator, but of course, Misplaced Pages requires secondary sources and prohibits original research. As far as I can see, that was the end of that particular argument. Binksternet, your listing of WP:TERTIARY sources that include Berlet's POV is not an argument for excluding Fursov's POV. DD2K, you are citing WP:CONSENSUS, but you may have missed the part that says "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." Joe Bodacious (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not even try to support a Fursov exclusion because it is the burden of the person who wants to include disputed text to argue for inclusion, and I don't see your view catching fire here. What I did instead is rebut your assertion that a neutral portrayal of LaRouche should be "milder" than what we now have. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to refresh your memory about two things: WP:BURDEN says that the person who adds disputed material must demonstrate that it is verifiable, and I don't think that verifiability is being disputed here. It doesn't say that the person who adds disputed text must make everyone WP:LIKE it. Secondly, WP:CONSENSUS says this: "Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines." So, once again, the fact that you and DDK2 don't like the material does not absolve you of the responsibility to present policy-based reasons why you think it should be excluded. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE emphasis! First, it's from a Russian source which gives the reader a false sense that LaRouche has a strong base in Russia. Kyril or Cyril Benedictine, Fursov's interviewer and the author of the article, says in a different article that the size of the LaRouche movement in Russia should not be exaggerated. (See "The Last Rosicrucian, Part III"). Second, Fursov's comment itself has no substance; it is just a put-down. We don't need to tell the reader that Fursov gets irritable with regard to intellectuals who call LaRouche a fascist. The reader doesn't care a fig about Fursov's opinion on the matter. If the reader was interested in the fascist label as applied to LaRouche, they would want to know why it is applied to LaRouche, not whether Fursov gets irritated. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting reasoning, since the article is full of similar "put-downs" of LaRouche by his opponents, also without explanation. I have read chunks of King and Berlet on-line, and they appear to be asserting that they have telepathic powers, since LaRouche claims to be crusading against fascism and the two of them claim that secretly LaRouche likes fascism, which they can ascertain by hearing "echoes" and "coded language." It all strikes me as decidedly fringe-y. As far as LaRouche being popular in the Russian establishment press (I never claimed he had some sort of mass movement there,) see Lyndon LaRouche#2003–2012: Overseas press coverage, financial crisis. Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to argue whether LaRouche should be described as a fascist you should start another discussion topic. Of course, I would point out that it's far more than just Berlet and King who say this. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You pick and choose(cherry pick) texts within policy almost as much as you and Waalkes pick and choose parts of an interview to include in this article. It's undue weight, and as another editor stated, if we were to even consider inserting anything concerning Fursov's small mention of LaRouche, other measures would need to be included as well. The fact that you continue to ignore objections and try to use portions of policy to support you ignoring those objections, seems to be an underlying tactic by more than a 'few' LaRouche editors. As it seems both you and Waalkes have almost exclusively edited articles concerning LaRouche, this is getting very tendentious. Dave Dial (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not a credible argument. First of all, I didn't add the Fursov quote, but it's obvious why that quote was selected for that section, which is entitled "Allegations of fascism, anti-Semitism, and racism." It's a view, directly on that topic, by a notable commentator. As far as citing of policy is concerned, that is exactly what we're supposed to be doing. The few times you have cited policy, you have gotten it wrong, which is why I felt obliged to quote the relevant sections in hopes that you would gain a better understanding of the policies you were citing. And don't characterize me as a "LaRouche editor" -- that's a cheap trick to imply COI. I watch a number of articles about political dissidents, but I see a lot more POV shenanigans on the LaRouche articles than on the others. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit. Dave Dial (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I ran those programs with my name and yours, and my name and Binksternet's, and got much the same results. So I'm not at all sure what your point is here, unless it is simply to express your unwillingness to use this talk page for the purposes of improving the article. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Per DD2K's suggestion I have taken this to another venue, WP:NPOVN#Andrei Fursov quote at Lyndon LaRouche. Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently feeding on a diet of Red Herrings and with Cherries. Yet, I cannot see any policy based reason for the exclusion of the quote. Waalkes (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead too short

I have tagged this article because the lead is much too short. I came here to learn about LaRouche's political philosophies, hoping they'd be in the lead. The article is 187,296 bytes before my tag and WP:LEADLENGTH would suggest that the lead be at least 4 paragraphs. As I know nothing about this topic, I felt a tag was better than WP:SOFIXIT. Would people following this page be so kind as to add to the lead? Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a separate article on LaRouche's political philosophies, Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. Up until the end of last year there was a longer lead for this article which I thought was better, but there was an unfortunate edit war, which apparently could only be ended by adopting the present super-short lead. Here's a link to the older version: Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Joe Bodacious: Thanks for the reply! I'll check out that article. This page still really does need a longer lead though. But I can understand why edit wars might occur here. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPN regarding "controversial" in first sentence

I have posted there concerning using Misplaced Pages's voice to call LaRouche "controversial". This violates WP:LABEL, and in turn, WP:BLP. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed it. There is no question that the man has been controversial, but that cannot be in the lede, and it cannot be "said" in Misplaced Pages's voice. §FreeRangeFrog 00:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it can. The fact that LaRouche is controversial is widely known, not a matter of dispute. The possible sources supporting the word "controversial" are legion, and we cited one of them in the first sentence.

The word "controversial" is apt, and should be returned. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. It's probably the least of the descriptors one could use in the lede. This is not a BLP issue. There can surely be a discussion about what descriptors to use in the lede, but to pretend it's a BLP issue to describe a controversial figure as "controversial" is a step into fantasy land. Dave Dial (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. We (as in we, the supposedly neutral Misplaced Pages editors) cannot flat out call someone "controversial" so that the people who read the article think we've poured our negative opinion of the subject into the intro, no less. We can say something like "LaRouche's (career, views, eating habits, whatever) is considered to be controversial by XYZ" followed by a good set of citations. That's what WP:NPOV exists to enforce - avoiding passing judgement on a subject. "Controversial" is as inappropriate there as "brilliant" would be, which I assume would be removed without hesitation if a fan of his politics decided to add it. §FreeRangeFrog 05:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Both "controversial" and "brilliant" may be appropriate for rare biographies. This one is most certainly appropriate for "controversial". LaRouche is so controversial that people use him in passing as an obvious example of someone who is controversial, despite the text being about something completely different. Here are some sources specifically about LaRouche:

• LaRouche's own biography, published by his own organization, says he ranks "among the most controversial international political figures of his time".
• Respected military historian H. Paul Jeffers writes, "The protesters were led and organized by and consisted mainly of supporters of Lyndon LaRouche, a controversial political figure." Freemasons: A History and Exploration of the World's Oldest Secret Society, page 107, Citadel Press, 2005.
• John M. Allswang, Professor of History at California State University, Los Angeles, wrote that "the leaders of these proposition campaigns were primarily political rather than medical figures, and none of them was more controversial than Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr." The Initiative and Referendum in California: 1898–1998, page 190, Stanford University Press, 2000.

That's just a start. I can fill the page with this stuff. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

When I submitted Vaillancourt Fountain for GA review, I got mild criticism for including 8 or 9 references calling the fountain "controversial" so I trimmed the references back a bit. In this case, I think it would be an easy matter to find scores of references calling LaRouche "controversial". It might be difficult to find any in-depth coverage of LaRouche in reliable independent sources that doesn't use the word "controversial" or a close synonym. We should summarize what reliable sources say, and this characterization seems completely justified. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no issue with using controversial. The MOS is about the effect and usage of words. How do you think this usage has introduced bias?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed the controversial word before checking Talk and seeing there is a discussion about it. But I obviously also believe it shouldn't be there. Not for any BIAS reasons but because it tells us nothing. (Every activist and politician is controversial). The lede needs to say what his position is and who opposes it. "Controversial" tells us absolutely nothing about him or his positions. Ashmoo (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The word controversial in the lede smacks the reader in the face with a non-neutral point-of-view. The controversy will flow from the documentation in the article, to include it in the lede undermines the encyclopedic neutrality we strive for.Jacona (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Left Proto Fascists

Fascism is by nature a reactionary right wing phenomenon. To call it left-fascism is contradictory and eclectic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:309E:D2BE:3A43:8540 (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on this, but FWIW Misplaced Pages has an article on Left-wing fascism. Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears that it is not uncommon for rival groups of leftists to call each other left-fascists. Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Modern Fascism originated 100 years ago when the question of how to respond to the outbreak of World War I disrupted socialist organizations. Benito Mussolini had been a leading Socialist Party activist and newspaper editor when he was ousted for nationalist support of the war. He then founded the fascist movement. Fascism originated, then, as a specific nationalist variant of revolutionary socialism. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources can call it that. Reliable sources can be contradictory and eclectic. Your original research not withstanding.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Virginia articles
• Low-importance Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed Economics articles
• Unknown-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press