text:
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 8

 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive1
 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive2
 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive3
 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4
 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive5
 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive6
 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive7
 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List of wild fabrications and propagandistic slurs in the present version.

 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Significant Omissions from the current version

Irresponsible edit warriors
I am trying to clear up some of the material on the Herschel Krustofsky list. People who revert these edits should have the courtesy of participating in the discussion on the list. Weed Harper 14:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are trying to smuggle various LaRouchite fantasies back into the article. These will of course be reverted. Adam 14:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your accusation is impolite and wrong. I didn't insert anything; I took out material which is obvious POV, and which you did not defend in the talk pages. Weed Harper 19:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Attn. User:John_Kenney and User:Bcorr: this article is listed under category NPOV_disputes. It is poor Wikiquette to revert numerous edits, which have been thoroughly discussed on the talk pages, without participating in the discussion. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous Sources
After the big fuss made about quoting Ramsey Clark, I think that the allegations from anonymous sources should be removed. Imagine if Herschel or myself tried to put in a pro-LaRouche quote from an anonymous source! An anonymous source cannot be put under the same sort of scrutiny that Ramsey Clark was. It looks like someone is trying to make sure that Fred Newman doesn't come under that sort of scrutiny.

Also, accusations that come from Dennis King should be identified as coming from him, and not simply presented as fact. As far as no one discreditting Dennis King, what is there to discredit? He was a guy scratching our a living as "Caspar the friendly ghost writer", selling term papers to college students. Then he was paid by a bunch of rich right-wingers to write an attack on LaRouche, which was circulated to a tiny group of die-hard LaRouche-haters, and then it wound up in the discount bins at K-Mart. Then Dennis vanished back into obscurity. Weed Harper 19:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * It looks like someone is trying to make sure that Fred Newman doesn't come under that sort of scrutiny.

Does it really? What I wrote was:
 * Ironically, Newman has been accused of similar psychological abuse and of copying LaRouche's methods in his own group, the International Workers Party.

Please explain how this statement "make(s) sure that Fred Newman doesn't come under that sort of scrutiny"?AndyL 20:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * That's not what you originally wrote. And anyway, it's wrong. Who on earth has accused Newman of "copying LaRouche's methods"? Weed Harper 20:25, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That is what I wrote prior to your comment above. As for who would accuse Newman of copying LaRouche - quite a number of people:

 * Newman often bragged about how much he learned from LaRouche, and, as noted below, the reported organizational operations of LaRouche’s group are frighteningly similar to those of Newman’s group.

 * Like LaRouche’s National Caucus of Labor Committees, Newman runs a very tightly con-trolled organization. Like LaRouche, Newman has created numerous organizations (most only paper) with divergent names; some to attract particular individuals, some solely to make money, many with names so similar to true left organizations that unknowing individuals are often fooled (e.g., Rainbow Alliance and Rain-bow Lobby, which have no connection to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition; the Unemployed and Welfare Council, which attacked the Na-tional Welfare Rights Organization, etc.).

(Newman then went on to form the IWP and to apply his own brand of totalitarian psychotherapy to lure and maintain cadre as slave labor, while mimicking LaRouche’s use of transient front groups, as well as his clever habit of accumulating millions of dollars in federal matching funds through pretentious presidential campaigns.)

 * the fact that the IWP's fascination (and rivalry) with Lyndon LaRouche (aka Lyn Marcus) clearly remained intact a full two years after their brief 1973 alliance is indicative of a lingering obsession. As you will note, the paper even quotes LaRouche with occasional reverence. (For LaRouche's early theories, see LaRouche's Beyond Psychoanalysis, "The Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party," and "The Case of Ludwig Feuerbach." See also Washington Post and Political Research Associates.) This article also reveals how the IWP's political tactics eerily shadowed that of the NCLC (in fact, the IWP's venture in to electoral politics may have been motivated by LaRouche's 1975 presidential campaign). Finally, I somehow suspect that Newman has not yet matured beyond the fixation with "power and authority" as outlined herein.

AndyL 21:36, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dennis King
Attention Weed Harper: We have already been through this argument several times with Herschelkrustofsky. King's book is the only published biography of LaRouche. Until someone writes a better one (and god knows why anyone would bother), he is the best source. His book was published by a reputable publisher. Until such time as he is shown to be an unreliable source, we are entitled to cite him. I remind you that Herschelkrustofsky asserted that King had forged his citation of the article in which LaRouche said that only 1.5 million Jews died during World War II. I located the LaRouche article proving that King was right and Herschelkrustofsky was wrong. So spare us further histrionics on this subject. Adam 23:47, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What Herschel asserted was that King provided no quote. Don't put words in his mouth. And King could be Mother Theresa as far as I am concerned, his opinions and theories should still be attributed to him. Opinions and theories are not the same as verifiable research. I think this article would be better if some of the opinions and theories were trimmed. Weed Harper 20:22, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article is now so long that sadly it is necessary to split it in two. I think splitting it along biographical / ideological lines is a good way to do it, but I am open to other suggestions. Adam 00:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * By eliminating large segments of your own theories and gratuitous attacks, you could make the article quite manageable. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We could have an article called United States v. LaRouche that deals specifically with the legal case. AndyL 01:29, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

POV Sources
Just because someone has their own web page doesn't make them a source worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article. I can see why you fellows kept them anonymous for so long. Weed is correct in making the point that if Ramsey Clark's opinion requires a lengthy disclaimer -- after all, he was only Attorney General and a recognized authority on the misuse of the criminal justice system for political purposes -- then there ought to be some discussion of the background, qualifications, and political biases of Dennis King, John Foster Berlet, Tim Wohlforth, Scott McLemee (who the hell is he?), and various disaffected members of Fred Newman's group.

I would suggest that the inclusion of such "sources" is just a disguised form of inserting your own POV. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Scott McLemee is a journalist who wrote the article "Spotlight on the Liberty Lobby" for the fall 1994 issue of Covert Action Quarterly. My source for the new Wohlforth quote is not his website but his book "On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left" coauthored with Dennis Tourish of the University of Aberdeen. AndyL 21:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bizarre Article
This article is loaded with trivia from the 1970s, when LaRouche was pretty much an insignificant figure. He didn't develope any real influence until he was released from prison in the 90s, and the article doesn't cover that period. How useful is that? ---

 * Actually, the limited electoral success of the LaRouche movement was in the 80s and ended with his imprisonment. He had some access as well with the Reagan administration but none to succeeding administrations. Saying that "he didn't develop any real influence until he was released from prison" is an inaccurate statement. As for "trivia" from the 1970s I suppose it might be convenient from LaRouche's standpoint not to mention anything that happened prior to around 1980 (and indeed, his official biography on LaRouche sponsored websites pretty much ignores his days as a "leftist" and the transition to his current views) but this is not an official biography and his history is germane. By the way, in future please log in when you make edits. Making signficiant edits while not logged in is a violation of wikietiquette.  AndyL 21:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't have a log-in, and Wikipedia does not require me to have one -- it just says that it brings "many benefits." If you have a bone to pick with me, e-mail me at peter_abelard@ausi.com. Plus, it wasn't until the 90s that LaRouche was elected to the Universal Ecological Academy of Moscow (BTW, in Russia "ecological" doesn't mean a bunch of greenies), and made an honorary citizen of Sao Paolo.

LaRouche had more influence in the Clinton administration than with Reagan. You won't find it in the media, but it's true. You don't measure LaRouche's influence by electoral results -- you measure it by the spread of his ideas. It's not like professional sports with a scoreboard. And the most important development in the history of the LaRouche movement is the beginning of the LaRouche youth movement about four years ago. LaRouche never gets any real media coverage, he relies on face-to-face discussions and distribution of literature, and that is going on now on a much wider scale than ever before. The real history of the LaRouche movement is just beginning. --C Colden 04:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"LaRouche had more influence in the Clinton administration than with Reagan"? Whose administration introduced the idea of Star Wars missile defense, one of the focal points of LaRouche's platform?--132.162.243.254 22:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Free School courses
Herschel, LaRouche's explanation for giving courses in Marxist economics is from his autobiography. AndyL 02:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Your point being?--Herschelkrustofsky 13:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A google reveals five references to the "Universal Ecological Academy of Moscow", all at LaRouche websites. Conclusion: like the Eurasian Landbridge, it is a LaRouche fantasy. Adam 04:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You seem to have confused "googling" with "research."--Herschelkrustofsky 13:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fot telling whether an organisation is currently in existence or a figment of your imagination it is actually quite effective, as was shown with the Eurasian Landbridge. Adam 13:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Claims made in the article
There are many claims made in the article with no evidence. For example, the claim that LaRouche opposed abortion. See Weed Harper 14:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche doesn't answer the question. He states he opposes the "pro-life movement" but doesnt' give his views on abortion. Perhaps you can explain the "anti-Mathusian" position of the organization he founded, the "Club of Life". What are its views on abortion?AndyL 15:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He states that he opposes single issue politics. He has no view on abortion per se. Besides, you put it in the article to make it look like LaRouche was part of the pro-life movement. That is untrue.Weed Harper 15:09, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What does "Club of Life" do? What is their position on abortion? Do they favour restrictions on it or are they against restrictions?AndyL 15:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * "Abortion Policy:
 * He received a 10% score from Planned Parenthood and a 75% from the National Right to Life Committee.

 * 13. ABORTION POLICY:
 * National Right to Life Committee
 * Pro-life in every way (against euthanasia, capital punishment, etc).

AndyL 15:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Coming over from Requests for Comment
Hi. I have come over here from Requests for Comment after someone posted there links to two old versions of this article and asked for votes of preference between the two. I don't see any reference to this request or to any voting here on this talk page, and the two versions have apparently been superseded by more recent versions. Is there any current interest in garnering outside voters for these two versions, or can the voting request be removed from the Requests for Comment page? --Gary D 08:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Protected
Sorry I didn't get the protection notice and stuff done last night, my connection went belly-up just as I clicked "protect". Please try to hash out the arguments here instead of in the article history. silsor 15:37, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

May I play the devil's advocate?
I've been looking at these talk pages, and two things jump out at me. First, that the participants are mostly highly polarized pro- or anti-LaRouche, and second, that virtually every participant has encountered LaRouche activists first hand on the street.

LaRouche is a revolutionary, and everything he says is a challenge to the status quo, whether in politics, science, or art. The news media defend the status quo, and Wikipedia is part of the news media (it seems that you can put any opinion you like in a Wikipedia article as long as it has appeared in other media.) I doubt that any person has ever supported LaRouche based on media coverage -- they support LaRouche because they have read his pamphlets first hand.

My suggestion to Herschel and Weed is the following: why not stop making a fuss, and let Adam, Andy, 172 and Bcorr make the article just as outlandish and over-the-top as they like? People will compare it to LaRouche's literature, and see that it is completely fake, and get angry, and be more likely to support LaRouche. Don't you think that will serve your purpose better than if the article is a lukewarmish "consensus" article? --C Colden 04:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh no, C Colden, It's not. The point of Wikipedia is to take NO STANCE on anything. See: NPOV. WhisperToMe 02:32, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article in question is light years away from NPOV, and doesn't seem to be getting perceptibly closer. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:08, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To say that LaRouche's influence is measured by his spread of ideas, and not anything factual like stats or votes, is silly since there are no ideas of LaRouche's which are original which deal directly in politics. Now LaRouche can tie in Gauss' 1799 thesis on algebra to the allegedly Malthusian Club of Rome, and if you are familiar with esoteric knowledge and masonic lodges and Judaism in 15th through 19th century England, and use the David VanIcke and Alester Crowley school of research, then pow, it all makes sense. The SDI was not proposed by LaRouche. It was not his idea. Reforming Bretton-Woods, also not his idea. What we are dealing with here on wiki on the LaRouche page are the protests of his minions. Their complaints have resulted in a better NPOV article, and their input is welcome no doubt. Now, the rest of this is my POV. . . Its clear to people familiar with history-not-as-told-by-LaRouche that LLR was trying to follow a path similar to that of Mussolini. Of course Mussolini had far more respect and influence among the mainstream Italian Left before going on to support WWI and starting the right wing squadre Fascisti. Also, Mussolini was far younger and more charismatic and had a better approximation of the situation on the ground. The begining of the economic downturn which was signified by the Club of Rome's pronouncements and the Oil crises led LaRouche to think that the next great depression was fast on its way and that history would allow for the rise of new corporatist leader. The similarities in all fronts are stunning. The cult mind will filter out any information which the mind's indicators sense my shake the foundations of loyalty to the cult, so herchel and weedy and you guys, I'm not trying to change your minds. Capone 20:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Chaim, you got yourself a log-on! And how's your Dad? 172.193.16.95 21:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think Herschel is guilty of POVness too. This is why the Arbitrators are trying to determine who is "right". *groan* WhisperToMe 00:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, no. The arbitration committee made it clear that they had no intention of determining who is "right." They would only rule on issues of Wikiquette, and not on the content of the article. Also, they appear to be closing the case. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Either someone should protect this article again or some action should be taken against those who are reverting to a totally POV version. I've already used up my three reverts and now the article is stuck on the LaRouchite version until someone else comes along. Everyking 23:44, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which version do you consider totally POV? Weed Harper 00:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dispute tags
Removing dispute tags is vandalism. If you remove a dispute tag when a dispute has not been resolved (And if you find your edits being generally reverted, it's a good sign the dispute has not been resolved), you are vandalizing the page, and you will find the entirety of your edit reverted. Furthermore, if you repeatedly remove dispute tags, you will find yourself blocked from editing.

This page has been spending far too much time protected, and the people who are causing its continual protection are either going to stop disrupting the page or stop editing Wikipedia entirely. The choice is theirs. Snowspinner 16:11, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of information
Large scale deletion of information - also vandalism, unless said information is copyvio or disprovable through some objective source. looking at the talk page, I don't see anything indicating either of those things to be true. Snowspinner 18:51, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner, the Adam and Andy version of the article was so riddled with POV that I think the decision to replace it with a new article is an appropriate one. I provided a substantial list of factual errors in their version, and also enumerated the inappropriate insertions of personal opinions and theories -- the authors of those opinions and theories have consistently refused to discuss them on the talk pages. If you think that writing a new article represents vandalistic "deletion of information", then it is valid to raise that question as well with respect to Adam's "deletion" of the previous article back in June. I approved of Sam Spade's efforts to reconcile the various versions, but his efforts were thwarted when Adam and Andy simply deleted anything that didn't conform to their rather egregious POV. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Please try to correct the existing article instead of throwing out all of the work. Snowspinner 03:09, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner, please look at the history of the article during the last two weeks of August. You will see that Herschel and I made numerous attempts to do precisely what you are suggesting. Each time, either Andy, Adam, Bccor or John_Kenney would simply revert without participating on the talk page. This is very frustrating and it seems to me to be poor wikiquette. Weed Harper 14:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I would say that poor wikiquette is repeatedly reverting to a much shorter, blatantly POV, and obviously unacceptable version of the article. Everyking 15:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I see the Herschel list of objections. What I don't see is any evidence supporting his claims. Since I tend to think of the more complete article as the default option, how about for any information you want to delete from the article, you provide, on the talk page, a citation. So as not to become overwhelming, let's limit ourselves to, say, five pieces of information at a time, and when we've settled those, we'll move on to the next five? Pick five things that are erroneous about the long version of the article, list them below, and then provide a source from which you are getting your information that it's wrong. Then Adam, Bcorr, et al can respond, and we can move through them calmly and systematically. Snowspinner 15:45, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * Excuse me, but isn't the person who inserts an allegation into the article supposed to be the one that can provide a citation to back it up? Since this edit conflict has become like a trial, I think "innocent until proven guilty" should be the standard. Besides, many of Herschel's objections are to personal opinions or theories inserted by anti-LaRouche activists. Weed Harper 21:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Current Five Facts
OK, to try to facilitate this process, I'm making this section. It will have, as the name suggests, five subsections, each for specific facts that are disputed in this article. If you desire the removal of a fact from this article because it is inaccurate, please use one of the five sections to list it, along with some citation. If you believe the citation offered is flawed, respond with a reason. We'll try to figure out what needs to be included, what needs to be removed, and what needs to be included with a note that there is disagreement on whether this is true. Snowspinner 21:01, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that most of my objections to this article (at this point) are to violations of NPOV, which are massive and pervasive; the writing by Adam in particular has an intensely propagandistic quality, and the article is written, not as an encyclopedia article, but as an essay that attempts to prove various theories supported by Adam and Andy. For example, "Since 1979 LaRouche has concentrated on infiltrating his followers into the Democratic Party." This involves POV speculation on Adam's part, attributing to LaRouche some sort of conspiracy to bring waves of new people into the Democratic Party (I believe this is what used to be called a "voter registration drive.") In fact, what LaRouche was actually doing is promoting his agenda to people who were already Democrats.

Fact One
"From left to right" -- this is a characterization of LaRouche that was agreed upon by LaRouche's opponents, but has no basis in fact. LaRouche was a leftist in the 50s and 60s, and in the 70s he shifted to being an FDR-style Democrat. A few points of evidence: LaRouche actively supported debt moratoria for the Third World. "In August 1976, Fred Wills, then Foreign and Justice Minister of Guyana, and an ally of Lyndon LaRouche, brought up a resolution for a debt moratorium at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Colombo, Sri Lanka, reiterating his call before the UN General Assembly shortly thereafter." LaRouche made a similar campaign against the harsh austerity demands of New York City's creditor banks, which victimized the poor and minority communities of that city, and he advised Mexican President Lopez Portillo in 1982 to declare a debt moratorium (which was done). In the early '80s, LaRouche and his organization opposed the Reagan administration's decision to side with the U.K. in the Malvinas war, and opposed as well the Reagan policy of arming the Nicaraguan Contras. In 1984, LaRouche formed a close friendship and working relationship with Amelia Boynton Robinson, an important leader of the 1960s American Civil Rights Movement, who became Vice Chairman of the LaRouche-affiliated Schiller Institute. Similarly, LaRouche's 1988 candidacy featured, as his running mate, James Bevel.

 * I'm having no trouble finding sources that accuse LaRouche of fascism, and suggest that he is far-right wing. It looks to me, particularly looking at the political philosophy page (And I'm speaking here of your preferred version, not the Adam/Andy version) that LaRouche's precise classification along the political spectrum is yet another area of debate regarding him. Could the article perhaps be revised to reflect his changing positions in a way that does not use the "left/right" distinction at all, and then include a paragraph somewhere that describes the controversy on labeling him as left or right wing? Snowspinner 22:54, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * There are several issues involved here. First, there is no question that LaRouche did change in the seventies, from being a quasi-Marxist to embracing the American System (economics). Adam and Andy have attempted to suppress any discussion of the American System angle, either reverting references to it, or disparaging it as a school of thought. An honest article is going to have to address it.

 * Secondly, and I think that this is central to the controversy, there are essentially two versions of LaRouche's views: the one he espouses (and his writings are very prolific, leaving no doubt as to where he stands) -- and the the other being the characterization that was agreed upon back in the 80s by the John Train Salon, which version Adam and Andy assert is the correct one. This is a peculiar state of affairs, which the article should attempt to clarify for the reader. If your research on LaRouche consists of Googling the English language internet, any reference to LaRouche will tend to fall into one of these two irreconcilable categories. You might come away with the impression that there are actually two quite different political activists, both named Lyndon LaRouche. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Indeed, I imagine you will get exactly that phenomenon. The article, then, needs to reflect both of these LaRouches, and it needs to do it without value judgment on which portrayal is more accurate. Snowspinner 22:44, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I propose "Post-Marxist Policies" as a neutral title for this section, which is descriptive rather than trying to advance a dubious POV theory. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:42, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Let's look at more subtle indications of fascism: "Give me 1,000 more youth [leaders like these] and I'll take over the country" EIR. His youth organizers are called LaRouche Youth.  His name is contained in nearly every article in every publication he owns.  You will not find this kind of charismatic leadership or adhesion to the ideas of one man to be a trait of many leftist organizations.--132.162.243.254 22:57, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 132.162.243.254, do you remember Eugene McCarthy, back in 1968? His youth movement was a very similar phenomenon,in my opinion, and in his: see this interview. Weed Harper 04:09, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fact Two
"Although the expression "Eurasian Land-Bridge," for example, has been used to refer to the proposed Asian Highway, there is no evidence that LaRouche has ever had anything to do with this project." If the expression "Eurasian Land-bridge" has ever been used to refer to the proposed Asian Highway, it was certainly not by anyone connected to LaRouche. The Asian Highway is, as the name suggests, a highway. LaRouche's proposal involves primarily rail projects, with the emphasis on high-speed (and preferably mag-lev) rail, combined with other forms of infrastructure such as oil and natural gas pipelines, water management, and fiber-optic cables, to form what LaRouche calls "Development Corridors." LaRouche's proposal does not resemble, nor could it be responsibly confused with, any other.

 * If you look in the talk archives you'll see that the "Eurasian Land-Bridge" question was discussed extensively. To be frank there is no independent evidence that such a project as described by the LaRouchites exists. Herschel produced a number of articles as evidence but they did not stand up to scrutiny. From time to time several LaRouche sources claim that hte "Eurasian Land-Bridge" is also known as the "New Silk Road". In fact, this is the nickname for the Asian Highway.Herschel is yet to respond to my detailed criticisms, I'll dig them up again if he wants to revive this issue.AndyL 20:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Are you claiming that LaRouche never made such a proposal? I have a 300 page report on his proposal that is about 12 years old, and I know of two conferences that were held, in Russia and Egypt, to discuss his proposal. I had to re-write the Eurasian Land-Bridge article because you deleted it, and according to Snowspinner, that is vandalism. I linked the article to reports on both conferences. Weed Harper 21:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Are you claiming that LaRouche never made such a proposal?

No. I'm saying that other than the Asian Highway (which was proposed in the 1950s) there is no independent evidence that this project exists. There is also a lot of evidence that the "New Silk Road" is the nickname of the Asian Highway. AndyL 22:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Fine -- don't call it a project, call it a proposal. But stop trying to confuse "Eurasian Land-Bridge" with the "Asian Highway"-- no one else confuses the two, and your attempt to equate them is deceitful. --Herschelkrustofsky 23:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Since you are fond of Googling, you may try "Eurasian Land-Bridge""Asian Highway"". Each reference in the Malaysian, Indian and Chinese press considers them as entirely separate and distinct proposals, with the Land-Bridge being the larger and more ambitious of the two. The only article that equates the two is, of course, your bogus Wikipedia article. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are either misreading or misstating your evidence. The articles you refer to, in fact, see the Asian Highway as *part of* the European LandBridge rather than as "entirely seperate and distinct proposals".

Asia Times: "The Asian Highway Project is expected to link Singapore with New Delhi via ... would ultimately form part of the more ambitious Eurasian Land Bridge spanning the ..."

The Hindu: "in particular the East-West corridor project and the Trans-Asian Highway. ... project, once completed, might be linked to the Eurasian ``land bridge ..." AndyL 04:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * That is indeed what the articles say. And if the Asian Highway would ultimately form part of the more ambitious Eurasian Land Bridge proposal, then your substituted article was incorrect and misleading by saying that the Eurasian Land Bridge was simply a different name for the Asian Highway. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fact Three
"By the 1980s, LaRouche had became a strong advocate of nuclear power and what later became the Strategic Defense Initiative, after Reagan adopted it." This formulation distorts history in order to support Adam's and Andy's theory that LaRouche alters his politics in order to jump on various bandwagons. In fact, LaRouche was a strong supporter of nuclear power no later than 1974, and the policy that became (in 1983) the Strategic Defense Initiative, was advocated by LaRouche in 1977.

 * Is there somewhere I could get abstracts for the Campaigner articles in that ToC? Also, are those LaRouche penned articles, or merely articles that appeared in a LaRouche-edited journal? As for the SDI, do you have anything that goes back to 1977, instead of LaRouche saying in 2000 that he was a supporter in 1977? Snowspinner 20:52, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * You may download the entire Campaigner as a .pdf file here. As to whether LaRouche wrote all the articles, I think one area that is not in dispute, is that material published by LaRouche's organization generally does reflect his personal views, although he relies on his associates for a lot of original research, which he then incorporates into his policy overview. The article at this link includes a photostat of the cover of the pamphlet, "Sputnik of the Seventies," that was published in 1977 -- I don't think it's available on the web, but for what it's worth, I read it back when it came out. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Am I correct, however, that none of the Campaigner articles are by LaRouche in that issue? And, similarly, the Sputnik pamphlet appears to be by the US Labor Party, assited by LaRouche. Which is n ot to say that LaRouche didn't hold those views - just that the evidence doesn't seem a slam-dunk to me. Perhaps we could insert a statement to the effect of "LaRouche and his supporters point to X and Y (The Campaigner article and the pamphlet) as evidence, however, that LaRouche held these views well before Reagan's election." Snowspinner 14:50, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Fact Four
"LaRouche's supporters do not believe that he was imprisoned because of a criminal wrongdoing. Instead, they maintain that a vast, worldwide conspiracy framed him, and that this conspiracy has attempted to execute him at least three times." LaRouche's supporters do not maintain that a "vast, worldwide conspiracy" framed him; they maintain that it was a small and very specific group of people who framed him, which group includes the primary sources that Adam and Andy used for their version of the article. The frequent attempt to put words in LaRouche's mouth about various "conspiracies" is in fact an effort to support Adam's own "conspiracy theories" about LaRouche.

 * Your link itself refers to "massive government-private sector effort to "Get LaRouche."", which suggests that it is not a "small and very specific" group. That said, I suspect a more moderate wording could be agreed upon by both parties. As a first stab, I propose "Instead, they argue that a massive effort on the part of the US government and several private institutions existed to discredit and frame LaRouche." Thoughts? Snowspinner 22:49, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that the article should report that the meetings took place, name the participants, and let the reader draw his own conclusions. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Though I suspect I know the answer to this, would Adam, Andy, or someone else on the anti-LaRouche side like to tell me if it is universally agreed upon that these meetings took place? Snowspinner 14:51, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I suspect these "meetings" were actually interviews which the LaRouchites have twisted into some sort of conspiracyAndyL 20:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fact Five
There are 3 unattributed references to "nervous breakdowns", two allegedly suffered by LaRouche, one by Chris White. I had never seen any discussion of these alleged events, and I think documentation is in order.

 * A quick google found me, which suggests that some people who were leaving the LaRouche organization in 1973 claimed LaRouche was suffering a nervous breakdown. The source seems very POV, but that's probably going to be the norm. Can all parties agree to some wording that points out that there are allegations of a breakdown during this period? Snowspinner 20:55, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Chip Berlet is possibly the most hysterical anti-LaRouche source, and nothing he says should be simply presented as fact. It should be attributed to him. It seems that the article you found is the source for much of Adam and Andy's "research." Weed Harper 00:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with Weed's objection to anonymous sources, and I also think Weed has a point about the Ramsey Clark quote: Andy insisted that Clark could not be quoted in the article without a disclaimer, saying that some people consider Clark a whack-job (I am paraphrasing.) If this standard applies to the former Attorney General of the United States, it must certainly apply as well to Dennis King, Chip Berlet, and the other assorted weirdos who are cited as authorities throughout the article. I think that the appropriate course of action were to create a section called "Critics of LaRouche", where there would be some discussion of just who these critics are, followed by a selection of their opinions about LaRouche. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Again, though, this can be dealt with without removing the information - the insertion of a sentence along the lines of "Supporters of LaRouche dismiss these accusations as the work of disenfranchised former associates of LaRouche with an axe to grind." Or something of similar tone. My preference, and I think the preference that's more workable for a biographical article, would be for the article to present the claims of both sides in one section together, with the other side's responses being mentioned as relevent, so that the entire article reads in a way that people get both sides of this debate as they go. Looking around a bit, regardless of its accuracy, the claim that LaRouche is a fascist (Which is a label that people tend to use to describe the extreme right) is a common one. Regardless of its accuracy, then, that needs to be addressed, and it should be addressed, I would think, throughout the article.
 * To put it another way, this claim (I haven't really gone looking at the other three yet - later today, I will) seems to me to be debated. That is, it is not clear-cut, and it's a POV assertion to say that LaRouche did or did not have a nervous breakdown in 1973. It's unknown and disputed. Which means this needs to be reflected in his biography. If the evidence against the breakdown really is that sketchy, then surely, when both pieces of evidence are presented side by side, an intelligent reader will identify that. Snowspinner 22:43, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * When dealing with anonymous sources that are alleged by Chip Berlet to exist, I think it will be necessary to talk a bit about Chip Berlet. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * We could readily cast the sentence to make clear that the allegations are made by Berlet, with a link to his article. Snowspinner 14:59, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * There was also a LaRouche speech made in the early 1970s where he refers to events twenty years earlier which fit the definition of "nervous breakdown"AndyL 20:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd be interested in knowing whether he used the term, "nervous breakdown." If not, what term did he use? Do you have the text of the speech, and if not, who is alleging that it was made? --Herschelkrustofsky 21:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I never said he used the term "nervous breakdown" - I said that the events he describes fit the definition.
 * In his speech before the NCLC National Committee Plenum mandating Operation Mop-Up (see below) in the spring of 1973, Marcus gave a more detailed account of his 1952 ordeal. According to this account, he went through a harrowing bout of intense introspection, which involved "stripping away all the layers of my persona, like an onion.  If you take this far enough, you get to the point where you become terrified that there's nothing inside all the peelings-that you're a nobody.  This put me in a suicidal state.  It was only my tremendous ego-strength, which my parents had provided me, that saved me from suicide." AndyL 22:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Then you are using a bit too much "poetic license," which is a problem all over the article. The same goes for the Chris White episode. I have read an account of that -- he said he was drugged. That is not "an event that fits the description of a nervous breakdown." Weed Harper 00:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If Andy wants to coin the phrase, and then attribute it to "some LaRouche observers," he should cite one observer other than himself. ---01:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Immediate Reversion
In my continued efforts to bring some sort of resolution to this dispute, the following things, if done by anyone, will result in their edits being reverted. More to come as a need for them is discovered.

 * 1) Misleading edit summaries. If you say "Added information on X" and happen to fail to mention that you also deleted three sections, you will be reverted.
 * 2) Deletion of information not justified by specific evidence provided on the talk page.
 * 3) Removal of the dispute tag (Which, it should be noted, will also be met with a 24 hour vandalism block)

Please try to be civil and to discuss things with one another. As I've said above, I'm willing to provide a mediator in trying to sort out the claims of factual inaccuracy here. I encourage those who are trying to remove information from this article to accompany such removals with specific citations as described in the sections above. Snowspinner 21:12, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * There are basically two competing versions of the article now. I am editing the one that I consider to be more in keeping with NPOV. Everytime someone reverts to the other one, they are deleting information that I and others have added, so it's a two way street. The precedent for writing a new article was created by Adam in June, and there is no basis for saying that one or the other version takes precedence, except to say, as I do, that the one I am editing is more NPOV. I am certainly in favor of being civil and discussing things-- Herschel went to a lot of trouble to prepare a list of specific objections to the other version, but the authors seem to feel no need to respond. Weed Harper 21:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Herschel's list makes an excellent starting point, I agree, but it lacks specific citation - at the moment, it's a "He said she said" situation. If you want information removed, please give some citation that shows why the information is false. So, for instance, in the Club of Life section, the claim is that the Club of Live was created to oppose LaRouche. Please provide a citation of this.
 * In any case, "two competing versions of the article" is not acceptable. Since the one that you seem not to favor is the one with more information, I am taking that as the starting point here.
 * Note also that it is not impossible to merge the two "competing" articles. If no consensus is reached on the Club of Life section, with evidence being found by both sides, it can be mentioned in a way that acknowledges this controversy. That is to say, inclusion and exclusion are not the only options - moderated phrasing is possible, and is probably going to be a useful avenue for compromise. Snowspinner 21:12, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

One other thing. Perhaps, if one of the pro-LaRouche side's major points is that there are things missing from the anti-LaRouche side's accounting, the solution would be to add them into that one? If that were done, leading to one article instead of two that constantly change places, I think it would be a good thing. (And, of course, if the pro-LaRouche side is inserting false information, the anti-LaRouche side would be perfectly justified in listing it here for discussion. Snowspinner 21:16, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Herschel's List Again?
Perhaps, Snowspinner, you have found that Herschel's list is in the archives and was answered point by point. Weedharper and Herschel only contend that the challenges went unanswered, but this is a contention that they will make so long as your evaluation differs from their own. I would be less than excited if these were to be revisited again, but its fine by me if it satisfies your own curiousity. On the 5 points. ..

Point 1.) LaRouche is a Rightist (though radical and not conservative). Left and Right have different meanings but primarily refer to the C.A of late 18th Century France.  That LaRouche is a rightist can be easily traced to his reading of Plato's Republic and other dialogues, in which LaRouche agrees with Plato's version of Socrates that a leader of men is to men what a horse trainer is to horses, and that a leader of men is just by virtue of the fact that he is the leader of men.  As a horse trainer trains, and not mis-trains horses (or he is not acting in his role as a horse-trainer)a leader leads and not mis-leads men.  There can be no bad leader of men as when an error is committed, he is not acting in his capacity as a leader.  Now, it is a matter of fact, of the agreed upon historical record, that LaRouche, as Lyn Marcus, was a radical left-Communist of the Cannonite-Trotskyist variety. This would have made him a leftist. LaRouche and LaRouche's followers today state clearly that they are NOT leftists or on the left. They claim to be 'above' or 'beyond' mere 'false' categories of left and right. As rightists, monarchists in this historical case, they support the French Crown against the French Revolution, hardly a position of the political left who hold the French revolution as something of a victory (though short lived) of democracy and left forces and ideals. They reject the category of left and right as a synarchist construct of the French Revolution and the British Bankers and money changers (mostly Jews like the Rothschilds, Gugenheims)who conspired against the French Crown for British plunder. So they reject the term 'right' as it is just a syncharcist construct and inversion of 'left' from the French Revolution which they staunchly oppose (from the monarchist perspective). The Argentine British conflict over the Falkans exposes the rightist and Imperial ambitions/justifications of LaRouche on international affairs. They oppose the British on the grounds that Britain has been taken over by wealthy families of International Bankers with direct ties to Satanic cabals and secretive Masonic tyrants. See esoteric. They oppose Britain on this issue on the basis of the Monroe Doctrine, hardly a leftist doctrine, which holds that Latin America is the U.S''s backyard and turf, an extension of Manifest Destiny, and that investment and development opportunities are the sole domain of U.S productive firms. The philosophical underpinnings and structural historical form of the LaRouche movement IMO is more analogous to National Socialism and Fascism, which also claimed to be beyond of outside of the realm of left and right. Like Mussolini, LaRouche left the socialist groupings and ideological framework of the left which he had developed from, and began to advocate a mish-mash of left-right policies, but based upon the right insofar as their being a mass-populist movement which is controlled and lead by a hierarchical structure which is supported by and advocates the so-called salvation of the Industrialist class (capitalists)and landowners as against the alleged social corruption by the International Banking class (userers, financiers)against the interests of the modern Nation State, as explicated in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, whose interest claims to be the general public weal of a particular nation state. See nationalism. Of course, LaRouche's rightism can also be deduced and reasoned from his opposition to the schools of physical and cultural anthropology and sociology. LaRouche supports teaching that God created everything, and that humans and apes could not have developed from a common ancestor.

Point 2.) There was some confusion on this discussion about the so-called Eurasian Landbridge and the Asian Highway. The Asian Highway is an actual project being undertaken and built by the nations involved.  The Eurasian Landbridge is nothing more than a proposal put forward by LaRouche which follows a similar geography.  That there is an Asian Highway being built is used by LaRouchians as proof that LaRouche's ideas are "everywhere" being put into practice.  Thus LaRouchians in conversational 'dialogues' with people, the Asian Highway can be used through inductive or Platonic reasoning to conclude that the Eurasian Landbridge is an idea that world leaders agree with LaRouche about since they are building the Asian Highway.  In fact, there is no evidence that the Asian Highway is being built directly or indirectly on LaRouche's 'advice' that there be a Eurasian Landbridge built.

Point 3.) You will find no references in 1977 by LaRouche, and not until the Reagan administration itself came out with the SDI proposal, of any technology or proposal that specifically called for the use of missiles or lasers or satelites, or generally called for a technology which would minimize or eliminate the destructive capacity of a Soviet first strike. We cannot find proof that LaRouche did 'not' claim or propose something like the SDI prior to the 1981-83 period since we cannot 'find' something which is 'not there'.

Point 4.) This is meaningless nonsense. Of course LaRouche named who 'framed' him in numerous articles and texts, and this sense, it was a small group of people.  But in numerous other texts, these same people are included as part of or dupes of a Synarchist International Satanic Banking Cabal.

Point 5.) If there is substantial evidence that LaRouche had a nervous breakdown, then it should be included. If not, then not.  I realize that a theory of how LaRouche arrived at his present world view can be developed from possible evidence of his nervous breakdown (since Mussolini had a similar nervous breakdown around WWI and formed the journal 'Utopia' which stripped him down to only his Ego and his power to will), but it is not necessarily telling of anything.

Let me add something else to this discussion. LaRouche's theories, comments, analysis, writings etc., are nowhere held to the same scrutiny within the LaRouche produced propaganda as criticisms of it are on this forum. Therefor, those attempting to compose an accurate account of LaRouche are at a disadvantage when compared to the mass of unsubstantiated LaRouchite claims (like that he invented SDI, for instance)that have to be sifted through. --Capone 23:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I think you misunderstand my efforts here. I am not interested in coming to some kind of absolute knowledge of truth here. That would be original research. If there are things in the article which are easily proven false, and which no one can provide any evidence in favor of, they should be cut. Largely, though, I expect the middle ground that will be reached on these points is that both sides will compromise on a version that includes both points of view instead of trying to make the move towards some absolute truth on a controversial issue, which is doomed to be a POV endeavor. Snowspinner 23:23, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I did not even think to assume what your efforts were or weren't here. Common sense could tell you that nothing that I wrote is the product of original research other than when I wrote later the part 'IMO'. All of my comments were intended for the discussion and weren't in any way meant as a proposal for what should be written on the page. Absolute truth isn't the aim of this or any other article, but the hope is that certain truths can be found within it. You proposed a revisiting of Herchel's list which we agree is largely unsourced. I was presenting one of the angles for the view you keep finding on search engines. The five points were responded to by someone who gave five arguments which were easily proven false, so I'd rather bring this here now before those arguments get incorporated into the article, by then which I would have to be in favor of them being cut on the basis they were easily proven false. An NPOV way of writing the article would be simply to include reasonable pro-LaRouche rebutals to those statements that were generally agreed on by independant analysts or biographers on LaRouche. A proviso of these rebutals is that they be easily verifable so as to not engender the necessity of an obvious rebutal to that rebutal ad infinitum. --Capone 01:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Images
I think the image that was replaced should be added back, BUT it should be placed in the article with the new pic. WhisperToMe 05:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Oh, and I found one on Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche! WhisperToMe 05:17, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a better picture for this article. Weed Harper 00:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Really? I hate the lighting. :( Snowspinner 03:38, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Links
I think the number of links is excessive. Weed Harper 06:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I found that they are mostly sub-pages of a few basic sites, and I propose paring it down to this:

LaRouche sponsored sites

 * Lyndon LaRouche 2004 Presidential campaign
 * Executive Intelligence Review: LaRouche Publications
 * World LaRouche Youth Movement
 * LaRouche PAC
 * Schiller Institute

Critics of LaRouche

 * John Mintz of the Washington Post Mintz wrote many articles, echoing the basic format of the John Train Salon.
 * PRA/PublicEye/Chip Berlet John Foster "Chip" Berlet has been the most prolific anti-LaRouche writer, active primarily on the internet. He is closely associated with Dennis King.
 * Rick Ross Rick Ross is a self-styled cult expert and deprogrammer who has been an outspoken opponent of the LaRouche organization.

Interesting that you would remove all the "Criticisms by former colleagues" despite the fact that they are not subpages of other sites already listed. AndyL 13:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * That was unintentional. Weed Harper 00:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Was your removal of newspaper articles not written by Mintz also unintentional? What about your removal of links to Chip Berlet or the Rick Ross Institute's actual articles in favour of biographies of the authors? I've replaced your attempt at obscuring critical links with something more straightforward.I've replaced your attempt to replace Ross and Berlet's criticsms of LaRouche with sites about Ross and Berlet and created these two links:
 * Articles about LaRouche from Public Research Associates by Chip Berlet
 * Lyndon Larouche/Executive Intelligence Review Series of articles from the Rick A. Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults AndyL 20:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Weed also removed a lot of LaRouche site links, so I don't think he was being unfair. Note that the Temple of the Screaming Electron (TOTSE) site that you linked is just a reprint from the Chip Berlet sites. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reversion
While I suspect I agree with some of your objections to the many changes made by Weed Harper, I'm curious why you reverted everything. Attribution of specific sources instead of "some people," for instance, seems to me a very good change. Similarly, removing two paragraphs that could have easily been NPOVed doesn't really make sense to me.
 * I think that this page is highly relevant: Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources --Herschelkrustofsky 20:35, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As loathsome as you find the POV offered by LaRouche and his supporters, it still needs to be included and included fairly. Temper the language, offer responses, whatever, but please stop removing it. Snowspinner 16:46, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that a test page be set up for the LaRouche supporters to draft their proposals for reforms and that we then discuss the proposed changes (inviting the rest of the community to respond). These piecemeal changes and reversions are getting us nowhere. AndyL 17:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Personally, I suspect that both sides are not going to draft versions remotely acceptable to the other, and that the way out is through a collaborative effort. That is, I think more will get done if both sides work on the other side's additions. It's just that, well, I think instead of reverting the other side's additions, you should NPOV the language and add rebuttal information. Snowspinner 17:20, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

I think the only way to have a collaborative effort is to do it on a draft page. Otherwise we just have a war of attrition. AndyL 18:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * It would appear to be a rather one-sided war, because as far as I can see, both Weed and myself are cooperating fully with Snowspinner's mediation efforts. I think that most people would see it as a sign of maturity if you and Adam would do the same. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, there already is a Lyndon LaRouche/draft, perhaps someone could update that page to make it a current proposal?AndyL 12:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think everyone should read this: NPOV. --172.192.142.248 14:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An NPOV caption for this picture
User:Adam Carr has a picture of himself reading some LaRouche-related paper on his talk page.

I was wondering if we could NPOV the caption and place it in a LaRouche-related article. Maybe something like: "A picture of a man reading a paper written by Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche's political views are widely debated between people." WhisperToMe 20:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a very good idea. I am not "a man", I am a well-known participant in this debate. And I am not reading the material, I am holding it up to the camera so that people can see its authenticity, as part of my ongoing effort to get Herschelkrustofsky to admit that LaRouche is (or was) a Holocaust denier. (And things are debated among people, not between them.) Adam 01:45, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, I do not think that Wikipedia users should identify themselves in pictures posted in the main article space.I just don't think in most cases that it is appropriate to identify a Wikipedia user like that in a regular Wikipedia article. For example: User:JoeM (Who is now banned) tried to do that when I found a picture of two teenagers after I used it in an article related to Osama bin Laden; he claimed he was one of the kids in the picture. His edits were reverted, and the boys in the picture are "anonymous".

By the way, if you wanna challenge Herschel's views, please do that on Usenet/e-amil/whatever. WhisperToMe 02:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Why should that be necessary? I'd like to have out in the open. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is NOT a discussion forum (barring talk about Wikipedia) - See: What Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia is not a ground for advocacy groups/people. WhisperToMe 22:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? The picture is not in the article. It clearly should not be in the article. john k 02:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Draft page
I would be up for protecting this article and moving edits to a draft page if people want to. I think, though, that the draft page should have some ground rules in place. The one I'd like, personally, is an understanding that there will be no reverting. I am sure that this will lead to some difficult situations, when people make edits that other people think are really bad, but I think it's important, in this situation, to handle this through means other than reverts. Snowspinner 02:49, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Why not handle the regular article(s) through means other than reverts? They are both considerably closer to some sort of NPOV standard, than they were before you began mediating. Perhaps you and WhisperToMe might elaborate on the benefits of the draft page approach. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BTW, WhisperToMe, I note that you have been editing Lyndon LaRouche/draft -- I don't think that page is very relevant anymore, since there are now three articles instead of one (Lyndon LaRouche, Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, and United States v. LaRouche.) --Herschelkrustofsky 03:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POV In First Paragraph
At the end of the first paragraph, it states that LaRouche has never garnered significant electoral support. I think the term 'significant' is POV since people both for and against LaRouche could consider any support as significant of something. Instead, I would like to propose that this word be replaced with an actual figure, and let readers decide for themselves how significant (or even what it signifies) this number is. If there isn't a good number that can be found, then I would recommend that this part of the sentence simply be axed. Thanks for the feedback in advance. -Capone 23:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about "Lyndon LaRouche has never received more than 1% of the vote"?AndyL 23:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is also true that he has never reveived more than 10% of the vote. We could put that too. . . but given that even 1% is about 1 million votes, and I don't think he's ever reveived that (perhaps in total if you add all his votes for every election he's run in since the middle 80's)perhaps we need an actual figure, or maybe we could put 'never more than .5%' or something? Capone 01:18, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

0.1% of the vote?AndyL 01:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, depends which vote you look at, the actual presidential vote in November or the various primary votes when he's run for the Democratic nomination. I doubt he ever received more than 0.1% of the vote in a November election but he may have done better in individual primaries for instance this list of Super Tuesday 2004 results has him at 1% in a few states. Apparently he won 21% of the vote in the Arkansas primary in 2000. AndyL 01:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So to do justice to this article, it would be good to include that in actual elections he seldom acheived more than .5%, in primaries he can sometimes get 1%, but that in at least one state's primary (arkansas) he garnered 21%. So long as we can back up this 21% claim and it dosen't come from a LaRouche source, or an incompetent journalist's reporting based solely on a LaRouche source. Capone 18:31, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heads up
For folks that have an appetite for really overheated slanders of LHL, there will be one one week from today in the Washington Post. The rumor has it that it is being run at the personal request of Cheney, and it will be delirious enough to make even Berlet look kinda sedate. --172.194.10.72 13:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 8


text:
User talk:Skx

Leave comments if you like!

Steve -- http://www.steve.org.uk/

AfD notice
I noticed that you started the Faith of the Fallen page; I felt that you should know that it has currently been nominated for deletion. MPoint

July 2008
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Whpq (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

-- I had explicit permission to include that section, and was a member of the list felt it was a fair thing to do. skx (talk) skx

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Skx


text:
User talk:Plp~enwiki

ClockworkTroll 12:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Plp. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Plp~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Plp~enwiki


text:
Imperial immediacy

Imperial immediacy (Reichsfreiheit or Reichsunmittelbarkeit) was a privileged constitutional and political status rooted in German feudal law under which the Imperial estates of the Holy Roman Empire such as Imperial cities, prince-bishoprics, and secular principalities, and such individuals as the Imperial knights, were declared free from the authority of any local lord, having no suzerain but the Holy Roman Emperor directly, without any intermediary authority: immediate = im- (negatory prefix) + mediate (in the sense of a third-party go-between, mediator); immediacy also applied to later institutions of the Empire such as the Diet (Reichstag), the Imperial Chamber of Justice and the Aulic Council.

The granting of immediacy began in the Early Middle Ages, and for those bishops, abbots, and cities then the main beneficiaries of that status, immediacy could be exacting and often meant subjection to the fiscal, military, and hospitality demands of their overlord, the Emperor. However, from the mid-13th century onwards, with the gradually diminishing importance of the Emperor, whose authority to exercise power increasingly limited to the enforcement of legislative acts promulgated by the Imperial Diet, entities privileged by imperial immediacy eventually found themselves vested with considerable rights and powers previously exercised by the emperor.

As established by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the possession of imperial immediacy conferred a particular form of territorial authority known as territorial superiority (Landeshoheit or superioritas territorialis in contemporary documents), to be understood today as a limited sovereignty.

Gradations

Several immediate estates held the privilege of attending meetings of the Reichstag in person, including an individual vote (votum virile):
 * the seven Prince-electors designated by the Golden Bull of 1356
 * the other Princes of the Holy Roman Empire
 * secular: Dukes, Margraves, Landgraves, et al.
 * ecclesiastical: Prince-Bishops, Prince-Abbots and Prince-Provosts.

They formed the Imperial Estates, together with 99 immediate counts, 40 Imperial prelates (abbots and abbesses), and 50 Imperial Cities, each of whose "banks" only enjoyed a single collective vote (votum curiatum).

Further immediate estates not represented in the Reichstag were the Imperial Knights as well as several abbeys and minor localities, the remains of those territories which in the High Middle Ages had been under the direct authority of the Emperor and since then had mostly been given in pledge to the princes.

At the same time, there were classes of "princes" with titular immediacy to the Emperor which they exercised rarely, if at all. For example, the Bishops of Chiemsee, Gurk, and Seckau (Sacken) were practically subordinate to the prince-bishop of Salzburg, but were formally princes of the Empire.

Advantages and disadvantages
Additional advantages might include the rights to collect taxes and tolls, to hold a market, to mint coins, to bear arms, and to conduct legal proceedings. The last of these might include the so-called Blutgericht ("blood justice") through which capital punishment could be administered. These rights varied according to the legal patents granted by the emperor.

As pointed out by Jonathan Israel, the Dutch province of Overijssel in 1528 tried to arrange its submission to Emperor Charles V in his capacity as Holy Roman Emperor rather than as his being the Duke of Burgundy. If successful, that would have evoked Imperial immediacy and would have put Overijssel in a stronger negotiating position, for example given the province the ability to appeal to the Imperial Diet in any debate with Charles. For that reason, the Emperor strongly rejected and blocked Overijssel's attempt.

Disadvantages might include direct intervention by imperial commissions, as happened in several of the southwestern cities after the Schmalkaldic War, and the potential restriction or outright loss of previously held legal patents. Immediate rights might be lost if the Emperor and/or the Imperial Diet could not defend them against external aggression, as occurred in the French Revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic Wars. The Treaty of Lunéville in 1801 required the emperor to renounce all claims to the portions of the Holy Roman Empire west of the Rhine. At the last meeting of the Imperial Diet (Reichsdeputationshauptschluss) in 1802–03, also called the German Mediatisation, most of the free imperial cities and the ecclesiastic states lost their imperial immediacy and were absorbed by several dynastic states.

Problems in understanding the Empire

The practical application of the rights of immediacy was complex; this makes the history of the Holy Roman Empire particularly difficult to understand, especially for modern historians. Even such contemporaries as Goethe and Fichte called the Empire a monstrosity. Voltaire wrote of the Empire as something neither Holy nor Roman, nor an Empire, and in comparison to the British Empire, saw its German counterpart as an abysmal failure that reached its pinnacle of success in the early Middle Ages and declined thereafter. Prussian historian Heinrich von Treitschke described it in the 19th century as having become "a chaotic mess of rotted imperial forms and unfinished territories". For nearly a century after the publication of James Bryce's monumental work The Holy Roman Empire (1864), this view prevailed among most English-speaking historians of the Early Modern period, and contributed to the development of the Sonderweg theory of the German past.

A argued that "though not powerful politically or militarily, [the Empire] was extraordinarily diverse and free by the standards of Europe at the time". Pointing out that people like Goethe meant "monster" as a compliment (i.e. 'an astonishing thing'), The Economist has called the Empire "a great place to live ... a union with which its subjects identified, whose loss distressed them greatly" and praised its cultural and religious diversity, saying that it "allowed a degree of liberty and diversity that was unimaginable in the neighbouring kingdoms" and that "ordinary folk, including women, had far more rights to property than in France or Spain".

title: Imperial immediacy


text:
Talk:Alexei Yagudin

Untitled
I don't know the details so don't want to edit one way or the other, but if they are known, they should be inserted into the text, not as "Edit". So I've commented it out; it's still visible in the source, though, for anyone to fix. — Bill 12:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The edit is still on the page itself too. The reason I think that it was added that way, is because fans keep taking things that are being said too much to heart when those same things change very quickly. There aren't many incontrovertible facts about this skater, so we have to go with what's either said by him in interviews and journals, or believe what is said in articles.

Coaching French Olympic hopeful Brian Joubert?

Edit: His hip problem was never the definite reason for quitting eligibility. He's also not coaching anyone. He's helping Tatiana Tarasova with Andrei Griazev, and advising and helping to choreograph Brian. Brian's coach was Laurent Depouilly, but the French Federation has dismissed him also. He's now back with his former coach, Véronique Guyon-Desgardins.
 * Yagudin is a "consultant" to Joubert, not a coach. True. The hip problem is a big reason, but not the only reason why he isn't skating competitively. --Pelladon 15:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The recurring edit about Alexei's private life--

UNFORTUNBETLY, there are some trashy, ignorant, hillbilly people who live in Cleveland Oklahoma who think it is appropriate to post undocumented things about Alexei Yagudin and about whoever else they want to hurt. These disgusting people even post individual's full names along with their families personal addresses, which is clearly not only socially wrong but very dangerous behavior. The false comments of these social rejects can be deleted, and hopefully they will also be blocked from posting more to this board very soon; howver, in the meantime if the comments continue, I will add links from this page to personal information that these people would not want to become of a public nature. 20:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The recurring edit about the hip and coaching
I'm sorry, I have a very persistent stalker who came here looking for something to criticize as soon as I wrote the first article. I don't even know how she found me here, but it's her IP and she admitted to doing it.

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alexei Yagudin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807164444/http://www.goldenskate.com/articles/2006/040807.shtml to http://goldenskate.com/articles/2006/040807.shtml
 * Added tag to http://www.mk.ru/daily/36990.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cbs.sportsline.com/u/wire/stories/0%2C1169%2C1844014_10946%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100407030540/http://www.olympic.org/en/content/Olympic-Athletes/All-Athletes/Athletes-YA-to-YM/-Alexei-YAGUDIN-/ to http://www.olympic.org/en/content/Olympic-Athletes/All-Athletes/Athletes-YA-to-YM/-Alexei-YAGUDIN-/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alexei Yagudin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010427064625/http://www.jbmittan.com/articles/a-yagudin.htm to http://www.jbmittan.com/articles/a-yagudin.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100501064439/http://goldenskate.com/articles/2001/041202.shtml to http://www.goldenskate.com/articles/2001/041202.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203030644/http://zn.by/tatyana-totmyanina-%C2%ABya-tak-i-ne-privykla-nazyvat-leshu-muzhem%C2%BB.html to http://zn.by/tatyana-totmyanina-%C2%ABya-tak-i-ne-privykla-nazyvat-leshu-muzhem%C2%BB.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yagudin's recent comments
As Yagudin's recent comments have been widely covered, in both Russian and English sources, I don't see any problem with including a short sentence about that situation in the lead. Corwin2K has repeatedly removed that sentence from the lead, originally placed there by at least two other editors. I warned him twice on his talk page about edit warring (the first time when he was warring with the editors that were originally placing that info) but to no avail - he has not bothered to take part in a discussion. JimKaatFan (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I continue to believe that a note about his transphobic comments should not be in the short description. Corwin2K (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your experience at Wikipedia is extremely limited: you have made a grand total of 16 edits to articles, and 12 of them were edit-warring on the Alexei Yagudin article. Given this, I find it unlikely that you have read or understand WP:MOSLEAD. The lead is meant to summarize the text in the body. As the Yagudin controversy attracted more attention from reliable sources than anything he's done since his Olympic medal, it has been covered fully in the body, and a one-sentence summary in the lead is appropriate.
 * Your terminology is also wrong, but again, that is understandable given your limited experience. The lead is the opening paragraphs; you are calling it the "short description", but that is something else. See WP:SHORTDESC for more on this. For the record, the short description for the Yagudin article is "Russian figure skater". It does not mention his transphobic comments. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I took it out of the lead because he is known as a figure skater and why he has a Wikipedia article. Per MOS:LEADBIO, one shouldn't allow controversies to overwhelm the lead unless it deserves to be there. He deleted his comments and moved on and I don't see how why the controversy belongs there because he isn't making a career off such statements. If that changes, then my position will change too. oncamera   (talk page)  08:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 RfC - inclusion of 2020 controversy in lead
Should the lead include a brief of summary of Yagudin's 2020 controversy in which he called people who support trans rights "Earth's mistake" and wished for them to die? JimKaatFan (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Oppose per MOS:LEADBIO: "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy". The controversy isn't noteworthy in the long term, subject has apologized and hasn't been in the news for any similar controversies. His comments also had no effect on his skating performance career in Russia. oncamera  (talk page) 02:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, if the controversy deserved 88 words, then it is a WP:Recentism/WP:Undue action that doesn't affect his biography in general. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 02:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The incident garnered more news coverage of Yagudin than anything else since his Olympic career ended. It's still making news in November 2022. Scrubbing it from the lead is nonsense. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It being mentioned in an article titled "Adam Rippon in his birthday suit plus four more reasons why he’s our favorite bday boy" is hardly a reason to include it in the lead. oncamera  (talk page) 02:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you going to pretend that's the only mention of it? There's already 5 sources in the article that cover it, and dozens more can easily be added. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that's they only mention of it? That's the recent article YOU choose to use to support your claim that it's still relevant in the news. Vast majority of articles are from 2020. oncamera  (talk page) 02:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If, by your own admission, the coverage was "vast" (it is), there should be a mention in the lead. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL. Read my sentence again before taking "vast" out of context: vast majority of articles are from 2020. Meaning most of the articles are from 2020. It's not in the recent news anymore. It's not relevant to his biography and shouldn't go in the lead. I'm done repeating myself on this talkpage and only responded once more to clarify. So please refrain from taking my comments out of context. Thanks, oncamera  (talk page) 03:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "LOL" is not a constructive argument and your comments should be disregarded by the closer, as it's clear you're very into protecting Yagudin's reputation from any negative material in his lead. JimKaatFan (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Read No personal attacks. oncamera  (talk page) 03:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I concur with Oncamera's argument.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't include in the lead (invited by the bot)   One reason is that the lead should be a summary of the article and that would be disproportionate to put in the lead. Second, a (probably spur of the moment)  instagram comment which he deleted and apologized for is undue for any expansion here or the lead.   Third is the reason described by OnCamera. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with the previous comments. This should be included if Yagudin had more such incidents. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:LEADBIO. Also, the section titled Controversial comments should probably be renamed since that's not in line with WP:CRIT. Nemov (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and created a public image section per WP:CRIT and moved that content and other endorsement materials from his personal life section. oncamera  (talk page) 20:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Oppose per MOS:LEADBIO, not of primary importance to the subject. Ortizesp (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Oppose. For the reasons oncamera gave. Scapulus (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The information is undue weight to include in the lead for a controversy which takes up one sentence in the body of the article. (per MOS:LEADBIO, WP:PROPORTION, WP:RECENTISM). --Guest2625 (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is undue. There is a small paragraph on it in the article, and I think that is enough. The statement has had minimal effect on him or his legacy, so to include it in the lead would not be fair. Cessaune   [  talk  ]   22:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alexei Yagudin