text:
Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/Archive 1

Regarding the Adam and Andy version

 * 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

What little of LaRouche's ideas that actually appears in this article has been "spun" so much as to be unrecognizable. Your chances of understanding LaRouche by reading this article are nil. Instead, read LaRouche for yourself: The Substance of Morality.

Weed Harper 05:04, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I wrote a new article which is a concise summary of LaRouche's basic ideas, the sort of thing that would be useful to an encyclopedia reader. I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that it will quickly be reverted by a group of anti-LaRouche activists that want to suppress LaRouche's ideas, and to flog their personal theories and POV. However, at least it will be available on the history pages. (see here)172.193.204.146 21:41, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The views of LaRouche activists on this article are well-known. Adam 05:19, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Unless specific, fixable objections are stated, the accuracy and NPOV warnings should be removed promptly - David Gerard 11:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * See Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * No, they need to be here on the talk page so that the objections can be crossed off as each is resolved or invalidated - David Gerard 23:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * As you wish. The article was only recently split into three parts; the centralized list was painstakingly organized from previous talk pages by Martin AKA MyRedDice. But I have no problem reproducing it here. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:07, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While we hopefully give Snowspinner's mediation efforts a chance, I have removed my list from this page (it is still available at the above link), with the exception of the parts germane to the discussion of "LaRouche and the Jews." --Herschelkrustofsky 21:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I am very sorry but people who speak of vast conspiracys to smear the name of a leader of a minor fringe group have no place on this website, often reading straight from the source is one of the worst places to obtain a neutral point of view, especially a fringe group which actively seeks to recruit new members. Only a naievetè would believe otherwise.

After all, if you wanted to get an accurate and unbiased understanding of the practices and controversies of even a mainstream political party would you talk to the candidate that is up for re-election? Of course not. On The other hand one would not ask his opponent either. An intelligent person would ask someone with absolutley no stake in the election either way. Now I apoligise if this offends Larougites but it is absolutley irrational to believe that almost every single person in power in virtually the entire industrialized world has an interest in seeing Larouge fail. More than likely, at least the vast majority of them could care less.- 67.169.170.140 06:13, 8 October 2005 (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 16:10, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
Another note here. Although the removal of the dispute tags is unacceptable, this article does have some problems with NPOV. It's not that the article shouldn't make clear the generally accepted view of LaRouche's opinions. It's that it should not make the blanket statement that they are "incoherent" or disconnected from "general reality." Regardless of personal opinions of LaRouche and his followers (Opinions, I assure you, I share with Adam and David), he has followers who do not believe him to be incoherent or disconnected from reality. Thus it is not objecctive fact that he is either of these things. Thus it is POV to state it as objective fact.

I encourage someone on the anti-LaRouche side to make a pass through this article that separates the editorial comments about the validity of LaRouche's views from the descriptions of those views. Snowspinner 19:02, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Why don't you have a go at it? john k 20:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Because I'm trying to remain uninvolved so that I can effectively mediate and moderate this dispute. And because I'd rather see the edit warriors learn how to handle this than have to do it myself. Snowspinner 20:25, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. I could have a go at it, I suppose. john k 22:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the alternate version
I trimmed the quote at the beginning down to one paragraph, and added my own gloss. I don't know the legal distinction between a "quote" and a "copyright violation" -- perhaps Snowspinner or someone else could clue me in. Presumably there is a size limit to an acceptable quote. I am also not convinced that this quote is the best one, but I think it would be appropriate to provide a quote that more or less summarizes LaRouche's political views, since there has been a definite forest vs. trees problem here, and the Adam and Andy version seems, IMHO, designed to hide the forest altogether. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Fair use is a notoriously nebulous concept, but a paragraph is probably OK. Snowspinner 02:56, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Immediate reversion
In an effort to help mediate and calm down this dispute, I'm going to rope off some things and say "Don't do this." The list will be added to as needed. But for now, if you do any of these things, your edit will be reverted, plain and simple.

 * 1) Misleading edit summaries. If your summary says "Added X" and neglects to mention that it also removes a whole bunch of stuff, your edit will be reverted.
 * 2) Removing the dispute tag. If you remove the dispute tag, your edit will be reverted, and you will probably get a 24 hour block for vandalism, as everybody has now been warned about this.

Not yet on this list, but very, very close to being on this list is insertion of flagrantly POV phrases.

Let's try to be civil here. I still encourage someone on the anti-LaRouche side to take a pass either through their own preferred version or through Herchel's preferred version and try to NPOV it instead of a revert war. Either take out the claims of "incoherence" (Or, better yet, note that they are points of view) or, probably even better, take the version that most represents the POV opposite yours and insert paragraphs explaining your POV. Snowspinner 21:05, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

The LaRoucheite version of this article is complete rubbish, but since other people are working towards a "compromise" version of the article I will refrain for now from reverting it. HOWEVER to delete the "LaRouche and the Jews" section, which documents LaRouche's Holocaust denial, is completely unacceptable, and unless any compromise version of the article includes this section, I will revert to my last edit. And since the version currently visible to the public is grossly dishonest and misleading, I will not wait long before doing so. Adam 01:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Just so I know what I'm dealing with here (I'm very deliberately not educating myself on LaRouche here, so that I remain unbiased), what is wrong with their version? I mean, are there factual inaccuracies, and if so, will you indicate exactly what they are? Snowspinner 01:30, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, someone who is not educated about LaRouche, deliberately or otherwise, is in no position to arbitrate on these matters. I suggest you read the edit history of the Lyndon LaRouche article and get up to speed. In the meantime, I would like a response to my point about the "LaRouche and the Jews" section. If I am not assured that this section will be included in your compromise version, I will revert to the most recent version which does include it. This is a matter of principle on which compromise is not possible. Adam 01:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not trying to arbitrate it - I'm trying to mediate it, and to evaluate the positions based on the evidence. I mean, I'm not unaware of LaRouche and the controversy that surrounds him - but I'm also not prejudging specific opinions. LaRouche is a controversial figure. I expect that he will have lots of controversial views that most people think are absurd. I expect that an NPOV article will present these views, as well as people's objections to them. Am I mistaken in any of these? Snowspinner 01:48, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I would like a response to my point about the "LaRouche and the Jews" section. If I am not assured that this section will be included in your compromise version, I will revert to the most recent version which does include it. This is a matter of principle on which compromise is not possible. Adam 03:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche on the Jews
Just so I can be clear on this, then, does anyone have specific and factual objections to this section? Or are they POV objections, which can be worked out much more easily. Snowspinner 03:08, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have consolidated below my specific objections to the "LaRouche and the Jews" section. I have no problem with including Adam's quotes from LaRouche. I do maintain that his personal theories and spin-doctoring are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. I would also suggest that the section be balanced by including some of LaRouche's comments on the importance of Philo of Alexandria, made in the 70s and contemporaneous with the Zionism quotes. Adam is attempting to make a case for his theory that LaRouche is or was an anti-Semite; again, Wikipedia is not the proper forum. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like the case that LaRouche is an anti-Semite is not restricted to Adam. (At a glance, looking at his works and repeated attacks on Zionism, it would be my default assumption that he was, simply because "Zionist" is so often used as a code-word for "Jew" in anti-Semitic literature. WHich is not to say LaRouche does this - just that I can see why people would say he does.) Can, perhaps, Adam's arguments be kept in his preferred form, and you could compose a paragraph or two to go at the end of the LaRouche and the Jews section which depicts the LaRouche defense against accusations of anti-Semitism? Snowspinner 23:34, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Zionism / Zionist

 * "Zionism is a Jewish political movement supporting the creation and (since 1948) defence of a Jewish state in Palestine." I think even this definition is debatable -- see Zionism. Weed Harper 06:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * "From the early 1970s LaRouche regularly used the word "Zionist" as a term of abuse." POV. LaRouche uses it to describe an ideology, particularly that of Jabotinsky, which he opposes.

 * This is a bare-faced lie. LaRouche's literature attacks "Zionists" as an undifferentiated category. Since the great majority of Jews consider themselves to be Zionists, this is seen by Jews to be an attack on them. Since Jabotinsky has been dead for more than 60 years this is a typical LaRouchite red herring. If there's anything worse than an open anti-Semite it's a dissembling anti-Semite. Adam 00:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * "In the event of additional personal attacks by either party, either User Herschelkrustofsky or User Adam Carr are subject to short bans (around a day), the duration of the ban to gradually increase upon subsequent offenses to a two week maximum." -- arbcom decision. Weed Harper 21:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * "In this article, LaRouche acknowledges that he accepts the classical anti-Semite conspiracy theory, with the caveat that he ascibes it to groups of Jews rather than to all Jews." LaRouche acknowledges no such thing, and certainly not in the cited passage. This is reasoning typical of those who trivialize anti-Semitism, by branding anyone who calls Meyer Lansky a gangster as an anti-Semite.

 * "his criticisms of U.S. foreign policy are similar in many respects to those of the left, except that he blames its deficiencies on Zionist conspirators rather than on capitalist imperialism." POV spin-doctoring. LaRouche opposes Zionism (of the Revisionist sort), but he does not ascribe to it the authorship of U.S. foreign policy.

 * "Although LaRouche has always denied accusations of anti-Semitism, the word "Zionist", the common extreme right codeward for "Jew" began to appear in LaRouche propaganda in the 1970s."

This is also propagandistic -- it may hold for some extreme right groups, but it does not hold for LaRouche, or any of the other many legitimate critics of Zionism. LaRouche also supports some Zionist currents, and has often referred to his friendship with Nahum Goldmann and his admiration for Yitzhak Rabin. I note that Adam chose not to include King's formulation that "British" is also a code word for "Jewish" -- perhaps that one is too over-the-top even for Adam. -- Herschel

 * The whole "financier conspiracy" is rather redolent of anti-semitism. That said, this could and probably should be softened. john k 03:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't in fact agree with everything King says. I do agree that Zionist is a code-word for Jew in LaRouche's writings, and it is understood to be so by his readers. Adam 04:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * And you know this -- how?--Herschelkrustofsky 11:46, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * ' "Zionist", the common extreme right code word for "Jew" '

 * this is POV, and must be removed. Sam [Spade] 01:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Although it can certainly be argued that LaRouche uses Zionist as codeword for Jew (although such would have to be supported), it is wrong to say that Zionist is always a codeword for Jew. john k 01:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Of course Zionist is not always a code-word for Jew, and I didn't say it was. I said it is "the common extreme right code word for "Jew"," which is a fact that can be amply documented (see Zionist Occupied Government for example). Adam 01:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I agree, but it currently seems to be saying that. john k 01:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How can you prove what he means when he says it? He seems pretty crazy from what I read here, maybe when he says "Zionist" he is actually refering to the beatles ;) Sam [Spade] 01:50, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it certainly can be argued with more precision than it is here - his entire conspiratorial worldview is strongly redolent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for instance. But you're right that we should be very careful about accusations of anti-semitism of this sort. john k 02:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam is correct that it is often impossible to know what LaRouche really means when he talks about Zionists. This is partly because he is deliberately obscure - he talks in riddles and metaphors to keep his enemies guessing. Quite possibly he doesn't know himself. We can only quote what he says and point out how these words and phrases are usually meant. And it is a fact that most people who talk about international bankers conspiracies and how Zionists rule the world are anti-Semites. If this is not LaRouche's view of the world he should say so. Adam 02:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * So, Adam, you put words in LaRouche's mouth, and then the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that he doesn't think that way. This is pure, unbridled violation of NPOV. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Riddles, no. Metaphors, yes. And if you have difficulty understanding him, recuse yourself.
 * Adam is right. Those who are prominently anti-Zionist are often also people who are generally accused of being anti-Semitic (and prob. correctly). On the other hand that by no means everyone who has "anti-Zionism" as one of his or her key issues is therefore an anti-Semite. This "keyword" bit could be much better phrased elsewhere, I suspect (prob on anti-Semitism). From what I read here this guy seems to be perhaps the most duplicitous and misleading politician who is readily available, and that is saying ALOT ;). I frankly doubt we can provide much insight into what he means by what he says, and would prob be best off sticking to the text of his statements, rather than any particular judgments of them. Sam [Spade] 02:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely that we should quote LaRouche, without speculating about what he may mean, or extrapolating coded messages, or any of the other techniques that form the core of Dennis King's book, and consequently, Adam's article. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am perfectly entitled to point out what is usually meant by people who talk about Zionist conspiracies. I am not interested in responding to Herschel's wild allegations, which reflect badly only on him. Adam 05:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Then, point it out in an article on Zionist Conspiracies. If you can't quote LaRouche, I am entitled to wonder how you know what he is thinking. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is useful to interpret what others mean in this way. Of course you are right in many circumstances, but you can't fairly suggest it in the sweeping way in which you do, nor can you specifically prove that is what LaRouche means when he says it. Lets allow him to speak for himself, that his own words may condemn or redeem him before the reader, rather than providing our own translation of them. Sam [Spade] 17:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * That "Zionist" is the common extreme right code-word for "Jew" is (a) a fact and (b) relevant to the topic under discussion. I didn't say that everyone who uses the word Zionist means it in an anti-Semitic way. If I say "The Zionists had no right to colonise Palestine," that is clearly a legitimate use of the word. If I say "Zionist bankers rule the world," that it is clearly using Zionist as a code word for Jew. This is necessary information for readers who are being presented with a discussion of LaRouche's writings. It is an encyclpaedia's job to explain things to readers, not just dump primary sources on them. Adam 23:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * However, Adam uses this argument to cover for the fact that he is simply lying. And as for Dennis King, his first, and most honest attack on LaRouche was an article in High Times entitled "They want to take your drugs away."--Herschelkrustofsky 00:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam's wording: ''The use of "Zionist" (seen by some as a code word for "Jew") is a common practice of certain groups. ''

The problem with this is that a sentence with a subordinate clause in brackets has to be meaningful if that clause is removed, and the statement: The use of "Zionist" is a common practice of certain groups, while true, is meaningless. Secondly, placing seen by some as a code word for "Jew" in brackets makes it incidental, whereas it is in fact central, to the point of the sentence. Thirdly "some" and "certain groups" are vague and weasely - why don't we say what we mean? Fourth references in the body of the text are ugly. What exactly is Sam's problem with the sentence as it stands? Adam 02:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * the way you had it made him look like an anti-semite. He might be, or he might just be anti-english, or maybe just out of his mind generally, etc.. The way I put it is allows the reader to see what other sorts of folks use the term in this way, and lets them know that some consider this sort of use anti-semitic. I think that allows the reader to make up their own mind, or at least have food for thought (rather than having the conclusion fed to them). Sam [Spade] 02:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The previous wording stated two facts: 1. In the 1970s LaRouche began making various statements about Zionist conspiracies etc, 2. that the use of the word Zionist in this sense is hallmark of anti-Semites. Do you dispute either of these facts? If not, let's just state them and let readers draw their own conclusions. Adam 03:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * In the 1970s the LaRouche organization published an issue of the Campaigner with a cover story entitled "Zionism is not Judaism." This also might be relevant to the discussion. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It looks fine now, good edit. Sam [Spade] 04:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Well I'm glad that's cleared up. Nothing like a bit of co-operative editing, I always say. Adam 05:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * "From the early 1970s LaRouche regularly used the word "Zionist" as a term of abuse. The use of "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" is a common practice among anti-Semitic groups."

 * "The use of "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" is particularly noticeable in the 1978 publication by the LaRouche organisation entitled Zionism is not Judaism."
 * I think that this sentence is someone's idea of a joke. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Deliberate fallacy of composition -- in 1978, the LaRouche organization published a feature article in Campaigner entitled "Zionism is not Judaism." - Herschel

 * need more info before I can comment

 * I agree that this part is still problematic. I think it needs to be mentioned that discussion of Zionist conspiracy theories is an extraordinarily common feature of post-1948 anti-semitic literature, and that LaRouche's own comments about Zionism share many similarities with such works.  At the same time, we shouldn't say that LaRouche is an anti-semite. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zionist lobby
14. "LaRouche also claimed that the "Zionist lobby" controlled the U.S. government and the United Nations."

Utterly false. LaRouche has accused the "Zionist lobby", by which is meant principally AIPAC and allied organizations, of pursuing a policy that is harmful to both Israel and the U.S. He has never asserted that they control the U.S. government, let alone the United Nations, which has often passed resolutions that displease AIPAC. -- Herschel

 * He's certainly said things of this nature, although as I recall his favorite punching bags are much more a "world bankers' conspiracy" abetted by the British royal family. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What LaRouche has said, is that the so-called Zionist Lobby -- which is not some arcane conspiracy, but rather organizations like AIPAC -- is itself controlled by more powerful interests, that care nothing for the welfare of Jews or the state of Israel.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * need more info before I can comment

Jews and the slave trade
13. "In NCLC publications during the 1970s the Jews were accused of running the slave trade, controlling organized crime and the drug trade."

LaRouche has never accused "the Jews", nor any other ethnic or religious group, of running orcontrolling anything. He has accused Jewish-surnamed individuals such as Meyer Lansky with trafficking in narcotics, just as he has accused non-Jewish-surnamed individuals. He has never characterized "the Jews", or any other ethnic group, as controlling anything.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It's certainly documentable. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the evidence is against you on this Hershell

Great. Cite some. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * "LaRouche's principal target in this article is "Zionism," to which he attributes almost every conceivable type of evil." POV -- this is Adam letting his propagandistic flair get the better of him.

 * "When LaRouche accuses "Zionists" of treason and conspiracy, he is therefore seen by Jews, and many others, to be levelling those accusations against most Jews. When he accuses organisations such as B'nai B'rith and the ADL, and many individual Jews, of various crimes, he is seen to be attacking the great majority of Jews who support those organisations and those individuals, particularly since he attributes to them the classic crimes of the sterotypical Jew of the anti-Semitic imagination." POV speculation. If you know of someone who actually believes these things, quote them.

 * "In this sense LaRouche can fairly be described as having been an anti-Semite in 1978, when this article was published. He has never explicitly repudiated the views expressed in this article." First of all, the "in this sense" part is a theory that Adam arrives at through the most tortured logic, and has no place in an encyclopedia article. Secondly, LaRouche and his organization have in fact explicitly repudiated the views on Zionism expressed in the 1978 article: he has acknowledged Labor Zionism as a constructive force, exemplified by Ben-Gurion or Rabin, in contradistinction to the Revisionist Zionism of the Jabotinskyites/Likudniks (see ,and .)

 * "There is even a word of praise for Walther Rathenau, an archetypal Jewish business figure of the kind so savagely denounced by LaRouche throughout his career." Innuendo -- give me one example of a "Jewish business figure" that was savagely denounced by LaRouche.

Does it matter
I'd like to make a point, here, in the hopes of defusing an argument that I think is ultimately off-topic. I don't think it matters whether LaRouche is an anti-Semite or not. He may be. He may not be. I don't care. What I care about is that both sides of this dispute be represented evenhandedly. REGARDLESS of whether or not you think the LaRouche side is reasonable, or the anti-LaRouche side is a conspiracy. That's what NPOV means. Representing sides of an argument you think suck and are invald. So let's just take it as a given that there's a controversy here, assume that neither Adam nor Hersch are ever going to agree on whether Lyndon LaRouche is an anti-Semite, and write an encyclopedia article that includes both POVs, shall we? I mean, does anyone actually have any objections to this plan? Snowspinner 00:52, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

The section "LaRouche and the Jews" was carefully written and moderately phrased, and seeks to set out and analyse documentary evidence pertinent to the question of whether LaRouche is or was an anti-Semite and/or a Holocuast denier. You are welcome to try to rewrite it but I will oppose any attempt to water it down or allow it to be contaminated with LaRouche nonsense such as that set out by Herschelkrustofsky above. Adam 02:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * While I understand your feelings on LaRouche and his followers, I am unable to reconcile them with the NPOV policy. Snowspinner 04:26, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * That said, looking at the section, I find it to be quite even-handed, with only one or two lapses. I'm gonna go ahead and make a quick NPOV pass on it, but my feeling is that it should certaiinly be included. That said, due to its length, I would not be averse to breaking it off to a separate article with a one paragraph summary in this one and a link. I'm not wedded to that idea either, though - thoughts on it? Snowspinner 05:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * As much as I appreciate the attempt to make this site as neutral as possible I recognize the great flaw of Wikipedia. I basically attempts to create history through consensus.  At times people are forced to water down events that actually happened because either someone doesn't think they really did, or they are offended by it because it contradicts their world view and personal politics.  No matter what evidence one presents, the other disagees.- 67.169.170.140 06:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche and the Jews - Current Version
What do people think of the current version? I've taken out the editorializing comments, and tried to make it so that the quotes from LaRouche speak for themselves, instead of the article saying what to think about them. I don't see much that speculates about LaRouche's motives or is dodgy in there, though if I'm missing something Herschel should feel free to point it out. But my feeling at the moment is that, yes, this section is certainly good enough to go in any version of the article. Any thoughts? Snowspinner 05:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to Snowspinner's edit on this section. I have very strenuous objections to the LaRouche propaganda tract which Weed Harper is attempting to foist on us. Unless Snowspinner or someone else comes up with their "compromise" version very soon I will revert to the last version. Adam 08:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I would appreciate greatly if you did not place a deadline on this. Snowspinner 14:23, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

The Basic Version
I've still not come down and said "X is the basic version." I think both versions are seriously flawed. Weed/Herschel's version, I think, has the distinct advantage of actually containing a summary of Lyndon LaRouche's political system. It contains the massive weakness, however, of not indicating A) that this system is highly controversial, B) that people outside of LaRouche's supporters tend not to find LaRouche as coherent as all that, and C) that LaRouche has taken controversial views on other issues beyond his general philosophy. Since this is an article on his views, not his philosophy, I think sections like the anti-Semitism section are very, very important to have. I also think an account of his political philosophy is important to have.

My problems with the Adam/Andy version, as I have said, is that it's a mess of POV editorial comments about LaRouche, and that its organizational structure is to move through controversial points about LaRouche instead of through LaRouche's views in an NPOV manner.

My feeling is that a "default version" would probably be an amalgamation of the two articles. I've got an incredibly busy morning ahead of me, so if someone else wants to try to merge the two articles into one version, that'd be neat. Otherwise, I'll get it this evening.

My sense would be, basically, the Hersch/Weed version followed by the Adam/Andy version, with a new introductory paragraph being inserted, and with the current lead of the Hersch/Weed version being the first paragraph of a section called "LaRouche's political philosophy," and the Adam/Andy section being titled something like "Controversial views of Lyndon LaRouche." Snowspinner 14:23, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * I am making an initial attempt to carry out your proposal. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to Snowspinner or some other User not previously involved attempting to write a compromise or composite article incorporating elements of the pro-LaRouche and anti-LaRouche articles. I am not optimistic of their chances of success (it will be like trying to write an article on evolution by merging a Darwinian article and a creationist article), but I am willing to wait and see what they come up with. I am emphatically not willing that Herschelkrustofsky should be the person to undertake this task, since he is a partisan in this controversy. Adam 11:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Critics of LaRouche
Adam deleted this section, saying "it doesn't belong in the article." By the same token, Weed objected to the insertion of a paragraph of opinions about why Ramsey Clark ought not to be taken seriously, over at Lyndon LaRouche. I now believe that they are both mistaken in their judgement, based on some reading that I have done (at the suggestion of others on the talk page) about the fine points of Wikipedia NPOV policy. When opinions of someone who purports to be an expert are introduced to the article, it is fitting and proper to explore the qualifications and possible biases of the cited expert (in this case, King, Berlet, and so forth.) So, I would argue that this section belongs in the article, without question. It is definately in keeping with the Wikipedia policy of citing sources -- the reader should know something about the source. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Can you give the citation for their admitting to these meetings taking place? And also some source of the causality? (That is, that the meetings directly led to waves of anti-LaRouche criticism?) Snowspinner 03:57, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I actually deleted it primarily because I don't believe it and won't do so until I see some independent (ie, non-LaRouche) evidence for it. Adam 04:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * If you saw a LaRouche source for it, would you accept its addition if its source were clearly indicated? Snowspinner 06:46, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

No. Adam 07:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I linked the passage to an assessment by Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase.org, who has no affiliation with LaRouche. He is discussing the "Quinde Affidavit," filed under oath by former LaRouche investigator Herbert Quinde. Quinde interviewed Berlet, Hudson and Sanders (a former editor of Business Week) about their involvement in the Train meetings. A more detailed description of the Quinde affidavit is available on this LaRouche site. In addition, Mira Lansky Boland testified under oath at a hearing during the appeals process, as to her involvement in the meetings -- I am looking for internet documentation on this. On Aug. 6, 1984, attorneys for LaRouche depositioned Dennis King. When asked about the circumstances under which he was introduced to Pat Lynch, King was silent. His attorney, Scott McLaughlin, interrupted the deposition, and took King out into the hallway for 20 minutes; when they returned, King claimed he could not recall how he had first met Lynch.

--Herschelkrustofsky 10:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Postscript: I note that an individual purporting to be Chip Berlet (although his writing style and POV is remarkably similar to that of Adam Carr) has just edited the article on himself, and posted to Talk:Chip Berlet. On the talk page User:Cberlet admits to attending the meetings, although he asserts that Quinde got the year of the meeting wrong. --Herschelkrustofsky 11:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I have never edited the Chip Berlet article. I had never heard of him till I got involved in editing this article and I still know nothing about him.
 * I have never heard of Daniel Brandt, either, but I will accept the reference given as evidence that this anti-LaRouche meeting took place in 1983 unless someone has evidence which would discredit the reference. That does not mean, of course, that the sinister aspect Herschelkrustofsky places on the meeting is necessarily accurate, but I don't have enough knowledge about this to edit the section.
 * Apart from that, this section belongs in the Lyndon LaRouche article, not in this one. Adam 12:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The section is relevant to both articles, but it would seem to me to be more relevant to the article where the opnions of LaRouche's critics are most prominently featured. Incidentally, I believe that much of what AndyL has added to the various articles comes from Berlet. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I emailed User:Cberlet through his user page and it is indeed Chip Berlet himself -- not Adam Carr. BCorr | Брайен 18:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche and the Jews section
I removed the following addition by User:C Colden:

 * However, during this period LaRouche publications such as Campaigner magazine often promoted Philo of Alexandria and Maimonides as positive examples of the "Platonic humanist current in Judaism," and most of the leadership of the NCLC was Jewish.

Perhaps it may make sense to reinsert some version of it if the follwoing questions are discussed: 1) Is there any evidence for this? and 2) If so, it is a relevant "balance" to the other material in the paragraph. BCorr | Брайен 19:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I reinserted it with the source: Dec 1978 issue of "Campaigner." I have seen it in other publications from that era, but that one I specifically remember. As far as the Jewish members, even Chip Berlet, who hates LaRouche, admits to that.

Weed Harper 21:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche's rhetorical flourishes about Philo of Wherever are just part of his usual bullshit about how he is the heir of Franklin and Douglass and Roosevelt etc etc. It in no way balances his record of Holocaust denial and Zionist conspiracies. Adam 01:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, as I understand the NPOV policy, the objective is to provide the Wikipedia reader with enough information so that they may draw their own informed conclusions, rather than having the editors attempt to force-feed their own. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Is LaRouche a Fascist?" section
This entire section reads like someone's personal theory, not suitable for an encyclopedia article. I inserted a "dubious" label after this: "LaRouche's political organization is built entirely around his own personality and the promotion of his words and ideas." It should be removed, because no one joins the LaRouche movement as an activist without becoming thoroughly acquainted with Henry Carey, Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich Schiller, Plato, Gauss, FDR, and so on. Weed Harper 14:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner's mediation
I am informed that Snowspinner is on a Wikivacation, which is unfortunate, because I think he had a pronounced civilizing impact on the editing here. I would like to urge editors to stick to his guidelines: provide a clear an honest rationale for each edit, and do not revert multiple edits with a single misleading edit memo. The LaRouche-related pages have made a noticeable shift towards compliance with the NPOV guidelines, and while there is much work left to be done, I hope that all parties concerned recognize that there has been progress.

--Herschelkrustofsky 21:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche's critics
The majority of this article is not about LaRouche's views per se; it is about the characterization of his views by Berlet, King et al. Therefore the section on LaRouche's critics is appropriate and indispensable. Andy refers to the Train Salon meetings as a "fantasy," but this assertion doesn't stand up to scrutiny, particularly since Berlet himself weighed in over at Talk:Chip Berlet and admitted attending the meetings (although he offers a different characterization of what the agenda was.) The Quinde affidavit, cited in this article, is based on interviews with three different participants, one of them being Berlet. --Herschelkrustofsky

Actually Berlet used the singular, he said "meeting" not "meetings" and said nothing that supports your characterisation of them. Please provide some evidence of the content of these "meetings" or even that there was more than one get together.You post an affadavit but was this supported by the testimony of the participants? What was the court finding in regards to LaRouche's claims re the "John Train Salon" as you call it? AndyL 22:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Berlet admits to attending one of the meetings, but there were three different participants interviewed. The court hearing was an evidentiary hearing as part of a complicated deal around LaRouche's appeals process -- there was no verdict, just a lot of sworn testimony. I have changed the first sentence to make it fit the Daniel Brandt article in NameBase -- Adam demanded a non-LaRouche source, and one was provided. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph is misleading because, in part due to its placement, it implies that all criticisms of LaRouche flow from the "John Train Salon". In fact, much of the criticism has nothing to do with those alleged to be at the meeting. Certainaly Clara Fraser, Tim Wohlforth and various former members of the LaRouche movement were not present. Basically, what you are trying to do is use that paragraph as a disclaimer to dismiss all criticism of LaRouche as the product of some sort of conspiracy. AndyL 01:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will re-write the section. However, almost all press coverage of LaRouche did in fact flow from the meetings. I had certainly never heard of Clara Fraser or Tim Wohlforth prior to your inserting their views in the article. Tell me, did you know of them before you began googling in search of anti-LaRouche citations? The high-profile critics of LaRouche are those who were present at the meetings. To my knowledge, no ex-member, however disgruntled, has ever launched a significant public attack on LaRouche -- they were solicited by King and Berlet. --Herschelkrustofsky 11:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Tell me, did you know of them before you began googling in search of anti-LaRouche citations?

As a matter of fact, I did. Clara Fraser was co-founder and leader of the Freedom Socialist Party. I've met one or two members of that party over the years. Tim Wohlforth was leader of the Workers League in the US, a Healyite formation. I actually corresponded with him over email a few years ago over matters not relating to LaRouche. AndyL 22:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andy, you deleted the section with an edit summary that consisted only of "moving." Moving to where? It ought to be in proximity to the section which propounds the views of LaRouche's critics. I have replaced it until you want to make some sort of counter-proposal.--Herschelkrustofsky 05:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You should have looked at my subsequent edit. It was a two step move due to the size of the article. AndyL 05:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I found it. I can live with the new location, but the list of participants should stay. Even a person who was completely neutral on LaRouche would have to marvel at the amazing diversity of the attendees -- strange bedfellows, indeed. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I said earlier you need to provide citations other than this affadavit by a LaRouche supporter. AndyL 12:35, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * What I provided was an objective, third party assessment of the affidavit by Daniel Brandt. Also, the citation of testimony by Lansky Boland, which was deleted, has been restored: she simply acknowledged that she had attended meetings, and confirmed the names of those participants that attended those meetings.

 * It appears that Andy is advocating the creation of yet another article on the John Train Salon. I don't think this is necessary, but I won't oppose it.

 * There is no published criticism, to my knowledge, of LaRouche by former members, except in cases where it was solicited by King and Berlet.

 * I oppose the edits which "sanitize" the description of Richard Mellon Scaife; I put in a compromise version.

--Herschelkrustofsky 15:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see the actual text of Boland's statement as there has been a "credibility gap" in the past between what LaRouche proponents claim and reality (see Talk:Eurasian_Land-Bridge in regards to this Turkish magazine which apparently is not the major publication you claimed it was and past claims denying that LaRouche ever said only 1.5 million Jews died in WWII). I understand you claim Boland's testimony supports the "John Train Salon" claim but I'd like to see for myself what she actually said as far as who the participants were and the purpose of the meeting(s). Given all the material the LaRouche camp has placed online I see no reason why this testimony, if it is so important, wouldn't be online somewhere so please provide a link so I can see it for myself. AndyL 15:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * National press coverage during this period included stories charging that LaRouche had orchestrated the assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, and that he had attempted to assassinate U.S. President Jimmy Carter.

Please provide dates and newspapers/magazines/tv shows in which these stories were disseminiated. AndyL 15:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Given the already voluminous family of LaRouche articles, I don't think it necessary to have another on the John Train Salon. I would suggest removing the Wiki link to a yet unwritten article. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to see a transcript of Boland's testimony. AndyL 15:35, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that there are any such transcripts online, but if you really want to read the transcript, the Schiller Institute site has the information to find it: it is from the "2255 hearing" (a particular kind of hearing) in Roanoke Virginia, May 24 1990, appendix 54. Weed Harper 23:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If the transcript says what you folks suggest it says I don't see why it isn't online given the eagerness of the LaRouche movement to convert documents into html.

And I fail to see the relevence of the "critics" section to an article on "Political views of Lyndon LaRouche" given that your accusations re the "John Train Salon" is that they were responsible for media accusing LaRouche of criminal activity rather than for producing a political critique. What does a reference to NBC running an piece on assassinations have to do with "Political views of Lyndon LaRouche"?AndyL 01:02, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you about the NBC pieces being not particularly relevant, but they do establish that a significant amount of the post-Illinois election coverage was in fact just a further extension of the Train Salon activity. The main relevance of the Train Salon meetings is that they were responsible for the sudden media prominence of Dennis King and Chip Berlet, who graduated from High Times to the big leagues. Most of what is offered in the article as a "political critique" comes from King and Berlet. --Herschelkrustofsky 11:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
Can we remove the NPOV notice now?AndyL 21:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On October 10, 2004, 4 months of intensive edit warring over the content of this and related articles were resolved through compromise. The previous discussion on this talk page has been archived at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/archive1. I sincerely hope that future editing of this article can be done in conformity with Wikipedia NPOV policy. --Herschelkrustofsky 12:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Im suprised that this page doesn't talk about certain things. I picked up what appeared to be a LaRouce written magazine which appeared to set forth his political outlook, and essentially it sayed that FDR was the best president and laid down what might be called a "conspiracy" theory that politicians afterwards were influenced away from FDR's direction by this group of people associated with this international meeting, one I had never heard about before. Can anyone chime in on this?

 * I think LaRouche's view is that FDR was the best president of the 20th Century -- if I'm not mistaken, he has said that Lincoln was the best president overall. If you could be more specific about the "international meeting," I might be able to chime in on it. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can't remember the name of it at all, but it took place back in the era of black and white pictures ;). What I read basically said it was these men at that meeting who eventually got control of the government and instigated that bread and circuses that is the 60's with programs like MKULTRA.
 * That would be the Congress for Cultural Freedom. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So if, at least in the present views of LaRouche, the CCF is like the center of the conspiracy, how does that gel with like the others mentioned in this article, such as Rockefeller, etc.?

SlimVirgin's latest contribution
The purpose of the first section of the article is to present LaRouche's core beliefs and provide a summary of his world view. The "conspiracy theory" section comes under "criticism of LaRouche" because it is a discussion of things that LaRouche may actually have said, which his opponents believe fall under the pejorative category of "conspiracy theories."

SlimVirgin has inserted the material from Take a Break magazine into this section, and then tried to move the entire section into the "core beliefs" portion of the article, because he wishes to assert that it is just unforgiveably wacky and iconoclastic to suggest that the world's weathiest and most visible aristocratic family acts like a bunch of overdressed refugees from The Godfather, even to the point of "bumping off" its perceived enemies, and that anyone (such as Princess Diana herself) who would suggest such a thing must be avoided, ridiculed, banned from Wikipedia, or dealt with even more harshly. It is for this reason that Slim's latest contribution belongs under "criticism of LaRouche." I am leaving the NPOV dispute tag up until there is a consensus on this topic. --Herschelkrustofsky 12:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The structure of the article
The structure came about as a result of the mediation of Snowspinner, which ended four months of incessant edit wars. The first section of the article is comprised of views of LaRouche that his supporters, such as myself, consider most important. The second section is comprised of views, or in some cases alleged views, that anti-LaRouche activists such as yourself, Slim, prefer to emphasize. I have re-worked the subject headers to make this more explicit. Please do not move your edits into the first section without first presenting an argument on this talk page as to why the present structure is unfair or misleading. The present structure came about as a result of much hard work and compromise. --Herschelkrustofsky 16:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


text:
Gotan Project

Gotan Project is a musical group based in Paris (France), consisting of musicians Eduardo Makaroff (Argentina), Philippe Cohen Solal (French) and Christoph H. Müller (Swiss), a former member of Touch El Arab.

History
Gotan Project formed in 1999. Their first release was "Vuelvo Al Sur/El Capitalismo Foráneo" in 2000, followed by the album La Revancha del Tango in 2001. Their music is based on Argentine tango, but also uses elements such as samples, beats, and breaks.

Live material was broadcast on Gilles Peterson's world music show Worldwide on BBC Radio 1 in May 2004. The band has also released a DJ set: Inspiración Espiración - A Gotan Project DJ Set Selected & Mixed by Philippe Cohen Solal (2004). This album is a compilation of classic tangos from the likes of Aníbal Troilo, Ástor Piazzolla and Gotan Project remixes. The album also includes a bonus CD with the track "La Cruz del Sur" – which was meant to be included on La Revancha del Tango, but did not make the cut in 2001.

In 2006 they released a second studio album, Lunático, and in 2010 Tango 3.0, their last studio album to date.

Band name
The name of the trio is the word "tango" with the order of its syllables reversed. Reversing syllables in this way is a form of word play called "al vesre" that is common in Lunfardo, an argot of Rioplatense Spanish.

Discography

 * La Revancha del Tango (2001)
 * Lunático (2006)
 * Tango 3.0 (2010)

Commercial use
The song "Santa Maria (del Buen Ayre)" was used in the films The Bourne Identity (2002) and Shall We Dance? (2004).

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

title: Gotan Project


text:
Hans Sennholz

Hans F. Sennholz (3 February 1922 – 23 June 2007) was a German-born American Austrian School economist and prolific author who studied under Ludwig von Mises. A Luftwaffe pilot during World War II, he was shot down over North Africa on 31 August 1942, and spent the remainder of the war in a POW camp in the United States.

After returning to Germany, Sennholz took degrees at the universities of Marburg in 1948 and Köln in 1949. He returned to the United States to study for a Ph.D. at New York University where he became Mises' first Ph.D. student in the United States. He taught economics at Grove City College, 1956–1992. After he retired, he became president of the Foundation for Economic Education, 1992–1997.

World War II
He was drafted into the Luftwaffe during World War II and became the pilot of a Messerschmitt Bf 109, earning the Iron Cross for valor from his engagements in Norway, France, and Russia. He was shot down over North Africa on August 31, 1942, at a time when the battle for north Africa was intensifying, and spent the remainder of the war in a POW camp in the United States, ultimately located to a POW camp in Wilson, Arkansas, where he worked from 1945 to 1946 at the Wilson dairy farm "milking 20 cows twice a day".

Wartime diary
During his stay in Arkansas, he maintained a journal of his time as a POW. When he was released to Germany in 1946, he gave the journal to a trusted guard. "Please send this to my home when the time comes." But the journal never arrived.

In 1964, William Harrison, a factory worker in Jonesboro, Arkansas, found the journal on the bank of Bay Ditch, a drainage artery bordering 'old' Highway 63. In November 1985, Harrison took the journal to Scott Darwin, a professor of German at Arkansas State University. Harrison was told that the obsolete German script could not be translated by anyone on staff. Its translation would come by Erika Cohen, having attended German schools in the 1930s when the style was in use. She was the German-born wife of Robert S. Cohen, M.D.; they married while he was serving in the U.S. Army Medical Corps.

The journal told the story of its unidentified author's life as a Luftwaffe pilot, being shot down in north Africa and his subsequent time as a German POW in Arkansas. This, perhaps, was intentional, as POWs were not allowed personal possessions.

In 1988, Harrison published the story, "Who Wrote the Diary", in Die Welt, a large-circulation German newspaper. Willie Weischhoff read the story, which mentioned him by name, and wrote to his friend and fellow German POW, Hans Sennholz, a professor of economics at Grove City College. On October 20, 1988, Harrison received a letter from Sennholz stating: "I am the POW author you have been looking for."

Post-war education and career
After returning to Germany, Sennholz took degrees at the universities of Marburg in 1948 and Köln in 1949. He then moved to the United States to study for a Ph.D. at New York University. He was Ludwig von Mises' first PhD student in the United States. He taught economics at Grove City College, 1956–1992, having been hired as department chair upon arrival. After he retired, he became president of the Foundation for Economic Education, 1992–1997. Calvinist Political Philosopher, John W. Robbins, pointed out in a book printed in honor of Sennholz shortly after his death that "Sennholz, ... rests his defense of a free society on revelation."

Fellow Austrian School economist, Joseph Salerno, praised Sennholz as an under-appreciated member of the Austrian School who "writes so clearly on such a broad range of topics that he is in danger of suffering the same fate as Say and Bastiat. As Joseph Schumpeter pointed out, these two brilliant nineteenth-century French economists, who were also masters of economic rhetoric, wrote with such clarity and style that their work was misjudged by their British inferiors as 'shallow' and 'superficial'."

Sennholz's influence
2008 U.S. presidential candidate, Ron Paul, credits his interest in economics to meeting Sennholz and getting to know him well. Peter Boettke, Director of the F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, first learned economics from Sennholz as a student at Grove City College.

Articles

 * "Forecasting." Freeman, vol. 20, no. 1 (January 1970): 11-15.
 * "What We Can Know About the World." Freeman, vol. 20 (1970): 443.
 * "Omnipotent Government." Freeman, vol. 20 (1970): 440–442.
 * "The Great Depression". Freeman (October 1969)
 * "The Crisis in International Economic Relations." imprimis, vol. 2, no. 3 (March 1973): 1-6.

Book reviews

 * Review of Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War by Ludwig von Mises. Freeman, vol. 20 (1970): 440–442. Full audio.

Authored

 * Divided Europe. New York (1955)
 * How Can Europe Survive? New York: D. Van Nostrand Company (1955)
 * Moneda y libertad. Buenos Aires, Argentina (1961)
 * The Great Depression. Lansing, MI (1969)
 * Inflation or Gold Standard. Lansing, MI (1973)
 * Death and Taxes. Washington, D.C. (1976) [2nd ed. 1982]
 * Problemas económicas de actualidad. Buenos Aires, Argentina (1977)
 * Age of Inflation. Belmont, MA (1977)
 * The Underground Economy. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute (1984)
 * Money and Freedom. Grove City, PA: Libertarian Press (1985)
 * The Politics of Unemployment. Spring Mills, PA (1987)
 * Debts and Deficits. Spring Mills, PA (1987)
 * The Great Depression: Will We Repeat It?. Spring Mills, PA (1988)
 * The Savings and Loan Bailout. Spring Mills, PA (1989)
 * Three Economic Commandments. Spring Mills, PA (1990)
 * The First Eighty Years of Grove City College. Grove City, PA (1993)
 * Reflection and Remembrance. Irvington, NY (1997)
 * Sowing the Wind. Grove City, PA (2004)
 * Age of Inflation Continued. Grove City, PA (2006)

Edited

 * Gold is Money. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press (1975)
 * Free to Try. Irvington-on-Hudson, New York: Foundation for Economic Education (1995)

title: Hans Sennholz


text:
Talk:The Black Book of Communism

Undue weight given to introduction
The book is an anthology of several historians on the topic of communism, and yet it seems the entire article is about the controversy over the introduction. If we are going to have an article about the book, we should also cover the other parts as well. --Nug (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that the weight given to the introduction in our article doesn't reflect the weight given to it in sources that have discussed the Black Book? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What happened to your inner self that wanted to know? Don't you want to know what the rest of the book is about, isn't that the whole point of an encyclopedia? --Nug (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How about answering the question I asked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the text in The_Black_Book_of_Communism is actually sourced from the book's introduction. The book's other parts ought to be mentioned as well. Criticisms should go into the section The_Black_Book_of_Communism. --Nug (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't answer my question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree that everything prominently covered in RS should be prominently described on the page. This is simply per WP:NPOV. But was it significantly covered? For example, the entire Foreword section is referenced only to BBoC itself. Based on that, this whole section should be removed. So are several other subsections. Yes, some key points can be cited directly from the book, but only briefly. As about other views, a lot was written about BBoC, hence some selection is required. Some of the claims even look ridiculous. For example, as cited, The book's main thesis reads thus: our century's fundamental crime was not the Holocaust, but rather the existence of Communism. Through the manipulation of numbers ...". OK. But, first of all, how is this a "manipulation with numbers". Secondly, why is that antisemitic? Third, the book does not say at all anywhere that "our century's fundamental crime was not the Holocaust" (if it did, please tell where it was. I did not see this in the book; yes, it focuses on communist crimes because this is the subject of the book). We need a correct, short, logical and understandable description of the reception, not a scandal mongering, please. My very best wishes (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And how exactly are you proposing that Wikipedia determines which descriptions to the Black Book are 'correct'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Wikipedia, but contributors/editors. To answer this question, I need to know if you actually read BBoC and if you are familiar with the subject of communist repressions. Basically, one needs to know well the subject to evaluate the literature on the subject, i.e. which sources should be used. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the weight is undue, because the book became famous mostly due to highly provocative claims made by Courois and Malia in the introduction and foreword. Without that, it would be just another history monograph. Most reviews on the BB discuss primarily the claims made by Courtois, some of them mention Werths and, rarely, Margolin. Other chapters are usually ignored. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course the introduction's notoriety has established the book's notability, enabling an article to be created, and once created a fuller description of the book is the encyclopedic approach, Wikipedia isn't a tabloid of provocative claims. Criticisms should go into the section The_Black_Book_of_Communism in any case. --Nug (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether we like it or not, the legacy of the Black Book are its introduction and the 100 million estimate number. As for the question about some attributed quotes, it is literally explained in the part of the quote (which, again, is properly attributed and not stated as fact) you decided, for whatever reason, not to quote: "Through the manipulation of numbers—only twenty-five million human lives fell victim to Hitler, one hundred million to Communism worldwide—the impression is created that Communism is four times worse than fascism and that the Holocaust was not a uniquely evil crime." If you cannot see it, I do not know what to tell you, and it is not the first time. You appeared to not understand that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fabricated antisemitic text either ... Davide King (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A "manipulation with numbers" typically mean a fabrication. Here, we deal merely with a comparison of two numbers. Do authors of the book say that "Communism is four times worse than fascism and that the Holocaust was not a uniquely evil crime."? As far as I remember, they did not; this is just a Reductio ad absurdum by the reviewer. Should we cite obvious distortions by highly politicized reviewers who apparently hate authors of the book? I do not think so; we must be more careful and conservative in selecting citations and reviews. My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewers published in academic journals are generally more reliable than our own original research. Who and which are those "obvious distortions by highly politicized reviewers who apparently hate authors of the book"? We should cite them only if we have equally reliable sources pointing that out, though if what you wrote was true, I bet it would have been included already. All those academic reviews were found through Google Scholar, and I even added a few ones that are more positive, like The Russian Review, because that is what NPOV is about; if academic criticism is the majority view, we do not engage in false balance. You have shown a lack of understanding about the book and its legacy, and its scholarly criticism, which I suggest you to re-read. Davide King (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to broadly agree with and  here. I have made an edit to the lead to more precisely and concisely describe the actual criticism of the book's introduction, as well as to correct the obvious misrepresentation of widespread praise for the book by claiming only "several publications" were positive. The criticism is part of what is noteworthy about the book—but there seems to be short shrift paid to the book's impact, especially in the lead.
 * One suggestion would be to pull out the quote "The Black Book may be the single most influential text on the Soviet Union and other state socialist regimes and movements published since The GuLag Archipelago" and/or similar descriptions of TBB's importance and include it/them in the lead. (Side note: that quote is not appearing for me on any browser on any device—is there some reason I can only see it when editing?)
 * Putting aside scholarly disputes over whether Communism was responsible for 85 or 100 million deaths or whether Communism and Nazism are so different that comparisons are unwarranted, the book made an enormous and lasting impact by revealing the extraordinary death toll of Communist regimes around the world—not just for academics, but for the million-odd laymen who bought and read the book. And I do believe the book's effect risks being lost in the sensationalism of the controversy—which, while widely reported upon, is unlikely to be its real legacy from the perspective of an encyclopedia. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 18:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"consensus formed elsewhere"
Per this recent removal of sourced content, I'd like to know which "consensus formed elsewhere" is referred to, since the mere assertion that such a consensus exists clearly isn't adequate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look, but can't find any such 'consensus' anywhere obvious. There was a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability which mentioned the source, but it was made clear that what was being discussed was whether the source was reliable for one specific statement, and not the reliability of the source as a whole. And I don't really see how a source can be 'unreliable' when it is being cited for the opinion of its author(s). Lacking a proper explanation for the removal, I've restored the content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, the edit summary is obviously misleading. It is a serious violation of our rules. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't pretend you are unaware of the discussion at Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes. Engel-Di Mauro paper is cited by nobody, he is a professor in Geography and his only qualification that is remotely related to communism is a Certificate in Russian, Central and East European Studies. Not even a degree, just a certificate. I guess you also think he is an expert in the Hungarian Language too? WP:UNDUE also applies, so please, there are better sources than this non notable geography academic. --Nug (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am aware that there is an ongoing discussion there. I can see no evidence that any consensus has been arrived at. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Engel-Di Mauro text was removed a week ago from MKuCR and C.J. Griffin has since replaced it with a better source. I note you ignore the fact that Engel-Di_Mauro is a non-notable geographer who has no expertise in communism studies. --Nug (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not ignoring any facts. You stated that you were removing the material because "consensus formed elsewhere deemed this particular source unreliable". You have provided no evidence that such a consensus exists. And reliability has nothing to do with 'notability'. If you want to argue here that inclusion is undue, you are free to do so - but without making bogus claims in an edit summary regarding an imaginary 'consensus'. No such consensus exists, and your edit-warring is accordingly entirely unjustifiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Engel-Di Mauro holds a certificate in Russian, Central, and East European Studies, and has extensive peer-reviewed publications on them; in fact, a large part of his work focuses on the intersection between socialist ideologies and the environment, particularly as it relates to agriculture.  Since large parts of The Black Book deal with blaming the Soviet Union for famines (and this is a core part of the number Engel-Di Mauro is discussing here) he is an ideal expert to reference on the subject. Even if that consensus were valid (which it isn't, since first I'm not actually seeing one in the discussion you reach, and second the people arguing for removal relied on the demonstrably false claim that Mauro lacked expertise), it still would not apply here, since applicability and WP:DUE weight are higher on an article for the book Mauro was criticizing directly. --Aquillion (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to what Aquillion said, the only use of the source being problematic was this (e.g. capitalism and mass deaths), but otherwise it was a reliable source properly attributed.1 Indeed, the part that was removed by Nug was precisely the part that took it to the RSN, and there was consensus to be usable in that context, so Nug's removal was not acceptable and they should have been much more careful (I have linked the RSN discussion at Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes when discussing the source, so they should have known better). Davide King (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Corrections and clarifications to lead
I made a few brief edits to a couple sentences in the lead: Thanks for any thoughts—and, per WP:REVONLY, I kindly request that you please do not wholesale revert my edit, but rather remove, add to, or change only any parts you believe to be inaccurate or otherwise unacceptable. I so appreciate it! ElleTheBelle 18:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed the inaccurate quantification of positive reviews as "it received praise in several publications" (meaning more than two, but a small number or handful). The book received high praise from a broad spectrum of publications and widely cited criticism has largely focused on the introduction, which is covered in the same sentence.
 * Removed dicey diction of "accused" from "its introduction… was… accused of historical inaccuracies…" and "at the same time" from "The Black Book of Communism has been translated into numerous languages, sold millions of copies, and is at the same time considered one of the most influential and controversial books
 * Specified number of contributors who criticized introduction as three of twelve (I have included Courtois in that number, because a claim of "eleven contributors" in the lead is misleading without explaining his exclusion from the twelve total contributors, which strikes me as unnecessarily complicated and wordy for second paragraph of the article).
 * Corrected summary of the introduction's critics: no cited source reports allegations that the introduction contains "historical inaccuracies" or "manipulations" other than its comparison of Communism/Nazism and "inflated" or "manipulated" numbers, so to include "historical inaccuracies, manipulations, and inflated numbers" is both hyperbolic and incorrect. More specifically, the use of "manipulated" is redundant in the same way as "historical inaccuracies"; its use in cited sources appears to be limited either the juxtaposition of the victims of Communism/Nazism or inflation of the number for Communism (both of which are already covered). That being the case, I've changed it to "both for comparing Communism to Nazism and allegedly inflating the numbers of victims"—I believe that to be the most precise, concise, and complete summary. I'm of course than happy to be corrected on this—if there is widely cited and credible criticism of the introduction for "historical inaccuracies" or "manipulations" above and beyond to the comparison or allegedly inflated numbers.
 * The improvement is this but I wish for the removal of citations in the lead altogether, too plaintive and distracting ~ cygnis insignis 18:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input! I don't know enough about Wiki policy regarding citations in the lead, but agree that less is generally better. I certainly don't understand the need to put citations in the middle of sentences in the lead (or elsewhere, generally speaking). Appreciatively, ElleTheBelle 18:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * it ought to be an irrefutable summary, barring another improvement to the body of the article … something like that ~ cygnis insignis 18:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A few notes — historical inaccuracies include those mentioned by Kenez about Werth and there could be more, while "manipulation" is explicitily, directly quoted at least two times by academic sources in the body, so I think they should be re-added; the criticism was not related just to inflation but on the category itself (e.g. see David-Fox and Werth's comments). I would also avoid "widely" because "broad range" already makes it clear and is more neutral; "received praise in many publications in the United Kingdom and the United States" is a good example in the body. Davide King (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Why was the criticism selection deleted?
A while back there was a section called criticism but its gone now, and the critics have been fused together with people who supported it. Culd I ask what the reason for this change was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genabab (talk • contribs) 12:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Standalone "Criticism" or "Controversy" sections are generally discouraged on Wikipedia due to our policy of neutrality. Therefore, the material was merged into "Reception."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But a "criticisms" section would actually make the page more neutral as it would show differing opinions. This book is inherently incredibly biased, so a "neutral" page written about it would also be similarly biased unless actions were made to show a differing viewpoint opposing the original authors. CertifiedSleepyy (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it make it more neutral, though? Even from the perspective you're taking? The criticisms themselves weren't deleted. And one problem with a criticism section is that "confining" criticism there can make the rest of the article unduly positive or can give the impression that even things that subject-matter experts raising clear-cut issues have said about the topic can be disregarded as the opinions of "mere" critics. --Aquillion (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But its not actually been merged into "Reception" and even if it had been it's not a neutral page and needs a criticism section really — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:2000:2000:6:25CD:7031:245:548C (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Comment: Regardless of whether this page currently meets our guidelines for neutrality or not, a "Criticism" section is definitely more appropriate than our current "Reception" section, which lumps together the "Academic press" [whatever that is supposed to mean?; I think "Academic literature" would make more sense here] and "Popular press" [Press] responses. The two subsections don't go well together—indeed, they are not at all alike—and it feels like what should have been two sections of the article got subsumed under one "common" section, just because both deal with reactions to the book. However, Wikipedia is not a book report, and criticisms/critiques of the book's substance, content and structure (the value of its research; its "academic value") should not be confused with surface criticisms of its language, style and impact (its "popular value"). More generally, the structure of this article is all over the place: The separate "Memorial analysis" contains material which should more properly belong to some kind of "Reception/Criticism" section, and information about the book's relative position in a larger collection of works (other "Black Books"; books written in response to it; other works edited or written by Courtois, which also apparently show the author engaging in historical revisionism??) are subsumed under a section inappropriately titled "Sequels"; it's a mess (but then again, this whole topic is messy).
 * As suggested by, I would suggest we add a "Controversy" section to specifically deal with this problem (but see also: Don't "teach the controversy"). It would naturally fit into the article as it is, since a controversy is mentioned multiple times in multiple sections—so why not cover it explicitly instead of implicitly as we do know? We could get the timeline straight, cover the controversy as it evolved after the publication of the book (with a break occurring between the authors due to the opening/closing chapters) and integrate the "Academic press" subsection, and maybe even parts of "Memorial analysis" there. The "Popular press" subsection could be a subsection of "Controversy", or its own section, titled either "Popular reception" or "Impact". My suggestion for a new structure:

 * The Black Book of Communism
 * Overview
 * Controversy
 * Popular reception | Impact
 * Subsequent publications [this section can be expanded]
 * Edited or written by Courtois
 * "Second volume"
 * Dictionaire du communisme
 * The Black Book of the French Revolution
 * Le Siècle de communismes
 * Other "Black Books"
 * Other "Black Books"

 * Any thoughts or further comments? TucanHolmes  (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The popular and academic reception used to be separated; they were merged without discussion in an edit whose edit summary didn't mention that they were doing it or why, here. It was a while ago but as a starting point I'll just re-separate them unless someone objects. --Aquillion (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking over that edit, it looks like they just blanket-reverted the section, ignoring a lot of work that had been done to prune it for WP:DUE reasons and to organize it into something readable rather than just nose-counting. I've restored the edit before theirs; I made some effort to look for significant changes since then worth bringing over, but mostly they just turned it into a mess. Also, thoughts as to why the older version was better: Weiner and Hoffman are secondary / survey sources covering the reception rather than reviewing the book themselves, and belong at the top and separated out from the rest. Then, the academic section ought to start with the most significant points of contention; the first two paragraphs accurately summarize this. The third paragraph follows from the second and has a generally clear focus. The last two paragraphs (and the entirety of the popular press section) are what I would call "nose-counting", a disorganized collection of random thoughts from random reviewers, and aren't as useful in terms of telling the reader about the overall reception or what key points related to it were; yet when they were merged they were for some reason moved to the top, which seems like a mistake. The revised version is also more cautious about WP:DUE weight (the other one devoted entire paragraphs to fairly random commentators for no clear reason, while others just got single sentences; this was all discussed at length in the past when the section was revised before.) Overall the section should be structured thematically and cover key points of the book's reception rather than being a random assortment of things people have said. There's still a lot of room for improvement but I feel that that version is a better starting point and had a lot more work put into it. --Aquillion (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Define "Peasants"
"Malia also argues against what he terms "the fable of 'good Lenin/bad Stalin'", stating that there never was a "benign, initial phase of Communism before some mytical 'wrong turn' threw it off track", claiming that Lenin expected and wanted from the start a civil war "to crush all 'class enemies'; and this war, principally against the peasants,..."

Does the Article mean "farmers", "the underclass", "workers", or what?

2607:FB91:12A0:C78E:AC39:A177:4FD8:49F0 (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Article quality, copy editing, feedback
This article is in bad shape; oftentimes lengthy and difficult to read, and just in general doesn't seem to meet encyclopedic standards (see also: WP:NOT). I will start a massive copy editing effort soon, but first I would like to gather some feedback before implementing such a massive rewrite / restructuring. Please note that my aim is not to delete content from the article, but merely to restructure or rewrite existing content to fit the format of an encyclopedic article. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Black Book of Communism


text:
Talk:William Martin Leake

Untitled
I would think the Elgin Marbles article, and others, could expand to include the roll and relationship of Leake. Currently nothing links here. Stbalbach 13:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

honorary DCL
the honorary DCL is ambiguous; it could be either Doctor of Canon Law or Doctor of Civil Law. I presume the latter is the only one given out by Oxford in 1816. Jayvdb 08:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:William Martin Leake


text:
RAF Mullaghmore

Royal Air Force Mullaghmore or more simply RAF Mullaghmore is a former Royal Air Force station located 4.2 mi southwest of Ballymoney, County Antrim, Northern Ireland and 4.9 mi northeast of Garvagh, County Londonderry.

History
It was a United States Army Air Forces 8th Air Force Composite Command base until being passed to the Royal Air Force in May 1944 for use as a training establishment.

Between December 1943 and February 1944 the airfield was used the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF)'s 6th Replacement and Training Squadron (Bombardment) and the 6th Combat Crew Replacement Centre before the unit moved to RAF Cheddington. The airfield was then used for storage until May 1944.

The following units were based there:
 * No. 4 Refresher Flying Unit RAF which moved from RAF Haverfordwest and stayed between October 1945 and March 1945
 * No. 7 (Coastal) OTU flying Vickers Wellingtons between December 1942 and January 1944
 * No. 104 (Transport) OTU arrived from RAF Maghaberry flying Vickers Wellingtons between October 1943 and January 1944
 * No. 281 Squadron RAF
 * 815 Naval Air Squadron
 * 825 Naval Air Squadron
 * 842 Naval Air Squadron
 * 850 Naval Air Squadron
 * 1771 Naval Air Squadron
 * Loran Training Unit RAF (October 1944 – April 1945)

The airfield was closed and placed on care and maintenance during May 1945.

Current use
The airfield, now in private hands, is used as a microlight base. It has been known locally as Aghadowey Aerodrome.

title: RAF Mullaghmore


text:
Touch El Arab

Touch El Arab was a pop/electronica group from Basel, Switzerland, formed by members Philippe Alioth, Christoph Müller and Stefan Hopmann. Their humorous song "Muhammar" was a major hit in Switzerland, France and Italy in 1987 and 1988. Christoph Müller is a former member of Boyz from Brazil and is now a member of Gotan Project.

title: Touch El Arab


text:
Howard Ben Tré

Howard Ben Tré (May 13, 1949 - June 20, 2020) was an American glass artist. He worked with poured glass, creating small sculptures and large scale public artworks. Glass magazine has called Ben Tré a pioneer in the technique of using hot glass casting in fine art.

Personal life and education
Howard Ben Tré was born May 13, 1949, in Brooklyn, New York. In the 1960s he attended Brooklyn College for two years and was a political activist.

In the 1970s he left New York with his wife, Gay, for Oregon. At Portland State University he learned about the university's well-known glass-blowing shop and began studying the creation process, finding influence in religious objects. He would obtain his bachelor's degree at Portland State. Dale Chihuly recruited Ben Tré to the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) from Portland, Oregon where he would graduate with a Masters of Fine Arts in 1980.

His wife Gay Ben Tré was actively involved in planning and siting the installation of his art. They divorced amicably and remained friends for the rest of his life. He married Wendy MacGaw in 2004. He lived and worked in Pawtucket, Rhode Island.

Howard Ben Tré died June 20, 2020, in hospice care at his home in Pawtucket, Rhode Island.

Artistic career
He started blowing glass. Through his education at Portland State University, he would discover the process of pouring glass. Pulling inspiration from African and Japanese religious icons and figures, he uses his artwork to explore connections between the two.

Ben Tré utilized his training as an industrial manufacturing master technician to create glass artworks based on traditional methods. His studio space, located in Pawtucket, Rhode Island is where he designed, made molds and completed his work. He created fine art castings by pouring molten glass into sand molds, applying heat and then cooling them for months. The form is then dug out from the sand mold, sand blasted, cut, ground, and polished. Many of Ben Tré's works involve the use of gold leaf; by way of wrapping portions of works or installing lead bars within the pieces covered with gold leaf. The glass sculptures are often symmetrical. His wife, Gay, assisted in the designing and planning of his large scale works, including the installation of his public art.

Reception
In lieu of Ben Tré's 2001 exhibition at the Orange County Museum of Art, critic Roberta Carasso described his work as being "part of the glass revolution". The Christian Science Monitor described his poured glass works as timeless, monumental and "hulking, architectural forms he creates...existed before the dawn of recorded history." Arthur Danto stated in 2000 that Ben Tré's glass works were redefining and powerful, and that he creates "a kind of pleasure that we don't usually associate with art."

Notable collections & installations

 * Caryatids, 1998, Hunter Museum of American Art, Chattanooga, Tennessee
 * Immanent Circumstance, 1991, Norman Leventhal Park, Boston, Massachusetts
 * Kira's Benches, 2007, Hood Museum of Art, Hanover, New Hampshire
 * Mantled Figure, 1993, Rhode Island School of Design Museum, Providence, Rhode Island
 * Siphon, 1989, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York
 * Untitled, Artery Plaza, Bethesda, Maryland
 * Various works; Corning Museum of Glass, Corning, New York
 * Water Forest, Museum of Glass, Tacoma, Washington

Notable exhibitions

 * Design Visions, 1992, Art Gallery of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
 * Masters of Contemporary Glass, 1997, Indianapolis Museum of Art, Indianapolis, Indiana
 * Interior/Exterior, 2000, Palm Springs Desert Museum, Palm Springs, California
 * Howard Ben Tré: Sculpting Space in the Public Realm, 2001, Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Minneapolis, Minnesota
 * Solo exhibition; 2002, Charles Cowles Gallery, New York, New York
 * Private Visions, Utopian Ideals: The Art of Howard Ben Tré, 2005, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York

title: Howard Ben Tré


text:
Caniformia

Caniformia is a suborder within the order Carnivora consisting of "dog-like" carnivorans. They include dogs (wolves, foxes, etc.), bears, raccoons, and mustelids. The Pinnipedia (seals, walruses and sea lions) are also assigned to this group. The center of diversification for the Caniformia is North America and northern Eurasia. Caniformia stands in contrast to the other suborder of Carnivora, the Feliformia ("cat-like" carnivorans), the center of diversification of which was in Africa and southern Asia.

Description
Most members of this group have nonretractile claws (the fisher, marten, sea otter (forepaws only), red panda, and ringtail, and some foxes have retractile or semi-retractile claws ) and tend to be plantigrade (with the exception of the Canidae). Other traits that separate the Caniformia from the Feliformia is that caniforms have longer jaws and more teeth, with less specialized carnassial teeth. They also tend more towards omnivory and opportunistic feeding, while the feliforms, other than the viverrids, are more specialized for eating meat. Caniforms have single-chambered or partially divided auditory bullae, composed of a single bone, while in feliforms, the auditory bullae are double-chambered, composed of two bones joined by a septum. In the Caniformia, the bulbourethral glands and vesicula seminalis are always absent. Relative to body size, the baculum is usually longer in the Caniformia than in the Feliformia.

Extant families

Caniformia consists of nine extant families, with three extinct families also recognized. The extant families are monophyletic according to phylogenetic molecular analysis. Terrestrial caniforms in the wild are found on all continents with the exception of Antarctica, while pinnipeds are distributed throughout the world's oceans.

Family Canidae (dogs and other canids) includes wolves, dogs, coyotes, and foxes, as well as a number of less familiar animals. The family is currently divided into two major groups, the true dogs (tribe Canini), which includes nine genera, and the true foxes (tribe Vulpini) with two genera. In addition, two basal genera are described. About 35 species of extant canids are currently recognized. Canids are the most social of all caniforms, sometimes living in packs. The dog is the most diverse of all mammals in terms of body structure variants.

Family Ursidae (bears) is the largest of all the land caniforms. Eight species are recognized, divided into five genera. They range from the large polar bear (350 – in males) to the small sun bear (30 – in males) and from the endangered giant panda to the very common black bear. Common characteristics of modern bears include a large body with stocky legs, a long snout, shaggy hair, plantigrade paws with five nonretractile claws, and a short tail. Most bears are omnivorous, with largely varied diets that include both plants and animals. The polar bear is the most carnivorous of bears due to the arctic climate in which it lives, and shows a preference for eating seals. The giant panda is the most herbivorous bear and has evolved a number of adaptations, including a sixth "toe", specialized teeth, and strong jaw muscles, to allow it to feed nearly exclusively on bamboo, a tough member of the grass family. The sloth bear has some adaptations for ant and termite eating, with a long snout, powerful claws, and missing upper front teeth, though it also eats honey and fruit.

Family Ailuridae consists today of a single species, the red panda, which was once thought to be included in the Procyonidae or Ursidae lineages, but is now placed in its own family along with a number of extinct species. It is found in the Himalayas, including southern China, Nepal, Bhutan, India, and Pakistan. Fossil species of the family are also found in North America.

Family Mephitidae (skunks and stink badgers) was once classified as mustelids, but are now recognized as a lineage in their own right. The 12 species of skunks are divided into four genera: Mephitis (hooded and striped skunks, two species), Spilogale (spotted skunks, four species), Mydaus (stink badgers, two species) and Conepatus (hog-nosed skunks, four species). The two skunk species in the genus Mydaus inhabit Indonesia and the Philippines; all other skunks inhabit the Americas from Canada to central South America.

Family Mustelidae (badgers, weasels and otters) is the largest family of carnivora, with 22 extant genera and roughly 57 extant species. While highly variable in shape, size, and behavior, most mustelids are smaller animals with short legs, short, round ears, and thick fur. Mustelids are predominantly carnivorous. While not all share identical dentition, they all possess teeth adapted for eating flesh, including the presence of shearing carnassials.

Members of Family Procyonidae (raccoons, coatis) are smallish animals, with generally slender bodies and long tails. Nineteen extant species in six genera are currently recognized. Except for the kinkajou, all procyonids have banded tails and distinct facial markings, and like bears, are plantigrade, walking on the soles of their feet. Most species have nonretractile claws. Early procyonids may have been an offshoot of the canids that adapted to more omnivorous diets.

Pinnipedia (seals, sea lions, and walruses clade) is a widely distributed and diverse group of semiaquatic marine mammals which is closely related to an extinct group of pinnipeds, Enaliarctos. While support for the monophyly of pinnipeds is strong, the relationship of pinnipeds to terrestrial mammals is still unclear. Some studies support the hypothesis that the bears are their closest relatives, while others support a closer relationship to the mustelids.

Pinnipeds split from other caniforms 50 million years ago (Mya) during the Eocene.

The clade is currently divided into three families:

 * Family Phocidae (true or earless seals) consists of around 19 species of highly aquatic, barrel-shaped animals ranging from 45 kg and 1.2 m in length (the ringed seal), to 2400 kg and 5 m (southern elephant seal). Phocids are found throughout the world's oceans.

 * Family Otariidae (eared seals, sea lions, fur seals) is distributed throughout the world's oceans with the exception of the North Atlantic. The 15 species (divided into seven genera) of otariids are distinguished from phocids by visible external ears (pinnae), more dog-like faces, and the ability to turn their rear flippers forward.

 * Family Odobenidae currently includes a single species, the walrus. A large (2000 kg), distinctive pinniped with long whiskers and tusks, the walrus has a discontinuous circumpolar distribution in the Arctic Ocean and sub-Arctic seas of the Northern Hemisphere. It is primarily a benthic forager of bivalve mollusks and other marine invertebrates.

Evolution
Caniforms first appeared as tree-climbing, superficially marten-like carnivores in the Eocene around 42 Mya. Miacis cognitus was probably an early caniform. Like many other early carnivorans it was well suited for tree climbing with needle-sharp claws, and had limbs and joints that resemble those of modern carnivorans. M. cognitus was probably a very agile forest dweller that preyed on smaller animals, such as small mammals, reptiles, and birds.

Debate continues on the origin of pinnipeds. Recent molecular evidence suggests pinnipeds evolved from a bear-like ancestor about 23 Mya during the late Oligocene or early Miocene epochs, a transitional period between the warmer Paleogene and cooler Neogene periods. However, discovery of the fossil Puijila darwini in early Miocene deposits in Nunavut suggests a different scenario. Like a modern otter, Puijila had a long tail, short limbs, and webbed feet instead of flippers. However, its limbs and shoulders were more robust, and Puijila likely had been a quadrupedal swimmer–retaining a form of aquatic locomotion that give rise to the major swimming types employed by modern pinnipeds. Puijila has been assigned to a clade of mustelids.

Classification

 * Suborder: Caniformia ("dog-like" carnivorans)
 * Genus: †Lycophocyon
 * Superfamily: Amphicyonoidea
 * Family: †Amphicyonidae (bear-dogs)
 * Superinfraorder: Arctocynoidae
 * Infraorder: Cynoidea
 * Superfamily: Canoidea
 * Family: Canidae (dogs and allies)
 * Infraorder: Arctoidea
 * Parvorder: Ursida
 * Genus: †Adracon
 * Superfamily: Ursoidea
 * Family: Ursidae (bears)
 * Superfamily: Musteloidea
 * Genus: †Plesiogale
 * Family: Ailuridae (red panda and allies)
 * Family: Mephitidae (skunks and stink badgers)
 * Family: Mustelidae (weasels and allies)
 * Family: Procyonidae (raccoons and allies)
 * Incertae sedis:
 * Genus: †Peignictis
 * Parvorder: Pinnipedimorpha
 * Genus: †Pinnarctidion
 * Family: †Enaliarctidae
 * Family: †Semantoridae
 * Division: Pinnipediformes
 * Genus: †Pacificotaria
 * Genus: †Pteronarctos
 * Subdivision: Pinnipedia
 * Superfamily: Otarioidea
 * Family: Odobenidae (walrus and allies)
 * Family: Otariidae (eared seals)
 * Superfamily: Phocoidea
 * Family: Phocidae (true seals)
 * Family: †Desmatophocidae

Phylogeny
The cladogram is based on molecular phylogeny of six genes in Flynn (2005), with the musteloids updated following the multigene analysis of Law et al. (2018).

title: Caniformia


text:
Charles Lucien Léandre

Charles Lucien Léandre (1862–1934) was a French caricaturist and painter. He was born at Champsecret (Orne), and studied painting under Émile Bin and Alexandre Cabanel.

Early life
Charles Lucien Léandre was born on July 22, 1864, in Champsecret. His father was the mayor of the town in which they lived until his death in 1868. At 16, Léandre met the painter Émile Bin, who would instruct Léandre. Léandre received multiple awards for his artistic talents in his twenties.

Work and career

From 1887 Léandre figured among the exhibitors of the Salon, where he showed numerous portraits and genre pictures, but his popular fame is due to his comic drawings and caricatures. The series of the "Gotha des souverains," published in Le Rire, and Léandre's other work like that seen in L'Assiette au Beurre placed him in the front rank of contemporary caricaturists.

Besides his contributions to Le Rire, Le Figaro and other comic journals, he published a series of albums: Nocturnes, Le Musée des souverains, and Paris et la province. In 1904, he created the Société des Peintres Humoristes.

Léandre produced admirable work in lithography, and designed many memorable posters, such as the "Yvette Guilbert." "Les nouveaux mariés," "Joseph Prudhomme," "Les Lutteurs," and "La Femme au chien."

He died in 1934 in his Caulaincourt street studio, in Montmartre.

Honors
Léandre won a bronze medal at the Exposition Universelle in 1889 for a large size painting: la Mère ou « Dormio cor meum vigilat » ("Je dors mais mon coeur veille"). In 1900, at the next Exposition Universelle, he was among the five lithographic artists selected to achieve two compositions on a selected theme; he received a gold medal at this contest.

He was created a knight of the Legion of Honour. In 1921, he got the Medal of Honour of the Société des artistes français, in the engraving section, one of the more important honorary awards an artist could obtain in Paris. In 1925, Charles Léandre was promoted an Officer of the Legion of Honour.

title: Charles Lucien Léandre