Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 2

New article

Since I have written a completely new article, I have archived all the old Talk. The process of researching this article has made me even more aware of what a dishonest crock of lying propaganda the previous one was. Adam 10:36, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adam, your new article is not only work of fiction, it is a plagiarized work of fiction, having been lifted entirely from Dennis King's Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. I have reverted to a previous version. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial.--Herschelkrustofsky 14:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am happy to acknowledge that the article is largely based on that book, which seems to me to a well-researched and reliable account. It is not "plagiarised" from it, because plagiarism requires the unacknowledged use of the words of another author. Nowhere have I directly quoted King. All encyclopaedia articles are based on the original research of other authors, and this is not required to be acknowledged in detail unless there is a dispute as to the veracity of the source. The section on LaRouche's trial and conviction is not based on King, but on the account in the Washington Post. I of course expected Herschel to object to the new article, because it abolishes all the LaRouche propaganda he inserted into the old one. If Herschel wants to question the accuracy of any points in the new article, I am happy to debate them. On the other hand if he wants a revert war he will get one. Adam 15:01, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't want a childish revert war. I propose we take this to Wikipedia: Requests for mediation.--Herschelkrustofsky 15:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you tell us instead which points in the new article you disagree with? Adam 15:12, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Herschel's hodgepodge beats Adam's diatribe. - 64.30.208.48

While I am definnitely no fan of LaRouche (I consider him a nut so far out on the fringe that to call him a leftist or far rightist is nonsensical), I feel that the section headers in this article are uncomfortably POV: "LaRouche as a leftist", "as a leader", "as a politician", "as a felon". Perhaps better would be "Early Career", "After SDS", "Presidential Bids", and "Criminal Charges".

BTW, Adam's version has a misspelled word: grep for "codeward". -- llywrch 18:11, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to Llywrch's new section heads. I don't know what either "grep" or "codeward" mean and I don't recall writing either word in my life. Adam 02:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Selected objections to Adam Carr's/Dennis King's new article

Some of these moved to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List, as they were replicated in later lists from Herschel. Martin 20:51, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1. "As a Quaker, he was at first a conscientious objector during World War II, but in 1944 he joined the United States Army, serving in medical units in India. During this period he read Karl Marx and became a Communist." To my knowledge, LaRouche has never said that he "became a Communist." He became an expert on Marx, but as critic, and he suggested ways in which Marx's theory could be corrected. His involvement with SWP and so on consisted of his trying to raise his own ideas, but he complained that the SWPers were "Philistines", dogmatists who had no interest in theoretical debates. The actually historically interesting aspect of LaRouche's stay in India, was his involvement in the Indian Independence movement, which is omitted from Dennis King's book.

He joined the Socialist Workers' Party. I don't see how that cannot be seen as "becoming a Communist" (or, at least, a Trotskyist). At any rate, what is your source? LaRouche's own self-assessment in retrospect doesn't count. john k 03:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I seem to recall that Clara Fraser of the Freedom Socialist Party wrote a piece on LaRouche based on her recollections of him when both were in the SWP. It seems disengenuous to claim that LaRouche would join a communist party such as the Socialist Workers Party if he were not a communist but simply to criticise communism and Marx. LaRouche is not a Marxist today and he may be embarassed about his Marxist past but that doesn't give us a licence to engage in revisionism and rewrite his history to suit him. You'd think that if LaRouche was not a communist but was simply in the SWP to criticise Marx other members of the SWP would be the first to say he wasn't a Marxist yet his contemporaries all state that LaRouche was a genuine SWP member and took part in internal debates as a Marxist. Then there are Tim Wohlforth's recollections of LaRouche The Early LaRouche. It's a bit hard to understand why, if Larouche was not a Communist or Trotskyist but simply a "critic" why he would have joined Wohlforth's group or tried to work with the Sparticists (who are some of the most adamanat communists around). AndyL 04:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with being a leftist, but I believe that Communist and Socialist are not synonymous, and that adherents to those respective camps do make the distinction. My objection to Adam's/Dennis King's approach is that they are never satisfied with reporting that which is undisputed, i.e., LaRouche joined the SWP, and are always looking to add that POV.--Herschelkrustofsky 10:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well I do have a lot of experience of being a leftist, and although I am no longer one I also have a lot of experience of reading and writing about them (a doctoral thesis among other things). If Krusty doesn't know enough about the SWP to know that it was a revolutionary communist (ie, Leninist-Trotskyist) party, then he doesn't know very much at all about the matters under discussion here, and he should not take such a high-handed tone with those that do know what they are talking about.

2. "LaRouche remained in the SWP until 1966, making him a veteran member in a group which always had a high turnover of members. He now maintains that he was soon disillusioned with Marxism and stayed in the SWP only as an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

4. "The NCLC soon developed the hallmarks of a cult, with a charismatic leader (LaRouche), a catastrophist and conspiratorial ideology, and an esoteric vocabulary known only to initiates." Again, the product of Dennis King's fevered imagination-for-hire. I think Adam should reveal to us exactly what attracts him to King's ravings, when there are many other, relatively objective sources. Adam should also ask himself this question: If King's book is correct, and LaRouche is some sort of demonic figure, how is LaRouche able to fool the various institutions which have invited him to speak, such as the Russian Duma and the Russian Academy of Sciences, to name only a few?

It's pretty rich for a LaRouchite to accuse someone else of having a "fevered imagination." The Russian Duma is hardly a reputable organization, at any rate. john k 03:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That comment actually represents my own assessment of LaRouche's political character, based on long personal experience with local laRouchies, not King's. As for the Russian Duma, that body was dominated for most of the 90s by xenophobic anti-Semites, ex-communists and conspiracy theorists, so I'm not surprised they found LaRouche attractive. Adam 04:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Duma is an elected, representative body of a rather large and strategically important nation. Your assertion that it was "dominated for most of the 90s by xenophobic anti-Semites, ex-communists and conspiracy theorists" is about as irresponsible as your repeated slanders of LaRouche (except for the "ex-communists" part, which is rather unremarkable) -- but the interesting question would be, why do you prefer to withhold from the reader, the fact that LaRouche has had these kinds of contacts? An objective article would let the reader know, and draw his own conclusions, about this and the relationship to heads of state such as Jose Lopez Portillo and Indira Gandhi, as well. It appears that the purpose of your new article is not so much to present the reader with wild fabrications, as it is to suppress any actually factual account of LaRouche's activity.--Herschelkrustofsky 11:46, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I doubt the Russian Duma would be particularly familiar with the actions of the NCLC in the 1970s. AndyL 04:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. The question is, is this article intended to inform the reader, or is it an attempt to sell a set of prejudices, by concealing factual information. Hypothetical: if Al Gore, or Newt Gingrich, were invited to address the Duma, or even better, the Russian Academy of Sciences, would it be newsworthy? --Herschelkrustofsky 10:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

6. "In 1980 LaRouche said that only 1.5 million Jews had died in World War II, not the generally accepted 6 million."

7. "Finally in a publication called The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites LaRouche brought his theories to their logical conclusion. There was no such thing as communism or fascism, left or right: these were all facets of the great overarching conspiracy of the "Synarchy," an oligarchical network of financiers and manipulators who rule the world." There is no mention of "synarchy" in that publication; it is a discussion of Plato's ideas, versus those of Aristotle. LaRouche has never said that "there was no such thing as communism or fascism," and to my recollection, King has never made this particular claim; this may be Adam's only original contribution to anti-LaRouche myth-making.

I have no idea how to adjudicate this dispute as to content. I'll say that, based on Adam's previous work, I have a lot more confidence in his formulations than in yours. But I don't know about this specific question, or whether Adam even wrote it (I think much of this article may be extracted from previous versions of the article, although I'm not sure). john k 03:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Don't be coy, John. You know very well that none of this article is extracted from previous versions.--Herschelkrustofsky 11:46, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this passage is somewhat over-rhetorical and could be deleted. This is what happens when I write articles in the middle of the night. Adam 04:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is a partial listing of falsehoods and egregious POV problems. I won't take the time to list the rest of them, because I should think that the ones I have already listed should be sufficient to demonstrate that Adam's article is hopelessly flawed, and that Wikipedia would be better served by the continued editing of the previous one -- and by appropriate mediation. Adam and John K. have demonstrated an animus that certainly runs contrary to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why do you keep on with the mediation demands? You've now presented various critiques. I've even agreed with some. Why don't you wait and see what Adam says? Mediation should only be needed if we can't come to any agreement on our own. We've hardly begun to discuss specific issues. john k 03:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you had any genuine interest in discussion, you would have critiqued the previous article, instead of substituting a wild-eyed slander. Your objection to mediation speaks for itself.--Herschelkrustofsky 11:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now that Herschel has made some specific comments, this article can be improved. That was not possible with the previous article, which was LaRouche propaganda from beginning to end. I will continue to oppose reverting to that article. Adam 04:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please cite an example.--Herschelkrustofsky 10:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I don't think Herschel's involvement in this article is necessarily a bad thing - at the very least, it can force us to steer away from the rhetorical anti-LaRouche excess to which non-LaRouchites who actually look into the fellow seem to be drawn. But that obviously doesn't mean we can let the article be turned into pro-LaRouche gobbledygook. (Speaking of which, have you seen Helga Zepp-LaRouche? I changed a bit, but it's pretty hard core LaRouchite, at the moment.) john k 05:26, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Herschel needs to make up his mind whether he wants to take part in a constructive debate on the article, which John and I have shown we are willing to do, or engage in wild conspiracy accusations and revert wars, which only confirm suspicions that he is himself a LaRouchie. I'm not sure who Richard Mellon Scaife is but I presume he is part of the international bankers' conspiracy. I can certify that I have never been paid by him or any other banker, but I am open to offers. Adam 09:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You haven't been paid, but Dennis King has. And, you should learn more about the U.S. before repeating gossip about U.S. politics; Richard Mellon Scaife is a wealthy funder of neoconservative projects, including the attack on LaRouche, and perhaps more notoriously, the attack on Bill Clinton (he funded Paula Jones et al.

A "constructive debate" would be a discussion of what was wrong with the previous article, which was largely written before I ever heard of Wikipedia. I edited that article by removing material I knew to be false, while acknowledging that there are accusations against LaRouche, even when those accusations come from dubious persons. If I were to do that to Adam's article,there would be no article left, beyond "an obscure individual named Dennis King was hired to slander LaRouche." Dennis King's entire book is a "wild conspiracy accusation." I mean, give me a break -- his central thesis is that all of LaRouche's pronouncements are code messages.--Herschelkrustofsky 11:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the statement that LaRouche claimed that only 1.5 million Jews died in World War II, although this statement is widely quoted, because I have not yet traced it to an actual dated source. If and when I do so I will reinstate it. Adam 09:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article reads like a Rush Limbaugh tantrum. As long as it is protected from editing, it should also be clearly marked "{{NPOV}"

Yes, because only right wingers like Rush Limbaugh don't worship LaRouche. Gah. But I've added the NPOV label. At any rate, the previous article was awful, in that it was full of nonsense. Herschel, why can't you work on the current version and try to improve it, rather than constantly reverting to a version that several people find unacceptable? john k 19:29, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Queen's English

Since this is an American we are talking about, once the article is unprotected, I think the Queen's English should go. WhisperToMe 21:27, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Discussion regarding mediation

(moved from the Requests for mediation page)

User:Herschelkrustofsky, User:Adam Carr and User:John Kenney

Adam has announced his intention to commence an edit war over article Lyndon LaRouche. Previously he had archived the entire talk section and posted a new article, which is not only generally false, but also plagiarized from a book that was commissioned as a character assassination. In this case, I am reluctant to approach him a second time for mediation, and would prefer that a third party do so. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You have not expressed your specific problems with the article (which Adam has stated he is perfectly willing to discuss) in the talk page. Until that happens, mediation seems inappropriate. john k 20:00, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

John, the earlier article was the work of myself and probably a dozen or so others, and to my mind did not have the rather glaring POV problems that Adam's new article has. Adam said that the old article was "a dishonest crock of lying propaganda," without specifying any item that he felt was "lying." You, in turn, responded to by proposal for mediation by indicating that you had "only very limited interest in this article." Have you had a change of heart? I don't consider either you or Adam capable of a neutral discussion, which is why I am requesting mediation, and until then, the earlier version of the article, which reflects many different points of view and makes an effort to be objective, should remain. --Herschelkrustofsky 01:47, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd say that both versions have POV problems, but Adam's considerably less so. At any rate, I'm still puzzled by your seeming mania for mediation, especially when we've hardly actually tried to discuss through our disagreements to come to some sort of agreement that we can both live with. I've listed the page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment, which is, I think, a better next step than going straight to mediation, which is a fairly extreme step. Perhaps you aren't aware of this, given your relative newness to wikipedia. My opposition to mediation comes out of the fact that I think we really haven't made much of an effort to come to grips with each other, and that mediation is premature. And what on earth is a "neutral discussion"? I've never participated in such a thing myself, so I suppose you're right that I'm incapable of it, but it seems rather dull to discuss things about which one is neutral. The important thing is not a "neutral discussion" (whatever that is), but a "Neutral article", and this can only arise out of spirited, non-neutral discussion. john k 21:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would be more likely to believe that this is not all some sort of ploy on your part, if BOTH versions of the article were available on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It says in Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution: "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." You and Adam didn't improve the edits on the previous article; you suppressed it altogether -- even to the point of freezing edits on the new version, which I assume means that you are a Wikipedia adminstrator, or you know one. If you want to demonstrate Good faith, make both versions of the article available, protect both from editing, and post them on Wikipedia:Requests for comment.--Herschelkrustofsky 23:55, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Both versions of the article are available to anyone looking in the history, which they clearly should do - I can certainly add your version to the listing. As to your quote from Wikipedia:Conflict resolution, it actually condemns your actions (reverting rather than improving an edit you don't really like), rather than Adam's (writing an entirely new article). At any rate, neither Adam nor I protected the article. Mirv did, solely in order to stop the edit war. You also can't protect "both versions" from editing - the older versions are available to anyone looking in the history. john k 00:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is not appropriate for this page. Once John Kenney and Adam Carr have responded to Herschelkrustofsky's request for mediation and assented or refused (which I have "officially" asked them to do on their respective talk pages), I will move this discussion to Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Thanks, Bcorr, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee. 00:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't see formal mediation as necessary at this stage. Nor do I think the article should be protected. What should happen is that more people knowledgeable on the subject should participate in editing it. I don't claim that my article is perfect, and I agree it is based on a narrower source-base than I would like. It is however an honest attempt to write a biographical article on LaRouche, whereas the previous one was just recycled LaRouche propaganda. Adam 01:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)