Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/Archive 8

RfC: Which policy takes precedence in this case?

Is this removal of sourced material[1] a proper application of WP:BAN, or is it a case where WP:IAR should apply in order to improve the article? I think that "revenge edits" should be discouraged. --Leatherstocking (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from checking the sources and summarizing them yourself, as I suggested you do. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing that is stopping me is that I have observed what happens to editors who do that[2]. I wasn't born yesterday.--Leatherstocking (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to RFC If a banned user suggests something that a non-banned editor thinks belongs in the article, the unbanned editor can certainly add it. Any hypothetical editor opposing something like that is not engaged in enforcement of bans, they're engaged in out-and-out censorship. RayAYang (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Will has deleted more comments by his defeated opponents on this page, but I would like to preserve these source citations which were provided by one of them, because they may actually help to improve this article: [3][4][5][6] --Leatherstocking (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There are no "defeated opponents". The socks in question were editing in violation of WP:BAN, and their activities were properly undone, also per policy. If you don't like Wikipedia policies you're welcome to try to change them or to edit on other websites with other policies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This edit on a related article is another example of the problem. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, another example of a banned user editing the LaRouche articles in violation of longstanding Wikipedia policy.[7] If we could solve that problem then everything would be easier. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a grudge match between you and one or more banned editors. It's a distraction from the task of producing good articles, which as I understand it is the point of WP:IAR, an official Wikipedia policy. Viewed strictly on their own merits, your deletions are bad edits. They also, coincidentally, have the effect of skewing these articles toward your team's POV. You don't like the word "team," but it is a problem that is widely recognized (see WP:GANG.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a grudge match, at least not on my side. The simple fact is that banned editors are not allowed to edit. That's what "banned" means. If the article is biased then let's address that as an issue on its own, one which doesn't require consideration of banned editors who don't need the attention anyway. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Queen of England and sovereignty

I have once more corrected the statement attributed to LaRouche. The source says: "That is, the Queen is not only a figurehead, but she is the absolute, authoritative, functional head of state for these countries. In other words, she personally runs the military and intelligence services of these countries." If there is no reference to the first sentence, the second sentence is misleading (out of context.) Slackmeister (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood. My point was that "functionally the sovereign" is not the same as "absolute, authoritative head of state". The former isn't far off from the generally accepted view; the latter is unique to LaRouche's worldview and so should be in the article. Why not amend the sentence to read:

"LaRouche has asserted that the Queen of England is not merely a figurehead, but is is the absolute, authoritative, functional head of state for the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, meaning that in effect she personally runs the military and intelligence services of those countries."

LeContexte (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

::That's OK by me. Slackmeister (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"increase in intensity of solar radiation"

There seems to have been a skirmish over "increase in intensity of solar radiation." Will Beback twice reverted this sentence: LaRouche proposes an alternate theory for the global climate change, attributing it to an increase of the intensity of solar radiation, as well as an increase in clouding due to cosmic rays from the area of the Crab Nebula, replacing it with LaRouche proposes that cosmic ray radiation, including that from the Crab Nebula, "determines much of the climate on Earth".' Will, what exactly was it about the "increase of the intensity of solar radiation" that you objected to? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The source I found, a lecture by LaRouche, gives a better description of the influence of cosmic ray radiation on the climate. Also, I didn't revert it twice - I reverted it only once, because someone had trouble with a link to the lecture. We can add more on LaRouche's views on climate change. Apparently he also says that ice is building up in the Antarctic and that there's been no increase in CO2. However rather then making possibly contentious edits in main space, it'd be better to draft it here. A couple of brand new accounts have become active, so we'll have to see what they do about this.   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

::I'm a new editor, but I know some of the jargon because I read talk pages a lot. My proposal would simply be to combine the two complentary sources, so that we have a more complete account of LaRouche's theory: :::LaRouche proposes an alternate theory for the global climate change, attributing it to an increase of the intensity of solar radiation, as well as an increase in clouding due to cosmic ray radiation, including from the area of the Crab Nebula which he says "determines much of the climate on Earth." ::Brazillion (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck through postings by socks of banned user Herschelkrustofsky. "I'm a new editor..." indeed.   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not that simple. "And the two coincided on the basis of the basic information about this cosmic ray radiation from the Crab Nebula. This cosmic ray radiation, by the way, determines much of the climate of the Earth. Because the cosmic ray radiation interferes with the Solar radiation, and is a partial regulator of Solar radiations."[8] So the cosmic rays are apparently invovled in the purported change in solar raditation, in addition to altering the cloud level of the atmosphere directly. If we're going to go to the trouble of re-writing the material we should add the Antarctic ice and CO2 levels.   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no contradiction. It looks to me like the "interfering" and "regulating" simply refers to "clouding." And since the topic is LaRouche's supposed "alternate theory" about climate change, it's not necessary to talk about ice and C02, because those don't enter into his theory. You could add those as well, but you might then consider taking it out of "overview" and giving it its own section. At any rate, I don't see a problem with Brazillion's version. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If I read the sources correctly, LaRouche denies that global warning exists. If so that summary is inaccurate. Something more like:

• LaRouche says that human-caused global warming is a hoax and that melting ice in the Arctice is offset by increasing ice in the the Antarctic. He denies that there has been any increase in CO2 levels. To the extent that there is climate change, he attributes the increase of the intensity of solar radiation, as well as an increase in clouding due to cosmic ray radiation, including from the area of the Crab Nebula which he says "determines much of the climate on Earth."

That seems more comprehensive.   Will Beback  talk  06:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's room for coming up with a more consistent presentation of the views he's expressed on the subject. Looks good. Nevard (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I am not an "established user." This should be added to the section on climate change: LaRouche states taht "we are entering a solar-determined global cooling, as typified by the recapping of the icecap on the Arctic." This is from a recent webcast, transcript at http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2009/webcasts/3615april11_seven_points.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow of a magnitude (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Operación Juárez

"Notable proposals" implies that these proposals have been noted, but "Operación Juárez" has only first-party sources. ILet's make sure that we have third-party sources for these proposals to show that they're really notable. If we can't show that this proposal is notable I'll remove it.   Will Beback  talk  08:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

:I'm putting up some sources on this one. --Coleacanth (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Castro appears to be an associate of the movement, so it's not exactly a third party source, but it's better than nothing.   Will Beback  talk  04:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that there are still other "notable proposals" with no third-party sources.   Will Beback  talk  10:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed "Three Steps to Survival" because it was added by a banned editor, and because there is no assertion of notability - it has not been reported in any 3rd-party source. All views that are notable should have some 3rd-party source mentioning them. We can then use the LaRouche-prealted publications as primary sources for illustration, etc.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start marking sections that have no significant secondary sources. If we can't find sources to substantiate the notability and objective POV of the material in those sections then we should start deleting them. I'll use the {{refimprove}} tag.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, "conflict of elites" and "psychosexual political organizing" are esoterica and won't be missed. The "economics" section is different; LaRouche's views on economics are clearly notable, and there's nothing wrong with relying on primary sources for a summary of his theories. His notability as an economist can be established with secondary sources. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The economic ideas of LaRouche that have been discused in secondary sources are notable. Those that appear only in LaRouche publications are not. All of his econimic ideas aren't notable just becuase he's been called an "economist". Many of the items in the "economics" section have been discussed, at least briefly, in secondary sources so it shouldn't be hard to fix the section, which I see is missing some notable ideas like the gold standard. Stuff like the Triple Curve is less likely to be covered in secondary sources in any meaningful way. Let's see what we can find by the end of the month, and then start trimming the material that only has primary sources.   Will Beback  talk  19:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::Since this article is about "views of LaRouche," it is appropriate to note LaRouche's views on which of his own ideas are most notable. The best and most concise source for this is his official bio,[9] where under "education and professional" it says that "His most significant professional achievement has been a 1948-1952 research project resulting in the discovery of what became known later as the "LaRouche-Riemann method" in economics. In 1994 he was elected a member of the Universal Ecological Academy of Moscow, on the basis of this work." --Maybellyne (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We can note he said that, but if we don't have any third party sources describing what the "LaRouche-Riemann method" is then we shouldn't devote much space to it. In fact, I don't recall seeing any extensive treatment of it in LaRouche sources either.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Jabberwocky

*LaRouche calls in behalf of assessed energizing upon common culture, in particular fashionable the flora concerning hackneyed education.

• Beginning forward-looking the mid-1970s, number one wrote multiple essays avant-garde which alter ego claimed the while regarding European culture pattern is measured millennia glib bloodshed between team groups respecting societal elites.[10]

Those are among the more intelligible sentences. One guess is that this article has been passed back and forth through a computer translator. It's mostly just weird gibberish but there are some amusing phrases.   Will Beback  talk  06:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche and history

I understand the wiki desire to avoid "independent research" but much of LR's views, as here described, are palpably false (e.g. LR's argument that Napoleon was influenced by De Maistre, when he in fact he was a Savoyard and a legitimist who lived in exile until the Restauration) -- is there no way to explore these failings without collapsing into POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.139.189 (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks the comment. First, anytime we're reporting the views of LaRouche or others in the movement we should always make sure that we are using the neutral point of view, and that we attribute the views to those who espouse them. Sinec the material in quesiton is a verbatim quote, it is fully attributed. Second, much of the material in the article is likely to be deleted soon if it hasn't been reported in secondary sources. This quotation is a bit tricky, since it is used as an illustration of his reported views on neo-conservatives and fascists. So the bottom line is that I don't see a violation of Wikipedia policies. However it may end up being trimmed as part of a general overhaul.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation in Gays and Aids section

In this section, the Wikipedia article says "...If they do not, the liklihood is, he writes, that lynch mobs of teenagers will form to save the human species from extinction." That's not what LaRouche says. Part of the context is missing. The actual quote goes like this: "The impact of this pattern of developments on Britain's youth gangs of violence-prone football fans is predictable. One can read their general line of thinking in advance. Since the idea of touching the person of the carrier is abhorrent..." So, this is a reflection of LaRouche's general anti-British line, but Wikipedia misconstrues it to make it look like LaRouche is hoping that lynch mobs will form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maybellyne (talk • contribs) 21:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a site available where we may view this context? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have moved that paragraph here for discussion. Following the link to Chip Berlet's commentary, I see that he has included scans of the article which may confirm what you say. I see also that "accellerated deaths" is in quotes, not italics, in the original.([11] [12]) LaRouche's point is typically abstruse and I am not confident that what we have in the article is an accurate summary. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• LaRouche has often written that governments must actively "isolate" AIDS patients from the general population. If they do not, the liklihood is, he writes, that lynch mobs of teenagers will form to save the human species from extinction, "Short of medical means, not in sight until a time too late to save many nations, the only solution is either public health measures including isolation as necessary, or accelerated deaths of carriers." ("Teenage Gangs' Lynching of Gays is Foreseen Soon" - Lyndon LaRouche, (1986))[13].

Are we saying that the magazine which printed LaRouche's article is an unreliable source for his views? If not, then why did we delete this material? It has been stable in the article for some time, IIRC.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Take another look at my post, above. I moved this small section here for discussion not because there are questions about the source of LaRouche's article, but because there are questions about the summary written by Wikipedia editors. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What's your proposal for a replacement summary?   Will Beback  talk  18:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to restore this deletion of sourced material. It's been discussed endlessly in the past and this version has been stable for many months. I'm happy to discuss improving it.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the summary with "He speculated in 1986 that otherwise lynch mobs of violence-prone teenagers might begin to attack suspected AIDS carriers, beginning in Britain and then spreading to other countries." This is a strange article, difficult to summarize, but I would emphasize that it must be done carefully, because the previous summary implied that LaRouche advocates lynching, which is not warranted by a study of the source, and represents a quite serious violation of BLP. And incidentally, the fact that a serious violation of BLP went undetected for many months does not surprise me. This is one of the biggest problems Wikipedia has. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The article in question, "Teenage Gangs' Lynching of Gays is Foreseen Soon", is quite clear. The thesis is right there in the title and is repeated over and over in the text. There was no "BLP violation", as the previous summary was accurate. Your new summary is also accurate, though not as good, IMO. I'm not sure why you deleted saving the species from extinction.   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, in this edit, you added the phrase "if his proposals were not implemented." I reviewed the primary source which we are summarizing here, and could find no basis for this inclusion. Please cite the section which inspired your edit. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed the text from:

• LaRouche has often written that governments must actively "isolate" AIDS patients from the general population. He speculated in 1986 that otherwise lynch mobs of violence-prone teenagers might begin to attack suspected AIDS carriers,...

to:

• LaRouche has often written that governments must actively "isolate" AIDS patients from the general population. In 1986 he speculated that, if his proposals were not implemented, lynch mobs of violence-prone teenagers might begin to attack suspected AIDS carriers,...

I can't copy and paste the text for the source, but the author says that if the governemnt doesn't act (in the way that LaRouche proposes) then lynch mobs will form. It already said that in the first version, based on the word "otherwise". I just made it a bit clearer.   Will Beback  talk  18:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like WP:SYNTH to me. On other occasions, you have insisted on taking great care with primary sources. I don't see how this case should be any different. (See [14], [15]) --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think "otherwise" was your word. Can you explain what it means in this context, if not what I've said it means?   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It refers to some sort of action by governments. There is no mention of a proposal by LaRouche in the source document. Attempting to construct an argument as to why it should appear in the summary anyway is the definition of WP:SYNTH. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that LaRouche never proposed government action in response to the AIDS disease? If so that is patently incorrect.   Will Beback  talk  15:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. And how is that relevant? If it's not in the primary source, it doesn't belong in the summary. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It is in the primary source. LaRouche did propose government action in response to the AIDS epidemic, and in this article he says that if the government does not follow those proposals then the response will be lynch mobs.   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you quote here the section that mentions LaRouche's proposal? I have searched 3 times and cannot find it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you unaware of LaRouche's proposals regarding AIDS? If so I suggest you re-read this article. He very clearly called for government intervention to separate people infected with AIDS from the general population, which many described as quarantine.   Will Beback  talk  20:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please show me where in the primary source, which is what we are summarizing, there is a reference to LaRouche's proposals. Remember, we are discussing this edit, where you add to the summary of a primary source a reference to something which I cannot find in the primary source ([16] [17].) Why is this so hard to understand? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Try reading the section titled "The Logic of the Case", in which the author says "Isolate the carriers or have them cease to be carriers by the expediency of dying." The second-to-the-last paragraph clearly lays out that the lynchings can be prevented by following his advice.   Will Beback  talk  06:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It says "If governments were to proceed with repeated mass screenings of the population and isolation of carriers." If you want to put that in the summary, fine. However, LaRouche did not originate these practices, and the article does not specifically mention any proposals by LaRouche, so your edit as it stands is WP:SYNTH. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. We both know that the same year he wrote this article he sponsored a ballot proposition widely regarded as requiring quarantine for AIDS patients. I'll redraft the material so that it summarizes the available sources rather than just this one article.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• To address the lingering problems with the section, I've redrafted it to include more information. See Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Gays & AIDS. If there are no specific objections I'll post it to the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

::I have several objections. For openers, I do not believe that the "biological holocaust task force" predicted "engineered epidemics," and that claim is unsourced. Also, Lyndonlarouche.org is not a legitimate LaRouche site, and LaRouchespeaks.net is a dead link. There are many other sources used that are not available on the net for inspection, so I would have to see the texts of the articles before I could be confident that the summaries are accurate. One other thing - why are "Gays" and "AIDS" lumped together in one category? To me these are two distinct issues. --Coleacanth (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

LaRouchespeaks.net is archived.[18] Lyndonlarouche.org is a convenience link - the source is the document that hosted there. I can find a source for the BHTF. "AIDS" and "Gays" are linked because they are linked. Prop. 64 was widely regarded as "anti-gay", and during the campaign LaRouche made various comments about gays. There's no easy way of splitting the topics. The other texts are mostly newspaper sources that are online. I'll need to make the references neater before posting, but that's just cosmetic.   Will Beback  talk  03:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a source for the BHTF and fixed the dead link. Is there anything else?   Will Beback  talk  04:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Much of the new material you propose to add might be appropriate for the biography article, not the "Views" article. For example, LaRouche's feud with Kissinger. It looks to me like you are attempting to use a variety of anecdotes to put together a case that LaRouche is a homophobe. The correct approach would be to find one or two reliable sources that say that "LaRouche is a homophobe," rather than constructing your own argument (which is OR.)

I'm satisfied with the present version of the section. What are the "lingering problems" you refer to? Incidentally, your latest summary of the primary source document on lynch mobs contains a new error: LaRouche does not write that "lynch mobs are the only force acting to save the human species from extinction". He writes that they "might be seen by later generations' historians as the only force acting to save the human species from extinction." This is a strange article, and I think there is a touch of satire in it, like A Modest Proposal. I think that you may be straining to make it into something it isn't. --Leatherstocking (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Kissinger is included as an example, and certainly LaRouche's views of him are "views". But as a compromise I'll trim down that material, which we can include in a separate section on LaRouche's attacks on prominent living people (Rockefeller, Gore, et al.). Regarding the lynch mob quote, I'm taking it from a secondary source:

• He says people who lynch homosexuals are "the only force acting to save the human species from extinction" and that wealthy Jews encourage homosexuality as a way of undermining Western civilisation.

Secondary sources are preferable. In fact, it'd be better if we omitted those quotations only available in primary sources. Anyway, here's a revised draft: [19]  Will Beback  talk  23:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the "secondary source"([20]) is clearly misrepresenting the same quote we have been discussing, it fails WP:BLP#Sources. Much of the rest of your proposed draft contains allegations about behavior by LaRouche's supporters that are irrelevant to an article about LaRouche's views, and in some cases, it falls short of even being an allegation. For example, A reporter critical of the movement found forged invitations to his supposed "gay coming out party" -- that only makes it as far as insinuation. Your "condensed version" of the 1999 quote which currently appears in the article has the effect of twisting its meaning, which is clear in context. This leads me in turn to be skeptical of your summaries of all the other newspaper articles which we can't see, because they are unavailable on the net.

Normally, Will, you make an effort to follow Wikipedia policy, but your proposed re-write seems like a big departure from that. The section as it presently reads in the article seems fine to me, it has been stable for a while, and the only reason to tamper with it would be to correct errors that violate BLP. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The secondary source is a mainstream newspaper. If we are going to decide between their interpretation of the quote and that of a Wikipedia editor then the choice is obvious. The matter of the reporter being accused of being homosexual is an illustration of the sourced assertion that the subject has attacked opponents with the charge. We can add more. If you disagree with the summary of the 1999 comment then let's find a third party source which discusses them and follow their lead. Or we can leave it out entirely if it's contentious. Using primary sources that have never been mentioned in secondary sources is discouraged anyway. If there are any citations fror which you'd like to see the context please point them out - I'd be happy to quote the surrounding text.

The proposed draft is much more comprehensive than the current text. A BLP violation isn't the only reason to edit an article. Anyway, I didn't initiate these changes, I'm just following through. Are there any other specific objections or are we ready to go with this?   Will Beback  talk  02:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not ready to go with it. It looks like one BLP violation after another. Considering the contentious history of this article, it looks to me like you are being deliberately provocative, and I suggest that you to seek consensus instead. --Leatherstocking (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything in it is well-sourced, except for the primary-sourced material which I've suggested we omit. Please show me the BLP violation.   Will Beback  talk  04:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding weight: While I've been researching this section I've come across dozens of sources, both newspapers and books, that discuss LaRouche views on AIDS. By comparison, we can only find two dodgy 3rd-party references for "Operación Juárez", and there aree zero 3rd-party sources for the "LaRouche–Riemann Method", both of which appear towards the top of the article. This is far more notable than most of what's in here. Given proper weight, this would be towards the top and be much longer than most sections.   Will Beback  talk  07:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

::::This is a joke, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maybellyne (talk • contribs) 10:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't believe anyone is joking. Do you have any specific objections ot the material?   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, two for openers. First of all, you write that "In 1982, LaRouche published a pamphlet entitled "Kissinger, the Politics of Faggotry" and called Kissinger a "faggot" in a court deposition." That is sourced to "No Joke," by April Witt, which I found on the internet, and there is no reference whatsoever in the article to Kissinger being called a faggot. Secondly, you repeat the claim that LaRouche "called such lynch mobs "the only force acting to save the human species from extinction," which has already been exposed in this discussion as a misrepresentation. As soon as I can see the other sources you are supposedly using, I will tell you whether I object to those. --Maybellyne (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that - some refs got scrambled when I trimmed the Kissinger material per Leatherstocking's request. I've fixed it now. Regarding the lynch mobs sentence, it correctly summarizes the source. The source:

• He says people who lynch homosexuals are "the only force acting to save the human species from extinction" and that wealthy Jews encourage homosexuality as a way of undermining Western civilisation.[21]

The draft text:

• He called such lynch mobs "the only force acting to save the human species from extinction".

That look accurate to me. Perhaps we should add more, about the Jews encouragining homosexuality. Lemme see what other sources I can find for that.   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Don't play games. You know very well that the actual source of the quote is here[22] and the supposed Australian magazine[23] is a misrepresentation. Tactics like this do not build confidence in the dialog. --Maybellyne (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Confidence in the dialog"? How do you expect me to have any confidence in the dialog when at least 15 sock puppet accounts of a single user have made 432 edits to this talk page? After that much deception it's hard to have confidence in a dialog. This page is a monument to mendacity.   Will Beback  talk  10:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that the version posted on Publiceye.org is more accurate than what was printed in the Morning Sun? Interesting. In any case, I've put in Leatherstocking's version as a compromise.[24]   Will Beback  talk  02:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::What I'm saying is that the photostat of "New Solidarity", if authentic, is a reliable source. I do not see that you have changed that part of the draft text. --Maybellyne (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If authentic? I copied in Leatherstocking's text. What more do you want?   Will Beback  talk  04:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add any text to your draft. However, I did say earlier in this discussion that LaRouche does not write that "lynch mobs are the only force acting to save the human species from extinction". He writes that they "might be seen by later generations' historians as the only force acting to save the human species from extinction." Your draft retains the inaccurate version. I also pointed out that the accurate version itself may be intended ironically, and I question the wisdom of a summary which does not acknowledge that.--Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You proposed text above, which I incorporated into the draft. The material on lynch mobs is sourced to a mainstream newspaper, and it's a fair summary of the quote there. However since there's a fuss here I've used the text from the PublicEye website instead, since folks here seem to regard it as a reliable source. I believe that addresses all the specific issues that have been raised. I'm going to go ahead and post the draft. We can continue to discuss improvements to it.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You have not addressed Leatherstocking's "proposed parameters", below. You also haven't explained what you think is wrong with the current version. --Coleacanth (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

<- I have addressed the issues below, but none of them are specific to this text. The draft text has 16 sources, while the previous text had only four. So you deleted sourced material without a good reason. Furher, the draft text is more comprehensive the the previous text, covering more topics and removing unnecessarily long or off-topic quotations. Why do you think the previous text is better? Do you have any specific objections to the draft text?   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC) :I don't think you have adequatesly addressed Leatherstocking's points. I think most of your draft is off-topic. You seem to be brushing aside concerns about misquotes or quotes out of context, and from what I've seen so far, this is definately a concern. I haven't seen anyone speak in support of your draft, so I think you are jumping the gun to insert it into a controversial article without waiting for consensus. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The issues below aren't specific to this section. Which parts of the draft are off-topic?   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that editors here are very quick to revert (nine minutes) but slow to respond to requests for specific issues that need to be fixed. We've been discussing this specific draft for three days, and the general section for 25 days. Unless there are further specific, correctable issues with the draft I'll restore it.   Will Beback  talk  00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The present version has been stable since you yourself added it on September 25 of last year. Why do you suddenly have ants in your pants, demanding the complete re-write of a section that you yourself wrote? Normally, you oppose sweeping changes in articles that have been stable. I can't speak for others, but I don't spend the entire day editing Wikipedia, as you apparently do, so please stop trying to bully other editors in a big rush to substitute a new version. You haven't responded to my concerns below -- you seem to be saying that it would be too much trouble to remove the irrelevant sections. I don't buy it. You also seem to be making a quasi-legalistic argument for adding misquotes. That's not a proper reading of Wikipedia policy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The section has a long history of disputes, mostly involving bad faith sock puppets. The instigation for the latest changes didn't come from me, it came from a new account called "Maybellyne". Stability alone isn't a reason to avoid improving an article. I am not bullying - I have created an much more comprehensive and better-sourced version of the material, and I've responded to every specific concern about it. If there are no more specific concerns then it's time to add the material. You are not raising any new issues here, so I presume you have no more issues about this material.   Will Beback  talk  01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed parameters for disputed section

1. Relevance - this is an article about LaRouche's views. Material that is not specifically about his views, such as anecdotes or rumors about the behavior of his supporters, should go (if appropriate) to LaRouche movement or California Proposition 64 (1986).

2. BLP issues - the relevant policy guideline here is WP:BLP#Sources (Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.) Since this is an article specifically about LaRouche's views, it is an unusual circumstance where primary sources should be encouraged, not avoided. In particular, views attributed to LaRouche in 3rd party sources should be cross-checked with primary sources, because there have been disputes arising from alleged misquotes, or quotes out of context. In a case where the subject is clearly being misquoted, such as the "Sunday Herald Sun" article hosted by RickRoss.com, the source should be considered unreliable. In the case where a view is being attributed to LaRouche from a source that is not available on the web for verification, the full context should be made available for inspection by other editors. Controversial views falsely imputed to the subject represent a serious BLP violation. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC) '

1: Removal of all material about the movement would require a wholesale re-writing of the article. I've suggested rewriting this article from scratch. I've already proposed an outline and have begun to compile sources. If there's support for a complete revision we can begin drafting it.

2: I disagree entirely. Secondary sources are necessary for several reasons. First, primary sources can be hard to interpret, and we should rely on interpretations found in secondary sources wherever possible instead of creating our own interpretations. Second, coverage of topics in secondary sources is an indication of notability. If ideas or opinions aren't reported in secondary sources then they probably aren't notable. Third, primary sources may not be reliable in cases where they are controlled and subject to revision by the subject. It's been known to happen that an author will revise his work in order to make his predictions appear more accurate, for example, and so independent sources that aren't altered are necessary as a "reality check". If Leatherstocking wants to push for a change in the sourcing policy of Wikipedia then the relevant page for such proposals is WT:V.   Will Beback  talk  21:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Specific objections to 2009 version

Source numbers refer to the sources as they are numbered at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Gays & AIDS.

1. Source number 7 fails WP:V. There is no way to ascertain whether the typewritten leaflet is a publication of the International Caucus of Labor Committees, and it is hosted on a website that is not a reliable source. The reference is labeled in such a way as to mislead the reader about its origin.

2. Source 14 misrepresents a quotation for which we have access to the original quote, and therefore use of the misrepresentation is a BLP violation. Likewise your summary of source 15 (we don't know what the secondary source itself says, but we do know what the primary source says.)

3. Sources 1-5, 8-12, 15 & 17: please provide text of relevant portions, so that other editors may evaluate the accuracy of your summaries

4. In paragraph 1, "A reporter critical of the movement found forged invitations" is irrelevant; there is no evidence that LaRouche supporters were responsible, and in any event, it is off the topic of LaRouche's views.

5. In paragraph 6, the "lynchings" quote is misleadingly linked to the California AIDS initiative.

6. In paragraph 5, it is unclear whether the reporter claims to have witnessed the sign, or whether this is a claim made by a third party involved in a dispute. It would be necessary to see the text in question to determine which is the case.

7. In the final paragraph, quoted material which appears in the present version, which is actually of some interest about LaRouche's views on AIDS, is eliminated, presumably because it doesn't support the case you are attempting to build that LaRouche is motivated solely by homophobia. --Leatherstocking (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

1. The leaflet is widely reported. We don't need to link to it. But I don't see how it can be considered a forgery.

2. Please suggest short summaries that are more accurate.

3. That's a lot of information. Could you please shorten the list to the ones that you're actually concerned about?

4. It's an illustration of the sourced assertion that LaRouche harassed opponents with charges of homosexuality. It's presented in the source as such, so it's relevant. However, as a compromise I'll remove it.

5. The lynchings quotations are from 1986 the same year that the AIDS initiative campaign was active, so they are linked chronologically.

6. The sign led to a scuffle which led to a court case, which is why it got reported. No one was disputing the text of the sign.

7. The last paragraph was a long rambling quotation that only appears in an obscure source that's now offline entirely and can only be found in the web archive. I suggest that it should be deleted entirely. Let's find a better source for LaRouche's current views on the topic. But until then I'm willing to keep it as a compromise.

I don't see anything here that is a good reason to not post the material. We can continue to work through these matters once it's up.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

::You haven't responded to all of eatherstocking's objections. You have simply dismissed most of them. This article has a banner that says "This article or section needs consensus." Please wait for consensus before making major changes. I will add some specific objections in a few minutes. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't dismissed most of Leatherstockings objections. I made two edits in response, I asked him to propose better text, and I explained othre editing decisions. BTW, all of the newspaper sources can be found in Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources. The books are all available on Google. I don't see any objections that are serious enough to keep the material out of the article.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Maybe you don't see them, but you don't own the article. Wait for consensus. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus" is meaningless in a topic with such a history of abusive sock puppetry.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This has become a standard tactic of yours in content disputes, but you have yet to provide any evidence to support your claims. The fact that you have managed to get numerous of your opponents banned does not demonstrate to me that they were guilty. Until evidence is forthcoming, the relevant policies are Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Consensus. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The facts are there. The contribution log to this talk page include 14 socks of HK, who've made over 400 postings, far more than anyone else. And now there are new accounts, with the same perspectives as the old accounts. After 14 times, I'm not fooled so easily as at first.   Will Beback  talk  16:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I say, I'm willing to look at evidence, but not to take your claims on faith. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there are major problems with Neutral Point of View. It looks to me like the new version by Will has been "manicured" so that explanations of LaRouche's policies are all deleted and the reader is left with the impression that it was all about persecuting gays.

I am comparing three versions of the section: (C)the one Will just wrote, (B)the one he wrote in September 2008, and (A)the one that was up prior to that. Here are my concerns:

1. The coverage of the Biological Task Force in version A is relatively comprehensive, whereas the mention in version C is snide and dismissive. There is no coverage in version B.

2. The explanation of the California AIDS initiative in version A is relatively comprehensive, less so in version B, and in version C there is nothing but the allegations of opponents.

Other concerns:

1. I flat out don't believe that the LaRouche activists had a sign that said "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor." It's not their style -- they try to make their signs witty. The wording that is reported would probably be illegal. I will have to see the full text of the source before I can go along with this one.

2. There is a claim that New Solidarity published that the initiative was opposed by Communist gangs of composed of the "lower sexual classes" and he warned of the recruitment of millions of Americans into the ranks of "AIDS-riddled homosexuality". I would need to see the text of the New Solidarity in question.

3. Many things are reported as fact that are really the opinion of critics. For example, anything sourced to Dennis King should say "according to Dennis King." --Coleacanth (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your first set of concerns, we're not talking about reverting to the pre-September version, which was extremely long. Let's focus on the proposed text. If there's more text that you think should be added then say so.

Regarding the second set:

1. I've posted the relevant text to the sources page.

2. Those phrases appear in several reliable, secondary sources. See the sources page.

3. King is a reliable source for this topic. If he's offering an opinion then it'd be sensible to attribute it, but not when he's imply reporting a fact.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I found your page of source texts. The claim about a sign that said "Kill the faggots, kill Elizabeth Taylor" comes from a woman who was on trial for assaulting a LaRouche activist. It would be completely irresponsible to simply report this claim as fact in a Wikipedia article (in addition to being off the topic of LaRouche's views.) I will work through the other texts to see if there are other klinkers, but it is going to take some time. I would suggest that you allow other editors to edit your draft until a compromise version can be reached. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That comes from a reliable source. There's no mention in the article of anyone questioning the fact that the sign was there. If you insist we can take this to the reliable sources noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of the source is not the issue. What is in question is the reliability of your summary, which takes information out of context in an effort to build your case. Also, your "sources" page conveys the distinct impression that your research methodology consisted of a keyword search for "LaRouche + faggot." I suspect that much relevant material was excluded as a result. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The context is given. Here's the text:

• In 1987, representatives of LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee staffing a table outside a U.S. Post Office posted signage that reportedly said, "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor", leading to an altercation with an AIDS worker. Dana Scanlon, spokewoman for the movement, said that the followers were trying "to help fight AIDS politically, to return to traditional health measures."

What additional context is needed? As for your assertion about the research, it's obviously incorrect since many itmes don't include that term. Please add to it anything I've missed.   Will Beback  talk  16:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The reader of the Wikipedia article needs to know that the claim comes from a woman who is on trial for assaulting a LaRouche activist, in order to assess the credibility of the claim. Your "reportedly said" conceals that fact, and "an altercation" obscures the fact that it was the woman who was charged by the police, not the LaRouche activist. But frankly, the anecdote is irrelevant to an article on LaRouche's views. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We now have three incidents, reported in reliable third-party sources, of representatives of the LaRouche movement either posting offensive signs or making offensive remarks, two of which lead to altercations and court cases. It's LaRouche's movement. He calls people "faggots" and his followers follow his lead. In any case, I've re-written the material to address your concern. However the source doesn't mention police or who brought the charges. Since that was the only remaining issue I'll post the text.   Will Beback  talk  22:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR, and while you're at it, review WP:Tendentious editing. You are introducing objectionable material faster than I can respond to it. The Times of London writes that LaRouche activists were circulating "petitions denouncing homosexuals" in 1986. Are you seriously claiming that this is accurate? When a press story makes a major boo-boo (I found in a news search that "The Libertarian Party bears a scar because Lyndon LaRouche, a tax resister and crank, was a Libertarian." --Washington Post) do you rush to add it to Wikipedia article? I think not. I wrote above that I was willing to work through all the sources that you cite, but I ask that you allow me sufficient time to do this. Please don't tendentiously add it to the article until I, and other editors, have had time to do the work. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no original research here. It's all sourced. The Times is a highly reliable source. If you have a better source that contradicts it we can add that too. But if you want to argue that Times is insufficient then we'll have to take it to the noticeboard. If you don't have a specific problem with the entire section I don't see why you're deleting well-sourced, relevant material. Maybe you should read WP:Tendentious editing.   Will Beback  talk  03:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So to be clear - are you asserting that the Times is not a reliable source for this material?   Will Beback  talk  03:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The claim that LaRouche's views can be adduced from anecdotes about his supporters is your own, unpublished argument, a violation of WP:OR, or more specifically, WP:SYNTH. The issue of SYNTH has come up before, and my impression is that you are not clear on the concept. SYNTH is where you find some material that appears in a reliable source, but then you proceed to use it to defend a conclusion not in the published source. So the anecdotes don't belong in the article, because your sources do not present them as a basis for understanding LaRouche's views -- that's your own angle.

Now in answer to your question about the Times, common sense should be applied. Many, many reliable sources have described the California AIDS initiative. Wikipedia has an article on it. None of these sources, outside of this particular article in the Times, describe it as "a petition denouncing homosexuals." When a reliable source makes an obvious mistake, you don't seize upon it as an opportunity to push POV. You discard it and move on. If you are going to ask why common sense should have any role to play, see WP:IAR.

I will begin editing your draft tomorrow, to work on some of the many problems I see there. There's no rush. After all, the present version of the article section in question was written by you, also, and has gone virtually untouched since last September. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, we don't have any source that contradicts the Times article. We don't know the contents of the petition in question. Since you seem to be saying that it is not reliable I'll start a thread about this. You're welcome to edit the draft, but please don't delete any sourced material.   Will Beback  talk  05:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#The Times of London.   Will Beback  talk  06:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NORN#LaRouche on Gays and AIDS.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a policy quoted above under "BLP issues": "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." The two newspaper items being debated here have one thing in common: they are repeating accusations by unnamed and non-notable "man on the street" opponents of LaRouche's initiative, alleging the use of bad language in a way that is almost certainly an exaggeration (at best.) This would never make it into an encyclopedia. --Maybellyne (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A court case is not gossip. In the case of the woman who was charged with battery, she is named in the source, though I see no point in naming her in this article. We can add back the similar incident when Kissnger was verablly harrassed, which also resulted in a court case, and is not gossip at all. Considering how often such language was used in those days, there is no reason to think these incidents are exaggerations.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Court cases are not gossip, but a person on trial for battery is likely to present the story in the most self-serving way possible. I see in your source that Ms. Lands "recalls" seeing that wording on the sign, which is legalese for "I'm not really sure, don't prosecute me for perjury as well." If you want to use this to describe LaRouche's views, it fails BLP. In fact, it is likely that using any stories of this sort to describe LaRouche's views fails BLP. The one thing which would definitely be acceptable to describe LaRouche's views would be verifiable quotes from LaRouche. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There were several witnesses, including two LaRouche representatives, and everybody testified under oath. Nobody is reported to have disputed the contents of the sign. If readers want to read things that LaRouche has said, they can follow the links to one of his movement's many websites. But even then they'd have to pick and chose because his writings are fully mixed in with those of his followers. I haven't seen any source which says that there is a difference between the views of LaRouche and those of his followers, and we have many sources that lump them together (as I've demonstrated at NORN). As for the "Kill the fags" line, we already have in the article his views on gays and lynch mobs. They all seem part and parcel of the same view.   Will Beback  talk  17:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• In 1974, LaRouche formed a "biological holocaust task force" to analyze the effects of International Monetary Fund austerity policies in Africa. The task force published reports warning that these policies would cause a collapse of nutrition and sanitation, and could create an environment where pandemics of old or new diseases could begin. The reports compared the situation to the collapse of public health conditions which lead to the Black Plague which killed 1/3 to 2/3 of the population of 14th Century Europe.
  • Baker, Marcia Merry, "NYC's Big Mac: Rohatyn's Model for Destroying Gov'ts," EIR August 25, 2006

This content is mostly not in the source provided, which has only a brief mention of the task force. Is this report online? Can a better source be found for its contents?   Will Beback  talk  19:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Conjuring Science, which is available online,[25] is an excellent source on the BHTF. I suggest we make greater us of it.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Since no other sources have been poposed, I'll rewrite those sentences based on the book and the new internationalist article in the source page.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many unresolved issues, so please stop posting your draft until they are resolved. If the objective is to shorten the article with the idea of merging it, you are not helping by replacing a long section on Gays and AIDS with a longer one. You didn't respond to my suggestion that you use a summary, rather than an extensive listing of "homophobic language incidents." Despite the lack of sources, I think that LaRouche movement#Cultural, economic, and scientific initiatives should be taken as a useful model for what we could do in terms of brevity. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The objective is to improve the article. The section that I original proposed was shorter than what it replaced. Other accounts have added much more to it, which I haven't objected to. But it's still readable and not excessive. The amount of weight that should be given to this topic can be determined, in part at least, by the amount of coverage it's received in the mainstream press. There are 97 secondary sources listed in the /sources page. There are many more out there that are omitted because they duplicate what's already there. By comparison, many other sections have few, if any, secondary sources available. "Despite the lack of sources" overlooks a central problem with this article. And you keep deleting material sourced with 37 citations, replacing it with material that has just four. That's moving in the wrong direction. As for summarizing the incidents, they take up only one short paragraph. I don't think there's anything to be gained by summarizing them. If there's nothing else, I'll put the draft back in.   Will Beback  talk  20:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

::I'm doing some edits on your draft to address the many problems that still exist. Question: on your "sources" page, you omit a section of the Frederick Post article, replacing it with elipsis. What was there? Your formulation in the text makes it look like the LaRouche spokewoman is responding to the allegation about the sign, when she clearly is responding to whatever is missing in your citation on the sources page. --Coleacanth (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the sources are trimmed down, as we can't copy entire articles and most contain off-topic text. If you send me an email I can reply with the PDF of the article. But as to the point, the spokesperson is explaining the general activities of the NDPC representatives, not the text of the sign. Is this the last problem with the draft? If so then I'll delete it as a compromise.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

::::The "LaRouche/Bevel" book chapter on AID is available online,[26] but I don't see the quoted phrase about a "filthy and immoral practice." It looks like the entire book is available here,[27], but that phrase is not to be found. How can we verify that it appears in the book? I'd also like to be able to verify that "AIDS-riddled homosexuality" appeared in New Solidarity. Also, in your response to Leatherstocking, you say there is only one short paragraph that could be summarized. That's not true. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the AIDS section could easily be shorted by summary. It looks like you are piling on superfluous quotes in an effort to inflame the reader. I believe that paragraph 2 of "Gays" and paragraph 3 of "AIDS" should simply be omitted as unnecessary. You don't measure the quality of an article by the number of footnotes. "Editing" means showing good judgement about what should be included and what not. Compared to the current version, your draft frankly looks propagandistic, designed to be inflammatory rather than to present a clear overview. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The first link to the book you provided says at the top, "Chapter 13 ". Presumably there are twelve previous chapters, plus possible later chapters. Have you checked the entire text? The second link is to the 1992 book, not the 1988 book. As for the New Solidarity text, you've changed it to say that "according to newspaper reports", so we're not directly saying that it's in the paper, just that it has been reported, which is verifiable. I disagree that any large chunks of the draft should be deleted. It'a all well-sourced and neutrally presented. We've been to three noticeboards already. It's time to post this draft.   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I double-checked the reference and it turns out that the book in question is "A Program for America," published in 1985 by The LaRouche Democratic Campaign. I've edited the text to reflect that, and moved it to the "gays" section since it isn't directly related to AIDS.   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The book is online here. The relevant quote is on page 319 (page 166 of the PDF). His comments on the issue seem similar to some of what he said in his 1999 webcast, including that homosexuality is not a legitimate category and that "common interest" should trump the calls by demographic groups for better treatment.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting material that is directly based on reliable, secondary sources is not helpful. To address the concern that the structure of the article implied homophobia (a term that does not appear in the text, despite it being a significant point of view that appears in reliable sources), I flipped the section to place the "gays" section last. So the first part readers will see is the BHTF formed in 1973. If there are no further objections I'll post the draft.   Will Beback  talk  12:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

THe sections which I summarized, and you reverted, were the ones mentioned by Coleacanth above. They can be easily summarized, yet you continue to reject this option. Please explain why the cataloguing of these incidents or trivia quotes from LaRouche improve the article. Just because something has appeared in a newspaper article does not automatically make it appropriate for an encyclopedia, and it appears that you have simply assembled a mass of non-notable material for coatrack purposes. Please don't agitate for the posting of your draft until you address these issues, which have been repeatedly raised. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The material is perfectly appropriate. It is better sourced than 80% of this article. There is nothing "coatracky" about it, as the incidents illustrate the movement's views on the topic of the section. The section deserves weight because it is one of the subject's chief claims to notability, as demonstrated by the 97 secondary sources that address it. The text you wrote does not accurately summarize the material. We've been discussing this for weeks, and it's certainly better than it was originally. We've all worked on the text, adding various parts, so it is "our" draft. Time to put it in already.   Will Beback  talk  19:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

::::It's not "our" draft because you continually dismiss every objection that is raised, and I'm not convinced that it is better than the current version (as I said, I wouldn't measure quality by counting footnotes.) The disputed material doesn't seem to address LaRouche's views in any coherent way, and you seem to have selected it mainly on the basis of shock value. I have a suggestion: post an outline here of what you think LaRouche's most important views on AIDS and gays are. That can be discussed and used to structure the section, and it can be used as a guide for which source citations are germane and which are not. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not dismissed every objection. I have made many changes to the draft based on this discussions here and on the noticeboards, and three editors have made significant additions to the draft that I haven't removed. The material is an overall summary of the research found on the /sources page. I have not selected a single comment by LaRouche or his followers, unlike those who keep fighting for the "webcast" quote. Instead I have relied on those quotes and incidents that have been judged significant by reliable, secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. You have cherry-picked the items that you like from a large volume of source material. Other editors have added from your source material things which apparently didn't suit your purposes. Please stop trying to bully others and respond properly to the issues being raised. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's incorrect, I haven't deleted anything added by other editors. I've only reverted edit that deleted sourced material. If there are other incidents or quotations from secondary sources that would significantly change the tone of the piece then let's talk about adding them. You'll note that I have not suggested adding some other quotes by LaRouche that only appear in primary sources, such as his discussion of homosexuality as a disease. So I certianly haven't "cherry-picked" the worst quotations. I think the draft accurately reflects what sources say about LaRouche and his movement's views on gays and AIDS.   Will Beback  talk  01:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

AIDS Global Showdown report

I will get you quotations from the AIDS Global Showdown report, but I have to find time to go back to the library. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:

The task force was formed in 1973 at the initiative of economist LaRouche. In early 1974, the task force, under the direction of Warren Hamerman, issued a now-famous forecast on how new and reactivated pandemics would be the inevitable consequence of then-proposed "zero-growth" "Fourth World" triage and "population reduction" policies of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and Bank for International Settlements. History has proven the task force correct. On July 1, 1985, the task force published a review of the 1974 study in the context of the unfolding of the predicted biological holocaust and the overwhelming of the health defenses of the United States and Europe.

--Maybellyne (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So to confirm the citation, you're quoting from "introduction by Warren Hammerman, EIR Special Report, AIDS Gobal Showdown, Mankind's Total Victory or Total Defeat, Jan 1, 1988" - is that right?   Will Beback  talk  09:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Not quite. The version I found said August 1988, revised November 1989. --Maybellyne (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the text from the EIR article:

• In 1986, an EIR Special Report was issued, “An Emergency War Plan To Fight AIDS and Other Pandemics,” stressing the need to reverse the downgrading of living and working conditions, and to build up medical and public health infrastructure. This report included the work of Dr. David Senser, then Health Commissioner for New York City, who publicized maps of the poverty areas in the city’s boroughs, where TB, AIDS, and other conditions were hitting predominantly black and Hispanic males 25 to 44 years of age.

And here's the text from the 1988 report that Maybellyne supplied:

• The task force was formed in 1973 at the initiative of economist LaRouche. In early 1974, the task force, under the direction of Warren Hamerman, issued a now-famous forecast on how new and reactivated pandemics would be the inevitable consequence of then-proposed "zero-growth" "Fourth World" triage and "population reduction" policies of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and Bank for International Settlements. History has proven the task force correct. On July 1, 1985, the task force published a review of the 1974 study in the context of the unfolding of the predicted biological holocaust and the overwhelming of the health defenses of the United States and Europe.

Here's the text currently in the article:

• In 1973, LaRouche formed the Biological Holocaust Task Force to analyze the effects of International Monetary Fund, World Bank and Bank for International Settlements austerity and triage policies in Africa. The task force published a report in 1974, warning that these policies would cause a collapse of nutrition and sanitation, and could create an environment where pandemics of old or new diseases could begin. The report compared the situation to the collapse of public health conditions which lead to the Black Plague which killed 1/3 to 2/3 of the population of 14th Century Europe.

It appears to me that there are several assertions particularly towards the end, that are not in the cited or quoted sources. Also, since Hammerman is presumably passing judgment on his own work, the statements should be attributed. There are a few 3rd-party sources that refer to the BHTF reports, most notably Conjuring Science, and we'd do well by making use of them to probvide better balance.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC) ::Evidently we need the 1985 report. I can't find anything on the web about it. However, there is an EIR article which connects a big banking collapse of the 14th Century to the bubonic plague: [28] --Maybellyne (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The report would be a primary source about itself, so secondary sources are better. I don't see anything in the article you link about AIDS, the topic of this section. If we can find secondary sources theat discuss LaRouche and the movement's views of Venice then that topic might be worth a sentence. In the meantime, I suggest we limit ourselves to summarizing the sources we do have.   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing 2009 version

I have made some initial edits. I am not finished with it. I can probably finish over the weekend. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to wait on further editing until some of the main disputes have been resolved. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What disputes are you referring to?   Will Beback  talk  18:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

At WP:NORN#LaRouche on Gays and AIDS, for example. You have reverted several of my edits, we should resolve those issues. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The NORN matter is one dispute. What other disputes are there, and how do you propsoe resolvig them?   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the main unresolved issue. You have now added another off-topic anecdote, the airport incident. Beyond that disputed paragraph, I don't see the point of having two sentences at the beginning, both saying that LaRouche made anti-gay statements; one should suffice. I've had a chance to read over your "sources" page, and it looks like you have systematically selected the most wacky and extreme-sounding "sound bytes" from the mix. There are relatively reasonable things said as well, which should be included for balance. Aside from a general summary, material which is specific to the California AIDS initiative should be moved to that article, with the appropriate template. The quotes from the 1986 speech don't match what we have in the present version --it looks like a transcription error. I also think the division into "gays" and "AIDS" is awkward, and it would be better to go with chronological order. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the airport incident because another account deleted the material saying it was too short. It's clearly relevant because it shows that LaRouche activists attacked opponents with sexual allegations, as described by multiple sources. Coleacanth suggested splitting the section into AIDS and Gays, and as the material developed it makes more sense. Why do you think it's awkward? As for the research, it's been there for at least ten months. You've had plenty of opportunities to add more research, and you still may. What sources are missing?   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::You are misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say it was "too short" -- I said that it lacked legitimate material, by which I do not mean more stories about altercations. By "legitimate material" I mean verifiable quotes from LaRouche on the subject of gays. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The incidents are reported in reliable sources. When a follower is acting as a representative of LaRouche he or she is speaking on behalf of LaRouche. This articles already contains numerous reports on views expressed by followers. I see you've now added more from Mel Klenetsky to the draft so your assertion that we can't add the views of followers isn't a consistent argument. This text has been fully vetted and it's time to post it.   Will Beback  talk  18:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Nonsense. Like any other political figure, LaRouche has official, designated spokespersons, who may be presumed to be speaking on his behalf. A campaign volunteer is not an official spokesperson. Mel Klenetsky may have been a designated spokesperson, and it should be possible to find out. But your logic is faulty in any event. If a "view" is not in dispute, I see no problem with quoting a LaRouche supporter. But to try to attribute "kill the faggots" to LaRouche is just downright malicious. And besides, the text has not been "fully vetted," you've dodged most of the objections that have been raised. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The quotation is not attributed to LaRouche. It is clearly attributed to the follower, who is described in the newspaper article as a "National Democratic Policy Committee representative". As for the draft, I've got outstanding issues with the BHTF material, which is poorly sourced, and the final long quotation from LaRoche, which no one can explain. What issues do you still see as being outstanding?   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In order to try to get input from uninvolved editors, I have started WP:BLPN#Views of Lyndon LaRouche#LaRouche on Gays and AIDS. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We're going to start running out of noticeboards soon.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think we're going to get a decisive answer at BLPN either. As a compromise, why don't we drop both the "kill the faggots" incident and the webcast quote no one can decipher. Those appear to be the two biggest disputes.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You're the only one who can't seem to "decipher" it. He is saying that he is not motivated by hatred of gays. Come to think of it, if LaRouche hated gays, why wouldn't he just keep his mouth shut and let AIDS kill them off? As far as the BLP board is concerned, the one uninvolved editor who has contributed to the discussion seemed pretty decisive to me.--Leatherstocking (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And on the NORN board the uninvolved editor had a different opinion, so there's no clear outcome. Regarding the webcast, how do you get from has statement to your conclusion? It appears to be your own opinion, not something based in the plain language of the text. If we want to say that he thinks the IMF or the Soviets or Don Regan were the main issues then we have plenty of clear sources for that. Let's drop it since it's long and unclear.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Webcast quotation

However, in 1999 LaRouche addressed a meeting in which he said:

Look, take the case of AIDS, which I've been attacked for by all kinds of crazy people. I proposed that we mobilize $40 billion from the Federal government — that's back in the middle of the 1980s — to combat a danger, an epidemic disease of a new type, which implicitly threatens all mankind, which has — it's also in the United States, and it's in Africa: In Africa, because of environmental conditions and other tropical-disease conditions, the rate of spread of AIDS is now that most of the population of black Africa is threatened by virtual extinction — not total extinction, but near-extinction . . . Who cares about whether the guy's a homosexual? It's irrelevant! It's a human being who is suffering from a disease, who needs help and protection . . . Who wants to make a category of "homosexuals"? I don't believe in it; it's not a legitimate category. It's just people, people who are suffering and dying. [dead link]

The draft now[29] contains this long quotation. I'm not entirely sure what he's saying. Can't we summarize it? If we can't, then do we know what it means? It may touch on the Gore and medicines issue, which might be worth a new sentence. It's worth noting that this quotation only appears in an internal document that had a fleeting existence on the web. Many internal documents are published, and if we start using them indiscriminately we may regret it. If it's a notable view then we should be able to find it elsewhere.   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the quote is necessary from the NPOV standpoint, because it refutes the theory that LaRouche was only motivated by homophobia. It would be nice to have a linked source, but the source that is cited is not an internal document. It is a transcript of a public meeting, which was published in some form, perhaps only on a website, by the LaRouche organization. From what I have seen in the disputes around these articles, "internal document" usually means something which Chip Berlet or Dennis King claim that they have obtained through clandestine means and which cannot be verified. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. I don't see anything in there about homophobia. Let me ask again, what is LaRouche saying? Hoqw can we summarize this quotation?   Will Beback  talk  18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Like many sayings by LaRouche, it may be difficult to summarize, and therefore it should be quoted verbatim to avoid misrepresentation. --Maybellyne (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it relevant to this topic?   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on the issues that were being discussed by LaRouche and his movement in 1999, and on the content of the complete question and answer, I believe that this statement concerns the availability of inexpensive AIDS drugs in Africa, which LaRouche was using as an issue against his Democratic primary opponent Al Gore. The quesiton concerned self-interest versus working for the community. His reply concerns racism, and Democratic politics, and how we must all work together, and then he talks about how Africans should have access to the drugs. He seems to then say that even homosexual should get it because they're people too and because it's not really a legitimate category anyway, but I'm not positive if that's what that last part means as it is obscure. For examples of these issues at the time, see:

• "Prince Philip's `Cat's-Paw' Al Gore, Jr. Would Usher In a New Dark Age" January 22, 1999 [30]
• "AIDS: Don't Be Fooled by Al `Adolf' Gore" January 21, 2000 [31]
• "Why Al Gore Does Not Fight AIDS Holocaust" August 11, 2000 [32].

The Dec. 11, 1999 webcast can be found here.   Will Beback  talk  07:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your draft is structured in such a way as to create the impression that LaRouche was motivated by homophobia. In this quote he says that he was motivated by other concerns, and dismisses the idea that homosexuality is the central issue in the AIDS crisis. It refutes your thesis, and therefore helps achieve NPOV. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no thesis. I'm simply summarizing reliable sources. What other concerns motivated him?   Will Beback  talk  19:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: I had thought I'd be able to find some 3rd-party reporting on LaRouche's anti-Gore campaign and specifically his attacks on Gore's stance regarding intellectual property and AIDS drugs in Afrcia, but I couldn't. Are there any secondary sources to show that the views expressed in the webcast are notable? Have they even been repeated in an EIR or other LaRouche publication?   Will Beback  talk  20:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, editors here can't figure out what LaRouche is saying in this quotation and there are no secondary sources to show it's notable. Is there any chance of correcting those two problems? Should we include non-notable views that we can't decipher ourselves?   Will Beback  talk  17:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, can anyone explain just what LaRouche is saying in this quotaiton?   Will Beback  talk  04:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

::I'm a bit baffled that you can't understand it. The crux of it is the concluding lines: Who cares about whether the guy's a homosexual? It's irrelevant! It's a human being who is suffering from a disease, who needs help and protection . . . Who wants to make a category of "homosexuals"? I don't believe in it; it's not a legitimate category. It's just people, people who are suffering and dying. It's consistent with LaRouche's opposition to racism and other divisive "isms." A human being is a human being is what he is saying, or to put it poetically, A Man's A Man for A' That. Perhaps you are having difficulty understanding his words because you are laboring to make LaRouche into some sort of Jerry Falwell-type right wing fundamentalist, and no matter how hard you try, LaRouche just won't fit into that category. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your posting bring ups several points, and leaves others unanswered:

1. Please leave personal comments out of this.

2. If that is the crux then why did another account insist on adding other text too? [33]

3. I have never seen LaRouche describe other demographic groups as "so-called" or say that they are "not a legitimate category". Those terms harken back to LaRouche statements in 1986, when he referred to the "so-called gay lobby". If the assertion here is that LaRouche has changed his views then this is not convincing evidence of that.

4. A specific issue raised throughout this text is that Al Gore will not let AIDS patients receive their medications. That seems to be LaRouche's main point. I've posted several EIR articles on that exact topic which were printed around the time of this webscast. I'd include a paragraph on Gore and AIDS but I can't find even a single secondary source that covers the topic.

5. The broader issue with this material is notability. Whatever LaRouche is saying about homosexuals, it hasn't been printed in any of the LaRouche publications and it certainly hasn't been reported in 3rd-party sources. If we're going to go through all of his written and spoken comments on the topic I'm sure we'll find many others that are interesting, but have never been reported in secondary sources. For example, "To be a homosexual, is a terrible affliction; if we cared for the human rights of such persons, we should direct our efforts to curing them of that which makes them so unpleasantly distinctive." Is there any reason to include the webscast but exclude that very clear statement on the topic?

This is an ambiguous statement made under obscure circumstances and it isn't even online anymore. The other statements in the draft are all well-sourced to 3rd-party sources. The quotaiton is excessively long and it has been edited to omit relevant text. Altogether it is not up to the standards of the rest of the material and should be omitted.   Will Beback  talk  19:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

::::I agree with Leatherstocking that the NPOV policy comes into play. Your draft is a coatrack for material designed to imply that LaRouche was motivated by homophobia. That means that for the section to be neutral, LaRouche's assertion to the contrary must be included. It also makes his assertion notable. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I disagree that the draft is structured to imply anything.

2. We have numerous reliable sources that directly call the initiative and the language used to promote it "homophobic" or "antigay".

3. The text in question does not address the issue at all. It is concerned with political organizing and the availability of medicines. If there is a clear statement by LaRouche or his followers that the initiative was not prompted by one or another motive then let's add that. But this text is just vague and the idea that it means LaRouche is free from prejudice on matters of homosexuality is an extreme form of original research.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Accounts here have written that the crux of the quotation concerns homophobia (or lack thereof), so this is apprently more relevant to the "Gays" section. I've trimmed the material that wasn't part of the "crux", and added some relevant text, and moved it up to the other section. I still think it's inappropriate material from a primary source of poor quality, and it really should be deleted outright. But this is better treatment of it while it's here.   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

::Your edit was very strange. By taking those few sentences out of context, you do two things. You make it look like he's not talking about AIDS (in fact, you actually claim he's not talking about AIDS, and move it out of the AIDS section.) And by eliminating the last sentence you change the apparent meaning of the last two lines ("I don't believe in it; it's not a legitimate category. It's just people, people who are suffering and dying.") to eliminate the element of compassion for those who are suffering and dying, and you make it seem dismissive of gays. Amazingly, you also deleted the line "It's irrelevant! It's a human being who is suffering from a disease, who needs help and protection." Do you see why your edits might be seen as "structured" to "imply something"? Keeping the text in context is not "original research," it is just responsible editing. Don't assign your own choice of meanings to the words, let them speak for themselves. --Maybellyne (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, then if it's about AIDS then lets say so, and get right to the "crux". The job of an encyclopedia is to summarize, not to provide long quotes. If you like, we can move this quote in its entirey to Wikiquote. But long quotes aren't ideal.   Will Beback  talk  17:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that summaries are better if they don't change the meaning. I would apply this principle to your draft section, which at present reads like a list of all reported incidents where an activist said "faggot." It could be easily summarized as "There were numerous reported confrontations between LaRouche activists and their opponents, in which the LaRouchites were said to have used homophobic language." I think your shortened version of the "suffering and dying" quote is all right now, except where did you get the idea to say that it refers to "AIDS medications?" It is clearly about the AIDS issue generally. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What is he saying about the AIDS issue? That homosexuals should also be given treatment?   Will Beback  talk  18:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable assumption. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So if all he's saying is that homosexuals infected with AIDS should also receive medical treatment, then why don't we just write that?   Will Beback  talk  06:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled by the material, as I believe it misrepresents the subject's views and is based on a poor source. But in the interest of compromise I accept it in its current formulation. Let's go ahead and post the draft. It's quite mature by now.   Will Beback  talk  13:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Draft of Gays and AIDS section

Is the draft at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Gays & AIDS a neutral, comprehensive summary of the reliable sources at /sources? Is it better and more comprehensive than the material now in Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Gays and AIDS?   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors

• The /sources page contains 97 reliable sources that mention or are focused on incidents and quotations related to LaRouche and his movement's views on gays and AIDS. The draft cites 39 of them. By comparison, the existing section only has four citations, and most of the article only cites primary sources. The draft is the product of contributions from me and three other accounts since it was first drafted on June 26. It has been discussed at on this page, and on three noticeboards: WP:RSN#The Times of London, WP:NORN#LaRouche on Gays and AIDS, and WP:BLPN#Views of Lyndon LaRouche#LaRouche on Gays and AIDS. The topic is an important aspect of LaRouche's notability, due largely to the movement's sponsorship of two propositions in California, dubbed the "LaRouche Initiatives". By contrast, many of the sections in the article cover relatively obscure matters. The matter deserves greater weight, and requires more space to handle the matter comprehensively.   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to make one general observation, and then several very specfic ones. The general one is that simply because something appeared in a newspaper along with the words "LaRouche" and "AIDS" does not automatically make it appropriate for this article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not USENET, and there must be some specific criteria for relevance. Now on to the specifics:

• In her defense she claimed that a sign a LaRouche supporter held had said "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor", and that this had provoked her. Mr. Beback lobbied to include this by saying that we could change the formal topic from LaRouche's views to those of his movement. Well, guess what. Even if the lady is telling the truth, which is doubtful, a sign on a street can't be taken as reflecting the views of the LaRouche movement, either. It reflects the views of whatever volunteer supposedly made it. It is non-notable, off-topic, and probably a hoax. This point is so obvious that it amazes me that we're even debating it.
• In 1986, an minister and his mother who refused to sign petitions said they were called a "queer" and a "lesbian" by LaRouche supporters staffing a table outside a U.S. Post Office. Same as above. We don't even know if they were actually LaRouche supporters -- they could have been paid petitioners. Either way, you can't say that they were expressing any official views. And if you ask, "but don't I get to put it in the article anyway because it was in a newspaper, and it allows me to imply that these views were shared by the entire movement," the answer is no.
• In 1982, a LaRouche follower shouted to Kissinger in an airport, "Is it true that you sleep with young boys at the Carlyle Hotel?" Same as above. This can't even be considered a "view on gays" by the unnamed individual in the story, let alone a view of the movement generally.
• "A person with AIDS running around is like a person with a machine gun running around shooting up a neighborhood" Colorful, but why would you put it in an encyclopedia article? What specifically is this supposed to tell you about LaRouche's views? -Maybellyne (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We've been over this repeatedly. As for the last point, let me quote from one of the sources: " Mr. LaRouche acknowledged that his supporter asked Mr. Kissinger: Is it true that you sleep with young boys at the Carlyle Hotel? Mr. LaRouche added that he considered it an appropriate question." We've already discussed, and the sources confirm, that LaRouche himself, plus others in the movement, had called Kissinger a "faggot", and that the movement had a practice of being confrontational.   Will Beback  talk  07:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise I've summarized the incidents, as some accounts here have requested. They're appropriate content, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. To address the matter of focusing more on LaRouche's own views, I've added a sentence drawn from the primary sources.   Will Beback  talk  11:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:::I don't know about the perfect and the good, but I would say that is a significant improvement. If you could condense paragraphs 2 and 3 of the AIDS section, which seem to be a hodgepodge of the wildest quotes available from your sources, I would be ready to go with it. --Coleacanth (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Are any of those materials unsourced or poorly sourced? It appears to to me that they are all cited to reliable sources. Many of those quotations have been reported repeatedly, indicating they are notable. So long as the dubious webcast quotation is retained I don't think any of the other quotes should be removed.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::It's not a question of whether the quotes appeared in a newspaper. It's a question of whether the sections in question are well-written. I suggested earlier that you prepare an outline to organize content, because as I said, those paragraphs strike me as a hodge-podge. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The writing quality is equal to that of any other section of the article. That is not a sufficient reason to exclude the material.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

After the most recent changes, I no longer object to the section on BLP or other policy grounds. I still think it can be shortened and yes, the writing can be improved. The objective should be to provide a general overview of LaRouche's ideology/philosophy/platform and I think the new version is more oriented toward shocking the reader with LaRouche's inflammatory language. I see no basis for calling the webcast quotation "dubious" -- it is verifiably LaRouche's words. The new version should also indicate that there have been no reports of LaRouche dissing gays since the 80s (if there were, I imagine Will would have found them.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any source that says LaRouche stopped dissing gays after the '80s, but if I see one I'll certainly add it. However some might think that being called not a "legitimate category" as something of a dis, taken in light of his similar comments over the decades. I don't object to shortening tor rewriting, so long as no assertions cited to secondary sources are removed. If there are no policy reasons to keep the material out then I'll add it to the article.   Will Beback  talk  19:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::It is possible to word it in such a way that you neither imply that he has stopped saying bad things about gays, nor imply that he is still doing it. I changed the first line to "During the 1970s and 1980s, LaRouche and his supporters wrote articles containing animosity toward gay people." If this is acceptable, then I don't object to posting, although it still needs work. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I restored "frequently" because it is a direct assertion made by two separate, reliable sources. (Check the /sources page). To address your concern I added "according to press reports", though we should avoid using that phrase since it could be used to describe virtually every assertion in the section.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I also restored the mention of the petitions, which are also reproted in relaible sources. If you can suggest a better way of summarizing that material then please suggest it. Just deleting it is not helpful.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::What was your objection to the sentence I proposed above? You reverted it without explanation. And why is one alleged incident with petitioners notable enough to make a generalized assertion about the organization? I don't think that is justified. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I explained my change above. There are two sources that say "frequently":

• But the new attacks on gays lend credence to critics who contend that LaRouche and his followers are motivated by a long-standing hatred of homosexuals. LaRouche and his supporters also frequently attack people they consider enemies by labeling them as homosexuals in print, often in vulgar slang terms.
• Over the years LaRouche has frequently claimed his political opponents are homosexuals. He made that accusation against Kissinger in an August 1982 press release titled "Kissinger, the Politics of Faggotry," in which LaRouche wrote that "faggotry destroyed Rome." When LaRouche follower Will Wertz ran for the U.S. Senate in California four years ago -- on a platform calling for industrial investment and massive public works projects -- he also attacked the Democratic Party's eventual nominee, then-Gov. Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr., as a closet homosexual.

So the adverb is a direct quote from reliable sources, and it's now attributed to the press. As for the petitions, there are two reports, one from a newspaper in London. That establishes its notability. The issue of petition gatherers harassing people is a larger topic, but this narrow issue is directly related to the matter of "LaRouche and his supporters " attacking people by labelling them as homosexual.   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

::I'm not talking about "frequently." I'm talking about "During the 1970s and 1980s." I have changed the first sentence to "During the 1970s and 1980s LaRouche and his supporters frequently wrote articles containing animosity toward gay people." --Coleacanth (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you deleting "long history", which has a source as well, and why are you delting the sourced material on attacks made by petition gatherers?   Will Beback  talk  00:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And I assume that "during the 1970s and 1980s" is our own deduction, or is there a source for it? Unless we have a source then I think it's not an assertion we can make. LaRouche continued to comment on homosexuals in the 1990s and 2000s, and I don't think we can charactarize the nature of those comments.   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in your clippings from the post-80s period that could be considered "articles containing animosity toward gay people," so Cole's summary of what's in the sources is accurate. As far as "Long history" is concerned, there's no contradiction there, and earlier you were arguing for summaries as opposed to verbatim quotes from sources. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

According to whom is there nothing containing animosity toward gay people? Cole? So if we were to attribute this view, we'd say, "According to Wikipedia editor Coleacanth, during the 1970s and 1980s, LaRouche and his supporters wrote articles containing animosity toward gay people." I don't think that's a good encyclopedia practice. We have sources that say "long history", we don't have any sources that say, "during the 1970s and 1980s..." We don't have any source that says LaRouche has changed his views, so it'd be inappropriate for us to imply that he has. I'm going to restore the text which is more closely based on sources.   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::Cole's summary is an accurate editorial assessment of the material you assembled. Let's face it, the difference between the section you wrote last fall and the section you re-wrote this summer is that you have selected from the press stories you assembled any excerpt that might tend to bolster the claim of the opponents of the AIDS initiative that it was an "anti-gay measure." This fits the description of "cherry picking." I went through your own sources and added material from them that you had omitted, possibly because it didn't tend to bolster that claim. Using your own Reductio ad absurdum argument, we could put in the article that "according to Wikipedia editor Will Beback, the most notable comments by LaRouche are those that support the claims of opponents of the initiative." --Maybellyne (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as the date range goes, readers can see for themselves. As far as the assertion that LaRouche ceased to make disparaging or "homophobic" comments after 1989, I havemnt seen any source for that. The two speeches we have for that period both seem to express a negative value to homosexuality, but that's just one editor's view. I think it's time to post this material.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::In paragraphs 2 and 3 of "AIDS," the dates were mentioned. I changed the second line of paragraph 1 so that instead of "according to press reports," it says "press reports during the 1980s," since every report you cite falls within that decade. I also removed "publicly" from "accused of being homosexual," because you have inserted the alleged petitioning incident. If it really took place, it was a private conversation between the individuals involved. --Maybellyne (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed "during the 1980s" because press reports in the 1990s and 2000s also mention the attacks. "Publicly" is accurate, since at least one of the accusations was reportedly yelled at the person. But it's not necessary.   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And that, of course, is hairsplitting, because those press reports are referring to incidents from the 1980s, so I will change it to "according to press reports, incidents took place during the 1980s." In the absence of evidence that Mr. LaRouche is still saying or thinking bad things, under BLP we should refrain from implying so. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We could add a quote from the 2002 Q&A to give readers an example of his thinking in this decade, but I'd prefer to avoid adding more quotes with just primary sources. The material all has dates attached, or they're obvious in the context.   Will Beback  talk  20:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

@Mish: Thank you commenting. I disagree about the value of this article and others in the category.

@Benjiboi: Thanks for the cleanup edits - I've moved them to the article. As for attribution, I agree that if an assertion is POV and is in only one sources that attribution makes sense. But assertions that aren't contentious, or that appear in multiple sources probably don't need attribtion, and the article would be overwhelmed if every assertion was attributed. Regarding the platform, I agree that it can be summarized in fewer words and that bulleted pints aren't necessary. I'll post some suggested text. Regarding a timeline, this isn't a history, and there isn't any indication of a development of ideas, beyond the 1970s BHTF and subsequent AIDS epidemic. The events of the mid-1980s all happened within a few years. The current organization of the AIDS section is

• BHTF, circa 1974 and 1988
• Prop. 64 and other views expressed by movement members, circa 1986
• Views on AIDS by LaRouche expressed more or less during the Prop 64 or 69 campaigns
• The 1985-1987 issues of AIDS in schools
• LaRouche's plan, as expressed in a 1988 TV ad.
• Later comments by LaRouche and the movement.

So there is a rough timeline already. BTW, there is essentially nothing about the views of outsiders towards the LaRouche plan, as those would be more appropriate in the Prop. 64 article.   Will Beback  talk  04:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Benjiboi's comment about the bullet points, I've drafted a summary of the three points and the part about lies and propaganda.[34] The text is:[35]

• LaRouche purchased a national TV spot during his 1988 presidential campaign, in which he summarized his views on the AIDS epidemic. The Associated Press reported that he said most statements about how AIDS is spread were an "outright lie" and that safe sex was just propaganda put out by the government to avoid spending the money required to address the crisis.[24] According to his 1992 campaign book, the three main points he presented were: an $8 billion a year "crash program" to find a cure; use of public health measures including universal screening; and a hospital-building program to handle the expected increase in patients due to AIDS.[25]

I've marked the last sources as dubious because I just noticed it's a paraphrase that appears in his 1992 campaign book, not an actual quotation. FWIW, this version is 104 words, while the current text is 147 words.   Will Beback  talk  07:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I've copied the drafted text into the article.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

As I've made comments on the talk page, following this being raised on the LGBT project and the BLP pages, I'm not sure if that makes me involved or not. My response is no different from what I said there - the whole way these articles have been engineered seems a bit 'iffy'. I am not in favour of having any articles that are called 'The views of ...', as they inevitably breach NPOV, and challenging this is difficult when the article is about a narrowly defined view-point, and this is made worse when the 'view' is linked to a living individual, because of the BLP issues. The web of articles around this one individual is intriguing - two BLPs (one for him and one for his views), one for his movement (with or without his views?), and so on. Mish (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The comments above section about who was making such statements and what did they represent should be taken to task. It may make sense to state that ____ newspaper reported a LaRouche supporter stated ____, etc and remove the misinterpretation possibilities. The gay section seems terse enough but the AIDS section is quite the platform, likely his several points
  • all
  • conveniently
  • bulleted

should instead be wholly removed and summarized. It will take work but you'll lose less readers along the way. The entire section as well should have more of the timeline spelled out; Harvey Milk was assassinated in 1979, AIDS hit the national stage in 1983 with Rock Hudson, these were pivotal cultural moments and were seized upon by politicians of all ranks. I disagree a bit with MishMich as I see this as a subarticle to the main BLP much like Michael Jackson and Barack Obama have multiple subarticles that are summarized in the parent. Care should be taken to be overly NPOV as we want the best article possible. -- Banjeboi 13:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)