Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:54, 29 November 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lyndon LaRouche article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lyndon LaRouche article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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

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

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

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

Policies and sources

Content policies

See WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS:

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ...

"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Sources

LaRouche lived all his adult life in New York (1953–1983) or Virginia (1983–present), which means the two major newspapers of record are The New York Times and The Washington Post. Both have written extensively about him, including several extended investigative and analysis pieces from the 1970s to the 2000s. These articles provide the structure of much of this article—in that we highlight what they highlight. For their archives on LaRouche see below. For the books we use see here.

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

Racism, Etc. Section

I thought the "controversies" section read oddly; in the version I found, the article quoted people defending LaRouche from allegations of racism, antisemitism, etc., but no mention of what the actual allegations were or which of LaRouche's statements, if any, triggered them. I added a few of the controversial statements themselves, cited to LaRouche's own publications (linked where possible). One of the publications was only available online from an anti-LaRouche site, but the link goes directly to a PDF of the original printed leaflet. Another was a quote from one of the works already listed in the article's bibliography.

These edits were immediately reverted by an anonymous IP address as "unsourced and poorly sourced material." All edits I made were sourced to original materials, and without some examples of the types of statement people have found controversial the section simply makes no sense, and certainly does not present an NPOV. If you have issues with specific statements or their sources, please discuss them here before you delete them out of hand. Chapka (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chapka and welcome to the LaRouche article and thank you for your good faith contributions and efforts to improve the article. You should know that this article has a long history of controversy amongst WP editors and I'm glad you have opened a talk page thread. At the same time, I support the revert made by the IP and I have removed your additions for a variety of reasons which I'd be happy to explain. First, WP gives strong preference to secondary sources per WP:SECONDARY. Primary sources (items published by LaRouche or his organization) have limited usage especially on a biography (see WP:BLP). Also by 'cherry picking' quotes or sections from these publications there is an element of 'original research' or editorializing (though unintended I'm sure) per WP:OR. So for all of these reasons I felt that your additions were inappropriate. If you feel for example that LaRouche is/was homophobic, then you would need to find reliable secondary sources (scholarly books, mainstream press etc.) to support that allegation before adding it into the article. I certainly think that section of this article could be improved and would be happy to work with you on that, but citing primary documents written by LaRouche is not the way to proceed. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand that primary sources are not appropriate for biography; but surely they are the most appropriate way to establish controversial statements by the subject. LaRouche is quoted throughout the article. Surely it makes more sense to include the contentious statements themselves, quoted to the primary source, than to leave this section as it is, essentially an apologia for controversies that the article doesn't even mention? Chapka (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

For now, I've edited the section, cleaned up the formatting, and added citations to third-party reports attempting to clarify some of the controversy. Chapka (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

...and my edits were immediately and without comment undone by an anonymous user. Any suggestions on how we can avoid an edit war here?Chapka (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC

As far as I know, LaRouche is still alive, although getting a bit long in the tooth. That means that WP:BLP still applies to him. It means that we should use the best reliable secondary sources -- not self-published sources ("Red Letter Press" is the house organ for the Freedom Socialist Party, not a suitable source), blogs, or anonymous websites. We should also avoid selecting our own quotes from primary sources, which will generally be considered Cherry picking (fallacy) (especially if you are finding those purported quotes on an anonymous website and not in the actual primary sources, which has been known to happen). The policy here is generally to let reliable secondary sources select the quotes. Chapka, perhaps you should explain exactly what you think is incomplete or inaccurate about the present version. Given the long history of controversy around this article, it's best to take things slowly. Joe Bodacious (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that, as written, the article essentially says nothing. If someone wants to come to Misplaced Pages to find out what the deal is with Lyndon LaRouche, the article will not be helpful in any meaningful way. It says, "Some people think some things LaRouche said are anti-semitic. Other people disagree." I've attempted to add information from newspapers, from secondary sources--including sources already cited in the same article. I've also attempted to clean up the section and do other general editing. If you think the Gilbert isn't a good source, fine; remove that source. What was the problem with the other sources I cited that required their removal?

Rather than going back and forth on this, here's an alternate plan. This material is already basically duplicative of the equivalent sections of Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. I propose eliminating the current section entirely, migrating any material not already duplicated to that page, and replacing this section with a link to that page.

In the meantime, I have reorganized the section to make it slightly more coherent; this may make it clear where the issues lie (for example, the fascism section, which I understand is already being discussed elsewhere). The only sources added are an Associated Press story quoting a named Democratic Party official, and an additional cite to the King article already cited in this section.Chapka (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither Dennis King's self-published website, nor "New York Native" are adequate sources under Misplaced Pages's policy. I reverted your change; I would suggest that you propose future changes on the talk page and gain consensus for them before adding them, since it is already clear that several editors find your material problematic. However, I think that your idea about a link to the "Views" page might work. You are right that there is duplication. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

First, what is wrong with the source? You have a writer who is cited numerous times in the article, writing about gay and lesbian issues in what at the time was one of America's most prominent gay newspapers. Second, I made a number of changes to the section, including other citations nobody has complained about. If you don't like that citation, why not simply eliminate it, rather than once again reverting everything? Chapka (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:UGC: Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. You used King's website as the source. The Misplaced Pages article on New York Native says that it went defunct after developing a reputation for circulating conspiracy theories, which does not suggest a high quality source. Keithbob suggested that you look for "reliable secondary sources (scholarly books, mainstream press etc.)" and I agree. I'd like to repeat my suggestion that you make proposals for changes on this talk page, rather than just reverting back to what you had posted earlier (incidentally, your revert eliminated an edit that had supplied a requested source, the New York Times.) I'd also like to respond to your objection where you characterized the present version of the section (which has been stable for a long time, after years of edit warring) as "Some people think some things LaRouche said are anti-semitic. Other people disagree." I have read a lot of debates about this at Misplaced Pages; the problem that I see is that the allegations that LaRouche is anti-semitic, racist, etc. are based on speculation. I have never seen an example quoted where LaRouche says "I don't like Jews." LaRouche's critics will find statements by LaRouche criticizing the ADL, for example, and cite these as evidence of an unspoken anti-semitic intent. That may be true, but we don't know. Many diverse groups have attacked the ADL, especially after the scandal in California where they were spying on anti-apartheid groups, etc. The wilder accusations are the ones about "coded messages" in LaRouche's writing, which to my mind is conspiracy theorizing. So since LaRouche denies he is anti-semitic, and makes no overtly anti-semitic statements, I think that we have an obligation to report that there are allegations of an unspoken anti-semitic intent, but we also have an obligation not to give too much weight to such speculation because it may indeed be false. This is my interpretation of the WP:BLP policy where it says Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively. I think the way the article reads now is about right. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chapka, I understand that you feel frustrated and that you have some good faith concerns about this article. Some of your concerns may be legitimate and JoeB and I have already expressed some empathy for some of your concerns. So there is no need to make enemies of us. WP is a collaborative project and is created and maintained via consensus. That requires discussion which sometimes takes days or weeks given the crudeness of typed discussions by part-time volunteers. Also you are somewhat new to WP and may not be familiar with all of the relevant guidelines. Lastly, this is a highly contentious article with a long history of spirited debates on every aspect of the article. Yes it can be improved but what I suggest is to accept the collaboration of other experienced editors by proposing changes and sources here on the talk page before making changes to the article. I think if you slow down and accept the help and views of others we can make progress. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Little mistake

Sentence " When the ADL accused him of anti-Semitism in 1979, he filed a $26-million libel suit; Justice Michael Dontzin of the New York Supreme Court ruled against LaRouche, holding that the ADL's speech was fair comment, and that the facts "reasonably give rise" to that description " is showing up twice in a row in part of article,can someone just delete one ? Thank you . 46.40.21.107 (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

AIDS created by the Soviet war machine or the IMF

This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=579760795&oldid=579744995 says "named reference." Yes, the reference is named, but it is an opinion piece which cobbles together fragments of purported quotes in an effort to make the subject look ridiculous. Misplaced Pages:RS#Quotations says that quotations must be handled with care, and in this case there is danger of misrepresentation. If the fragmentary quotes are restored, there should be an effort to find a more complete version, to establish the context in which they appeared, and to find a more verifiable source. 99.106.240.14 (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

LaRouche needs no assistance from professor David Kirp to look ridiculous. That link shows my edit to the article. The edit is best seen in proper context; it is a restoration of Kirp's piece that appeared in the New York Times in 1986. Here is the diff of before you arrived, and after my rework. You can see that I properly formatted and positioned the Kirp piece, and I formatted and positioned the Petit piece. Per WP:RS we do not require our sources to be free from bias. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV we name Kirp as the person holding the opinion. All the policies and guidelines agree with my reworking of your changes.

If you have some actionable complaint with regard to Misplaced Pages:RS#Quotations, then clearly say what it is. For instance, if you have the original quotes of LaRouche which include "Soviet war machine" with regard to AIDS, and "excess eaters" also with regard to AIDS, then please link to them so we can see if Kirp misrepresented them. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

My complaint is that the quote-fragments are clearly out of context, by design. Misplaced Pages policies don't require sources to be free of bias, but they discourage misrepresentation. Since Mr. Kirp provides so little of the original quotes, it would be well nigh impossible to locate the original publications, and besides, in the case of possible BLP violations (which is what this is), the burden of proof is on the person inserting or re-inserting the material. 99.126.44.77 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that you are not happy with the New York Times opinion piece, written by a professor who is quoting LaRouche. However, you have not brought any evidence of Kirp misrepresenting LaRouche's expressed ideas; it's just your word against the professor's. Misplaced Pages sides with the published piece rather than the opinion of an anonymous Misplaced Pages participant. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding Misplaced Pages policies, including the ones you cite. You mention WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but the POV we are discussing here is not that of Mr. Kirp. It is a POV being attributed to the subject, and we are not given sufficient documentation to establish that the subject's views are being accurately represented. That's why WP:RS#Quotations says the following:

To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted... Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context.

If it is still unclear to you how these policies apply to the edit in question, than perhaps a request for comment is in order. 20:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.44.197 (talk)

Again you have emphasized the importance of getting the original quote sufficiently correct, enough so that we know Kirp is not misrepresenting LaRouche. Yet you shy away from finding the original quotes—Why? The original is a 133-page report delivered by LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee, the report's purpose being to declare an international conspiracy to make AIDS kill more people. So many news agencies and newspaper editors wrote about these exact quotes that I'm not worried at all about whether Kirp got them right. Your only option here is to find the exact quotes from the 133-page report and cite them. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, what is clear from the links that you provide is that they're all working from the same press release. The formulations, including the fragmentary quotes, are identical, and none of them name the "133-page report." I'm not "shying away from finding the original quotes" -- I simply don't have much to go on in terms of finding them. This is probably one reason that WP:RS#Quotations says the following:

text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.

...which, of course, none of the sources you provided do. 99.146.12.45 (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have had no luck finding the "133-page report." I did find a reference to the IMF and Africa -- the old issues of LaRouche's magazine are searchable online. From this it is apparent that LaRouche blamed the IMF policies for "collapsing the nutrition, health and sanitation levels in Africa," which in turn lowered the population's resistance to disease. The "Soviet" reference is more complicated -- I found an article here which includes a partial translation of a Soviet article alleging that AIDS may have been developed as a bio-weapon at the US biological weapons lab at Fort Detrick (there seems to be an insinuation that the Soviets themselves might have done such a thing, but I don't see an outright accusation.) The article references an earlier article in the LaRouche magazine which claims that the Soviets dominated the World Health Organization, which LaRouche accused of dragging its feet on measures to combat AIDS. These comments are the closest thing I could find to the quote which is presented in the various news clippings you assembled. 99.146.12.45 (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: How should WP:RS#Quotations be applied to this article?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

A particular formulation, that "LaRouche said AIDS had been created by the 'Soviet war machine,' or by the International Monetary Fund to kill 'excess eaters' in Africa," has been re-inserted into the article. This same formulation appears in a number of press citations, but none of them identify the original source document or provide any additional context. They all say that the original source is a "133-page report" which is not identified. The question is whether it is permissible to include this in the article, or whether it violates WP:RS#Quotations, which says that:

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.

Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.

See also the preceding discussion thread. 99.146.12.45 (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What is your proposed change to the article? From recent article history, it looks like you simply want to remove the quotes. They are as you say widely reported, so third party observers have found the quotes important. It would be a poor representation of LaRouche if we did not cover that aspect. To get any traction here you should propose some solution which retains the quotes but gives them more context. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll address your question in the previous thread, so as not to take the RfC off-topic. 99.146.12.45 (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You are here at an article talk page where the point is to improve the relevant article. You seem to think that an ivory tower discussion of the meaning of the wording in a guideline is divorced from article content, from article improvement. I say the point is always to determine how best to convey to the reader a fairly brief but sufficiently thorough summary of the topic. Since a lot of press was generated by the LaRouche phrasing about "excess eaters" and "Soviet war machine", both with regard to AIDS conspiracy, I think we must include the quotes in the article.

To that end, we are using WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT by citing David Kirp's NYT op-ed piece and not the 133-page report written under LaRouche's authority. If necessary, we can also cite the dry United Press article about the same issues, quoting the same LaRouche quotes. This satisfies the suggestion to look for "neutral corroboration from another source." At that point we are not required to cite the original report. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is entirely accurate to say that "a lot of press was generated by the LaRouche phrasing." Since every source you have linked to uses the identical boilerplate text, I think it would be safe to assume that in reality, a lot a press was generated by a press release issued by opponents of the LaRouche initiative in California. I would be quite surprised if any of the journalists involved had ever laid eyes on the "133-page report." So under the circumstances, these might be considered "partisan secondary sources." As for my proposal to improve the article, it would be to include less detail in the section under discussion, and add more to the linked Main article: California Proposition 64 (1986). There the purported quotes could be supplemented by some of the context I mention at the end of the previous thread. I think it would be useful now if we hear from some uninvolved editors. 99.126.47.148 (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved? I'm pretty darn close to uninvolved. I had never participated on this talk page until two days ago when I responded to your post. In article space, my first edit was last April when I slightly expanded the part about Verdi tuning. Since then I have only played the occasional referee, not adding material but deleting bits that seemed extraneous.

You have tried to impeach all the sources by saying they are taken from the same original newspaper article, but the list below shows that only two of the sources are identical. The various editorials have focused on various parts of the LaRouche AIDS initiative, and many of them have elected to quote LaRouche as reported by Doug Willis of the Associated Press—hardly a biased source. David Kirp and Robert Walters each wrote pieces which brought the AP quotes together with new sources of quotes. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I said it appears likely that they are all taken from a press release, since they all use identical quote-fragments and provide no context. Since the dispute is over an edit which you made, I think that under the circumstances you are "involved." The purpose of the RfC is to solicit viewpoints other than yours or mine, so I have taken the liberty of reformatting this page so that we may encourage some outside views. 99.146.13.127 (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent the recent article history. People watching this discussion should not lose track of the fact that this Rfc comes from a poorly considered removal the IP-from-L.A. made rather than from the partial reversion and correction I made. The Rfc is for soliciting other opinions but not to the exclusion of mine and the IP's. Note to IP person from L.A: Stop trying to make the question be only about the meaning of WP:RS. If that was your only question, you would have posted it at WP:RSN. Do not refactor the discussion. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem: The AP report is used by multiple members of the AP, but that does not make it multiple sources. As written, it appears the claim is being ascribed to Dr. Laurens White in the anteceding sentences, and does not indicate that the reporter independently read the "report." Editorials clearly tracing back to this AP article do not meet WP:RS for claims of fact, only of opinion of the editorial writers. The quotes should be attributed to White, AFAICT, and not presented as uncontroverted fact. The NYT editorial notes that some "outlandish claims" were removed from a "pamphlet" to be sent to voters, but makes no statement as to what claims were in the proposed pamphlet, which I doubt was 133 pages long. I am sure LaRouche has made many outlandish claims, but Misplaced Pages requires better sourcing than so far provided. Collect (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: We are already mentioning Seale, and Toumey (Rutgers University Press, 1996) attributes that speculation about a Soviet origin of AIDS to Seale. To my mind, the recent insertion about the Soviet plot is out of place where it is now: it should be part of the sentence mentioning Seale's work, which is already cited to Toumey. From the sources below, I gain the clear impression that LaRouche accused the IMF of having allowed AIDS to flourish, rather than of having created it, as the article currently states. So as this is a BLP, I would recommend speedy remedial work. LaRouche's ideas are idiosyncratic enough without misrepresenting them. Andreas JN466 20:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • . I have no objection to mentioning his accusation that the IMF had allowed the epidemic to spread, not done enough to halt it or whatever, using separate sourcing (Kirp and/or some of the sources listed below). Andreas JN466 20:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be most accurate to say that he accused the IMF of creating conditions, by demanding a reduction of living standards, which made the populations in Africa more susceptible to diseases old and new. 99.109.198.169 (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Quoted sources, by date

• Willis, Doug (June 30, 1986). "California AIDS Ballot Measure Alarms Medical Community". Associated Press.

  LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee has published a 133-page report detailing an alleged international AIDS conspiracy. It says the "Soviet war machine" is using AIDS as a biological war weapon against the United States and that AIDS "could conceivably wipe out every U.S. man, woman and child by 1991." It also claims the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have allowed AIDS to flourish in Africa to reduce the "excess eaters" population.

• AP (July 1, 1986) "AIDS Isolation Proposal Alarms Doctors". The Lewiston Daily Sun, Lewiston, Maine, page 14. (It includes "Soviet war machine" and "excess eaters".)
• (August 4, 1986) "LaRouche's Epidemic of Fear". The Fresno Bee. (This editorial starts with "Lyndon LaRouche says the Queen of England is a drug pusher..." It includes "Soviet war machine" and "excess eaters".)
• (August 12, 1986) "State Voters Should Resist the Urge to PANIC". Lodi News-Sentinel, page 4. (This editorial starts with "The name of the group promoting the AIDS measure..." It includes "Soviet war machine" and "excess eaters".)
• (August 25, 1986) "Lyndon LaRouche Peddles Epidemic of Fear". Lodi News-Sentinel, page 4. (This editorial starts with "Lyndon LaRouche says the Queen of England is a drug pusher..." It is identical to the editorial appearing three weeks earlier in the Fresno Bee.)
• Kirp, David L. (September 11, 1986). "LaRouche Turns To AIDS Politics". Kirp provides various LaRouche quotes: "Soviet war machine", "excess eaters" (both from the 133-page report according to AP), "a person with AIDS running around is like a person with a machine gun running around" (from a LaRouche radio interview), and "universal screening and isolating or quarantining all individuals in the active carrier states" which I cannot trace.
• Walters, Robert (October 30, 1986). "LaRouche's PANIC Plot". Point Pleasant Register, page 2. Columnist Walters cites and quotes a 24-page pamphlet from LaRouche, and also uses the previous quotes about "Soviet war machine" and "excess eaters".

I'd leave the majority out of the article. To include the numerous sources would give undue weight to one small section of a rather colorful life. Remember, along with quotations, one has to consider undue weight.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again, WP:RS#Quotations

An editor restored some contested material in this edit, claiming that it came from The Power of Reason, 1988: An Autobiography". As luck would have it, that entire book is available online, at this location: https://ia600304.us.archive.org/5/items/ThePowerOfReason1988AnAutobiography/powerofreason.pdf I did a search of the entire book for both of the quoted phrases, and neither are there. Obviously, the supposed quotes were taken from some other source, which is clearly a less than reliable one. I would request that editors take a little more care in what they do to BLPs, this one in particular. 99.118.151.187 (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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