Talk:Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 03:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Attn. Thue, or To Whom it May Concern: I have written a new page, which I hope will be entirely satisfactory. I am new at this, so please forgive my transgression. Any additional advice you can give me will be carefully read and taken to heart.

I've put up a POV notice - this looks to be pro-LaRouche garbage... john k 03:16, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jeremiah Duggan

Mediation, arbitration, requests for clarification, and other discussions about the LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement, AN/I, 2005-8
Enforcement, Hershelkrustofsky socks, Sep 19, 2008 Enforcement, MaplePorter, Sep 19, 2007 Clarification, Nathan/DLTN, July 23, 2007 Enforcement, Herschelkrustofsky (HK) Clarification, Tsunami Butler", Apr 1, 2007 Clarification, Appeal, Jan 24, 2007 Clarification, ManEatingDonut, Nov 22, 2006 Clarification, LaRouche, Oct 23, 2006 HK probation, Apr 15, 2006 HK/BirdsOfFire, Mar 31, 2006 HK blocked, Sep 29, 2005
Arbitration 2006
HK banned, May 5, 2006.
Arbitration 2005
N_ and others, Nov 2005. Cognition's statement, Nov 22, 2005. Modification of LaRouche 2, Dec 23, 2005. HK indef probation, Dec 23, 2005 LaRouche 2, Jan 25, 2005–Feb 17, 2005. LaRouche 2 talk LaRouche 2 evidence LaRouche 2 proposed decision LaRouche 2 proposed decision talk
Arbitration 2004
LaRouche 1, July 4—Sep 13, 2004. LaRouche 1 talk LaRouche 1 evidence LaRouche 1 evidence talk LaRouche 1 proposed decision LaRouche 1 proposed decision talk
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Med cabal talk, Feb 17, 2007 Med cabal/Tsunami Butler, Nov 26, 2006
Mediation 2004
HK and AndyL, July 3, 2004 HK and DJSupreme23, Jun 14, 2004 HK and Adam Carr, Nov 15, 2004 HK and SlimVirgin, Dec 16, 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche Lyndon LaRouche 1, Jan 17–Jun 17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 2, Jun 20–22, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 3, Jun 21–24, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche draft, June 24-25, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 4, Jun 25–July 5, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 5, Jul 05–Aug 1, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish, June–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche HK list, July–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche HK list archive Lyndon LaRouche 6, Aug 6-9, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 7, Aug 11-17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche omissions, Sep 9-10, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 8, Aug 18–Sep 28, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 9, Sep 18–Oct 11, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 10, Dec 2004–Jan 20, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche archive, material missing Lyndon LaRouche 11, Jan 20–Jul 19, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche 12, Jul 2005–Nov 12, 2006 Lyndon LaRouche 13, Nov 2006—Feb 18, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 14, Feb 18, 2007 - August 1, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 15, August 8, 2007 - November 18, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 16, November 20, 2007 - Lyndon LaRouche 17 Lyndon LaRouche 18
Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement Political views temp Political views 1, Aug 21–Nov 29, 2004 Political views 2, Dec 2004–Jan 11, 2005 Political views 3, Jan 2005–Oct 02, 2006 "Cooked quotes", Jan 22–23, 2005 Political views mediation, Feb 27–Mar 04, 2006 Political views 4, Oct 23, 2006–Oct 11, 2007 Political views 5, Oct 11, 2007–Nov 28, 2007 Political views 6, Nov 28, 2007–Apr 12, 2008 Political views 7, Apr 15, 2008–Sep 24, 2008
Talk:Amelia Boynton Robinson Talk:American School (economics) Talk:American School (economics)/Archive 1 Talk:American School (economics)/Archive 2 Talk:Anti-Defamation League Talk:Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität Talk:Dirigisme Talk:Helga Zepp-LaRouche Talk:Jeremiah Duggan Talk:Jeremiah Duggan 1, Nov 14–Dec 6, 2004 Talk:Jeremiah Duggan 2, Dec 2004–Jan 2005 Talk:John Train Salon Talk:Kenneth Kronberg Talk:LaRouche Movement Talk:LaRouche Youth Movement Talk:Schiller Institute Talk:Schiller Institute/Archive 1 Talk:Synarchism Talk:Tavistock Clinic Talk:Tavistock Institute Talk:Tavistock Institute 1, Nov '04–June '06 Talk:LaRouche criminal trials Zayed Center
Template talk
Template talk:LaRouche Template talk:LaRouchetalk
Categories
HK sockpuppets

For user:Herschelkrustofsky I see that you deleted the information about Jeremiah Duggan from this page. I think it should be restored. No allegations regarding Duggan have been directed at Helga Zepp-LaRouche personally, but she is the president of the organization that has been accused of involvement in Duggan's death. Therefore, she is linked to the situation, whether fairly or not. Her husband, Lyndon LaRouche, has also issued a statement about it. He seems to feel it is a major issue intended by Tony Blair and Dick Cheney to embarrass the Schiller Institute and LaRouche generally. It seems odd to delete it from Zepp-LaRouche's page. user:SlimVirgin

Originally, there was only one LaRouche article. The present group of a dozen or so articles relating to LaRouche are an outgrowth of extensive edit wars, which culminated in mediation and a compromise one month ago. Part of the compromise was that the numerous attacks on LaRouche, and equally numerous counterattacks from LaRouche, would not be repeated in every article (based on your argument, it would seem more appropriate to put the Duggan material on the Lyndon LaRouche than the Helga Zepp-LaRouche page; she has neither been mentioned in the controversy, nor issued a statement to my knowledge.) These articles are all linked and listed in a template, since it became impossible to contain all the information in one giant article, and I think the Duggan case should be confined to the article which is most appropriate, which in this case, would seem to be the Schiller Institute article. However, I won't edit this article further until I get a response from you. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and for not editing the piece again until I'd had a chance to respond. I didn't know about the agreement not to repeat issues on all the LaRouche-related pages. The reason I feel this should be on the Zepp-LaRouche page is that she is the stated president and founder of the Schiller Institute, and the Schiller Institute has been accused by a British inquest of being an anti-Semitic cult that may have had direct involvement in the death of a Jewish student. This is a serious matter, not just more of the usual criticism. According to a German press, a manager for the Schiller Institute was found with the student's passport in her possession, which (if true) lends weight to the accusation that the Institute was restricting his movements prior to his death. He would have been unable to return home to France without his passport. As the German police are currently considering whether to re-open their investigation, and a German lawyer is trying to overturn the original suicide verdict, it would seem obtuse to make no reference to it in an article that discusses Zepp-LaRouche's status as a decision-maker within the Schiller Institute. That would be like writing a profile of a chief executive without mentioning that police were thinking about making his company the subject of a serious criminal investigation.

Can you refer me to where the mediators agreed that LaRouche-related criticism should not be included on all the LaRouche-related pages? I would like to read what was agreed so that I can judge the extent to which the Duggan information is bound by that agreement. user:SlimVirgin

You can start with Talk:Lyndon LaRouche and work your way back through the archives, which is quite an undertaking. The fact of the matter is, LaRouche and his movement have been accused of everything under the sun, from assassinating Olof Palme to being a front for Saddam Hussein. Every charge would be very serious if it were true. I would encourage you to follow the template and read the whole series of articles, as well as the Talk archives, and we can continue this discussion. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look through the archives. I take your point about accusations like the murder of Olaf Palme, fronting for Saddam Hussein etc. But the death of Jeremiah Duggan is an issue the Schiller Institute has been accused of in a British coroner's inquest, which rejected a verdict of suicide because of the accusation. It is therefore an official allegation, and will become more so if the German police re-open their investigation. That, together with Zepp-LaRouche's role as a senior decision-maker within the Schiller Institute, is the reason I feel it should be mentioned on the Zepp-LaRouche page. I will write here again when I've read through the archives. User:SlimVirgin 23.10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello again. I've looked through the archives but can't find any reference to an arbitration decision that LaRouche-related criticism should not be added to multiple LaRouche-related pages. If I've missed it, I'd appreciate it if you'd send me the link. However, I did find a series of decisions here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision that say LaRouche supporters should not engage in advocacy for the organization. I would say that deleting an accurate reference from Zepp-LaRouche's page that her Schiller Institute may become the subject of a criminal investigation might count as advocacy, and you are the user who was identified during the arbitration process as a LaRouche advocate. Therefore, I feel the reference should remain in the Zepp-LaRouche article, because it is factually correct; it is only briefly referenced; and if the German police do re-open the investigation, it may prove to have a significant impact on the work and future of the Schiller Institute and Zepp-LaRouche. User:SlimVirgin, 01:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say arbitration -- I said mediation, which is an informal process. There were extended negotiations between myself, Weed Harper, Adam Carr, AndyL, Snowspinner (who volunteered to mediate), and others. The resulting spate of articles resulted from the problem caused by everyone wanting to put their special issues into the article, so that it became unmanageably long. I hope this is not terribly difficult to understand -- if you have edited a relatively long article, you may have noticed that a warning comes up that the article has exceeded x number of kilobytes, and asks that you break the article up into two or more articles.

In the case of Jeremiah Duggan, I am now aware that you have written an extensive article specifically on that case. My suggestion is that both the Zepp-LaRouche and Schiller Institute articles have a 2 or 3 sentence reference to the case, and a link to your article. I won't implement this suggestion until I hear your assent, or your objections. I don't want to engage in a debate about the merits of the charges, but I assume that you are aware that the parties who apparently persuaded Erica Duggan to cry foul, are all persons who have a strong disagreement with LaRouche on the question of the Iraq war; this is a pattern with which I am quite familiar. Consequently, I don't think that this controversy merits nearly as much attention in the LaRouche articles as, say, the criminal charges against LaRouche back in the 1980s. I agree, however, that it is appropriate to have an article specifically on the case, linked to the LaRouche articles. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Erica Duggan crying foul, as you put it, I doubt that anyone needed to persuade her to do this. Her son died after telephoning her in an apparently terrified state. She therefore wants to know what caused him to be so frightened. My view is that she got a positive reception from the British government because the people she approached have been on the receiving end of criticism from the LaRouche organization, and therefore know how aggressive it can be. I feel you may be seeing an active conspiracy where there is only a passive meeting of minds. Still, neither of us can know any of this for sure, so we can only stick to what the main players actually say, and what is published in reputable newspapers or otherwise shown to be true. I have no problem with the Duggan material remaining at a few sentences on the Zepp-LaRouche page, but I feel it should be a few paragraphs on the Schiller Institute page. Perhaps we could revisit this if the German police decide not to re-open their investigation: in that event, we could reduce it on the Schiller page to a few sentences. user:SlimVirgin 04:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please update the latest accusations on this page, because I want to add a report from the Wiebadener Curier, pointing out what a load of rubbish the accusations are. I don't want to update the slander job myself, since it is boring and tedious and I would much rather someone else who enjoys adding the slanders do it. The link on the main page to the washington post article does not work (the one in the article), and the one down the bottom is so full of lies, I would call for it to be removed. It is very funny though that Henry Kissinger's wife flipped at the accusation that he likes little boys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibykus prometheus (talk • contribs) 02:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Sources

This page has been left in an unreferenced state for too long, so it's time to get some references up. As this is a "closely related" page within the terms of the ArbCom decision, LaRouche publications may be used, but published references do have to be given for the various claims, particularly things like her being the world's foremost scholar on Schiller. I'm removing some of the more extreme claims in the meantime. SlimVirgin 05:59, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

These need references. They've been removed in the meantime:

• That she is/was a journalist, and who she wrote for.
• In 1971 she became one of the first European journalists to visit China during the Cultural Revolution, travelling extensively throughout the country.
• She met with world leaders such as Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and Mexican President JosŽ L—pez Portillo.
• It is claimed by her supporters that it was her address to a conference in China in May 1996, promoting the concept of the Eurasian Land Bridge in a debate format with British member of the European Commission, Sir Leon Brittan (who opposed it), which led to the adoption of the Landbridge proposal by the Chinese government.
• Zepp-LaRouche is also considered by her supporters to be one of the world's leading authorities on Friedrich Schiller and Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa.

I also removed the pic as the Schiller website says photos may not be reproduced without permission. [1] If someone has obtained that permission, could it be posted here please? If the LaRouche publications do give permission, I'd say there are better pics of her than this one on the Schiller site. I also wondered what was meant by the "Eurasian Land Bridge" in the pic, as I thought it was just a LaRouche idea? The bridge that has been started is not, I believe, the bridge that LaRouche proposed; or am I wrong about that? SlimVirgin 06:21, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Have reinserted some of the claims using the Schiller website as a source, attributing the info to them. I couldn't find the Leon Brittan claim. SlimVirgin 07:15, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust denial quote?

I found this:

Whereas nobody in the USA has the slightest illusions concerning the power which the Zionist lobby exerts especially upon the current administration, in Germany only very few political personalities in the know are aware of the influence of a more secretly operating undercover zionist lobby, yet not the German public in general. And therefore we must take the hypocritical bogus Holocaust-spoof as an occasion to get rid of these foreign agents." Helga Zepp-LaRouche, "Der zionistische Holocaust heute" (The Zionist Holocaust today), Neue Solidarität, January 25, 1979.

In German: Während in den USA niemand auch nur die geringsten Illusionen über die Macht der zionistischen Lobby über vor allem die gegenwärtige Administration hegt, ist der Einfluß einer verdeckter operierenden zionistischen Lobby in der Bundesrepublik bisher nur wenigen eingeweihten politischen Persönlichkeiten bekannt, nicht aber der breiten Bevölkerung. Und deshalb müssen wir den scheinheiligen Holocaust-Schwindel zum Anlaß nehmen, um diese ausländischen Agenten auffliegen zu lassen.

This should probably go into the article, unless anyone objects. I'll leave it on the page for a day or so in case there are other opinions. SlimVirgin 07:15, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

yes, this definitely belongs into the article. There seem to have been some law suits about the accusation of holocaust denial ([2]). --Elian 20:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is hilarious. What is meant by the hoax? That it was the German people? That in all truth the 10 million or so (UN estimate, which I do not dispute) were just raptured up to heaven? What is meant by this please? Say I know nothing about the organisation. Im trying to find out.

(Also, its kinda funny about Andre Meyer, right? He let the Nazis into France. This is never mentioned in the press and I bet not on Wikipedia.) --Ibykus prometheus 19:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Also, I have a question about the photo of Zepp-LaRouche that was on this page, where she is standing next to the eastern terminal of the Eurasian Land Bridge. Could Herschel or Weed explain this to me, as I thought the Eurasian Land Bridge didn't exist? SlimVirgin 20:21, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Both of these issues have come up before. The "Holocaust spoof" quote refers to some of the "docudramas" that came out in that period, and Zepp-LaRouche is objecting to them on the grounds that they misuse the Holocaust to promote other, more contemporary agendas. Slim, I would suggest you that try reading her writings, or those of her husband, in the original context, instead of cruising all the anti-LaRouche websites looking for material. It is the latter practice which makes you appear to be an anti-LaRouche activist.

Regarding the Land-Bridge, it is a vast project which is partially realized, and subsumes other, smaller projects. The Chinese government invited Zepp-LaRouche to come and speak on the subject several times, and I suspect that the English inscription on the monument is a gesture of respect for her. They also refer to her as the "Silk Road Lady" in the Chinese press. However, due to the vehement objections of AndyL, none of this appears in Wikipedia, because there are no English-language web citations outside of LaRouche publications. --HK 20:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you have any Chinese citations, especially in relation to that photograph and the Eastern Terminal thing, we could almost certainly find someone in Wikipedia to translate it. Regarding the Holocaust quote, there was a television movie at that time showing in Germany about the Holocaust, but that doesn't weaken the force of the quote. She is saying that there is a secret, undercover Zionist lobby in Germany, which the public is unaware of, and most politicians are also unaware of. "We must use this Holocaust spoof" (possibly the movie, as you say) to "get rid of these foreign agents." What worries me about this, is that this is precisely the kind of thing Hilter said before the war; the quote from her about the need for the Schiller Institute also worried me for the same reason (Germany has to finally rid itself of the forces of Versailles and Yalta, which have made us stagger from one disaster to another for a whole century). We are not being honest if we leave this material out of the articles about her and the Schiller Institute. SlimVirgin 21:13, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

As you probably know, the Schiller Institute published a book in both German and English (Das Hitler-Buch/The Hitler Book) which described Hitler as a catastrophic disaster for Germany, and named the Versaille treaty as one of the elements which brought him to power. It appears to me, Slim, that you have no real interest in Zepp-LaRouche's actual opinions or ideas, other than to find scraps of quotes which you can adapt to argue the theories that you brought with you to Wikipedia. --HK 22:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So was is your interpretation of "we must use this [movie] to get rid of these foreign agents? SlimVirgin 22:34, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

For reference, the text of The Hitler Book: http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/hitlerbook.pdf (warning - 19 mb file) -Willmcw 06:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, Will. SlimVirgin 22:34, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, I feel there are two problems with the photo. First, the Schiller website is very clear that permission must be given expressly, so if you have obtained that, for example in the form of an e-mail, could you please post it here or on the image page? Second, she's standing in front of something that has been made to look as though it's a terminal of the Eurasian Land Bridge, which doesn't exist, so it's misleading. Therefore, I feel another photograph of her would be more appropriate. SlimVirgin 03:45, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I posted the fact that I had obtained permission from the copyright holder, Stuart Lewis, and I wasn't lying. If I posted an e-mail, you could claim that I had forged it. The monument has not been "made to look like it's a terminal of the Eurasian Land Bridge," it is a monument denoting the terminusof the Eurasian Land Bridge, in the opinion of the Chinese government which put it there. Please cease the petty harassment. Any pretense you may put forward that you are not an "anti-LaRouche" activist has lost all credibility. --HK 15:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I won't accuse you of forging the e-mail, but I would like to see it to check that permission has been granted, and what the conditions are, if any. SlimVirgin 21:44, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

It'd be nice to get a photo in which Zepp-LaRouche is visible. I notice that the Schiller webstie has a perfectly clear photo of her speaking at a conference. That'd be a better photo, IMO, than the current one (which is a better photo of the container ship in the background than it is of Zepp-LaRouche). That said, SV is right to wonder what terms and conditions apply to the photo - most Wiki photos seem to have licenses which allow unlimited reproduction. -Willmcw 08:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS - I cropped the photo to focus on the subject. I think the new version looks better. The best recent picture of HZL that I've seen around is here. Does the authorization cover any other photos? -Willmcw 08:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That looks much better, Will; thanks for doing it. SlimVirgin 08:19, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Schiller scholar

I can't find any confirmation that Zepp LaRouche is one of the world's leading authorities on Schiller, or even an authority at all, so I have added a sentence that the information about that has not been independently verified. I'm also going to add the quote about the Holocaust and "foreign agents." Also, I've noticed that some letters are being distorted due to an editing glitch. I will try to fix them but they may return to glitchhood. SlimVirgin 07:21, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've added the "foreign agents" sentence. I can't find evidence that the Holocaust-spoof comment was made in relation to a movie, as Herschel said, so I've just quoted her without analysis, giving the citation and date. I also added a sentence from the Informationsdienst that said there have been accusations that her party has engaged in late-night threatening phone calls to opponents and has issued death threats, and I've added a link to that article as the reference. There is also mention in that article of blood-soaked clothing being thrown at Petry Kelly of the Green Party, but I want to make sure I'm translating that properly (in case it was Petra Kelly who did the throwing, though it doesn't sound like her), so I'll wait for a day or so before adding it. I also deleted from the photograph cutline that Zepp-LaRouche is standing next to the Eurasian Landbridge eastern terminus, as the Eurasian Landbridge doesn't exist. Finally, I edited out all the glitches, and some stayed away, but some returned. SlimVirgin 08:01, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

What are the criteria for independent verification? How does one independently varify if one does not know that the people verifying or denying are capable? --Nemesis1981 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Petra Kelly

Will, could you tell me whether it's (a) fair to add the following information, and if so, (b) whether I've expressed it fairly.

I have written:

Regarded as a controversial figure by some groups in Germany, Zepp-LaRouche has been accused of being responsible for threatening telephone calls and even death threats received by one of her opponents. An article in the German Informationsdienst gegen Rechtsextremismus (Information Service against Rightwing Extremism) states that, during the German parliamentary elections of 1983, while Zepp-LaRouche was president of an earlier party she founded, the European Workers' Party (EAP), Petra Kelly of the German Green Party received nightly phone calls with threats, after being disparaged on EAP election posters as leader of the "West German fascist Green Party." Death threats after public appearances followed. After one speech Kelly made, a woman presented her with a blood-soaked garment, and the photograph of the shocked politician later appeared in Neue Solidaritaet, a LaRouche-publication. However, there is no indication that Zepp-LaRouche was personally directing these activities. [3]

This is based on a section from the Informationdienst, which says (I asked a German editor to translate this, by the way, to make sure I had it right):

As president of the (since then dissolved) European Workers party, Zepp-LaRouche was responsible for threats and the persecution of opponents, especially Green Party politician Petra Kelly. During the parliament elections in 1983, she [Kelly] was disparaged on election posters of the EAP and libeled as leader of the "Western German fascist Green Party". Nightly phone calls with threats and death threats after public appearances followed. After a speech, a woman presented a parcel with a bloody garment to Petra Kelly. The picture of the shocked politician was later published in "New Solidarity".

My concern is that the article doesn't make clear whether it's saying Zepp-LaRouche and the EAP were actually responsible for these phone calls and threats, or whether the fact that they libeled Petra Kelly on their posters led to others making threats, so that Zepp-LaRouche might be regarded as morally responsible but otherwise not. I get the sense the article is saying the former, but they're not explicit. Is it enough that I have added the sentence about there being no evidence she was personally directing the attacks? By the way, the umlaut glitches returned by the mere act of saving. I'll let one of the developers know this is happening. SlimVirgin 20:40, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Since these acts are not directly connected to Helga LaRouche (the expression "musste verantworten" is really touchy, it assumes responsability, but the article doesn't say how), I would rather not include it in a personal bio until more can be found about her responsability. --Elian 20:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm no authority, but I think that if it is from a legitimate source, and is properly framed, then it is fair to include somewhere. Potentially this would be better in an article about the "European Workers party", but since it is defunct and not worth creating an article for, the article about the head of that party is the next best place. Maybe it would be worthwhile to create a section - "European Workers party" or something like that, to hold it. All in all, this is the "thomas becket" problem, when followers do something that can't be directly blamed on their leader but which was the result of the leader's comments. PS, I'll restore the umlauts and other accents as best I can. Have you tried using a different browser? Cheers, -Willmcw 21:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Elian, thanks for the input. Will, it was Elian who was kind enough to do the translation. Does "musste verantworten (sein)" mean "must be regarded as reponsible" or "must have been responsible"? Perhaps we should make the section invisible until we firm it up. Will, I've tried Netscape and Safari and they're both doing it; as IE isn't recommended for either Wikipedia or Mac, I haven't tried that. This only started happening a day or so ago. I've never had any problems with my umlauts before, I'll have you know. :-) SlimVirgin 21:22, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Umlauts- SV - do you have any more immediately pending edits of this page? If so, I'll let you make them before fixing the accents.-Willmcw 22:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done for now. I made the Petra Kelly section invisible until we find out more. Many thanks for fixing things. SlimVirgin 23:00, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Here's another piece with more information about the Petra Kelly incident. It says that the threatening phone calls followed her even when she was traveling in America, which doesn't sound as though it was just local hoodlums responding to the EAP posters. Don't know how credible this website is though. [4] SlimVirgin 21:38, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Photo2

The Image:MrsLaroucheinChina.jpg has been added with a "permission" tag. Those are not allowed on Wikipedia anymore, and it should be deleted. -Willmcw 19:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Cognition, please don't keep adding the image. Two problems with it (1) you said it was being used with permission, which isn't allowed, and (2) it shows the non-existent eastern terminal of the Eurasian landbridge, trying to cause confusion by implying that LaRouche is connected to the project that figured heavily in the first LaRouche case. This has already been discussed ad nauseam. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this latest, different copy of the image was labeled "fair use", but no rationale was given for the exception. Aside from the objections that SV has posted the objection that I have is that the subject is almost anonymous. The article should have a picture that isn't taken from fifty feet away. More importantly, it should only have pictures which are properly licensed. -Willmcw 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

RAG

The disputed section is not sourced to the WLYM site, it is sourced to something called RAG. Could someone who is well versed in German take a look at it and determine whether it meets Wikipedia reliable source standards? We should leave it off the article until that is settled. --Marvin Diode 22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reason for doubting its reliability? Here's a link discussing the magazine.[5] It appears to be a printed magazine, and so would qualify as reliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

::If having a printed magazine were sufficient to qualify a source as reliable, then LaRouche publications would be used as a source. My understanding is that they are not because they are highly partisan. Having read the link you provided, it appears to me that RAG is at least as partisan as EIR. --Marvin Diode 06:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche publications are not allowed as sources for articles beyond the movement because they are viewed as self published and unreliable to a unique degree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

::::I suppose that was what I was thinking when I wrote "partisan." It looks like RAG is also self-published. But here's a question: why are the LaRouche publications "unique"? --Marvin Diode 03:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. You tell me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Today's edits

BigDaddy1981 correctly removed some unsourced material, and incorrectly removed some sourced material. I restored the sourced material, and added a source. Then Will Beback removed the sourced material, and restored the unsourced material! This makes no sense. He included a memo, "additional material needed for balance." By all all means, add additional sourced material, but don't delete sourced material that is already there. This article is practically a stub. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

here is my edit: [6] It didn't remove anything. Why did you revert it?   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

::I apologize. Because your edit summary said "undo" I thought you were undoing my edit. However, you have undone another edit now, referring to HZL's visit to the Russian Duma, because you say it lacks a second-party source. The second-party source is there, it is "Forum" magazine. Here is another source that confirms her husband's visit at the same time: Moscow Times, June 29, 2001 [7]. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd presumed that "Forum" was a LaRouche publication, since it's hosted on a LaRouche site. Howevever even that link isn't working right now so I can't check it again.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

::::This article in EIR [8] is a description of the Forum magazine special issue. It includes the same link to a pdf version of the magazine itself, which I think must be a very large file. --Coleacanth (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That article calls the source's reliability in question by saying that the uissue was sponsored by the same group who paid for the event. I notice too that the publicaiton is dated 2007, but apparently Zepp-LaRouche gave the talk in 2001, though I'm not sure if that's relevant. Further, the title was wrong in our description, it should have been "On Measures to Ensure the Development of Russia’s Economy under the Conditions of Destabilised Global Financial System". The text of the speech is credited to "www.larouchepub.com". The bottom line is that this is poorly sourced and whatever we say about her comments would be our own view. We might say that "Zepp-LaRouche addressed a Duma committee hearing in 2001 in an address titled 'On Measures to Ensure the Development of Russia’s Economy under the Conditions of Destabilised Global Financial System'."   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::The text of the speech is available here. It is an acceptable primary source. I also see nothing wrong with "Forum" as a source. Please explain why you would delete the material sourced to "Forum," while at the same time re-adding this, sourced to a dead link to a defunct site in Germany. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that essentially the entire article is sourced from LaRouche publications. If there's nothing in 3rd-party sources about that makes her notability questionable. If we can't find such sources then maybe it'd be better to merge this into either her husband's article or one of her organizations.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::Are you now claiming that "Forum International" is a LaRouche publication? --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember saying that. I have described other problems with that source. Among other things, it doesn't say much about the subject: simply that she addressed a committee hearing. Since every heareing is probably addressed by several people, and since every committe probably has multiple hearings in a year, and since there are probably a dozen or more committees, that alone is not a particularly notable achievement. I suggest that we try to find some better sources for this article or think about merging it.   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::I don't find your "description of other problems with the source" to be persuasive. I get the impression that your assessment of sources has a lot to do with POV. Here's what I think: "Forum International" meets all the WP:RS standards, plus it is additionally notable because that issue was sponsored by a government agency. The source establishes that Zepp-LaRouche's presentation was considered sufficiently important by that agency to be published along with the presentations of other notable figures such as the former governor of Alaska. The source also adequately documents everything that you deleted from the article. I can see no credible argument against restoring the material you deleted. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I had no difficulty downloading the pdf version of the magazine. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

We can take this to the WP:RSN noticeboard to get other input.   Will Beback  talk  05:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::A discussion is underway. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC);

Culture

With Coleacanth's sourcing of the claims to her CV I agree they should stay. However; I deleted this quote as it seems to offer undue weight --- its huge:

In Dancing on My Grave (1986), ballerina Gelsey Kirkland describes her encounter with Zepp-LaRouche's ideas, as the former was battling her drug addiction:

In spite of her extreme point of view, her unyielding radicalism, this woman provided a crucial turning point for me. Her zealous devotion to the classics and her political war against drugs emboldened me to act, yet in my own way. Her scathing criticism of modern art gave me a clue about the relation between imitation and addiction. She wrote in the June 1980 issue of the Campaigner: 'If art were merely imitation and both the artist and the audience became whatever they imagined themselves to be, then all lawfulness in art would disappear, and absolutely anyone could simply set down on paper, canvas or score whatever his state of mind happened to be at the time, and that would be art.' Had not I been taught during my early years that the best dancer was the one who offered the best imitation?

• It is a long quote for a short biography. It's not clear if they ever met, or if Kirkland is responding to something she read. Also, Google may be working improperly, but I can't find any trace of this using their "snippet view".[9] Every search term from this text comes back with nothing found. I'd like to see more of the context. If Kirkland is a notable comentator then perhaps we can summarize the quote more briefly.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Its the length that concerned me --- also; it seems undue weight is being applied. If the quote were from George Bush or Vladimir Putin then perhaps having the whole thing in there would be reasonable; but a dancer -- even a notable one (assuming she is) seems a bit over the top. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Notability

I did not see independent secondary sources in this article for the notability of this living person so I smerged it to her husband. If independent secondary sources adress the reliablity or notability of this person, please make sure the article is based on those. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:There have been independent sources that were removed for various reasons. I just restored a shortened version of the quote by Gelsey Kirkland, an independent source. I would also like to point out that the German, Polish and Russian Wikipedias all have articles on this person. --Coleacanth (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the only independent mention of this individual is in an autobiography of a balernia, and that mention is only in passing and details none of this individuals achievements? Hipocrite (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A little closer, but those sources again don't focus at all on anything notable about the individual. Imagine the article was written only from sources that were reliable and independent from the subject. At this point, the article would read "She signed a petition and was mentioned in an autobiography." That's not an article. Hipocrite (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I see an editor has added a link to an interview in a Spanish-language magazine called Siempre!. In searching Google I can't find any website or reference to this magazine, and the only two articles on Wikipedia that cite or mention it are this and Lyndon LaRouche. Does anyone know anything about it? La Jornada is a leading newspaper, according to Wikipedia. ;)   Will Beback  talk  07:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it really notable that someone signed a petition? The LaRouche movement has a long history with petitions, and politicians have complained that they signed LaRouche petitions without properly understanding them, or even due to misrepresentations.   Will Beback  talk  07:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

::::I'd be interested in seeing a source on that. Anyway, an open letter is not the same thing as a petition. Zepp-LaRouche has circulated many open letters. Here are press citations: [10]www.naturalnews.com/024023.html [11] --Maybellyne (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Have any obviously reliable secondary sources adressed this? Somehow, I don't think ghanaweb is reliable (no editors, never cited by other press), I know that naturalnews.com is not reliable (cites EIR as a source), and the voceditalia article is sourced to www.movisol.org, which is not a secondary source. How about when she was mentioned by the news department of a major newspaper, as opposed to this ticky-tacky stuff? This is a biography of a living person, and it's sourced to ephermiral mention and stuff they've written about themselves. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::Hipocrite, please take a look at WP:BITE, and also wait for consensus before deleting or redirecting this article. Probably the appropriate course of action would be to file an AfD. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

AFD's are for deleting things. This article should be a redirect, which is an editorial decision. At some point, someone might want to merge content from this article to the main article, so the history should be preserved. Since no one wants to delete the article, why AFD it? Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Coleacanth, I believe you're the editor who added the article from Siempre!. Can you tell us something about this source? I can't find anything about it.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:It shows up in Google News archive search. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

::Here are two English-language books which reference it: [12][13] --Coleacanth (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Larouchepub

While larouchepub.com might (and I say might with the utmost of restraint) be a reliable source for what Zepp LaRouche has said about herself, it's certainly not a reliable source for what some magazine says. Of course, because my current location blocks "fringe/extremist" sites, I can't read whatever antics are written there, larouchpub.com is not a reliable source for the Rusan Duma or Focus Magazine, or anything that anyone other than Larouche and co say. It should not be used as a source for anything else. Hipocrite (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:See WP:RSN#Forum International. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC);

Land bridge

I removed the section about the land bridge, because this has a long and troubled history, with claims being made that are impossible to pin down or even understand. There has also been an image in circulation of Zepp-LaRouche purporting to stand in front of the land bridge's terminal, even though it doesn't exist. I suggest we make no reference to it unless there's an entirely independent secondary source. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:The only claim being made in the section you deleted was that Zepp-LaRouche's husband made a proposal for an "Eurasian Land Bridge." I don't see how any reasonable person could deny that he made such a proposal; if you need convincing, simply Google "Eurasian landbridge." Concerning your sweeping re-write of the article, this article is presently embroiled in a content dispute. I suggest, as with any similar situation, that you hold off on the re-write until the dispute dies down, and/or submit controversial changes one at a time on this page for discussion. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC);

The section obviously made more claims than that; if only the claim you refer to, then it has no place in the article anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I have completed my edit; please call attention to anything there that is not warranted by the cited source. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC);

Merge with Schiller Institute

I'd like to merge this into the Schiller Institute article, as there don't seem to be any reliable secondary sources. Thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. The only 3rd-party sources that mention the subject do so in passing. We dont know much of anything about the subject biographically. She has never won any notable awards or been elected to any office.   Will Beback  talk  01:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

::It looks to me that the editors that wish to merge the article, because they say that there are no 3rd party sources, are the same ones removing the 3rd Party sources. That could be seen as self-serving. Mr. Beback, didn't you just delete the reference to Forum International, saying in the edit memo, "who cares where it was published"? --Maybellyne (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ::SlimVirgin, why would you argue for a merger in the case of this article, and not in the case of, for example, Robin Webb? The Robin Webb article is sourced only to Webb's group, an interview with Webb on an animal rights website, a dead link and an article that doesn't mention Webb. You edited that article today, so I am choosing an example you are familiar with. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two purposes for reliable, secondary, 3rd-party sources. the first, of course, is to provide the main sources for an article. But the other is to establish the notability of a subject. While Forum International was judged by editors at WP:RSN as the equivalent of a government press release, press releases are not adequate for establishing notability. I have never removed any 3rd-party reliable source that establishes the notability of the subject.   Will Beback  talk  07:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Robin Webb has been widely discussed in the national press in the UK, as a quick Google search will show you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Has there been any more thought on this question? It would be nice to remove the tag since it's been there for 2 months now. It strikes me as unnecessary to merge the two articles as both topics are notable in their own right (however dubiously one might think the notability) and just because they are closely affiliated doesn't mean they can't be broken apart. Also, the lack of rich biographical data doesn't seem in and of itself to be a reason to merge away this article. My two cents. I don't think any harm is done or poor precedent is set by leaving this as a separate article. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 08:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here?

The section on the Eurasian Landbridge has been stable in the article for about 2 years. Suddenly last month, Will Beback deletes it, claiming that the source is unreliable. At Will's request, I took the matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where it received a remarkably extensive treatment (which did not conclude, by the way, that the source was "the equivalent of a government press release.") Now Will suddenly says that the sourcing is unimportant [14] and then SlimVirgin arrives and simply deletes the section without providing a rationale. I would like to know what it is about this section that is causing such peculiar behavior. I would also like to see a clear and plausible explanation as to why it should not be restored. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC);

I didn't say the sourcing is unimportant. It's very important to encyclopedia editors. What I wrote is that it is unimportant to readers. There's no value in reporting the sponsored publication in which the speech was reprinted years later. The Landbridge issue has been controversial on Wikipedia for years.   Will Beback  talk  15:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

::We include what has been published in reliable sources. I believe "controversies at Wikipedia" fall under the category of "drama" and are not relevant to the discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC);

Everything on Wikipedia has been reported in reliable sources. We don't need to get into a description of this obscure magazine that was sponsored with a press run of, apparently, only 4,000 copies.   Will Beback  talk  15:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Back to my question. Is there a valid reason why the section on the speech about the landbridge proposal should not be restored? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC);

As above, it's not clear what it is, where it is, whether it exists, whether it's a real proposal, or whether it bears any relationship to the other projects it has associated itself with. In addition, we've already had one image of it uploaded that looks as though it was doctored, and there are no independent reliable sources that mention it. These are all good reasons to leave it out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::It was added by an editor who is now banned, without any independent source. [15] There's no reason to leave it in, unless you can find an independent source that discusses it. Self-published and questionable sources may be used in articles about themselves, but only for non-contentious, non-self-serving issues, per WP:SPS i.e. so long as:

1. the material 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. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not our job to evaluate the proposal, or decide whether it's a "real proposal," whatever that means. Our job is report what is published in reliable sources, and we're not talking about a self-published source here. A careful reading of this talk page will reveal that the source in question is "Forum International," which has received exhaustive treatment at WP:RSN#Forum International. Will's attempt to disparage the publication by calling it an "obscure magazine that was sponsored with a press run of, apparently, only 4,000 copies" overlooks the fact that it is a speciality publication aimed at a select audience of scholars, diplomats and business leaders who attend the annual conferences of the International Investment Forum in Sochi. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Should I assume that all remaining concerns have now been addressed? --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC);

I have restored that section in modified form, to better conform to the source. --Coleacanth (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Socks

I've crossed out comments by socks of banned editor user:Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

neutrality

The article contains little criticism and is basically a one-sided press release with footnotes. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect?

The argument was made earlier that this article lacked secondary sources, and therefore should be redirected. There were then secondary sources supplied, after a big battle at RS/N, and as far as I could tell, that settled the matter. An editor today redirected the article, claiming to see a consensus for such a move. I would suggest a review of this talk page as well as this discussion before taking such action. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Both the merge and neutrality discussions have been inactive. Would the editor who just replaced the tags please specify what the unresolved matters are? -Leatherstocking (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC);

Apparently, the merger matter isn't settled after all. A majority of editors opining here seem to be concerned about the notability.   Will Beback  talk  04:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

LS, you said secondary sources showing her notability have been added, but they're not immediately apparent. Which ones did you have in mind? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

They are listed in the refs:

• Cerda Ardura, Antonio, Siempre!, December 10, 1998
• Julio Hernández López, La Jornada, September 24, 1998
• Gelsey, Kirkland. Dancing on my Grave, Doubleday, 1986. ISBN 0-385-19964-3
• Forum International, June 6, 2007 (special issue: “Megaprojects of Russia’s East” conference)
• Barbara Minton, "No End Seen to Cartel's Destruction of Food Capacity," Natural News, August 29, 2008

--Leatherstocking (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Also, as I suggested earlier, please review this discussion. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC);

I don't see these sources as establishing notability. What is Natural News, for example (I see it is owned by Truth Publishing International, Ltd. in Taiwan) and Forum International? Do any of these sources write about Zepp-LaRouche in detail, or is she mentioned in passing?

I think you need to produce a mainstream news organization that has written about her, or a scholarly source, or something similar. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. WP:BIO

The key distinction is between being mentioned in source material and being the subect of it.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

::I have found one such source: Kincaid, Dorothy, "Helga LaRouche campaigns for Husband,"[16], Milwaukee Sentinel, March 11, 1980. I'll keep looking and find some more. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

See also Copper, Maha, "Serious Problem and Bold Solutions,"[17], Al-Ahram, June 1, 2008. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC);

Postings by socks of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback  talk  02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Helga against Europe

I can understand that Lyndon is an American Nationalist, but not Helga. In the words of Lyndon, Europe (and first of all Germany) is buried, non existent. The only idea which Lyndon likes is the "Pacific" even if the term "Pacific Rim" is a contradiction with the Eurasian Landbridge which is based on a Continental dimmension. I don´t agree. Helga, as a European, should support Germany and Europe, not exclude us from the rest of the World as Lybdon wishes (US, China, India, Russia) even if 3/4 of Russia lie on Europe and even if 3/4 of American population lie on the Atlantic side. Brazil is, also, an essential part of the Atlantic Rim. Lyndon can reject Europe as he has a good relationship with Chinese authorities but Helga should support Europe and both the Atlantic Rim and the Eurasian Landbrige. The Big Four should include EUROPE under Continental lines (European Union, China, India and Russia) a more logical coalition, and more justified according to the idea of the Eurasian Landbridge, than the APEC idea created by Australia, member of the British Commonwealth...so Larouche is the one who supports the "Britis"h maritime ideal.--88.18.150.124 (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Back in 2009 the article was redirected, and a redirect was undone after a claimed consensus on the talk page. Such consensus did not exist, certainly not after comments by socks of Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) (the history is full of them) were struck. The sources that would establish independent notability are simply not there, and I have restored the redirect. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041211184842/http://www.bueso.de/seiten/helga.htm to http://www.bueso.de/seiten/helga.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010231548/http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/10/10/can-we-lick-the-global-meltdown-without-war/ to http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/10/10/can-we-lick-the-global-meltdown-without-war/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

fact distortion

"Zepp-LaRouche often resorts to distorting facts from history." and the quote is an opinion article from vox ukraine? not very credible. 143.177.48.95 (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)