Misplaced Pages

Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:12, 20 January 2016 edit173.61.9.126 (talk) la rouche in federal prison -- topic missing from Contents← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:41, 1 August 2024 edit undoNakonana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,462 edits →How many times does the article need to say that the Queen is a drug dealer?: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit New topic 
(19 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
⚫ {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=}}
⚫ {{WikiProject United States|importance=low|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=}}
⚫ }}
{{Old AfD multi| date = 21 September 2008 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Views of Lyndon LaRouche }} {{Old AfD multi| date = 21 September 2008 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Views of Lyndon LaRouche }}
⚫ {{Notable Wikipedian|Cberlet|editedhere=yes}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=

{{WikiProject Environment|class=|climate change=yes}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=|importance=}}
⚫ {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=}}
⚫ }}
⚫ {{Notable Wikipedian|Cberlet|Berlet, Chip|editedhere=yes}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=2|units=months|dounreplied=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
Line 29: Line 26:
*] *]


== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion ==
== Views on Homosexuality and Homophobia ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-07-20T14:36:16.331034 | 2007 LaRouche PAC poster (Global warming).jpg -->
I would like to start expanding this section. It is abundantly clear from a number of LaRouche's comments and articles that he views homosexuals as evil. I am wondering if it would be appropriate to cite this website http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.AreHomosexualsASecurityRisk since it does contain an original copy of the article in which the comments were made. The site is highly critical of the movement and the man himself, and I just want to make sure that it would not be considered biased to cite from an article which is hosted on a site which clearly has an ideological position against the group?
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 14:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
⚫ ] (]) 18:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
:Blogs or websites that are run anonymously are not suitable sources. Also, Misplaced Pages should not make statements characterizing living persons or their views as such-and-such -- instead, under Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, it should quote reliable sources and let them make such claims. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: The site doesn't so much make the claim that LaRouche is anti-gay, rather hosts an article he wrote in which he openly states that Homosexuals are morally defective, untrustworthy, and proud of their "sexual deviation" that part is definitely not anonymous nor is it a statement characterizing LaRouche but his actual words on the subject. I think it may be best to see if I can locate a version of the article hosted elsewhere or a scholarly article outlining his views. Also its interesting that you would respond anonymously to this post and claim that LaRouche Planet is run anonymously when it is actually run by former members of the LaRouche movement who have left and chosen to speak out about the subject using their real names. http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Main.Honorrollofsanity Cheers.
] (]) 15:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:An anonymous website/blog with a COI. "Real names" don't add anything to its credibility. This is no reliable source for a BLP. ] (]) 19:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:: I'm not entirely sure that this page can be properly considered a biography of a living person. However in light of the conflict of interest POV wise, I'll be looking for a copy of the aforementioned article which is simply hosted on the website, elsewhere, either a journal or another site and using that as a source instead. Keep in mind that I am not trying to cite the views of an anonymous commentator speaking on behalf of the LaRouche Planet website but rather the views that Lyndon LaRouche himself has published concerning gays and lesbians. ] (]) 21:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
:::I'd also like to get a few other opinions about this matter from users who aren't editing anonymously, or potentially using a sock account due to being banned permanently (], ]), before feeling that a consensus has been reached on the subject. ] (]) 21:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Found a copy of the aforementioned article here http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1987/eirv14n19-19870508/eirv14n19-19870508_038-british_press_asks_are_homosexua-lar.pdf please note that it is the exact same text as used by the LaRouche Planet website. The site is LaRouche's own publication Executive Intelligence Review. Hope this satisfies anyone concerned about POV, COI, or wishing to bring up other objections to mentioning LaRouche's own ] homophobic statements and views. I'll get to expanding the Homosexuality subsection of Minority Politics later on this week. I would be interested to hear people's take on the article prior to then.
] (]) 23:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
:I don't agree that the sources you linked to can be used to add information with BLP implications to this article. Also, please don't accuse other editors of being socks. That is not helpful to a productive discussion. ] (]) 00:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
::Sassy, it may be that this topic (LGBT) is of particular interest to you, but I see no evidence that it plays a major role in LaRouche's belief structure or that it deserves more space in this article than it already gets. To be persuaded, I would need to see some reliable sources that say so (See ] for clarification.) Also, when complaining about editors who are editing anonymously, you would do well to remember that you are also editing anonymously. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Would ] ample selection of sources be appropriate?] (]) 14:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, I suggest expanding the one sentence which discusses LaRouche views on Homosexuality to a short paragraph. Stances on LGBT issues are often discussed when they relate to political figures or ideological movements. Cla68 can you please explain why citing someone's own writing is an inappropriate way of outlining their views? I did not make an original accusation about puppetry, I pointed out a concern raised by other editors surrounding this article, and editor. I agree with Waalkes sock or not that the LaRouche Planet website is not a neutral POV source, the is LaRouche's writing published by and available on his publication's website. The complaint about anonymity arose around the wiki style website where I originally found the article. I was not meaning to complain about anonymity by pointing out that its hypocritical to do so anonymously, and was hoping to hear feedback from verifiable members of the Misplaced Pages community when I mentioned it a second time.] (]) 03:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

:It is not up to Misplaced Pages to show that a person is "evil" - it is up to us to present material relevant to his biography without reaching undue weight on any given issue. That noted, "no wiki is ever a reliable source" for any claims at all in any article - BLP or not. See ] if you would like to read more about whuy a wiki is never usable. ] (]) 13:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

:: I agree a wiki is not a reliable primary source of information, published articles and journals however are would you not agree? ] of sources that has previously been compiled about this issue, and the numerous publications in which the comments LaRouche has made can be found are not wiki content they are published material. Executive Intelligence Review is not a wiki style site, nor are the other sources mentioned on the list, which while organized on a Misplaced Pages page are from primary and secondary sources NOT FROM A WIKI, they are published work or transcripts of proceedings. It is not my intent to show that LaRouche or the movement is "evil" (your word not mine), I would simply like to expand the single sentence relating to Homosexuality to a brief paragraph outlining how and why LaRouche has been perceived as Homophobic in his positions the single sentence is vague, and poorly sourced in my opinion, and there are a large number of sources which demonstrate far more clearly what is being vaguely implied in the current article.] (]) 20:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
:::Most of the secondary sources on your list are actually about AIDS, not gays, and there is already another section about AIDS in the article which is fairly extensive. The reason primary sources should be avoided is that Misplaced Pages doesn't want you, as an editor, to decide which of LaRouche's statements ought to be included in the article. He has opinions on thousands of topics. In order to decide which ones are significant enough to go into the article, Misplaced Pages relies on secondary sources. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

His position on LGBT issues may not be central to the article or LaRouche's belief structure, but I agree that the current paragraph is needlessly vague (seen by whom? what comments?) and should be expanded. It's not informative to say certain comments were seen as anti-gay with no way for the reader to determine the validity or severity of that assertion. As it stands, one cannot ascertain whether these statements could be charitably understood as misinterpretations. A little bit more context would be useful, specially as the sources cited are both in print (and so less readily available). I understand the issue with primary sources, but if that's the case then better secondary sources should be found. --] (]) 07:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
:I agree. However, I did some internet searches and had trouble finding good material. There are a lot of articles by critics in not-so-good sources that simply say "he's homophobic" and let it go at that. In the better sources, books and established newspapers, they say that the LaRouche AIDS initiative was considered homophobic. I think that is problematic, because the group puts forward a rationale for the initiative that is not couched in homophobic language. I don't think we should speculate about motives. Now, I did find an online version of the LA Times article which includes a use of homophobic language, so I'll add that to the article. ] (]) 21:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

== Reliable sources? ==

Footnote #164 cites the following sources: "Chronology of Labor Committee Attacks, issued by New York Committee to Stop Terrorist Attacks, 1973; contemporary articles and photographs in the Daily World, the Militant, Workers Power, the Fifth Estate, the Boston Phoenix, and the Drummer; "An Introduction to NCLC: "The Word is Beware", Liberation New Service, #599, March 23, 1974; Charles M. Young, "Mind Control, Political Violence & Sexual Warfare: Inside the NCLC", Crawdaddy, June 1976, p. 48–56; TIP, 1976, NCLC: Brownshirts of the Seventies, Arlington, VA: Terrorist Information Project (TIP). For many of these I can find no information at all online. I doubt that any of them would meet the standards of ]. Does anyone have information on these sources that they would care to add? ] (]) 00:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

== Fursov translation ==

Since there continues to be quarreling over the Fursov translation, I'll provide a link to the discussion at RefDesk. People should resist the temptation to "spin" what was said there: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2014_January_10#Russian_translation ] (]) 04:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:Note that Reference Desk editor Lüboslóv Yęzýkin said "I'm not sure that literal translation will do better." ] (]) 18:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::Let us accept that it is RS as you insisted before. The correct translation is 180 degrees away from your initial translation. If it was RS before, it is still RS with the actual correct translation. Cheers. ] (]) 18:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:::It was you who introduced the 180 degree mixup of "not the quality but the quantity" versus "not the quantity, but the quality." Also, I have never questioned whether Fursov is a reliable source. You were confused then and you are still confused now. ] (]) 18:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
::::No -- the claim about LaRouche specifically being "''insignificant''" per edits , , etc. and etc. Cheers. ] (]) 19:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,


== The Lead is now Very Biased ==
I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
The vast majority of mainstream political and social science material on the LaRouche Movement describe in terms ranging from "Crackpot" to Neofasist.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060524102919/http://nacbez.ru:80/society/article.php?id=1644 to http://nacbez.ru/society/article.php?id=1644
I will start to add descriptions from mainstream sholarly and journalist sources, while keeping the obscure and marginal lead sentence pending futher discussion
⚫ ] (]) 16:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


== Punctuation and spelling (Anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism, antisemitism) ==
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.


All three variants of "anti-Semitism" can be found in the article. Quoted text also has different spelling variants, but it looks like the hyphenated spelling is most commonly used in the quotes, so it's odd that the article body chose the non-hyphenated spelling.
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}


The use of commas (before quoted passages) and quotation marks is also very inconsistent (quotation marks before vs. after a period). Unfortunately, I'm not a native English speaker and don't know what would be correct here. ] (]) 17:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 14:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


== How many times does the article need to say that the Queen is a drug dealer? ==
== "La Rouche in federal prison" -- missing topic from Contents ==


# "Members of the LYM now deny that he ever accused the Queen of England of drug trafficking—though in fact, he did exactly that throughout the 1980s"
https://en.wikipedia.org/LaRouche_criminal_trials#Later_developments la rouche's 5 yrs in fed prison
# "Of course she's pushing drugs. That is, in the sense of a responsibility, the head of a gang that is pushing drugs, she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it."
# " who are said to control the world's political economy and the international drug trade."
# "The Daily Telegraph that described LaRouche as the "publisher of a book that accuses the Queen of being the world's foremost drug dealer""
# ""When asked by an NBC reporter in 1984 about the Queen and drug running, LaRouche replied, "Of course she's pushing drugs ... that is in a sense of responsibility: the head of a gang that is pushing drugs; she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it.""


I'm counting five (if not six) times. Even LaRouche's original quote is included ''twice''. This looks like a little bit like an overkill. And if not an overkill, then at least it looks very repetitive. I'd say that the second mention of the quote can be removed without any loss to the article's content, and the description by The Daily Telegraph can probably go, too, because it doesn't add anything new to the article and it doesn't state any notable opinion on him that isn't stated by others or that isn't already obvious to anyone who read the article. ] (]) 15:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 16:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:41, 1 August 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAlternative views
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 21 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
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
Arbitration 2006
Arbitration 2005
Arbitration 2004
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Mediation 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Template talk
Categories
This box:


Untitled

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The Lead is now Very Biased

The vast majority of mainstream political and social science material on the LaRouche Movement describe in terms ranging from "Crackpot" to Neofasist. I will start to add descriptions from mainstream sholarly and journalist sources, while keeping the obscure and marginal lead sentence pending futher discussion Chip.berlet (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Punctuation and spelling (Anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism, antisemitism)

All three variants of "anti-Semitism" can be found in the article. Quoted text also has different spelling variants, but it looks like the hyphenated spelling is most commonly used in the quotes, so it's odd that the article body chose the non-hyphenated spelling.

The use of commas (before quoted passages) and quotation marks is also very inconsistent (quotation marks before vs. after a period). Unfortunately, I'm not a native English speaker and don't know what would be correct here. Nakonana (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

How many times does the article need to say that the Queen is a drug dealer?

  1. "Members of the LYM now deny that he ever accused the Queen of England of drug trafficking—though in fact, he did exactly that throughout the 1980s"
  2. "Of course she's pushing drugs. That is, in the sense of a responsibility, the head of a gang that is pushing drugs, she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it."
  3. " who are said to control the world's political economy and the international drug trade."
  4. "The Daily Telegraph that described LaRouche as the "publisher of a book that accuses the Queen of being the world's foremost drug dealer""
  5. ""When asked by an NBC reporter in 1984 about the Queen and drug running, LaRouche replied, "Of course she's pushing drugs ... that is in a sense of responsibility: the head of a gang that is pushing drugs; she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it.""

I'm counting five (if not six) times. Even LaRouche's original quote is included twice. This looks like a little bit like an overkill. And if not an overkill, then at least it looks very repetitive. I'd say that the second mention of the quote can be removed without any loss to the article's content, and the description by The Daily Telegraph can probably go, too, because it doesn't add anything new to the article and it doesn't state any notable opinion on him that isn't stated by others or that isn't already obvious to anyone who read the article. Nakonana (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Categories: