Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:58, 24 July 2007

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement at the Reference desk.

archive 1

In this edit , Will Beback says that it is impermissible to remove external links from self-published or anonymous attack sites. Is there any criterion at all for what constitutes an acceptable external link? --NathanDW 23:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:EL. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and balance on this page

This page needs to describe who LaRouche is, and it is not proper to ghettoize all criticism near the bottom of the page. Please discuss suggested changes to wording rather than just deleting.--Cberlet 21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is being "ghettoized"? My, what a hyperbolic turn of the phrase. Please stop spamming your POV in these articles. The issue is being debated at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche, where so far the only person to endorse your proposal is yourself. Wait for consensus before initiating new edit wars. --Don't lose that number 21:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The quote from McLemee is also misleading. He misrepresents quotes from LaRouche ---the actual quotes are available for inspection at Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. I think that this quote from McLemee should be removed. --Gelsomina 00:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This claim is false. LaRouche has indeed made claims about the Queen of England being involved in the drug trade. This is a settled question. It is based on the transcript of an NBC News interview.--Cberlet 02:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The obscure quote which is used by Berlet and others to back up this claim is the following: "As the head of the gang that is pushing drugs, she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it." To say that what LaRouche really meant is that she is "involved in drug trafficking" is disingenuous. Likewise, LaRouche did not call Kissinger a "KGB agent" -- he called him a "Soviet agent of influence," which is an entirely different thing (see Agent of influence.) Finally, LaRouche did not call for AIDS carriers to be quarantined -- he called for AIDS to be considered a communicable disease under public health law. Public health officials may quarantine for any number of diseases at their discretion, and this came up recently in the controversy over the guy with drug-resistant TB. However, there is nothing mandatory about it, and LaRouche did not propose that it should be.

To take a quote which may be controversial, and then "adjust" a little bit to make it seem more implausible or to ridicule it, is a tactic of propaganda. --Don't lose that number 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Where was the adjustment? It looks like the quote was made verbatim. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no quotes per se in the section recently added by Cberlet. There are comic paraphrases. If you will examine the first paragraph of my previous post, I compare each paraphrase to what LaRouche actually said. --Don't lose that number 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting quotes from reputable published sources. McLemee is a very well-known author.--Cberlet 00:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He's not that well known -- do you have a source for his notability? -- and what is more, the deleted comments are demonstrably false. BLP applies here. --Don't lose that number 00:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest, if you are hot to find more negative material to add to this article, try the Washington Post. You won't get any dispute over its notability as a main-stream source, and it has plenty of bad things to say about the LYM. --Don't lose that number 00:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

On what basis are you claiming that the McLemee article is not acceptable under BLP? Where does BLP talk about "notability" of authors? Are you suggesting the "Inside Higher Education" is not reputable? --Cberlet 01:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

From [http://www.insidehighered.com Inside Higher Education}:

• Scott McLemee, Essayist at Large, writes the Intellectual Affairs column. In 2004, the National Book Critics Circle honored Scott with its annual Nona Balakian Citation for Excellence in Reviewing, for his work appearing in Bookforum, The Common Review, Newsday, and The Washington Post. He writes frequently for The American Prospect and The New York Times Book Review. From 2001-5, Scott wrote for the The Chronicle of Higher Education, covering developments in the humanities. His work included long features on scholarly trends and profiles of important figures. Previously he was a contributing editor for Lingua Franca. In 2000, the editors named “Invisible, Inc.” (his article on Thomas Pynchon scholarship) one of the top 10 articles it had published over the previous 10 years....

Reputable publication with notable author.--Cberlet 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a quote of McLemee, not a quote of LaRouche. We have no way of knowing whether his interpretation of LaRouche is correct or not. That isn't our job anyway. Our job is to reliably summarize verifiable sources using the neutral point of view. The "Chronicle of Higher Education" is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

— WP:BLP

The fact of the matter is, we do know whether his interpretation is correct. LaRouche has explicitly rebutted his interpretation, on all three points if memory serves. Now, we can add an entirely new paragraph of rebuttal to McLemee's silly and disingenuous crap, or we could do something which ought to be just common sense: use a more mainstream source that makes a less contentious claim. The two of you, Cberlet and Will Beback, continually defend the practice of combing the net for obscure sources that make wild claims about LaRouche. The responsible thing to do, and the most helpful to the project, is simply to use the widely available mainstream sources. Cberlet has said that he wishes to see far more negative material about LaRouche in these articles. Whether that is a responsible approach to editing may be open to debate, but I am suggesting that there is no shortage of negative material in the Washington Post, and you will not get a quarrel from me about its acceptability as a source. --Don't lose that number 06:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We can't really call the "Chronicle of Higher Education" a "tabloid" or "scandal sheet". Is it disreputable? I haven't heard that. Is there any proof of this? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Inside Higher Education is a separate publication, but it is very mainstream and reputable. The LaRouche quote about the Queen is from the transcript of the NBC News program filed in the case for defamation filed by LaRouche. It is LaRouche being interviewd, and it is his words. It is a reliable source. Denying he said what he said is standard LaRouchite practice, but the ttranscript speaks for itself and for him. The continued denial of the fact of the quote and LaRouche's longstanding conspiracy theory about the British Royal Family is another reason why LaRouchite claims are not reliable.--Cberlet 12:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you will examine the discussion a few posts back, I cite exactly the same NBC interview to demonstrate that McLemee is taking liberties in his characterization of LaRouche's ideas. --Don't lose that number 13:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you value your opinion, but it is POV and OR, so it does not change the fact of the publication of McLemee's words, and the ability of Wiki editors to use that text.--Cberlet 14:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The question in my mind is this: are the anti-LaRouche editors trying to "game the system" to produce biased articles? DTLN is making a simple request: use main-stream sources, avoid contentious and fringe claims, and there will be fewer content disputes. --NathanDW 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

<---This is standing reality on its head. LaRouche is fringe, a felon, and a conspiracy theorist, whose work appears in self-published serials, books, and websites. The Wiki editors and sources you pro-LaRouche folks are seeking to decribe as fringe, non-notable, and mot reliable are award-winnig journalists who publish in major daily newspapers, scholarly journal, and popular magazines. Join the mediation and we can discuss this in a proper manner and settle the question with a mediator.--Cberlet 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If editors could identify which claims they consider to be "fringe" I'm sure we can add more sources to support them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To get us started, here are what some newspapers have said about LaRouche's platform:

• Williams says their victories weren't because Democratic voters supported LaRouche's political platform - the forced quarantine of all AIDS patients, a call for drug charges against Henry Kissinger and Queen Elizabeth, and bizarre rants that often included harsh criticisms of Jews. Daily Herald. Arlington Heights, Ill.: Mar 21, 2006.
• He considers himself a "Roosevelt Democrat" and believes the country needs another New Deal - this time to move it from a consumer-based economy back to a manufacturing one. Some of his past proposals have included a quarantine of AIDS victims and the colonization of Mars. He has charged that Queen Elizabeth II is a drug dealer, and that Henry Kissinger and Walter Mondale are Soviet agents. The Record. Bergen County, N.J.: Jan 2, 2004.
• Of course anyone is free to vote for the LaRouche candidates. Just know what you are voting for: a group whose leader just finished serving a sentence for fraud; a group that wants to colonize Mars, test everyone for AIDS and quarantine those who test positive; a group that believes the Holocaust is a myth, the National Education Association and United Nations are conspiring to brainwash children and the Queen of England heads an international drug trafficking ring. Pantagraph. Bloomington, Ill.: Feb 21, 1994.
• No newcomer to the Impossible Dream Derby, LaRouche has sought the White House four other times. He wants to quarantine AIDS patients, stake a claim for Earthlings on the planet Mars, and investigate Queen Elizabeth II, who he claims is a drug dealer. Policies aside, LaRouche, an independent, is at a considerable disadvantage this time around. He is in the Rochester, Minn., federal penitentiary serving 15 years for fraud. He is on the ballot in at least 17 states. Newsday. Long Island, N.Y.: Oct 19, 1992.
• LaRouche is serving a 15-year sentence for fraud in federal prison in Rochester, Minn. A perennial candidate, he has run for president four times. He has promoted a quarantine of AIDS victims and has maintained that the virus is transmitted much like any other virus and that most medical warnings about how it is spread are "an outright lie." He also has stated that the International Monetary Fund is "engaged in mass murder" by spreading AIDS through its economic policies and he's accused Queen Elizabeth II of England of being a drug dealer. In 1988, LaRouche detailed a plan to colonize Mars. A spokesperson for LaRouche said he expects the candidate to be certified in 21 states by November. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Aug 30, 1992
• Saying he is a ``close associate of political extremist LaRouche, Schlanger said he does not embrace LaRouche's extremist views. LaRouche, in prison for conspiracy and mail fraud, has called for a quarantine of AIDS patients and has urged basing U.S. currency on the gold standard. Houston Chronicle: Mar 14, 1990.
• LaRouche, who has run for President four times, is known for his extreme views, including support for a quarantine of AIDS victims and allegations that Britain's Queen Elizabeth is involved in drug trafficking. Los Angeles Times. Jan 29, 1989.
• And yet, there is something disconcerting about LaRouche, and it's not simply his bizarre track record of intimidating those who disagree with his stances; of being labeled everything from a racist to an anti-Semite to a homophobe; of accusing Walter Mondale of being a KGB agent and Queen Elizabeth of smuggling drugs. Newsday. Long Island, N.Y.: Sep 23, 2003.
• According to LaRouche, the royal family wants to terrorise the United States into becoming a British colony again, thus giving the House of Windsor a monopoly in the American cocaine market. The only person powerful enough to foil this plot was the Princess of Wales, which is why she had to be eliminated. After the bombing of the US embassy in Nairobi last summer, LaRouche instantly detected the Duke of Edinburgh's fingerprints. `If Satan considered his darling, Adolf Hitler, to be relatively a wimp, Satan must be gloating over his selection of Prince Philip as Hitler's successor. As I shall demonstrate, this view of Prince Philip as quite literally a satanic figure is no hyperbole. . .' LaRouche's latest pamphlet, The Pure Evil of Al Gore, adds that the American vice-president is a secret agent of the Windsors, committed to `the British monarchy's longer-range strategic policy for the planet as a whole'. The Guardian. London (UK): May 19, 1999.
• Extremist Lyndon LaRouche, who has served five years in an American prison for mail fraud and tax evasion, has an ideology that combines anti-Semitism and bizarre conspiracy theories, such as the claim that former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger worked for the Soviet KGB. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. New York: Jun 26, 1996.

I could add more, but it's clear that the claims made by McLemee are the same claims made routinely by mainstream newspapers. I propose that instead of quoting McLemee, we summarize the statements and provide additional sources for any that are still challenged. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The place to do this would be at Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, because these stories are loaded with false claims and would need to be extensively rebutted. Just to pick a serendipitous example, Will, you are aware, because you have just spent two weeks Googling info on LaRouche's trial, that he was not charged with tax evasion, and yet this is blithely reported as fact in one of the selections you reproduce above. I think you are probably aware of other obvious misrepresentations. But, I know the argument: "Under Misplaced Pages rules, we are free to add information that we know to be false, provided a published source can be found that has presented the same falsehoods." --Don't lose that number 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that LaRouche's conspiracy to defraud the IRS was, essentially, tax evasion since the result was to evade taxes. As for rebuttal, we can't rebut the fact that these things are said of LaRouche, all we can do is add material where he says that the things said about him aren't true. What sources do we have for him denying that Kissinger was acting as a Soviet agent? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, while we could move all of the cultural and political issues to the "Political views" article, I think it would make this article much less interesting, and would make this article less informative. However we should keep the material short. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"LaRouche also was convicted of conspiring to hide his personal income since 1979, the last year he filed a tax return." Caryle Murphy, LaRouche Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison, Washington Post, 1/28/89. Easy to find. What "obvious misrepresentations" are being alleged here?--Cberlet 02:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the points of contention appears to be about LaRouche's disucssion of Kissinger and the KGB. I found this Washington Post interview, which muddies the waters a bit:

• Jabbing and chopping the air to make his points during a rare two-hour interview Nov. 10, LaRouche showed little modesty about his station in life. "I'm probably the best economist in the world today," he said. "I'm also one of the best-informed people in the world. We have influence on governments." Walter F. Mondale, he said, is an "agent of influence" of the KGB, the Soviet secret police. So are Kissinger and McGeorge Bundy, the former Ford Foundation president and presidential adviser, he said, all "totally witting." They are agents of influence rather than regular agents, he said, because they are "working with the KGB, not for the KGB." "Some Are Out to Kill Me, LaRouche Says" Washington Post, January 13, 1985

So apparently rather than saying they were "KGB agents", LaRouche was saying that Mondale, Kissinger, and Bundy were "agents of influence" working "with the KGB". That appears to me to be a distinction without a difference. The two concepts are close enough that I wouldn't fault journalists who use the shorthand version. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In spy jargon, the person who works for the CIA is a case officer, the people recruited through the case officer are agents. But both terms are used popularly as synonymns.--Cberlet 12:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Will, it is your personal view that "agent" as opposed to "agent of influence" is "a distinction without a difference." Misplaced Pages clearly makes the distinction, and so does LaRouche. In my view, LaRouche gets to decide what his actual views are, and if he feels they are being misrepresented, that should be mentioned (in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, where I am adding a short section to which we can link when issues like this come up.) --Don't lose that number 13:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

<-----On Misplaced Pages, OR and POV do not trump what has appeared in print in reputable published sources. Cite LaRouche complaining he has been misquoted in this instance, or a LaRouchite publication, or it does not belong in an entry.--Cberlet 13:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Puff piece must go

This page is little more than an unveriufied advertisement for the LYM. I will begin to add important details. Criticism needs to be mentioned in lead.--Cberlet 19:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I urge you not to spam your own opinions into these articles, under that pretext of "adding important details." Your summary of Benton's article goes considerably beyond Benton's own comments; for example, Benton notes that the putative document was written by Tony Papert, not LaRouche, and is much more careful about drawing inferences than you are. I would like to reiterate the request that I placed on your talk page, with particular emphasis on WP:SOAP. --Don't lose that number 21:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Not my opinion. Majority opinion of reputable published sources. Benton article was appropriate. The suicide was tragic and directly related to the LYM friction. Do you dispute the article is properly cited?--Cberlet 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, your edit takes liberties with what is in the cited article. --Don't lose that number 22:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So the solution is for you to offer an alternative summary, rather than just deleting the matieral that I assert is accurate. Otherwise it looks like you are trying to hide legitimate published criticism of LaRouche as a vicious thug who prompted the suicide of a loyal longtime member as part of a factional fight within the organization in which the LYM membes are seeking to displace the older members; even as the LaRouche group collapses due to financial problems and LaRouche has become politically impotent and intelelctually vacant. I am quite sure you would not want to leave that impression since it would so horribly tasteless and crude. So please take this opportunity to write your own summary. In the meantime I have restored my version.--Cberlet 00:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)