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 03:16, 24 January 2005 editHerschelkrustofsky (talk | contribs)2,877 edits A proposal concerning the issue of Chip Berlet and []← 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 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
'''Please add new comments at the bottom of the page'''
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{Template:LaRouche Talk}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=}}
*], Aug 21-Nov 29
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=}}
*], Dec 17-Jan 11
}}
*], Jan 11-19
{{Old AfD multi| date = 21 September 2008 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Views of Lyndon LaRouche }}
{{Notable Wikipedian|Cberlet|editedhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 12
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Controversial-issues}}
{{LaRouche Talk}}
<br clear=all>


==Minority views== == Untitled ==
From ], September 2003, on the mailing list:


*'''Draft and source pages'''
* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
*]
* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name ''prominent'' adherents;
*]
* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
*]
] 10:58, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
*]
*]


== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion ==
It would seem that most of Berlet's theories would belong in the third category. --] 20:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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 -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 14:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


== The Lead is now Very Biased ==
::The condemnation of Lyndon LaRouche and his followers is nearly universal and worldwide in terms of material published in commonly accepted reference texts. The proponents of LaRouche are a tiny group that live in a bubble of admiration. I started out here merely asking that the text be reduced to 50% self-published claims by LaRouchites and 50% material from commonly accepted reference texts (all critical of LaRouche). This apparently is not OK with HK, who insists on inserting material with no independent verification. I think it is clear that HK is not capable of participating in this process in a way that is even remotely connected to the goals of Misplaced Pages. He has already repeatedy violated the strictures placed on him by the Arb. committee. He continues to enagage in personal attacks. He continues to claim that I cook quotes when it has been shown to the satisfaction of anyone but a LaRouche fanatic that the quotes are accurate and my interpretation of them is fair. Why is this being tolerated?
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
] (]) 16:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


== Punctuation and spelling (Anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism, antisemitism) ==
::Will: In an entry on the Holocaust, would you find it acceptable if the Holocaust Deniers were allowed 50% of the text space to post their views? Would it be OK to allow them to constantly rewrite the text so that their claims ended every section, thus giving those views more weight? I think not.


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.
::Let's get back to editing. Let's be fair to the LaRouchites, but let's be editors of a serious encylopedia.


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)
::In the meantime--once again--I ask that HK and Weed and the other pro-LaRouche editors stop editing other LaRouche-related pages and just work on this page. I am willing to just work on this page. What's the problem with that? Let's finish the work on the text on AIDS and Gay people. Here is a proposed format


== How many times does the article need to say that the Queen is a drug dealer? ==
:::Majority view from material published in commonly accepted reference texts.
:::Quote from critic.
:::Quote from LaRouchites.
:::Summary


# "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"
::Then we move on to another section, until the article is edited. --] 12:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# "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)
::Slim: I don't know how to create a Temp page, can you create one for me to edit and tell me how to do it?--] 13:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:::You can have a Temp page here or in your own user space. If the former, go to the search box on the left hand side. Type in (you can choose the words after the slash) ] and press "go". A page will come up with a link saying that page doesn't exist - click here to create it (or words to that effect). Simply click on that link, and start writing on the blank page. Alternatively (and this is what most people do for personal drafts), create a page in your own user space by typing ], click on go, same procedure. Again, you can choose the words after the slash. Hope that helps. ] 23:20, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

:::::I agree with Cberlet's proposed format above. Please let's concentrate on one page at a time. As this one is protected, we must edit this one, or ask for unprotection, because we're currently abusing the protection process. We should aim to make this article the sort of thing you'd expect to read in the Encyclopedia Britannica, if they had enough space (by which I don't mean it should be so long no one will read it). ] 23:25, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

==Editing by Sections==

Let's start with this section:

]

Here are the remaining sections to edit after we agree to the above section:


:Republicanism v. Fascism

:Racism or Higher Culture?

:The Brainwashing Incident

:Let's edit them in order

We can do this!--] 03:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chip, it's a good idea. What I'd suggest is to get a structure going first, and a rough estimate of desired length. Suggestion: Intro, Marxist period; Change of views, Conspiracy theories (issues like John Train Salon included here), Allegations of brainwashing, Gays and AIDS, Attitude toward Jews (including here the views about the British establishment and "international Jewry"), Attitude toward women; The LaRouche movement around the world (say something about the Schiller Institute and LYM, methods of recruitment, how many followers, how is movement financed). Then we can have LaRouche rebuttal sections, or we can intersperse LaRouche position throughout the text. I'd prefer the latter, so long as it doesn't lead to claim, counter-claim, and counter-counter etc. Suggest your own section headings if you want because you're the expert. I was thinking structure would be a good thing to pin down so we can pace ourselves in terms of word length, as we tackle each subject. ] 04:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

==Berlet's theories==

If you think that I am going to accept the replacement of this article with a knock-off of Chip Berlet's web site, you are dreaming. I indicated that I would accept Willmcw's (relatively) neutral re-write of the AIDS section. It is a basis for discussion. A total re-write by Berlet is out of the question. --] 15:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:It's not just the gay/AIDS section that needs attention. Material that should be discussed has been left out: for example, the brainwashing allegations against the movement; the period when LaRouche thought the CIA had brainwashed the membership; his belief that people want to assassinate him; how the membership is recruited; how it finances itself. You've prevented these issues from being examined in ], ], and the ], so they can only go here or in ]. ] 17:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't "prevented them from being discussed" anywhere, but I agree that this is the appropriate location for such a discussion, except for how the movement finances itself, which is already discussed in ]. If you want to add more material there, I have no objection, provided that it comes from a reputable source. Meanwhile, I propose that we agree to use Will's AIDS section, and unprotect. --] 01:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:This was the version that Will wrote and I wrote suggestions on. Will, Cberlet and I then reached an agreement, which was we'd have what Will wanted of the AIDS quote, and what I wanted of the apparent LaRouche change-of-heart. Then you objected. If we're going to use any of the gay drafts as a basis, it should be this one; though I believe Cberlet may have in mind writing another. ] 01:50, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

==Stop Complaining and start discussing this draft==
]
I propose we post it and move on to editing other sections. --] 02:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:I'm fine with that version. ] 02:42, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

::Slim: Let's go with it. As for the major re-edit, I agree we need a structure, but let's not worry about length at first. If we can agree on content that is too long, it will be easier to reduce the length later. Do you have a suggested outline?--] 04:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of this (feel free to change the names of the headers: I mean them here only as areas):
*Biographical intro
*Early life
*Marxist period
*Change of views (when, why, in what form, personal reasons for change)
*The brainwashing incident
*Conspiracy theories
*Allegations of brainwashing of recruits
*Gays and AIDS (agreed)
*Attitude toward Jews (the views about the British establishment and "international Jewry", allegations of Holocaust denial),
*Attitude toward women (if there's enough to warrant a section)
*The LaRouche movement in the U.S. and around the world (National Causus of Labor Committees; the Schiller Institute; LYM; how many members; methods of recruitment, how is movement financed)
*LaRouche rebuttal sections (or we can intersperse LaRouche position throughout the text. I'd prefer the latter, though it makes it harder to write)
] 04:21, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

::Some of this seems to replicate material on the ] page, perhaps some of it can be referenced on that page and the detials moved here?--] 04:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:::Sure, I'll go along with any structure you suggest that gets us moving. If you think some of these issues are best on ], we could leave them there and reference them here, or vice versa. The biographical intro and early life is repetitive and so can mostly refer readers to ], except insofar as you believe his early personal circumstances affected his political views, assuming enough is known about the former. Or perhaps it's more appropriate to say here what the political views are, and not to expound on how they came to be, leaving that analysis to ]. You might think the personal circumstances that surrounded his move away from Marxism should be left on ] too. I'll go along with your preference. (For my own part, I wouldn't have separated these pages in the first place, because the man IS the politics, but I'm not suggesting a merger.) ] 12:22, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

==Evidence of "Cooked Quotes"==

The issue of "cooked quotes" is essential to the question of whether Berlet's web site should be considered a reputable source. I have assembled the evidence on a special page: ]. I have edited for clarity some material contributed by Herschel. ] 07:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:Weed, could you say which parts you have edited for clarity, please? ] 09:05, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

I shortened Herschels "Anatomy of a cut and paste job", leaving out comments that I thought were unnecessary, and I put in the italic and bold formatting. ] 21:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==Next Steps==

What about making temporary copies of both pages, and then moving blocks of text around until it looks reasonable, we reduce duplication, and only the most important and salient material is on the Lyndon LaRouche page? Can you make the Temp pages? Last time I made a mess of things.--] 03:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:I've made ] and ]. Don't worry about having made a mistake. I just did the exact same thing! :-) ] 06:10, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

OK: Here are the first "sandbox" drafts of three pages, and their associated links:

]

:]

::]

]

:]

::]

]

:]

::]


There are still some (((missing paragraphs))).--] 16:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

''If you try to replace a Misplaced Pages article with a Chip Berlet article, rest assured it will be reverted.'' --] 18:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:Anonymous threats. How endearing. Collect them all...--] 23:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::That IP address is one that the Herschel/Weed Harper account uses. ] 03:11, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

==A proposal concerning the issue of Chip Berlet and ]==

Chip Berlet AKA ] has been systematically loading both ] and ] with quotes from articles that he has written. Between quotes from Chip and quotes from his siamese twin Dennis King, the articles resemble more and more an essay promoting their shared, idiosyncratic theories. The Slim 'n' Chip team has often attempted to justify CBerlet's edits by claiming that Berlet's material has appeared in "mainstream" publications.

Fine, then. As I indicate to Will above, I will not remove any quotes from Chip that have appeared in "mainstream", read "mass circulation" publications. That would include the publications Will asked about as examples: ''Time'', the ''Washington Times'', ''Washington Post'', or ''New York Times''. It would not include some publications that have served as a venue for the King/Berlet theories, such as ''High Times''. It emphatically would not include leftist conspiracy-theory blog sites that are cloned from PRA.

In this way, the mass-circulation press can serve as sort of a "filter" to determine which of the King/Berlet theories are "mainstream", and which are esoteric, arcane, idiosyncratic, and generally unacceptable in Misplaced Pages under the ] guidelines. --] 16:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:This is not what the NPOV page describes as the standard criteria.--] 18:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is at issue is not the NPOV policy, but the ] policy. --] 02:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:If you do your homework, you will see that it is not considered original research for the purposes of Misplaced Pages if it has been published by a reputable and reliable publication or organization, even if I, as the author, post it--as long as I post it in the third person..--] 03:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates are regarded as experts in their field by other professional researchers and journalists. He is allowed to quote himself from his own publications, and that includes reports published by PRA, so long as (a) he quotes himself in the third person; and (b) he does not self-promote in an unnecessary or irrelevant way. Also, cut out the remarks about him being King's Siamese twin. Most intelligent people share these views about LaRouche, not just Berlet and King. ] 03:11, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, your POV with regard to LaRouche is no mystery. Chip, it is the reputability and reliability of your organization that is being disputed. If you can find yourself quoted in a mass-circulation publication there will be no dispute. --] 03:16, 24 Jan 2005 (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: