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

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:01, 6 August 2021 editPearBOT II (talk \| contribs)Bots171,709 editsm Merge Talk header and Auto archiving notice per TfD Tag: PAWS [2.1]← 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
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talk header\|search=yes~~\|archive_age=2\|archive_units=months\|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III~~}}		{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject Alternative Views~~\|class=c~~\|importance=}}		{{WikiProject Alternative Views\|importance=}}
	{{WikiProject United States~~\|class=c~~\|importance=low\|USPE=Yes\|USPE-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 }}
Line 25:		Line 25:
	*]		*]
	*]		*]

	== Worthy addition: presidential TV ads, also clarification of cases brought against him ==

	Ok, an asside first. Somewhere there’s mention in f the tri-part test actually 4parts6for libel of a public figure being reffered to as the LaRouche Tesr, not true - it is the SCOTUS decision in Sullivan v NY Times: In a case regarding a public figure, 1) truth beats all 2) the figure must be identifiable (usually 1is assumed - you can say or print just about anything about anyone if it true) 2) Southern Sheriffs Sullivan claimed an NAACP ad in the NYT was about him(can’t find ny casebook, please check old guy ‘s memory - ad, about injustice against blacks, civ rights workers etc.) didn’t even single out a state 3) absence of legal malice:
	a) plaintiff must prove respondent had no data or respondent can demonstrate it had information it reasonabley believed true and b) respondent made an effort to test accuracy of data.
	I doubr any country rt decision would ever be given LL’s nane! And please cite case - not te there was also bad precedent set during NJ v Mario Jascalavich trial - the curari killer who got awaw when NYT reporter Myron Farber refused to reveal sources on story about the investigation of “Dr. X” - there was some law established, later demolished by “shield laws” in almost all 50 states making it near impossible for newspapers to be forced to reveal names of anonymous sources. Of course by that time Farber had been imprisoned for contempt of court by a damned fool Bergen Co. NJ judge, and rhe sideshow, which really didn’t effect state’s case against Dr Death had led to Jascalavich cleared and moving to Argentina, where he died, must be 35 years ago now.

	Also NB: or should that be N Morte: I find it hard to believe LL is still alive in his late 90s+ this may be simple lar to the rather suspicious death date given by Scientology Inc.’s house doctor for former SF writer turned creator of a religion “because thats where the money is” say many who heard him discussing plan to turn novel into Dianetics, the wealthy , er, religion’s Bible, a rewrite as truth of Slaves of Sleep, the late Harlan Ellison has writ on many occasions, including a note in Dangerous Visiobs, SF anthology

	AND NOW THE POINT OF THIS RAMBLE:
	LL made campaign commercials each time he ran for president, all consisting of the candidate seated in a leather English Men’s Club chair, in front of a rather impressive looking home library rambling for 15-30 minutes, leading the viewer to come away with the feeling he was claiming Queen Elizabeth II and family were Iewish, and conspiring with other Jews to flood US streets wit heroin.
	Also, falsely, that he had recently met with, and advised(implying their support) of dozens of world leaders.
	This material, probably in the overptotected vaults of the Museum of Radio and Television, would be wonderful to show the quadrennial shift in the man’s views, and why he attracted so many for llowers, including a schizophrenic cousin of mine.
	Also, editor/authors seem to have missed out nature of the case that led to prison: LL’s minions working airports and other sites would talk people into making small cr d card donations to, usually the Fusion Foundation, then, especially if donors were elderly, invent and submit fraudulent cred card slips for donations several orders of magnitude larger, again, if memory serves.
	ShrdluCubed ] (]) 08:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

	==Energy-flux density subsection added==
	I have added a little section on what appears to be a key concept behind much of LaRouchean's thought: energy-flux density. I think it is really a religious assertion, while claiming to be science/economics, because it says "this is the way the universe is" that goes from supposed science to derive morality/policy/worldview from it. I found it very hard to find any references to this concept outside of LaRouchean websites: there was a neo-Nazi site that approves, and an anti-LaRouche page that called it gobbledigook without discussing, and that was about it: so we have a concept which is key to the LaRoucheans, but of no impact or importance or interest to the WWW or commentators. That has made it hard to find any reference that is not "self written" material, that are not really best for references. So, rather than having no references at all, I have linked to a video of LaRouche and LaRoucheans, which may give some of the flavour of the concept and how it sits in their conspiracy theory.
	] (]) 07:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

	== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion ==		== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion ==
Line 54:		Line 35:
	I will start to add descriptions from mainstream sholarly and journalist sources, while keeping the obscure and marginal lead sentence pending futher discussion		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)		] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

			# "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"
			# "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)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

Alternative views

	This 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.

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

This 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

This 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.

Cberlet (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

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
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
This box: view talk edit

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:

2007 LaRouche PAC poster (Global warming).jpg

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?

"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"
"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. Nakonana (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Categories: