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 19:15, 12 March 2007 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 editsm fixed date← 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=
{{WPBiography|living=yes|activepol=yes}}{{controversial}}
{{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 }}
{{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>


== Untitled ==
{{Template:LaRouche Talk}}
*], Aug 21, 2004&ndash;Nov 29, 2004
*], Dec 17, 2004&ndash;Jan 11, 2005
*], Feb 27, 2006&ndash;Mar 06, 2006
*], Jan 11, 2005&ndash;Oct 02, 2006


*'''Draft and source pages'''
==Two recent edits that were wrongly reverted==
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion ==
On this edit it seems silly and misleading to argue that the edits labeled "general" are any different than the ones labeled "critical." It would be more honest to label the external links either "pro-" or "anti-" LaRouche.
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 ==
On the John Train edit revert (,) let's not forget (as some editors seem to) that this is an article about the Political Views of Lyndon LaRouche, and we should make an effort to stay current. The LaRouche people are pushing this John Train thing hard -- my sister picked up their pamphlet on campus last week.
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) ==
I was initially in favor of opening up the article ] again (instead of a redirect to this article,) but Will Beback/Willmcw/User2004 told me to just put the information in this one (see .) I'm sure that I'm not the only person who is puzzled about why Chip Berlet and Dennis King, two hippy-dippy conspiracy theorists with no academic credentials, suddenly had access to wads of foundation money and media time. Since they are also being given a platform here at Misplaced Pages, this information (which seems to answer the riddle) should not be hidden or suppressed. --] 20:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


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.
:I was able to read ], but when I tried to read the article, I got stuck in a loop where I kept getting redirected to Political Views of Lyndon LaRouche. Can someone please tell me how to navigate to the John Train Salon article? Thanks in advance. --] 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


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)
::"John Train Salon" was merged into this article. -] 23:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


== How many times does the article need to say that the Queen is a drug dealer? ==
:::You can read the last complete version of the "salon" article by following . Very little of it actually made it into the merged version. --] 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


# "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"
::::It is appalling that the silly story of a John Train conspiracy is being presented as fact. I was at the two meetings at Train's apartment; they were informational only. No plot was discussed or developed. This is all an artifically generated urban legend and should be dispensed with in one or two sentences with the caveat that no reputable source has confirmed the LaRouchian allegations. Herbert Quinde, author of the affidavit, was not even present at the meetings and has a reputation as a prankster and a source of false information (like when he told the Spanish secret police in the early 1980s where to find Basque terrorists in France--the Spanish sent agents to kidnap totally innocent people as a result). Quinde's main source for the plot, Michael Hudson, was bullshitting Quinde because he was fed up with being harassed by the LaRouchians and thought he'd freak them out with a little disinformation. (The LaRouchians had borrowed money from Hudson and refused to pay him back; when he sued them, they printed articles calling him a KGB agent. With experiences like that does anyone thing Hudson would or should have bothered to give them accurate information?)--] 00:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)P.S. Another example of this silliness is the Internet rumor that my travel expenses to the meeting were paid by the John Birch Society. In fact, John Train's apartment was only a few block from my own and I walked to the meetings. I received no monetary compensation for attending from either the JBS, the CPUSA, the CIA, the KGB, little green men or anyone else.--] 00:30, 1 January 2007 (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)
:::::Chip Berlet already explained over at ] that only he got the travel money. But do you deny that you got foundation money for your book? --] 08:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::Tsunami, why do you even ask this? You know perfectly well that in the Acknowledgement section at the end of my book I listed grants from the Smith Richardson Foundation and the Stern Fund. So what? Neither of these grants came from any John Train conspiracy, since such a conspiracy never existed.-- ] 19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::I am asking something more specific. The LaRouche website makes this claim about the John Train meeting you attended: "At the meeting, arrangements were also made to have King's planned book on LaRouche financed by the League for Industrial Democracy and by the Smith Richardson Foundation." True or false? They also make this claim: "On Aug. 6, 1984, attorneys for LaRouche depositioned Dennis King. When asked about the circumstances under which he was introduced to Pat Lynch, King was silent. His attorney, Scott McLaughlin, interrupted the deposition, and took King out into the hallway for 20 minutes; when they returned, King claimed he could not recall how he had first met Lynch." Your comment? --] 21:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::It is not appropriate to use Misplaced Pages to conduct research that would help a convicted felon with a histiory of harassment. If nothing else, it violates ].--] 02:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

==Separate article for criticisms of LaRouche?==
I apologise if this point has already been discussed and archived, i had a quick look and didn't see it. I'm wondering whether it would be easier to gain consensus on this and other LaRouche articles (and avoid NPOV tags,mediation,etc) if the analysis and criticisms of LaRouche and his theories were grouped together in a single article dedicated to that purpose. I'm no LaRouche supporter (quite the opposite), and i certainly think that such criticisms are valid and have a place on wikipedia, but i don't think that place is scattered amongst a number of different articles. The title of this article indicates to me that it should explain what the political views of Lyndon LaRouche are, not analyse the validity of those views. I would explect to see such analysis in an article titled 'Criticisms of Lyndon LaRouche' or something similar. Content in this article (and other related articles) could then be replaced by single sentences like "Point X is disputed by critics of LaRouche; see (article link here)" --] 06:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

:Personally, I feel much the same as you: that it's be best to consolidate criticism. There are some "Criticisms of ..." articles on controversial figures (though one just got deleted ) and they have the benefit of preventing the main articles from being overwhelmed by criticism. However the approach preferred by the community, and even by Misplaced Pages's founder, is to mix in the criticism so that all matters are covered neutrally and the pros and cons are presented together. See ]. -] · ] · 10:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for the link, i hadn't seen that discussion before. I definitely lean more towards the second proposal, i think it gives articles a more encyclopaedic feel. After reading the 'Criticism in a "Reception" or "Reception history" section' guidelines, i wonder if this might be applied to the LaRouche articles. Perhaps 'Analysis of the political views of LaRouche', as this could include both the positive and negative POV. --] 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:::There isn't all that much explicit criticism in this article, considering its overall length. However some sections, even when they only quote LaRouche, appear to express a critical point of view. If you'd like to work on improving this article I suggest taking a section at a time. This article was the subject of bitter fights a long time ago, and involved editors were too exhausted to come back and fix things up after the dust settled. That work is long overdue. -] · ] · 06:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

==Who calls LaRouche a fascist?==

In an article pretty much dominated by preposterous sanitization of LaRouche's ideas, the views of his critics are slyly demeaned, like when it was said that LaRouche is called a fascist by "leftwing writers and orators." I changed this to "some critics" since the term has been used in reference to LaRouche by a number of people who are decidedly NOT leftwing, such as the late Senator Moynihan, former Our Town publisher Ed Kayatt (a rockbound Reaganite), former Our Town editor and editorial writer Kalev Pehme, cold warrior Irwin Suall (who called LaRouche a "small-time Hitler") and many American Jewish supporters of Likud, such as the late Howard Adelson. Chip Berlet's conservative nemesis John Rees has referred to LaRouche as a "roast-beef fascist," which is not simply a joke since historically many fascists have either come out of the left, sought alliances there, or merged leftwing and rightwing rhetoric in their mass agitation (by attacking capitalism but saying the bad side of capitalism is a Jewish plot). I also took out the word "orators" since in context it was an obvious nonsense term meant to suggest a lack of credibility without having to prove it.--] 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

==Edit was not mine==

The history of this article now records that I made an insert in this article today having to do with code language, which was promptly removed by Slim Virgin. I absolutely did not make this edit and have no idea why it is recorded under my name.--] 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

==John Train Salon==

I know that Dking and Cberlet have a particular desire to eliminate the John Train material from this article, but this is an article about LaRouche's political views, and LaRouche is the ultimate verifiable source on what those views are. I don't accept SlimVirgin's argument that, in effect, we may not report LaRouche's views on Living Persons. She certainly isn't applying that across the board, or we would delete most of this article. The material deleted is sourced not only to LaRouche, but also an affidavit submitted in court, so I can't accept the idea that it can be deleted to please certain editors. --] 06:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:All contentious claims about living persons that are sourced to LaRouche should be removed from this article. Nathan, if you restore any again, it will be a BLP violation. If there's a court document and if it's independent of LaRouche, by all means use it as a source, but you should also find an independent secondary source. Until you have that, you can't add this material. Please read ]. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

::I will try to find some outside source for this, but it seems to me that this is an unusual circumstance. This is in a section on "LaRouche's conspiracy theories," so it is not being presented as proven. I don't think your BLP argument applies in this case.

::Also, I note on various talk pages that neither King nor Berlet denies that these meetings took place. They simply claim that it was a normal, innocent gathering of quasi-left-wing activists, deep-pockets right-wing financiers and intelligence operatives. So the facts are not in dispute, as far as I can see-- only the interpretation, which is of course, just another LaRouche conspiracy theory. So, where's the contention? --] 03:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:::I've worked on this a little, but it seems a bit ridiculous to document a LaRouche conspiracy theory with additional sources. It is not being presented as a widely-shared conspiracy theory, just a LaRouche conspiracy theory, so it doesn't really matter how many people agree with it. As I said, the facts themselves are not in dispute, so SlimVirgin, I would ask you to explain your thinking on this more fully. --] 03:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"According to a sworn affidavit..." I guess I could have changed this to 'According to a pdf file of unknown origin on a geocities site...", but I didn't really see the point, so I took it out instead, along with everything that seemed to depend on it. If the point is that the LaRouche orginazition thinks lots of people are conspiring to make them look like loons, I'm not sure how notable that is anyway. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:I have replaced that cite with a cite to the affidavit itself, which is provided in the Daniel Brandt article. What is notable about the meetings is the stellar grouping (except for King and Berlet) of persons and organizations that attended. It has ] written all over it. --] 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

::] and ] specifically prohibit the use of self-published third-party sources in support of biographical material about living persons. The use of primary sources alone is also discouraged. Please find a mainstream secondary source for this material, or leave it out. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 15:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Would you kindly be specific about what you consider to be a "self-published third party source" in this article? --] 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::You used a self-published website as a secondary source, I believe, and an affidavit as a primary source. Others used a LaRouche publication. None of these are reliable sources within the meaning of ] and ]. For contentious claims about living persons, you must use the best possible sources, which in this case would mean a mainstream news organization or other publisher. Please decide whether to answer here or on your talk page, but not both, please. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 15:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::You seem to be reluctant to name the source you are objecting to. Is it Daniel Brandt? I have gathered from various Misplaced Pages controversies that you and he don't get along. His organization is no different than Chip Berlet's (in fact, Chip Berlet was once part of his organization) and in fact, there ''is'' an organization, whereas Dennis King's website is entirely self-published.

:::::But you still haven't answered what I think is the main question here: we are not talking about "contentious claims about living persons." We are talking about a conspiracy theory of Lyndon LaRouche. You yourself have taken pains to emphasize that he is a conspiracy theorist, and this is an article specifically about his theories. I don't see how you can object to LaRouche as a source for his own theories. --] 15:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::As a matter of interest, when I ask you to post either here or on my talk page, but not both, why do you continue to post on both?
::::::Please don't edit further without reading our content policies. That's what they are there for, so that individual editors don't have to explain everything from scratch on every talk page about every issue. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Please. I'm not asking you to explain everything from scratch. I'm asking you to specify which source you are objecting to. --] 15:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'm objecting to all the sources you used. One is a self-published website; one is what looks like a post to the National Review blog; one is a LaRouche publication. '''Find a mainstream source'''. If you can't find one, let that tell you something.
::::::Question: have you read the content policies? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 15:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

==Questions for SlimVirgin==

Let me preface this by saying I have read the content policies, and I think that you have a novel interpretation of BLP. Here are my questions:

1. You say that theories or claims made by LaRouche about living persons may not be sourced to LaRouche publications. Using this interpretation of BLP, do you think that , made two days ago by yourself, should be removed? It refers to a claim made by LaRouche about advisors to the British royal family, and is sourced to a LaRouche publication.

:No, because it doesn't name anyone, and it's clearly absurd. But you could find another source if you prefer. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

2. You say that claims about living persons may not be sourced to "self-published third party sources." Are you referring here to , the organization associated with Daniel Brandt?

:No third-party self-published sources are allowed. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Do you believe that Public Information Research is in a different category, for the purposes of BLP source citing, than Political Research Associates (Chip Berlet), DennisKing.org (Dennis King), or the Rick A. Ross Institute (Rick Ross)? The LaRouche articles have abundant derogatory material on LaRouche sourced to these latter three websites. Do you think that these articles would conform better to BLP if they were to rely strictly on mainstream sources? --] 23:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:Political Research Associates is a research company with employees. As for the other two, I don't know much about them. Perhaps you can do the research and determine whether they're self-published. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

4. PIR is also a . Their home page also indicates that they were incorporated in 1989 and have 501(c)3 status. You haven't actually said whether you think PIR is a "self-published third party source," but given these facts, it seems clear that they are not. Do you agree? --] 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:::There are no employees listed at the --] 18:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

==The alleged "internal memo" and BLP==

As SlimVirgin has pointed out, the standards for sourcing under Biographies of Living Persons are very high. Dubious sourcing is unacceptable. The document attributed to LaRouche is supposed to be an "internal memo." Is there a reliable, mainstream source where LaRouche acknowledges that he wrote this? "High Times" and the "Justice for Jeremiah website" are hardly mainstream sources. --] 06:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

:Please say which material you're talking about. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

::The two purported quotes from LaRouche which are supposedly from an "internal memo" called "Politics of Male Impotence." Following the cites to Chip Berlet's website, the source is a scanned image of a sheet of typewritten paper. This totally fails the ] test, and also runs contrary to the rule that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" at ]. I am reverting this material. --] 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

::I am also restoring the NPOV tag -- this article is being used as a vehicle to promote ] theories of Chip Berlet and Dennis King, and needs cleanup to conform to NPOV policy standards. --] 22:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

:::It's not an exceptional claim; LaRouche is well-known for making extreme statements. And ] is regarded as a reliable source, and has been accepted as such by the ArbCom. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

::"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." --]. Are you going to argue that Chip Berlet's website is not partisan? And in this particular case, you have an unusual circumstance: these are quotes that are being ''attributed to LaRouche''. On whose say-so? What person is claiming that LaRouche wrote them, and how would this person be in a position to know? These are ''unpublished'' statements. Under BLP, they should go. --] 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

:::The source is LaRouche himself, and if you read the memo, it's very clearly material from him. Also, as I've told you many times, PRA is regarded as a reliable source for Misplaced Pages, and the ArbCom has supported that. This isn't the place to discuss that decision. Please don't keep tagging the article whenever you find something you don't like.

:::Although it's fine to include the quote in terms of its sourcing, I'd question including it as an example of bias against "non-white, non-European, non-patriarchal, non-heterosexual cultures and identities," as we currently do. If you read the whole memo, it appears to be largely misogynist rather than racist, as he rails against German and Italian mothers too. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

::How would you know whether is is LaRouche? If you have some factual basis for saying so, please insert your real name in the article as the person vouching for its authenticity, or better yet, leave it out. As you say, LaRouche is known for making extreme statements. Therefore, what is preventing you, Berlet and King from making your case against him with actual, verifiable quotes? There are no shortage of them on the web, from veriable, LaRouche sources. There should be no need for you to resort to such a dubious source. --] 01:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::Having taken another look at both "LaRouche" ArbCom cases, I see that they both pre-date the BLP policy. Therefore, I think that it is incorrect for you to assert that the ArbCom has given a blanket blessing to the use of Chip Berlet's website as a source. I think that it should be handled with extreme caution under BLP, especially because it is so often the source of "derogatory" characterizations of living persons. Whereever possible, a mainstream source should be found, and in many cases, such as the one we are discussing, the material should be removed under BLP. Your responsibilities as an Admin should take precedence over your POV in such a situation. --] 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

*Dillin, John. "Lyndon LaRouche has got America's attention now!", Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), The Christian Science Publishing Society, 1986-03-27, p. 1. Retrieved on 8 March 2006. - ''Born to Quaker parents, LaRouche got his political start in the 1940s, when he was a member of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. At the time he took the name Lyn Marcus, after Lenin and Marx.'' Other mainstream sources also mention his use of the name Lyn Marcus. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Tsunami Butler, ] isn't Chip Berlet's website; it's a professional research organization. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:Tom, I am aware that LaRouche wrote under the pen name Lyn Marcus. That's in his autobiography. I am questioning whether the image of an unpublished typewritten document of unknown origin that is posted by Chip Berlet on the Political Research Associates website is actually written by LaRouche/Lyn Marcus, and I am also questioning the decision of SlimVirgin and Cberlet to insist upon using such a document as a source for Misplaced Pages, particularly when the number of authentic, verifiable documents attributable to LaRouche numbers in the thousands on the internet alone. --] 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:I have corrected the cites on this to reflect the fact that it is an unpublished document of questionable authenticity. I won't revert until there has been further discussion. Ultimately this is still a BLP issue -- the BLP policy requires that we use unimpeachable sources. --] 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::Has anyone from the LaRouche movement questioned the authenticity? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:I have no idea. As I understand it, the purpose of WP:BLP is to anticipate and avoid complaints of that nature. I have restored my edits, because the previous format makes it appear as if the article in question was published, which it was not. Regardless of whether LaRouche wrote it, we have a responsibility not to mislead the readers by making it appear as if it were published.

:I have restored the NPOV tag, which has been on this article since I began editing Misplaced Pages last October. SlimVirgin, it was you who unilaterally intervened to change the status quo on this. It ought to be obvious that there are ongoing neutrality disputes about this article. --] 21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::You're editing in violation of the ArbCom cases and you've violated 3RR. The material was published by Political Research Associates. Do you deny this?
::If LaRouche has not denied the quotes are his, you're engaged in OR by claiming that there's no evidence they're his.
::As for the tag, there are always going to be POV issues from the perspective of LaRouche followers, but that doesn't mean there are real ones, so don't keep adding the tag. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I find your interpretation of BLP to be amazingly flexible, depending, of course, on whether the Living Person is someone you like or dislike. Also, could you specify how Ms. Butler is violating an ArbCom decision? --] 02:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

===Questions for SlimVirgin===

1. I also would like to know how you think I am violating the LaRouche ArbCom decisions. I have read both of them carefully. Please indicate the remedy or remedies you are referring to.

:You're acting to promote LaRouche. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::This is baloney, and self-serving baloney as well. I am arguing that LaRouche, the subject of this article and others, is merely ''not exempt'' from the ] policy. This does not constitute "promotion of LaRouche." It appears to me that you are acting to exert ownership of these articles to make them a showcase for the esoteric fringe theories of Dennis King and Chip Berlet, both of whom are now editing Misplaced Pages, engaging in self-promotion and excessive self-citing in violation of ]. You have thus far refused to discuss BLP as it applies to the subject of these articles. --] 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Why do you object to identifying the "internal memo" as an unpublished document? By citing it as if it were a published source, you mislead the reader.

:It wasn't unpublished. The part we are quoting was published or we wouldn't be able to quote it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::See #3, below. --] 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

3. You ask whether I deny that the material was published by Political Research Associates. No, I don't. That's exactly the point. It should be ''attributed'' to PRA, not to LaRouche. I don't care whether the Washington Post has a published account that says that Dennis King says that Chip Berlet says that LaRouche wrote it (and Chip ain't saying where he got this document.) Just because the parson's wife repeats gossip, it doesn't make the gossip more true. Now for my question: why is it that you don't recognize this as a BLP issue?

:We report what published sources say, and we have a published source. As a matter of interest, how do you know it wasn't also published by LaRouche? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Because by following the cites, the trail leads to a typewritten document, posted by Chip Berlet at the PRA website. The trail ends there. Where did he get it? Dumpster diving? He doesn't say. --] 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Is it your view that Public Information Research, Inc. is a source that may not be used at Misplaced Pages? If not, why not? I am trying to ascertain whether they have "employees" as opposed to "directors," since Cberlet is raising that as an issue. But where in ] does it make that distinction? --] 16:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

:Do you mean Political Research Associates? They have staff as explained above.
::No, I mean ], which has Daniel Brandt on its board of directors. Is it your view that this a source that may not be used at Misplaced Pages? If not, why not? --] 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

:I've had enough of this back and forth. The material has been correctly sourced, and there's no point in going on about it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Like it says at the talk of the page, this is a controversial topic and substantial changes to the article must be discussed before being made. I feel like I am having difficulty getting your cooperation in this. --] 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

==Neutrality==

I see a neutrality dispute here. Does that make me a LaRouche follower? Does it take some special rank or status at Misplaced Pages to add a tag to an article? --] 21:45, 10 March 2007 (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: