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

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:42, 20 September 2004 editAdam Carr (talk \| contribs)26,681 editsNo edit summary← 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}}
	==Regarding the Adam and Andy version==
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
	*] of wild fabrications and propagandistic slurs in the present version.
			{{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 ==
	*]

			*'''Draft and source pages'''
	What little of LaRouche's ideas that actually appears in this article has been "spun" so much as to be unrecognizable. Your chances of understanding LaRouche by reading this article are nil. Instead, read LaRouche for yourself: .
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]

			== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion ==
	] 05:04, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
			The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
	:I wrote a new article which is a concise summary of LaRouche's basic ideas, the sort of thing that would be useful to an encyclopedia reader. I've been around Misplaced Pages long enough to know that it will quickly be reverted by a group of anti-LaRouche activists that want to suppress LaRouche's ideas, and to flog their personal theories and POV. However, at least it will be available on the history pages. (see )] 21:41, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
			* ]<!-- 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 views of LaRouche activists on this article are well-known. ] 05:19, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
			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) ==
	::Unless specific, fixable objections are stated, the accuracy and NPOV warnings should be removed promptly - ] 11:36, 21 Aug 2004 (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.
	::: See ]. --] 13:28, 22 Aug 2004 (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)
	::::No, they need to be here on the talk page so that the objections can be crossed off as each is resolved or invalidated - ] 23:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

			== How many times does the article need to say that the Queen is a drug dealer? ==
	:::::As you wish. The article was only recently split into three parts; the centralized list was painstakingly organized from previous talk pages by Martin AKA MyRedDice. But I have no problem reproducing it here. --] 02:07, 23 Aug 2004 (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"
	While we hopefully give Snowspinner's mediation efforts a chance, I have removed my list from this page (it is still available at the above link), with the exception of the parts germane to the discussion of "LaRouche and the Jews." --] 21:02, 14 Sep 2004 (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)

	==Dispute tags==

	Removing dispute tags is vandalism. If you remove a dispute tag when a dispute has not been resolved (And if you find your edits being generally reverted, it's a good sign the dispute has not been resolved), you are vandalizing the page, and you will find the entirety of your edit reverted. Furthermore, if you repeatedly remove dispute tags, you will find yourself blocked from editing.

	This page has been spending far too much time protected, and the people who are causing its continual protection are either going to stop disrupting the page or stop editing Misplaced Pages entirely. The choice is theirs. ] 16:10, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

	==NPOV==

	Another note here. Although the removal of the dispute tags is unacceptable, this article does have some problems with NPOV. It's not that the article shouldn't make clear the generally accepted view of LaRouche's opinions. It's that it should not make the blanket statement that they are "incoherent" or disconnected from "general reality." Regardless of personal opinions of LaRouche and his followers (Opinions, I assure you, I share with Adam and David), he has followers who do not believe him to be incoherent or disconnected from reality. Thus it is not objecctive fact that he is either of these things. Thus it is POV to state it as objective fact.

	I encourage someone on the anti-LaRouche side to make a pass through this article that separates the editorial comments about the validity of LaRouche's views from the descriptions of those views. ] 19:02, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

	:Why don't you have a go at it? ] ] 20:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	::Because I'm trying to remain uninvolved so that I can effectively mediate and moderate this dispute. And because I'd rather see the edit warriors learn how to handle this than have to do it myself. ] 20:25, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

	:::Fair enough. I could have a go at it, I suppose. ] ] 22:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	==Regarding the alternate version==

	I trimmed the quote at the beginning down to one paragraph, and added my own gloss. I don't know the legal distinction between a "quote" and a "copyright violation" -- perhaps Snowspinner or someone else could clue me in. Presumably there is a size limit to an acceptable quote. I am also not convinced that this quote is the best one, but I think it would be appropriate to provide a quote that more or less summarizes LaRouche's political views, since there has been a definite forest vs. trees problem here, and the Adam and Andy version seems, IMHO, designed to hide the forest altogether. --] 02:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	:Fair use is a notoriously nebulous concept, but a paragraph is probably OK. ] 02:56, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

	==Immediate reversion==

	In an effort to help mediate and calm down this dispute, I'm going to rope off some things and say "Don't do this." The list will be added to as needed. But for now, if you do any of these things, your edit will be reverted, plain and simple.

	#Misleading edit summaries. If your summary says "Added X" and neglects to mention that it also removes a whole bunch of stuff, your edit will be reverted.
	#Removing the dispute tag. If you remove the dispute tag, your edit will be reverted, and you will probably get a 24 hour block for vandalism, as everybody has now been warned about this.

	Not yet on this list, but very, very close to being on this list is insertion of flagrantly POV phrases.

	Let's try to be civil here. I still encourage someone on the anti-LaRouche side to take a pass either through their own preferred version or through Herchel's preferred version and try to NPOV it instead of a revert war. Either take out the claims of "incoherence" (Or, better yet, note that they are points of view) or, probably even better, take the version that most represents the POV opposite yours and insert paragraphs explaining your POV. ] 21:05, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

	The LaRoucheite version of this article is complete rubbish, but since other people are working towards a "compromise" version of the article I will refrain for now from reverting it. HOWEVER to delete the "LaRouche and the Jews" section, which documents LaRouche's Holocaust denial, is completely unacceptable, and unless any compromise version of the article includes this section, I will revert to my last edit. And since the version currently visible to the public is grossly dishonest and misleading, I will not wait long before doing so. ] 01:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	:Just so I know what I'm dealing with here (I'm very deliberately not educating myself on LaRouche here, so that I remain unbiased), what is wrong with their version? I mean, are there factual inaccuracies, and if so, will you indicate exactly what they are? ] 01:30, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

	With all due respect, someone who is not educated about LaRouche, deliberately or otherwise, is in no position to arbitrate on these matters. I suggest you read the edit history of the ] article and get up to speed. In the meantime, I would like a response to my point about the "LaRouche and the Jews" section. If I am not assured that this section will be included in your compromise version, I will revert to the most recent version which does include it. This is a matter of principle on which compromise is not possible. ] 01:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	:I'm not trying to arbitrate it - I'm trying to mediate it, and to evaluate the positions based on the evidence. I mean, I'm not unaware of LaRouche and the controversy that surrounds him - but I'm also not prejudging specific opinions. LaRouche is a controversial figure. I expect that he will have lots of controversial views that most people think are absurd. I expect that an NPOV article will present these views, as well as people's objections to them. Am I mistaken in any of these? ] 01:48, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

	I would like a response to my point about the "LaRouche and the Jews" section. If I am not assured that this section will be included in your compromise version, I will revert to the most recent version which does include it. This is a matter of principle on which compromise is not possible. ] 03:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	==LaRouche on the Jews==

	Just so I can be clear on this, then, does anyone have specific and ''factual'' objections to this section? Or are they POV objections, which can be worked out much more easily. ] 03:08, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
	:I have consolidated below my specific objections to the "LaRouche and the Jews" section. I have no problem with including Adam's quotes from LaRouche. I do maintain that his personal theories and spin-doctoring are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. I would also suggest that the section be balanced by including some of LaRouche's comments on the importance of Philo of Alexandria, made in the 70s and contemporaneous with the Zionism quotes. Adam is attempting to make a case for his theory that LaRouche is or was an anti-Semite; again, Misplaced Pages is not the proper forum. --] 21:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
	::It looks to me like the case that LaRouche is an anti-Semite is not restricted to Adam. (At a glance, looking at his works and repeated attacks on Zionism, it would be my default assumption that he was, simply because "Zionist" is so often used as a code-word for "Jew" in anti-Semitic literature. WHich is not to say LaRouche does this - just that I can see why people would say he does.) Can, perhaps, Adam's arguments be kept in his preferred form, and you could compose a paragraph or two to go at the end of the LaRouche and the Jews section which depicts the LaRouche defense against accusations of anti-Semitism? ] 23:34, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

	=="LaRouche and the Jews"==

	=== Zionism / Zionist ===

	*"Zionism is a Jewish political movement supporting the creation and (since 1948) defence of a Jewish state in Palestine." I think even this definition is debatable -- see ]. ] 06:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	*"From the early 1970s LaRouche regularly used the word "Zionist" as a term of abuse." POV. LaRouche uses it to describe an ideology, particularly that of Jabotinsky, which he opposes.

	::This is a bare-faced lie. LaRouche's literature attacks "Zionists" as an undifferentiated category. Since the great majority of Jews consider themselves to be Zionists, this is seen ''by Jews'' to be an attack on them. Since Jabotinsky has been dead for more than 60 years this is a typical LaRouchite red herring. If there's anything worse than an open anti-Semite it's a dissembling anti-Semite. ] 00:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
	:::"In the event of additional personal attacks by either party, either User Herschelkrustofsky or User Adam Carr are subject to short bans (around a day), the duration of the ban to gradually increase upon subsequent offenses to a two week maximum." -- arbcom decision. ] 21:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	*"In this article, LaRouche acknowledges that he accepts the classical anti-Semite conspiracy theory, with the caveat that he ascibes it to groups of Jews rather than to all Jews." LaRouche acknowledges no such thing, and certainly not in the cited passage. This is reasoning typical of those who trivialize anti-Semitism, by branding anyone who calls ] a gangster as an anti-Semite.

	*"his criticisms of U.S. foreign policy are similar in many respects to those of the left, except that he blames its deficiencies on Zionist conspirators rather than on capitalist imperialism." POV spin-doctoring. LaRouche opposes Zionism (of the Revisionist sort), but he does not ascribe to it the authorship of U.S. foreign policy.


	* "Although LaRouche has always denied accusations of ], the word "]", the common extreme right codeward for "]" began to appear in LaRouche propaganda in the 1970s."

	This is also propagandistic -- it may hold for some extreme right groups, but it does not hold for LaRouche, or any of the other many legitimate critics of Zionism. LaRouche also supports some Zionist currents, and has often referred to his friendship with Nahum Goldmann and his admiration for Yitzhak Rabin. I note that Adam chose not to include King's formulation that "British" is also a code word for "Jewish" -- perhaps that one is too over-the-top even for Adam. -- Herschel

	:The whole "financier conspiracy" is rather redolent of anti-semitism. That said, this could and probably should be softened. ] ] 03:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	::I don't in fact agree with everything King says. I do agree that Zionist is a code-word for Jew in LaRouche's writings, and it is understood to be so by his readers. ] 04:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	:::And you know this -- how?--] 11:46, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	* ' "Zionist", the common extreme right code word for "Jew" '

	:this is POV, and must be removed. ] ] 01:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	I would agree with this. Although it can certainly be argued that ''LaRouche'' uses Zionist as codeword for Jew (although such would have to be supported), it is wrong to say that Zionist is ''always'' a codeword for Jew. ] ] 01:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	''Of course'' Zionist is not ''always'' a code-word for Jew, and I didn't say it was. I said it is "the common extreme right code word for "Jew"," which is a fact that can be amply documented (see ] for example). ] 01:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	:Yes, I agree, but it currently seems to be saying that. ] ] 01:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	How can you prove what he means when he says it? He seems pretty crazy from what I read here, maybe when he says "Zionist" he is actually refering to the beatles ;) ] ] 01:50, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	Well, it certainly can be argued with more precision than it is here - his entire conspiratorial worldview is strongly redolent of the '']'', for instance. But you're right that we should be very careful about accusations of anti-semitism of this sort. ] ] 02:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	Sam is correct that it is often impossible to know what LaRouche really means when he talks about Zionists. This is partly because he is deliberately obscure - he talks in riddles and metaphors to keep his enemies guessing. Quite possibly he doesn't know himself. We can only quote what he says and point out how these words and phrases are ''usually'' meant. And it is a fact that ''most'' people who talk about international bankers conspiracies and how Zionists rule the world ''are'' anti-Semites. If this is not LaRouche's view of the world he should say so. ] 02:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	:So, Adam, you put words in LaRouche's mouth, and then the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that he doesn't think that way. This is pure, unbridled violation of NPOV. --] 05:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	::''Riddles, no. Metaphors, yes. And if you have difficulty understanding him, recuse yourself.''
	:Adam is right. Those who are prominently anti-Zionist are often also people who are generally accused of being anti-Semitic (and prob. correctly). On the other hand that by no means everyone who has "anti-Zionism" as one of his or her key issues is therefore an anti-Semite. This "keyword" bit could be much better phrased elsewhere, I suspect (prob on ]). From what I read here this guy seems to be perhaps the most duplicitous and misleading politician who is readily available, and that is saying ALOT ;). I frankly doubt we can provide much insight into what he means by what he says, and would prob be best off sticking to the text of his statements, rather than any particular judgments of them. ] ] 02:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	::I agree entirely that we should quote LaRouche, without speculating about what he may mean, or extrapolating coded messages, or any of the other techniques that form the core of Dennis King's book, and consequently, Adam's article. --] 05:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	I am perfectly entitled to point out what is usually meant by people who talk about Zionist conspiracies. I am not interested in responding to Herschel's wild allegations, which reflect badly only on him. ] 05:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	:Then, point it out in an article on Zionist Conspiracies. If you can't quote LaRouche, I am entitled to wonder how you know what he is thinking. --] 10:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	I don't think it is useful to interpret what others mean in this way. Of course you are right in many circumstances, but you can't fairly suggest it in the sweeping way in which you do, nor can you specifically prove that is what LaRouche means when he says it. Lets allow him to speak for himself, that his own words may condemn or redeem him before the reader, rather than providing our own translation of them. ] ] 17:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	:That "Zionist" is the common extreme right code-word for "Jew" is (a) a fact and (b) relevant to the topic under discussion. I didn't say that everyone who uses the word Zionist means it in an anti-Semitic way. If I say "The Zionists had no right to colonise Palestine," that is clearly a legitimate use of the word. If I say "Zionist bankers rule the world," that it is clearly using Zionist as a code word for Jew. This is necessary information for readers who are being presented with a discussion of LaRouche's writings. It is an encyclpaedia's job to ''explain'' things to readers, not just dump primary sources on them. ] 23:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	::However, Adam uses this argument to cover for the fact that he is simply lying. And as for Dennis King, his first, and most honest attack on LaRouche was an article in ''High Times'' entitled "They want to take your drugs away."--] 00:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	----

	Sam's wording: ''The use of "Zionist" (seen by some as a code word for "Jew") is a common practice of certain groups . ''

	The problem with this is that a sentence with a subordinate clause in brackets has to be meaningful if that clause is removed, and the statement: ''The use of "Zionist" is a common practice of certain groups'', while true, is meaningless. Secondly, placing ''seen by some as a code word for "Jew"'' in brackets makes it incidental, whereas it is in fact central, to the point of the sentence. Thirdly "some" and "certain groups" are vague and weasely - why don't we say what we mean? Fourth references in the body of the text are ugly. What exactly is Sam's problem with the sentence as it stands? ] 02:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	:the way you had it made him look like an anti-semite. He might be, or he might just be anti-english, or maybe just out of his mind generally, etc.. The way I put it is allows the reader to see what other sorts of folks use the term in this way, and lets them know that some consider this sort of use anti-semitic. I think that allows the reader to make up their own mind, or at least have food for thought (rather than having the conclusion fed to them). ] ] 02:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	The previous wording stated two facts: 1. In the 1970s LaRouche began making various statements about Zionist conspiracies etc , 2. that the use of the word Zionist in this sense is hallmark of anti-Semites. Do you dispute either of these facts? If not, let's just state them and let readers draw their own conclusions. ] 03:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	::In the 1970s the LaRouche organization published an issue of the ''Campaigner'' with a cover story entitled "Zionism is not Judaism." This also might be relevant to the discussion. --] 06:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	:It looks fine now, good edit. ] ] 04:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	:Well I'm glad that's cleared up. Nothing like a bit of co-operative editing, I always say. ] 05:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	* "From the early 1970s LaRouche regularly used the word "Zionist" as a term of abuse. The use of "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" is a common practice among anti-Semitic groups."

	* "The use of "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" is particularly noticeable in the 1978 publication by the LaRouche organisation entitled Zionism is not Judaism."
	:I think that this sentence is someone's idea of a joke. --] 21:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	Deliberate fallacy of composition -- in 1978, the LaRouche organization published a feature article in ''Campaigner'' entitled "Zionism is not Judaism." - Herschel

	:need more info before I can comment

	::I agree that this part is still problematic. I think it needs to be mentioned that discussion of Zionist conspiracy theories is an extraordinarily common feature of post-1948 anti-semitic literature, and that LaRouche's own comments about Zionism share many similarities with such works. At the same time, we shouldn't say that LaRouche is an anti-semite. ] ] 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	=== Zionist lobby ===

	14. "LaRouche also claimed that the "Zionist lobby" controlled the U.S. government and the United Nations."

	Utterly false. LaRouche has accused the "Zionist lobby", by which is meant principally AIPAC and allied organizations, of pursuing a policy that is harmful to both Israel and the U.S. He has never asserted that they control the U.S. government, let alone the United Nations, which has often passed resolutions that displease AIPAC. -- Herschel

	:He's certainly said things of this nature, although as I recall his favorite punching bags are much more a "world bankers' conspiracy" abetted by the British royal family. ] ] 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	What LaRouche has said, is that the so-called Zionist Lobby -- which is not some arcane conspiracy, but rather organizations like AIPAC -- is itself controlled by more powerful interests, that care nothing for the welfare of Jews or the state of Israel.--] 20:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	:need more info before I can comment

	=== Jews and the slave trade ===

	13. "In NCLC publications during the 1970s the Jews were accused of running the slave trade, controlling organized crime and the drug trade."

	LaRouche has never accused "the Jews", nor any other ethnic or religious group, of running orcontrolling anything. He has accused Jewish-surnamed individuals such as ] with trafficking in narcotics, just as he has accused non-Jewish-surnamed individuals. He has never characterized "the Jews", or any other ethnic group, as controlling anything.--] 20:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	:It's certainly documentable. ] ] 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	::I think the evidence is against you on this Hershell

	Great. Cite some. --] 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	* "LaRouche's principal target in this article is "Zionism," to which he attributes almost every conceivable type of evil." POV -- this is Adam letting his propagandistic flair get the better of him.

	* "When LaRouche accuses "Zionists" of treason and conspiracy, he is therefore seen by Jews, and many others, to be levelling those accusations against most Jews. When he accuses organisations such as B'nai B'rith and the ADL, and many individual Jews, of various crimes, he is seen to be attacking the great majority of Jews who support those organisations and those individuals, particularly since he attributes to them the classic crimes of the sterotypical Jew of the anti-Semitic imagination." POV speculation. If you know of someone who actually believes these things, quote them.

	* "In this sense LaRouche can fairly be described as having been an anti-Semite in 1978, when this article was published. He has never explicitly repudiated the views expressed in this article." First of all, the "in this sense" part is a theory that Adam arrives at through the most tortured logic, and has no place in an encyclopedia article. Secondly, LaRouche and his organization have in fact explicitly repudiated the views on Zionism expressed in the 1978 article: he has acknowledged ] as a constructive force, exemplified by Ben-Gurion or Rabin, in contradistinction to the ] of the Jabotinskyites/Likudniks (see ,and .)

	* "There is even a word of praise for Walther Rathenau, an archetypal Jewish business figure of the kind so savagely denounced by LaRouche throughout his career." Innuendo -- give me one example of a "Jewish business figure" that was savagely denounced by LaRouche.

	==Does it matter==

	I'd like to make a point, here, in the hopes of defusing an argument that I think is ultimately off-topic. I don't think it matters whether LaRouche is an anti-Semite or not. He may be. He may not be. I don't care. What I care about is that both sides of this dispute be represented evenhandedly. REGARDLESS of whether or not you think the LaRouche side is reasonable, or the anti-LaRouche side is a conspiracy. That's what NPOV means. Representing sides of an argument you think suck and are invald. So let's just take it as a given that there's a controversy here, assume that neither Adam nor Hersch are ever going to agree on whether Lyndon LaRouche is an anti-Semite, and write an encyclopedia article that includes both POVs, shall we? I mean, does anyone actually have any objections to this plan? ] 00:52, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

	The section "LaRouche and the Jews" was carefully written and moderately phrased, and seeks to set out and analyse documentary evidence pertinent to the question of whether LaRouche is or was an anti-Semite and/or a Holocuast denier. You are welcome to try to rewrite it but I will oppose any attempt to water it down or allow it to be contaminated with LaRouche nonsense such as that set out by Herschelkrustofsky above. ] 02:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	:While I understand your feelings on LaRouche and his followers, I am unable to reconcile them with the NPOV policy. ] 04:26, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

	:That said, looking at the section, I find it to be quite even-handed, with only one or two lapses. I'm gonna go ahead and make a quick NPOV pass on it, but my feeling is that it should certaiinly be included. That said, due to its length, I would not be averse to breaking it off to a separate article with a one paragraph summary in this one and a link. I'm not wedded to that idea either, though - thoughts on it? ] 05:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

	==LaRouche and the Jews - Current Version==

	What do people think of the current version? I've taken out the editorializing comments, and tried to make it so that the quotes from LaRouche speak for themselves, instead of the article saying what to think about them. I don't see much that speculates about LaRouche's motives or is dodgy in there, though if I'm missing something Herschel should feel free to point it out. But my feeling at the moment is that, yes, this section is certainly good enough to go in any version of the article. Any thoughts? ] 05:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

	I have no objection to Snowspinner's edit on this section. I have very strenuous objections to the LaRouche propaganda tract which Weed Harper is attempting to foist on us. Unless Snowspinner or someone else comes up with their "compromise" version very soon I will revert to the last version. ] 08:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	:I would appreciate greatly if you did not place a deadline on this. ] 14:23, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

	==The Basic Version==

	I've still not come down and said "X is the basic version." I think both versions are seriously flawed. Weed/Herschel's version, I think, has the distinct advantage of actually containing a summary of Lyndon LaRouche's political system. It contains the massive weakness, however, of not indicating A) that this system is highly controversial, B) that people outside of LaRouche's supporters tend not to find LaRouche as coherent as all that, and C) that LaRouche has taken controversial views on other issues beyond his general philosophy. Since this is an article on his views, not his philosophy, I think sections like the anti-Semitism section are very, very important to have. I also think an account of his political philosophy is important to have.

	My problems with the Adam/Andy version, as I have said, is that it's a mess of POV editorial comments about LaRouche, and that its organizational structure is to move through controversial points about LaRouche instead of through LaRouche's views in an NPOV manner.

	My feeling is that a "default version" would probably be an amalgamation of the two articles. I've got an incredibly busy morning ahead of me, so if someone else wants to try to merge the two articles into one version, that'd be neat. Otherwise, I'll get it this evening.

	My sense would be, basically, the Hersch/Weed version followed by the Adam/Andy version, with a new introductory paragraph being inserted, and with the current lead of the Hersch/Weed version being the first paragraph of a section called "LaRouche's political philosophy," and the Adam/Andy section being titled something like "Controversial views of Lyndon LaRouche." ] 14:23, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

	:I am making an initial attempt to carry out your proposal. --] 10:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	I have no objection to Snowspinner or some other User not previously involved attempting to write a compromise or composite article incorporating elements of the pro-LaRouche and anti-LaRouche articles. I am not optimistic of their chances of success (it will be like trying to write an article on evolution by merging a Darwinian article and a creationist article), but I am willing to wait and see what they come up with. I am emphatically '''not willing''' that Herschelkrustofsky should be the person to undertake this task, since he is a partisan in this controversy. ] 11:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	==Critics of LaRouche==

	Adam deleted this section, saying "it doesn't belong in the article." By the same token, Weed objected to the insertion of a paragraph of opinions about why Ramsey Clark ought not to be taken seriously, over at ]. I now believe that they are both mistaken in their judgement, based on some reading that I have done (at the suggestion of others on the talk page) about the fine points of Misplaced Pages NPOV policy. When opinions of someone who purports to be an expert are introduced to the article, it is fitting and proper to explore the qualifications and possible biases of the cited expert (in this case, King, Berlet, and so forth.) So, I would argue that this section belongs in the article, without question. It is definately in keeping with the Misplaced Pages policy of citing sources -- the reader should know something about the source. --] 03:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	:Can you give the citation for their admitting to these meetings taking place? And also some source of the causality? (That is, that the meetings directly led to waves of anti-LaRouche criticism?) ] 03:57, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

	I actually deleted it primarily because I don't believe it and won't do so until I see some independent (ie, non-LaRouche) evidence for it. ] 04:42, 20 Sep 2004 (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: