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 07:11, 9 January 2005 editWeed Harper (talk | contribs)440 edits →Herschelkrustofsky's reversions← 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}}
See also:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
*]
{{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 ==
==Return of the John Train material==
HK, moving an article and rewriting made it impossible to see what you had changed. I don't object to merging the articles, but please do it in steps so we can follow your work. We're not as smart as you are. ;) Cheers, -] 07:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


*'''Draft and source pages'''
:Here is a detailed summary of my edits, because I don't have all night. My critics will have changed everything before long, anyway.
*]
**I retained, from the orginal version in the "Views" article, AndyL's rebuttal material (which did not appear in the "Salon" article), where Andy argues that much criticism of LHL came after the electoral victories in Illinois. I also retained the rebuttal to Andy's rebuttal, which points out that Pat Lynch, producer of much post-Illinois stuff, was an alleged Train Salon attendee. In this version, we solve the riddle of the "two NBC programs in that year" that was troubling Slim when it appeared in the "Salon" version.
*]
**I did not retain, from the "Salon" article, Slim's obligatory quote from the ADL about how LaRouche is an antisemitic SOB, since that duplicates material already in the "Views" article.
*]
**I used the list format from "Salon" in presenting the alleged attendees. I think it provides greater clarity.
*]
**I provided slightly new characterizations of Berlet and King ("generally regarded as leftists") and Rees ("generally regarded as a rightist.") I think that those are NPOV descriptions, but I'm prepared for all sorts of contention.
*]
**I attribute the various NBC programs cited to a media log kept by LaRouche researchers.
**I dropped the external links from "Salon" because they aren't really appropriate to the longer "views" article, or are duplicates. Put them back if you like.


== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion ==
--] 07:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-07-20T14:36:16.331034 | 2007 LaRouche PAC poster (Global warming).jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 14:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


== The Lead is now Very Biased ==
:HK, Thanks for listing what you changed. That's a lot! I think some of this stuff was discussed in the previous article, so just changing it here, as part of the merge, isn't the best way to build consensus among editors. If you feel that the material needs to be cut down because it is too long, maybe it should be in an article of its own? (Just kidding). Anyway, let's start rom where we arrived in the old article and build on that. This is a collaborative effort and I'm sure we all appreciate having respect for the process. Thanks for your contributions. Cheers, -] 08:04, 7 Jan 2005 (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) ==
Herschel, I removed some unreferenced parts of your edit. (1) The reference to intelligence agents being present is not shown. You've quoted the Quinde affidavit, which mentions Berlet's claim that he was introduced to gentlemen from . . . I forget the phrase. There's no indication that the Quinde affidavit goes further than that; (2) The LaRouche media log: Can you show where it describes the contents of the programs because I can't find a reference to this anywhere? My apologies f it's obvious and I missed it. (3) Where you say "LaRouche supporters" believe the odd mix of people at the meeting etc. If by "LaRouche supporters," you mean a LaRouche publication, could you provide a short quote where it says that, just to be clear? Many thanks, ] 16:59, Jan 7, 2005 (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.
:HK, thanks for taking the edits a little slower. As you predicted, some were not agreeable to everyone. I'm also curious to see this "LaRouche organization media log". Cheers, -] 19:30, 7 Jan 2005 (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)
::There Was no reference to "intelligence agents" being present. There was a reference to "the presence of persons such as Godson and Lansky Boland who have documented connections to the intelligence community," Godson being a consultant to PFIAB, and Lansky Boland being a former CIA employee. No mystery there. The media log is . You also removed the reference to Rees writing for JBS publications, which is amply documented -- you want footnotes? And you also continue to remove, without explanation, the discussion of Mellon Scaife. It belongs there. As far as "LaRouche supporters" is concerned, I will replace that with "representatives of LaRouche's 2004 campaign," which issued the statement on the Train Salon. --] 23:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


== How many times does the article need to say that the Queen is a drug dealer? ==
:I'm finding it hard to believe that NBC accused LaRouche in three separate broadcasts of planning to kill President Carter, of planning to kill Henry Kissinger, and of having killed Olaf Palme. Perhaps they said he had been investigated or something, but for them actually to have accused him? If they did, there are bound to be non-LaRouche sources for this on the Internet, so would you mind providing one or two?


# "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"
:Mellon Scaife: I can't remember what you said about him, and I can't get check because the page won't load, but it was something extreme and unproven. If you could always supply references, these discussions would be unnecessary, because then other editors could simply click on them, and wouldn't have to bother you. Readers could do the same. Many thanks, ] 00:05, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
# "Of course she's pushing drugs. That is, in the sense of a responsibility, the head of a gang that is pushing drugs, she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it."
# " who are said to control the world's political economy and the international drug trade."
# "The Daily Telegraph that described LaRouche as the "publisher of a book that accuses the Queen of being the world's foremost drug dealer""
# ""When asked by an NBC reporter in 1984 about the Queen and drug running, LaRouche replied, "Of course she's pushing drugs ... that is in a sense of responsibility: the head of a gang that is pushing drugs; she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it.""


I'm counting five (if not six) times. Even LaRouche's original quote is included ''twice''. This looks like a little bit like an overkill. And if not an overkill, then at least it looks very repetitive. I'd say that the second mention of the quote can be removed without any loss to the article's content, and the description by The Daily Telegraph can probably go, too, because it doesn't add anything new to the article and it doesn't state any notable opinion on him that isn't stated by others or that isn't already obvious to anyone who read the article. ] (]) 15:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
==Berlet again==

I just reverted a number of edits by Berlet which were rife with POV speculation, quotes out of context, and quotes which I suspect are simply invented. I have been complying, informally, with Slim's request that I not edit the Berlet article, and I have done so with the expectation that Berlet would make no further attempts to vandalize this one. --] 23:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, regarding the deal about editing the pages, you turned it down. So as things stand, it's only the ] article that Chip isn't editing, and LaRouche material or POV can't be inserted into that article anyway, as it isn't "closely related." ] 00:11, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

:Thanks for the source on the NBC/Palme allegation. Regarding CBerlet, his edits do not appear to be vandalism. You may not agree with them, but vandalism is something else entirely. Cheers, -] 23:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Also, you deleted some material quoting LaRouche, commenting that you thought it was a misquote. Rather than deleting it can you please correct it, provide the context, etc? Cheers, -] 00:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like Chip to provide the context, on this talk page, before re-inserting it, since he presumably claims to have the original hard copies of the documents he purports to quote. If the context demonstrates that he is not misrepresenting the quotes, I will search out the originals to verify it. --] 00:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:What do you mean by "context"? He has given the referencs, which are to Larouche publications. Typing the entire article would be excessive. By "context" do you mean whether it is an interview, and if so the question? The title of the article? What is it that you want? Cheers, -] 01:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::Herschel, I feel we're at a crucial point here regarding sources. I applaud your attention to detail regarding the quotes from Chip,. You're well within your rights to want to know a bit more about the context in which these things were said. I mean that very sincerely. I don't fault you for it at all. However, can't you see that you need to apply the same standards to the various claims and quotes that you provide? You and Weed often provide quotes with no citations at all, or makes claims without quoting. Every citation has to be dragged out of you, and often you can only point to LaRouche sources; sometimes not even those. Can I please ask that, from now, everyone adopt an encylopedic standard for sourcing, regardless of our POV or of other people's: that we simply reference all our substantial edits to appropriate, reputable sources, or at least he prepared to do so if we are challenged. If everyone would do that, these disputes would melt away. ] 02:28, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

:::It is outrageous to suggest I am inventing quotes. I have the original documents for all the quotes that I am citing. I work at a library archive. I have over 35,000 pages of material by and about Lyndon LaRouche and his affiliated groups. Every time I am challenged about the accuracy of a LaRouche quote on Misplaced Pages, I will not only fully document the quote, but I will also dig into the archive and post on the PRA website another quote documenting my claims that LaRouche is a fascist, antisemitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, crackpot, and crook. I am scanning these quotes using a text recognition program. Visit the growing collection at . I suggest folks visit the page and then we can discuss the sourcing and context. --] 03:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::I visited the page and found what appears to be exactly what you inserted into the Misplaced Pages article. --] 13:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that information, Chip. It's very helpful. Personally, I'm happy with the quotes about gays and AIDS, as you've given complete citations, which Herschel can now check the originals of, if he wants to:
*Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “The End of the Age of Aquarius?", ''Executive Intelligence Review'', January 10, 1986, p. 40
*Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “Teenage Gangs’ Lynchings of Gays is Foreseen Soon,” ''New Solidarity'', February 9, 1987, p. 8

I'm less happy abour the democracy citation, because it's without a date (Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. “Creating a Republican Labor Party.” Citizens for LaRouche, circa 1980), so it would be hard for Herschel to find. ] 06:17, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

::The “Creating a Republican Labor Party” booklet is undated itself, but I will post a gif of the cover and page on which the quote appears on Monday at the PRA website with a link at: . I will reinsert that quote here at that time. I have reinserted the LaRouche quotes on assaulting gay people because HK not only deleted those quotes, but then proceeded to rewrite the entire gay section into a form of LaRouche propaganda. HK calls LaRouche propaganda NPOV? I urge everyone to compare the two versions. It is a prime example of why HK should not be allowed to continue to edit these pages. His bias is clear. I do not dispute I am a critic of LaRouche, but I am a published expert on LaRouche. HK is an anonymous LaRouche supporter with a long history of posting material that cannnot be verified. It is not fair to allow HK to challenge every quote I insert, and then allow him to delete these quotes and pad the article with material that is 100% supportive of LaRouche. As stated previously, my initial goal is to see that every article that mentions LaRouche is brought to the point where it contains no more than 50% unverified and unchallenged LaRouche propaganda. Of course, in the real world, an encyclopedia entry that contained more than 50% unverified and unchallenged LaRouche propaganda would not exist. It would be outrageous. I suspect that it exists on Misplaced Pages because serious editors have grown tired of the relentless bullying and wheedling of LaRouche supporters. Of course, this is the type of tactic typical of LaRouche supporters that I have written about for decades. At some point Misplaced Pages as a community will come to realize that it has to continue to take steps to protect itself from this type of relentless attack on the credibility of Misplaced Pages. Once is not enough. Also, as promised, I have added another quote from the LaRouche group documenting my allegations. As I said before, Every time I am challenged about the accuracy of a LaRouche quote on Misplaced Pages, I will not only fully document the quote, but I will also dig into the archive and post a new one. I have a right to defend my reputation until Misplaced Pages finds a way to resolve this situation. I have faith that in the long run, the Misplaced Pages community will arrive at a solution that will be both fair and ethical. The current situation is neither. --] 14:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

===Just as I suspected===

The material inserted by Berlet did in fact quote LaRouche out of context, to the effect of making it appear that LaRouche was expressing a view opposite to that which he intended. The full passage is quoted here, with the sections omitted by Berlet in bold:

----

:''''Civil rights' to kill'''

:'''"What was the problem? The problem was the cultural paradigm shift. If someone comes up and says, "Yeah, but you can't interfere with the civil rights of an AIDS victim"-- what the devil is this? You can't interfere with an AIDS victim killing hundreds of people, by spreading the disease to hundreds of people, which will kill them, during the period before he himself dies? So therefore, should we allow people with guns to go out and shoot people as they choose? Isn't that a matter of the civil rights of gun carriers? Or, if you've got an ax-- if you can't aim too well, and just have an ax or a broad sword-- shouldn't we allow people with broad swords and axes to go out and kill people indiscrimately as they choose, as a matter of their civil rights?'''

:"Where did this nonsense come from? Oh, we don’t want to offend the gays! Gays are sensitive to their civil rights; this will lead to discrimination against gays!

:"They’re already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They’ll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they’re beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It’s a matter of children’s civil rights!"

----

In other words, in case there is someone here who doesn't get it, LaRouche is making the point that if public health officials cannot intervene to prevent someone from transmitting AIDS through sexual contact, because transmitting AIDS through sexual contact is considered a "civil right," then the same illogic could be used to justify all sorts of violent crimes, even those perpetrated by homophobes. The entire passage quoted by Berlet is meant ironically, as is clear from the previous, omitted passage.

:::No, Herschel, you've got that wrong. The section you have added only confirms that Berlet's interpretation is correct. LaRouche is comparing people with AIDS to people with guns. He is arguing that, because people with guns are restricted, people with AIDS should be restricted, because both are just as dangerous. He further argues that, as gay people are being attacked anyway (he says), by children and others, it would therefore help gays if government were to step in and act in some way e.g. by restricting people with AIDS who, he seems to indicate, may also be pederasts. (This is necessarily a tentative summary, as what LaRouche is saying is insane and therefore hard to sum up). ] 21:54, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)


Berlet not only quotes the passage out of context, but reinforces the misleading impression by stating that LaRouche was "writing that people who physically attack gay people are merely exercising their civil rights." From this I draw the following conclusions:

*Any Misplaced Pages edit by Berlet should be given the closest scrutiny, because he has a history of this sort of deception

*Since the material inserted yesterday by Berlet was lifted verbatim from his website, he should be reminded that Misplaced Pages does not allow the insertion of original research

*Since the cited material on his website is deliberately misleading, Berlet's website should not be considered a reputable source unless it can be corroborated.

--] 21:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're twisting what "original research" means. This is an article about Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche said these things. Chip Berlet has given a full citation from a LaRouche publication. It was an accurate citation because you were able to find it. Therefore, this is perfectly legitimate material for Misplaced Pages. Whether Chip ALSO places this on the PRA website is completely irrevelant and does not make it original research.
:Obviously the LaRouche quote has been published. But where has the Berlet "analysis" of the quote been published, outside of his website? ] 06:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, as the LaRouche publication material was not online, and was from several years ago, how were you able to find it so quickly? ] 21:54, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

:Like Chip, I also have access to an archive of back ''EIR'' issues. But I hope you aren't implying that Chip's distortion of the context was an innocent mistake; the same deliberate deception is on his website, making it, to my mind, an unreliable source. --] 22:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that he distorted the context. I reverted back to Will's version. I feel you should stop editing these articles now, as you're trying to stop LaRouche's own words from appearing in an article about LaRouche, which means you're acting against Misplaced Pages's interests. You're also seeking to discredit people who know enough about LaRouche to be in a position to write about him accurately and comprehensively. Chip is right about LaRouche activists having worn down successive Misplaced Pages editors through "bullying and wheedling", as he puts it, and it has to stop. As you wanted the context of the gay quote to appear, I've added the paragraph you provided. I also deleted the interpretation of the quote, which you objected to, because it said that LaRouche was saying it was okay to attack people with AIDS. Below is what I added. Readers can make up their own minds regarding what it means. ] 22:20, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

:"In 1986, LaRouche wrote the following about gay people, AIDS and civil rights:

::"What was the problem? The problem was the cultural paradigm shift. If someone comes up and says, "Yeah, but you can't interfere with the civil rights of an AIDS victim" &mdash; what the devil is this? You can't interfere with an AIDS victim killing hundreds of people, by spreading the disease to hundreds of people, which will kill them, during the period before he himself dies? So therefore, should we allow people with guns to go out and shoot people as they choose? Isn't that a matter of the civil rights of gun carriers? Or, if you've got an ax &mdash; if you can't aim too well, and just have an ax or a broad sword &mdash; shouldn't we allow people with broad swords and axes to go out and kill people indiscrimately as they choose, as a matter of their civil rights?

::"Where did this nonsense come from? Oh, we don&#8217;t want to offend the gays! Gays are sensitive to their civil rights; this will lead to discrimination against gays!

::"They&#8217;re already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They&#8217;ll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they&#8217;re beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up&#8212;which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It&#8217;s a matter of children&#8217;s civil rights!"
::<small>Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "The End of the Age of Aquarius?" EIR (Executive Intelligence Review), January 10, 1986, p. 40.</small>

Chip has access to an EIR archive at PRA because he's a researcher. Where and why do you have access to one? And if you have access to this material, why haven't you been adding some of these LaRouche quotes yourself? ] 22:22, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

==Herschelkrustofsky's reversions==
Herschel, your actions are disruptive and against Misplaced Pages policy. You're causing several editors many hours extra work and you're acting against the consensus. You're also acting to promote the LaRouche organization, which you're prohibited from doing by the ArbCom. You asked Chip for full citations, which he gave. You asked him for the context of the gay quote, which he gave. Even so, you deleted it, and have also deleted another quote of his that is fully cited, where LaRouche talks about lynch mobs. You're also adding "LaRouche supporters believe" passages, and then giving your own analysis. If you are a LaRouche activist that has written about this somewhere, please use your real name, and quote from yourself openly with citations, but you can't do it by inserting your own anonymous analysis (that is original research).
:Slim, who are you trying to kid? Berlet didn't give the context to that quote -- Herschel had to look it up himself! And he has yet to provide a context for the other quote, and I will revert it until he does. You are once again making a mockery of your claim not to be an anti-LaRouche activist. ] 07:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've restored the quotes that Chip added. I added a quote from the Wall Street Journal that explains how the LaRouche AIDS proposals were viewed by its opponents. I retained the 1999 quote you added from LaRouche where he appears to have modified his views. '''Please do not make any more changes without discussing them first''' to find out whether people agree with you; and do not delete any more quotes that have full citations.

I left this quote that I assume is from you: 'LaRouche supporters argued that "These measures are not new; they are the same health measures applied, {by law,} every day, to every other contagious disease." ' But this is not a proper citation. The link goes to someone's webpage, saying only "chapter 13." If you can give a full citation, that would be appreciated, or else it will have to be deleted. Many thanks, ] 23:22, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

:Chip, your recent edit also needs some citations. You've added:

::<small>LaRouche critics argue that the claims of the LaRouche group regarding the Train meetings are without foundation. They point out that as early as ], an article by ] in the weekly ''Chicago Reader,'' (March 7, ]), had prompted an investigation by the state Attorney General's office into LaRouche group fundraising in Illinois--an investigation applauded later in the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' after they also covered the story. In ], journalists Russ Bellant, ], and ] released a set of documents to the press which they claimed revealed a pattern of potentially illegal activity by LaRouche and his followers.. They called for government investigations. Other critics and some major media joined in this call. Several investigations on the state and federal level were launched. LaRouche critics charged that LaRouche group fundraising activity appeared to involve tax law violations; the conversion of publication sales into donations for LaRouche political campaigns that were then matched by the Federal Election Commission; and fraudulent soliciting of "loans" from vulnerable elderly people. These claims are similar to the government charges that resulted in the indictment and conviction of LaRouche and top aides ]. </small.

We need:
*(1) a source saying your 1980 article prompted an investigation by the state Attorney General's office;
*(2) a date for the Chicago Sun Times article (would this article also cover (1)?);
*(3) sources for: "Other critics and some major media joined in this call" and "several investigations on the state and federal level were launched," If the investigations were launched much later, that needs to be specified, because there were quite a few years (I'm recalling eight?) between your article and the conviction, so if the two are being linked, it would help to have that backed up by published sources.

Sorry to be a nuisance, everyone, over continually asking for sources, but it's the best way to keep everything on the straight and narrow. ] 00:36, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

:: Source for 1 is the letter I will post Monday at the PRA website from the Illinois State Attorney General's office asking me to docuemnt my claims in the Chicago Reader article. The investigation was launched from the files I provided. For 2 I will provide the cites Monday when I get back to the office. Same with 3. Will rewrite until I post citations.

Thanks, Chip. ] 04:21, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

==Berlet self-promotion==

Berlet has attempted to insert material giving himself, Dennis King and Russ Bellant credit for launching the criminal investigations of LaRouche. This is just more (ahem) commercial self-promotion. Berlet and his pals were late-comers to this effort. It was already well underway before Berlet ever published an article on LaRouche () ] 07:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:41, 1 August 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAlternative views
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 21 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Mediation, arbitration,
requests for clarification, and
other discussions about the
LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement,
AN/I, 2005-8
Arbitration 2006
Arbitration 2005
Arbitration 2004
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Mediation 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Template talk
Categories
This box:


Untitled

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The Lead is now Very Biased

The vast majority of mainstream political and social science material on the LaRouche Movement describe in terms ranging from "Crackpot" to Neofasist. I will start to add descriptions from mainstream sholarly and journalist sources, while keeping the obscure and marginal lead sentence pending futher discussion Chip.berlet (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Punctuation and spelling (Anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism, antisemitism)

All three variants of "anti-Semitism" can be found in the article. Quoted text also has different spelling variants, but it looks like the hyphenated spelling is most commonly used in the quotes, so it's odd that the article body chose the non-hyphenated spelling.

The use of commas (before quoted passages) and quotation marks is also very inconsistent (quotation marks before vs. after a period). Unfortunately, I'm not a native English speaker and don't know what would be correct here. Nakonana (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

  1. "Members of the LYM now deny that he ever accused the Queen of England of drug trafficking—though in fact, he did exactly that throughout the 1980s"
  2. "Of course she's pushing drugs. That is, in the sense of a responsibility, the head of a gang that is pushing drugs, she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it."
  3. " who are said to control the world's political economy and the international drug trade."
  4. "The Daily Telegraph that described LaRouche as the "publisher of a book that accuses the Queen of being the world's foremost drug dealer""
  5. ""When asked by an NBC reporter in 1984 about the Queen and drug running, LaRouche replied, "Of course she's pushing drugs ... that is in a sense of responsibility: the head of a gang that is pushing drugs; she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it.""

I'm counting five (if not six) times. Even LaRouche's original quote is included twice. This looks like a little bit like an overkill. And if not an overkill, then at least it looks very repetitive. I'd say that the second mention of the quote can be removed without any loss to the article's content, and the description by The Daily Telegraph can probably go, too, because it doesn't add anything new to the article and it doesn't state any notable opinion on him that isn't stated by others or that isn't already obvious to anyone who read the article. Nakonana (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Categories: