| Revision as of 14:11, 17 January 2005 editWeed Harper (talk | contribs)440 edits →IWP← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:11, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,813,176 editsm →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Template:LaRouche Talk}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
== False information about Berlet corrected == |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
Hi, |
|
|
|
{{Article history|action1=FAC |
|
|
|action1date=23:21, 22 December 2005 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Lyndon LaRouche/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=not promoted |
|
|
|action1oldid=32386777 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|blp=other|listas=Larouche, Lyndon|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography| politician-work-group=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Virginia| importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes |American-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|NH=yes|NH-importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
<!-- ((bot-generated}} --> |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 26 |
|
|
|algo = old(61d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}}<!--Automatically goes to a new archive page if the archive is over 250 kB, threads with no new comments in the last two months get moved to the current archive page. Archiving is done once a day around midnight UTC--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Press |
|
My first article about LaRouche was for the Chicago Sun Times (1979), not High Times (1981). |
|
|
|
|year=2004 |
|
--] 22:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|section=January 2004 |
|
|
|title=LaRouche for president: The campaign that keeps on going |
|
|
|org=Loudon Times-Mirror |
|
|
|date=January 27, 2004 |
|
|
|url=http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=10876575&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506040&rfi=6 |
|
|
|year2=2006 |
|
|
|section2=June 2006 |
|
|
|title2=Can History Be Open Source? Misplaced Pages and the Future of the Past |
|
|
|org2=The Journal of American History |
|
|
|date2=June 2006 |
|
|
|url2=http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html |
|
|
|year3=2009 |
|
|
|section3=Featured |
|
|
|title3=Sierra Madre Actor Takes a Stand Against LaRouche Propaganda |
|
|
|org3=The Sierra Madre Weekly |
|
|
|date3= December 1, 2009 |
|
|
|url3=http://sierramadreweekly.com/featured/sierra-madre-actor-take-a-stand-against-the-larouche-propaganda-camp/ |
|
|
}} |
|
|
<br clear="all" /> |
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Lyndon LaRouche}} |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive index |
|
|
|mask1=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive <#> |
|
|
|mask2=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive<#> |
|
|
|mask3=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Australian media coverage |
|
|
|mask4=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/works |
|
|
|mask5=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research |
|
|
|leading_zeros=no |indexhere=no |template= |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{LaRouchetalk}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (Mann-Chestnut hearings) ]. <!-- {"title":"Mann-Chestnut hearings","appear":null,"disappear":{"revid":608302989,"parentid":608287400,"timestamp":"2014-05-13T00:32:13Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Policies and sources == |
|
==Let's not have another revert struggle: NPOV== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Content policies=== |
|
Contrary to the claims of Weed Harper, I did not make the edits that he deleted. However, the wording about Dennis King that he has restored is highly biased and reflects the pro-LaRouche perspective in a way that violates Wicki norms through a personal attack on King. Dennis King is a well-known investigative journalist with a highly-regarded book from a commercial publisher on how to conduct investigations. LaRouche is a convicted criminal with a history of making idiosyncratic conspiracist statements that often reflect bigotry. I am placing a NPOV flag on this page and calling for another discussion about the manners and editing tactics of the LaRouche supporters. I further propose that the wording on King be restored to a non-biased text--] 14:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
See ] and ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ... |
|
:I reverted ''to'' a version by CBerlet, not ''from'' it. I realize you didn't write to passage I reverted to; you were just the last person to edit the article before that passage was changed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if— |
|
:Regarding your claims about LaRouche and King, you are simply spouting your opinions. If King is a "well-known investigative journalist with a highly-regarded book," it is certainly not reflected by a substantial number of references on Google. Having read his book, I would have to say that King has "a history of making idiosyncratic conspiracist statements" about LaRouche. ] 15:02, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
# it is not unduly self-serving; |
|
|
# it does not involve claims about third parties; |
|
|
# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; |
|
|
# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; |
|
|
# the article is not based primarily on such sources." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Sources=== |
|
::I think the tag is misleading. I am proposing to go back to the version that is not biased against Dennis King. Counting Google search totals is not a proper way to conduct any type of serious research. The King book is in its third edition and listed as a resource in The Reporter's Handbook published by the trade group Investigative Reporters and Editors.--] |
|
|
|
LaRouche lived all his adult life in New York (1953–1983) or Virginia (1983–present), which means the two major ] are ''The New York Times'' and ''The Washington Post''. Both have written extensively about him, including several extended investigative and analysis pieces from the 1970s to the 2000s. These articles provide the structure of much of this article—in that we highlight what they highlight. For their archives on LaRouche see below. For the books we use see ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*, before 1981. |
|
==Chip Berlet== |
|
|
|
*, 1981–present. |
|
|
*, before 1987. |
|
|
*, 1987–present. |
|
|
*Mintz, John. , ''The Washington Post'', includes a series on LaRouche |
|
|
== Spelling error == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
self-defence Correct spelling is: self-defense <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
Chip Berlet is now editing this article and complaining about bias, which is ironic, considering that in his day job, he is one of the most prolific slanderers of Lyndon LaRouche (see ]: Journalist and conspiracy researcher Mark Evans wrote, "Chip Berlet and his sidekick Dennis King, author of ''Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism'', have made careers out of their postgraduate preoccupation of being 'LaRouche watchers.' To them, Lyndon LaRouche, recently released from prison, is the Great Beast. Berlet and King's own political trajectory, in shades of The Big Chill, a path parallel in its revisionism and no less bizarre than that of the despised object of their fixated animosity, LaRouche himself.".) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Living person biography-lock== |
|
The number of public personalities who consider LaRouche to have been a political prisoner is pretty impressive. How curious it is, therefore, that Berlet, who proclaims himself to be a researcher and tracker of "government intelligence abuse," should turn out to be one of the most enthusiastic cheerleaders of the government frameup. Moreover, Berlet, who does a lot of finger pointing at other leftists whom he considers to be guilty of fraternizing with rightists (such as ], ], and ]), jumped lustily into bed with the ] and ] in the course of pursuing his anti-LaRouche campaign. Some people might regard this as a particularly odoriferous kind of hypocrisy. --] 21:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
He's been dead since last year. So why is there still the tag about his being a living person? Are the cultists responsible for keeping that lock there?] (]) 02:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Even though I am one of the leading published critics of the LaRouche groups,I am uncomfortable with using the term "cultists" to refer to other Misplaced Pages editors. Can we simply refer to them as "pro-LaRouche editors?" ] (]) 12:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
HK: this sort of comment is precisely what the talk pages are not for. If you think CBerlet's additions are not NPOV, say why, for each edit. Merely calling him hypocritical--whether or not it is true--without discussing the merits of his edits, is totally inappropriate and doesn't help us construct an NPOV article ] 00:58, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::], good conduct is most important in Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
::I see no editorial dispute. Anyone can make edits to Misplaced Pages. Everything I see labels him as deceased. What is the issue? ]] 12:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Fair enough. I am alright with Berlet's suggestion.] (]) 18:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Blue Raspberry, the point is: when you put the cursor over the lock symbol it says the article is protected for living persons. As you said, he does not appear to be living, so should we not remove that lock?] (]) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{ping|Dogru144}} Sorry, I missed your message a year ago. |
|
|
:::::{{ping|Lectonar}} ] in 2016. The tooltip on the lock does say that it is in place as a biography of a living person. LaRouche has been in heaven since February 2019, so no longer living. Per the request here, could we try without semi-protection until and unless problems arise? ]] 00:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I plain missed that he died. Anyway, this article's subject was a big topic in Misplaced Pages once, with big problems. Which makes me not very comfortable with complete unprotection. So I will meet you in the middle: I will put it on pending-changes protection, so that everyone can edit it, but there will be a little stopper for vandalism trying to trickle in. The frequency of edits as it is now will not put too much of a strain on pending-changes reviewers. Note: any admin who wants to unprotect completely: go right ahead, no need to ask me. Cheers and happy editing. ] (]) 06:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{ping|Lectonar}} Great response, thanks! ]] 20:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's locked so the perjorative and non-objective tone STAYS. Stop complaining. He was nuts. Right? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
==Move Criminal Case Info?== |
|
|
The material on several pages relating to LaRouche is often redundant. I propose moving the section on this page on the LaRouche criminal cases to the US v. LaRouche page. I also propose moving the discussion of the John Train meetings to that page, at the same time moving the same discussion from the ]. There is no point in having this same material in several places. It takes up space and makes a serious debate over the merits of the text cumbersome. --] 14:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lydon LaRouche == |
|
:The Train meeting info is not merely of interest to the LaRouche legal case. It underscores something that is essential to an understanding of Lyndon LaRouche's role in politics, that being that he has been the target of one of the most massive propaganda campaigns in post-WWII history. The fact that you, Chip, played a role in that propaganda campaign, is essential to an understanding of your own role in politics, and your desire to expunge it from your own Misplaced Pages article is understandable, while also self-serving and unacceptable. --] 16:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is clear that the LaRouche movement and organisation, founded by its name giver, is a political fascist sect. They practice brainwashing. Sometimes they function as suborganisations and thus try to avoid prosecution. Directly or indirectly they are responsible for many destroyed existences, even up to deaths and suicides. A dangerous organisation! Stay away from them and anyone supporting or trivialisinf them. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
::Herschel, the problem is that your role here is also self-serving, though not quite so directly, because you're a member of the LaRouche organization. |
|
|
::Chip, the reason for repeating material is that the causal reader can't be expected to read every article in the LaRouche series, so any material that is relevant to an understanding of the person or group belongs in the article, even though it may be dealt with more fully in another article. But if you feel there's too much material on the trial, a lot of it could be moved to U.S. v. LaRouche, and similarly if you feel there's too much about the trial in your article (especially in yours, because you were not the subject of it), you could similarly move most of it to the U.S. v. LaRouche article. ] 20:13, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] has an ]== |
|
==Recent anonymous edits== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 20:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
Given the unusually controversial nature of this article, I think that anonymous editors who intend major revisions should either get themselves a user name, or use the one that they already have. Regarding the most recent edits by one 205.188.117.11, it is unacceptable to insert that "Dennis King, however, cites statements from 'The Case of Walter Lippmann" and other LaRouche writings on the political state that King interprets as amounting to right-wing totalitarianism.". LaRouche has been mischaracterized so many times by King and Berlet, that only direct quotes should be used to back up claims by these putative sources.--] 16:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Supreme Court cases? == |
|
==Mark Evans== |
|
|
Weed, you keep inserting the same Mark Evans quote into this and several other Misplaced Pages articles. Could you please find out who he is, whether he's a journalist, and who he writes for? The website you're quoting doesn't seem to be a legitimate publication. Perhaps they picked up an article by Evans that was published elsewhere, but there's no citation. Many thanks, ] 01:07, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This page currently says "At least ten appeals were heard by the United States Court of Appeals, '''and three were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court'''", and the page ] vaguely implies similar things. However, I am having a devil of a time actually finding any LaRouche-based SCOTUS cases or decisions (with the exception of United States v. Kokinda, which is tangential). I am hoping someone can point me to those cases, and we should cite/link to them on this page or the criminal trials page. However, I suspect that none exist, and what this wikipedia article may be trying to say is that appeals were made to the Supreme Court, which denied them; if that's so, then none of the cases were ever '''heard''' by the Supreme Court. That would explain why I can find, eg, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/1989/01/01/sg890463.txt, but no follow up. ] (]) 12:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
==Propose Remove Duplicate material on Criminal Conviction== |
|
|
Other than a short paragraph mentioning the criminal conviction, the details belong on the ] page. What is here in this section is not just duplicate material, it is largely pro-LaRouche propaganda solely from LaRouche publications. This is just another ruse to post pro-LaRouche propaganda. I will wait for other comments, but given that even HK agrees this material is duplicate, I propose it be deleted here.--] 22:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I haven't been able to find any either. I guess the description on the other page ], "three were appealed to the ]," is the more accurate one. ] (]) 15:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
:I feel the material should stay here. We say that the conviction was a defining moment, so it makes sense to say more about it. We need published references, however, that the named supporters did, indeed, offer support; and those who are involved with the LaRouche movement should either be removed, or their connection should be made clear. The names are ], former ]; figures from the 1960s ] such as ], ], and ]; former ] ] and Democratic Presidential Candidate ]; ], who chaired the ]; and artists such as classical vocalist ], violinist ], former 1st Violin of the ], and classical violinist ]. I would also like to see a published reference for Brainin's quote. With references, I feel the list can stay in this article (although if the consensus is to move it, I have no problem with that). Without references, it should be in neither article. ] 05:56, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Cites do not support new sentence on criminal convictions== |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the current sentence inserted by Weed who deleted my text: |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Beginning in the late 1970s, calls for an investigation of LaRouche were issued by the Heritage Foundation and the Anti-Defamation League, followed by articles in the New York Times ]." |
|
|
|
|
|
The cited article makes no such claim, it merely refers to the reports as slanders. |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are the underlying cites to the sentence in the LaRouche article: |
|
|
|
|
|
:"20. The June 1978 Heritage Foundation “Institution Analysis” Report authored by Francis Watson entitled “U.S. Labor Party,” utilizing a bizarre set of formulations gathered from such “sources” as the hard-line Maoist October League newspaper, and the Socialist Workers Party newspaper, The Militant. Branding LaRouche a violent extremist, it was distributed to hundreds of U.S. corporate heads and institutional leaders. In March 1978, the ADL began a systematic harassment and defamation campaign, working through the Jewish Community Relations Council to demand that LaRouche’s views be banned from public locations, and publishing the lie in various press outlets that LaRouche was the most dangerous and violent right-wing extremist around. See, e.g., the Berkeley Barb, August 1978, “Who Are the Terrorists,” where ADL Western Coordinator David Lehrer spread this defamation against LaRouche. Finally, in 1979, the ADL put these defamations out in its own name in an ADL Fact-Finding report. |
|
|
|
|
|
:22. On October 7 and 8, 1979, the New York Times published the Blum and Montgomery slander piece under the titles, “U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy,” and “One Man Leads U.S. Labor Party on Its Erratic Path.” Then, an editorial titled “The Cult of LaRouche,” is published on October 10, 1979. |
|
|
|
|
|
Unless someone can cite a call for an investigation into illegal fundraising in these underlying documents, I propose that my original text, or some edited variation of it, be restored. --] 19:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Weed, your citation doesn't back up your claim. Chip, as far as I'm concerned you can add any relevant material so long as it's carefully referenced, and doesn't make any claims beyond the citations. In other words, you can't interpret what the citations say. You can only describe what they say, and no connections should be drawn between incidents unless those connections are clear from the citations. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Also, we need citations for all the names above of people who expressed their support for LaRouche while he was in jail, otherwise I'm removing them from the article. One other thing: we should probably concentrate on ] because the page is protected, and it's not good to leave it protected if we're not discussing it. |
|
|
|
|
|
:On the bright side, we're all going to be excellent encylopedists after all this practise! ] 20:25, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The citations appeared in a full page ad which was run in the ''New Federalist'', ''Roll call'' (circulated in the U.S. Congress) and the ''Washington Post.'' I have the hard copy of the ''New Federalist.'' --] 16:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:We need a citation e.g. ''Washington Post'', January 19, 2005, and page number if you know it; and we also need to know which of them are members of, or otherwise associated with, the LaRouche organization, so we can make that clear. Many thanks, ] 18:43, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::HK, thanks for adding the citation. I looked at it and couldn't find the list of newspapers that it ran in, so I've removed the reference to the others and identified that the ''New Federalist'' is a LaRouche publication. If you find solid references for other publicaitons then we can add them by name. Cheers, -] 20:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=="Supporters claim"== |
|
|
I count at least nine instances in this article where it it says that "supporters claim..." or "supporters allege..." and in none of these cases are the supporters identified or cited. It would help the article if we could reduce these anonymous claims and provide names and citations for claims and allegations. (Obviously, unidentified "critics claim..." references should be kept to a minimum too, but I can only find one similar case). -] 20:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:This paragraph may be inaccurate: |
|
|
::LaRouche is characterized by his critics as a conspiracy theorist. He is frequently described as an extremist or a cult leader, and is accused of being a fascist and anti-Semite. He denies these charges, and his followers regard him as a major political figure. |
|
|
:Ignoring the middle sentence, we have the assertion that LaRouche denies that he is a theorist about conspiracies. I find it implausible that he would deny theorizing about conspiracy theories, or that we should give such an assertion any credence if he does. Every single direct thing that I have read of his, either quoted or written, touches on conspiracy theory. Perhaps someone can show me a quotation of LaRouche denying being a conspiracy theorist. In the meantime, I'll edit to remove that from being disputed. (Another problem is that it implies that being a fascist or anti-semite prevents one from being a major political figure- basically it's a non-sequitor.) -] 00:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I will try to put in some time replacing "supporters claim" with actual quotes. If I remember right, in the last round of "LaRouche wars" where the main anti-LaRouche editor was AndyL, he objected to quotes because he felt it gave LaRouche too much of a forum, and preferred generalized characterizations, so Herschel and I did it that way as a compromise. |
|
|
|
|
|
Now as to conspiracy theory, I found this quote from LaRouche: |
|
|
|
|
|
:<small>"Second, there are populist forms of "conspiracy theories," such as those circulated by ideologues of the John Birch Society, which are identical to, or about as bad, or perhaps sometimes worse hokum, than those which the U.S. Department of Justice dispenses. We shall turn to that matter below. |
|
|
|
|
|
:<small>"Third, there is the truth. The pervasive fraud in Pipes' dogma, is that he evades the fact, that the primary issue is whether a certain type of, or particular report of a conspiracy is truthful, or not. On this account, he perpetrates the widely practiced fraud of petitio principii: asserting that the mere evidence that a conspiracy is implied in an argument of a case, is presumptive proof that that argument is therefore axiomatically false, without further consideration.</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe this means that LaRouche does deny that he is a "conspiracy theorist," but does not deny that he is a theorist about conspiracies. ;-) ] 21:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Weed, thanks for any substantiation you can give. I don't mind "supporters claiming" things, I'd just like to the supporters named and the source identified. Regarding the "conspiracy theory" issue, the article that you reference is all about how conspiracies are real. Anyway, I've changed it to your formula, "theorist about conspiraracies." Cheers, -] 22:26, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Talk archive template== |
|
|
I've created a template containing most of the LaRouche-related Talk pages, and I'm putting it on the Talk pages of ], ] and ] so that editors involved in discussing edits with Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper can more easily refer to previous discussions these editors have had about the same issues. Once the disputes are over, we can take the template down. ] 07:22, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Wow, thanks for doing that! It is remarkable - how many keys have been tapped to create this archive. I'm sure we're all more than happy to turn the archiving tasks over to you. I'm glad it's not me. Cheers, -] 09:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:You're welcome, Will. That's not even the whole thing. I've only included the Talk pages of articles that are still being worked on, or were until recently. ] 10:50, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Herschel, I'm having trouble finding material in the archives. You seem to have moved a lot of material and installed it elsewhere out of context. For example, can you tell me what happened to the following, and why you moved it? On August 19, you deleted this discussion about LaRouche's alleged Holocaust denial from ] and moved it to ] . Then on October 11, you moved the entire ] to ], which makes me wonder why you extracted the Holocaust denial discussion and moved it separately. You later moved ] to ], where it is out of context and I can't find the Holocaust denial discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
There is some discussion about Holocaust denial in ] and I've also looked through ], but I still can't find . Could you let me know where you archived it please, and why you removed it from its context? I apologize if it's there and I have simply overlooked it. It's hard to be certain after looking at diffs for a couple of hours. I've restored it to ], and I've put ] on the template too. Many thanks, ] 10:39, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:When the edit wars ended in October, I moved my the remainder of my list of objections, those which had not been resolved earlier, to what is now called ] (Closed issues). Issues that were resolved earlier, were moved earlier. --] 15:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Herschel, sorry I must have expressed my questions badly, so I'll make them clearer. |
|
|
|
|
|
::*I would like to know why you moved anything (resolved or unresolved) out of the Talk pages, and out of their context? |
|
|
::*I know you moved the Holocaust denial material to ]. But as this list wasn't displayed anywhere, no one would have known to look for it. So my second question is: where is the Holocaust denial material in the regular archives e.g. ] etc., or ]? ] 23:24, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The list was in fact displayed numerous times in the regular talk page. The idea of creating a seperate group of pages for discussion of the list came from ], and I would suggest that you address your concerns to him. This is beginning to look like a tactic to simply overwhelm me with requests for this and that; I don't have the seemingly unlimited amounts of time to devote to Misplaced Pages that you do, and my priority is going to be to respond to POV edits from your team. --] 01:26, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'd be grateful if you'd make it a priority to answer the question about the Holocaust denial material. Regardless of whose idea it was to move it, where did you place it in the Talk:Lyndon LaRouche archives? ] 01:34, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Slim, the facts are these: the so-called "Herschelkrustofsky list" of objections to the Adam and Andy versions of the Lyndon LaRouche article appeared numerous times on the talk page of that article during the summer of 2004, until MyRedDice, a member of the arbcom committee, intervened to consolidate it and move it to two seperate pages. At his suggestion, as each objection was resolved, it was moved, by me, to a seperate archive of "closed issues." Around October 10, 2004, all remaining disputes were resolved, and I moved what was left on those pages to the "closed issues" page. If you think that I misplaced some material, which I doubt, you can find it by going over the edit histories of those pages. I am unwilling to do it for you, as I am somewhat overtaxed responding to POV edits on the LaRouche pages from the new team of Chip Berlet and yourself. If you continue to post notices on all the talk pages which imply that I was "deleting archive material," I shall consider it a malicious personal attack. --] 17:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== POVness? == |
|
|
|
|
|
What's POV about this article now? I can't see anything that could be considered this. - ] 04:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't like the deletion of the Brainin quote, which I have restored. Other than that, it looks fine to me. The NPOV flag was put up by CBerlet on Dec. 22. --] 22:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This page is still biased by too much LaRouche claims that are questionable. Quotes and text have been deleted to sanitize the LaRouchite history. HK has been repeatedly asked not to edit this page and instead to focus on discussing the editing of the ] page. I have agreed to do this, but if HK continues to manipulate the situation, I will start editing this page as well. The next step is a call for mediation on this whole set of pages. Thats why the whole history of the Talk discussions has been added to this page at the top--] 01:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The ''de facto'' standard for direct quotations for this series seems to have become a verifiable copy with context. The Brainin quotation is unverifiable and edited. Can you please scan it and make it available to other editors? Cheers, -] 01:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::''Just kidding. No reason to doubt that Brainin would say nice things about LaRouche. -W. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I would like a citation for the Brainin quote, unless that's been added since I last looked. ] 05:29, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The International Ecological Society: we need independent evidence of LaRouche's involvement, and we need to say what it does. If there is no independent evidence, then we need to attribute the information to LaRouche. With the EIR, we should say he owns it, to make it clear that this is a position he has given himself. ] 05:53, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please explain where you got the idea that LaRouche owns EIR. --] 15:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::"Owns" is a tricky word for the LaRouchites, since part of the accusations of money-laundering documented in the Virgina court case reveal that LaRouche claims to own nothing. EIR is a house organ of the LaRouche network--totally dominated by the views of Lyndon LaRouche and his most loyal followers. --] 16:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The sentence that lists positions in EIR and IES is derived from LaRouche's disclosure form that he submitted for his campaign for President. It's referenced at the bottom of the page. (It also has his income amount and sources, which I don't think are appropriate to include in an article unless required for some larger issue). -] 20:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I saw that, but what does it mean to be a member of the International Ecological Academy i.e. in what sense is being a "member" a "formal position? Also, Herschel has listed LaRouche in the category of journalists. ] 19:13, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:I wouldn't waste much time hunting down the IES. They sound like a small organization. What is interesting to me is how few positions LaRouche holds. (It reminds me slightly of ] who, after his ''retirement'', continued to run China while his only official title at the time was Chairman of the All-China Bridge Club.) Listing something as minor as the IES implies LaRouche doesn't belong to anything more prestigious. And his only official titles within the LaRouche 'apparatus' are the two at the EIR. Speaking of which, he has a title of "contributing editor", which earns him the title "journalist". He has written far more than most authors and journalists. Cheers, -] 22:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Not all writers are journalists. I've done a copy edit, mostly for punctuation, but have also made a couple of things invisible, like his "formal position" of member of the IEA, and a few "supporters claim" sentences. I suggest that all the "supporters claim" sections be replaced by proper sources or else deleted. There are also quite a few claims that aren't sourced at all. Also, I have a question about his publications. The article says "most" of his writing has been self-published. Has any of it been published by anyone else, do we know? ] 23:48, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==IWP== |
|
|
Herschel, thank you for removing my visible invisible edits, and for supplying some of the answers. You asked elsewhere about my view of the IWP as a source on the LaRouche pages. I don't recall where the IWP is used and what effect it would have on the articles to remove it as a source. The IWP is a problematic source in the same way, and for the same reasons, that the LaRouche publications are problematic. |
|
|
|
|
|
My view is that, because of the IWP's former connections to the LaRouche movement and its cult-like status, IWP publications should not be used as sources by Misplaced Pages, except as primary-source material about the IWP itself in articles, or sections of articles, about the IWP, just as LaRouche publications may be used as primary source material about LaRouche and his beliefs on LaRouche pages (though they should always be identified as the source, which has not been done). |
|
|
|
|
|
I therefore have no objection to the IWP being removed as a source from the LaRouche articles — unless the context is a description of the warfare that broke out after Newman left the LaRouche movement, in which case the material would be relevant primary-source material, because that's the IWP talking about itself, or about something it was closely involved in. But if, for example, a Misplaced Pages article contains a quote from an IWP member about LaRouche, and that quote is not being used as part of a description of the falling out between the groups, then that would count as the IWP being used as a secondary source, and in that case, the quote or reference should be removed. Hope that's not too convoluted. ] 19:07, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Chip Berlet and Original Research== |
|
|
|
|
|
I think that much of the material that Berlet is introducing into the LaRouche articles should be considered Original Research, as in ]. He is taking theories which he invented and posted on his own website, and posting them here, even though they have not "become a permanent feature of the public landscape." As an example, at "Political Views", Berlet says that according to critics Matthew Lyons and (surprise!) Chip Berlet, LaRouche should be considered a neofascist according to the definition of ''palingenesis.'' The only person who has ever suggested a connection between LaRouche and ''palingenesis'' is (surprise!) Chip Berlet. Likewise, Berlet keeps trying to insert material from his website which is misleading, and I don't care if editor CBerlet feels insulted, the website is '''misleading'''. In the "Lyndon LaRouche" article, Berlet inserted a passage that I have now removed: ''In 1975 LaRouche denounced non- Western music (and other cultural forms) in China as "ideological relics," "barbarian", and "hideous muck."'' But if you follow the links to Berlet's website and scroll to the bottom of the page, you finally find the actual quote from LaRouche, which is a denunciation of the Cultural Revolution, not Chinese music. I agree with Herschel that material from Chip Berlet's website should be corroborated. --] 14:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ...
"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—
LaRouche lived all his adult life in New York (1953–1983) or Virginia (1983–present), which means the two major newspapers of record are The New York Times and The Washington Post. Both have written extensively about him, including several extended investigative and analysis pieces from the 1970s to the 2000s. These articles provide the structure of much of this article—in that we highlight what they highlight. For their archives on LaRouche see below. For the books we use see here.
He's been dead since last year. So why is there still the tag about his being a living person? Are the cultists responsible for keeping that lock there?Dogru144 (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It is clear that the LaRouche movement and organisation, founded by its name giver, is a political fascist sect. They practice brainwashing. Sometimes they function as suborganisations and thus try to avoid prosecution. Directly or indirectly they are responsible for many destroyed existences, even up to deaths and suicides. A dangerous organisation! Stay away from them and anyone supporting or trivialisinf them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliachay (talk • contribs) 19:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
This page currently says "At least ten appeals were heard by the United States Court of Appeals, and three were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court", and the page LaRouche criminal trials vaguely implies similar things. However, I am having a devil of a time actually finding any LaRouche-based SCOTUS cases or decisions (with the exception of United States v. Kokinda, which is tangential). I am hoping someone can point me to those cases, and we should cite/link to them on this page or the criminal trials page. However, I suspect that none exist, and what this wikipedia article may be trying to say is that appeals were made to the Supreme Court, which denied them; if that's so, then none of the cases were ever heard by the Supreme Court. That would explain why I can find, eg, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/1989/01/01/sg890463.txt, but no follow up. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
