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 21:12, 18 January 2005 editC Colden (talk | contribs)50 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}}
'''Please add new comments at the bottom of the page'''
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
⚫ {{Template:LaRouche Talk}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=}}
==Anatomy of a "Cut-and-Paste Job"==
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=}}
The essential problem with Cberlet's role, in editing the LaRouche articles, is that he is not participating as a Misplaced Pages editor, but to promote his own theories -- or, to use his words,
}}
{{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 ==
Here is the complete passage from LaRouche's speech, as quoted in ''EIR'':


*'''Draft and source pages'''
#"We have another purpose in fighting AIDS, for our fighting AIDS--for our inducing people to do what they should have done anyway without our speaking a word. Government agencies should have done this. There should be no issue! But government agencies ''didn't!'' That's the issue. Why didn't they? Because of a cultural paradigm shift. They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States. (I don't know why they're "gay," they're the most miserable creatures I ever saw! The socalled gay lobby, 8% of the population, the adult electorate; the drug users. There are 20 million cocaine sniffers in the United States, at least. Of course it does affect their mind; it affects the way they vote! They ought to be taxed 100% of their income, on the basis of not having earned it, and on the basis of the fact that we need the money to fight the effects of their habit.
*]
#"But the issue, the deeper issue, is that the government and the people, the general electorate, in terms of the political machines of this country, have no morality. Here is a question, which was settled in the middle of the 14th century and afterward -- the question of public sanitation on issues of epidemic and pandemic disease. Every government in the world is well-informed of that and the penalties of not invoking that policy. We have statutes on the books of the federal government, on the state and local level throughout the country, on this matter. The decision to be made on AIDS should have been automatic. Anybody who did not make that decision acted in defiance of the law, and should be accountable for any person infected! That is, if you're infected, if a member of your family dies of AIDS or is infected with AIDS, you should be able to sue members of the federal government, personally, for millions of dollars in each case -- damages! Because it was their negligence, willful negligence, in defiance of statutes, which caused this; not the law -- the law was fine! If they had followed the law, your friend wouldn't have been infected with AIDS.
*]
#"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&#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 -- which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It&#8217;s a matter of children&#8217;s civil rights!"
*]


== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion ==
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. However, Berlet initially quoted only the last two paragraphs, in order to suggest that LaRouche was in fact endorsing violent crimes perpetrated by homophobes. To to make certain that the Misplaced Pages reader would arrive at that mistaken conclusion, Berlet added his own explanation: "He has called for draconian measures against persons with AIDS, and scoffed at civil liberties and civil rights concerns, writing that people who physically attack gay people are merely exercising their civil rights." This is, as I hope other editors can see by looking at the context, a deliberate misrepresentation. SlimVirgin came obsequiously to Cberlet's defense ("You asked him for the context of the gay quote, which he gave." In fact, he didn't. He gave a citation, so that I could laboriously look it up and transcribe it.) Later, Berlet attempted to salvage the situation by adding yet another out-of-context paragraph, the first one, without providing a (...) to indicated that he had omitted the second one. --] 01:39, 11 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 ==
:Speaking of context problems... HK, I think it was you who added this line into the article:
The vast majority of mainstream political and social science material on the LaRouche Movement describe in terms ranging from "Crackpot" to Neofasist.
::''LaRouche seemed later to modify his views. In a town meeting which was webcast on December 11, 1999, LaRouche said:''
I will start to add descriptions from mainstream sholarly and journalist sources, while keeping the obscure and marginal lead sentence pending futher discussion
:And you go on to quote two paragraphs from LL. But you've cut off the sentences that start the first paragraph:
] (]) 16:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::''Don't let them play one against the other. Like this question of so-called homosexuality.''
:LaRouche's phrase ''so-called homosexuality'' implies that he does not believe such a condition exists. When the page protection is lifted we need to add the full quote to give it the proper context, which seems to me to show that LaRouche has not modified his views at all. -] 20:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


== Punctuation and spelling (Anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism, antisemitism) ==
:::Actually, I tried to remove that line from the article, but my edits were being reverted by SlimVirgin, seemingly within seconds, so take another look at the page history. With respect to the two paragraphs you mention, what LaRouche is saying is that he does not believe that the issue of homosexuality is relevant to the discussion of AIDS. This is abundantly clear from the rest of the quote. You seem to have a bit of difficulty, Willmcw, in understanding LaROuche, because the significance of CBerlet's manipulation of the other quote seems to elude you. --] 15:42, 12 Jan 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.
::::Yes, it does get confusing when many hands are working at once. I'm not sure which line you are referring to. I recommend that the entire quotation be dropped. I don't see what modification of views it is suppoed to represent. I also suggest that we cut the quotes in the LaRouche & Gays section down to two, maybe a paragraph each. More than that is just piling on. This article is way too long already. We can move the others over to wikisource. Regarding the above quotation- the added material, which includes lines like
:::::" They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States."
::::hardly makes LaRouche appear to be indifferent to gays. Again, adding more material does not change the context, it only reinforces the message that LaRouche makes homophobic remarks. All we need is one or two choice sentences as examples for the article, not several long rants. More is not better. Cheers, -] 21:48, 12 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)
==Context versus quotation==
While it is useful for us editors to review the context of a direct quotation, this Misplaced Pages article is not a compendium of source material. Quotes that are more than a short paragraph in length belong on Wikisource. If the context modifies the meaning, than it can be summarized. In the case of the ''Baseball bats & gays'' quote, I suggest that it can be boiled down like this:


== How many times does the article need to say that the Queen is a drug dealer? ==
In a speech printed in EIR on the topic of fighting AIDS, LaRouche said:
: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 -- which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It&#8217;s a matter of children&#8217;s civil rights! <BR>:citation
I don't think it's necessary to include hundred of words just to show that he has endorsed violence against gays. -] 02:09, 11 Jan 2005 (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"
I think using just the short quote arguably makes it look even worse. The quote is fine as it is, in my view. It was two paras; Herschel provided a third, so now it's three. The extra paras he's provided today don't change the meaning. Will, if you want to change it back to just that one para that you suggest, it's fine by me so long as we reach an agreement and all stick to it. Cberlet, please use ellipsis (...) if you're leaving words out or skipping to another paragraph just for clarification purposes. Herschel, I know what the quote meant. The context you provide doesn't change the meaning. And stop insulting me. What with your insults to Cberlet, your use of his name when asked not to, your insults of me, your promotion of Lyndon LaRouche, and your attempts to insert pro-LaRouche material into ] and ] which are not "closely related" articles, anyone who wants to mount an ArbCom case against you will not be short of material. ] 02:32, Jan 11, 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)
::Leaving off the ellipses in that one paragrpah was not intentional. Just a typo. I have used ellipses in the past. I think HK is being unfair and misrepresenting what has happened here. I posted the vast majority of the lengthy LaRouche quotes along with cites; said I would post more along with actual image files of the pages at the PRA website on Monday (today as I write this); and offered to post the tiny fragment I missed from one article in my first scan that now HK is claiming he has been forced to "laboriously look...up and transcribe." This all stems from the series of personal attacks on me by HK whereby he has falsely charged me with what is called in journalism "cooking quotes." I have demonstrated that the quotes I posted are real, provided the citations, and posted lengthy excerpts to put them in context. I think that most reasonable people would agree with what Willmcw has posted above. As promised, here are the pages where I posted further documentation. Click on the links to see the image files and longer quotes.

Illionis Attorney General's office letter
Full cites to articles and editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times

Creating a Republican Labor Party (democracy quote)
antigay quote in LaRouchite Illinois Tribunal
--] 02:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Chip. As far as I'm concerned, you've done more than enough. You and Will can decide how much of the quote to use. I would like to see the two paras you first inserted, or the three that are currently there, but if you and Will want just one, that's fine too. What other issues are there to sort out here?

Hersc

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: