| Revision as of 18:06, 23 January 2005 editCberlet (talk | contribs)11,487 edits Interesting edit job HK...← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:11, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,822,848 editsm →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Template:LaRouche Talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
Most recent archive is ]:Dec 16 - Jan 20 |
|
|
|
{{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 |
|
==Berlet/Bellman report is published== |
|
|
|
|year=2004 |
|
This text has been deleted by pro-LaRouche editors: |
|
|
|
|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 == |
|
:"Chip Berlet and Joel Bellman claim that the shift in the NCLC's politics and the change in its internal regime was prompted by a personal crisis in LaRouche's life which led to his having an emotional crisis: + - + - :<small>What happened to cause this dramatic shift? Some say it was a dramatic incident in LaRouche's personal life. In 1972 LaRouche's common-law wife, Carol Schnitzer, left him for a young member of the London NCLC chapter named Christopher White, whom she eventually married. For LaRouche, it was a crushing blow. His first wife Janice had similarly walked out on him a decade earlier, taking with her the couple's young son. This personal event apparently triggered LaRouche's political metamorphosis. LaRouche went into seclusion in Europe, and defectors tell of his suffering a possible nervous breakdown. In the spring of 1973, he returned. His previous conspiratorial inclinations had now grown into a bizarre tapestry weaving together classical conspiracy theories of the 19th century and post-Marxian economics. He began articulating a `psycho-sexual' theory of political organizing. Sexism and homophobia became central themes of the organization's theories.</small>" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Content policies=== |
|
This text appears in a published report. It represents material similar to that by several other writers of published material critical of LaRouche. It is not a minority view, it is the majority view. It should not be deleted. We can discuss modifying it here in the discussion page, but unilateral deletions by pro-LaRouche editors is not acceptable behavior in a collective editing process. |
|
|
|
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 ... |
|
Once again I ask that we all stop editing this page and focus on the ] page which is currently locked. Otherwise this page should be locked. --] 18:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"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— |
|
:You say that this theory is the "majority view." Then, produce a quote from someone else. This article is becoming a compendium of quotes from Chip Berlet. ] 21:33, 20 Jan 2005 (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=== |
|
==Weed's latest deletion== |
|
|
|
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. |
|
Weed, I have reverted your delete of Cberlet's addition. If you read ], you'll see that Misplaced Pages editors are allowed to quote themselves if two conditions apply: (a) they are recognized experts in the field, and (b) they are quoting in the third person from their own publications. And then (c), as always, the publisher must be a reputable one. |
|
|
|
*, 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> |
|
Cberlet is a recognized expert. He is quoting from something he wrote in, as I recall, 1999. And Political Research Associates, whether you like them or not, are regarded as reputable. It might interest you to know that I had this confirmed today. I wrote to a respected researcher at the suggestion of another editor (someone not involved in the LaRouche pages) to ask about information on reputable published resources on LaRouche. The answer came back that Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates are highly regarded, and that Dennis King's book is a respected resource too. I had not asked about Berlet, by the way. Weed, may I remind you that you are not allowed to act in a way that suggests promotion of Lyndon LaRouche or his movement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Living person biography-lock== |
|
I agree with Chip and Will that we should concentrate on Political views of, or else ask for unprotection. ] 21:38, Jan 20, 2005 (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) |
|
::Also, similar claims are made by King in his book: pages 26-31. I would be happy if a quote from King was substituted, or if the claim was summarized. --] 21:50, 20 Jan 2005 (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--> |
|
I notice that Slim does not name the "respected researcher." King and Berlet are a team, so if their theories resemble one another, no big surprise. Either way, the theory that LaRouche's political views are all the result of a divorce fails the "original research" test: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lydon LaRouche == |
|
"A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as ''original'' research if it '''proposes''' ideas, that is: |
|
|
* It introduces a theory or method of solution, or |
|
|
* It introduces original ideas, or |
|
|
* It defines new terms, or |
|
|
* It provides new definitions of old terms, or |
|
|
* It purports to refute another idea, or |
|
|
* It introduces ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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--> |
|
However all of the above may be acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape. A few examples of this include: |
|
|
* The ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal; or |
|
|
* The ideas have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the ] story)." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] has an ]== |
|
] 22:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<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) |
|
And Chip Berlet's writing HAS been peer-reviewed, which is why he's been interviewed on network television and published in mainstream newspapers. Political Research Associates is also regarded as a reputable outlet. It therefore does not count as original research. Dennis King's book has become "a permanent feature of the public landscape." The only reason I'm not naming the researcher who spoke highly of Chip Berlet is that I don't want that person to become a target of the Lyndon LaRouche movement. The name was recommended by an experienced editor who has never edited this page. ] 22:25, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Supreme Court cases? == |
|
:Since Berlet's attacks on LaRouche died out in the major press after serving their purpose 15 years ago, I am sure that the LaRouche movement has little interest in him, viewing him only as a mild annoyance. He is, however, a major annoyance to Misplaced Pages if he is going to attempt to transform encyclopedia articles into essays propounding his idiosyncratic theories. And, it does not impress anyone that you quote anonymous sources in a desperate attempt to boost his credibility. --] 15:48, 21 Jan 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) |
|
::The source isn't anonymous. It's just you, Weed Harper and C Colden who won't be told. ] 15:53, Jan 21, 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) |
|
::Weed Harper: Please do not make major deletions without discussion. You have been asked to focus on the Political Views page so that it can be unlocked. Please try to cooperate with the group process of editing. --] 03:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Weed and HK--I tried to fix as much as I could after I restored Weed's deletion, but Weed so thoroughly botched up a series of edits that it was almost impossible (using the "history" function) to figure out what typos and red links he had fixed. I did find and fix two names that had garbled leters. I was not trying to undo the legitimate editing of Weed. --] 17:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Berlet quoting Berlet== |
|
|
|
|
|
I will accept quotes from Berlet that have appeared in a "mainstream" publication. On the other hand, if Misplaced Pages readers want to read Berlet's website, there are abundant links to it in all the LaRouche articles. There is no need to reproduce Berlet's website here. --] 16:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Many of the article on the official PRA website (not my personal website) are available as printed reports published by PRA.--] 17:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Presumably, there is no ambiguity in what is meant by "'mainstream' publication." --] 01:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Sure there is plenty of ambiguity. What is a 'mainstream' publication in your mind? Are any LaRouche publications mainstream? What about "Time" magazine, which LaRouche might say was created by an "avid" LSD user and fascist? What about the "Washington Times" run by Moonies, or the Washington Post, once run by the Graham who masterminded LaRouche's arrest? The "New York Times"? Or are they controlled by the ADL? Frankly, it's hard to guess what you might consider to be a "mainstream" publication. (PS, it's not a matter of you "accepting" anything unilaterally - we're all in this together.) -] 05:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I will not remove any quote from Berlet that has appeared in ''Time'', the ''Washington Times'', the ''Washington Post'', or the ''New York Times.'' --] 16:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Rewriting to check balance and NPOV== |
|
|
I have rewritten this page to make it clearer what is material that originates from LaRouche publications and supporters. In a realistic article, claims from the LaRouche group need to be respected and included, but the entire article should reflect that their view of themselves and reality is a tiny minority view. --] 04:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence of "Cooked Quotes"== |
|
|
|
|
|
The issue of "cooked quotes" is essential to the question of whether Berlet's web site should be considered a reputable source. I have assembled the evidence on a special page: ]. I have edited for clarity some material contributed by Herschel. ] 07:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There are no cooked quotes. This has been discussed repeatedly. The pro-LaRouche views are a tiny minority. Stop deleting legitimate, sourced, reputable, majority-view material in favor of the biased pro-LaRouche viewpoint.--] 15:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Let's stop editing this page and concentrate on the Views page== |
|
|
HK and Weed: I have asked repeatedly that we stop editing this page and focus on the ] page. You have refused. As long as you edit this page, I will edit this page. As a compromise, you can remove 50% of my edits you previously deleted.--] 16:42, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You always make this request just after you have added some outrageous crap, like "support for classical culture = bigotry." You leave the page as it is, and I won't edit it any more. The page was stable and undisputed until you started importing chunks of your web page. ] 21:19, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:WH, I reverted your deletions - you cut out lots of material. If you really want to edit this page, let's concetrate on it and discuss the edits. If there is a problem with specific sections, please tell us what they are and we can go over them one at a time. -] 21:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The fact is, Will, that Berlet is attempting a general re-write of this article, to incorporate the theories that he propounds in his articles at PRA. Each time he makes a sally in this direction, he then calls for everyone to stop editing this article. He is also attempting to introduce material into this article that belongs in "political views", if it belongs anywhere at all. I have put it back to the last version by Weed, and I am making the following proposal: --] 16:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==== |
|
|
|
|
|
Alas, the last version by Weed cut off 2/3 of the article. But it ''is'' much more brisk. So I added back the recent events and links, and I think it reads much better!--] 18:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==A proposal concerning the issue of Chip Berlet and ]== |
|
|
|
|
|
Chip Berlet AKA ] has been systematically loading both ] and ] with quotes from articles that he has written. Between quotes from Chip and quotes from his siamese twin Dennis King, the articles resemble more and more an essay promoting their shared, idiosyncratic theories. The Slim 'n' Chip team has often attempted to justify CBerlet's edits by claiming that Berlet's material has appeared in "mainstream" publications. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fine, then. As I indicate to Will above, I will not remove any quotes from Chip that have appeared in "mainstream", read "mass circulation" publications. That would include the publications Will asked about as examples: ''Time'', the ''Washington Times'', ''Washington Post'', or ''New York Times''. It would not include some publications that have served as a venue for the King/Berlet theories, such as ''High Times''. It emphatically would not include leftist conspiracy-theory blog sites that are cloned from PRA. |
|
|
|
|
|
In this way, the mass-circulation press can serve as sort of a "filter" to determine which of the King/Berlet theories are "mainstream", and which are esoteric, arcane, idiosyncratic, and generally unacceptable in Misplaced Pages under the ] guidelines. --] 16:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is not what the NPOV page describes as the standard criteria.--] 18:06, 23 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.
