| Revision as of 01:16, 6 January 2005 editWeed Harper (talk | contribs)440 edits →Facts about LaRouche & Democracy← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:24, 6 January 2005 edit undoWeed Harper (talk | contribs)440 edits →BerletNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| On October 10, 2004, 4 months of intensive edit warring over the content of this and related articles were resolved through compromise. The previous discussion on this talk page has been archived at ]. I sincerely hope that future editing of this article can be done in conformity with Misplaced Pages ] policy. --] 12:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Im suprised that this page doesn't talk about certain things. I picked up what appeared to be a LaRouce written magazine which appeared to set forth his political outlook, and essentially it sayed that FDR was the best president and laid down what might be called a "conspiracy" theory that politicians afterwards were influenced away from FDR's direction by this group of people associated with this international meeting, one I had never heard about before. Can anyone chime in on this? | |||
| :I think LaRouche's view is that FDR was the best president of the 20th Century -- if I'm not mistaken, he has said that Lincoln was the best president overall. If you could be more specific about the "international meeting," I might be able to chime in on it. --] 14:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I can't remember the name of it at all, but it took place back in the era of black and white pictures ;). What I read basically said it was these men at that meeting who eventually got control of the government and instigated that bread and circuses that is the 60's with programs like MKULTRA. | |||
| :That would be the . --] 14:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| So if, at least in the present views of LaRouche, the CCF is like the center of the conspiracy, how does that gel with like the others mentioned in this article, such as Rockefeller, etc.? | |||
| ==SlimVirgin's latest contribution== | |||
| The purpose of the first section of the article is to present LaRouche's core beliefs and provide a summary of his world view. The "conspiracy theory" section comes under "criticism of LaRouche" because it is a discussion of things that LaRouche may actually have said, which his opponents believe fall under the pejorative category of "conspiracy theories." | |||
| SlimVirgin has inserted the material from ''Take a Break'' magazine into this section, and then tried to move the entire section into the "core beliefs" portion of the article, because he wishes to assert that it is just unforgiveably wacky and iconoclastic to suggest that the world's weathiest and most visible aristocratic family acts like a bunch of overdressed refugees from ''The Godfather'', even to the point of "bumping off" its perceived enemies, and that anyone (such as Princess Diana herself) who would suggest such a thing must be avoided, ridiculed, banned from Misplaced Pages, or dealt with even more harshly. It is for this reason that Slim's latest contribution belongs under "criticism of LaRouche." I am leaving the NPOV dispute tag up until there is a consensus on this topic. --] 12:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==The structure of the article== | |||
| The structure came about as a result of the mediation of Snowspinner, which ended four months of incessant edit wars. The first section of the article is comprised of views of LaRouche that his supporters, such as myself, consider most important. The second section is comprised of views, or in some cases alleged views, that anti-LaRouche activists such as yourself, Slim, prefer to emphasize. I have re-worked the subject headers to make this more explicit. Please do not move your edits into the first section without first presenting an argument on this talk page as to why the present structure is unfair or misleading. The present structure came about as a result of much hard work and compromise. --] 16:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Facts about LaRouche & Democracy == | |||
| I posted: | |||
| "He does not currently appear to advocate the abolition of democracy or the imposition of authoritarian rule." | |||
| Herschelkrustofsky changed this to: | |||
| "He has never publicly advocated the abolition of democracy or the imposition of authoritarian rule." | |||
| Here are quotes from LaRouche: | |||
| ___ | |||
| "We shall end the rule of irrationalist episodic majorities, of British liberal notions of 'democracy.'" | |||
| "Creating a Republican Labor Party" Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Citizens for LaRouche Policy Statement, c. 1980 | |||
| :This indicates LaRouche's preference for a Constitutional Republic, Chip, as opposed to, for example, the tactics of Arnold Schwarzenneger, who wishes to bypass the California State legislature by running lots of deceptive initiative campaigns. To extrapolate from that LaRouche wants to abolish democracy or impose authoritarian rule is sophistry, of the type that has earned you the bad reputation among serious opponents of authoritarianism. --] 22:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ___ | |||
| "America must be cleansed for its righteous war by the immediate elimination of the Nazi Jewish Lobby and other British agents from the councils of government, industry, and labor." | |||
| "A War-winning Strategy", Editorial, New Solidarity, March 1978 | |||
| :It would appear that someone is taking LaRouche's advice right now, given that AIPAC has been raided for the second time in several months. And although I know you wish to insinuate that this quote is anti-Semitic, what does it have to do with democracy or authoritarianism? --] 22:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ___ | |||
| LaRouche wrote that history would not judge harshly those who beat homosexuals to death with baseball bats to stop the spread of AIDS. | |||
| :He did? When and in what publication did he do that? --] 22:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| LaRouche: "Can we imagine anything more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?" | |||
| :Please provide a reference for this quote, so that the context may be established. --] 22:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Larouche 1973 memo to members, reported in Wasington Post, 1/14/1985 --] 04:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::1. What is the context? | |||
| :::2. What does it have to do with democracy? ] 06:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| LaRouche wrote that most Chinese people are "approximating the lower animal species" by manifesting a "paranoid personality....a parallel general form of fundamental distinction from actual human personalities." | |||
| :Please provide a reference for this quote, so that the context may be established. And having done that, please explain how these purported quotes represent an advocacy of authoritarianism. --] 22:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ___ | |||
| So I think it is legitimate to suggest that in the past LaRouche has written material that seems "to advocate the abolition of democracy or the imposition of authoritarian rule." | |||
| But perhaps it should be "In the past LaRouche has scoffed at parliamentary democracy, suggested the appropriateness of physically attacking his political enemies, and issued racist staements about Blacks and Chinese." | |||
| Is that a more neutral Point of View given LaRouche's past quotes? | |||
| --] 23:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Chip, you can include any material that is properly referenced. In the case of quoting LaRouche, you'd have to be able to provide either a link to that quote, or a date and name of publication. If you're providing a more general criticism of LaRouche, without an actual quote, you'd have to provide the name and date of a reputable publication (Washington Post, just as an example). So long as you stick to those rules (see ] and ]), you can use the material, and if Herschelkrustofsky reverts it, you can change it back again. He is not allowed to delete properly referenced material, and he is not allowed to insert material of his own that is not properly referenced. ] 23:35, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I need to dig up some of my archives to get some of the cites, then I will edit the page and provide links to a list of cites.--] 06:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here is a longer version of the quote that I argue shows that LaRouche has, at least in the past, dismissed the idea of electoral democracy: | |||
| :::" ‘Democracy’ is like a farm without a farmer, in which the chickens, sheep, cows, horses and pigs form ‘constituencies’ according to Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau or John Stuart Mill. Each constituency is but a collection of beasts, each with special ‘self-interests’ defined as animals might define self interests. The highest level of law in such a democratic animal farm is the ‘social contracts’ among these bestial constituencies. | |||
| :::The human species is not a collection of chickens, cows, pigs, sheep and so forth. Therefore, ‘pluralism’ and other British notions of ‘democracy’ are fit only for British aristocrats, not for self-respecting human beings such as the citizens of the United States. | |||
| :::The essence of republican organization, including republican parties, is the mobilization of a majority of the citizens as a conscious force engaged in direct deliberation of the policymaking of the nation, of discovering which policies are in fact currently in the interest of the nation and its posterity. By creating a republican labor party of such trade unionists and ethnic minorities, we shall end the rule of irrationalist episodic majorities, of British liberal notions of ‘democracy.’ " | |||
| ::::Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. “Creating a Republican Labor Party.” Citizens for LaRouche, circa 1980. | |||
| ::I think this cleary is evidence of LaRouche's disdain for electoral democracy. Comments? --] 21:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I have two comments: first, that LaRouche appeared to be aware of the danger of Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America" a decade and a half before Gingrich became prominent. Second, that your argument, that this quote represents evidence of a "disdain for electoral democracy", is a joke. LaRouche is talking about organizing labor and minorities, who have been ignored by the dominant parties for decades, and bringing them into "direct deliberation of the policymaking of the nation." You find that undemocratic? ] 01:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Train meeting claims by LaRouchites== | |||
| Much of the LaRouche material about the Train meetings is simply a series of unsubstantiated claims that are not linked by logic to their conclusions. The affidavit by Quinde is simply his point of view. An affidavit not tested in court is not a proof. As I have mentioned on several other LaRouche-linked pages, I propose moving all the discussion of the Train meetings to one page so that it can be debated and edited in one place. --] 06:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The essential facts about the meetings are undisputed: a whole gaggle of LaRouche's opponents got together at Train's home, talked about LaRouche, and then trotted off to write articles accusing him of various things. Chip characterizes the meeting he attended as a "debate", but the thing that I find most revealing about the meetings is the "strange bedfellows" aspect, particularly because Chip is always denouncing certain leftwingers for consorting with certain rightwingers -- and Chip does not deny (see ]) that his travel expenses to attend his particular Train Salon meeting were paid by the representative of the ]. --] 15:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Rees was not a representative of the John Birch Society. That's just false. I am willing to debate the Train meeting text, but not spread across many pages. This page is already over length. Moving details to ] --] 16:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just how would you describe Rees, then? See . | |||
| ::The Train meetings are essential to understanding the controversy about LaRouche's views, and must not be deleted from this article -- or the one about Chip Berlet. --] 16:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Rees was then with the Maldon Institute, not the JBS, a group with which he no longer worked.--] 16:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::After digging through my archives, I found that in 1985 Rees was with Mid-Atlantic Research Associates, which may have turned into the Maldon Institute, or may coexist as a Rees project. Hard to tell. | |||
| ==Herschelkrustofsky Interference== | |||
| Herschelkrustofsky's reversion is unfair and creates much repetition. This page was over length. The discussion of the Train meeting belongs in the United States v. LaRouche page because the LaRouche people themselves claim it is central to his prosecution, a claim that is disputed. It makes no sense to have the same material on two or three pages. My edit included a mention of the Train meeting and a link to its new location ]. This is blatant pro-LaRouche propaganda and interference; not fair and accurate editing. I protest. --] 16:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I have noted on the talk page for ] that I don't think the Train material is needed on that page. Bear in mind that 6 months ago, there was only one article, of modest length; the present, relatively voluminous set of articles was the result of extensive negotiations and compromise, in order to bring fierce edit wars to a close. I asked that the Train material be included in ], because that was where the majority of the propagandistic slurs and unfounded speculation, coming from Berlet and others, was posted, and the Train material helps explain the discrepancy between LaRouche's stated views, and those imputed to him by his critics. The inclusion of the Train material was essentially part of a compromise which also included the inclusion of material from Berlet and from the International Workers Party. The edit wars over LaRouche articles have largely subsided since early October, and I would certainly prefer that it remain that way. --] 22:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Only a tiny handful of LaRouche followers and an even smaller group of conspiracy buffs thinks the Train material is important. This page is already too long. The Train material has been moved to United States v. LaRouche.--] 00:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::More unfair conduct by HK. If we are going to be forced to debate the Train meeting material, it should only be on one page. HK keeps placing it on several pages. This is not fair. It has no value on this page. It is just another place where HK wants to engage in a personal attack on me.--] 13:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am deleting the duplicate material on all pages except the Train meeting page. --] 13:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Chip appears to be attempting to whitewash his role in the whole LaRouche affair. Since this article serves as a forum of sorts for the scurrilous attacks of Chip and his colleagues, some minimal discussion of LaRouche's critics is essential. It is not "duplicate material" -- it is a succinct description, linked to an article with more detail. --] 16:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :A succinct description seems like it would also mention that the idea has minimal respect outside of LaRouche followers, no? ] 16:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not certain how you could document that -- perhaps by conducting a scientific opinion poll? -- but you could certainly say that the characterization of the meetings is disputed by LaRouche's opponents, as is clear in the Train article. --22:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I have serious trouble believing the alternative, which is that the Train theory is widely accepted. Regardless, it seems a major enough point that it ought to be mentioned whenever the Train theory is brought up. ] 23:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Berlet== | ==Berlet== | ||
| Line 162: | Line 34: | ||
| Okay, so Chip has agreed to the proposal, but Herschelkrustofsky does not agree, and Weed Harper has not responded. Willmcw and I are going to try to start by editing ] and make it NPOV. Herschel, that is not an article "closely related" to LaRouche within the terms of ArbCom, so you are not allowed to engage in an edit war by reinserting LaRouche material. The fact that Chip has been a LaRouche critic will not be left out but it is not his only defining feature. Chip, can you direct us to any published material about yourself, good or bad, apart from LaRouche publications? Herschel, can you direct us to any non-LaRouche published material about Chip? ] 22:54, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC) | Okay, so Chip has agreed to the proposal, but Herschelkrustofsky does not agree, and Weed Harper has not responded. Willmcw and I are going to try to start by editing ] and make it NPOV. Herschel, that is not an article "closely related" to LaRouche within the terms of ArbCom, so you are not allowed to engage in an edit war by reinserting LaRouche material. The fact that Chip has been a LaRouche critic will not be left out but it is not his only defining feature. Chip, can you direct us to any published material about yourself, good or bad, apart from LaRouche publications? Herschel, can you direct us to any non-LaRouche published material about Chip? ] 22:54, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :Slim, your proposal is meaningless unless you also offer not to edit LaRouche related articles, because you are an anti-LaRouche editor. Also, you do not propose that Berlet stop editing articles on LaRouche. Also, there is no LaRouche-sourced material in the Berlet article, so what are you going to remove? ] 01:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:24, 6 January 2005
Berlet
It is clear to me that Berlet is trying to hijack Misplaced Pages to promote his (ahem) commercial endeavors. The Train Meetings material never should have been removed from Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. Berlet wants to promote his POV by quoting from his own website (SlimVirgin take note: Misplaced Pages prohibits original research) and he wants to ban any scrutiny of his role as a quote unquote "researcher." There is absolutely no reason for a seperate article on the Train Salon. Weed Harper 22:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree completely about the original research point, and I agree that it's not appropriate for Chip to be editing these articles, but it's also not appropriate for LaRouche supporters to be editing them, for the same reasons, and my suspicion is that Chip is doing so only to stop unverified claims being inserted by others. I also agree that there shouldn't be an article on these meetings, but regardless of whether the material is on a separate page, or part of a Lyndon LaRouche article, the details of the John Train meetings should be verified by third-party publications. The ArbCom allows LaRouche publications to be used in LaRouche-related articles, but doesn't say they can be used exclusively.
- I also fail to see the relevance of the meetings. So far, a bunch of journalists has met with a bunch of sources to discuss a person (LaRouche) regarded by large numbers of people as dangerous. There's nothing unusual about that. It would become unusual if those journalists were persuaded to broadcast or publish false material, wittingly or otherwise, as a result of those meetings. But that has not been shown. Even if you read LaRouche's own publications, it has not been shown.
- Weed, I was wondering, regarding your edit to Dennis King, who is Mark Evans and where that piece was published? Also, the NBC programs alleging that LaRouche was plotting to kill Kissinger, and that he may have been involved in Olaf Palme's death: Does anyone know how we can verify that these broadcasts took place, and that they made these claims, apart from obtaining transcripts from NBC? Slim 22:57, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Although I think that the case against Chip Berlet editing articles on himself is slightly better than the case against LaRouche supporters editing articles on LaRouche, I think the real point to be made here is that editing to advance a point of view is bad. Snowspinner 03:46, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
- I first got involved with Misplaced Pages in an article on Mussolini. I would prefer not to edit any material on myself. But here is the problem. I started to get email from people saying outrageous claims about me were showing up on the web all over the world, sometimes in foreign languages. These turned out to be websites porting over entries posted by LaRouche supporters on Misplaced Pages. I never expected to find anything about myself on Misplaced Pages. I write encyclopedia articles for the academic print press; I do not think I belong in a serious encyclopedia entry, except perhaps as a published expert on apocalypticism, neofascism, and right-wing populism.
- It is easy to dismiss the material published by LaRouche. He has been attacking me for years. He is a convicted crook and his views are frankly lunatic conspiracy theories that few people on the planet have ever heard of and even fewer believe in. But Misplaced Pages has earned a reputation for solid research and an attempt to be fair and accurate through group process. The LaRouchite claims on Misplaced Pages were not just false, but defamatory in the sense that they call into question my integity as a journalist; and if they remained unchallenged they could hurt my ability to sell freelance articles. I was never involved with SDS. I worked for the National Student Association years after the CIA was exposed and booted out. LaRouchites posted false data about both these matters. Meanwhile, in the discussion pages, even more vicious personal attacks were being posted for public scrutiny.
- A few LaRouche supporters continue to flagrantly and repeatedly violate the ground rules of Misplaced Pages, and continue to post unsubstantiated rumor and attacks on me as if they were based on serious research. If you saw that the other Wikipedians were not dealing with such a situation, what would you do if it were aimed at you? If Misplaced Pages enforced its own rules and standards I would not need to be involved in these tiresome disputes.--Cberlet 04:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What Chip has written above is very true, and I suggest that a few Misplaced Pages editors of good faith get together here and do something about it. There have been a number of problems with LaRouche editors over the last few months, some of which I've been involved in, and some not, so I don't know the details of each dispute. But they all boil down to unverifiable claims, and Misplaced Pages is opposed to that, regardless of POV. When the disputed claims are in articles about the Schiller Institute or Frederick Wills, for example, it's very irritating to have them in Misplaced Pages, but at least the claims are usually not causing direct harm. However, in this case, a real, live individual is arguably being damaged, which is unfair and unencyclopedic, so we have a responsibility to sort it out. Even when claims are deleted, they're often cached by Google, and some very contemptuous claims have also been made on Talk pages.
Herschel and Weed, I am asking you here to volunteer to stop editing this article (or rather, to stop editing the references in it to Chip), and also to stop editing Chip Berlet, Dennis King, Political Research Associates and John Train Salon, and to allow others to edit them into some kind of NPOV state; and also to stop inserting references to Chip into other articles. Will you agree to that proposal? Chip, if Herschel and Weed agree to stop editing these articles, and provided other editors are working to NPOV them, will you also stop editing them? Slim 06:01, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems fair. Thanks. --Cberlet 13:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have a problem with that, Slim, because despite your protestations to the contrary, I regard you as an anti-LaRouche POV editor, and I would not trust you to edit these articles into "some kind of NPOV state." I still regard your Jeremiah Duggan article as the introduction of an unfounded, anti-LaRouche conspiracy theory (I had to crack a smile the other day when I saw you refer, on one of these talk pages, to affidavits as a tool of conspiracy theorists; when the British government wants to promote a conspiracy theory, they use an inquest.)
With respect to Chip's lengthy and pious statement about how he only edits Misplaced Pages because he must defend himself against unsubstantiated rumor and attacks, I originally started editing Misplaced Pages because I thought someone should defend LaRouche against unsubstantiated rumor and attacks (much of which originated with Berlet). I have also edited other articles, for example the ones having to do with Manuel Noriega, because they were being used as vehicles for propaganda. I think that the best insurance that these articles stay in "some kind of NPOV state" would be to attract and engage relatively neutral editors; I think Snowspinner falls into that category, despite his acknowledged opposition to LaRouche. Perhaps DanKeshet, when he returns from vacation, will do as well. But I cannot reliquish my option of stepping in if something really off the charts, like Berlet's attempt to suppress the Train material, transpires. --HK 15:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Please, HK, stop the personal attacks on me. You are violating Misplaced Pages policy. If you have any evidence that there is factually false text in any of my articles on LaRouche, please cite them. Otherwise, I have a right to my opinion about LaRouche. Some of my articles on LaRouche have appeared in mainstream or reliable alternative publications. Most of your claims about LaRouche originate in LaRouche publications and websites. The LaRouche material is a marginal view of reality, and to claim that the LaRouche material should have the same space to provide an NPOV here is simply not correct and not based on Wickipedia standards. At best, on Misplaced Pages, LaRouche claims should be mentioned in one article on him, in which the widespread criticism of him by journalists across the political spectrum provides the bulk of the text. This page on the Political views of Lyndon LaRouche should be deleted, as should the page on the so-called John Train Salon; as should the many other pages created to extol the views and allies of LaRouche. I propose this page be deleted. Let's discuss this proposal. --Cberlet 20:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Chip, none of the comments attributed to you in this article are factual in nature; they are all theories that you propound, things that fall under that category of "POV speculation". I have often wondered what your motive is for this stuff, since I am certain that, in the process of combing through LaRouche's writings in search of quotes to be taken out of context, that you have read enough of LaRouche to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that all that the names you call him, such as "fascist", "anti-Semite", and so on, are completely without foundation. As to why your theories have been promoted in "mainstream or reliable alternative publications", I think the Train Salon material provides an insight. LaRouche's publications certainly enjoy a wider readership, and arguably a greater degree of respect, than yours; yet you have no apparent inhibitions about hurling all manner of insults at LaRouche.
- With respect to your proposal that this page be deleted, this page was created by an opponent of LaRouche, User:AndyL. The better part of the page is devoted to criticism of LaRouche; your description of it as a page "created to extol the views and allies of LaRouche" is ridiculous. The NPOV policy at Misplaced Pages is designed to prevent Misplaced Pages from becoming a vehicle for any particular brand of propaganda, and since, as User:Snowspinner observed in the introduction he wrote for this article, there is virtually no actually neutral material available on LaRouche's views, Misplaced Pages is providing a service by at least giving the reader an opportunity to review the differences between the characterizations of LaRouche's views by his supporters and detractors. --HK 21:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so Chip has agreed to the proposal, but Herschelkrustofsky does not agree, and Weed Harper has not responded. Willmcw and I are going to try to start by editing Chip Berlet and make it NPOV. Herschel, that is not an article "closely related" to LaRouche within the terms of ArbCom, so you are not allowed to engage in an edit war by reinserting LaRouche material. The fact that Chip has been a LaRouche critic will not be left out but it is not his only defining feature. Chip, can you direct us to any published material about yourself, good or bad, apart from LaRouche publications? Herschel, can you direct us to any non-LaRouche published material about Chip? Slim 22:54, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Slim, your proposal is meaningless unless you also offer not to edit LaRouche related articles, because you are an anti-LaRouche editor. Also, you do not propose that Berlet stop editing articles on LaRouche. Also, there is no LaRouche-sourced material in the Berlet article, so what are you going to remove? Weed Harper 01:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)