| Revision as of 03:37, 5 April 2019 editRick Jelliffe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,559 edits →"Undo undone" - a talk page entry in the article?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:11, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,879,760 editsm →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB |
| (38 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|blp=other|listas=Larouche, Lyndon|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blpo=yes |1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography| living=no |
|
{{WikiProject Biography| politician-work-group=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Virginia| importance=low}} |
|
| class=B |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}} |
|
| politician-work-group=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes |American-importance=low}} |
|
| listas=Larouche, Lyndon }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Virginia| class=B |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|NH=yes|NH-importance=Low}} |
|
| importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=Low|NH=Yes|NH-importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Activists|class=B}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{Annual readership}} |
| Line 27: |
Line 21: |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 26 |
|
|counter = 26 |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|algo = old(61d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|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 60 days get moved to the current archive page. Archiving is done once a day around midnight UTC--> |
|
}}<!--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--> |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=2 |units=months }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Press |
|
{{Online source|year=2004 |section=January 2004 |
|
|
|
|year=2004 |
|
|
|section=January 2004 |
|
|title=LaRouche for president: The campaign that keeps on going |
|
|title=LaRouche for president: The campaign that keeps on going |
|
|org=Loudon Times-Mirror |
|
|org=Loudon Times-Mirror |
|
|date=January 27, 2004 |
|
|date=January 27, 2004 |
|
|url=http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=10876575&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506040&rfi=6 |
|
|url=http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=10876575&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506040&rfi=6 |
|
|
|year2=2006 |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Online source|year=2006 |section=June 2006 |
|
|section2=June 2006 |
|
|title=Can History Be Open Source? Misplaced Pages and the Future of the Past |
|
|title2=Can History Be Open Source? Misplaced Pages and the Future of the Past |
|
|org=The Journal of American History |
|
|org2=The Journal of American History |
|
|date=June 2006 |
|
|date2=June 2006 |
|
|url=http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html |
|
|url2=http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html |
|
|
|year3=2009 |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Online source|year=2009 |section=Featured |
|
|section3=Featured |
|
|title=Sierra Madre Actor Takes a Stand Against LaRouche Propaganda |
|
|title3=Sierra Madre Actor Takes a Stand Against LaRouche Propaganda |
|
|org=The Sierra Madre Weekly |
|
|org3=The Sierra Madre Weekly |
|
|date= December 1, 2009 |
|
|date3= December 1, 2009 |
|
|url=http://sierramadreweekly.com/featured/sierra-madre-actor-take-a-stand-against-the-larouche-propaganda-camp/ |
|
|url3=http://sierramadreweekly.com/featured/sierra-madre-actor-take-a-stand-against-the-larouche-propaganda-camp/ |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
<br clear="all" /> |
|
<br clear="all" /> |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Lyndon LaRouche}} |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Lyndon LaRouche}} |
|
<inputbox> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Untitled == |
|
|
|
|
|
bgcolor=transparent |
|
|
type=fulltext |
|
|
prefix=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche |
|
|
break=yes |
|
|
width=60 |
|
|
searchbuttonlabel=Search Lyndon LaRouche talk archives |
|
|
</inputbox> |
|
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
| Line 78: |
Line 62: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{LaRouchetalk}} |
|
{{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 == |
|
== Policies and sources == |
| Line 101: |
Line 88: |
|
*, 1987–present. |
|
*, 1987–present. |
|
*Mintz, John. , ''The Washington Post'', includes a series on LaRouche |
|
*Mintz, John. , ''The Washington Post'', includes a series on LaRouche |
|
|
== Spelling error == |
|
== Designation as Conspiracy Theorist == |
|
|
I have added a section under Controversy ''Designation as Conspiracy theorist'' which contains five credible references to him as a conspiracy theorist. When all of your MSM obituaries (including by Fox News) and academics etc state this as the key attribute, it is not acceptable that the Misplaced Pages page makes no reference to this. |
|
|
I am sure that this will not please devotees and followers of Mr LaRouche, however please note that I have put this in the controversies section, to emphasize that the fact being reported is that he was (nearly universally) regarded as a conspiracy theorist, not that the article is asserting that he was. |
|
|
That being said, I think the main article sanitizes the views of his opponents, and is in danger of not having a NPOV by cherrypicking and avoiding the more lurid claims about him and the more outrageous quotes from him that would tend to cast him in a more dubious light. |
|
|
] (]) 01:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Convicted Fraudster== |
|
|
I have added "convicted fraudster" to the first paragraph with a link to the relevant wikipedia page. |
|
|
That someone was sentenced to 15 years for fraud is a critical and interesting part of their biography. And it is vital information in assessing their activities and approach and their treatment. That this event is important enough to have its own Misplaced Pages page shows its importance and relevance. That he actually served, as did numerous others, is not in dispute. That he failed on numerous appeals and attempts at exoneration including three appeals to the Supreme Court indicates the soundness of the legal basis of the conviction under the American legal system. |
|
|
The article in general seeks to portray Mr LaRouche as a respectable, respected citizen (whats with that birthday party claim?) with ideosyncratic views; however this portrait is misleadingly incomplete without stating upfront that he was a convicted criminal (whether you believe this fair or not) whatever else he was. |
|
|
] (]) 01:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Movement: Characterized as Cult== |
|
|
The term "cult" or "cult-like" frequently appears in material and articles about the LaRouche Movement, not only in mainstream media but also professional media such as Foreign Policy journal. I have split out material relevant to this and added numerous references in a subsection ''Characterized as cult''. |
|
|
I have put in the weaker "or cult-like" to reflect the references, and I have put in the phrase "at certain times" to reflect that at various times the movement may have exhibited more or less cult-like attributes. In the references, I have put in a reference to give visibility that some material speaks of a "political cult" rather than just "cult" or "cult-like". |
|
|
|
|
|
The attributes of a cult that seem to justify this view as one in the range of reasonable views (without endorsing it) include: mercurial charismatic leader who puts themselves in the centre of thought ("worlds greatest economist") or history ("world's most accurate forcaster") and encourages a cult of personality; accusations of abuse of member's time, finance and deviant thought; us-versus-them separation; doomsday prophecies; a succession of failed predictions of disaster which do not occur but which are promptly swept under the carpet by the next round of predictions; etc |
|
|
|
|
|
In this regard I note (from the Fox News obituary) that movement members have been taken by cult 'de-programming' teams: "One high-profile case involved a supposed conspiracy to kidnap DuPont heir Lewis duPont Smith and his wife to deprogram them. In 1992, a federal jury in Alexandria, Virginia, acquitted Smith's father, E. Newbold Smith, and three other men." These family members certainly viewed the movement as a cult. |
|
|
] (]) 06:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
==Disputed record as economist and forecaster== |
|
|
This is, I think, the most problematic one, and I would be happy if someone found some better way to phrase it, in case the tone is snarky or there is not a NPOV. |
|
|
|
|
|
The general problem with the article as it stands is that it is primarily a timeline presenting LaRouche's life story in sequence of events or phases (commie, democrat, rightwing, criminal,etc) with no attempt to discuss his significance, self-claimed or otherwise. I have no problem with the timeline, but without the things that remain constant throughout, they don't reveal much. |
|
|
|
|
|
Many of his followers sincerely believe him to be the world's greatest economist, it seems; not (m)any professional economists, but certainly politicians keen to find an anti-Western or anti-establishment angle and rhetoric would give him credence and a platform. (Here in Australia, I can see many in regional areas expressing views that are second-hand LaRouche ideas.) |
|
|
|
|
|
However, others point out that he so consistently and often made wrong predictions, that sooner or later some would be right, just as a spin of the roulette wheel (which is a trick used by fake spiritists too): the trick is to only remind people of the hits and ignore the misses. |
|
|
I have tried to be fair, and put in some of the self-claimed successful predictions: however, I think a dispassionate analysis would show that many others were calling for the same things at the same time, so the claims to be an instigator and forecaster may not find them good evidence. (For example, the LaRouche's Eurasian Landbridge was originally Germany, Austria and Italy IIRC, then expanded into Russia. Then it evolved as China resurged into the New Silk Road, which was a term the Clinton's also used for their initiative: so I don't see that LaRouche can really claim to be behind it all, rather than just one voice in the crowd.) |
|
|
|
|
|
However I tried not to interpose editorial material about what seems to be this self-aggrandizing tendency, I hope. |
|
|
] (]) 06:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Time to clean up LaRouche entry. == |
|
|
|
|
|
There needs to be less needless glorification and more fair and accurate and balanced material on this page. ] (]) 16:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reported Death == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm seeing people saying on Twitter that LaRouche has died but none of them link to reliable sources saying so; can anyone confirm or not? ] (]) (]) 23:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Reported by their news service NSIPS.] (]) 00:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Where? How do we confirm that? Still nothing on this from any reputable national news organization that I can see. (the only Google news hit is from the blog "Boing Boing" which sources it to "Twitter." ] (]) 02:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::It would be helpful if you could provide a link to the New Solidarity International News Service report, {{u|Chip.berlet}}. What's available online at this moment does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliable source standards, and we should not be in a rush to update this article unless and until better sources are available. ] ] 03:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to be true, from Mike Billington of EIR Magazine - https://twitter.com/mobeir2 - but as you say, doesn't yet fit the "Reliable Source" requirements. ] (]) 04:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:That's apparently the Twitter of ] but is not linked to from elsewhere, so although the death is pretty much a "fact", it's still not good enough for WP now. The account timeline goes back to 15 November 2016 and was created August 2014. I think the text at http://icont.ac/4dQLQ is probably the same as the report mentioned by ] above.] (]) 08:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::Just in case there's any doubt - FB pages of top EIR people filling with condolences. https://www.facebook.com/ted.andromidas and https://www.facebook.com/pat.ruckert ... https://twitter.com/DrMatthewSweet/status/1095599994990546944 ] (]) 09:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Full EIRNS article from Ron Wieczorek https://www.facebook.com/ron.wieczorek/posts/2148746848481759 ] (]) 21:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
self-defence Correct spelling is: self-defense <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
Good evening everyone, what about this? https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/2/12/1834283/-Lyndon-LaRouche-has-died-but-his-CTs-live-on ] (]) 04:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:Not a credible source, unfortunately. Says at the top that it's a community post not reviewed by Daily Kos staff, and the article itself is just echoing what some people are saying on Twitter. ] (]) 06:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::I am increasingly convinced that LaRouche is dead, but we really must have a reliable source reporting it in order to add it to this article. Misplaced Pages is not a breaking news source. ] ] 06:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
It feels strange to be in a social transitional period where we can get plausible death reports but for there to be a disconnect to not have a statement from his institution or follow up from other media houses. LaRouche has been a monumental figure for decades and I expect broad interest in reports of his death. I confirm, nothing on his organization's website and seemingly nothing except rumors in online channels which report statements from individuals' social media accounts. ]] 15:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Living person biography-lock== |
|
::I'm shocked by the complete lack of confirmation. This man is iconic, like it or not. --] (]) 18:12, 13 February 2019 (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) |
|
::: If he hasn't actually died (i.e. the reports are all baseless rumours), then there's nothing for them to confirm. A denial would be a different thing. -- ] </sup></span>]] 21:11, 13 February 2019 (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) |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2019 == |
|
|
|
::], 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--> |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Lyndon LaRouche|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Larouche died on Tuesday, February 12, 2019. ] (]) 04:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 04:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lydon LaRouche == |
|
::Alas, it does seem there is a reliabilty issue with all LaRouchite information sources. But why does this not extend to the questionable claims by his supporters on other pages about the LaRouchians here on Misplaced Pages?] (]) 09:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Probably because no experienced, uninvolved Misplaced Pages editor has taken a close look at those pages, {{u|Chip.berlet}}. ] ] 16:02, 13 February 2019 (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--> |
|
His death has been confirmed in public posts by people inside and favorable to the LaRouche network. Here are some confirmations: |
|
|
. |
|
|
From LaRouchites: |
|
|
https://www.facebook.com/ted.andromidas |
|
|
. |
|
|
https://www.facebook.com/pat.ruckert |
|
|
] (]) 11:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] has an ]== |
|
== "Undo undone" - a talk page entry in the article? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<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) |
|
Hi, the "Undo undone" section reads like a talk page argument - shouldn't it be moved from the article? T ] (]) 21:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Done}}. ] 21:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Supreme Court cases? == |
|
Yes indeed, this was my mistake, apologies. 03:37, 5 April 2019 (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) |
|
Here was the text intended for this Talk page: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
An editor undid this section on Record as Economist and Forecaster, because it contained self-published material that is regarded by Misplaced Pages rules as not reliable. However, the references were made as evidence that LaRouche et al do claim the things that section mentions and to provide primary evidence, not to assert the contents of the LaRouche claims. Note that the section contains "claims". In other words, the only reliability issue is whether the words say what they say, not whether they are true or not. You would not refuse to link to Mein Kampf or the Bible or a speech of President Trump or a Mickey Mouse comic because they were considered unreliable. The unreliability constraint can only apply when it is the contents being referenced as authoritative, not when it is their existence that is being attested. So I have undone the undo, but is there some better way to mark something as not contentious but as a potentially self-serving primary source, reliable as an object or assertion but not referenced as endorsed facts or anything deemed reliable? |
|
"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.
