Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:01, 19 December 2007

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

old comments

• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List of wild fabrications and propagandistic slurs in the present version.
• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Significant Omissions from the current version
• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herschelkrustofsky (talk • contribs) August 19, 2004.

old comments

The new version seems pretty solid to me. If anyone has any specific criticisms, let's discuss them here. -Willmcw 21:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Fusion

I have not read any articles of Fusion, but it seems rather presumptive and biased to claim LaRouche as "praising Nazi Rocket Scientists", and what is the deal with the DDT?. Just asking.

RoyBot 69.248.43.27 11:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous edits

Cognition was right to say "Willmcw, the changes in question were added by an anonymous passerby who did not provide citations or discuss the additions on the Talk page." I have noticed on other pages that Willmcw will often demand extensive source citations, and on this one he let all sorts of biased comments in without any objection. This seems like a double standard. --NathanDW 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Are there any specific issues about the article that you'd like to raise, or are you just complaining? -Will Beback 22:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are some objections to the anonymous edits. The older version was much more neutral and objective.

This paragraph is completely POV: "By the late 1970s, the NCLC had abandoned Marxism altogether, in favor of what LaRouche called an American System approach. Critics such as Chip Berlet, Russ Bellant and Dennis King, noting the NCLC's obsession with Jewish banking conspiracies and its increasingly militaristic and statist rhetoric, accused it of adopting an essentially neo-fascist world view."

LaRouche did not invent the American System, but this makes it look like he did. Chip Berlet, Bellant and King did not "note the NCLC's obsession Jewish banking conspiracies and its increasingly militaristic and statist rhetoric." As far as I can tell from reading LaRouche's writings, there is no such obsession. These charges are repeated like a mantra by Berlet, but they should not be repeated in Misplaced Pages articles like they are established fact.

Saying that NCLC members "attempt to carry out research" is POV. You can say that all researchers "attempt to carry out research," but this is propaganda language to belittle them. Webster Tarpley is listed as co-author of the Bush biography, but I don't find anything that backs up the anonymous editor's claim that he was the "main author." "Helga Zepp-LaRouche, wife of Lyndon, who has interpreted the ideas of Friedrich Schiller and Nicholas of Cusa to depict them as forerunners of LaRouche" -- also POV. And, I agree with Roybot -- the comments about Fusion magazine are just ridiculous.

Will Beback, you should not need me to point these things out to you. You seem to have no problem noticing these sort of thing in other articles. --NathanDW 17:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If these are the problems with the text then deal with them - don't revert the entire article back to an old version. I'm going to revert your revert, and then address these specific issues. -Will Beback 18:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

NathanDW has changed this article back, step by step, towards its absurd earlier form. First, the writers he cited have not had a "major" influence on the LaRouche organization or on its ideology, which is all about Lyndon, his ego, his ideas. They are not taken seriously by any legitimate scholars. To point this out and to remove their puffed-up self-descriptions is not POV, as NathanDW keeps saying, its an attempt to keep wikipedia sane. The stuff about Helga trying to present Schiller as a proto-LaRouche is dead-on accurate; it is profoundly misleading to present her as a legitimate Schiller scholar. As to Webster Tarpley, his name is listed first on the book jacket in spite of his name being alphabetically second, and he was the one who went around promoting the book. And he's the one who sells it today on his own web site while I couldn't find it for sale on the LaRouche site. That NathanDW would try and palm this off as a book simply by Anton Chaitkin is another example of how utterly dishonest the LaRouche cult is.--15 February 2006

Sources for the disputed material would help settle this. Thanks, -Will Beback 01:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Material in Misplaced Pages articles must be verifiable. You are simply putting in your own opinions. The material that was there originally was not well sourced, but at least it was not full of speculation (for example, you are not putting in any evidence that Tarpley was the main author of the book. What you are doing is called Original Research and it is not permitted at Misplaced Pages.) I think the most honest and verifiable way to present the contributions of NCLC members is simply to list who has had books published, and what they were about. That is verifiable. The stuff about Michael Hudson doesn't belong in a biographical note about Allen Salisbury. It is simply more POV-pushing. --NathanDW 01:56, 16 February 2006

(UTC)

The article is not about Allen Salisbury, it is about the NCLC. The only reason the list of so-called NCLC scholars was placed in it was to promote the fantasy that NCLC is a "philosophical association" rather than what it really is--an anti-Semitic far-right cadre organization waging a centralized propaganda war against Jews, Judaism, Israel, the UK and the principles of American democracy. But once the claim is made that Salisbury is this great Carey scholar then the issue of what a real Carey scholar learned about Salisbury's organization becomes a legitimate comment. If you want Hudson out, and if you want 21st C magazine's pet Nazi scientists out, and if you want Helga's absurd views on Schiller to not be mentioned, then the solution is simple--take out the entire section on the so-called NCLC scholars. There ARE no NCLC scholars, only a group of fanatics headed by a convicted felon.-- 15 February 2006

NathanDW wants to get away with describing LaRouche's economic theories as "the American System" approach. I changed this back to "what NCLC members described as the American System approach." If these people want to treat their adherence to what they call the American System approach as a fact, they have to document it, which they haven't done any more than they have documented that LaRouche is the inheritor of Martin Luther King or Plato or Charles de Gaulle or Charlemagne or the Old Man of the Mountain or anyone else whom they have depicted at one time or another as a proto-LaRouche. As to the Webster Tarpley issue, I'm asking NathanDW again why he erased Tarpley's name. Is he trying to turn Misplaced Pages into a Soviet style encyclopedia in which if a leader falls from power his face gets airbrushed out of the picture? Just go to Tarpley's web site. He's selling the book and its the same edition published by the LaRouche organization and Tarpley's name is clearly listed first.--15 February 2006

None of your opinions matter under Misplaced Pages policy. Material in Misplaced Pages articles must come from published sources. Please provide sources for the opinions you have placed in the article or else remove them. --NathanDW 01:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BirdsOfFire that these edits are original research. However I think both he an Cberlet should not have done a wholesale revert, but adressed them one by one. I will do that now, a few at a time. --NathanDW 16:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Hudson

Cberlet, you deleted information about Michael Hudson, saying that it duplicates information in other articles. I think that this is a mistake because the reader of this article would have no way of knowing that there was information about Hudson in the other article. Also, I have seen that you frequently put duplicate information in more than one article, for example in Jeremiah Duggan and Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. You have done that quite recently in fact. So, you should not object to the Hudson information appearing here. --NathanDW 20:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cannot have the same identical paragraph on two pages on LaRouche. Link if you must.--Cberlet 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, the paragraphs are not identical, only the quote is. Please show me a rule on Misplaced Pages that says a quote can not appear in two different articles. --BirdsOfFire 16:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

SDS

I notice there was an edit war over whether the group "left" or "was expelled" from SDS. Does either side of this conflict have any evidence? It doesn't seem like it should appear at all if there is no verification. Or, both versions of the story should appear. --172.197.75.131 14:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

Is the article still disputed? There doesn't seem to be much discussion going on. --Tsunami Butler 21:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Flag should probably be removed.--Cberlet 22:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the flag, and trimmed the LaRouchite propaganda unrelated to this page. Please abide by Arbcom decisions regarding pro-LaRouchite material on Misplaced Pages.--Cberlet 03:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Two questions:

1. How is a list of leading members considered "propaganda"?

2. Are you Chip Berlet?

--Tsunami Butler 15:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The list of names are still there, with links. The unrelated promotional plugs that are not really connected to the history of the defunct NCLC are gone. Are you a LaRouchie? Please abide by Arbcom decisions regarding pro-LaRouchite material on Misplaced Pages. --Cberlet 16:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet, please be mindful of WP:CIVIL. There is nothing illegitimate about this person asking you if you are Chip Berlet -- it's a matter of record at Talk:Chip Berlet. --NathanDW 15:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be mindful of the Arbcom decision against attempts to plug pro-LaRouche material into multiple pages. You are in violation.--Cberlet 17:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I brought this up in the "clarification" section at the "Requests for Arbitration" page, and the ArbCom member who responded said he couldn't find anything wrong with Nathan's edit . --ManEatingDonut 14:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we have verifiable sources for the material? -Will Beback 23:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the ones who wrote books. That the books were published is verifiable. I don't know how to find the other ISBN numbers though -- maybe someone can help on this. --NathanDW 02:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What's our source for Billington's Chinese education? How is it relevant to this article? -Will Beback 05:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No mention

Why is there no mention of this being a cult? Is there a threat of being sued by LaRouche? It was a cult when I saw the people in it in the 1970s, they were intimidated time and again, and some exceedingly nasty things were said to individuals. This by "leaders" who were doing it to the "cadre"--those who essentially believed the "organization." It was, as I saw it in the 1970s in the town in which I lived, a cult. The people in it were mostly young, and I suppose that is why they got away with such outlandishly belittling treatment of their "cadre." Calling this a "cadre" organization seems to be pandering to the Larouchites, it was certainly more like a "cult" organization than anything I've seen since. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.237.176.83 (talk • contribs).

Please understand that this is just one of several articles about the LaRouche Movement. If you have any sources which support your view of this topic then please add them. We can't write articles based on our personal knowledge. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

New York Committee to Stop Terrorist Attacks, 1973

I have reverted this material from Cberlet because I doubt that the NYCTSTA can stand up to WP:V requirements. Also, the new material probably violates WP:UNDUE, and the image is likely to be deleted on the grounds that it has been released to the public domain by "anonymous." -Marvin Diode (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The source is Chip Berlet, reporting what he says they said. I'm not sure how the "undue weight" argument can be made. By comparison, the article seems to spend a lot of time talking about the subsequent writing careers of one-time members. Is the EIR actually published by the NCLC? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added the NPOV tag until we hash this out. We have Chip Berlet citing himself, claiming that the New York Committee to Stop Terrorist Attacks, whoever and whatever that was, claimed that the NCLC published something -- I think that we are a long way from WP:V here. I also question whether this episode rises to the level of notability (hence the question about undue weight -- it takes up a substantial portion of the article,) and I am removing the image under BLP -- I think that a caricature with a swastika is probably defamatory.

There seems to be a pattern here -- every few weeks, Cberlet picks one of the LaRouche articles that has been stable and does something deliberately provocative, a textbook case of tendentious editing. I don't see any other explanation for this latest foray -- it adds nothing of substance to the article, it just provides another opportunity for Cberlet to say "Nyah, nyah, LaRouche is an asshole," and waste everyone's time some more. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How come the Pro-LaRouche editors can find text from really old LaRouchite articles to support claims that praise LaRouche, but cannot seem to find really old LaRouchite articles where they wrote idiotic, venomous, or bigoted text? Is that a pattern?--Cberlet (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The behavior described by Marvin Diode is the opposite of tendentious editing. It's a good thing to allow disputes to quiet down. And if nobody could edit stable article then Misplaced Pages would cease improving.

Regarding the Red Hornets, the Charlotte incident had an entire newspaper article written about it. If we judge weight by sources then it probably doesn't have sufficient weight. Again, I don't see how the books later published by one-time members are as relevant.

As for the image, if it's properly sourced then BLP doesn't prevent us from using it. BLP doesn't bar all defamatory material, just poorly-sourced defamatory material. I think that until we can verify that the Red Hornets created the design, or some other sufficient sourcing, then we should leave it off.

Lastly, is this group notable enough for an article of their own? Or would it be better merged with the LaRouche movement, or the U.S. Labor Party? Much of the relevant material, such as "Operation Mop Up", is already at Lyndon LaRouche or the other articles. We don't have much to say about this group by itself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics