Misplaced Pages

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:44, 17 May 2009 editMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 168h) to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 18.← Previous edit Revision as of 20:48, 22 May 2009 edit undoWill Beback (talk | contribs)112,162 edits Menshikov: contextNext edit →
Line 66: Line 66:
Why on earth is this mentioned in the lede? This looks like a violation of ] and ]. ] (]) 10:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Why on earth is this mentioned in the lede? This looks like a violation of ] and ]. ] (]) 10:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
:You consider Menshikov to be less notable than, for example, the Heritage Foundation? --] (]) 17:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC) :You consider Menshikov to be less notable than, for example, the Heritage Foundation? --] (]) 17:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
::It might be appropriate to mention that Menshikov has spoken at one or more LaRouche movement events, so is not an impartial commentator. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:48, 22 May 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lyndon LaRouche article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
Former featured article candidateLyndon LaRouche is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
WikiProject iconBiography B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:


Mediation, arbitration,
requests for clarification, and
other discussions about the
LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement,
AN/I, 2005-8
Arbitration 2006
Arbitration 2005
Arbitration 2004
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Mediation 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Template talk
Categories
This box:


Economist???

It would seem the titles of "economist" and "philosopher" have reappeared in this article. As La Rouche has no advanced degrees or any other professional credentials in either subject, I don't think it appropriate that any encyclopedic entry on this man's life imply expertise where none exists. I thought this was sorted out last year. Nightg1 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Pecora Commission

My very brief edit on the call for a Pecora Commission was reverted on grounds of being "non-notable." It might have been non-notable last Fall, but I think it is notable now because it has been echoed by so many others, including Sen. Byron Dorgan, Bill Moyers, Paul Krugman and Nancy Pelosi. --Coleacanth (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the Senate moved to create such a commission yesterday. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  18:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
My edit doesn't claim that LaRouche was responsible for the Senate action. It simply says LaRouche called for a new Pecora Commission 8 months ago. At the time, it was a typically obscure LaRouche utterance, but now that it has "caught on," I'd say that it is notable. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
If it's notable then it will have been noted in a reliable secondary source. So far as I can tell, it's only been reported in LaRouche's own publications. If we reported everything that those publications say about LaRouche this article would be a million words long. We already link to those publications, so if readers want to learn about all of the subject's "calls" then those'd be the best places for them to visit.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

New categories

An editor just added these categories for a second time:

The same editor recently removed Category:Antisemitism from another article, labelling it a "smear category". Contentious categories like this require reliable sources. I've already reverted the additions once, and will do so again unless adequate sources are provided.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Contentious categories should only be used in the absence of evidence to the contrary. I think "anti-Zionism" should go also, because I think L may have changed his views on Zionism. --Leatherstocking (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I had gone ahead and removed two while leaving the "anti-zionist" category because that one seemed fairly well supported. Is there a source for his changed views?   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I found an EIR article that discusses "good guy" vs. "bad guy" factions within Zionism at http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2920_jabotinsky.html --Coleacanth (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
LaRouche is barely mentioned in that article, which appears to depict most Zionists as misguided for not following the Americn System.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

External links

Trimmed down EL sect, added {{No more links}}. If some of these are useful, they should be incorporated into the article as sources. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Menshikov

Why on earth is this mentioned in the lede? This looks like a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:LEDE. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You consider Menshikov to be less notable than, for example, the Heritage Foundation? --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It might be appropriate to mention that Menshikov has spoken at one or more LaRouche movement events, so is not an impartial commentator.   Will Beback  talk  20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Categories: