| Revision as of 02:37, 24 May 2009 editCs32en (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,891 edits →Menshikov: It's not about context, but notability.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:40, 24 May 2009 edit undoWill Beback (talk | contribs)112,162 edits →Menshikov: good pointNext edit → | ||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
| :::::::::::the quote needs context, such as who the person is and the context for the comment. That's more than belongs in the lede. If we can establish taht then tlede might summarize it by saying something like, "LaRuoche has been praised by a Russian academic." <b>] ] </b> 02:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC) | :::::::::::the quote needs context, such as who the person is and the context for the comment. That's more than belongs in the lede. If we can establish taht then tlede might summarize it by saying something like, "LaRuoche has been praised by a Russian academic." <b>] ] </b> 02:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Even if we would have a reliable secondary source on Menshikov, this cannot be in the lede. If Menshikov is not notable enough to have his own article, why would his opinion about ''another'' person be so important that it would be in the lede? <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">]</span> 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC) | Even if we would have a reliable secondary source on Menshikov, this cannot be in the lede. If Menshikov is not notable enough to have his own article, why would his opinion about ''another'' person be so important that it would be in the lede? <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">]</span> 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :That's a good point. <b>] ] </b> 02:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:40, 24 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. |
|
| 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 |
 | Lyndon 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Biography B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
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)
- 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)
- I don't see any mention of LaRouche. Will Beback talk 18:26, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- At this point, I think that the most helpful thing that you could do would be to write a new BLP of Stanislav Menshikov, to replace the one that you just deleted as part of your never-ending feud with the LaRouchies. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- If he's genuinely notable then someone unassociated with the LaRouche movment will write one. I have no feud with "the LaRouchies", and I'd remind you to assume good faith and avoid baseless charges. Will Beback talk 01:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- TallNapoleon may not like Menshikov's brand of economics, but he is clearly a respected figure who has been quoted in major US media and co-authored a book with John Kenneth Galbraith, in addition to his published works in his native country. --Coleacanth (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I actually don't know the first thing about him, I just know that that weird little statement didn't belong in the lede. Also, he's redlinked--why is that if he wrote something with Galbraith? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know, but Google has a cached version of a Misplaced Pages article on him: --Coleacanth (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- So, TallNapoleon, your argument for deleting it from the lead is that you personally disagree with the view expressed by Menshikov? --Coleacanth (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I actually don't know the first thing about him, I just know that that weird little statement didn't belong in the lede. Also, he's redlinked--why is that if he wrote something with Galbraith? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- TallNapoleon may not like Menshikov's brand of economics, but he is clearly a respected figure who has been quoted in major US media and co-authored a book with John Kenneth Galbraith, in addition to his published works in his native country. --Coleacanth (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- If he's genuinely notable then someone unassociated with the LaRouche movment will write one. I have no feud with "the LaRouchies", and I'd remind you to assume good faith and avoid baseless charges. Will Beback talk 01:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- At this point, I think that the most helpful thing that you could do would be to write a new BLP of Stanislav Menshikov, to replace the one that you just deleted as part of your never-ending feud with the LaRouchies. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:03, 23 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)
- The lead should reflect the article. Let's move the Menshikov and Heritage Foundaiton mentions down, and then discuss them. While we're at it, it'd be nice to find a third party source for the Menshikov quotation rather than just a LaRouche website. Will Beback talk 07:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Cole, I'm not informed enough to disagree with Menshikov. I just know that, per Misplaced Pages policy, which states that ledes should essentially be a summary of the article, Menshikov does not belong in the lede. That quote just stuck out like a sore thumb. Move it down. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Here's my two cents: The Heritage Foundation comment seems fairly representative of commentary about LaRouche in the US, while the Menshikov comment seems representative of (especially recent) commentary about LaRouche elsewhere, especially in Russia where his fans seem to have more access to media organs. TallNapoleon has not presented a convincing argument for deletion; both comments summarize what appears in the article. Therefore I support keeping the intro as it has been, especially since we have seen a period recently where there has not been the usual fussin' and fightin' at this article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- If the quote's gonna be in the lede, it needs some more context to it. For instance, "LaRouche's popularity is growing throughout the world. For instance, this dude Menshikov says..." with a more formal tone, obviously. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- the quote needs context, such as who the person is and the context for the comment. That's more than belongs in the lede. If we can establish taht then tlede might summarize it by saying something like, "LaRuoche has been praised by a Russian academic." Will Beback talk 02:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- If the quote's gonna be in the lede, it needs some more context to it. For instance, "LaRouche's popularity is growing throughout the world. For instance, this dude Menshikov says..." with a more formal tone, obviously. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Here's my two cents: The Heritage Foundation comment seems fairly representative of commentary about LaRouche in the US, while the Menshikov comment seems representative of (especially recent) commentary about LaRouche elsewhere, especially in Russia where his fans seem to have more access to media organs. TallNapoleon has not presented a convincing argument for deletion; both comments summarize what appears in the article. Therefore I support keeping the intro as it has been, especially since we have seen a period recently where there has not been the usual fussin' and fightin' at this article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Cole, I'm not informed enough to disagree with Menshikov. I just know that, per Misplaced Pages policy, which states that ledes should essentially be a summary of the article, Menshikov does not belong in the lede. That quote just stuck out like a sore thumb. Move it down. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Even if we would have a reliable secondary source on Menshikov, this cannot be in the lede. If Menshikov is not notable enough to have his own article, why would his opinion about another person be so important that it would be in the lede? Cs32en 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Will Beback talk 02:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)