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 16:36, 23 April 2016 editClpo13 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,651 edits →RfC: Do selective deletions of material make this article non-neutral?← Previous edit Revision as of 16:37, 23 April 2016 edit undoClpo13 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,651 edits →RfC: Do selective deletions of material make this article non-neutral?Next edit →
Line 157: Line 157:
*'''No''', the article has not been made non-neutral by the removal of text which tried to make LaRouche seem like a respected thought leader in global politics when he is actually a fringe character. It's not the removal in February that made this article non-neutral, it was the much earlier additions of such text. So the removals fixed the problem. ] (]) 00:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC) *'''No''', the article has not been made non-neutral by the removal of text which tried to make LaRouche seem like a respected thought leader in global politics when he is actually a fringe character. It's not the removal in February that made this article non-neutral, it was the much earlier additions of such text. So the removals fixed the problem. ] (]) 00:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::So, just to be clear: in your few, the source, for example New York Times, is not the problem, but rather that the viewpoint was incorrect? So we retain the negative comments from that source, but purge the positive comments? That's an odd approach to neutrality. ] (]) 16:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC) ::So, just to be clear: in your few, the source, for example New York Times, is not the problem, but rather that the viewpoint was incorrect? So we retain the negative comments from that source, but purge the positive comments? That's an odd approach to neutrality. ] (]) 16:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:::There was one statement sourced to ''The New York Times'' : {{tq|a Mexican official told ''The New York Times'' that LaRouche had arranged the meeting by representing himself as a Democratic Party official.}} That's hardly a positive statement. The problem is that it was included in a larger block of content misrepresenting LaRouche as a major figure in world politics by throwing out a whole bunch of insignificant meetings. See ]. ]<sub>(])</sub> 16:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC) :::There was one statement sourced to ''The New York Times'' : {{tq|a Mexican official told ''The New York Times'' that LaRouche had arranged the meeting by representing himself as a Democratic Party official.}} That's hardly a positive statement. The problem is that it was included in a larger block of content misrepresenting LaRouche as a major figure in world politics by throwing out a whole bunch of insignificant meetings. See ] and ]. ]<sub>(])</sub> 16:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''', that diff shows a badly needed purge of ]-violating content. ] (]) 08:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC) *'''No''', that diff shows a badly needed purge of ]-violating content. ] (]) 08:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:37, 23 April 2016

Skip to table of contents
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, 26Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
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.
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
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconVirginia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEconomics
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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, 26Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:


Toolbox

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:

Policies and sources

Content policies

See WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS:

"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—

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Sources

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.

Christopher Toumey

This article seems to rely heavily on commentary by someone named Christopher Toumey. Who is he, and what makes him an authority? The source links seem to be broken -- they all lead to something that says "Toumey 1996", but that's the end of the line. What is "Toumey 1996"? Not the original Jack Bruce (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Toumey, a cultural anthropologist, published Conjuring Science: Scientific Symbols and Cultural Meanings in American Life in 1996, which discusses LaRouche's claims about AIDS and his false assertions of scientific authority (pp. 84-95). Xelkman (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me

Ten days ago I tried to initiate a discussion about a source that appears frequently in this article, Christopher Toumey, who seems to have no stature as a commentator. Also, the quotes from him in the article cannot be verified online. It looked to me to be something that fell short of Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing. Ten days have gone by and there has been zero response on this page. Meanwhile, some fellow has repeatedly deleted a huge swath of the article with no discussion at all, including material that is sourced to serious news publications with a circulation in the millions. I thought that the policy was to discuss any major changes in an article. I'm sorry, but Misplaced Pages seems to me to be playpen for people who do whatever they damn well please, with no responsible oversight. How could anyone take it seriously? Not the original Jack Bruce (]) 14:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

At least five experienced generalist editors have reverted this hagiographic content, Not the original Jack Bruce. There is no consensus for its inclusion. On the other hand, you show all the signs of being a "throwaway" single purpose account engaged in a slow motion edit war determined to keep this stuff in the article, and not a person who is here for the broad purpose of improving the encyclopedia. This is not another LaRouche controlled publication. Your efforts are unlikely to work here. Sorry. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@John from Idegon, Not the original Jack Bruce, Cullen328, and Dave Dial:@Solntsa90, Volunteer Marek, and Xcuref1endx: Editors should assume WP:Good Faith. The problem seems to be whether or not to keep content that was removed in February 2016, the content had been there since at least January 2014. Perhaps it would be helpful for editors either wanting to keep or remove material to expand on theirs reasons why on this talk page rather than in the confines of an edit comment. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It is clear to me that this article needs trimming. It is too long. The thing that struck me was that it seems to rely on "indy" commentators who may not be reliable sources. I identified one of these commentators, Christopher Toumey, in a post on this talk page, and waited to see what others would say, because that seemed like the most responsible way to proceed. No one responded. Then an editor came along and without initiating any discussion, deleted a very large segment of the article. I reverted the deleting, making a request for discussion on the talk page, which was ignored. A second editor deleted again, saying (in an edit summary, not on the talk page) that the sources were sketchy. Among these "sketchy" sources were the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, UPI, Xinhua, People's Daily, and Russia Today, all major publications.
One of the deleting editors left a message on my talk page in which he advised me to read BRD (he later denied having left that message.) I read BRD. It advises editors to make a "bold" edit (deleting a sizeable part of an article seems to qualify) and then "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version." It also says "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante)." As well, it says "Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion"." None of these policies were followed by the deleting editors. I would be happy to discuss proposed deletions and if reasonable explanations are offered, I won't object. I would also like to get a response to my question about Christopher Toumey. Not the original Jack Bruce (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've answered your question in the previous section. This took me less than five minutes of searching on Google. Xelkman (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on content removal

Removal one and edit comment:

  • diff1 - rmvd unreliable sources

Removal two and edit comment:

  • diff2 - rmvd completely unsourced section

Edit war

@Nomoskedasticity, Solntsa90, and Volunteer Marek: please discuss the merits of inclusion and omission instead of edit warring. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't moan at me about edit-warring when I've made only one edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to single anyone out in particular. If you check the history you if see their is no consensus for inclusion or omission, and there has been over ten reverts. Why do you think the material should be included or omitted? Jonpatterns (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Fully protected...

I have locked down the article for 3 days; please continue the discussion. Lectonar (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lyndon LaRouche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 21:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sources

Why were the sources removed? And why were they removed selectively (other material sourced to New York Times, Wall Street Journal etc. were left in the article)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B1BF:8E80:2033:528F:22D2:D761 (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Do selective deletions of material make this article non-neutral?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In February, a large amount of material was deleted from Lyndon LaRouche. The only explanation offered, in one of the edit summaries, was that the sources were "sketchy". Among the sources for the deleted material were the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Corriere della Sera, and Xinhua. Other material sourced to these same publications was retained in the article. The deleted material depicted the subject in a relatively favorable light, while the retained material was unfavorable. Requests for an explanation on the talk page have gone unanswered. Should this article be considered non-neutral and display the "neutrality dispute" message? 75.27.248.232 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=703959707&oldid=703959318 2602:304:B1BF:8E80:949E:1039:4EE1:D41C (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  • No, the article has not been made non-neutral by the removal of text which tried to make LaRouche seem like a respected thought leader in global politics when he is actually a fringe character. It's not the removal in February that made this article non-neutral, it was the much earlier additions of such text. So the removals fixed the problem. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
So, just to be clear: in your few, the source, for example New York Times, is not the problem, but rather that the viewpoint was incorrect? So we retain the negative comments from that source, but purge the positive comments? That's an odd approach to neutrality. 2602:304:B1BF:8E80:949E:1039:4EE1:D41C (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
There was one statement sourced to The New York Times : a Mexican official told The New York Times that LaRouche had arranged the meeting by representing himself as a Democratic Party official. That's hardly a positive statement. The problem is that it was included in a larger block of content misrepresenting LaRouche as a major figure in world politics by throwing out a whole bunch of insignificant meetings. See WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. clpo13(talk) 16:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Categories: