| Revision as of 19:34, 24 June 2014 editDave Dial (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,119 edits →Fursov redux: Comment← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:11, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,942,613 editsm →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB |
| (145 intermediate revisions by 74 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|blp=yes |1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography| living=yes |
|
{{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}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
<!-- ((bot-generated}} --> |
|
<!-- ((bot-generated}} --> |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|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=MiszaBot I |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 66: |
Line 54: |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive index |
|
|target=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive index |
|
|mask=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive <#> |
|
|mask1=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive <#> |
|
|mask=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive<#> |
|
|mask2=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive<#> |
|
|mask=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Australian media coverage |
|
|mask3=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Australian media coverage |
|
|mask=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/works |
|
|mask4=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/works |
|
|mask=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research |
|
|mask5=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research |
|
|leading_zeros=no |indexhere=no |template= |
|
|leading_zeros=no |indexhere=no |template= |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{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 96: |
Line 87: |
|
*, before 1987. |
|
*, before 1987. |
|
*, 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 == |
|
|
|
|
== Interviews and original research == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
self-defence Correct spelling is: self-defense <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
This is for the benefit of who is presumably a new editor and unfamiliar with policy. This editor is edit-warring to restore , which comes from an interview. We stay away from using interviews as source material (see ].) We avoid using primary sources because it puts the Misplaced Pages editor in the position of selecting a few sentences from a long interview, because that editor finds them appealing, or hopes to make some sort of point. Instead, we prefer secondary sources, because some author with credentials and/or editorial oversight, whose identity may be verified by Misplaced Pages readers, is making an informed decision that the lines in question are of particular interest. See also ]. ] (]) 03:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Living person biography-lock== |
|
== Fursov redux == |
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
Volunteer Marek has removed the Fursov quote on the grounds that "he is a crazy conspiracy theorist who thinks the Boston Marathon bombing was orchestrated by the US government." I did a web search and I found no evidence that he has said that. I did find that he has said some things about Ukraine which are likely to run counter to Volunteer Marek's ideology. If there is a reliable source saying that he said something weird about the Boston Marathon (either than that the US ignored intel provided by the Russians, which is common knowledge,) please post it. If there is reliable secondary source that is BLP-worthy and says Fursov is a nut, please provide a link to that. Otherwise, please refrain from deleting sourced material which has already been extensively debated, translated, etc. on this talk page. ] (]) 23:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::], good conduct is most important in Misplaced Pages. |
|
::. Sigh. You made me link and give google juice to stuff that's better unlinked.] (]) 00:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::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) |
|
:Searching through the Talk page and archives leads me to believe there has never been a consensus to add Andrey Fursov to this article. So I would wait until one develops, or just leave it out. There have been many attempts to put 'reviews' in this article that were nothing more than LaRouche paid advertisements or Schilling Institute ravings. ] (]) 23:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::Fair enough. I am alright with Berlet's suggestion.] (]) 18:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
:::I'm looking at the source in question, http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fterra-america.ru%2Fintellektuali-nazivaushie-larusha-fashistom-ne-yavlyautsya-intellektualami.aspx and what I'm wondering is has anyone that can read Russian verify any of this? Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. However the source isn't being quoted. A machine translation of the source is being quoted. There is no indication that this is a machne tranlation until you click the link. Further per ] at the section "Quoting non-English sources" it specifically says not to use machine translations for Biographies of living persons.] (]) 01:24, 25 May 2014 (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) |
|
::::The matter of translation was a subject of a previous discussion. I can't find the link right now, I can post it later. If you type in "Fursov" into the search archives box in the talk page templates above you can find it - a few clicks away. The point though - and this was the point made in that previous discussion - is that regardless of whether Fursov is being translated correctly or not, he is simply not a reliable source of the kind that you'd want to include in an Encyclopedia article. Because he's a conspiracy guy and all. Who thinks that the Boston Marathon bombings were the work of US government. And other stuff (that discussion took place, IIRC, before the Boston Marathon bombings and it concerned other wacky things he said). So it really doesn't matter if it's being translated correctly or not. It's just ] stuff. |
|
|
|
:::::{{ping|Dogru144}} Sorry, I missed your message a year ago. |
|
::::The only way I can see of including that quote is if we say "According to the conspiracy theorist Fursov..." or something like that. But per ] it just makes more sense to leave it out altogether.] (]) 01:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::{{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) |
|
:::::The BLP violation is a bigger deal. I'm not familiar with his fringe views on the Boston bombing but I would have to review them. Honestly since it's unrelated to the topic at hand I'm not sure that disaqualifies him. He is apparently a well known Russian Historian. Without verifying your position that is what comes to mind.] (]) 02:07, 25 May 2014 (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) |
|
::::::I guess that depends on how you define "well known Russian Historian". None of the Russian historians I know of take him seriously or are even aware of him. He's got a degree though I guess.] (]) 02:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::{{ping|Lectonar}} Great response, thanks! ]] 20:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
:::::::I don't define that. And really you haven't offered up much to define that with. You mention his fringe positions. I'm just not sure calling the world flat removes your reliability to call the moon round. That be a long and painful conversation that I honestly feel you want to have and certainly I don't want to have it. The above policies I mention however offer a pretty straight forward case. That case can be worked around by for instance offering something other than a mchine translation. But then in the case that there's more to look at. If this machine translation were acceptable I would ask what is the relevence and what is being said. His opinion on Western critics of LaRocuhe may fall under being a significant minority POV but in that case a question of notability Pops up. But "Fursov said that in Russia not so many people know of Larouche, although, of course, the important thing is not the quantity, but the quality." I'm not sure what that means. I have assumptions but I think as this seems to be a primary source and the assumptions would basically be original research. I missing the relevence behind it's inclusion. A small undetermined group in Russia like LL. But then as I said I don't have a proper translation to really ask anything. But I think we both currently agree that this shouldn't be in the article.] (]) 03:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
Gentlemen, if you would be so kind as to scroll up the page just a little, or if you prefer, you can find the first Fursov discussion, which didn't happen all that long ago. The translation is not by a computer, it was made by ] at the Russian Reference Desk. I followed the link to Marek's video and I am unimpressed -- what he says is ambiguous and could be easily interpreted as a claim that the US simply exploited the bombings to change the subject from other, more embarrassing topics. Compare that to some of the truly outlandish claims by Chip Berlet or Dennis King which are all over this article -- and neither of them is a credentialed academic. Since we are giving so much weight to those claims, I think it is appropriate under NPOV (if we can't simply remove them under BLP) to allow Fursov to rebut them. We can't call Fursov a conspiracy theorist based on Marek's opinion, due to the rule against Original Research. In fact, I'm still waiting for any reliable secondary source that might discredit Fursov. ] (]) 15:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
You sourced it to a machine translation. When someone clicks your source they go to the machine translation. "Fursov said that in Russia not so many people know of Larouche, although, of course, the important thing is not the quantity, but the quality." I wondering how this is relevent. It really sounds like inane banter. As far as the rest of what he says, I'm sure why it should be removed even if he is a conspiracy theorist. The question I would pose is if he's represnts a significant view point ( minority or otherwise). ] (]) 17:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I didn't source it to anything, I'm not the one who added it. The line for which you are wondering about relevance was added much later by Binksternet, who mistakenly thought that it was negative and was therefore eager to add it. ] was asked to clarify the translation, and it turned out that it meant something different than what Binksternet thought. As far as I am concerned, that sentence is useless and should be removed. The part about people who call LaRouche a fascist should stay, as long as we are also quoting the people who call LaRouche a fascist. ] (]) 21:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Unless I'm mistaking we have a consensus here to leave out, "Fursov said that in Russia not so many people know of Larouche, although, of course, the important thing is not the quantity, but the quality." As for the machine translation as a source you were the last person to restore that information so it does really follow you. If you go to restore it at any point use the original source instead of the machine translation. ] (]) 00:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree that there is a consensus to omit that section. The section which was there earlier, where Fursov refutes the Dennis King claim that LaRouche was secretly a fascist, should stay under NPOV, unless the King claim is also removed. The only argument that has been offered against the Fursov quote is Volunteer Marek's personal opinion, based on a tortured interpretation of a YouTube video, that Fursov is "fringe." Dennis King's book is available online and I have read parts of it -- King jumps to the wildest and most extraordinary conclusions based on the wispiest evidence, which to me is the hallmark of a conspiracy theorist, AKA "fringe." King also has no credentials of any sort that I am aware of, whereas Fursov has a Phd in History, is the Director of Russian Studies at Moscow University, and is a member of the International Academy of Sciences. Under the circumstances, I can think of no policy-based reason to retain King's BLP-problematic accusation while excluding Fursov's refutation. I hope that some of the edit-warriors who have been deleting it will provide us here with some explanation. ] (]) 02:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Small corrections: Fursov is affiliated with the Moscow Institute for the Humanities; and it's not at all clear that membership in the International Academy of Sciences is a meaningful credential. --] (]) 06:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{ping|DD2K|Binksternet}} I have participated extensively in this discussion, and provided policy-based reasoning for including the original Fursov quote. The two of you have avoided the discussion like the plague, and simply reverted on a ] basis. I think that it is time you demonstrated good faith and provided some sort of rationale. Under the circumstances, I think it is particularly ironic that DD2K continually reverts using "no consensus" as an edit summary (and then leaves an "edit war" warning on my talk page.) I've been watching these LaRouche-related pages for a couple of years now and what jumps out at me is that Fursov's view is highly characteristic of coverage of LaRouche in the establishment media of Russia and China, whereas in the establishment media of the U.S. and Europe the typical denunciations of LaRouche have grown much milder over the past several decades. It seems that there are some editors here that are nostalgic for the 1980s and want to make Misplaced Pages a showcase for Dennis King, etc. But NPOV dictates that we include all significant points of view "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias." ] (]) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have not been discussing the issue here because Volunteer Marek, Amble and Serialjoepsycho have been bringing up the points I am concerned with. |
|
|
:Coverage of LaRouche has not grown milder. LaRouche is an old man now but he is still injecting controversy into the world. In the 2010 book ''Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices'', selected ] to write the section on LaRouche. Berlet does not describe LaRouche in "milder" terms. See . Editor Kathlyn Gay does not describe LaRouche in "milder" terms in the 2011 book ''American Dissidents: An Encyclopedia of Activists, Subversives, and Prisoners of Conscience: An Encyclopedia of Activists, Subversives, and Prisoners of Conscience''. Gay says on that LaRouche continues to engage in confrontational politics in the 2000s, comparing Obama to Hitler, continuing with his charge that Jews are conspiring to take over the world, and that US and UK banking policies are fascist. Gay's sources include LaRouche's own writing as recent as 2010, and writing about LaRouche from Marc Ambinder's 2009 article in ''Atlantic'', Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons in the 2000 book ''Right-wing Populism in America'', and April Witt from a 2004 article in the ''Washington Post Magazine''. She also uses the Dennis King book, showing that it still has relevance. In any case, there is no factual basis for your assertion that LaRouche is denounced in a "milder" fashion in recent years. ] (]) 14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{EC}}You have participated, but you ]. There have been several long time editors that have objected to adding this to the article. Whether the reasons are ] or ]. Just because you believe the reasons aren't good enough, doesn't mean you can ] to continually add the disputed section. Once it's challenged, you should not re-add the disputed material until ] is formed. Or you can take the issue to another venue. But to refuse the reasoning of other editors, while continuing to insert the disputed material is edit warring. And will eventually lead to a block, topic ban or both. ] (]) 14:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for responding. It's difficult to reach consensus without any discussion. First, I'd like to point out that neither of you are offering a reason to exclude the Fursov material. Marek said that in his personal opinion, Fursov was a "fringe" commentator, but of course, Misplaced Pages requires secondary sources and prohibits original research. As far as I can see, that was the end of that particular argument. Binksternet, your listing of ] sources that include Berlet's POV is not an argument for excluding Fursov's POV. DD2K, you are citing WP:CONSENSUS, but you may have missed the part that says "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." ] (]) 15:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I did not even ''try'' to support a Fursov exclusion because it is the burden of the person who wants to include disputed text to argue for inclusion, and I don't see your view catching fire here. What I did instead is rebut your assertion that a neutral portrayal of LaRouche should be "milder" than what we now have. ] (]) 16:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Allow me to refresh your memory about two things: ] says that the person who adds disputed material must demonstrate that it is ''verifiable'', and I don't think that verifiability is being disputed here. It doesn't say that the person who adds disputed text must make everyone ] it. Secondly, ] says this: "Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines." So, once again, the fact that you and DDK2 don't like the material does not absolve you of the responsibility to present policy-based reasons why you think it should be excluded. ] (]) 18:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It's ] emphasis! First, it's from a Russian source which gives the reader a false sense that LaRouche has a strong base in Russia. Kyril or Cyril Benedictine, Fursov's interviewer and the author of the article, says in a different article that the size of the LaRouche movement in Russia should not be exaggerated. (See ). Second, Fursov's comment itself has no substance; it is just a put-down. We don't need to tell the reader that Fursov gets irritable with regard to intellectuals who call LaRouche a fascist. The reader doesn't care a fig about Fursov's opinion on the matter. If the reader was interested in the fascist label as applied to LaRouche, they would want to know ''why'' it is applied to LaRouche, not whether Fursov gets irritated. ] (]) 18:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Interesting reasoning, since the article is full of similar "put-downs" of LaRouche by his opponents, also without explanation. I have read chunks of King and Berlet on-line, and they appear to be asserting that they have telepathic powers, since LaRouche claims to be crusading against fascism and the two of them claim that secretly LaRouche likes fascism, which they can ascertain by hearing "echoes" and "coded language." It all strikes me as decidedly fringe-y. As far as LaRouche being popular in the Russian establishment press (I never claimed he had some sort of mass movement there,) see ]. ] (]) 19:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::If you want to argue whether LaRouche should be described as a fascist you should start another discussion topic. Of course, I would point out that it's far more than just Berlet and King who say this. ] (]) 19:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::You pick and choose(cherry pick) texts within policy almost as much as you and Waalkes pick and choose parts of an interview to include in this article. It's ], and as another editor stated, if we were to even consider inserting anything concerning Fursov's small mention of LaRouche, other measures would need to be included as well. The fact that you continue to ignore objections and try to use portions of policy to support you ignoring those objections, seems to be an underlying tactic by more than a 'few' LaRouche editors. As it seems both you and Waalkes have almost exclusively edited articles concerning LaRouche, this is getting very ]. ] (]) 19:34, 24 June 2014 (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--> |
|
== Lead too short == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lydon LaRouche == |
|
I have tagged this article because the lead is much too short. I came here to learn about LaRouche's political philosophies, hoping they'd be in the lead. The article is 187,296 bytes before my tag and ] would suggest that the lead be ''at least'' 4 paragraphs. As I know nothing about this topic, I felt a tag was better than ]. Would people following this page be so kind as to add to the lead? Thank you. ] (]) 17:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is a separate article on LaRouche's political philosophies, ]. Up until the end of last year there was a longer lead for this article which I thought was better, but there was an unfortunate edit war, which apparently could only be ended by adopting the present super-short lead. Here's a link to the older version: ] (]) 18:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{replyto|Joe Bodacious}} Thanks for the reply! I'll check out that article. This page still really does need a longer lead though. But I can understand why edit wars might occur here. ] (]) 19:03, 28 May 2014 (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--> |
|
== ] regarding "controversial" in first sentence == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] has an ]== |
|
I have posted there concerning using Misplaced Pages's voice to call LaRouche "controversial". This violates ], and in turn, ]. ] (]) 00:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I removed it. There is no question that the man has been controversial, but that cannot be in the lede, and it cannot be "said" in Misplaced Pages's voice. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 00:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes it can. The fact that LaRouche is controversial is widely known, not a matter of dispute. The possible sources supporting the word "controversial" are legion, and we cited one of them in the first sentence. |
|
|
::The word "controversial" is apt, and should be returned. ] (]) 00:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Agree. It's probably the least of the descriptors one could use in the lede. This is not a BLP issue. There can surely be a discussion about what descriptors to use in the lede, but to pretend it's a BLP issue to describe a controversial figure as "controversial" is a step into fantasy land. ] (]) 01:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<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) |
|
:Nope. We (as in we, the supposedly neutral Misplaced Pages editors) cannot flat out call someone "controversial" so that the people who read the article think we've poured our negative opinion of the subject into the intro, no less. We can say something like "LaRouche's <small>(career, views, eating habits, whatever)</small> is considered to be controversial by XYZ" followed by a good set of citations. That's what ] exists to enforce - avoiding passing judgement on a subject. "Controversial" is as inappropriate there as "brilliant" would be, which I assume would be removed without hesitation if a fan of his politics decided to add it. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 05:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Supreme Court cases? == |
|
::Both "controversial" and "brilliant" may be appropriate for rare biographies. This one is most certainly appropriate for "controversial". LaRouche is so controversial that people use him in passing as an obvious example of someone who is controversial, despite the text being about something completely different. Here are some sources specifically about LaRouche: |
|
|
::*LaRouche's own biography, published by his own organization, says he ranks "among the most controversial international political figures of his time". |
|
|
::*Respected military historian ] writes, "The protesters were led and organized by and consisted mainly of supporters of Lyndon LaRouche, a controversial political figure." ''Freemasons: A History and Exploration of the World's Oldest Secret Society'', , Citadel Press, 2005. |
|
|
::*John M. Allswang, Professor of History at California State University, Los Angeles, wrote that "the leaders of these proposition campaigns were primarily political rather than medical figures, and none of them was more controversial than Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr." ''The Initiative and Referendum in California: 1898–1998'', , Stanford University Press, 2000. |
|
|
::That's just a start. I can fill the page with this stuff. ] (]) 06:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::When I submitted ] for GA review, I got mild criticism for including 8 or 9 references calling the fountain "controversial" so I trimmed the references back a bit. In this case, I think it would be an easy matter to find scores of references calling LaRouche "controversial". It might be difficult to find any in-depth coverage of LaRouche in reliable independent sources that ''doesn't'' use the word "controversial" or a close synonym. We should summarize what reliable sources say, and this characterization seems completely justified. ] ] 06:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There is no issue with using controversial. The MOS is about the effect and usage of words. How do you think this usage has introduced bias?] (]) 19:49, 13 June 2014 (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[REDACTED] 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) |
|
== Left Proto Fascists == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
Fascism is by nature a reactionary right wing phenomenon. To call it left-fascism is contradictory and eclectic. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:I don't really have an opinion on this, but FWIW Misplaced Pages has an article on ]. ] (]) 05:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::It appears that it is not uncommon for rival groups of leftists to call each other left-fascists. ] (]) 05:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Modern Fascism originated 100 years ago when the question of how to respond to the outbreak of World War I disrupted socialist organizations. ] had been a leading Socialist Party activist and newspaper editor when he was ousted for nationalist support of the war. He then founded the fascist movement. Fascism originated, then, as a specific nationalist variant of revolutionary socialism. ] ] 02:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
"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[REDACTED] 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.
