Jump to content

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coleacanth (talk | contribs) at 21:13, 8 August 2009 (→‎libel suits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Former featured article candidateLyndon LaRouche is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. 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 Wikipedia'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 articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


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:


Defunct Link to remove after un-protect

The paragraph

"LaRouche has claimed that "the FBI was orchestrating its assets in the leadership of the Communist Party U.S.A., to bring about my personal 'elimination'", LaRouche Speaks.net citing a document obtained through the Freedom of Information Act."

in the chapter "Operation Mop-up" uses a defunct link to "larouchespeaks.net". This domain is defunct and was turned into a spam site. Schweinebärmann (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A replacement link is easily found: [1] --Maybellyne (talk) 06:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for Electoral Results?

The article claims LaRouche claims received 22% of the Democratic primary vote in Arkansas in 2000 and 11% in Kentucky. I'd really like to see some evidence for these wild claims which this deranged sect is fond of making in an unintentionally self-parodying style worthy of cheap comic opera or two bit professional wrestling. When I was a college student in the 70s we would sometimes see their bereft glass showcase in the student union containing copies of their cult newspaper with screaming headlines like "Millions Rally to LaRouche!". Sadly, at that age, of course, there are lost souls who are ripe to come under the undue influence of groups like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.241.5 (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it may seem remarkable, it is true. Gore was running for the Democratic primary with little opposition. LaRouche generally came in last. Probably LaRouche was the only candidate in Arkansas besides Gore, so he got the entire protest vote.[2] However LaRouche received no delegates because the party officials ruled that he was not a party member.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economist title

Don't you have to have some credentials to be described as an "economist"? Shouldn't it be clear that LaRouche describes himself as an economist, although he has no credentials in the field. I don't see how Wikipedia can properly call someone an economist who doesn't have an advanced degree in economics any more than some backyard experimenter can be called a chemist or a physicist. The profession of economist has well-defined standards, none of which are met by LaRouche. There is a differnce between an economist and an autodidact who has read a few books about economics, and I don't see why Wikipedia should confound the distinction.Cas70 (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but he has been called an economist by reliable sources. It would be inappropriate for use to decide that someone can only be an economist if he has an academic degree. FWIW, this issue has come up in regard to other people who don't meet certain professional standards, like Joe the Plumber, who isn't a licensed plumber.   Will Beback  talk  04:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche might accurately be called many things, but economist is not one of them. I thought the entry was supposed to be neutral. No neutral observer with any knowledge of what an economist is or does could possibly describe LaRouche as an economist. You've described him as he would like to be described - a description with little basis in reality. If you allow his imaginary self-descriptions to stand why not explain that anyone with any economic training would consider him a crackpot. In bending over backwards to be fair to LaRouche you are doing naive readers a great disservice in that they are likely to take away the impressdion that LaRouche really is an economist, whereas I'm sure you know as well as I do that he is most emphatically not. Why lie?Cas70 (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Clearly, any source that describes LaRouche as an economist is ipso facto not reliable.Cas70 (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make that argument, you'll need to disclose your identity and your professional qualifications, so we can weigh your opinion against those of the professionals who do describe LaRouche as an economist. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that with alacrity if you will first tell the name of one real, professional economist who would describe LaRouche as an economist. I am certain there are none. However, I think you could properly describe LaRouche as someone who writes on economic topics, which is quite a different thing from being a professional economist. To call LaRouche an economist is preposterous and is a disservice to Wikipedia readers who might be ingenuous enough to believe it to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cas70 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Is Stanislav Menshikov a real economist? I'm not entirely sure, but the claim is now made. I'm not convinced; he may just be a LaRouchian (there are fringe groups in Russia, as well), but the claim is at least plausible, now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me the name of one member of the guild in good standing who'll vouch for LaRouche as an economist. I should think Menshikov deeply compromised by his association with the LaRouchian movement.Cas70 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Cas70 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may not be fair. If Menshikov really is an economist, then it would be improper to consider him discredited just because he is associated with LaRouche. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll give my credentials but I'm not about to give my name for fear of crazed LaRouchians showing up on my doorstep because I've dissed their master. I have a Ph.D. from Columbia and have been published by good academic presses such as Cambridge. I was merely browsing through Wikipedia, and when I came upon the first sentence of the LaRouche piece, I was met by the absurd claim that he was an economist. I thought I'd be a good citizen and correct information that was clearly false, but I have subsequently found that even absurdities have their stubborn defenders. I've always told my students not to trust everything they read on Wikipedia, and it seems I'll have a cautionary tale from this experience to reinforce that warning. So, I give up. You can write that he holds the home run record and is the most renowned composer since Beethoven if you want. I'm out of here.Cas70 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Menshikov is not a suitable source, but there are plenty of newspapers that have called LaRouche an "economist", perhaps only because that's what he calls himself, but the fact remains that it is used in reliable sources.
  • LaRouche, an economist from Virginia, is an independent presidential candidate whose name appears on ballots in 18 states - including Washington - and the District of Columbia for the Nov. 6 general election.
    • Seattle Times. Seattle, Wash.: Oct 24, 1984. pg. A.2
  • It may be easy to dismiss LaRouche and his people -- perhaps with a joke as I did in Lima -- as mere innocuous lunatics. After all, anyone who claims, as he does in his autobiography, to be "the most controversial among the influential international figures of this decade," or the only "original thinker" among "the leading candidates for the U.S. presidency since 1945," or "the leading economist in the world today," is difficult to take seriously.
    • "The Americas: Lyndon LaRouche's Latin American Connection", Sergio Sarmiento,, Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Sep 1, 1989. pg. 1
  • For the past 40 years he has promoted off-the-wall economic policies that have been largely ignored by economists and the public alike but have attracted a small army of believers -- mainly younger people known in political circles as LaRouchians. ... It is hard to pin a label on someone like Mr. LaRouche, described widely as an economist and political activist.
    • "Democrat on the dark side", Peter Morton, Washington Bureau Chief. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Jun 16, 2005. pg. FP.8
  • Such conspiracy theories are the staple diet of EIR, which, despite its businesslike name, is produced by Lyndon H LaRouche, a 76-year-old cranky economist, convicted fraudster and cult leader who believes Henry Kissinger, the former US secretary of state, and the Queen are engaged in a conspiracy to subvert the world by flooding it with Aids and drugs.
    • "Rebel spy is drawn into the Fayed web" David Leppard and Nicholas Rufford , Sunday Times, May 16, 1999:12.
  • Economist and author Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. is a Democratic candidate for president of the United States. ... Occupational experiences: Management consultant and economist, 1947 to 1948 and 1952 to 1972; founder, Executive Intelligence Review Weekly, 1974; co-founder, Fusion Energy Foundation, 1975.
    • LaRouche angered by party policies MICHIGAN PRIMARY, MICHAEL ROMANCHEK " South Bend Tribune, February 17, 2000
  • A self-styled economist, he has detailed his theories involving economic, political, and social issues in a number of publications. ... CAREER: Politician, economist, business consultant, editor, and author. L. H. LaRouche Research, Boston, MA, vice president and management consultant, 1942-66; affiliated with G. E. River Works, Lynn, MA, beginning in 1949; management consultant, 1952-72; affiliated with the George S. May Company, 1955-58; worked in computer-complex installations and software design. National Caucus of Labor Committees, founder, 1969; U.S. Labor Party, presidential candidate, 1976, chair, 1977-79; Democratic presidential candidate, 1980; National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC), Washington, DC, chair of advisory committee, 1980-83, presidential candidate, 1984, 1988, and 1992; congressional candidate for 10th congressional district, VA, 1990. Member of International Advisory Board of the Schiller Institute.
    • Contemporary Authors Online biography, Source: Contemporary Authors Online, Gale, 2002
  • LaRouche said he has survived the threats on his life because he has protection from U.S. government officials who consider him the nation's best economist. "Even when they don't like me, they consider me a national asset, and they don't like to have their national assets killed," he said. LaRouche has no college degrees, but claims to have a perfect record for predicting the world economy. He said the current economy is similar to that of 1339 because it is on the verge of collapse. He believes the public lacks the political will to stop the collapse, and that once it occurs, he can solve the problems by putting the Federal Reserve into bankruptcy, returning to the gold standard and creating major building projects to provide jobs.
    • Election 2004 / Outsider making his 8th White House bid / LaRouche says he'd fix economy; RACHEL GRAVES, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau. Houston Chronicle. Houston, Tex.: . pg. 4
  • LaRouche appears to have no scientific qualifications (he describes himself as an economist), but his publication has run numerous articles ridiculing, or purporting to refute, the notion of global warming.
    • "Bellamy's on thin ice, but that can happen in a tangled web", John Naughton , The Observer May 22, 2005:7
And so on.   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One possible compromise would be to say he is a "self-styled economist" or "self-taught economist".   Will Beback  talk  20:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds sensible.Cas70 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no objection we can go ahead with that compromise.   Will Beback  talk  01:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. How do journalists become the ultimate authority on who is, and who is not, an economist? Incidentally, if journalists are the authority, the New York Times should have its say: "Mr. LaRouche, an 80-year-old economist, has raised more than $3.7 million over the years, much of it through small donations and the Internet."[3]And what makes Stanislav Menshikov, who has credentials out the wazoo, "not a suitable source"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maybellyne (talk • contribs) 06:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many policians get contributions, but that doesn't make them economists either. Maybellyne forgot to quote the next sentence, which ends by mentioning that he served "5 years of a 15-year sentence for mail fraud and defaulting on more than $30 million in loans from campaign supporters." Apparently, LaRouche has not received any formal training beyond whatever he got as an undergraduate before dropping out of college. Wikipedia's article on Economist says:
  • ..there is not a legally-required educational requirement or license for economists. In some job settings, the possession of a Bachelor's or Master's degree in economics is considered the minimum credential for being an economist. However, in some parts of the US government, a person can be considered an economist as long as they have four or more university courses in economics. As well, a person can gain the skills required to become a professional economist in other related disciplines, such as statistics or some types of applied mathematics, such as mathematical finance or game theory.
LaRouche isn't known to have been trained in anything. What expertise he has is self-taught.   Will Beback  talk  06:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few minutes spent trying to decipher any of LaRouche's writings on economics would convince any impartial observer that he is no economist, even using a very elastic definition of the term. Try figuring out what the LaRouche-Riemann method is, for instance. A few minutes of that will put you deep into Jabberwocky land. Bernhard Riemann must be rolling in his grave to have his name associated with such tripe. To call LaRouche an econimist would be tantamount to calling a little child playing with a stethoscope a doctor just because he imagines he is one. If Wikipedia wants to be truthful I don't see how it can do other than call him a "self-described" economist.Cas70 (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

The formatting of this article was strange. The 1970s section was out of chronological order. The 1980s section had subsections with placed with the same kind of headings as the main sections. The criticism section was smack dab in the middle of all this, interrupting chronological order. I have re-done it in a more conventional way. --Harry Angstrom (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good move, I always thought it was a bit odd. Can you clarify if you changed any text? It's very hard to tell if text is changed during a re-organization.   Will Beback  talk  04:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No text changes. I did add an extra sub-sub-heading in the 1970s section. --Harry Angstrom (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most common criticism

I changed this text:

To this:

Because the earlier version made unsourced assertions. In particular, that the "most common criticism" is that the subject is a "conspiracy theorist", and that he has been accused of being an anti-Semite due to two campaigns. Let's find sourcs for those assertions before restoring the old text.   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the section called "allegations of anti-Semitism," you will see that in each case, the allegations fall into one of those two categories. There is no one who alleges that LaRouche thinks that "Jews are bad" or that "Judaism is bad" -- they make claims that are "derivative" from his attacks on NeoCons or Zionists. It is perfectly reasonable for an introductory sentence to summarize the section which follows. Besides, your version is highly improper because it says that LaRouche is criticized for being an anti-semite, in other words you present the anti-semitism as a fact rather than an allegation. --Harry Angstrom (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that LaRouche has been criticized as an anti-Semite. We can change the text to say he is accused of these things rahter than being criticized for them. If you can find a source syaing he is accused of being an anti-Semite for those two campaigns then we can add that fact too, but we can't synthesize that deduction on our own, as that would violate WP:NOR.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For quotations of accusations of anti-Semitism, see Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research#"Anti-semite". I don't think a single one says that he is accused of being an anti-Semite because of those two campaigns.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we should expand that list to include the other common accusations, which are amply sourced.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

libel suits

The "libel suits" should be connected to "criticism," since they were a response to the criticism. To understand why LaRouche sued individuals or groups X,Y and Z, it is necessary to know what X,Y and Z said about him, so I put the libel suits information as a subheader to "criticism." --Harry Angstrom (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's add the criticism to the appropriate chrono locations too. It makes no sense to place these at the very end, especially the 1984 case which was so important.   Will Beback  talk  19:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it "so important"? --Harry Angstrom (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A number of things. First, it was well-covered in numerous reliable sources. Second, it had long-range impacts on LaRouche and his movement. Out of the many legal cases involving LaRouche, it is arguably the third most important, after the two criminal trials.   Will Beback  talk  06:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, criticism sections are increasingly deprecated. See WP:CRITICISM. A better method is to interleave criticism (and praise or countercriticisms) into the article as appropriate. In the case of this article, I suggest we try to focus on events. So rather than saying, "The ADL has said LaRouche ...." we should instead say, "In 1984, the ADL issued a report ...." That way the matter can be handled in chronological order, with the libel suit in sequence. I'll start working on that. The libel suits don't appear directly connected to what is in the "criticism" section, so it may require adding a little background to each.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRITICISM is equivocal. The advantage of consolidating the criticisms in one place is that you can eliminate redundancy; we only have to say "LaRouche condemns anti-semitism" once, whereas if you interleave accusations of anti-semitism throughout the article, the rebuttals will have to be reiterated. It isn't necessary to connect the libel suits to specific criticisms in the present format, because the personalities who were sued are identified in the preceding section. What is problematic is the unsourced assertions about King and Berlet which appear in the libel section.--Coleacanth (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, libel suits aren't criticism. I'll work the material into chronological ordser and add sourced material while deleting unsourced material.   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I note that the post-1994 material is all muddled together, and should really be organized chronologically too. I don't really see a need for any thematic sections in this article, which should remain narrowly focused on the events in the subject's life. We have an entire separate article devoted to his ideas and another devoted to his organization, plus other pages on specific topics. In any topic we cover here the focus should be on what he did or what happened to him. Some material seems tangential, like the Palme assassination, which probably belongs in the movement article, or the German reunification announcement, which belongs in the views article (if notable). Sometime soon we'll reorganize and rewrite this article.   Will Beback  talk  08:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You added a reference to LaRouche suing the ADL in 1978, but then you "flavored" it with quotes from the ADL published in 1984 and 1986. You should replace those quotes with contemporaneous ones or drop them. --Maybellyne (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Says the account that just added an assertion from a 2006 speech to the same 1979 section.[4] Both of the quotes I added are attributed to the report that was the subject of the 1979 libel case.   Will Beback  talk  20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a 2002 article by someone besides LaRouche. Let's keep this a chronological biography. If LaRouche or Steinberg said something in 1979 about anti-semiticism or the ADL then let's include it here. But this isn't the place to add comments from decades later.   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LaRouche is being accused of anti-Semitism, which he opposes. Your edits are designed to diminish or disparage his opposition, and they violate the BLP code. If you are going to attempt to obstruct the other side of the story, necessary under both BLP and NPOV, we should just put the libel suits and criticism (which you are inserting, using the libel suits as a "cover") back where they were. Please don't re-insert them until this has been sorted out. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party sources

The lack of third party sources for many issues has come up at the "Views" article but it applies here too. There are a number of entries that follow the pattern of "LaRouche announced..." If no one outside of the LaRouche movement has reported it then we shouldn't either. This article should rely primarily on reliable, secondary sources, whether they be Chinese or English. This article is due for an overhaul, so if sources can be improved now is the time to do so.   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted talk page

There is a directory at the top of this page which provides links to various LaRouche-related talk pages, including Talk:John Train Salon, which evidently was deleted by John Reaves in October 2007. The reason given is Wikipedia:CSD#G8. I followed that link, and found that it says "This excludes any page that is useful to the project, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user and user talk pages, talk page archives, plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons." So I would like to know if that page can be restored. --Maybellyne (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?   Will Beback  talk  20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche&oldid=306857581"