Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Niels Gade (talk | contribs)
387 edits
Cberlet (talk | contribs)
11,487 edits
"Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial posing as anti-Zionism," would be more accurate
Line 129: Line 129:


:::::::::Holocaust has an ''a'' in it. The title should reflect the amount of space and emphasis given to each topic in the section, therefore "Zionism, Jews and the Holocaust" is appropriate. --[[User:Niels Gade|Niels Gade]] ([[User talk:Niels Gade|talk]]) 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Holocaust has an ''a'' in it. The title should reflect the amount of space and emphasis given to each topic in the section, therefore "Zionism, Jews and the Holocaust" is appropriate. --[[User:Niels Gade|Niels Gade]] ([[User talk:Niels Gade|talk]]) 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::Which is why the entire section needs to be rewritten to reflect majority pubished views rather than a sad attempt by pro-LaRouche editors to frame the issue from the LaRouchite POV which minimizes the Holocaust Denial and antisemitism--trying to rpetend that it is mreely anti-Zionism, which is false and widely discussed as a ruse by the LaRouchites. "Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial posing as anti-Zionism," would be more accurate.--[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] ([[User talk:Cberlet|talk]]) 02:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


== Free trade ==
== Free trade ==

Revision as of 02:43, 22 July 2008


Please add new comments at the bottom of the page

WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government 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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
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:


Material about LaRouche's anti-Semitic theory of history should be restored

I note that Happy-melon, a Wiki administrator, has cut the guts out of the description of LaRouche's anti-Semitic theory of history on grounds of "BLP concern." What BLP? This is an article about LaRouche's ideological views--the heart of his ideology is his theory of a struggle of two elites, one of which (the evil one) he defines as being an alien species and which he persistently equates with Jewish names and with families that either are Jews, part-Jews, Jewish converts to Christianity, or folks who created the Jewish faith for cynical reasons.
LaRouche said these things--after months of debate his followers have been unable to establish otherwise and I thought the fight over this paragraph was over and done. Would Happy-melon please explain exactly what the BLP concern is that caused this excision of important and properly sourced information at a time when the article is blocked from editing by anyone except admins?--Dking (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not LaRouche's anti-Semitic theory of history, it's yours. Try reading the discussion, beginning with Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Request for edit by an administrator. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lyndon LaRouche has been widely referred to as an "anti-semite". It's not something that Dennis King invented. We've been over this ground before. I suggest that we all just move on. This article is protected and we're not going to make any changes to it unless there's a consensus (barring admins dropping in and doing what they think necessary). Let's just accept that this article isn't perfect and find some even less perfect articles to work on instead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relentless rewriting of history and fact to satisfy the mistaken application of BLP in a way that is a blatant apologia for antisemitism by the LaRouchites is not acceptable. Wikipedia has become a major international vehicle through which the LaRouchites promote the idea that LaRouche is not an antisemite. If Wikipedia is going to promote antisemitism through deletion in this entry, at the very least it needs a dispute flag. If Wikipedia chooses to accept historical revisionism to mask antisemitism, then at least it should indicate that there are a few editors who object to the lies.--Cberlet (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you trying to kid? A few lines of clumsy, half-baked innuendo have been removed. There are still plenty left. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cberlet, you may request a {POV} tag be applied to the article. Happy-melon might be willing to do so. However tags don't fix anything and POV tags are supposed to only be up so long as there's a active discussion going on. I don't know about you but I'm happier with the peace and quiet that the protection brings. There's already plenty on LaRouche's views on the role of Jews in history. I suggest again that we should just let this article stay where it is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request a few edits by an administrator

In the section called "Jews and the Holocaust," there is a problem sentence: In 1978, the same year LaRouche's article cited The Protocols, the LaRouche group published Dope, Inc.: Britain’s Opium War against the U.S., which cited the Protocols and defended its authenticity, liking the "Elders of Zion" to the Rothschild banking family, the British Royal family, and the Italian Mafia, and the Israeli Mossad, General Pike, and the B'nai B'rith. First of all, the word "liking" should be "likening." Secondly there should be links to Wikipedia articles on the listed organizations and persons, especially "General Pike" who is Albert Pike, something that most readers probably would not know.

Also, I think that the title "Jews and the Holocaust" is misleading, because LaRouche's polemic was against Zionism, not Jews. Some people think that there is no difference, but LaRouche does, and to be neutral, the title should be something about Zionism.

Also, I see an undue weight problem with the very long section on Gays and Aids. That is not a major aspect of LaRouche's ideas, so giving it so much space is a distortion. It would be more appropriate, if very long quotes from LaRouche are in order, to feature the more central themes of his writing. --Polly Hedra (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • My guess is that the suggestions in the first paragraph are non-controversial. The suggestion in the second paragraph probably can be settled easily. The suggestions in the third paragraph would likely require considerable effort to achieve a fresh consensus for changes.
  • I'll make the changes in the first paragraph if there are no objections. Can folks propose a better heading for the the "Jews and the Holocaust"? Maybe "Jews, Zionism, and the Holocaust"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of something like "1970s campaign against Zionism, and response from critics." Also, one other thing: in the intro, it shouldn't just say he "moved to the right," because that belief is not universally shared. It should say something like "This is complicated by the fact that LaRouche's views have changed considerably over time, particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy. Some commentators say he moved towards the right.[1]" Or you could make it specific to the source that is quoted, although I guess that is not normally done in the intro. --Polly Hedra (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of something like "particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy and adopted blatant antisemitism and, some critics say, shifted to being a neofascist." That would be more accurate, don't you think?--Cberlet (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(see Troll (Internet)) --Terrawatt (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I looked. My suggestions are not "irrelevant or off-topic messages." It is the majority POV in the real world outside of the handful of fawning supporters of a lunatic neofascist antisemite. So how can I possible be trying to "bait" a response? What bait can I possibly imagine worse than the simple facts? And facts are not bait, they are the whole meal.--Cberlet (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't sell yourself short Chip, you have a reputation as a master baiter. --Dental hygiene dilemna (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Always enjoy a good pun, it's so meaty that it stiffens my resolve to point out that we need to add more about LaRouche's concept of "Mothers' Fears" as "the principle source of impotence" and the psycho-sexual castration of revolutionary men by women. What a guy!--Cberlet (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(As an aside, I nominate Cberlet's preceding post as the most awesome comeback in Wikipedia history. Carry on.) - Merzbow (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing no objections, I've made the changes outlined in the first paragraph of Polly Hedra's post. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} — (☒N Not done, no consensus yet.  Sandstein  06:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for that. Are there any real, serious objections to:
  1. Modifying the intro so that it says "This is complicated by the fact that LaRouche's views have changed considerably over time, particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy. Some commentators say he moved towards the right.[1]"
  2. Changing the heading of the "Jews" section so that it reads "1970s campaign against Zionism, and response from critics"?
--Polly Hedra (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object. It is typical of the relentless grinding away of criticism typical of LaRouche advocates on Wikipedia. Either we stand up against the sanitization of neofascist antisemitism, or we turn over Wikipedia to fanatics.--Cberlet (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her proposed wording appears to be factually correct. Where is the "relentless grinding" and "sanitization"? --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polly's proposals are non-controversial. Chip sees an opportunity here to soapbox, but he is not offering a substantive objection. See Troll (internet). --Terrawatt (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may not like Cberlet, and may even like to insult him, but he is an editor in good standing and his opinion still counts for or against a consensus. Since there isn't a consensus for the edits it isn't appropriate to request an admin to make them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--------The requested changes are not superficial.

Current:"This is complicated by the fact that LaRouche's views have changed considerably over time, particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy, and moved towards the right.[1]"

Requested Change:"This is complicated by the fact that LaRouche's views have changed considerably over time, particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy. Some commentators say he moved towards the right.[1]"

This implies that there is a lack of consensus in the majority of published studies of LaRouche. There is not the case.

Current:"Jews and the Holocaust"

Requested Change:"1970s campaign against Zionism, and response from critics"

Nonsense, the man is a Holocaust denier and noted antisemite according to reputable published reports.

This is what I mean by the ongoing relentless sanitization of LaRouche articles.--Cberlet (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "moved toward the right," this is the sort of thing that, under BLP, should never be simply presented as fact. There should be some sort of attribution beyond a footnote to the Post.
I just re-read the "Jews and Holocaust" section, and the first thing that I notice is that the "holocaust denier" claim is completely unsourced. Unless a very reputable source can be found, it should be removed as OR.
One other thing that bothers me about this article is that there is a section called "Notes," which is all unlinked and non-specific references to material, mostly by King and Berlet. I have never seen a "Notes" section in another Wikipedia article, and I propose that these footnotes be re-done as standard refs to conform to Wikipedia practice. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the web to see who accuses LaRouche of holocaust denial, and it's all Berlet and King. It seems clear that these two are using Wikipedia for self-promotion. --Polly Hedra (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about just adding "zionism" to the existing heading? Something like "Jews, Zionism, and the Holocaust"? Would that be acceptable to everyone? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be an improvement, because the section is mainly about LaRouche's opposition to Zionism and his claim that it is incompatible with Judaism. (Incidentally, I doubt that he still holds this view -- he began, in the '90s, to acknowledge factions within Zionism, some of which he came to support.) I think Marvin's point is valid -- the section proclaims twice that LaRouche has been accused of holocaust denial, but nowhere are his accusers identified. This is a problem. --Niels Gade (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the change in heading would be an improvement. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but with one important caveat. It should be changed for now to "Zionism and Jews," because under BLP the accusation of holocaust denial must be removed immediately until an adequate source is presented. Will, you know the rules. See WP:GRAPEVINE. --Terrawatt (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Terrawatt: WP:GRAPEVINE says:
    • Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research).
  • An Associated Press article from 1986 says:
    • Among other things, LaRouche says that the Queen of England is involved in drug trade and that the Holocaust was fictional.
  • So there is a source which meets the standards of WP:V. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to supply multiple published cites about LaRouche as an antisemite, Holocaust denier, and "small-time Hitler." But then the objection will be that the sources are part of the vast conspiracy to smear LaRouche.--Cberlet (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the cites are all from you and Dennis King, that would more along the lines of a dinky conspiracy to smear LaRouche. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I made sure that all of those charges (above) could be cited to other authors before I posted the facts.--Cberlet (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there in fact a specific charge that LaRouche is a holocaust denier, that does not originate from someone like Berlet or King? Has he been called a holocaust denier in a reputable publication like the New York Times or Washington Post? --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment to Terrawatt, above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Associate Press is acceptable to me. So, I recommend that the cite be added and we go with "Zionism, Jews and the holocaust." --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holocust is capitalized. The more appropriate title would be "Jews, Holocaust Denial, and anti-Zionism."--Cberlet (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holocaust has an a in it. The title should reflect the amount of space and emphasis given to each topic in the section, therefore "Zionism, Jews and the Holocaust" is appropriate. --Niels Gade (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why the entire section needs to be rewritten to reflect majority pubished views rather than a sad attempt by pro-LaRouche editors to frame the issue from the LaRouchite POV which minimizes the Holocaust Denial and antisemitism--trying to rpetend that it is mreely anti-Zionism, which is false and widely discussed as a ruse by the LaRouchites. "Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial posing as anti-Zionism," would be more accurate.--Cberlet (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free trade

The article's Economics section has a too weak statement on LaRouche's opposition to free trade where it says: He believes that if governments do not play a strong role in directing national economies, the gap will be filled by several kinds of monopolies and cartels. It is because of this that LaRouche opposes Free Trade and globalism and supports protectionism.

I would like to expand that section to include the fact that his opposition goes as far as to liken free trade with nazi mass murder. The following LaRouche quote, repeated in his flyers since 1997 could be included:

"free trade, practiced against the nations of Southeast Asia, is simply a new form of colonialism, whose fruit is mass murder. In that sense, there is no difference, in effect on people, between free trade and Nazism."

WinTakeAll (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement&oldid=227128025"