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 User2004 (talk | contribs) at 05:52, 24 January 2005 (→Internal Memo is Verifiable: Good, now what about that Brainin quote....). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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:

Most recent archive is Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive10:Dec 16 - Jan 20

Berlet/Bellman report is published

This text has been deleted by pro-LaRouche editors:

"Chip Berlet and Joel Bellman claim that the shift in the NCLC's politics and the change in its internal regime was prompted by a personal crisis in LaRouche's life which led to his having an emotional crisis: + - + - :What happened to cause this dramatic shift? Some say it was a dramatic incident in LaRouche's personal life. In 1972 LaRouche's common-law wife, Carol Schnitzer, left him for a young member of the London NCLC chapter named Christopher White, whom she eventually married. For LaRouche, it was a crushing blow. His first wife Janice had similarly walked out on him a decade earlier, taking with her the couple's young son. This personal event apparently triggered LaRouche's political metamorphosis. LaRouche went into seclusion in Europe, and defectors tell of his suffering a possible nervous breakdown. In the spring of 1973, he returned. His previous conspiratorial inclinations had now grown into a bizarre tapestry weaving together classical conspiracy theories of the 19th century and post-Marxian economics. He began articulating a `psycho-sexual' theory of political organizing. Sexism and homophobia became central themes of the organization's theories.[1]"

This text appears in a published report. It represents material similar to that by several other writers of published material critical of LaRouche. It is not a minority view, it is the majority view. It should not be deleted. We can discuss modifying it here in the discussion page, but unilateral deletions by pro-LaRouche editors is not acceptable behavior in a collective editing process.

Once again I ask that we all stop editing this page and focus on the Political views of Lyndon LaRouche page which is currently locked. Otherwise this page should be locked. --Cberlet 18:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You say that this theory is the "majority view." Then, produce a quote from someone else. This article is becoming a compendium of quotes from Chip Berlet. Weed Harper 21:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Weed's latest deletion

Weed, I have reverted your delete of Cberlet's addition. If you read Wikipedia:Cite sources, you'll see that Wikipedia editors are allowed to quote themselves if two conditions apply: (a) they are recognized experts in the field, and (b) they are quoting in the third person from their own publications. And then (c), as always, the publisher must be a reputable one.

Cberlet is a recognized expert. He is quoting from something he wrote in, as I recall, 1999. And Political Research Associates, whether you like them or not, are regarded as reputable. It might interest you to know that I had this confirmed today. I wrote to a respected researcher at the suggestion of another editor (someone not involved in the LaRouche pages) to ask about information on reputable published resources on LaRouche. The answer came back that Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates are highly regarded, and that Dennis King's book is a respected resource too. I had not asked about Berlet, by the way. Weed, may I remind you that you are not allowed to act in a way that suggests promotion of Lyndon LaRouche or his movement.

I agree with Chip and Will that we should concentrate on Political views of, or else ask for unprotection. SlimVirgin 21:38, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Also, similar claims are made by King in his book: pages 26-31. I would be happy if a quote from King was substituted, or if the claim was summarized. --Cberlet 21:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I notice that Slim does not name the "respected researcher." King and Berlet are a team, so if their theories resemble one another, no big surprise. Either way, the theory that LaRouche's political views are all the result of a divorce fails the "original research" test:

"A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is:

  • It introduces a theory or method of solution, or
  • It introduces original ideas, or
  • It defines new terms, or
  • It provides new definitions of old terms, or
  • It purports to refute another idea, or
  • It introduces neologisms.

However all of the above may be acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape. A few examples of this include:

  • The ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal; or
  • The ideas have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story)." [2]

Weed Harper 22:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And Chip Berlet's writing HAS been peer-reviewed, which is why he's been interviewed on network television and published in mainstream newspapers. Political Research Associates is also regarded as a reputable outlet. It therefore does not count as original research. Dennis King's book has become "a permanent feature of the public landscape." The only reason I'm not naming the researcher who spoke highly of Chip Berlet is that I don't want that person to become a target of the Lyndon LaRouche movement. The name was recommended by an experienced editor who has never edited this page. SlimVirgin 22:25, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Since Berlet's attacks on LaRouche died out in the major press after serving their purpose 15 years ago, I am sure that the LaRouche movement has little interest in him, viewing him only as a mild annoyance. He is, however, a major annoyance to Wikipedia if he is going to attempt to transform encyclopedia articles into essays propounding his idiosyncratic theories. And, it does not impress anyone that you quote anonymous sources in a desperate attempt to boost his credibility. --HK 15:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The source isn't anonymous. It's just you, Weed Harper and C Colden who won't be told. SlimVirgin 15:53, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Weed Harper: Please do not make major deletions without discussion. You have been asked to focus on the Political Views page so that it can be unlocked. Please try to cooperate with the group process of editing. --Cberlet 03:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weed and HK--I tried to fix as much as I could after I restored Weed's deletion, but Weed so thoroughly botched up a series of edits that it was almost impossible (using the "history" function) to figure out what typos and red links he had fixed. I did find and fix two names that had garbled leters. I was not trying to undo the legitimate editing of Weed. --Cberlet 17:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Berlet quoting Berlet

I will accept quotes from Berlet that have appeared in a "mainstream" publication. On the other hand, if Wikipedia readers want to read Berlet's website, there are abundant links to it in all the LaRouche articles. There is no need to reproduce Berlet's website here. --HK 16:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many of the article on the official PRA website (not my personal website) are available as printed reports published by PRA.--Cberlet 17:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Presumably, there is no ambiguity in what is meant by "'mainstream' publication." --HK 01:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure there is plenty of ambiguity. What is a 'mainstream' publication in your mind? Are any LaRouche publications mainstream? What about "Time" magazine, which LaRouche might say was created by an "avid" LSD user and fascist? What about the "Washington Times" run by Moonies, or the Washington Post, once run by the Graham who masterminded LaRouche's arrest? The "New York Times"? Or are they controlled by the ADL? Frankly, it's hard to guess what you might consider to be a "mainstream" publication. (PS, it's not a matter of you "accepting" anything unilaterally - we're all in this together.) -Willmcw 05:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will not remove any quote from Berlet that has appeared in Time, the Washington Times, the Washington Post, or the New York Times. --HK 16:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rewriting to check balance and NPOV

I have rewritten this page to make it clearer what is material that originates from LaRouche publications and supporters. In a realistic article, claims from the LaRouche group need to be respected and included, but the entire article should reflect that their view of themselves and reality is a tiny minority view. --Cberlet 04:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of "Cooked Quotes"

The issue of "cooked quotes" is essential to the question of whether Berlet's web site should be considered a reputable source. I have assembled the evidence on a special page: Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence of "cooked quotes". I have edited for clarity some material contributed by Herschel. Weed Harper 07:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are no cooked quotes. This has been discussed repeatedly. The pro-LaRouche views are a tiny minority. Stop deleting legitimate, sourced, reputable, majority-view material in favor of the biased pro-LaRouche viewpoint.--Cberlet 15:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's stop editing this page and concentrate on the Views page

HK and Weed: I have asked repeatedly that we stop editing this page and focus on the Political views of Lyndon LaRouche page. You have refused. As long as you edit this page, I will edit this page. As a compromise, you can remove 50% of my edits you previously deleted.--Cberlet 16:42, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You always make this request just after you have added some outrageous crap, like "support for classical culture = bigotry." You leave the page as it is, and I won't edit it any more. The page was stable and undisputed until you started importing chunks of your web page. Weed Harper 21:19, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WH, I reverted your deletions - you cut out lots of material. If you really want to edit this page, let's concetrate on it and discuss the edits. If there is a problem with specific sections, please tell us what they are and we can go over them one at a time. -Willmcw 21:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, Will, that Berlet is attempting a general re-write of this article, to incorporate the theories that he propounds in his articles at PRA. Each time he makes a sally in this direction, he then calls for everyone to stop editing this article. He is also attempting to introduce material into this article that belongs in "political views", if it belongs anywhere at all. I have put it back to the last version by Weed, and I am making the following proposal: --HK 16:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alas, the last version by Weed cut off 2/3 of the article. But it is much more brisk. So I added back the recent events and links, and I think it reads much better!--Cberlet 18:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A proposal concerning the issue of Chip Berlet and original research

Chip Berlet AKA User:Cberlet has been systematically loading both Lyndon LaRouche and Political views of Lyndon LaRouche with quotes from articles that he has written. Between quotes from Chip and quotes from his siamese twin Dennis King, the articles resemble more and more an essay promoting their shared, idiosyncratic theories. The Slim 'n' Chip team has often attempted to justify CBerlet's edits by claiming that Berlet's material has appeared in "mainstream" publications.

Fine, then. As I indicate to Will above, I will not remove any quotes from Chip that have appeared in "mainstream", read "mass circulation" publications. That would include the publications Will asked about as examples: Time, the Washington Times, Washington Post, or New York Times. It would not include some publications that have served as a venue for the King/Berlet theories, such as High Times. It emphatically would not include leftist conspiracy-theory blog sites that are cloned from PRA.

In this way, the mass-circulation press can serve as sort of a "filter" to determine which of the King/Berlet theories are "mainstream", and which are esoteric, arcane, idiosyncratic, and generally unacceptable in Wikipedia under the Wikipedia:No original research guidelines. --HK 16:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is not what the NPOV page describes as the standard criteria.--Cberlet 18:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New drafts of LaRouche articles

How about leaving this page alone for a bit and work on the new drafts?--Cberlet 18:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here are the first "sandbox" drafts of three pages, and their associated links:

Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche
Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

United States v. LaRouche

Talk:United States v. LaRouche
Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox

Very little material actually deleted--much duplication eliminated.--Cberlet 18:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you try to replace Wikipedia articles with Chip Berlet articles, rest assured they will be reverted. --64.30.208.48 18:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dear anonymous user. It was the pro-LaRouche editor HK who deleted most of the article. I actually reinserted material. So I will restore my last edit and take out some of my quotes and replace them with others.--Cberlet 21:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschel's request for page protection

As Herschelkrustofsky, who is a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche, has just requested page protection, any admin responding to the request might wish to take the following into account. A recent request to the developers for information regarding the user accounts User:Herschelkrustofsky, User:Weed Harper and User:C Colden received the following response: "On technical evidence, combined with similarity in posting patterns, Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper can be considered to be operated by the same person. C Colden is either the same person or working in coordination with them, but is not *firmly* established to be the same person." Also, the anonymous IP address 64.30.208.48 posting above is one that is used by the Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper account, as was established once when s/he forgot to log on. Based on all of the above, it would appear that support for Herschelkrustofsky's position is weaker than it seems. A request for page protection may therefore be an abuse of the protection mechanism, as other editors would like to edit this page so that it conforms to NPOV standards. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 03:30, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Slim, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, since you just violated it. --HK 03:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I have reverted three times, and a fourth edit shows that I only corrected a typo. But I have to laugh. Look at how often you/Weed Harper have reverted in the last few days. SlimVirgin 03:42, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

And, in fact, you've just violated 3RR using only the Herschel account. SlimVirgin 03:46, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Internal Memo is Verifiable

LaRouche has written: "Can we imagine anything more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?" (Internal memo - Lyndon H. LaRouche, NCLC 1973).

This internal memo is available from a variety of sources. It is in the Tamiment Library archive in New York at NYU. I received a copy from a former member. Others, including Dennis King, have copies of this memo from former members.--Cberlet 04:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a scanner or digital camera? I imagine that a legible photo of it would be sufficient proof to allow the editors to verify it. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Will, you need to apply the same rules to the pro-LaRouche editors and me. I have already posted numerous image files. Every one of my quotes has been shown to be accurate. The memo is referenced in King's book. It is in a library in NYC. 50% of the pro-LaRouche material on a dozen pages is unverified and without proper citation. You are not being fair. Can you point to a single quote I posted that was not accurate and not presented in a way that reasonable people would consider at least a defensible interpretation? Name one. Then go back and look at the numerous false, innacurate, and unsourced claims by the pro-LaRouche editors. Shall I go in and delete all the unsourced material on all the LaRouche pages now? I await your response--Cberlet 05:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The memo is quoted in the Washington Post:
"LaRouche said that only he could help his followers, and many begged to have sessions with him, former members said. Members were gripped with a "virtual religious hysteria" when they saw these criticisms as insights, one former associate said.
"LaRouche outlined his therapy in a 1973 memo to members. He wrote that he was "taking your bedrooms away from you until you make the step to being effective organizers . . . . Your pathetic impotence in your sexual life" is a political matter, he wrote. "I will take away from you all hope that you can flee the terrors of politics to the safety of 'personal life.' "
"LaRouche also said in the memo that the mother is "the principle source of impotence . . . . Can we imagine anything much more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?" "
Ideological Odyssey: From Old Left to Far Right, By John Mintz. Washington Post Staff Writer, January 14, 1985.
That should suffice.--Cberlet 05:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CB - That's great. Looks like a good source to me. Yes, I have asked other editors for the same info. The often-quoted Brainin, which is not only unverifiable but also obviously edited. HK asked for a reprieve so that he could edit the Poltical Views, but I suppose it is time to insist. I will delete the Brainin quotes unless a verifiable copy can be provided to show the context. -Willmcw 05:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Confused

Herschelkrustofsky has reverted so many times in the last 24 hours that I've lost track. Has anyone else managed to keep track of which parts have been deleted, and which remain? SlimVirgin 05:15, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche&oldid=9610020"