Talk:Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement - Wikipedia

Template:RFMF

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement at the Reference desk.

In this edit [1], Will Beback says that it is impermissible to remove external links from self-published or anonymous attack sites. Is there any criterion at all for what constitutes an acceptable external link? --NathanDW 23:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

See WP:EL. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

This page needs to describe who LaRouche is, and it is not proper to ghettoize all criticism near the bottom of the page. Please discuss suggested changes to wording rather than just deleting.--Cberlet 21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Criticism is being "ghettoized"? My, what a hyperbolic turn of the phrase. Please stop spamming your POV in these articles. The issue is being debated at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche, where so far the only person to endorse your proposal is yourself. Wait for consensus before initiating new edit wars. --Don't lose that number 21:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The quote from McLemee is also misleading. He misrepresents quotes from LaRouche ---the actual quotes are available for inspection at Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. I think that this quote from McLemee should be removed. --Gelsomina 00:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

This claim is false. LaRouche has indeed made claims about the Queen of England being involved in the drug trade. This is a settled question. It is based on the transcript of an NBC News interview.--Cberlet 02:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The obscure quote which is used by Berlet and others to back up this claim is the following: "As the head of the gang that is pushing drugs, she knows it's happening and she isn't stopping it." To say that what LaRouche really meant is that she is "involved in drug trafficking" is disingenuous. Likewise, LaRouche did not call Kissinger a "KGB agent" -- he called him a "Soviet agent of influence," which is an entirely different thing (see Agent of influence.) Finally, LaRouche did not call for AIDS carriers to be quarantined -- he called for AIDS to be considered a communicable disease under public health law. Public health officials may quarantine for any number of diseases at their discretion, and this came up recently in the controversy over the guy with drug-resistant TB. However, there is nothing mandatory about it, and LaRouche did not propose that it should be.

To take a quote which may be controversial, and then "adjust" a little bit to make it seem more implausible or to ridicule it, is a tactic of propaganda. --Don't lose that number 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where was the adjustment? It looks like the quote was made verbatim. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are no quotes per se in the section recently added by Cberlet. There are comic paraphrases. If you will examine the first paragraph of my previous post, I compare each paraphrase to what LaRouche actually said. --Don't lose that number 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please stop deleting quotes from reputable published sources. McLemee is a very well-known author.--Cberlet 00:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

He's not that well known -- do you have a source for his notability? -- and what is more, the deleted comments are demonstrably false. BLP applies here. --Don't lose that number 00:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest, if you are hot to find more negative material to add to this article, try the Washington Post. You won't get any dispute over its notability as a main-stream source, and it has plenty of bad things to say about the LYM. --Don't lose that number 00:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

On what basis are you claiming that the McLemee article is not acceptable under BLP? Where does BLP talk about "notability" of authors? Are you suggesting the "Inside Higher Education" is not reputable? --Cberlet 01:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

From [http://www.insidehighered.com Inside Higher Education}:

• Scott McLemee, Essayist at Large, writes the Intellectual Affairs column. In 2004, the National Book Critics Circle honored Scott with its annual Nona Balakian Citation for Excellence in Reviewing, for his work appearing in Bookforum, The Common Review, Newsday, and The Washington Post. He writes frequently for The American Prospect and The New York Times Book Review. From 2001-5, Scott wrote for the The Chronicle of Higher Education, covering developments in the humanities. His work included long features on scholarly trends and profiles of important figures. Previously he was a contributing editor for Lingua Franca. In 2000, the editors named “Invisible, Inc.” (his article on Thomas Pynchon scholarship) one of the top 10 articles it had published over the previous 10 years....

Reputable publication with notable author.--Cberlet 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a quote of McLemee, not a quote of LaRouche. We have no way of knowing whether his interpretation of LaRouche is correct or not. That isn't our job anyway. Our job is to reliably summarize verifiable sources using the neutral point of view. The "Chronicle of Higher Education" is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

The fact of the matter is, we do know whether his interpretation is correct. LaRouche has explicitly rebutted his interpretation, on all three points if memory serves. Now, we can add an entirely new paragraph of rebuttal to McLemee's silly and disingenuous crap, or we could do something which ought to be just common sense: use a more mainstream source that makes a less contentious claim. The two of you, Cberlet and Will Beback, continually defend the practice of combing the net for obscure sources that make wild claims about LaRouche. The responsible thing to do, and the most helpful to the project, is simply to use the widely available mainstream sources. Cberlet has said that he wishes to see far more negative material about LaRouche in these articles. Whether that is a responsible approach to editing may be open to debate, but I am suggesting that there is no shortage of negative material in the Washington Post, and you will not get a quarrel from me about its acceptability as a source. --Don't lose that number 06:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

We can't really call the "Chronicle of Higher Education" a "tabloid" or "scandal sheet". Is it disreputable? I haven't heard that. Is there any proof of this? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Inside Higher Education is a separate publication, but it is very mainstream and reputable. The LaRouche quote about the Queen is from the transcript of the NBC News program filed in the case for defamation filed by LaRouche. [NBC News, "Leader LaRouche, Part 1", segment on First Camera, (news feature program) broadcast March 4, 1984, transcript provided by NBC News, pages not numbered, sequential page 2: "LaROUCHE: Of course she's pushing drugs...that is in the sense of a responsibility: the head of a gang that is pushing drugs; she knows it is happening and she isn't stopping it." ] It is LaRouche being interviewd, and it is his words. It is a reliable source. Denying he said what he said is standard LaRouchite practice, but the ttranscript speaks for itself and for him. The continued denial of the fact of the quote and LaRouche's longstanding conspiracy theory about the British Royal Family is another reason why LaRouchite claims are not reliable.--Cberlet 12:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you will examine the discussion a few posts back, I cite exactly the same NBC interview to demonstrate that McLemee is taking liberties in his characterization of LaRouche's ideas. --Don't lose that number 13:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am sure you value your opinion, but it is POV and OR, so it does not change the fact of the publication of McLemee's words, and the ability of Wiki editors to use that text.--Cberlet 14:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The question in my mind is this: are the anti-LaRouche editors trying to "game the system" to produce biased articles? DTLN is making a simple request: use main-stream sources, avoid contentious and fringe claims, and there will be fewer content disputes. --NathanDW 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

<---This is standing reality on its head. LaRouche is fringe, a felon, and a conspiracy theorist, whose work appears in self-published serials, books, and websites. The Wiki editors and sources you pro-LaRouche folks are seeking to decribe as fringe, non-notable, and mot reliable are award-winnig journalists who publish in major daily newspapers, scholarly journal, and popular magazines. Join the mediation and we can discuss this in a proper manner and settle the question with a mediator.--Cberlet 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

If editors could identify which claims they consider to be "fringe" I'm sure we can add more sources to support them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

To get us started, here are what some newspapers have said about LaRouche's platform:

• Williams says their victories weren't because Democratic voters supported LaRouche's political platform - the forced quarantine of all AIDS patients, a call for drug charges against Henry Kissinger and Queen Elizabeth, and bizarre rants that often included harsh criticisms of Jews. Daily Herald. Arlington Heights, Ill.: Mar 21, 2006.
• He considers himself a "Roosevelt Democrat" and believes the country needs another New Deal - this time to move it from a consumer-based economy back to a manufacturing one. Some of his past proposals have included a quarantine of AIDS victims and the colonization of Mars. He has charged that Queen Elizabeth II is a drug dealer, and that Henry Kissinger and Walter Mondale are Soviet agents. The Record. Bergen County, N.J.: Jan 2, 2004.
• Of course anyone is free to vote for the LaRouche candidates. Just know what you are voting for: a group whose leader just finished serving a sentence for fraud; a group that wants to colonize Mars, test everyone for AIDS and quarantine those who test positive; a group that believes the Holocaust is a myth, the National Education Association and United Nations are conspiring to brainwash children and the Queen of England heads an international drug trafficking ring. Pantagraph. Bloomington, Ill.: Feb 21, 1994.
• No newcomer to the Impossible Dream Derby, LaRouche has sought the White House four other times. He wants to quarantine AIDS patients, stake a claim for Earthlings on the planet Mars, and investigate Queen Elizabeth II, who he claims is a drug dealer. Policies aside, LaRouche, an independent, is at a considerable disadvantage this time around. He is in the Rochester, Minn., federal penitentiary serving 15 years for fraud. He is on the ballot in at least 17 states. Newsday. Long Island, N.Y.: Oct 19, 1992.
• LaRouche is serving a 15-year sentence for fraud in federal prison in Rochester, Minn. A perennial candidate, he has run for president four times. He has promoted a quarantine of AIDS victims and has maintained that the virus is transmitted much like any other virus and that most medical warnings about how it is spread are "an outright lie." He also has stated that the International Monetary Fund is "engaged in mass murder" by spreading AIDS through its economic policies and he's accused Queen Elizabeth II of England of being a drug dealer. In 1988, LaRouche detailed a plan to colonize Mars. A spokesperson for LaRouche said he expects the candidate to be certified in 21 states by November. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Aug 30, 1992
• Saying he is a ``close associate of political extremist LaRouche, [Harley] Schlanger said he does not embrace LaRouche's extremist views. LaRouche, in prison for conspiracy and mail fraud, has called for a quarantine of AIDS patients and has urged basing U.S. currency on the gold standard. Houston Chronicle: Mar 14, 1990.
• LaRouche, who has run for President four times, is known for his extreme views, including support for a quarantine of AIDS victims and allegations that Britain's Queen Elizabeth is involved in drug trafficking. Los Angeles Times. Jan 29, 1989.
• And yet, there is something disconcerting about LaRouche, and it's not simply his bizarre track record of intimidating those who disagree with his stances; of being labeled everything from a racist to an anti-Semite to a homophobe; of accusing Walter Mondale of being a KGB agent and Queen Elizabeth of smuggling drugs. Newsday. Long Island, N.Y.: Sep 23, 2003.
• According to LaRouche, the royal family wants to terrorise the United States into becoming a British colony again, thus giving the House of Windsor a monopoly in the American cocaine market. The only person powerful enough to foil this plot was the Princess of Wales, which is why she had to be eliminated. After the bombing of the US embassy in Nairobi last summer, LaRouche instantly detected the Duke of Edinburgh's fingerprints. `If Satan considered his darling, Adolf Hitler, to be relatively a wimp, Satan must be gloating over his selection of Prince Philip as Hitler's successor. As I shall demonstrate, this view of Prince Philip as quite literally a satanic figure is no hyperbole. . .' LaRouche's latest pamphlet, The Pure Evil of Al Gore, adds that the American vice-president is a secret agent of the Windsors, committed to `the British monarchy's longer-range strategic policy for the planet as a whole'. The Guardian. London (UK): May 19, 1999.
• Extremist Lyndon LaRouche, who has served five years in an American prison for mail fraud and tax evasion, has an ideology that combines anti-Semitism and bizarre conspiracy theories, such as the claim that former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger worked for the Soviet KGB. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. New York: Jun 26, 1996.

I could add more, but it's clear that the claims made by McLemee are the same claims made routinely by mainstream newspapers. I propose that instead of quoting McLemee, we summarize the statements and provide additional sources for any that are still challenged. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The place to do this would be at Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, because these stories are loaded with false claims and would need to be extensively rebutted. Just to pick a serendipitous example, Will, you are aware, because you have just spent two weeks Googling info on LaRouche's trial, that he was not charged with tax evasion, and yet this is blithely reported as fact in one of the selections you reproduce above. I think you are probably aware of other obvious misrepresentations. But, I know the argument: "Under Wikipedia rules, we are free to add information that we know to be false, provided a published source can be found that has presented the same falsehoods." --Don't lose that number 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply