Jump to content

Talk:LaRouche movement/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:LaRouche movement

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 10:06, 20 October 2011 (Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:LaRouche movement.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Reagan "ally" is misleading

Saying that the Reagan administration was a ally of the LaRouche movement is very misleading. While it's true that LaRouche played a role in underground talks with White House officals over the creation of SDI, Norman Bailey notes these ties were cut off after they went public. Also, LaRouche opposed Reagan's economic policy whereas the implication is that he approved of everything the Reagan White House did. I think this needs too at least be rephrased. Est300 (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the assertion either, which I think gives excess weight to minor connections, but I will note that it says the movement "sought" alliances with these groups, including the Reagan administration, not that the alliances were ever made real.   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with the OP, If Associations exist they need to be documented and what type of relationships they were. If those alliances were ever made real in any capacity We need to make that clear and stop giving WP:UNDUE weight in the lead to "connections" that never existed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm unsure where the article gives any such impression that LaRouche was in agreement with Reagan's standard common-sense economic policies. I'm pretty sure the only person being potentially defamed here is the dead.. and rational.. one, so we don't really have to worry about that. There is most definitely a continuum, starting with those who have been smoking Lyndon's crack, followed by the most drunk of the drunkest', and finally followed by rational people who think that pointing out that there is the odd normal bloke around is just a good start. (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The term "ally" gives the implication that they shared the same goals. In many cases, the Reagan model and the LaRouche model were complete opposites. It appears the phrase has been deleted recently though, so prehaps it doesn't matter anymore. Est300 (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

While the connection to the Reagan Administration was perhaps tenuous, there have been clear connections to other movements, such as Fred Newman's group and with the Nation of Islam. The entire section on alliances was deleted with the edit summary "inherently misleading".[1] That might apply to the Reagan Administration, but not to the other groups. If there's no objection I'll restore the other entries and find the sources to support them.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Will, you seem to misunderstand WP:V.First find sources and specify the extent and exact nature of relationship in prose. No more this silly "connections" BS. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
"perhaps tenuous"? I fear you seek to connect dots where no lines are to be found. Recall the ArbCom dicta after the BLP case. They may not be as strong as one might wish, but they absolutely apply here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I would not restore the material about the Reagan administration. I don't know who added that. As for the other movements, these connections are already well-sourced elsewhere. Adding the sources here is just a matter of "dotting the 'is'". But BLP does not apply to movements, only to individuals and small groups. If there is something specific from an ArbCom case that applies here please provide a link to the relevant section.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Amazingly enough, I find LaRouche to be a person. Therefore any claim which impacts on that person, even indirectly, is covered by WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
When we write about the Republican Party, that doesn't necessarily effect the head of the party. Over and over, the consensus at BLP is that the policy only applies to living people. If you'd like to change the policy then take it up at the policy talk page.   Will Beback  talk  01:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Is the chief of the Republican party named "Lyndon Republican"? And is Mr. Republican's party referred to as the "Republican movement?" Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
So? The man is not the movement. This article devotes very little space to Lyndon LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
An interesting example of Wikilawyering to be sure! The same logic would say that BLP does not apply to "Kennedy Administration" etc. I fear this is not an argument which will fly at BLP/N, but let's see. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Wonderful if sourced else on the Wiki your job to source the statements is made that much easier. Also be sure to discuss the extent and exact nature of relationship in prose. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to add more information if you think it's necessary. I can send you any sources you need that I have access to.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP and the ArbCom decision

  • While Girvin was being interviewed on a sidewalk by a TV reporter, someone walked behind her and said "Polly, you're going to die" which the reporter said sounded like a threat.[1] Due to that and what she said were other threatening behaviors, Girvin went into hiding, gave up her practice, sold her home, and left the state.[2]
  • LaRouche said that a U.S. Attorney who was investigating the movement's fundraising, William Weld, "does not deserve to live. He should get a bullet between the eyes", according to a statement given to the FBI by LaRouche's security consultant, Roy Frankhouser.[3]
  • According to one report, experts stated that LaRouche's involvement in the matter allowed his phone solicitors to raise money by saying they needed contributions to fight child abuse in Nebraska.[4]
  1. ^ Man who calls Queen a pusher worries town; By MATTHEW WALD. The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Apr 14, 1986. pg. A.1.FRO)
  2. ^ 'VERY FRIGHTENING' FOES SPEAK OF HARASSMENT FROM LAROUCHE CAMP Ken Fireman. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Mar 30, 1986. pg. A.4
  3. ^ "Indictment says LaRouche wanted to smear official to block probe" Houston Chronicle 17 December 1986, p. 14
  4. ^ Chronology of the Franklin Hoax Casey Set Sex-Abuse Rumors in Motion; Omaha World - Herald. Omaha, Neb.: July 21, 1991. pg. 6.A

An editor delete these three passages with the explanation: actually - WP:BLP and the ArbCom decision apply.[2] Could he or another edit point out which part of the BLP policy and which part of which ArbCom case applies to these passages.   Will Beback  talk  02:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the first and third passage, I'd like to understand what the BLP issue was. With respect to the second, I've made it clear who did the talking, and where said talking was done. It's not appropriate to call the statement fact when it's merely a he-said she-said between Frankhouser and the movement. Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As I have said about 12 times, the policy being violated is WP:BLPGOSSIP. These are irresponsible and malicious claims by LaRouche's enemies. The correct response at Wikipedia is to leave them out, even if they appear in newspapers. For example, many hundreds of newspaper articles have covered claims by notable people including Donald Trump that Barack Obama was not born in the US. However, not one of these claims appears in the Obama BLP. Waalkes (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed the two bullets that remain looking specifically at issues of gossip. BLPGOSIP states "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." I discuss both, below.
  • Girven
  • Reliable - The Gazette is probably reliable. The Philadelphia Inquirer is reliable.
  • Presented as true - I do not have access to the Gazette article. The inquirer article states the "Polly, you will die" as coming from Girvin, and the move as coming from her. I do not see the hiding.
  • Relevent - I do not have the background to discuss this. Is your allegation that Girvin is not relevent to the subject at hand?
  • Phone Solicitors
  • Reliable - The Omaha World - Herald is reliable.
  • Presented as true - I do not have access to the article. Do you allege the article hedges about LaRouche vs an unreliable speaker here?
  • Relevent - Seems obviously relevent.
Thanks for your time in clarifying what part of BLPGOSSIP you believe these passages verify. Per your Obama example, I would note that Citizenship conspiracy theories are, in fact, linked to from the main Barack Obama article. Hipocrite (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
FYI, most of the sources for this section can be found at /Incidents.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
When it comes to BLP issues, we err on the side of caution. It's the moral, ethical, and responsible thing to do. Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
No one questions that. But calling something "gossip" doesn't make it so. 03:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

'Harasment' headings a bit overdo?

few times in a row. are sources talking about harassment as well, or is it some editors opinion / choice to use this word? 64.134.172.251 (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sources are in /Incidents. I count 112 appearances of "harass", "harassing", or "harassment".   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:LaRouche_movement/Archive_4&oldid=456492218"