Talk:LaRouche movement
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the LaRouche movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Politics C‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Skepticism Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Comments
No cite of any sort for any connection of "vote fraud" against Adlai Stevenson is given to the LaRouche movement. I consider this a parenthetical observation at best, and an improper unsourced implication of "vote fraud" at worst. Collect (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's a fact about the previous election - I don't see how it implicates the LaRouche movement in any vote fraud. It's easy to source that the 1982 Chicago election had substantial allegations of vote fraud - it went to the state supreme court. Hipocrite (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have clarified who alleged who participated in said fraud. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
As the person who is "alleged" to be involved is in no way whatsoever associated wit this article, and the "allegations" fall under a WP:BLP requirement for strong sourcing, the "cure" is worse than simply removing the spurious "allegations." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you explain how this is relevant to an article on the LaRouche movement? 71.95.204.10 (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is no explanation. Where is the evidence Stevenson gave a hoot about Lyndon L? --Javaweb (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
PublicEye.org
This is used as a reference in the article. It appears to be a fairly partisan source, as well as self-published. I thought that it had been decided some time ago that books published by Chip Berlet were ok as sources, because they had been fact-checked by independent publishers, but that Berlet's self-published web-based opinions were not reliable. Am I wrong? Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- What about "Liberation News Service,""Crawdaddy," "New York Committee to Stop Terrorist Attacks," "the Daily World," "the Militant," "Workers Power," "the Fifth Estate," "the Boston Phoenix," and "the Drummer"? Are those considered good sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.81.198 (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
"no reference here to persons, only parties and factions"
I find it ironic that BLPCRIME is invoked to remove references to crimes committed by "followers," "two NCLC organizers," and "two NCLC organizers," but when we refer to identifiable living person "Mark Rudd's faction," at Columbia "assaulting" people, all of a sudden "no reference here to persons, only parties and factions," BLPCRIME no longer applies. Perhaps a double standard? Hipocrite (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- It was clearly improper to implicitly link Rudd to the violence. The book does, appear, to state that Rudd did head one "faction" so the claims had to be delinked per WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have removed Mark Rudd's name. I had thought that the criteria for BLPCRIME was saying that a person was arrested, but after taking a second look I see that I was mistaken. It just says "accused of a crime." It also says nothing about persons being "identifiable," just living.
- I started a discussion of BLPCRIME and this article at the BLP noticeboard. Since we still need to reduce the section per the earlier Request for Comment, taking out the allegations of crime where there were no convictions seems to me to be a good place to be reducing. Waalkes (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Cla68 (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- I started a discussion of BLPCRIME and this article at the BLP noticeboard. Since we still need to reduce the section per the earlier Request for Comment, taking out the allegations of crime where there were no convictions seems to me to be a good place to be reducing. Waalkes (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have removed Mark Rudd's name. I had thought that the criteria for BLPCRIME was saying that a person was arrested, but after taking a second look I see that I was mistaken. It just says "accused of a crime." It also says nothing about persons being "identifiable," just living.
are some of the LaRouche supporters actually Democrats?
[1] Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, speaking in a Manhattan neighborhood where supporters of Lyndon H. LaRouche have campaigned for local offices, chastised the Democratic Party yesterday for accepting Mr. LaRouche's followers as legitimate participants in party affairs.
[2] Local Democratic leaders here spent the day trying to explain how a supporter of Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., the extremist politician, was elected Tuesday as chairman of the Harris County Democratic Party
[3] But Ms. Rogers, a follower of the controversial activist Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., says she is in the race “to restore the principles of Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy to the Democratic Party.”
I know some do not "like" it, but the fact is that LaRouche has members who have been nominees and officeholders in the Democratic Party, and who politically identify themselves as Democrats. Wikipedia has reliable sources for such a claim, unless the New York Times is no longer reliable <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the sources do support that LaRouche followers do usually participate as Democratic Party candidates, at least, recently. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Kesha Rogers won the Democratic Congressional Primary in Houston, Texas this year for the the second time in a row. So the question is, who decides who can be a Democrat? Party bureaucrats, or the rank and file?
Examiner?
Apparently examiner.com is considered a bad source for Wikipedia? Anyone know why? If an exception can be made for a particular page, this article could be useful here: http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=%22Banking+on+Congress,+%E2%80%98Week+of+Action%E2%80%99+begins+Monday+in+D.C.%22&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest (this is the only way I can manage to put a link here. Someone must really dislike the Examiner.)