Category:American fraudsters, Category:American money launderers, and Category:American white-collar criminals also befit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Unsigned, this would be quite a retarded and misinformative thing to do, especially as only those who are loving of humanity as maybe Pol Pot would actually put this fraudulent conviction up. Also, if you care to look, there are the FBI documents on this, showing it is a pure set-up. If you wish to write something non-truthful, at least have the balls to sign it.-- 77.128.223.150 ( talk) 20:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Please add the following to the section "India, Russia, and China": On August 21, 2008, LaRouche was interviewed on
Russia Today, the globally-broadcast English-language TV network sponsored by the Russian government. The topic of the interview was the
2008 South Ossetia war.
[1] --
Polly Hedra (
talk)
14:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
::::That quote is out of context. It makes LaRouche look silly, by making it appear that he thinks Russia could be crushed by an attack on South Ossetia. What he actually said was "It's part of a British-led operation with American support, which was intended to crush Russia by a series of encirclement actions, typified by what happened in Poland just recently." He refers to the decision to place American missiles along the Russian border in Poland. --
Polly Hedra (
talk)
21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Missiles played no role in LaRouche's SDI. They're not of much value for defense. --
Niels Gade (
talk)
05:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::It is evidence of the fact that LaRouche, who is treated as a pariah in his native land, is counted among "academics and experts" over at the other superpower. Therefore, it is more notable than your typical example of "academics and experts" being interviewed. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Edit declined for lack of consensus. Please re-add {{ editprotected}} only after consensus has been achieved. Sandstein 21:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This interview is very notable because relations between the U.S. and Russia are at a dangerous low point, and it is significant that Russia chose LaRouche as an American commentator to feature at this moment in history. I don't see any reasonable objection to adding two sentences about it to the article -- it complements what is already there in the Russia, China and India section. I propose this version: In August 2008, LaRouche was interviewed on
Russia Today, a Russian government TV network, on the topic of the
2008 South Ossetia war. LaRouche said it was "part of a British-led operation with American support, which was intended to crush Russia by a series of encirclement actions."
[3] --
Polly Hedra (
talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:Please state any objections. If I don't hear any after a couple of days, I will put the template back. --
Polly Hedra (
talk)
15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, it seemed that all discussion had stopped, which makes it hard to reach consensus. I agree that Soros should be in there. I already explained why this particular interview is more notable than other interviews, because of the war danger between the U.S. and Russia. I don't know or care whether other WP biographies go out of their way to mention interviews with RT. --
Polly Hedra (
talk)
20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::The Wikipedia bio of
James Abourezk reports that he was interviewed on the
Al Manar TV network, which seems to be an analogous situation. But rather than argue legal precedents, I think that it is notable that while there is a pattern of negative press coverage of LaRouche in the US (amply documented in this bio,) there is also a pattern of positive press coverage in Russia. Of course, their TV networks are "propaganda networks," whereas our TV networks are unblemished and pure. --
Marvin Diode (
talk)
01:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::It's also not comparable because Al Manar represents Hezbollah, which is a regional group with limited influence, while Russia Today represents one of the world's two superpowers. However, I think it's silly to try to make up a formula to decide what to include. Each case is different. In this case, Russian and the US may be headed for war, so it is of particular significance that RT interviewed LaRouche at this moment in history. And what Marvin said is true also, it demonstrates and documents a pattern which is notable as well. By the way, I notice that every time I edit a new article or talk page, you show up right away to contradict me. Are you "shadowing" me? --
Polly Hedra (
talk) 20:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Congratulations! You've been
Wikistalked. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
02:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I compared Wikipedia biographies of three political activists of comparable notoriety. The
John B. Anderson bio briefly discusses his education and wartime experience, keeping it to two short paragraphs. The
Ralph Nader bio devotes a short paragraph to Nader's family, no wartime experience. In the case of
Ross Perot, there is no "early life" information at all. In each case, the focus is on the subject's political activities, including the most recent ones. --
Marvin Diode (
talk)
15:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is LaRouche identified as an economist and a philosopher? He has only a high school diploma, has never published a paper in any scientific or philosophic journal and has no awards or recognition of any kind from the professionals in economics and philosophy. In short, he has no intellectual credentials of any kind. You don't get to be a doctor or a lawyer without credentials. Likewise in the intellectual disciplines. Arguably, one could be an economist without academic credentials, but at minimum, one would need to have published papers in scholarly journals. He has never published a peer-reviewed paper. Everything he has published has been self-published. Furthermore, his essays are very poorly written. They evidence a complete lack of intellectual discipline. Furtherstill, economics is a mature science. It is based on advanced mathematics. However, LaRouche only knows arithmetic. He couldn't be familiar with anything other than the most basic concepts of economics. He has all of his followers believing that he knows advanced math, but he never uses anything other than arithmetic in his essays. If he spent the several years that is required to learn advanced math, why doesn't he use it? He doesn't even know economics. Leading people to believe that he knows math and economics is a form of fraud. Notice that he has multiple convictions for other forms of fraud. M Payne ( talk) 20:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::You put forward your view earlier that LaRouche should be called a "publisher," at
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#LaRouche's occupation. It's original research. As far as your claim that LaRouche has no credentials, that holds true only if you have a major
WP:BIAS against non-NATO countries. LaRouche was elected a member of the Universal Ecological Academy of Moscow in 1994,
[4] and was the featured speaker at an event sponsored by the Institute for Social and Political Studies (ISPI) of the Russian Academy of Sciences 1n 1995.
[5] Like it or not, he is considered an "economist and philosopher" over there. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
20:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::To find out about
WP:BIAS, follow the link. But since you are a newcomer, you should follow these links as well:
WP:NOR and
WP:V. The way things work here is that you can't put material in an article unless it has been published elsewhere in what is deemed to be a "reliable source," which in practice usually means the news media. Are the news media always reliable? I don't think so, but that's the way things are done here. By the way, here's an irony for you: per Wikipedia rules, LaRouche may be called "American philosopher, economist, and political activist" because he was referred to as such on a TV news program,
Russia Today. Is it possible that Russia Today called him that because it says so in Wikipedia? Yes, it is possible. But hey, once it's in the news media, its
Verifiable. --
Niels Gade (
talk)
04:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Because M Payne opened this section by asking "Why is LaRouche identified as an economist and a philosopher?" I am illustrating my point about "reliable sources." --
Niels Gade (
talk) 04:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::See
Irony. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
13:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Where was the consensus established to allow for protection of this article for, well, forever? It's set to expire it's full protection in the year 2037. rootology ( C)( T) 23:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing three links to PRA under provisions of
WP:BLP. No change to article content. For further reference please see
this discussion,
this discussion. See also the BLP reference in
this ArbCom clarification. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
14:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
::Then let's use those citations, and not the ones from PRA. As far as the situations being not comparable, there's no consensus on that. See also
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10#Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates. --
Marvin Diode (
talk)
20:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Will, you've expressed your personal admiration for PRA so many times it has become like a mantra. However, you have not presented convincing evidence to back up your claims. There have been numerous discussions of PRA, and there has been no consensus that it is a source adequate for backing up damaging claims about living persons. The way that Tom Harrison put it here,
[9], "It's up to whoever wants to include the material to demonstrate the reliability of the source and the suitability of the material for the biography." --
Terrawatt (
talk)
06:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::And I don't recall seeing any decision that AntiWar.Com is not a reliable source. The point is that the BLP policy, as interpreted by admin Tom Harrison, says that the burden of proof is on the person who adds or restores the material, which in this case would be you. At PRA, Chip Berlet has no meaningful editorial oversight, which is why at PRA he does things like call Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan neo-Nazis. I don't think that would fly at, say, The New Republic. Incidentally, you discuss other editors' purported preferences all the time, by referring to them as "LaRouche editors." --
Marvin Diode (
talk) 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::"The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." --
WP:BLP. Plus, I am puzzled by why Will is making such an issue of this, since my edit doesn't even affect the text of the article. And, I didn't touch any citation where Berlet appears in a reputable source, so there are still a massive number of Berlet cites in this article. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
15:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Terrawatt, why did you delete this? Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort by Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons, New York: Guilford Press, 2000. That does not appear to have been published by PRA. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:Because the cite contained a link to PRA. But I see your point -- I have retained the cite, without the link. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:::At
Wikipedia:External links, it says that in biographies of living people the links are subject to the same rules as the text. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
21:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::I'm not conceding that Berlet's essay is a reliable source, but you can make a legalistic argument that since it was published in a book, it is in compliance with Wikipedia's rules, so I'm not contesting it. However, when you link to PRA, you link to the whole site, not just that essay. Then this applies: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." --
Terrawatt (
talk)
21:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Are you kidding? The whole site is a regular festival of defamation. For two non-LaRouche examples, take the ones cited by Marvin above. Berlet calls
Pat Buchanan and
Ross Perot neo-Nazis. As an experiment, why don't you try adding that to the
Pat Buchanan and
Ross Perot bio articles, and see what kind of response you get from the editors there? You can tell them PRA is a reliable source. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
20:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::The only links to EIR that I am aware of are in articles about the LaRouche movement. By the same token, I would find links to PRA in articles such as
Chip Berlet,
Political Research Associates, etc. entirely acceptable. They are an acceptable source for the opinions of those subjects. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
20:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::Rather than attempting to twist my logic for your own purposes, you should read
WP:HARM. It makes the whole issue breathtakingly clear. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
21:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
<-- After asking for clarification at
Wikipedia talk:External links#ELs must be in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies, the opinion there is that the conveninece links to reliable sources aren't covered. Therefore I'm going to restore the links to PRA, as they are sources for this article.
·:·
Will Beback
·:·
00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:Having looked over the discussion there, I see no consensus whatsoever to support what you wish to do. In fact, you yourself at one point in the discussion affirm that we should not link BLP articles to attack sites. PRA is an attack site.
:::It most certainly is an attack site, and under the living persons policy it is your job to prove that it is suitable. Why is it so desperately important to link to it? It isn't necessary for sourcing anything in this article. --
Polly Hedra (
talk)
14:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::It's an attack site --
this page is sufficient proof. Chip wants you to download and distribute a flyer, with a cartoon of LaRouche, opening his shirt to reveal a Nazi insignia. I rest my case. BTW, Wikipedia policy with respect to BLP is that the burden of proof is on the editor seeking to "add or restore" contentious material. --
Marvin Diode (
talk)
21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The way that Tom Harrison puts it over at
Talk:Chip Berlet is as follows: It's up to whoever wants to include the material to demonstrate the reliability of the source and the suitability of the material for the biography. This hasn't happened, in spite of lengthy discussion recently above and in the past. I don't see further discussion being useful. The same standard should apply here. Question for Will: why are you making an edit war over a link which isn't even necessary to document the text? --
Niels Gade (
talk)
21:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why the discussion relating to LaRouche as a supposed economist and philosopher produced no changes in the article? I'm new to this Wikipedia editing. Thanks. M Payne ( talk) 20:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
LaRouche was described by the Associated Press as an economist in 2003. [10] Does this qualify as a credible source?
In regards to the above discussion, I'll cite something from the Wikipedia article Economist: "It is more difficult to define the professional category of 'economists' than to define regulated professions such as engineering, law or medicine. While a lawyer, for example, may be generally defined as a person possessing a law degree and state license to practice law, there is not a legally-required educational requirement or license for economists. In some job settings, the possession of a Bachelor's or Master's degree in economics is considered the minimum credential for being an economist. However, in some parts of the US government, a person can be considered an economist as long as they have four or more university courses in economics. As well, a person can gain the skills required to become a professional economist in other related disciplines, such as statistics or some types of applied mathematics, such as mathematical finance or game theory."
My understanding is that LaRouche while still relatively young worked as a data consultant for the shoe industry regarding issues of economic efficiency, and in fact was quite successful in this capacity. Adlerschloß ( talk) 03:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::There is a recent news special on
Russia TV that calls LaRouche an economist:
[12]
Guillermo Ugarte (
talk)
14:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I see that Will Beback removed the section "LaRouche Youth Movement" with memo " rm useless section -see template." Why is it that he did not also remove "Jeremiah Duggan" and "Kenneth Kronberg," who are also on the template? It appears that positive info is "useless," whereas negative info is not. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 15:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Why not just re-write that section, emphasizing the relevant activity? For example, prior to the war, the LaRouche organization distributed 10 million leaflets and pamphlets against it.
[13] It stands to reason that the Syrians would praise LaRouche for doing something, not just having a "view."
Guillermo Ugarte (
talk)
14:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I see some statements in this article which are questionable. What is the proper way to challenge them?
Guillermo Ugarte (
talk)
14:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::Never mind, I wanted to make the "citation needed" message, but once I went into the edit mode I could see how to do it. One other question, though: I notice that the "citation needed" comes with a date, and some of them are very old. For example, "His ex-wife and other SWP members from that time dispute this.[citation needed]" is dated from April 2007. If it doesn't have a citation by now, I think it should just be eliminated, since it is sort of gossipy anyway.
Guillermo Ugarte (
talk)
14:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Is there an in-line tag for a dubious, biased or disputed source? I ask because I think it is out of line to claim that Danny Graham "conceived" the SDI, and then source it to Graham's own website. For a claim like that, you need an uninvolved, third party source. As far as Dennis King is concerned, I am familiar with his work. He tends to over-interpret his data to make it conform to his conclusions. He may be a useful source for factual tidbits, but I would not consider him reliable on any sort of analysis. --
Guillermo Ugarte (
talk)
14:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
DanielGraham.net appears to be both self-published and also a dead site -- not a suitable source. I'll re-write that sentence with better sourcing. --
ClarkLewis (
talk)
21:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:The article should not make an editorial pronouncement about who has a better claim to authorship of the SDI, LaRouche or Danny Graham. As I understand it, that would be original research. If there is a source that can be quoted that says "It was Graham, not LaRouche," fine, but editors are not reliable sources and should not insert their own opionions. As it stands, the article reports that Graham's organization and Mira Duric say it was Graham, while LaRouche's organization and General Scherer say it was LaRouche. That's neutral, and there should be no further attempts to slant it. --
Guillermo Ugarte (
talk)
14:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Your opinions are clear enough, but they shouldn't go into the article without sources. The authorship of SDI is clearly disputed. Graham's version would have used only kinetic energy weapons (anti-missile missiles, shrapnel,) whereas LaRouche's would have used only directed energy weapons (lasers, particle beams.) Neither was built. As far as the mice are concerned, they're in the quote, and I see no reason to censor them. --
ClarkLewis (
talk)
20:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I infer from your comments that you are in fact Dennis King. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for your to carry out your war against LaRouche. If your edits are factual, fine -- you'll notice that I didn't revert the edit where you added sources on the ADL. But this is not a playground for you to delete sourced material that offends you (for example, "Removed LaRouche's statement that essentially impugns Graham's patriotism. This article should not be used to wildly trash public servants under the cover of false even-handedness.") That one is particularly ironic, because you advertise yourself as an opponent of cults, and Graham served on the advisory board of
CAUSA. I will have no problem with you adding material that is properly sourced, by which I mean, not to yourself. Please familiarize yourself with
Wikipedia:SCOIC. --
ClarkLewis (
talk)
21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This source was just added to the article:
Is this pamphlet in a library somewhere? Is it in a private collection? How can we verify its contents? If the editor who added it could scan or photograph the relevant pages then that would help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is the material in question:
In 2008, LaRouche commented on US Presidential candidate
Barack Obama, "You'll find Obama's ancestry, if you chase his family tree, everybody's climbing and swinging from the branches there--from all over the world! All parts of the world! This guy is the universal man. Every monkey in every tree, from every part of the world, has participated in the sexual act of producing him. And he works for organized crime--which is a branch of British intelligence."<ref>[http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-obama.htm "Look up the Principle Which Generates the Concept: Saturday Dialogue with LaRouche, Pt. 1"]. 13 April 2008</ref>
1. What evidence do we have that this was actually written by LaRouche? It does not appear on any LaRouche website.
WP:V says that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an
inline citation. Is Dennis King's personal website a published source?
2. How is it notable? Do we routinely include LaRouche's assessment of various presidantial candidates? If it's not notable, does adding it to the article constitute trolling? --
ClarkLewis (
talk)
00:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the material by Scherer and Gallagher about LaRouche engaging in back channel discussions with the Soviets. However, I left the quote in which LaRouche himself asserts it in his attack on Gen. Graham, since it is legitimately reflecting, in this context, LaRouche's own state of mind. The Scherer and Gallagher material appeared only in LaRouche's EIR, which is not an acceptable source under Wiki rules for factual information, only for state of mind. The things they assert happened have been reported nowhere in acceptable published sources. Neither of them provided any sources for their allegations. Paul Gallagher is a convicted felon (see the Wiki article on the LaRouche criminal trials) and has no more credibility than his fellow convicted felon, LaRouche.
Do I think LaRouche engaged in some kind of talks with the Soviet embassy in the early 1980s? Probably. He had talked to them before, as The National Review revealed in 1979. But there is no acceptable reference to cite for the occurrence of early 1980s talks, and certainly there is no reference that would back up LaRouche's assertions that he was acting at the request of the U.S. government or that his dealings with the Soviets had anything to do with Ronald Reagan's adoption of Star Wars. Indeed, numerous citations can be found in the NY Times and elsewhere that much of the intrigue LaRouche engaged in during the 1980s was done at the behest of con men falsely claiming to be representatives of the intelligence community. Perhaps LaRouche really had some deal with the National Security Council under Judge Clark in 1982 that would make these particular alleged meetings different; but we really don't know, and Wiki shouldn't be in the business of publishing factual allegations that cannot be properly sourced.
I kept Scherer's comment that he thought LaRouche was the "originator" of Star Wars and an "expert." Arguably this material should be removed because it is only sourced to EIR, but perhaps someone can find a publication that re-quoted it. At any rate the material that remains reflects Scherer's general opinion on LaRouche's status in the world, not detailed factual allegations.-- Dking ( talk) 22:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
:Once again, given your obvious conflict of interest, I am asking you to abide by
Wikipedia:SCOIC and post any proposed changes to the article on this talk page for discussion, rather than making large, controversial edits. You are mistaken in your claims about the "back-channel." NSC staffer Richard Morris confirmed it in testimony before the Federal Court in Alexandria in November, 1988. Perhaps you were even present. Even without that, Scherer's professional qualifications speak for themselves; he is a far more credible source than anything you have cited, and it is perfectly reasonable to use LaRouche sources for his comments (in my opinion, the lack of coverage of these things by the US media is a stain on their integrity.) --
ClarkLewis (
talk)
01:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually, it is a problem, given his conflict of interest.
Wikipedia:SCOIC asks that he post proposed changes on this page for discussion, which is an entirely reasonable suggestion. I haven't heard of "inappropriate activity" by Scherer, so please enlighten me. I don't have access to the 1988 testimony, and I was under the impression that you do, since you have all those quotes on the "criminal trials" article -- this article
[15] says that "In court testimony at LaRouche's railroad trial in Federal Court in Alexandria, Virginia in November 1988, Morris described LaRouche's collaboration with the Reagan White House on seven still-classified national security projects. The U.S.-Soviet back-channel talks, leading to President Reagan's March 23, 1983 SDI announcement, topped the list." That should give you enough to find it. Finally, in an edit summary, Dking says that EIR is not an acceptable source for this article. That's preposterous. --
ClarkLewis (
talk)
22:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem with this section at the moment is that it mentions Graham, who has one of the best claims to inspiring Reagen's SDI plans, and LaRouche, who has no real claim to have done so. It should probably mention the others involved, and not just by slandering Ed Teller by associating him with LaRouche after the latter latched on to a perversion of his ideas. John Nevard ( talk) 09:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Editor Mrdie made an unsourced addition to the intro, indicating that the subject is "clearly populist." It's not clear to me. A search of LaRouche writings turns up this: "Contemporary populism is typical of that form of mental disease." [16] -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 15:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I would say that he is populist. I admit it is original research though. As for reasoning, Populism is a very broad term, and it encompasses people from LaRouche to Huey Long to Patrick Buchanan to Mussolini, etc. and I seriously doubt LaRouche would favorably associate with Buchanan or Mussolini. LaRouche's views are pretty much the very definition of populism though, the people united against the oligarchy/elite/etc. As I said however, considering how 'open' this term is, it can be used to describe many people. I didn't mean to offend anyone or incite anything. Berlet did describe him at one time as populist though, and I think still does. (Though you'd need to contact him on that) -- Mrdie ( talk) 17:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)</>
I forgot ( I was stoned ) but it was hilarious.
216.164.63.182 ( talk) 04:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It would seem the titles of "economist" and "philosopher" have reappeared in this article. As La Rouche has no advanced degrees or any other professional credentials in either subject, I don't think it appropriate that any encyclopedic entry on this man's life imply expertise where none exists. I thought this was sorted out last year. Nightg1 ( talk) 00:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
My very brief edit on the call for a Pecora Commission was reverted on grounds of being "non-notable." It might have been non-notable last Fall, but I think it is notable now because it has been echoed by so many others, including Sen. Byron Dorgan, Bill Moyers, Paul Krugman and Nancy Pelosi. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
00:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
:::My edit doesn't claim that LaRouche was responsible for the Senate action. It simply says LaRouche called for a new
Pecora Commission 8 months ago. At the time, it was a typically obscure LaRouche utterance, but now that it has "caught on," I'd say that it is notable. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
21:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor just added these categories for a second time: [18]
The same editor recently removed Category:Antisemitism from another article, labelling it a "smear category". [19] Contentious categories like this require reliable sources. I've already reverted the additions once, and will do so again unless adequate sources are provided. Will Beback talk 23:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
:::I found an EIR article that discusses "good guy" vs. "bad guy" factions within Zionism at
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2920_jabotinsky.html --
Coleacanth (
talk)
21:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Trimmed down EL sect, added {{ No more links}}. If some of these are useful, they should be incorporated into the article as sources. Cirt ( talk) 07:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth is this mentioned in the lede? This looks like a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:LEDE. TallNapoleon ( talk) 10:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::TallNapoleon may not like Menshikov's brand of economics, but he is clearly a respected figure who has been quoted in major US media and co-authored a book with John Kenneth Galbraith, in addition to his published works in his native country. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
06:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know, but Google has a cached version of a Wikipedia article on him: (Ctrl-click)">
[20] --
Coleacanth (
talk)
06:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Even if we would have a reliable secondary source on Menshikov, this cannot be in the lede. If Menshikov is not notable enough to have his own article, why would his opinion about another person be so important that it would be in the lede? Cs32en 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
::But then, you're the one that deleted the article. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
06:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
::::My point is, it doesn't make much sense to delete the article and then argue that the person isn't notable because he doesn't have an article. In case TallNapoleon and Cs32en aren't following this,
here's the article (which was deleted yesterday.) --
Coleacanth (
talk)
06:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
:::He seems like an "obscure figure" to you? Have you tried a Google search to learn something about him? He was a member of the Soviet Central Committee, worked as an economist for the U.N., has published many books in both Russian and English, was a commentator for the New York Times, was interviewed several times by David Brinkley, and his book with Galbraith was reviewed in Foreign Affairs
[21]. Compare that to the numerous critics that are given big coverage in this LaRouche article, most of whom barely register on the notability scale. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
19:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've fully protected as a result of the latest bout of edit warring. Not aiming this at anyone in particular, but I think it's supposed to go something like: Discuss → Consensus → Edit rather than the other way around. Kevin ( talk) 12:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
::Menshikov has worked with a very broad array of people, and had his books published by many different publishers. He clearly likes LaRouche, but that does not mean that he is affiliated with LaRouche. For example, Menshikov has also worked with the Dalai Lama, and LaRouche condemns the Dalai Lama. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at Wikipedia:Lead section, and I don't see anything there that would disqualify the use of Menshikov's quote. You want something in the lead section which would indicate why LaRouche has a following, and in recent years LaRouche has developed a very good reputation as an economist in Russia, among other places. You could try to come up with a summary of what the article says about this, but it seems simpler to quote Menshikov, who is notable as an economist. You do have the Heritage Foundation quote, which is representative of conservatives in the US who oppose LaRouche, so it seems appropriate to have a representative of an opposite viewpoint. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
22:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Since it looks like the debate about having it in the lead is over, I'll put the Menshikov quote in the Russian section. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
21:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Could you propose a line or two of text to summarize LaRouche's popularity as an economist in Russia and other countries -- possibly something about him forecasting the financial crisis of 2007–2009? --
Coleacanth (
talk)
21:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I had asked you to propose a brief summary of that section and the financial crisis of 2007–2009 section for inclusion in the lead paragraph. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
22:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::The page is unprotected now. Is the Heritage Foundation quote to be removed on the same grounds as Menshikov? --
Coleacanth (
talk)
21:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
In order to remove POV quotations from the lead and to better summarize the contents of the article, I suggest that we remove this text:
And replace it with:
The lists shouldn't be exhaustive. These seem to be the main issues that come up in 3rd-party sources. Will Beback talk 04:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
::I totally disagree with the "issues that LaRouche is most closely associated with" part. His reputation internationally is for his economic theories and proposals. I would say "opposition to globalization, promotion of a New Bretton Woods system, proposals for giant infrastructure projects, and for his economic forecasts, particularly of the 2007-2009 financial crisis." --
Maybellyne (
talk)
05:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I actually thought that lead was good and well balanced before the Menshikov quote was deleted. At the beginning of this talk section I proposed that you write something about LaRouche's popularity as an economist in Russia and other countries, and him forecasting the financial crisis of 2007–2009. I was thinking that it would fill the gap left by the Menshikov quote. It seems to me that the two reasons LaRouche is known is because he went to jail, and because he was right about the crash. Anyway, your new text seems to have gone off in an entirely different direction. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
02:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I know this term gets thrown around loosely, and it's not just used for professional philosophers. But Lyndon LaRouche a philosopher? You gotta be kidding me. Hairhorn ( talk) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph
"LaRouche has claimed that "the FBI was orchestrating its assets in the leadership of the Communist Party U.S.A., to bring about my personal 'elimination'", LaRouche Speaks.net citing a document obtained through the Freedom of Information Act."
in the chapter "Operation Mop-up" uses a defunct link to "larouchespeaks.net". This domain is defunct and was turned into a spam site. Schweinebärmann ( talk) 04:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
:A replacement link is easily found:
[28] --
Maybellyne (
talk)
06:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)<
The article claims LaRouche claims received 22% of the Democratic primary vote in Arkansas in 2000 and 11% in Kentucky. I'd really like to see some evidence for these wild claims which this deranged sect is fond of making in an unintentionally self-parodying style worthy of cheap comic opera or two bit professional wrestling. When I was a college student in the 70s we would sometimes see their bereft glass showcase in the student union containing copies of their cult newspaper with screaming headlines like "Millions Rally to LaRouche!". Sadly, at that age, of course, there are lost souls who are ripe to come under the undue influence of groups like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.241.5 ( talk) 06:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't you have to have some credentials to be described as an "economist"? Shouldn't it be clear that LaRouche describes himself as an economist, although he has no credentials in the field. I don't see how Wikipedia can properly call someone an economist who doesn't have an advanced degree in economics any more than some backyard experimenter can be called a chemist or a physicist. The profession of economist has well-defined standards, none of which are met by LaRouche. There is a differnce between an economist and an autodidact who has read a few books about economics, and I don't see why Wikipedia should confound the distinction. Cas70 ( talk) 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
LaRouche might accurately be called many things, but economist is not one of them. I thought the entry was supposed to be neutral. No neutral observer with any knowledge of what an economist is or does could possibly describe LaRouche as an economist. You've described him as he would like to be described - a description with little basis in reality. If you allow his imaginary self-descriptions to stand why not explain that anyone with any economic training would consider him a crackpot. In bending over backwards to be fair to LaRouche you are doing naive readers a great disservice in that they are likely to take away the impressdion that LaRouche really is an economist, whereas I'm sure you know as well as I do that he is most emphatically not. Why lie? Cas70 ( talk) 12:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Clearly, any source that describes LaRouche as an economist is ipso facto not reliable. Cas70 ( talk) 12:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I will do that with alacrity if you will first tell the name of one real, professional economist who would describe LaRouche as an economist. I am certain there are none. However, I think you could properly describe LaRouche as someone who writes on economic topics, which is quite a different thing from being a professional economist. To call LaRouche an economist is preposterous and is a disservice to Wikipedia readers who might be ingenuous enough to believe it to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cas70 ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you to tell me the name of one member of the guild in good standing who'll vouch for LaRouche as an economist. I should think Menshikov deeply compromised by his association with the LaRouchian movement. Cas70 ( talk) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Cas70 ( talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'll give my credentials but I'm not about to give my name for fear of crazed LaRouchians showing up on my doorstep because I've dissed their master. I have a Ph.D. from Columbia and have been published by good academic presses such as Cambridge. I was merely browsing through Wikipedia, and when I came upon the first sentence of the LaRouche piece, I was met by the absurd claim that he was an economist. I thought I'd be a good citizen and correct information that was clearly false, but I have subsequently found that even absurdities have their stubborn defenders. I've always told my students not to trust everything they read on Wikipedia, and it seems I'll have a cautionary tale from this experience to reinforce that warning. So, I give up. You can write that he holds the home run record and is the most renowned composer since Beethoven if you want. I'm out of here. Cas70 ( talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
That sounds sensible. Cas70 ( talk) 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm confused. How do journalists become the ultimate authority on who is, and who is not, an economist? Incidentally, if journalists are the authority, the New York Times should have its say: "Mr. LaRouche, an 80-year-old economist, has raised more than $3.7 million over the years, much of it through small donations and the Internet."
[30]And what makes Stanislav Menshikov, who has credentials out the wazoo, "not a suitable source"? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Maybellyne (
talk •
contribs)
06:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
A few minutes spent trying to decipher any of LaRouche's writings on economics would convince any impartial observer that he is no economist, even using a very elastic definition of the term. Try figuring out what the LaRouche-Riemann method is, for instance. A few minutes of that will put you deep into Jabberwocky land. Bernhard Riemann must be rolling in his grave to have his name associated with such tripe. To call LaRouche an econimist would be tantamount to calling a little child playing with a stethoscope a doctor just because he imagines he is one. If Wikipedia wants to be truthful I don't see how it can do other than call him a "self-described" economist. Cas70 ( talk) 13:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Category:American fraudsters, Category:American money launderers, and Category:American white-collar criminals also befit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Unsigned, this would be quite a retarded and misinformative thing to do, especially as only those who are loving of humanity as maybe Pol Pot would actually put this fraudulent conviction up. Also, if you care to look, there are the FBI documents on this, showing it is a pure set-up. If you wish to write something non-truthful, at least have the balls to sign it.-- 77.128.223.150 ( talk) 20:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Please add the following to the section "India, Russia, and China": On August 21, 2008, LaRouche was interviewed on
Russia Today, the globally-broadcast English-language TV network sponsored by the Russian government. The topic of the interview was the
2008 South Ossetia war.
[1] --
Polly Hedra (
talk)
14:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
::::That quote is out of context. It makes LaRouche look silly, by making it appear that he thinks Russia could be crushed by an attack on South Ossetia. What he actually said was "It's part of a British-led operation with American support, which was intended to crush Russia by a series of encirclement actions, typified by what happened in Poland just recently." He refers to the decision to place American missiles along the Russian border in Poland. --
Polly Hedra (
talk)
21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Missiles played no role in LaRouche's SDI. They're not of much value for defense. --
Niels Gade (
talk)
05:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::It is evidence of the fact that LaRouche, who is treated as a pariah in his native land, is counted among "academics and experts" over at the other superpower. Therefore, it is more notable than your typical example of "academics and experts" being interviewed. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Edit declined for lack of consensus. Please re-add {{ editprotected}} only after consensus has been achieved. Sandstein 21:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This interview is very notable because relations between the U.S. and Russia are at a dangerous low point, and it is significant that Russia chose LaRouche as an American commentator to feature at this moment in history. I don't see any reasonable objection to adding two sentences about it to the article -- it complements what is already there in the Russia, China and India section. I propose this version: In August 2008, LaRouche was interviewed on
Russia Today, a Russian government TV network, on the topic of the
2008 South Ossetia war. LaRouche said it was "part of a British-led operation with American support, which was intended to crush Russia by a series of encirclement actions."
[3] --
Polly Hedra (
talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:Please state any objections. If I don't hear any after a couple of days, I will put the template back. --
Polly Hedra (
talk)
15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, it seemed that all discussion had stopped, which makes it hard to reach consensus. I agree that Soros should be in there. I already explained why this particular interview is more notable than other interviews, because of the war danger between the U.S. and Russia. I don't know or care whether other WP biographies go out of their way to mention interviews with RT. --
Polly Hedra (
talk)
20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::The Wikipedia bio of
James Abourezk reports that he was interviewed on the
Al Manar TV network, which seems to be an analogous situation. But rather than argue legal precedents, I think that it is notable that while there is a pattern of negative press coverage of LaRouche in the US (amply documented in this bio,) there is also a pattern of positive press coverage in Russia. Of course, their TV networks are "propaganda networks," whereas our TV networks are unblemished and pure. --
Marvin Diode (
talk)
01:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::It's also not comparable because Al Manar represents Hezbollah, which is a regional group with limited influence, while Russia Today represents one of the world's two superpowers. However, I think it's silly to try to make up a formula to decide what to include. Each case is different. In this case, Russian and the US may be headed for war, so it is of particular significance that RT interviewed LaRouche at this moment in history. And what Marvin said is true also, it demonstrates and documents a pattern which is notable as well. By the way, I notice that every time I edit a new article or talk page, you show up right away to contradict me. Are you "shadowing" me? --
Polly Hedra (
talk) 20:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Congratulations! You've been
Wikistalked. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
02:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I compared Wikipedia biographies of three political activists of comparable notoriety. The
John B. Anderson bio briefly discusses his education and wartime experience, keeping it to two short paragraphs. The
Ralph Nader bio devotes a short paragraph to Nader's family, no wartime experience. In the case of
Ross Perot, there is no "early life" information at all. In each case, the focus is on the subject's political activities, including the most recent ones. --
Marvin Diode (
talk)
15:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is LaRouche identified as an economist and a philosopher? He has only a high school diploma, has never published a paper in any scientific or philosophic journal and has no awards or recognition of any kind from the professionals in economics and philosophy. In short, he has no intellectual credentials of any kind. You don't get to be a doctor or a lawyer without credentials. Likewise in the intellectual disciplines. Arguably, one could be an economist without academic credentials, but at minimum, one would need to have published papers in scholarly journals. He has never published a peer-reviewed paper. Everything he has published has been self-published. Furthermore, his essays are very poorly written. They evidence a complete lack of intellectual discipline. Furtherstill, economics is a mature science. It is based on advanced mathematics. However, LaRouche only knows arithmetic. He couldn't be familiar with anything other than the most basic concepts of economics. He has all of his followers believing that he knows advanced math, but he never uses anything other than arithmetic in his essays. If he spent the several years that is required to learn advanced math, why doesn't he use it? He doesn't even know economics. Leading people to believe that he knows math and economics is a form of fraud. Notice that he has multiple convictions for other forms of fraud. M Payne ( talk) 20:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::You put forward your view earlier that LaRouche should be called a "publisher," at
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#LaRouche's occupation. It's original research. As far as your claim that LaRouche has no credentials, that holds true only if you have a major
WP:BIAS against non-NATO countries. LaRouche was elected a member of the Universal Ecological Academy of Moscow in 1994,
[4] and was the featured speaker at an event sponsored by the Institute for Social and Political Studies (ISPI) of the Russian Academy of Sciences 1n 1995.
[5] Like it or not, he is considered an "economist and philosopher" over there. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
20:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::To find out about
WP:BIAS, follow the link. But since you are a newcomer, you should follow these links as well:
WP:NOR and
WP:V. The way things work here is that you can't put material in an article unless it has been published elsewhere in what is deemed to be a "reliable source," which in practice usually means the news media. Are the news media always reliable? I don't think so, but that's the way things are done here. By the way, here's an irony for you: per Wikipedia rules, LaRouche may be called "American philosopher, economist, and political activist" because he was referred to as such on a TV news program,
Russia Today. Is it possible that Russia Today called him that because it says so in Wikipedia? Yes, it is possible. But hey, once it's in the news media, its
Verifiable. --
Niels Gade (
talk)
04:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Because M Payne opened this section by asking "Why is LaRouche identified as an economist and a philosopher?" I am illustrating my point about "reliable sources." --
Niels Gade (
talk) 04:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::See
Irony. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
13:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Where was the consensus established to allow for protection of this article for, well, forever? It's set to expire it's full protection in the year 2037. rootology ( C)( T) 23:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing three links to PRA under provisions of
WP:BLP. No change to article content. For further reference please see
this discussion,
this discussion. See also the BLP reference in
this ArbCom clarification. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
14:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
::Then let's use those citations, and not the ones from PRA. As far as the situations being not comparable, there's no consensus on that. See also
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10#Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates. --
Marvin Diode (
talk)
20:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Will, you've expressed your personal admiration for PRA so many times it has become like a mantra. However, you have not presented convincing evidence to back up your claims. There have been numerous discussions of PRA, and there has been no consensus that it is a source adequate for backing up damaging claims about living persons. The way that Tom Harrison put it here,
[9], "It's up to whoever wants to include the material to demonstrate the reliability of the source and the suitability of the material for the biography." --
Terrawatt (
talk)
06:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::And I don't recall seeing any decision that AntiWar.Com is not a reliable source. The point is that the BLP policy, as interpreted by admin Tom Harrison, says that the burden of proof is on the person who adds or restores the material, which in this case would be you. At PRA, Chip Berlet has no meaningful editorial oversight, which is why at PRA he does things like call Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan neo-Nazis. I don't think that would fly at, say, The New Republic. Incidentally, you discuss other editors' purported preferences all the time, by referring to them as "LaRouche editors." --
Marvin Diode (
talk) 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::"The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." --
WP:BLP. Plus, I am puzzled by why Will is making such an issue of this, since my edit doesn't even affect the text of the article. And, I didn't touch any citation where Berlet appears in a reputable source, so there are still a massive number of Berlet cites in this article. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
15:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Terrawatt, why did you delete this? Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort by Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons, New York: Guilford Press, 2000. That does not appear to have been published by PRA. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:Because the cite contained a link to PRA. But I see your point -- I have retained the cite, without the link. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:::At
Wikipedia:External links, it says that in biographies of living people the links are subject to the same rules as the text. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
21:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::I'm not conceding that Berlet's essay is a reliable source, but you can make a legalistic argument that since it was published in a book, it is in compliance with Wikipedia's rules, so I'm not contesting it. However, when you link to PRA, you link to the whole site, not just that essay. Then this applies: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." --
Terrawatt (
talk)
21:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Are you kidding? The whole site is a regular festival of defamation. For two non-LaRouche examples, take the ones cited by Marvin above. Berlet calls
Pat Buchanan and
Ross Perot neo-Nazis. As an experiment, why don't you try adding that to the
Pat Buchanan and
Ross Perot bio articles, and see what kind of response you get from the editors there? You can tell them PRA is a reliable source. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
20:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::The only links to EIR that I am aware of are in articles about the LaRouche movement. By the same token, I would find links to PRA in articles such as
Chip Berlet,
Political Research Associates, etc. entirely acceptable. They are an acceptable source for the opinions of those subjects. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
20:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::Rather than attempting to twist my logic for your own purposes, you should read
WP:HARM. It makes the whole issue breathtakingly clear. --
Terrawatt (
talk)
21:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
<-- After asking for clarification at
Wikipedia talk:External links#ELs must be in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies, the opinion there is that the conveninece links to reliable sources aren't covered. Therefore I'm going to restore the links to PRA, as they are sources for this article.
·:·
Will Beback
·:·
00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:Having looked over the discussion there, I see no consensus whatsoever to support what you wish to do. In fact, you yourself at one point in the discussion affirm that we should not link BLP articles to attack sites. PRA is an attack site.
:::It most certainly is an attack site, and under the living persons policy it is your job to prove that it is suitable. Why is it so desperately important to link to it? It isn't necessary for sourcing anything in this article. --
Polly Hedra (
talk)
14:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::It's an attack site --
this page is sufficient proof. Chip wants you to download and distribute a flyer, with a cartoon of LaRouche, opening his shirt to reveal a Nazi insignia. I rest my case. BTW, Wikipedia policy with respect to BLP is that the burden of proof is on the editor seeking to "add or restore" contentious material. --
Marvin Diode (
talk)
21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The way that Tom Harrison puts it over at
Talk:Chip Berlet is as follows: It's up to whoever wants to include the material to demonstrate the reliability of the source and the suitability of the material for the biography. This hasn't happened, in spite of lengthy discussion recently above and in the past. I don't see further discussion being useful. The same standard should apply here. Question for Will: why are you making an edit war over a link which isn't even necessary to document the text? --
Niels Gade (
talk)
21:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why the discussion relating to LaRouche as a supposed economist and philosopher produced no changes in the article? I'm new to this Wikipedia editing. Thanks. M Payne ( talk) 20:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
LaRouche was described by the Associated Press as an economist in 2003. [10] Does this qualify as a credible source?
In regards to the above discussion, I'll cite something from the Wikipedia article Economist: "It is more difficult to define the professional category of 'economists' than to define regulated professions such as engineering, law or medicine. While a lawyer, for example, may be generally defined as a person possessing a law degree and state license to practice law, there is not a legally-required educational requirement or license for economists. In some job settings, the possession of a Bachelor's or Master's degree in economics is considered the minimum credential for being an economist. However, in some parts of the US government, a person can be considered an economist as long as they have four or more university courses in economics. As well, a person can gain the skills required to become a professional economist in other related disciplines, such as statistics or some types of applied mathematics, such as mathematical finance or game theory."
My understanding is that LaRouche while still relatively young worked as a data consultant for the shoe industry regarding issues of economic efficiency, and in fact was quite successful in this capacity. Adlerschloß ( talk) 03:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::There is a recent news special on
Russia TV that calls LaRouche an economist:
[12]
Guillermo Ugarte (
talk)
14:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I see that Will Beback removed the section "LaRouche Youth Movement" with memo " rm useless section -see template." Why is it that he did not also remove "Jeremiah Duggan" and "Kenneth Kronberg," who are also on the template? It appears that positive info is "useless," whereas negative info is not. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 15:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Why not just re-write that section, emphasizing the relevant activity? For example, prior to the war, the LaRouche organization distributed 10 million leaflets and pamphlets against it.
[13] It stands to reason that the Syrians would praise LaRouche for doing something, not just having a "view."
Guillermo Ugarte (
talk)
14:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I see some statements in this article which are questionable. What is the proper way to challenge them?
Guillermo Ugarte (
talk)
14:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::Never mind, I wanted to make the "citation needed" message, but once I went into the edit mode I could see how to do it. One other question, though: I notice that the "citation needed" comes with a date, and some of them are very old. For example, "His ex-wife and other SWP members from that time dispute this.[citation needed]" is dated from April 2007. If it doesn't have a citation by now, I think it should just be eliminated, since it is sort of gossipy anyway.
Guillermo Ugarte (
talk)
14:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Is there an in-line tag for a dubious, biased or disputed source? I ask because I think it is out of line to claim that Danny Graham "conceived" the SDI, and then source it to Graham's own website. For a claim like that, you need an uninvolved, third party source. As far as Dennis King is concerned, I am familiar with his work. He tends to over-interpret his data to make it conform to his conclusions. He may be a useful source for factual tidbits, but I would not consider him reliable on any sort of analysis. --
Guillermo Ugarte (
talk)
14:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
DanielGraham.net appears to be both self-published and also a dead site -- not a suitable source. I'll re-write that sentence with better sourcing. --
ClarkLewis (
talk)
21:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:The article should not make an editorial pronouncement about who has a better claim to authorship of the SDI, LaRouche or Danny Graham. As I understand it, that would be original research. If there is a source that can be quoted that says "It was Graham, not LaRouche," fine, but editors are not reliable sources and should not insert their own opionions. As it stands, the article reports that Graham's organization and Mira Duric say it was Graham, while LaRouche's organization and General Scherer say it was LaRouche. That's neutral, and there should be no further attempts to slant it. --
Guillermo Ugarte (
talk)
14:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Your opinions are clear enough, but they shouldn't go into the article without sources. The authorship of SDI is clearly disputed. Graham's version would have used only kinetic energy weapons (anti-missile missiles, shrapnel,) whereas LaRouche's would have used only directed energy weapons (lasers, particle beams.) Neither was built. As far as the mice are concerned, they're in the quote, and I see no reason to censor them. --
ClarkLewis (
talk)
20:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I infer from your comments that you are in fact Dennis King. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for your to carry out your war against LaRouche. If your edits are factual, fine -- you'll notice that I didn't revert the edit where you added sources on the ADL. But this is not a playground for you to delete sourced material that offends you (for example, "Removed LaRouche's statement that essentially impugns Graham's patriotism. This article should not be used to wildly trash public servants under the cover of false even-handedness.") That one is particularly ironic, because you advertise yourself as an opponent of cults, and Graham served on the advisory board of
CAUSA. I will have no problem with you adding material that is properly sourced, by which I mean, not to yourself. Please familiarize yourself with
Wikipedia:SCOIC. --
ClarkLewis (
talk)
21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This source was just added to the article:
Is this pamphlet in a library somewhere? Is it in a private collection? How can we verify its contents? If the editor who added it could scan or photograph the relevant pages then that would help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is the material in question:
In 2008, LaRouche commented on US Presidential candidate
Barack Obama, "You'll find Obama's ancestry, if you chase his family tree, everybody's climbing and swinging from the branches there--from all over the world! All parts of the world! This guy is the universal man. Every monkey in every tree, from every part of the world, has participated in the sexual act of producing him. And he works for organized crime--which is a branch of British intelligence."<ref>[http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-obama.htm "Look up the Principle Which Generates the Concept: Saturday Dialogue with LaRouche, Pt. 1"]. 13 April 2008</ref>
1. What evidence do we have that this was actually written by LaRouche? It does not appear on any LaRouche website.
WP:V says that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an
inline citation. Is Dennis King's personal website a published source?
2. How is it notable? Do we routinely include LaRouche's assessment of various presidantial candidates? If it's not notable, does adding it to the article constitute trolling? --
ClarkLewis (
talk)
00:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the material by Scherer and Gallagher about LaRouche engaging in back channel discussions with the Soviets. However, I left the quote in which LaRouche himself asserts it in his attack on Gen. Graham, since it is legitimately reflecting, in this context, LaRouche's own state of mind. The Scherer and Gallagher material appeared only in LaRouche's EIR, which is not an acceptable source under Wiki rules for factual information, only for state of mind. The things they assert happened have been reported nowhere in acceptable published sources. Neither of them provided any sources for their allegations. Paul Gallagher is a convicted felon (see the Wiki article on the LaRouche criminal trials) and has no more credibility than his fellow convicted felon, LaRouche.
Do I think LaRouche engaged in some kind of talks with the Soviet embassy in the early 1980s? Probably. He had talked to them before, as The National Review revealed in 1979. But there is no acceptable reference to cite for the occurrence of early 1980s talks, and certainly there is no reference that would back up LaRouche's assertions that he was acting at the request of the U.S. government or that his dealings with the Soviets had anything to do with Ronald Reagan's adoption of Star Wars. Indeed, numerous citations can be found in the NY Times and elsewhere that much of the intrigue LaRouche engaged in during the 1980s was done at the behest of con men falsely claiming to be representatives of the intelligence community. Perhaps LaRouche really had some deal with the National Security Council under Judge Clark in 1982 that would make these particular alleged meetings different; but we really don't know, and Wiki shouldn't be in the business of publishing factual allegations that cannot be properly sourced.
I kept Scherer's comment that he thought LaRouche was the "originator" of Star Wars and an "expert." Arguably this material should be removed because it is only sourced to EIR, but perhaps someone can find a publication that re-quoted it. At any rate the material that remains reflects Scherer's general opinion on LaRouche's status in the world, not detailed factual allegations.-- Dking ( talk) 22:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
:Once again, given your obvious conflict of interest, I am asking you to abide by
Wikipedia:SCOIC and post any proposed changes to the article on this talk page for discussion, rather than making large, controversial edits. You are mistaken in your claims about the "back-channel." NSC staffer Richard Morris confirmed it in testimony before the Federal Court in Alexandria in November, 1988. Perhaps you were even present. Even without that, Scherer's professional qualifications speak for themselves; he is a far more credible source than anything you have cited, and it is perfectly reasonable to use LaRouche sources for his comments (in my opinion, the lack of coverage of these things by the US media is a stain on their integrity.) --
ClarkLewis (
talk)
01:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually, it is a problem, given his conflict of interest.
Wikipedia:SCOIC asks that he post proposed changes on this page for discussion, which is an entirely reasonable suggestion. I haven't heard of "inappropriate activity" by Scherer, so please enlighten me. I don't have access to the 1988 testimony, and I was under the impression that you do, since you have all those quotes on the "criminal trials" article -- this article
[15] says that "In court testimony at LaRouche's railroad trial in Federal Court in Alexandria, Virginia in November 1988, Morris described LaRouche's collaboration with the Reagan White House on seven still-classified national security projects. The U.S.-Soviet back-channel talks, leading to President Reagan's March 23, 1983 SDI announcement, topped the list." That should give you enough to find it. Finally, in an edit summary, Dking says that EIR is not an acceptable source for this article. That's preposterous. --
ClarkLewis (
talk)
22:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem with this section at the moment is that it mentions Graham, who has one of the best claims to inspiring Reagen's SDI plans, and LaRouche, who has no real claim to have done so. It should probably mention the others involved, and not just by slandering Ed Teller by associating him with LaRouche after the latter latched on to a perversion of his ideas. John Nevard ( talk) 09:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Editor Mrdie made an unsourced addition to the intro, indicating that the subject is "clearly populist." It's not clear to me. A search of LaRouche writings turns up this: "Contemporary populism is typical of that form of mental disease." [16] -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 15:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I would say that he is populist. I admit it is original research though. As for reasoning, Populism is a very broad term, and it encompasses people from LaRouche to Huey Long to Patrick Buchanan to Mussolini, etc. and I seriously doubt LaRouche would favorably associate with Buchanan or Mussolini. LaRouche's views are pretty much the very definition of populism though, the people united against the oligarchy/elite/etc. As I said however, considering how 'open' this term is, it can be used to describe many people. I didn't mean to offend anyone or incite anything. Berlet did describe him at one time as populist though, and I think still does. (Though you'd need to contact him on that) -- Mrdie ( talk) 17:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)</>
I forgot ( I was stoned ) but it was hilarious.
216.164.63.182 ( talk) 04:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It would seem the titles of "economist" and "philosopher" have reappeared in this article. As La Rouche has no advanced degrees or any other professional credentials in either subject, I don't think it appropriate that any encyclopedic entry on this man's life imply expertise where none exists. I thought this was sorted out last year. Nightg1 ( talk) 00:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
My very brief edit on the call for a Pecora Commission was reverted on grounds of being "non-notable." It might have been non-notable last Fall, but I think it is notable now because it has been echoed by so many others, including Sen. Byron Dorgan, Bill Moyers, Paul Krugman and Nancy Pelosi. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
00:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
:::My edit doesn't claim that LaRouche was responsible for the Senate action. It simply says LaRouche called for a new
Pecora Commission 8 months ago. At the time, it was a typically obscure LaRouche utterance, but now that it has "caught on," I'd say that it is notable. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
21:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor just added these categories for a second time: [18]
The same editor recently removed Category:Antisemitism from another article, labelling it a "smear category". [19] Contentious categories like this require reliable sources. I've already reverted the additions once, and will do so again unless adequate sources are provided. Will Beback talk 23:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
:::I found an EIR article that discusses "good guy" vs. "bad guy" factions within Zionism at
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2920_jabotinsky.html --
Coleacanth (
talk)
21:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Trimmed down EL sect, added {{ No more links}}. If some of these are useful, they should be incorporated into the article as sources. Cirt ( talk) 07:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth is this mentioned in the lede? This looks like a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:LEDE. TallNapoleon ( talk) 10:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::TallNapoleon may not like Menshikov's brand of economics, but he is clearly a respected figure who has been quoted in major US media and co-authored a book with John Kenneth Galbraith, in addition to his published works in his native country. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
06:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know, but Google has a cached version of a Wikipedia article on him: (Ctrl-click)">
[20] --
Coleacanth (
talk)
06:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Even if we would have a reliable secondary source on Menshikov, this cannot be in the lede. If Menshikov is not notable enough to have his own article, why would his opinion about another person be so important that it would be in the lede? Cs32en 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
::But then, you're the one that deleted the article. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
06:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
::::My point is, it doesn't make much sense to delete the article and then argue that the person isn't notable because he doesn't have an article. In case TallNapoleon and Cs32en aren't following this,
here's the article (which was deleted yesterday.) --
Coleacanth (
talk)
06:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
:::He seems like an "obscure figure" to you? Have you tried a Google search to learn something about him? He was a member of the Soviet Central Committee, worked as an economist for the U.N., has published many books in both Russian and English, was a commentator for the New York Times, was interviewed several times by David Brinkley, and his book with Galbraith was reviewed in Foreign Affairs
[21]. Compare that to the numerous critics that are given big coverage in this LaRouche article, most of whom barely register on the notability scale. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
19:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've fully protected as a result of the latest bout of edit warring. Not aiming this at anyone in particular, but I think it's supposed to go something like: Discuss → Consensus → Edit rather than the other way around. Kevin ( talk) 12:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
::Menshikov has worked with a very broad array of people, and had his books published by many different publishers. He clearly likes LaRouche, but that does not mean that he is affiliated with LaRouche. For example, Menshikov has also worked with the Dalai Lama, and LaRouche condemns the Dalai Lama. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at Wikipedia:Lead section, and I don't see anything there that would disqualify the use of Menshikov's quote. You want something in the lead section which would indicate why LaRouche has a following, and in recent years LaRouche has developed a very good reputation as an economist in Russia, among other places. You could try to come up with a summary of what the article says about this, but it seems simpler to quote Menshikov, who is notable as an economist. You do have the Heritage Foundation quote, which is representative of conservatives in the US who oppose LaRouche, so it seems appropriate to have a representative of an opposite viewpoint. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
22:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Since it looks like the debate about having it in the lead is over, I'll put the Menshikov quote in the Russian section. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
21:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Could you propose a line or two of text to summarize LaRouche's popularity as an economist in Russia and other countries -- possibly something about him forecasting the financial crisis of 2007–2009? --
Coleacanth (
talk)
21:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I had asked you to propose a brief summary of that section and the financial crisis of 2007–2009 section for inclusion in the lead paragraph. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
22:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::The page is unprotected now. Is the Heritage Foundation quote to be removed on the same grounds as Menshikov? --
Coleacanth (
talk)
21:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
In order to remove POV quotations from the lead and to better summarize the contents of the article, I suggest that we remove this text:
And replace it with:
The lists shouldn't be exhaustive. These seem to be the main issues that come up in 3rd-party sources. Will Beback talk 04:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
::I totally disagree with the "issues that LaRouche is most closely associated with" part. His reputation internationally is for his economic theories and proposals. I would say "opposition to globalization, promotion of a New Bretton Woods system, proposals for giant infrastructure projects, and for his economic forecasts, particularly of the 2007-2009 financial crisis." --
Maybellyne (
talk)
05:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I actually thought that lead was good and well balanced before the Menshikov quote was deleted. At the beginning of this talk section I proposed that you write something about LaRouche's popularity as an economist in Russia and other countries, and him forecasting the financial crisis of 2007–2009. I was thinking that it would fill the gap left by the Menshikov quote. It seems to me that the two reasons LaRouche is known is because he went to jail, and because he was right about the crash. Anyway, your new text seems to have gone off in an entirely different direction. --
Coleacanth (
talk)
02:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I know this term gets thrown around loosely, and it's not just used for professional philosophers. But Lyndon LaRouche a philosopher? You gotta be kidding me. Hairhorn ( talk) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph
"LaRouche has claimed that "the FBI was orchestrating its assets in the leadership of the Communist Party U.S.A., to bring about my personal 'elimination'", LaRouche Speaks.net citing a document obtained through the Freedom of Information Act."
in the chapter "Operation Mop-up" uses a defunct link to "larouchespeaks.net". This domain is defunct and was turned into a spam site. Schweinebärmann ( talk) 04:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
:A replacement link is easily found:
[28] --
Maybellyne (
talk)
06:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)<
The article claims LaRouche claims received 22% of the Democratic primary vote in Arkansas in 2000 and 11% in Kentucky. I'd really like to see some evidence for these wild claims which this deranged sect is fond of making in an unintentionally self-parodying style worthy of cheap comic opera or two bit professional wrestling. When I was a college student in the 70s we would sometimes see their bereft glass showcase in the student union containing copies of their cult newspaper with screaming headlines like "Millions Rally to LaRouche!". Sadly, at that age, of course, there are lost souls who are ripe to come under the undue influence of groups like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.241.5 ( talk) 06:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't you have to have some credentials to be described as an "economist"? Shouldn't it be clear that LaRouche describes himself as an economist, although he has no credentials in the field. I don't see how Wikipedia can properly call someone an economist who doesn't have an advanced degree in economics any more than some backyard experimenter can be called a chemist or a physicist. The profession of economist has well-defined standards, none of which are met by LaRouche. There is a differnce between an economist and an autodidact who has read a few books about economics, and I don't see why Wikipedia should confound the distinction. Cas70 ( talk) 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
LaRouche might accurately be called many things, but economist is not one of them. I thought the entry was supposed to be neutral. No neutral observer with any knowledge of what an economist is or does could possibly describe LaRouche as an economist. You've described him as he would like to be described - a description with little basis in reality. If you allow his imaginary self-descriptions to stand why not explain that anyone with any economic training would consider him a crackpot. In bending over backwards to be fair to LaRouche you are doing naive readers a great disservice in that they are likely to take away the impressdion that LaRouche really is an economist, whereas I'm sure you know as well as I do that he is most emphatically not. Why lie? Cas70 ( talk) 12:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Clearly, any source that describes LaRouche as an economist is ipso facto not reliable. Cas70 ( talk) 12:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I will do that with alacrity if you will first tell the name of one real, professional economist who would describe LaRouche as an economist. I am certain there are none. However, I think you could properly describe LaRouche as someone who writes on economic topics, which is quite a different thing from being a professional economist. To call LaRouche an economist is preposterous and is a disservice to Wikipedia readers who might be ingenuous enough to believe it to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cas70 ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you to tell me the name of one member of the guild in good standing who'll vouch for LaRouche as an economist. I should think Menshikov deeply compromised by his association with the LaRouchian movement. Cas70 ( talk) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Cas70 ( talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'll give my credentials but I'm not about to give my name for fear of crazed LaRouchians showing up on my doorstep because I've dissed their master. I have a Ph.D. from Columbia and have been published by good academic presses such as Cambridge. I was merely browsing through Wikipedia, and when I came upon the first sentence of the LaRouche piece, I was met by the absurd claim that he was an economist. I thought I'd be a good citizen and correct information that was clearly false, but I have subsequently found that even absurdities have their stubborn defenders. I've always told my students not to trust everything they read on Wikipedia, and it seems I'll have a cautionary tale from this experience to reinforce that warning. So, I give up. You can write that he holds the home run record and is the most renowned composer since Beethoven if you want. I'm out of here. Cas70 ( talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
That sounds sensible. Cas70 ( talk) 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm confused. How do journalists become the ultimate authority on who is, and who is not, an economist? Incidentally, if journalists are the authority, the New York Times should have its say: "Mr. LaRouche, an 80-year-old economist, has raised more than $3.7 million over the years, much of it through small donations and the Internet."
[30]And what makes Stanislav Menshikov, who has credentials out the wazoo, "not a suitable source"? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Maybellyne (
talk •
contribs)
06:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
A few minutes spent trying to decipher any of LaRouche's writings on economics would convince any impartial observer that he is no economist, even using a very elastic definition of the term. Try figuring out what the LaRouche-Riemann method is, for instance. A few minutes of that will put you deep into Jabberwocky land. Bernhard Riemann must be rolling in his grave to have his name associated with such tripe. To call LaRouche an econimist would be tantamount to calling a little child playing with a stethoscope a doctor just because he imagines he is one. If Wikipedia wants to be truthful I don't see how it can do other than call him a "self-described" economist. Cas70 ( talk) 13:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)