Jump to content

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guillermo Ugarte (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 29 October 2008 (→Another neutrality problem?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateLyndon LaRouche is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
WikiProject iconBiography B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


Mediation, arbitration,
requests for clarification, and
other discussions about the
LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement,
AN/I, 2005-8
Arbitration 2006
Arbitration 2005
Arbitration 2004
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Mediation 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Template talk
Categories
This box:



LaRouche not an economist again

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)[reply]

It's a long story. Briefly: WP works on consensus, and a couple of editors disagreed with your viewpoint so we never agreed on new wording. Meanwhile, it was discovered that both of those editors were really "sock puppet" accounts of a banned editor who shouldn't have been posting here to begin with. They've now been blocked. Since that was a muddle I suggest we restart the discussion and seek a solution that we all agree on. I suggest we try to keep the term "economist", but somehow identify it as a self-description. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will, thank you for the corrections. However, I do want to urge you to reconsider your position on identification by self-description. Think about any other professional designation; we don't allow this without proper credentials. This applies perhaps most especially to economists, but if we don't use this criterion for philosophers also, then anyone qualifies and the term becomes meaningless. Keep in mind that this man has only a high school diploma and has never published any paper in a peer-reviewed, philosophic journal. And to belabor a previous point, he lacks the intellectual discipline to even prepare a philosophic document. Philosophy, contrary to some popular misconceptions, is not rambling speculation. These documents are carefully and rigorously prepared; they are simply not empirically based (due to the nature or the subject matter).69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed economist and philosopher. He is neither, and to add "self-described" would make him look bad, I think. We do say at the end of the lead that he has written extensively on these topics. The question is whether he would be recognized as an economist by other economists, or as a philosopher by other philosophers. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SlimV, thank you also. He may have written extensively on these topics, but his essays do not constitute contributions to economics and philosophy. He is completely ignored by the professionals in these fields, and the reason is that he won't submit to peer-review. This is like trying to be a builder without getting building permits or practicing medicine without a license. Getting published in peer-reviewed journals is not entirely easy, but anyone who makes a sincere commitment to a field will succeed. Even intellectuals of modest ability get regularly published in the journals. You have to have the proper training and you have to be willing to accept criticism. Real intellectuals don't have a problem with this. In fact, they appreciate and voluntarily seek out criticism, often prior even to first submission of a paper. Even genius-types routinely seek criticism from their friends and colleagues prior to submission of a paper. It is the amateur who can't/won't accept criticism. Minor point: we should not refer to "other" economist and philosophers. Since he is neither, the professionals are not "others." However, I would agree that if certified economists and philosophers view LaRouche as an economist or philosopher, then my argument has a problem. I would only add that I would want to be sure that such people really do have proper credentials themselves and know that LaRouche does not. I suspect that many people, even some professionals in economics and philosophy, assume that he has proper credentials. (Another minor point: notice that for these Wikipedia articles, you have to be willing to submit to a kind of peer-review. It's just simple, common sense.)69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My signature doesn't seem to be showing up properly here.The above two posts addressed to Will and SlimV were by MPayne.69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still learning the ropes here. The above two posts addressed to Will and SlimV were by MPayne.69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think I got this time (forgot to log in). Will, thank you for the corrections. However, I do want to urge you to reconsider your position on identification by self-description. Think about any other professional designation; we don't allow this without proper credentials. This applies perhaps most especially to economists, but if we don't use this criterion for philosophers also, then anyone qualifies and the term becomes meaningless. Keep in mind that this man has only a high school diploma and has never published any paper in a peer-reviewed, philosophic journal. And to belabor a previous point, he lacks the intellectual discipline to even prepare a philosophic document. Philosophy, contrary to some popular misconceptions, is not rambling speculation. These documents are carefully and rigorously prepared; they are simply not empirically based (due to the nature or the subject matter).69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed economist and philosopher. He is neither, and to add "self-described" would make him look bad, I think. We do say at the end of the lead that he has written extensively on these topics. The question is whether he would be recognized as an economist by other economists, or as a philosopher by other philosophers. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SlimV, thank you also. He may have written extensively on these topics, but his essays do not constitute contributions to economics and philosophy. He is completely ignored by the professionals in these fields, and the reason is that he won't submit to peer-review. This is like trying to be a builder without getting building permits or practicing medicine without a license. Getting published in peer-reviewed journals is not entirely easy, but anyone who makes a sincere commitment to a field will succeed. Even intellectuals of modest ability get regularly published in the journals. You have to have the proper training and you have to be willing to accept criticism. Real intellectuals don't have a problem with this. In fact, they appreciate and voluntarily seek out criticism, often prior even to first submission of a paper. Even genius-types routinely seek criticism from their friends and colleagues prior to submission of a paper. It is the amateur who can't/won't accept criticism. Minor point: we should not refer to "other" economist and philosophers. Since he is neither, the professionals are not "others." However, I would agree that if certified economists and philosophers view LaRouche as an economist or philosopher, then my argument has a problem. I would only add that I would want to be sure that such people really do have proper credentials themselves and know that LaRouche does not. I suspect that many people, even some professionals in economics and philosophy, assume that he has proper credentials. (Another minor point: notice that for these Wikipedia articles, you have to be willing to submit to a kind of peer-review. It's just simple, common sense.)69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My signature doesn't seem to be showing up properly here.The above two posts addressed to Will and SlimV were by MPayne.69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still learning the ropes here. The above two posts addressed to Will and SlimV were by MPayne.69.255.106.47 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think I got it this time (forgot to log in). The above posts to Will and SlimV were by me. M Payne (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche was described by the Associated Press as an economist in 2003. [1] 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)[reply]

Source? ·:· Will Beback ·:·
Currently all I can find on his "success" in consulting is the claim that he was able to retire in 1964, at age 42, as a millionaire. [2] This website, full of personal and political musings, clearly doesn't qualify as a source we could include in the article, but perhaps Dking or Cberlet could help with more information on this subject. Becoming a millionaire in the early 1960s seems to signify a great deal of success having been reached in one's chosen profession, which in LaRouche's case did deal with applied economics. Adlerschloß (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have a counterpoint, or should I just go ahead and add the description back to the article? Adlerschloß (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That source also contains other characterizations of LaRouche and his movement. Do you propose including all of them or just the ones favorable to the subject? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason not to include them all, and most of the negative characterizations in that article actually already are included here. Everything in the article seems fair to me, and not slanted in any extreme way for or against LaRouche. Adlerschloß (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a recent news special on Russia TV that calls LaRouche an economist: [3] Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the claim that LaRouche retired at age 42 in 1964 as a millionaire, I don't believe this is true and never heard it from anyone I interviewed about his earlier life. My understanding is that, after separating from his wife, he lived off his girl friend Carol--she worked, he wrote political treatises. I have interviewed people who visited their apartment on Morton Street in Greenwich Village circa 1967, and from the description it doesn't sound like a millionaire's apartment. The source for the 1960s millionaire story, one Mark Evans, is not a citable source since his remarks were only posted on the web and from the wording of his essay I don't think he really knows much about LaRouche.
However, I believe you could say LaRouche had become a millionaire, in a sense, by the late 1970s, through his indirect (ideological, not legal) control of a major computer software company and his direct control (as the chairman) of the NCLC's various income-producing activities, including the peddling of intelligence reports. As to the 1980s and thereafter, I would say that anyone who succeeds in raising over a quarter of a BILLION dollars during those decades, even if he spends most of it on non-income-generating political efforts, and who lived in millionaire style housing except when in prison, could be fairly described as a millionaire.--Dking (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another neutrality problem?

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)[reply]

I removed the section because all it did was mention the existence of the WLYM, which is neither positive nor negative. The main template also links to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main template also links to Jeremiah Duggan and Kenneth Kronberg, so I suggest that you either remove them too, or restore the Youth Movement with a bit more substance. Also, what's up with this edit? "Opposed the war" describes an "activity," not a "view," but it looks like someone was aiming to remove a positive comment from the Syrian press. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that one is opposed to something is not an action. Organizing a demonstration is an action. ·:· Will Beback ·:·
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. [4] 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)[reply]


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)[reply]

That depends on what makes them questionable. What problems do you see? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You seem to have applied {fact} tags to a sentence that already has a citation. Have you checked the reference? Also, there are many sources listed that aren't cited inline, so some things that are marked as unsourced simply need their citations improved. Have you read King's Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism? The text is online here:[5]. It is a reliable source that covers LaRouche's mid-life in great detail. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche&oldid=248411990"