Timberframe (talk | contribs) m Undid revision 380923044 by Paths of Change (talk) try discussion, mediation, admin notice boards, but this is just silly |
68.164.112.178 (talk) let's end the pretense |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{tmbox |
|||
{{User:WildBot/m04|sect=<br /> |
|||
|tyle = notice |
|||
*{{User:WildBot/m03|1|Lyndon LaRouche#1969–1973 NCLC, and "Operation Mop-up"|Operation Mop-Up}}|m04}} |
|||
|small = |
|||
|image = [[Image:Face-devil-grin.svg]] |
|||
|text = This article is within the scope of [[User:Will Beback/LaRouche topics|WikiProject LaRouche]], a collaborative effort between {{user3|Will Beback}} and {{user3|SlimVirgin}}. All interested editors are [[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption|warned]] that your edits must make LaRouche look silly, dangerous or both.}} |
|||
{{talkheader}} |
{{talkheader}} |
||
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=B|importance=low}} |
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=B|importance=low}} |
Revision as of 17:42, 25 August 2010
Socialism B‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
United States: Presidential elections Unassessed Low‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
- Draft and source pages
- Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources
- Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/Temp
- Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Gays & AIDS
- Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox
- Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/China Youth Daily
Independent Institute of Strategic Studies
- According to the Independent Institute of Strategic Studies in Ukraine, LaRouche traces the two incompatible lines in the development of economic theory. The first, considered unscientific by LaRouche, dates back to Aristotle and passes through the ideas of Rene Descartes, John Locke, Quesnay, David Hume, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, Karl Marx, and the Club of Rome, up to modern concepts of "post-industrial society." The second line, considered scientific by LaRouche, comes from Plato, Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Gottfried Leibniz, Bernhard Riemann, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Carey, and Friedrich List up to Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle and politicians of postwar Japan. The difference between them lies in the fact that the first sees the purpose of economic science only in the monetarist effort to "buy cheap and sell dear," while the second focuses on the production, based on continuous technological progress and economic development as an integral part of the evolution of scientific knowledge in general including natural and technical sciences.
- Taras Muranivsky, preface to "ВЫ НА САМОМ ДЕЛЕ ХОТЕЛИ БЫ ЗНАТЬ ВСЁ ОБ ЭКОНОМИКЕ?" ("So, You Wish To Learn All About Economics?"), quoted at INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE OF STRATEGIC STUDIES website, Ukraine, December 24, 2007 [1]
I'm confused about this material. Google's translation is sporadic, at best. [2] How does the IISS qualify as a reliable source, and which exact text is being used as the basis for this material? Please quote it so we can review it together. Will Beback talk 20:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
:Here is what I have found so far: an English-language page from the Institute[3]. Pozniy evidently heads it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC);-
- Thanks. But it looks like Pozniy is just an associate. What is the Independent Institute of Strategic Studies and what is their reputation for act checking? And what is this material that we're quoting? The text says "according to the IISS", but the citation indicate that it's just a quotation from Muranivsky's introduction to the Russian?/Ukrainian? edition of So, You Wish To Learn All About Economics?. Do we know who the author of this article is? Will Beback talk 01:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever this group is, they reprint LaRouche articles and press releases verbatim.[4] [5][6] That implies they aren't independent. Will Beback talk 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is this the actual source of the material in the article: [7] If so, we shouldn't say "according to the IISS", we should say "according to the introduction of the Ukrainian edition of LaRouche's..." and we should count it as a primary source. Will Beback talk 02:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- We had this exchange at the Mediation Cabal discussion:
- However, what is the policy when LaRouche articles are cited or reproduced in reliable sources? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- In answer to Leatherstocking, I think that it wouldn't be OR because at that point you're quoting a secondary source which has presumably done the analysis and everything. I assume that the reliable source is doing some kind of analysis on that quote to put it in context, so we don't have to. In addition, if it's a reliable source I think we can trust them to vet their sources; they wouldn't be reproducing the LaRouche articles if they couldn't authenticate them. -- Atama頭 15:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- However, what is the policy when LaRouche articles are cited or reproduced in reliable sources? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- We had this exchange at the Mediation Cabal discussion:
- Is this the actual source of the material in the article: [7] If so, we shouldn't say "according to the IISS", we should say "according to the introduction of the Ukrainian edition of LaRouche's..." and we should count it as a primary source. Will Beback talk 02:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Do you disagree? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC);-
- Let's step back a moment. We still haven't established what this institute is, and whether anything from it qualifies as a reliable source. I asked you for information about that but all you did was tell me the name of the director, which doesn't appear correct. Will Beback talk 01:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also, since you raise the issue, mediation is not a noticeboard. The role of the mediator is to help settle content disputes, not to make policy interpretations. While Atama is a good editor and mediator, she does not make binding decisions regarding this material. Will Beback talk 01:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Should I take that as a "disagree"? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC);-
- I'm saying that you still haven't shown that the IISS website is a reliable source, and that Atama's comments are not binding. There's no point in further discussion until you've found evidence that the IISS has a reputation for fact checking and reliability. Will Beback talk 18:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Here's a self-description:[8]. I haven't had much luck finding more. Searching using Google Translate can be very tedious. You can treat it as a primary source if necessary, but I think it's useful, and it incorporates some of your "heroes and villains" stuff in a more useful way than what we had previously. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC);-
- "- a private, non-governmental and non-profit social formation." That could describe "Justice for Jeremiah" - how about we treat it as a primary source too? But seriously, the last thing this article needs is more text drawn from primary sources. Will Beback talk 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::We should find out who the publisher of the So, You Wish To Learn All About Economics? book in Russian or Ukraine is. There's a good chance it is from a publisher that would be considered a reliable source. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC);
New Bretton Woods
The earliest I can find the "New Bretton Woods" proposal mentioned in a 3rd-party source is 1986. Are there any earlier mentions? Will Beback talk 01:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The July, 2007 forecast
The July 2007 forecast is particularly notable, as it has been commented upon by numerous secondary sources, some of which are cited in the bio article. I'll list them here if necessary. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC);-
- Yes, please do. LaRouche has made perhaps hundreds of predictions. Just cherry picking one or another is inappropriate. Will Beback talk 16:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
:::For starters, both the China Youth Daily article and the Menshikov/Slovo article are focussed on this particular forecast. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC);-
- Then add those as sources. Will Beback talk 23:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I rewrote the text to reflect what is actually in the CYD article, and moved it beside another sentence CYD's comments about LaRouche's predictions. I couldn't find any mention of the July 2007 webcast in Pirogov - did I miss it? Will Beback talk 01:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then add those as sources. Will Beback talk 23:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::I made an error by adding a footnote from Pirogov. As I mention above, the correct source was Menshikov. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC);-
- Neither Menshikov nor the CYD quote the text you added to the article. CYD only references the issue of four power action, and Menshikov talks about the mortgage crisis and offers a different quote. I think we can do a better job of summarizing those sources. Will Beback talk 23:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::That's not the issue. You asked that I demonstrate the notability of the webcast, not provide a source for the quote. This is a good example of a case where it is appropriate to quote a primary source. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC);-
- No I asked about the notabiulity of that specific quote/forecast. The webcast covers a large number of issues, and you deleted all of the other issues that I added from that webcast. So that specific quote is what needs a secondary source. Will Beback talk 01:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::That particular quote is the one that is germane to the subtopic, i.e., economic forecasting. It provides important detail to the paragraph that precedes it. The material I deleted was off-topic, as I mentioned in my edit summary. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC);-
- Actually, you deleted a summary of what the CYD said, along with other material from the same webcast. Let's keep to what the reliable secondary sources say and avoid cherry picking quotes that we think are interesting. Will Beback talk 21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Postings by sock of banned user struck-through.
Spell check please
I have nothing to add on content, but noticed a number of spellying (sic) errors and/or typos. Since the article is locked, I was unable to correct them myself. Anonymous - Christmas 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.238.110 (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
- Article looks generally pretty good but I think there may be a problem with quoting. Check WP:RS#Quotations where it says Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration. Captain Boycott (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Pipes
I'm no fan of Lyndon H. LaRouche or his policies, but should Daniel Pipes, a neoconservative racist demagogue, be considered a reliable source? Even Chip Berlet, who is an anti-LaRouche activist, would be a better source. 64.250.228.220 (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Clearing away crap
I'm going to remove everything on this page which is sourced directly to a LaRouchie, rather than to a WP:RS about the LaRouchies. Thoughts? BillMasen (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- In general, I think that primary sources should only be used for illustrative quotations and details on topics that have already been covered in secondary sources. So there are some items that are probably OK to keep. OTOH, the article is so long that almost anything which shortens it would be an improvement. Will Beback talk 03:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)