Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/Archive 12

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

Sources

Please note that Political positions of Ron Paul cites Ron Paul, not his political opponents. Describing LaRouche's political positions through the filter of Berlet or King would be like describing Obama's healthcare reform using LaRouche sources. Neither is appropriate. I don't mind using secondary sources, but whatever we put has to be verifiable against primary source material. --JN466 00:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
If the Ron Paul article violates WP:NOR by being based mainly on primary sources and violates WP:NPOV by excluding significant points of view then it needs to be fixed. Other stuff exists. There are numerous sources for the political views of LaRouche. We can certainly use primary LaRouche sources for brief illustrative quotes on issues that have already been covered in independent secondary sources, but we must not simply search through LaRouche's writings to post items we personally think are interesting or representative. We don't require that Wikipedia articles be verifiable from primary sources - I've never heard of that idea except from HK's socks. And if the proposal is to limit this article to the "Political views of Lyndon LaRouche", then we can't include the views of members of his movement - only those view attributed directly to LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
So, the notion that the content of an article may be verified by primary sources is an idea that only "HerschelKrustofsky" pushes? This is strange indeed. In an ideal scenario, any secondary source gives a truthful impression of its subject. By wait! There is of course, Colbert's notion of "truthiness"...But that may be to far fetched ;). Still, i stick to the idea that secondary sources may not misrepresent what their subject said, otherwise the secsource may be unsuitable for an article. It is thus inappropriate to argue that whenever a secsource is at odds with the primesource to throw any primesource recheck out of the window and blame "Herschel". But then again, we might invent a new policy: WP:HERSCHELBLAME :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waalkes (talk • contribs) 09:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Not "may be" but "must be". And yes, HK is the only editor, besides Jayen more recently, whom I've seen make the assertion that verifying material in primary sources is a requirement. It certainly doesn't exit in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, though HK tried to stretch WP:QUOTE for that purpose. On the contrary, WP:NOR discourages the use of primary sources and clearly states that articles should be based on secondary sources.
Further, Jayen466's assertion that Chip Berlet and Dennis King stand in the same relation to LaRouche as LaRouche has with Obama is absurd. Berlet and King are both respected writers on the topic of LaRouche who are frequently cited by other authors. Although they are used as sources in a very limited way in this article, there's no reason they could not be used more.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
In this case, the very title of this article promotes the use of primary LaRouche sources, since who is the biggest expert on LaRouche's philosophy than LaRouche himself? Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not aware of an exception in the Wikipedia policies and guidelines for articles about the political views of notable people. As for LaRouche's expertise, he describes himself as the world's leading economist. If anyone here is proposing that he is the most reliable source for himself then I'd question their suitability for editing this encyclopedia.   Will Beback  talk  02:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Will, just to make sure I understand you correctly, is your statement "If anyone here is proposing that he is the most reliable source for himself then I'd question their suitability for editing this encyclopedia" directed at me or anyone else involved in this discussion? Cla68 (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Is anyone here seriously proposing that LaRouche is the most reliable source on issues concerning himself?   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you point out where someone said that LaRouche is "the most reliable source"? Since the article is about LaRouche's views, however, I personally think it's fine to use LaRouche sources. So, having said that, did your comment refer to me or anyone else involved in this discussion? Cla68 (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that articles, especially on controversial topics, should use the best available sources. I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's OK.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Matko Meštrović

  • Meštrović, Matko (2007). "What is Global Change?". In Vidovic, Davorka; Paukovic, Davor (eds.). Globalization and Neo-liberalism (Reflections on Croatian Society). Zagreb, Croatia: CPI/PSRC. pp. 25–26. ISBN 9789537022167. Retrieved 10 July 2011.

Matko Meštrović is a hard one to describe. This Czech wiki seems to have the most comprehensive biography.[1] I wouldn't use it as a source for an articles, but I don't have any reason to doubt its reliability. This blog describes him as an "art critic".[2] This capsule bio says he was "an intrinsic critical and theoretical figure of the Croatian and European intellectual scene" and a "long-time scientific researcher at the Institute of Economics".[3] In the cited book, Meštrović calls LaRouche "the political head of the resistance against the Cheney-Bush administration" (page 27). Does that seem like an accurate or mainstream assessment? He cites only a single publication by LaRouche. The book does not appear to be held in any American library or any others cataloged by WorldCat.[4][5] Is this really one of the best available sources for the views of an American politician about whom so much has been written?   Will Beback  talk  06:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Views" or "Controversy"

It seems too me that this section focuses more on the most controversial poisitions LaRouche has rather than overall poisitions on political issues. For example, while he dubs himself a "economist", almost everything in here is about cultural issues with a small section "LaRouche's campaign platforms" describing his views on the "Physical Economy". It doesn't explain his overall positions but just statements and positions that are offensive too certain people. If you disagree, explain why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Est300 (talk • contribs)


It's a bit of the same situation as we discussed on the bio talk page. We summarize what's found in reliable sources. There's a listing of various political platforms as described in secondary sources. Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche/sources#Platforms. The movement doesn't necessarily have positions on every issue. If you're aware of any specific positions that haven't been given adequate coverage let us know.   Will Beback  talk  03:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Queen and drug trafficking 2

*Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement/Archive_11#The_Queen_and_drug_trafficking

The last discussion of this issue was archived before we finished with it. Is there anything more to add to the sources page before we start drafting new text for this section?   Will Beback  talk  11:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Comment moved to #The Queen and drug trafficking 3   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually most of the sources are opinion pieces at best, and not factual sources per se on LaRouche or his "movements" at all. And a lot of this "article" is simply piling on "stuff" instead of restricting it to actual solid material. Adding "stuff" on top of "stuff" is iffy for any BLP article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Let's clean out the junk and add solidly sourced, NPOV material.   Will Beback  talk  11:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
If you have comments about specific sources you think think we should exclude, that's fine too.   Will Beback  talk  11:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Start with every single "book review" and the like. And all the "but the person had a beard, so he must have been LaRouche" stuff. Add in the stuff which only serves to broadcast some of the wilder accusations. Cut the article down to about 10K. Cheers. Recall, I regard articles on small groups as properly being covered by BLP, and all opinions in such should be clearly labelled as opinions by specific people at best. Collect (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Huh? This thread is about the Queen of England material. If you have any specific remarks on this topic, please add them.   Will Beback  talk  12:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You asked a question. I anse=wered it. I am sorry if the official rule of this thread "This thread is about the Queen of England material. disapproves of more general noting that the entire article has serious BLP issues. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
If you want this thread to be about your general concerns about the article then that's fine. I can start a separate thread to talk about the drafting. Go ahead and say what you want to say.   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
AFAICT, you have no special authority on this article, Will. Nor any special authority to declare that you will open a fresh thread just for me. Cheers - I fear that your attitude here is not what I would wish for in a collegial discussion. Collect (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
It's kind of standard practice to keep a thread on a topic. But sometimes new topics come up. That's fine. We can discuss the overall article in this thread if that's what you want. You wrote, "Start with every single "book review" and the like". I'm not sure what you mean by that. I only see one section that could be called a book review, "Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy". Do you think we should get rid of that?   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I am glad we have someone to make sure that no thread goes off his stated desired topic. Reminds me a bit of Junior High, in fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you're glad. Now could you please explain your concern about the book reviews?   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Queen and drug trafficking 3

The last discussion of this issue was archived before we finished with it. Is there anything more to add to the sources page before we start drafting new text for this section?   Will Beback  talk  11:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For discussion

For the decade prior to the criminal trials of the late 1980s, one of LaRouche's closest aides and his paid security consultant was Roy Frankhouser, a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon and American Nazi Party member, and a government informant.[1] This is irrelevant to LaRouche's views. LaRouche's relationship to Frankhouser is explored in depth at Lyndon LaRouche#1974: Contacts with far right groups, intelligence gathering and it is clear that LaRouche was interested in Frankhouser as a government infiltrator of right-wing groups. It is misleading to imply that LaRouche felt any sympathy or agreement for the right-wing groups. Waalkes (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Cla68 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Off topic

The "Minority politics" and "Accusations of fascism" sections are off topic. They contain few actual references to views of LaRouche, and mainly just repeat claims by critics that are present in other articles such as the LaRouche bio. Waalkes (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

non-RS sources removed, material not relating directly to article name removed

FWIW, "Red Letter Press" does not appear to be remotely RS. Much material was not directly borne out bey reading of the articles used. I am still concerned that "Chip Berlet: gats a huge amount of space in the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Campaign platforms

I don't think the campaign platforms should be removed. They provide a general survey of the views that have been emphasized by both LaRouche and the numerous members of his movement that have run as candidates for other offices. Much of this article is devoted to issues that have attracted attention from various critics or supporters, but too much emphasis on these particular issues gives a somewhat unbalanced picture of what LaRouche stands for. Waalkes (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

They were primarily platforms of Larouche's direct political campaigns, and properly belong in his BLP and not in this weird melange of everything under the sun remotely connected to him which editors could find <g>. There is a huge amount of bloat and rumour in this article - it is time to get it into rational shape, IMO. If we get this down to the "improtant stuff" the article will be an order of magnitude more useful to readers. Example: See Joseph Widney now ... and back in 2008 [6] and tell us which version of that article is more useful to actual Wikipedia readers. Collect (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Some specific objections an edit

Collect, in this edit [7], says that his wording is closer to the sources than the earlier edit. Some of his changes are inoffensive, but they are generally farther away from the cited sources than is the material he removed. For example, in the first change, he removes "LaRouche believes that policy-makers should take counsel from Russian-Ukrainian biogeochemist Vladimir Vernadsky" and substitutes "LaRouche follows the beliefs of Vladimir Vernadsky." What does the source say? Well, the source discusses this at length, but the one line that seems to apply most is "LaRouche is persuaded, Vernadsky's conception of the biosphere represents an important change, in depth, in the way policy-makers should think about both the biosphere and basic economic infrastructure as such." That seems much closer to the deleted wording. In fact, I don't see anything in the source that specifically says that LaRouche "follows Vernadsky's beliefs." He clearly thinks that some of them should be listened to, but not necessarily all, so Collect's edit is possibly misleading. Here's another example where Collect's edit is definitely misleading: he removes "the movement developed ideas that became part the Wise use movement," and replaces it with "The movement supports the Wise use movement." What does the source say? It says that Wise Use themes had been developed earlier by LaRouche (exactly as in the deleted wording) and that some LaRouche supporters are active in the Wise Use movement (which I personally doubt, but even if it were so, that does not mean that the LaRouche movement "supports the Wise Use movement.") So this edit is clearly inaccurate. Collect, did you actually read the sources before reverting to your own edit? 173.247.191.211 (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This article must meet WP:BLP. The prior wording did not meet that policy requirement. Meanwhile, it is considered improper to use an editor's anme in a discussion title. I would also point out that weird grammar does not aid readers. Making any article readable is important. In addition, use of close paraphrase is specifically discouraged by Wikipedia, as plagiarism and copyright violations are important considerations. The new version has a "grade level" score of 18.2 (still unreadable) but the old verson had a grade level of 20. I shall try to deduce the grade level further - having paragrpahs which would stymie a Ph.D. candidate does not help Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Now within a rational readability of a 14.9 grade level -- junior college student level. Collect (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
WRT "Wise Use" see:
In fact, some wise use themes were developed earlier by LaRouche and his organizations, and today LaRouchians play an active role in wise use domestically and in Europe. In the early 1980s, the LaRouchians attacked the anti-nuclear Clamshell Alliance as terrorist front.46 This tactic resurfaced later in the wise use movement.
From [8] The Piracy of America: Profiteering in the Public DomainBy Judith Scherff 1999
And WaPo in 1995:
the nutty views of a single Lyndon LaRouche follower made their way through groups in the Wise Use coalition to mainstream organizations like the American Farm Bureau [9]
Allowing a pretty clear connextion here, and borne out by the source in the current article as well. Collect (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The connection is that the Wise Use movement adopted ideas that came from LaRouche. But the article says that the movement "supports the Wise use movement," which does not seem to be supported by any of the sources. Joe Bodacious (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
It shows that the WU movment uses ideas from Larouche, and that his supporters support that movement. Which is all we can really say. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it is improper to state, in a article called "Views of LaRouche and the LaRouche movement," that the movement supports the Wise Use movement. The sources cited do not support that claim. It's fine to say that the Wise Use movement borrowed their ideas, although this is probably the wrong article to put that in. It should go in the Wise Use article. The movement has no control over who might adopt their ideas, and there may be ideas of the Wise Use movement which the LaRouche people do not endorse. Joe Bodacious (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Views on Homosexuality and Homophobia

I would like to start expanding this section. It is abundantly clear from a number of LaRouche's comments and articles that he views homosexuals as evil. I am wondering if it would be appropriate to cite this website http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.AreHomosexualsASecurityRisk since it does contain an original copy of the article in which the comments were made. The site is highly critical of the movement and the man himself, and I just want to make sure that it would not be considered biased to cite from an article which is hosted on a site which clearly has an ideological position against the group? Thesassypenguin (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Blogs or websites that are run anonymously are not suitable sources. Also, Wikipedia should not make statements characterizing living persons or their views as such-and-such -- instead, under Wikipedia:Verifiability, it should quote reliable sources and let them make such claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.150.23 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The site doesn't so much make the claim that LaRouche is anti-gay, rather hosts an article he wrote in which he openly states that Homosexuals are morally defective, untrustworthy, and proud of their "sexual deviation" that part is definitely not anonymous nor is it a statement characterizing LaRouche but his actual words on the subject. I think it may be best to see if I can locate a version of the article hosted elsewhere or a scholarly article outlining his views. Also its interesting that you would respond anonymously to this post and claim that LaRouche Planet is run anonymously when it is actually run by former members of the LaRouche movement who have left and chosen to speak out about the subject using their real names. http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Main.Honorrollofsanity Cheers.

Thesassypenguin (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

An anonymous website/blog with a COI. "Real names" don't add anything to its credibility. This is no reliable source for a BLP. Waalkes (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure that this page can be properly considered a biography of a living person. However in light of the conflict of interest POV wise, I'll be looking for a copy of the aforementioned article which is simply hosted on the website, elsewhere, either a journal or another site and using that as a source instead. Keep in mind that I am not trying to cite the views of an anonymous commentator speaking on behalf of the LaRouche Planet website but rather the views that Lyndon LaRouche himself has published concerning gays and lesbians. Thesassypenguin (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd also like to get a few other opinions about this matter from users who aren't editing anonymously, or potentially using a sock account due to being banned permanently (Waalkes, Suspected Sock), before feeling that a consensus has been reached on the subject. Thesassypenguin (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Found a copy of the aforementioned article here http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1987/eirv14n19-19870508/eirv14n19-19870508_038-british_press_asks_are_homosexua-lar.pdf please note that it is the exact same text as used by the LaRouche Planet website. The site is LaRouche's own publication Executive Intelligence Review. Hope this satisfies anyone concerned about POV, COI, or wishing to bring up other objections to mentioning LaRouche's own Anti-LGBT homophobic statements and views. I'll get to expanding the Homosexuality subsection of Minority Politics later on this week. I would be interested to hear people's take on the article prior to then. Thesassypenguin (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that the sources you linked to can be used to add information with BLP implications to this article. Also, please don't accuse other editors of being socks. That is not helpful to a productive discussion. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Sassy, it may be that this topic (LGBT) is of particular interest to you, but I see no evidence that it plays a major role in LaRouche's belief structure or that it deserves more space in this article than it already gets. To be persuaded, I would need to see some reliable sources that say so (See WP:RS for clarification.) Also, when complaining about editors who are editing anonymously, you would do well to remember that you are also editing anonymously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.46.157 (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Would this ample selection of sources be appropriate?Thesassypenguin (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I suggest expanding the one sentence which discusses LaRouche views on Homosexuality to a short paragraph. Stances on LGBT issues are often discussed when they relate to political figures or ideological movements. Cla68 can you please explain why citing someone's own writing is an inappropriate way of outlining their views? I did not make an original accusation about puppetry, I pointed out a concern raised by other editors surrounding this article, and editor. I agree with Waalkes sock or not that the LaRouche Planet website is not a neutral POV source, the article is LaRouche's writing published by EIR and available on his publication's website. The complaint about anonymity arose around the wiki style website LaRouche Planet where I originally found the article. I was not meaning to complain about anonymity by pointing out that its hypocritical to do so anonymously, and was hoping to hear feedback from verifiable members of the Wikipedia community when I mentioned it a second time.Thesassypenguin (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to Wikipedia to show that a person is "evil" - it is up to us to present material relevant to his biography without reaching undue weight on any given issue. That noted, "no wiki is ever a reliable source" for any claims at all in any article - BLP or not. See WP:RS if you would like to read more about whuy a wiki is never usable. Collect (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree a wiki is not a reliable primary source of information, published articles and journals however are would you not agree? The list of sources that has previously been compiled about this issue, and the numerous publications in which the comments LaRouche has made can be found are not wiki content they are published material. Executive Intelligence Review is not a wiki style site, nor are the other sources mentioned on the list, which while organized on a Wikipedia page are from primary and secondary sources NOT FROM A WIKI, they are published work or transcripts of proceedings. It is not my intent to show that LaRouche or the movement is "evil" (your word not mine), I would simply like to expand the single sentence relating to Homosexuality to a brief paragraph outlining how and why LaRouche has been perceived as Homophobic in his positions the single sentence is vague, and poorly sourced in my opinion, and there are a large number of sources which demonstrate far more clearly what is being vaguely implied in the current article.Thesassypenguin (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Most of the secondary sources on your list are actually about AIDS, not gays, and there is already another section about AIDS in the article which is fairly extensive. The reason primary sources should be avoided is that Wikipedia doesn't want you, as an editor, to decide which of LaRouche's statements ought to be included in the article. He has opinions on thousands of topics. In order to decide which ones are significant enough to go into the article, Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.151.70 (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

His position on LGBT issues may not be central to the article or LaRouche's belief structure, but I agree that the current paragraph is needlessly vague (seen by whom? what comments?) and should be expanded. It's not informative to say certain comments were seen as anti-gay with no way for the reader to determine the validity or severity of that assertion. As it stands, one cannot ascertain whether these statements could be charitably understood as misinterpretations. A little bit more context would be useful, specially as the sources cited are both in print (and so less readily available). I understand the issue with primary sources, but if that's the case then better secondary sources should be found. --140.247.187.150 (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. However, I did some internet searches and had trouble finding good material. There are a lot of articles by critics in not-so-good sources that simply say "he's homophobic" and let it go at that. In the better sources, books and established newspapers, they say that the LaRouche AIDS initiative was considered homophobic. I think that is problematic, because the group puts forward a rationale for the initiative that is not couched in homophobic language. I don't think we should speculate about motives. Now, I did find an online version of the LA Times article which includes a use of homophobic language, so I'll add that to the article. Joe Bodacious (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Footnote #164 cites the following sources: "Chronology of Labor Committee Attacks, issued by New York Committee to Stop Terrorist Attacks, 1973; contemporary articles and photographs in the Daily World, the Militant, Workers Power, the Fifth Estate, the Boston Phoenix, and the Drummer; "An Introduction to NCLC: "The Word is Beware", Liberation New Service, #599, March 23, 1974; Charles M. Young, "Mind Control, Political Violence & Sexual Warfare: Inside the NCLC", Crawdaddy, June 1976, p. 48–56; TIP, 1976, NCLC: Brownshirts of the Seventies, Arlington, VA: Terrorist Information Project (TIP). For many of these I can find no information at all online. I doubt that any of them would meet the standards of WP:RS. Does anyone have information on these sources that they would care to add? Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Fursov translation

Since there continues to be quarreling over the Fursov translation, I'll provide a link to the discussion at RefDesk. People should resist the temptation to "spin" what was said there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2014_January_10#Russian_translation Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that Reference Desk editor Lüboslóv Yęzýkin said "I'm not sure that literal translation will do better." Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Let us accept that it is RS as you insisted before. The correct translation is 180 degrees away from your initial translation. If it was RS before, it is still RS with the actual correct translation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It was you who introduced the 180 degree mixup of "not the quality but the quantity" versus "not the quantity, but the quality." Also, I have never questioned whether Fursov is a reliable source. You were confused then and you are still confused now. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
No -- the claim about LaRouche specifically being "insignificant" per edits [10], [11], etc. and [12] etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"La Rouche in federal prison" -- missing topic from Contents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_criminal_trials#Later_developments la rouche's 5 yrs in fed prison

173.61.9.126 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Gilbert was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement/Archive_12&oldid=1069871153"