Searching for LaRouche under the bed Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The "LaRouche 1" ArbCom case established that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles," and that "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense."

Ah, but what constitutes "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement"? This phrase has acquired a remarkably elastic definition. Consider this quote from Pope John Paul II, removed by Will Beback as "LaRouche-sourced material," although there is no source cited. Presumably most pronouncements by the Pope get published by the Vatican, although we don't know in this case.

Increasingly, "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement" has been taken to mean "opinions with which LaRouche might conceivably agree." Aside from Will Beback/Willmcw/User2004, the other hyper-vigilant defender against creeping LaRouchism is User:172, who waged a mammoth battle at the article "Privatization" to prevent inclusion of material on a conference on the privatization of national security functions ( see the lengthy debate on the talk page.) !72 argued that the material ought to be deleted because it sounded like something LaRouche might consider to be important. My edit, which triggered a revert war by 172, was sourced to the Princeton University transcript of the conference proceedings.

Recently, User:Tsunami Butler made a fruitless appeal to the ArbCom, which included an entertaining sampler of recent complaints on Will Beback's talk page. Predictably, this was ignored by the ArbCom.

In the course of the discussion, however, Will Beback announces his latest exploit, which I tracked down to the ANI archive. Will reverts two edits: one edit, in article "Laissez-faire," mentions George Schultz and Milton Friedman as laissez-fair advocates that went so far as to call for drug legalization. This edit was sourced to the Wikipedia articles on George Schultz and Milton Friedman, and sure enough, they did that. However, Will Beback pounces, calling it a "LaRouchism." Similarly, in the article "Free Trade," Will Beback comes to the rescue against an edit which references Henry Carey and Friedrich List, and includes a quote from William McKinley -- "remove LaRouche concepts," he writes. He also threatened to ban HonourableSchoolboy for that one.

So now, if you are an admin and you want to ban someone, you can accuse them of holding an opinion similar to one of LaRouche.

[Yehudi]

All sorts of people collaborated with South Africa - left, right and neither. If it weren't for the ADL, America would be a nastier place. They've done far more to uproot nasty Internet practices than they've ever done themselves. (I know, two wrongs don't make a right, but one does have to be pragmatic at times.)

And unlike Guy, I'm no friend of Lady Symons, but she can't be described as right-wing.


This post has been edited by Yehudi:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I'm no friend of Lady Symons, but she can't be described as right-wing.

Suppose we just settle on "spooky," then?

I am hard pressed to think of contemporary politicians that I would think of as being genuinely "left." I would expect some inclination to Marxism, or at least a pronounced interest in the plight of the poor. The plight of the poor is becoming more excruciating by the day, and I don't find environmentalism or "identity politics" to be of much comfort under the circumstances.

[guy]

Suppose we just settle on "spooky," then?

I can only say that I have never found her so. And since this isn't Wikipedia, we're allowed to quote personal knowledge! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I am hard pressed to think of contemporary politicians that I would think of as being genuinely "left."

Doesn't that depend on where you're standing?

Of course, there's always George Galloway, though some would argue that he illustrates beautifully how the far left and the far right have more in common than they care to admit.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

this disambig page.

I am hard pressed to think of contemporary politicians that I would think of as being genuinely "left."

Doesn't that depend on where you're standing?

Of course, there's always George Galloway, though some would argue that he illustrates beautifully how the far left and the far right have more in common than they care to admit.

I am unfamiliar with Mr. Galloway. Why would some argue that? I will also say, cautiously, that Ken Livingstone appears to me to be a fairly legitimately "left" sort of guy. I have not followed his career carefully, but he seems to annoy Tony Blair quite a lot, which earns him points with me.

Incidentally, LaRouche is not what is normally considered "left," although he once was. He has spent the past thirty years reviving what was once called the "American System," which does not advocate public ownership (outside of major infrastructure,) but does advocate extensive government regulation of anything that affects the national interest, including transportation, health care, banking and finance, electric utilities, and telecommunications. He refers to Lincoln and FDR as examples of successful policy. The "American System" is regarded by its proponents as a successful alternative to two failed options, Laissez-faire capitalism and Marxism. I believe there are some establishment types who wish to suppress the idea that there is an alternative to these two failed systems.

I think that it is significant that this is the area where the Wikipedia Cabal has the most intense paranoia about LaRouche, and it reinforces my suspicion that Jimbo and his POV are at the root of the whole thing. The articles where there have been fights and accusations of "LaRouchism," without LaRouche ever being mentioned or cited in the article, include:

Privatization
Free Trade
Laissez-faire
Deregulation
Dirigisme

The biggest fight was over an article that at one time did briefly mention LaRouche, which was "American System (economics)". I'm not sure what became of that article; I think that Will Beback may have deleted it. It's now a redirect to this disambig page.. I tried to find the page history of the pre-redirected article, and the earliest version on record is this one, which Northmeister somehow reconstructed after the much more extensive, older article was apparently deleted. Maybe someone who understands the intricacies of Wikipedia better than I can figure out what actually happened to this article.