Talk:Eurasian Land-Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One would think if this land-bridge project were real there would be some reference to it on the government websites of the nations involved. The only reference I can find is on a Finnish government website and it only mentions a conference held in 2002 (not 1996 as the article claimed) and makes no mention of LaRouche.

With such a megaproject underway surely there must be some reference to it in some organ of the mainstream press somwhere?AndyL 07:23, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This article contains no useful information and should be deleted. If that is not possible it should be re-directed to Lyndon LaRouche. Adam 07:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

KRUSTY, you say that the claim that the Eurasian Land bridge and the Asian Highway are the same thing is "bogus". Fine, where is the Eurasian Land-Bridge website? This is a huge megaproject, right? Which firms are working on it? There must be some reference to it in articles other than those written by LaRouche movement members. Show us an article in the Economist on this project or point to a reference to it on the government website of the People's Republc of China or China's state news agency. Any reference to "the New Silk Road" is in fact a reference to the Asian Highway. So please, find something contrary to that from an *independent source* ie not one linked to LaRouche. Given the world historic importance of this project this shouldn't be too difficult to find. AndyL

• Sept 19, 2003 -- A lengthy article on Lyndon LaRouche by Ding Yifan was published in the influential Beijing-based Guangming Daily and the Xinhua News Agency.
• April 3, 2003 -- Richard Dallyn interviewed Lyndon LaRouche on, ironically enough, BBC's Five Live show on Wednesday, April 2nd. It was aired on the international news show which played from 1 am to 5 am.
• Jan 3, 2003 -- Dubai, UAE: Al-Bayan published an article by Lyndon LaRouche entitled "The Year To Come" together with an article by Hussein Askary on History as Tragedy in its New Year's political supplement. The online version of Askary's article is accompanied with a photo of a starving African family; the hard copy has the map of the Eurasian Land-Bridge.
• Aug 15, 2002 -- Skopje, Macedonia: A new political magazine, called Manifest has been launched which carries an interview with Lyndon LaRouche as its cover story. Many of the articles cover LaRouche's strategic and economic analysis, as well as his program for a New Bretton Woods monetary system and the Eurasian Landbridge.
• June 5, 2002 -- Ankara, Turkey: YARIN, the top political magazine in Turkey, interviewed Lyndon LaRouche in its June issue. The issue is so popular that it was sold out and rushed to a second printing. It was also picked up by the Turkish dailies, and posted on their websites.

I do not want to be pulled into this mess, but "Yarın" is not the top political magazine in Turkey. Far from it, its spectrum and content would be classified as marginal for Turkey. at0 20:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• May 7, 2002 -- Seoul, South Korea: Lyndon LaRouche interviewed by Chang Dae-Hwan in the Maeil Business News. The interview covered his program for the New Silk Road and Korea's role in this as the "Asian Hub" for Pacific transport and trade.
• Apr 5, 2002 -- MKTV, the main Macedonian TV station ran a one hour interview with Lyndon LaRouche. The theme of the interview was 'A mass movement is gathering around LaRouche to rebuild the world.' The interview is scheduled to be rebroadcast on Apr 8th on MKTV and a second TV station, Citel TV.
• Dec 28, 2001 -- The India Post, which circulates internationally, covered the LaRouche's recent trip to India. The article was short and very accurate, among other things covering the fact that LaRouche was in India to participate in a seminar: "Growing Global Crisis: The World Needs A New Monetary System."
• Dec 28, 2001 -- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: The New Straits Times carried a prominent interview with Dr. Kassim Ahmad covering his long history in influencing Malaysian politics and culture. Dr. Ahmad referenced Lyndon LaRouche as one of the writers who has influenced his life and as an example of someone whom he would not judge without first carefully reading his biography and writings.

These are just a few highlights. --Herschelkrustofsky 23:44, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

None of which answers Andy's question of why the "Eurasian land-Bridge" has no website and why there is no mainstream press coverage of it (let alone why an 82yo convicted swindler would have a prominent role in such a project). But this is not very surprising. Krusty is doing his best, but unlike his master he cannot rewrite history. Adam 00:19, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can the articles (by my count three of the nine mentioned) that refer to the landbridge be scanned and images of them made available? Almost all of these seem to be about LaRouche rather than the Land-Bridge (and all feature LaRouche) where are some article that are primarily about the Land Bridge and do not feature LaRouche? Again, there should be something in engineering journals, something on the websites of governments and engineering firms invovled in the project.

I'm sure I could go to a lot of countries issue a few media releases and convince a few gullible reporters to interview me because I say I'm important but if the megaproject I'm talking about is real there should be some sort of documentation to prove its existence somewhere. AndyL 14:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

":* April 3, 2003 -- Richard Dallyn interviewed Lyndon LaRouche on, ironically enough, BBC's Five Live show on Wednesday, April 2nd. It was aired on the international news show which played from 1 am to 5 am."

Herschell, even the LaRouche account of this interview posted here makes NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of this land-bridge yet you post it here as "evidence" of an independent source for the land bridge. This does not bode well for the rest of your "evidence" or for your credibility. Why did you post it here? Were you just trying to bamboozle us into thinking there was more (or even anything) in the mainstream media about this land bridge than there actually was. I'm very disappointed in you Herschell, it seems you've tried to trick us here. AndyL 14:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, let's see all of these articles come from this site and accompanying pages.

• Sept 19, 2003 -- A lengthy article on Lyndon LaRouche by Ding Yifan was published in the influential Beijing-based Guangming Daily and the Xinhua News Agency.

The link to this article is incorrect so I can't check LaRouche's version of it.

• April 3, 2003 -- Richard Dallyn interviewed Lyndon LaRouche on, ironically enough, BBC's Five Live show on Wednesday, April 2nd. It was aired on the international news show which played from 1 am to 5 am.

no mention of the land bridge (see earlier post above)

• Jan 3, 2003 -- Dubai, UAE: Al-Bayan published an article by Lyndon LaRouche entitled "The Year To Come" together with an article by Hussein Askary on History as Tragedy in its New Year's political supplement. The online version of Askary's article is accompanied with a photo of a starving African family; the hard copy has the map of the Eurasian Land-Bridge.

Summary of article (full article not provided) states "The rest of the article describes the solution to this situation through the ideas of LaRouche and his dual war-avoidance strategy of the New Bretton Woods system and the Eurasian Land-Bridge." Again, the only evidence of the land bridge is LaRouche's say-so. No independent verfication.

• Aug 15, 2002 -- Skopje, Macedonia: A new political magazine, called Manifest has been launched which carries an interview with Lyndon LaRouche as its cover story. Many of the articles cover LaRouche's strategic and economic analysis, as well as his program for a New Bretton Woods monetary system and the Eurasian Landbridge.

fleeting mention as follows as part of a question asked to LaRouche "if the "LaRouche recipe" -- the New Bretton Woods and the Land Bridge projects -- were to become US policy and were endorsed by a coalition of countries in the world, how fast and how directly could this change the [Macedonian] situation for the positive. Can you explain how this mechanism would work?" LaRouche's reply doesn't mention the land bridge. I don't see why the mention of a land bridge proposal in an interviewer's question can be seen as evidence of anything.

• June 5, 2002 -- Ankara, Turkey: YARIN, the top political magazine in Turkey, interviewed Lyndon LaRouche in its June issue. The issue is so popular that it was sold out and rushed to a second printing. It was also picked up by the Turkish dailies, and posted on their websites.

No mention of the land bridge

• May 7, 2002 -- Seoul, South Korea: Lyndon LaRouche interviewed by Chang Dae-Hwan in the Maeil Business News. The interview covered his program for the New Silk Road and Korea's role in this as the "Asian Hub" for Pacific transport and trade.

No link provided

• Apr 5, 2002 -- MKTV, the main Macedonian TV station ran a one hour interview with Lyndon LaRouche. The theme of the interview was 'A mass movement is gathering around LaRouche to rebuild the world.' The interview is scheduled to be rebroadcast on Apr 8th on MKTV and a second TV station, Citel TV.

No link provided

• Dec 28, 2001 -- The India Post, which circulates internationally, covered the LaRouche's recent trip to India. The article was short and very accurate, among other things covering the fact that LaRouche was in India to participate in a seminar: "Growing Global Crisis: The World Needs A New Monetary System."

link is to transcript of speech rather than article - only "evidence" of Land Bridge is LaRouche referring to it

• Dec 28, 2001 -- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: The New Straits Times carried a prominent interview with Dr. Kassim Ahmad covering his long history in influencing Malaysian politics and culture. Dr. Ahmad referenced Lyndon LaRouche as one of the writers who has influenced his life and as an example of someone whom he would not judge without first carefully reading his biography and writings.

No link provided

Great Herschell, it looked kind of impressive at first but further investigation shows you've provided us with bupkiss, nada, nothing.

Most of your sources make no mention of the landbridge, the ones who do do so provide no evidence other than LaRouche's say so. Again, can you give us some independent articles from say one of the governments involved or an engineering journal or something which talks about the land bridge as an actual thing and not a mere claim by LaRouche? Are there no engineering surveys of the project? No detailed studies? No references by government departments? AndyL 15:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even by Krusty's standards of historiography, then, this was a pretty poor effort. I hereby present Andy with the World Zionist Conspiracy's highest honour, the Henry Kissinger Award, for heroism in research. Adam 15:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Attn. Andy, and anyone else who may be reverting Weed's article: Since you are fond of Googling, you may try "Eurasian Land-Bridge""Asian Highway"". Each reference in the Malaysian, Indian and Chinese press considers them as entirely separate and distinct proposals, with the Land-Bridge being the larger and more ambitious of the two. The only article that equates the two is, of course, Andy's bogus Wikipedia article. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The media links brought up by such a google search show that the term "Eurasian Land Bridge" has some currency in Asian media as a reference to a more ambitious version of the Asian Highway. The article should therefore say that, and then provide a link to the Asian Highway article. Note, however, that none of the non-LaRouche sites contain any reference to LaRouche. If LaRouche has played such an important role in this project, as LaRouche cultists maintain, why did the Chinese minister not mention him in the speech linked to? Why does a google for "LaRouche" + "Eurasian Land Bridge" produce only links to LaRouche cult websites? I have yet to see a single non-LaRouche reference to LaRouche having any involvement whatever with such a project. Adam 00:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The articles do not depict the Land-Bridge as a "more ambitious version of the Asian Highway," but rather as "a more ambitious project." Weed has demonstrated a) that LaRouche put forward a proposal with that name 12 years ago, and that b) there were major conferences in Moscow and Cairo to promote the idea. If anti-LaRouche cultists wish to dispute the fact that he is the authentic author of the proposal, these cultists must produce the name of the person that they wish to assert is the real author, along with convincing evidence. As for the Asian Highway, it is one of any number of related projects; Weed's article mentions the trans-Siberian railway. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then answer these questions:

• If LaRouche has played such an important role in this project, as LaRouche cultists maintain, why did the Chinese minister not mention him in the speech linked to?
• Why does a google for "LaRouche" + "Eurasian Land Bridge" produce only links to LaRouche cult websites?
• Where is the evidence (repeatedly asked for) that this "project" exists at all? Adam 11:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

None of the articles mention any individual as the author of the proposal. They acknowledge that such a proposal exists. Weed's article is about a proposal, not a project. Unless you wish to claim (contrary to the evidence) that no such proposal exists, or that LaRouche did not make such a proposal in 1992, or that he plagiarized it from someone else, you have no basis for complaining. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1) the AH is part and parcel of the "Eurasian Land-Bridge", not a distinct project. This contradicts the claim that the project is as described by Herschel and Weed. 2) the project was proposed by the UN in the 1950s.AndyL 23:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected...

...due to the edit war going on. BCorr|Брайен 17:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

In my opinion the Lyndon LaRouche intiative regarding the Eurasian Land-Bridge is original research by Lyndon LaRouche and thus subject to deletion. Fred Bauder 23:29, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I have tried looking into it a bit too. The lack of references from authoritative sources connecting LaRouche with the Eurasian Land-Bridge indicates that there is no real connection. So I think it this article should be deleted/redirected to Asian Highway, or a page put up stating LaRouche has no involvement, and then linking to Asian Highway. Thue | talk 08:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Attn. Fred and Thue: I have found references to the Eurasian Land-Bridge proposal on the web, in press accounts from Hong Kong [1], India [2] and , and Japan [3]. None of these media are affiliated with LaRouche, so how do you reconcile this with your view that it is "original research"? And Thue, LaRouche and his colleagues have been promoting this proposal all over the world for 12 years. If it is your belief that LaRouche has "no involvement," please tell me who the real author of the proposal is. Weed Harper 20:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Asian Highway is a highway, not a grid of high-speed rail. It would be far more honest to delete the article than to redirect it (although not honest enough for my liking.) --Herschelkrustofsky 14:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you think that's the best course than go to Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion and put in a request. Howver, given the reference in the Asian Highway article to the Eurasian Land-Bridge I think redirection remains the best course. AndyL 15:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Asian Highway Project is expected to link Singapore with New Delhi via Kuala Lumpur, Ho Chi Minh City, Phnom Penh, Bangkok, Vientiane, Chiang Mai, Yangon, Mandalay, Tamu, Dhaka and Calcutta. India has already completed work on the 150-kilometer road from Tamu to Kalemyo in Myanmar. This would ultimately form part of the more ambitious Eurasian Land Bridge spanning the continents[4] (Weed's Asia Times link)

This doesn't sound to me like the Asian Highway and Eurasian Land-Bridge are different projects. It also contradicts Herschel's claim above about the nature of the proposed landbridge as being a "highway, not a grid of high speed rail" doesn't seem to be a problem. Weed, you are correct, those sources are not affiliated with LaRouche. They also do not *mention* LaRouche as having anything to do with the project and describe the project as something far from what LaRouche says it is or what you claimed in your version of the article. Also note that the dates mentioned in your third reference significantly precede the date you say LaRouche "conceived" of the project. *That* is the problem. Your version of the article is a fantasy first of all, second of all two of your articles state that the AH is part and parcel of a possible Eurasian Land-Bridge supporting the decision to redirect to Asian Highway. AndyL 20:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I find your logic to be faulty. You are saying that the part (Asian Highway) is the same thing as the whole (Land Bridge). Also, I looked at the dates mentioned in my third reference Japan Railway and Transport Review, and I find no date that references the origin of the Landbridge proposal - they all refer to specific rail line links and construction. I also find no reference in any of the articles to an author of the proposal, so if you claim that these articles are evidence that LaRouche is not the author, your logic is bad and self-serving. Tell us who you think the real author is, if it is not LaRouche. Weed Harper 21:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tell us who you think the real author is, if it is not LaRouche

The UN in the 1950s. AndyL 05:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And your evidence for this assertion? --Herschelkrustofsky 10:38, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Should not be a redirect

I have looked at this article. It is adequately sourced; there are non-LaRouche sources that refer to the proposal. It is also clearly not the same thing as Asian Highway, so a redirect to that article is misleading. It may be the case that someone other than LaRouche originated or popularized the proposal, but I know of no information as to who that may be. It appears that the LaRouche organization can demonstrate that they were pushing a proposal by that name 16 years ago. If you want to add rebuttal information, fine, but to deny that this proposal exists and is notable would be silly. If it didn't exist, a redirect would still be wrong. Deletion would be right. --ManEatingDonut 23:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it different from the Asian Highway? Do you consider this topic to be closely-related to the LaRouche movement? -Will Beback · † · 23:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

1. One of the sourced articles says "The Asian Highway Project is expected to link Singapore with New Delhi via Kuala Lumpur, Ho Chi Minh City, Phnom Penh, Bangkok, Vientiane, Chiang Mai, Yangon, Mandalay, Tamu, Dhaka and Calcutta. India has already completed work on the 150-kilometer road from Tamu to Kalemyo in Myanmar. This would ultimately form part of the more ambitious Eurasian Land Bridge spanning the continents." So, the Asian Highway would be a subsumed part of the larger landbridge project.

2. I frankly don't know how one defines a topic as "closely-related to the LaRouche movement." My hunch would be, however, that if someone is looking up "Eurasian Landbridge" on Wikipedia, it is probably because they read about it in a LaRouche publication or web page -- unless they live in Asia. It seems that the western press don't have much interest in such things. --ManEatingDonut 06:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history of this talk page, it is clear that this article has been a football for the battles between pro-LaRouche and anti-LaRouche forces, when it would be in the interests of Wikipedia to just have a simple, factual article. I made a point of saying (in my re-write) that the authorship of the landbridge proposal was contested, even though to my knowledge it is not. I was hoping to pre-empt more of the same old squabbling you see on this talk page. --NathanDW 18:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverting the redirect to an article written by a banned user is not a good way to avoid squabbling. -Will Beback · † · 10:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I see numerous editors in the history. The most recent version is by NathanDW. "Guilt by association" is hardly a way to evaluate articles. We should focus the discussion on the article itself. --ManEatingDonut 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Please discuss before making major changes"? That isn't what NathanDW did. And no, the most recent version is not by him, it's by HK. NDW simoply resurrected it. Check the history. There's been a thorough discussion in the past and the decision was to redirect. -Will Beback · † · 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring over the inclusion of LaRouche theories has never helped this project. There've been a number of ArbCom rulings over this type of behavior. Since it keeps being a problem those rulings may need to be re-applied. -Will Beback · † · 17:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is untrue. I re-wrote the article, and said that the authorship of the proposal was disputed. If you like, just eliminate all references to LaRouche from the article. Acknowledge that there is a proposal by that name, as the press accounts demonstrate. By redirecting it, you mislead the public, since the Asian Highway is not a continental rail system -- it's a highway system. --NathanDW 21:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If we reduced the article to the non-LaRouche component, we'd have only one sentence, which is why it's a redirect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that short articles were normally designated as stubs, not redirected. Whatever. I think that if you guys are so adamant about this, we should initiate an article deletion process, which I will do unless someone objects. Sending people to "Asian Highway" does strike me as counterproductive. --ManEatingDonut 20:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what inspired NathanDW to dig up long-deleted text, or how he even found it. In any case, the concept is sufficiently similar to the Asian Highway that it's better to have one good article on the overall topic. -Will Beback · † · 01:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Finding it was not so mysterious. Somebody wikified a reference to the landbridge in the Lyndon LaRouche article. I followed the link and wound up at "Asian Highway" -- which is why there shouldn't be a redirect. LaRouche does not claim to have come up with the Asian Highway concept. Anyone else following that link would be similarly confused. At any rate, I saw that I had been re-directed, and found this page. The link that I had followed in "Lyndon LaRouche" is now gone: it was in the "biographical issues" section, which I now see was deleted by SlimVirgin some weeks ago. --NathanDW 21:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And your interest in the Eurasian Land Bridge led you to resurrect the version written by banned editors without any new discussion, and ignoring the previous discussion already on the talk page? -Will Beback · † · 22:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Which editors were banned? Where does it say that? And ultimately, shouldn't we be discussing the article, its merits or lack of merits, instead of who used to edit it? By the way, I also found the article by following a link. NathanDW had evidently already rewritten it, and I didnt' see anything wrong with it. --ManEatingDonut 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Nathan changed a few lines, but he didn't write a fresh article. Weed Harper and HK are both banned, or rather, HK is banned and Weed Harper was found to be his sock puppet. Sock puppets have been a major problem in LaRouche-related articles. -Will Beback · † · 22:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)