Talk:Craig Isherwood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Portal	Craig Isherwood is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

An appropriate infobox needs to be added to this article, or the current infobox needs to be updated.

I have cleaned up this article and added some general information, but I don't know any more about Isherwood's biography than what the anonymous LaRouchy edit wrote. It could all be lies for all I know. I don't know why I waste my time with this stuff :) Adam 12:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gee, from this line: If you refuse to engage in discussion with another editor, then you forfeit your right to engage in reverts, I expected to see someone else here. It is true that Isherwood is closely associated with LaRouche. It is also true that LaRouche is known as a fascist who has made (seemingly) anti-semitic remarks. It is worthwhile to differentiate Isherwood from LaRouche where differences exist. Therefore the text that was recently disputed on this article is relevant. -Willmcw 10:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Those edits were POV pushing and don't belong in this article. For Craig Isherwood it is sufficient to mention that he is affiliated with the LaRouche Movement, and if the reader then wants to know about every disputed accusation against LaRouche he/she can follow the Wikilink to the LaRouche article. That's why we have Wikilinks in articles. Chip Berlet and Dennis King's accusations against LaRouche belong in the article more closely related to them *unless* they are specific to Craig Isherwood magazine, which the edits I removed were most certainly not. Cognition 10:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add to this that not only is there a question of relevance, but the sentence "LaRouche has frequently been described as a fascist and accused of anti-Semitism." is just POV from an omniscient narrator. Who has accused of LaRouche of this? George Bush has frequently been described as a fascist, should we append that to every mention of Bush on Wikipedia? Ruy Lopez 09:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that description of LaRouche is better his own article than this one. However, it's probably important that people reading about Isherwood understand his controversial associations. I've attemped to compromise by referring to the "controverial" Lyndon LaRouche when he's first mentioned. Friday 16:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ruy, we've been through all this before with the previous LaRouche editor, assuming that isn't who Cognition is. There are multiple sources, and credible ones, alleging he's a fascist and anti-Semite, and that he's controversial. Please stop POV pushing on behalf of LaRouche. He doesn't come close to holding your political views (from what I can tell of yours), though he pretends to when it suits him. You're fighting the wrong battle here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Lopez-Cognition lovefest is another fine illustration of the overlap between the extreme right and the extreme left. LaRouche of course started out as a Trotskyist and there is still a lot of the extreme left in his rhetoric, despite his 30 years of flirtation with fascism. Someone should write an article about this. Hmmmm... Adam 09:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No discussion?

Cognition, why did you revert and say in your edit summary nobody had responded to the talk page? Looks to me like there's been response. I think several people want you to discuss the changes here, not just revert. Friday 05:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I've protected the page until the spirit of Cognition has passed by. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This just gives User:Rangerdude more evidence for his arbitration case. Cognition 03:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that you're bothering to read the PDF I uploaded, though. Cognition 04:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You didn't tell me you'd uploaded it and I'm not psychic. You're such a time-waster. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The link was on my talk page a while ago, the very post after you asked for it. The fact that you don't read what I write or look at the links I provide is what's wasting the time. And see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I suggest that you stop giving Rangerdude more ammunition. Cognition 04:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is under dispute at this article? It hasn't been edited since July. Adam 04:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What's under dispute is the untruthful slanders you've been sticking into the article. Cognition 16:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Which items do you believe are untrue, specifically? -Willmcw 20:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

These items, especially. Cognition 20:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• In the United States, LaRouche has frequently been described as a fascist and accused of anti-Semitism. Although the Australian CEC faithfully reproduces LaRouche's statements and distributes his literature, Isherwood has not been accused of extreme views in the same way.

I've bolded the material which was added. What problem do you have with the last sentence? Has Isherwood been described as a fascist and anti-semite? Or is your problem only with the first sentence? Do you dispute that LaRouche has ben described in those terms? -Willmcw 21:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to unprotect this, but I'll re-protect if the reverting starts up again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dear LaRouchies

To Adam Carr:

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. :-) Adam, dialog is the solution.

From CEC

06 Sept 2006

To all LaRouchies: All LaRouche editorialising will be deleted from this and all other articles on sight, so you can save your keystrokes - and spare me your pious crap as above. Adam 10:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)