Talk:Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität

Comment

That the Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität are being accused of being right-wing is quite funny. I would ask the previous author to write why the BüSo are what he claims, otherwise this is just a basic slander. They have been called right-wing by some, communists by others, and many other silly insults. For those who can't speak german and wish to check out more info, look directly at the main page of LaRouche's publication, EIR, and decide for yourself. This is the American publication, but it accurately reflects the work of the German party and youth movement. They represent the American system of Franklin Roosevelt, Alexander Hamilton and Lyndon LaRouche. For those who do not understand the American system of political economy, I personally suggest reading the Federalist papers, at least some of which you can get online for free. This party intends to create 10 million new jobs in Germany through reindustrialisierung and building of state-funded infrastructure. The export market for the new industries lies to the east. Eastern Europe and Asia would benefit greatly by increased trade with Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemesis1981 (talk • contribs)

The page is written in dire English, and as for this page, it's easy enough to work out that "reindustrialierung" is not an English word!

Thanks for pointing that out. I've returned it to the stub. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One mistake. Good Editing. Are you anti-LaRouche?

--Nemesis1981 20:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, instead of destroying other people's work, why not just correct the english? Some people write and speak 2 languages, and this might be the person's second language. The word meant would have been re-industrialisation. I guess though that either you are not interested in the truth, in which case it is true what is written about you on the net, or you are as another source informs me, an agent, witting or otherwise, of the circles behind dick cheney. I don't know, and don't care to. I will correct the english and then repost for that user. Friedrich von Hohenstaufen (not related to the man himself)

Main Page

Here is the description by one Nemesis1981 (actually me, but I'm not logged in right now). WillBeBack reverted my edit without discussion. I will discuss this with him, but in the meantime, here is what I wrote, and is open to discussion.
Civil Rights Movement Solidarity ("Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität"; BüSo for short) is a German political party founded by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, wife of leading U.S. politician Lyndon LaRouche. It is the German affiliate of the international LaRouche Movement. The BüSo is fighting for Germany to once more become a true republic in a Europe of sovereign nation state republics, that is self governing countries, which may form long-term treaty agreements with one-another, putting the interests of the people first. The BüSo's economic policy is that of US Statesman Lyndon LaRouche, that is to say the American System of Political Economy (for more information on this Subject see the writings of Friedrich List or Henry Carey). Practically, this means, amongst other things, massive science-driver projects, investment in infrastructure, with a focus on nuclear power and a high speed transportation network, such as a Maglev (magnetic levitation) train network connecting not only the whole of Germany, but with a focus of connecting Germany to Eurasia through such a network. The BüSo is also currently the only party in Germany with the majority of its Leadership (50% or over) under the age of 35 years. The BüSo is building a youth movement, as part of the Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement (WLYM), who are currently working on mastering Johanne Sebastian Bach's motet, Jesu, meine Freude (translated as Jesus my joy) & Johannes Kepler's "New Astronomy" as a core focus. More information on the WLYM can be found under LaRouche Youth Movement
--71.163.195.122 17:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC) (actually nemesis1981)[reply]

Changing of this page

After SlimVirgin's changes, having changed my report on the BüSo, I have noted where her sources come from. Maybe she might quote a German government agency to back up her claims instead of changing articles about the BüSo into things that look like slanders or hatchet jobs. Slim, your sources do not work. I will be fair and give you a week to correct your sources, and will be updating the page with sourced stuff. By the way, answer my question on the Jeremiah Duggan talk page.--Nemesis1981 20:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Slim, please note, it is not correct to just delete an edit, especially without writing why. I have done some editing and have left a message for Will, asking him to moderate, what seems to be a dispute between us. I wish to have some fair LaRouche pages, as a reader of his work. I will accept you writing what I think are tantamount to slanders by the newspapers (which you are fairly reporting), but if it is fair that you report this, it must also be fair that an accurate picture can be created of what the BüSo says, what it's policies are, what they have been doing the last few years and the general dynamic. There is a rule saying that LaRouche stuff may only be used on LaRouche articles and this is a LaRouche article. Now to my next point. We seem to not be able to discuss fallacy of composition here, so I am not touching the JD question on this page, and would ask you to keep it short and link to it, if you choose to link it. I will also be adding links to further campaign material, including press interviews and prominent people who have featured, either working with, or in discussion with the BüSo. Is there anything you wish to add that I might read, and others reading the page might read? --Nemesis1981 01:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis, I'd be happy to help explain editing problems, to find harmony, and to work towards better articles. All of our work here should start with an acknowledgement of the "five pillars of Wikipedia" WP:5P. Among them are "verifiability", "no original research", and "neutral point of view". What those mean on a practical basis is that all of our edits should simply summarize reliable sources in a neutral manner. We shouldn't make assertions based on our own beliefs or even our own personal knowledge, nor should we present anything as "Truth" or "Falsehood". Regarding your most recent edit, [1], you add several problematic passages. First, you say that allegations of the subject being a cult come from "Britain or British-owned publications". That appears to be true, but the importance of that fact isn't clear. The publications can also be described as being printed on paper but why would we mention that? Unless a notable source has rebutted the allegations with the counter accusation that the newspapers are British-owned, or printed on cheap paper, and why that matters we shoulnd't make those rebuttals on our own. For that rebuttal a LaRouche (or BüSo) source would be appropriate.

Similarly, asserting that the BüSo has "...in the last months, released increasing amounts of political pamphlets, distributing a large amount (amount to be added once verified)" is also inappropriate. How can a reader verify this information? They can't. Further, you describe on my talk page the Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität as "German LaRouche Youth Movement's party", and have added material to the article based on that concept. It would help if we had a source which clearly describe the relationship between these two groups. There is a page on the BüSo site about LYM, but it's blank.[2] -Will Beback · † · 02:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis, to reiterate what Will said: (1) you can't add your personal knowledge or opinion; (2) you need a reliable source, or the Büso itself, for all your edits; and (3) the English needs to make sense. I'm happy to tidy your English, but I can only do that if I can understand it. I removed the following because I wasn't sure what it was saying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(i) The claim that the German political party BüSo is not supported by the German government.

(ii) [The last pamphlet] goes through the Hedge Fund attack on German industry, as well as the storm troops they use. Lyndon LaRouche has described these storm troops as the same thing as the Nazi storm troops (German: Stürmabteilung).

(iii) During this [Berlin] campaign, the BüSo were running with the re-industrialization of Berlin. First Berlin election pamphlet 2006, The youth wants a Future (in German), third campaign pamphlet

Fair enough, admittedly I need to proof-read what I write, so will do this in the future, and my apologies, I meant to write that I would verify the amount of literature with either a quote or report or email from the party. I intend to find out the amount of pamphlets distributed this week. I do not object to the corrections you made this time, as I noticed that this time my English sentence construction was pretty inadequate, and this will be improved. I know some of the BüSo stance on the 'slanders' (probably disputed that I call them that, so only on talk page and in quotation marks). I will research this over the coming week and add their stance from reference, as well as a properly written and annotated reference to the hedge funds and their storm troops. I will reference also EIR (their American publication, as a lot of articles get translated and published there too, and its in English). One thing to note though, I should have put in when changing it, the BüSo is not known as the EAP (Europäische Arbeiterpartei) in Germany. That was another party but it was the same people (HZL and others), so this needs to be corrected. You might wish to note that they are still the EAP in Sweden. There is plenty of info to document this, but this is a preliminary answer on the talk page. References will follow, as will new proposals for the article as time permits. --Nemesis1981 14:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am wrong, but this guy seems to write perfectly clearly. I must check this stuff out sometime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.196.223 (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nemesis, by all means post here what you want to say, if you're unsure, and I can fix the English. We do need to know more about what the Büso actually stands for, but I couldn't tell what the edits were saying. For example, I assume that "During this [Berlin] campaign, the BüSo were running with the re-industrialization of Berlin" meant "During the last campaign, Büso's platform was ..." but I'm not sure what's meant by "re-industralization." Maybe it's the right word, but it doesn't conjure up much meaning for me.

I couldn't work out at all what this meant: "[The last pamphlet] goes through the Hedge Fund attack on German industry, as well as the storm troops they use. Lyndon LaRouche has described these storm troops as the same thing as the Nazi storm troops ..." Part of the problem is that most people on the English Wikipedia don't know the local political issues in Germany, which makes guessing the meaning even harder.

The Berliner Zeitung's point about the EAP is that the Schiller Institute operates in Germany as the Schiller, Büso and the EAP i.e. that they're the same people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Berliner Zeitung are incompetent then. Funny conversation so far. The EAP no longer exists in Germany. Let us remember this. At least let us be accurate and add that they were formerly the EAP, although still the EAP in Sweden.--Ibykus prometheus 02:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I can see that I'm not the first person to notice that this article is made almost exclusively of scurrilous attacks. I added the NPOV notice for this reason. --Masai warrior 21:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scurrilous: Given to the use of vulgar, coarse, or abusive language; foul-mouthed. [3]

Yes, you may be the first (and only) person to notice that. I don't see anything vulgar, coarse, or foul-mouthed in this article. Can you provide an example of what you find vulgar about it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be more than one definition. See [4]. --Masai warrior 15:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what exactly is "scurrilous" or otherwise objectionable about the contents of the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SYNTH?

The criticism in the beginning of the article, just re-added by Will Beback, appears to be WP:SYNTH, because none of the sources mention Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität. I think it is appropriate to link to related organizations in the article, but not to imply that when critics speak of related organizations they are really talking about Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität. Brazillion (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material on the German movement is relevant, but the parts about the movement in general aren't needed here. Will Beback talk 05:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There are links to more general articles. --Maybellyne (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

There is an essential contradiction between the Pacific Rim idea supported by her husband, Lyndon, which excludes Germany and Europe, and the idea of the Eurasian Landbridge, which excludes the U.S. In the first idea the main Powers would be China, U.S.A., Russia and India while in the second idea, the main Powers would be Europe, China, Russia and India....It is something logical that his husband, an American supports the Pacific...but not Helga, a European.--88.18.150.124 (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A second contradiction comes from the fact that her husband, Lyndon Larouche (an American nationalist and former Marxist), is a supporter of Roosvelt, whose infamous secretary of state was Hans Morgenthau, the man who divided and ruined Germany, stealing dozens of German factories and patents.--83.35.181.145 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]