Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lyndon LaRouche/archive1

Lyndon LaRouche
"Cult leader" or not, there's a pproblem with any article that says "in 1941 the Lynn Meeting voted..." --K6ncx 05:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The world must be warned about this dangerous cult leader, and this complete and neutral article is the right way to do it. I'm sure we'll get some objections from the cultists, but we can ignore those.


 * Object – cult leader really? Please read the criteria for inclusion. The neutrality of the article is disputed. It cannot be featured till an NPOV state is reached. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object Cult leader, almost certainly. KING KONG had removed the NPOV tag without reference to talk page so I reverted it. Hasn't had a peer review and hasn't ensured that whatever NPOV conflict is going on has been resolved, SqueakBox 15:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment (Boy, that is one ugly template). The NPOV matter was irrelevant - a drive-through editor added it months ago and then never commented, and there's been no discussion in the talk page since. However, I think that this article should go through peer review prior to being nominated here. Warning people is not one of the goals of this encyclopedia, though if the NPOV summaries of verifiable sources in our articles help them choose better paths then that's fine too. -Willmcw 19:09, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strange! the tag was there for so many months?! This means there was no effort to clear POV matter if any. If what you are saying is true, then I'm not comfortable in supporting any article which was allowed to sport a POV tag for so many months. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that means that someone claimed there was a POV but never said what the problem was. Per guidelines on using that tag, it must be discussed. So it was never a valid tag usage to begin with. -Willmcw 20:55, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object Refer to peer review first. This one we will have to deal with carefully, hot topic.Borisblue 00:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. I'm befuddled why nobody thought to just remove the NPOV tag if there was no objection or discussion on the talk page, but anyway peer review first is a good idea. -- SCZenz 09:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - a bunch of crazed cultists do not a NPOV dispute make. Phil Sandifer 06:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I encourage the FAD to ignore this comment. Cognition 23:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Object: One of the requirements for being a featured article is that the article be free from edit warring. This article has been a long time target for trolls, most of which are likely associated with LaRouche's groups. Karmafist 15:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The article has but one troll at the moment. Phil Sandifer 23:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Object: The article, as it stands now, was mostly written by anti-LaRouche activists. I'm considering writing a new version myself, and perhaps that one will be appropriate for featured article status. Cognition 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I encourage the FAD to ignore this comment. Phil Sandifer 23:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)