Talk:LaRouche movement/Archive 2

Lawsuits

Aside from the criminal cases covered in LaRouche conspiracy trials, the movement was involved in a number of other lawsuits. Some were libel cases, some involved the use of government property for solicitations, some were about FOIA requests, etc. As an aid to research, I'm going to start compiling a list of significant cases here. Once it's reasonably complete we can decide how to summarize them for the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• PS: Cases concerning the FEC and ballot access are more relevant to the campaign articles, but for convenience we can compile them here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Moved to Lawsuits and trials. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Some concerns

These LaRouche articles suffer from a sort of urban sprawl. Why is it necessary to have the "Ideological figures" section? I imagine any political theorist would have a similar list of historical figures that he likes and dislikes. But why have such a thing in an encyclopedia? I also wonder about the long list of personnel, researchers, etc. Are all these people notable? Color me Mauve (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is on a sprawling movement, including political parties and publications. Listing the leading members is certainly encyclopedic.   Will Beback  talk  06:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

::What about the historical likes and dislikes? It's almost fancruft. Color me Mauve (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the writings of the LaRouche movement? Have you read any of them or heard members speak? One of the characteristics, identified by commentators, is the focus on the importance of certain individuals throughout history. How many LaRouche movement speeches or articles don't mention one of these people? We could move the material to the "views" article, I suppose. This article s focused on organizations and members, rather than ideology, so that might be a better fit.   Will Beback  talk  17:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck through postings by sock of banned user:Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good day, Mr. Beback. It seems that the article in question in written in a format promoting this movement. An example of this would be the "Historical Greats" v. "Historical Opponents" sections. There are fewer than ten citations between the two lists, and there really isn't any explanation, other than "the founder doesn't like it for x reason". X reason is provided without support; in addition, it seems that this article is becoming overly long, considering that the movement is (to my knowledge) not mainstream in politics in the United States or elsewhere. Because there are few citations, and the "influences" are spurious at best, I will be deleting these two sections wholesale. If you disagree, feel free to revert it (I'm just being bold). Cheers, Murphy2010 (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Being bold is generally a good thing. However I think the deletion was not the best way to proceed. If a lack of sources is the problem the solution is to add more sources. While the movement is not in the mainstream, it is nonetheless notable. As anyone who'd read much of their literature knows, they focus on individuals (good and bad) to an unusual degree. These lists help put their worldview into context. So I suggest that we restore the material and add more sources where they're needed.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you have a point. I'll go ahead and revert it (if you have not already done so). I'm just not sure how a section called "Historical Greats" adds scholarly, encyclopedic material to something like this. The section header is not encyclopedic in tone, and the list format could probably be struck and redone using prose, with cited examples. But anyway, thanks for getting back to me; I've been here awhile (from my contribution history), but I'm still relatively inexperienced with policy. I'll be more conservative about my edits next time. Murphy2010 (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In the previous discussion (with a banned user who was editing surreptitiously) I suggested moving the material to Views of Lyndon LaRouche, the article devoted to the political, economic, and cultural views of LaRouche. IIRC, the information was added here instead because some of the material comes from associates rather than LaRouche himself, but perhaps that's a distinction without a difference. Prose is preferred to lsits in theory, but in practice lists are used frequently. Adding information about why the people are viewed that way could make the list much, much longer. Some editors have added that information already. But it can be hard to summarize the information without straying from the original intent. Certainly the list can and should be better cited. Thanks for your input and involvement.   Will Beback  talk  04:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"populist"

Editor Mrdie made an unsourced addition to the intro, indicating that the subject is "clearly populist." It's not clear to me. A search of LaRouche writings turns up this: "Contemporary populism is typical of that form of mental disease."[1] --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC);

Let's keep it in one place. --Mrdie (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"ideological greats/opponents"

Removed this page. It contains unsourced data and nothing of real note. How do we know they're opponents? If you want to revert it back, do so, but there's nothing to suggest these opponents/greats are real. 130.184.44.10 (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll see that there are many sources for the material you've deleted. The movment is well-known for its Manichean approach to the world, and its views of individuals, bith historic and comntemporary. This is has been discussed here before.   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's true, then source it. But you have yet to source anything, so it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.44.10 (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

::Will, on this talk page you have asserted that "One of the characteristics, identified by commentators, is the focus on the importance of certain individuals throughout history," and that "The movment is well-known for its Manichean approach to the world, and its views of individuals, bith historic and comntemporary." Do you have reputable sources for these assertions? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC);

External links

Trimmed down EL sect, added {{No more links}}. There are still way too many links in the sect. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Economy

I have always wondered how the LaRouche movement is able to finance its operations. Several publications, companies, parties, two headquarters etc. A week ago I got a nice-looking newspaper, printed in colour, from the European Workers' Party (EAP) - a party which here in Sweden has never got more than ca 350 votes in the national elections. Does anyone have more information on how the movement is able to finance itself? /Marxmax (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that topic doesn't seem to be well covered, at least for the current movement. Back in the 1980s, the movement was prosecuted for various fraudulent fundraising methods, including making unauthorized charges on credit cards of people who subscribed to their magazines, and soliciting large loans with no intent to repay them. See LaRouche criminal trials. There's no indication that they still use any illegal fundraising though. At times the movement has made some money by selling its intelligence reports. Sources do mention the solications on the streets, centered around card tables and conducted mostly by college-aged members. But the overall financial situation is unknown, so far as I'm aware.   Will Beback  talk  17:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Protests and disruption

The movement is well-known for using disruption of public events as a tool for promoting its message. Across decades and multiple organizations, LaRouche followers have beaten, heckled, or sang. The list is long. Many are incidents attributable to specific organizations, recently the WLYM. But since these events are a common thread across the movement it's probably best to treat them in one place, with summaries and links in relevant articles. We can start compiling research at Talk:LaRouche movement/Incidents.   Will Beback  talk  09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:LaRouche movement/Incidents now has over a hundred excerpts of sources that discuss incidents of violence, harassment, or heckling by members of the LaRouche movement. Some instances were quite widely reported, but since the reports were much alike they haven't all been included. If anything is missing please complete the record. This'll soon be the basis for an appropriately weighty section.   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are any missing sources this would be a good time to add them. I'll soon start summarizing the material, so it'd be good to have a complete record.   Will Beback  talk  05:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start writing draft of the material at User talk:Will Beback/Violence and harassment.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

::::In order to avoid giving undue weight to rumors or questionable allegations by LaRouche opponents, I would suggest that you concentrate on cases where arrests and convictions were made. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC);

I don't see any reason to do so. These are all reported in reliable sources. If there is any source that you specifically challenge then let me know, but I believe they all qualify as highly reliable by Wikipedia standards. Due weight can be judged by the fact that there are over 150 sources that deal with this topic.   Will Beback  talk  01:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::Here are two reasons: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. (WP:BLP) Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.(WP:NOT) If you still feel the need to concentrate on unproven allegations, be sure to include the unproven counter-allegations from LaRouche per NPOV. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC);

Some of the rumors are notable, such as the rumor spread by LaRouche followers regarding Dukakis' mental health. Where there are LaRouche movement spokespersons who've provided other views those should certainly be included. As I've requested a couple of times in this thead, if there are any missing sources then please help complete the research so that all points of view can be included.   Will Beback  talk  19:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeremiah Duggan

Shouldn't he at least get a mention at the schiller institute (where he was when he died) section or somesuch? --Narson ~ Talk • 11:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Duggan is already linked but with no explanation. Maybe it'd make more sense to include a sentence under "Europe", where the Schiller I. is mostly discussed.   Will Beback  talk  16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

NIF

Source text:

• The NIF regime spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbyists and sympathizers to promote its image and will use anyone to do its bidding. Lyndon LaRouche and his Schiller Institute aggressively campaign on behalf of the regime. The group sponsors "fact finding" visits to Sudan to show how much "progress" the NIF has made. In September 1996 and February 1997, the institute organized trips for several state legislators. The targets of this campaign largely have been African-Americans; Sudan portrays the strain in relations with the US as a race issue.
  • "End Africa's Longest War" Harry Johnston and Ted Dagne The Christian Science Monitor, May 06, 1997

Wikipedia text:

• The LaRouche movement, and the Schiller Institute in particular, were reported in 1997 to have campaigned aggressively in support of the National Islamic Front government in Sudan. They organized "fact finding" trips to show the "progress" the regime had made, chiefly targeting African Americans.

Is that an accurate summary?   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

::Sort of. I'm not sure what the proper approach should be. The CSM is making an editorial comment through the use of scare quotes and the term "targeting." If we reproduce their language, we should acknowledge this by saying that the Monitor, which editorially opposes the government of Sudan, expressed its skepticism by saying xyz. Alternatively, we could use a neutral and factual formulation like ''The LaRouche movement, and the Schiller Institute in particular, were reported in 1997 to have campaigned aggressively in support of the National Islamic Front government in Sudan. They organized trips to Sudan for state legislators, particularly those of African descent. --Coleacanth (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we know about CSM's views, other than to extrapolate on our own. It's not entirely clear to me whether the trips were organized for African American legislators, or just whether the overall campaign was directed at African Americans. Maybe the would be close like this: "They organized trips to Sudan for state legislators as part of a campaign directed at African Americans."   Will Beback  talk  03:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, we also have a much vaguer source:

• Lyndon LaRouche's organization, ... has cooperated with Islamists in Sudan,...
• Fascism By Walter Laqueur [2]

That at least tells us that the cooperation isn't entirely in the imagination of the CSM.   Will Beback  talk  03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Letters to the Editor are not reliable sources for anything more than the writers' opinions, which are rarely notable. They sometimes point to material that may be in previous editions or other sources, which is useful from a research point of view. These two are interesting because they come from presumably opposite sides. The first is in response to a proposal to build an Islamic Saudi Academy somewhere in Virginia I believe, and the second appears to be in response to general political coverage during the 2000 presidential campaign.

• For those of us who oppose the building of the Saudi school, we have been vilified, demonized and even compared to the Ku Klux Klan by none other than a representative of Lyndon LaRouche. These are the same LaRouchites who support the radical Islamic government of the Sudan, so if the Saudi school wants to associate itself with that organization, all the better for us in proving our point.
  • The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Feb 15, 1998. pg. V.02
• I also find it quite ironic that the media who are the first to criticize nations such as China, Sudan, and Malaysia for human rights abuses and for not supporting so-called democratic reforms( all of which are groundless allegations from the Anglophile/Wall Street circles who control the media ) are also guilty of the same nefarious behavior, especially of its lying about Mr. LaRouche. [..] At present, the Democratic National Committee is desperately trying to keep Mr. LaRouche off the ballot in some states. Again, these are the same hypocrites who are the first to cry foul at nations like China and Sudan for groundless human rights abuses.
  • Daily Herald. Arlington Heights, Ill.: Jan 30, 2000. pg. 17

While we can't use these as sources, they buttress the point that the LaRouche movement, at least during this time period, was supportive of the Islamists in Sudan.   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

::::I don't think there is any question about the movement's support for the government of Sudan. What is at issue is the scare quotes, which don't belong in an encyclopedia article. It's too much of an editorial comment. Also, from the Christian Science Monitor quote it is clear that the fact finding tours were for state legislators. --Harry Angstrom (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::If it is unclear what is meant by "targets," we should avoid speculation. We can directly quote the CSM, or leave it out. I found this which provides the names of the members of one fact-finding delegation, and it looks to me like it's about half and half black and white. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The text is clear enough: "The targets of this campaign largely have been African-Americans..." The paraphrase, "a campaign directed at African Americans", is very close. Since Cole's research show that not all legislators were African Americans, it's not so clear that his suggested language, " particularly those of African descent", is correct (though the African AMerican legislators may have been over-represented in the mission).   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this:

• The NIF government employs lobbyists to promote its image in Washington. In adition, Lyndon LaRouche and his Schiller Institute campaign on behalf of the regime. In a special report on Sudan in a June 1995 edition of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), a LaRouche publication, LaRouche wrote that Sudan"is a hardworking country, expressing a distinctively greater sense of sovereign and constructive self-reliance than is customary around this planet today." In addition, the LaRouche group sonsors "fact-finding" visits to Sudan. In February 1997, the Schiller Institute organized a trip for several state legislators to Sudan. In September 1996, four U.S. state legislators went on a Schiller Institute-corrdinated trip to Sudan. The source of funding for these trips throught the Institue is not known.
  • Politics and economics of Africa, Volume 1 By Frank H. Columbus Nova Publishers, 2001 p.147 ISBN 1560728833 ISBN 9781560728832 [3]

It contains more information, but I'm not sure there's any reason to change the text we already have.   Will Beback  talk  10:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Humor

The LaRouche movement ridiculed actress Jane Fonda on account of her support for environmental causes. Activists raising money for the Fusion Energy Foundation had placards in the 1980s that said "Nuclear plants are built better than Jane Fonda", "Nuke Jane Fonda", and "Feed Jane Fonda to the Whales". In March 2008, following the collapse of Bear Stearns, a LaRouche activist appeared outside their offices costumed as Benito Mussolini with the addition of Mickey Mouse ears on his uniform. He proclaimed himself to be "Benito Mouse-olini," come to hail what he called the return of fascism in the policies of Felix Rohatyn. The following month, a LaRouche Youth activist attended the California State Democratic Convention and performed a satirical impression of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Sources that mention "humor"

Moved to Talk:LaRouche movement/Humor.

Discussion

This section used to be well-written and entertaining. Now it's about as engaging as an IRS audit. --Harry Angstrom (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles are not supposed to be entertaining. I removed some unsourced material but we still have two items that only have primary sources and they need upgradiing to secondary sources. And the topic sentence does not appear to be borne out by the material, so it should get a source or be deleted. But so long as you don't delete sourced material, or add unsourced assertions feel free to rewrite it. As indicated above, I'm collecting research on incidents that involve the movement. I'll soon start drafting a summary of it. We could expand this section, perhaps retitling it "Violence, harassment, heckling, and humor", since it all appear to be part of the same continuum.   Will Beback  talk  18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As Maybellyne pointed out,[4] we need sources that call these items humorous. Let's just leave it out for the time being pending such a source. The Fonda material can be folded into the imminent "harassment" section.   Will Beback  talk  06:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

::Will, as I peruse the policy pages I have learned that it is considered bad form to quote another editor out-of-context to give the impression that he or she holds views they do not hold (Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility.) You added something to the humor section which in my humble opinion was not funny. Since your bias against the LaRouchians is not exactly a state secret, I thought you might be engaging in a bit of Poisoning the well. You insisted that it be kept in the article because it appears in a newspaper article, which I'm sure is nominally correct, but I doubt that the newspaper article in question presented it as humorous (in which case it might belong in the article.) Since you are prone to using sources which are not available on the net, I asked for the text to be posted here. I did not suggest that the other quotes, which in my view are obviously funny because they involve a delicious irony, should be removed pending confirmation from some newspaper that they are actually funny. I would be embarrassed to make such a suggestion, which I fear might be seen as a sign of Anal retentiveness. I hope that any misconceptions about my views have now been cleared up. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem duly noted. I have no bias against LaRouche. I have never made a derogatory comment about him, and all of my edits have been consistent with NPOV. If you like to discuss me then please find another place to do so besides article talk pages.

::::The way people express bias around here is through the manipulation of sources. They insist upon adding material that is irrelevant and/or from dubious sources, and they resist and delete material that is relevant and from appropriate sources. I believe this is also called "gaming the system." --Maybellyne (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You made perfect sense with your first comment:

• (→Humor: please provide text from source on the talk page, to prove that the source thinks it's funny) [5]

That's all I'm asking for - a source that says these are humor. If we don't have such a source then this is original research. We're giving a lot of weight to incidents reported in few (or no) secondary sources. Is this the appropriate weight for this material?   Will Beback  talk  07:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I searched on "humor" and added all I found the the "sources" section above. Then I broadened the search and added everything from about 1984 through 1986 (there were hundreds of hits, mostly false). From what I see so far, they seem to tend to say either that LaRouche is a joke, or isn't a joke, but not that he or his movement use humor. There is one that refers to humorous materials targeting GW Bush. There are some more jokes or references to jokes we could add.   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

::::It is clear that you are looking for just about anything except examples of humor by the LaRouchians. You don't like this section, you've made that sufficiently clear, so what is left but for you to just trash it by adding unfunny and irrelevant stuff? --Maybellyne (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding what I find. Why did you delete the joke? It was clearly labelled as LaRouche movement humor by the source.   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::It does look like you are being deliberately disruptive to make a point, and I respectfully request that you cut it out. --Coleacanth (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added the only thing explicitly labeled as humor and it was deleted. Other well-sourced material has been deleted too. I'm not the one being disruptive.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Yes you are. Your objective is to say that the LaRouche movement has no sense of humor, by loading the section with things that aren't funny. This is biased editing and violates WP:POINT. If you want to add criticism, which seems to be your strong point, there is a "criticism" section, as has been pointed out. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC);

Take it to a noticeboard if you think that this material is poorly sourced or non-neutral. But please don't just keep deleting the same sourced material over and over. Tha is disruptive.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Leatherstocking cited WP:POINT,, but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with this situaiton:

• If you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Wikipedia, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it – and such behavior may get you blocked.

I don't have any issue with any proposal, practice, or policy. Another editor created a section for humor, and I've added various sourced assertions regarding humor and the LaRouche movement. With no basis in policy my contributions keep getting removed. That is disruptive and if it continues I'll seek remedies.   Will Beback  talk  04:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::The section is about the use of humor by the LaRouche movement. You have made clear that you don't find anything the LaRouche movement does to be funny. You argued for deleting the section. Other editors disagreed with you. You then attempted to impose your will on others by adding material that was off-topic, apparently hoping that you could make such a mess of this section that other editors would agree to your original demand to delete the section altogether. The fact that something appeared in a newspaper and mentions the word "LaRouche" and/or "humor" does not automatically make it on topic. But, why am I explaining this to you? I think you can figure it out for yourself. You probably knew it all along, which causes me to wonder whether you are being deliberately annoying to drive away other editors. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

After a dozen or two socks, I don't place any credence in claims about "others" on this page. "Other", singular, perhaps. Anyway, it's only your opinion that some of these are humorous, while you deleted one that has a source directly saying that it was quoted from a LaRouche movment newspaper's humor column. Whether you or I find it funny is besides the point. If you don't like this material then file an inquiry at a noticeboard. It is sourced and neutral, and it's disruptive to remove it.   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::You quoted an embittered opponent of the LaRouche movement, Moynihan, making an unverified allegation. None of your edits have been intended to demonstrate the use of humor by the movement; quite the contrary. Other editors suggested that your material ("sourced"? perhaps. "neutral"? Give me a break) should go under "criticism," where it would be appropriate. You rejected these suggestions, because your intent was to disrupt the "humor" section which you wish to see deleted. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we could find a source for "embittered", but "opponent" is probably safe. How's this:

• According to Moynihan, an opponent of the LaRouche movement, New Solidarity once ran a joke that said,...

How's that for attribution? Moynihan isn't condemning them, so it's not criticism. It is humor, which is what this section is about.   Will Beback  talk  06:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

::Let me get this straight: you are asking me to believe that Moynihan isn't condemning them? Do you believe this yourself? --Maybellyne (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What does that matter? This section is about humor. This is a joke. There's no legitimate basis for saying that Moynihan made it up. None of the items you've added are labeled as humor by third parties, not even the Jane Fonda placards. So let's add this joke. Is the attribution acceptable?   Will Beback  talk  07:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: I've finished the research. I broadened the search a little more. Included is a joke by LaRouche, a joke by Ferguson, a reference to jokes by Jones, and a lyric that some might find funny but which isn't called humor.   Will Beback  talk  08:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

All of this is a textbook case of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. If you've had your fun and are ready to desist, say so, but if not, the recommended course of action is mediation. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC);

Wikipedia:Gaming the system? I don't see anything on that page which applies here. Could you please explain?   Will Beback  talk  18:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has presented a reason for the deletions, except that they personally don't find the materials funny. Since humor is not universal, that's not a good standard. One of the items was labeled specifcally as humor, and the other is a frequently cited slogan that is certainly hyperbole, which is one of the forms of humor. So I'm going to restore the sourced material that is presented with a neutral point of view. I'll used the attribution discused above for Moynihan.   Will Beback  talk  17:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

::An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policies with bad faith, by finding within their wording apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. In doing this, the gamester separates policies and guidelines from their rightful place as a means of documenting community consensus, and attempts to use them selectively for a personal agenda.

Sometimes gaming the system is used to make a point. Other times, it is used for edit warring, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view. In all of these, gaming the system is an improper use of policy and is forbidden. An appeal to policy which does not further the true intent and principle of the policy is an improper use of that policy.

That is a very precise description of Will's behavior. How do we apply for mediation? --Coleacanth (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Which policy is being abused?   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The humor section is an established section of this article, and it has always consisted of examples of the LaRouchians using humor to make a political point. You have attempted to unlaterally re-define the purpose of this section, and you made your intentions clear by first demanding that it be deleted. Why you waited over a year to complain about it, I don't know. But my request to you is simple and reasonable: don't add anything to this section unless, in your mature judgement as an editor, it is funny. Unfunny material that is added can only be for disruptive purposes. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to link to the discussion about adding the material, or where editors agreed on the definition of the section. Who created this? The mysterious user:Leon Pringle, who, aside from writing about LaRouche also posted to pages concering Gary Weiss, Frank Zappa and musical works in unusual time signatures before gettig blocked for personal attacks. Well, it really doesn't matter. We're here today. There's no reason to limit it to political humor, but what I added all concerned political humor so I don't understand your complaint. The idea that we should limit a section of this encyclopedia to things that editors of the article think are funny is, to say the least, contrary to the aims of the project.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

:Somehow your search engine missed this one (maybe you had the "unflattering only" filter on.) Actually, I don't think it can be used because it's from a blog: Lastly, other LaRouche candidates have often added color to other debates. Who can forget how hilarious Bill Ferguson was during the special election for the 9th Congressional District race after Joe Moakley died in Massachusetts. Ferguson, a black man, like many of LaRouche's supporters, which is why they were probably tolerated during the Black Caucus debate last night, was included in all the TV debates and had some classic lines. At a foreign policy debate I covered in Jamaica Plain, Ferguson got a round of laughs from this line about the Star Wars missile defense system: "How is George Bush going to knock missiles out of the sky when he can't even prevent his own daughters from getting bombed?"[6]

Blogs aren't reliable sources. FWIW, I already added two sentences about Ferguson, which may be undue weight already.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: WP:NORN#Humor of the LaRouche movement.   Will Beback  talk  07:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

:Taking it to NORN was the correct way to address the issue, unlike the other nonsense. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC);

The section amounts to a listing of trivia, which Wikipedia discourages. To create a section on Humor, you need to establish that the LaRouche movement is noted for its humor. To do that, you need to find an independant third party reliable source (with no connection to the LaRouche movement) that comments on the movement's humor... not on an individual joke level (anyone can tell a joke), but on an organizational level. An example of a policital party that is noted for its humor is the Monster Raving Loony Party in England. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the research, posted at #Sources that mention "humor" above, the movement is known for being humorless and for being the butt of jokes. I never saw a single reference that said the movement is known for humor.   Will Beback  talk  19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Socks

Checkuser and behavioral evidence have revealed that Maybellyne, Coleacanth, and Harry Angstrom are socks of banned user Herschelkrustofsky, and so I've crossed out their comments here.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

Hello, I'm posting in response to the mediation request made for this article. I know this article, and other related LaRouche articles, have a long history of POV differences but I'd like to offer my views as an outside person. I'm also aware of the sockpuppetry that has been occurring on these articles. If anyone has some opinions on what should happen (or should not happen) in this article, please post them here. Thank you. -- Atama^chat 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Like all articles onm Wikipedia, this one is a work-in-progress. There is a large number of sources covering various aspects of the sprawling LaRuche movement, and there is still much work to be done summarizing them in order to give an overview of the organization. However I'm not aware of any current dispute regarding this article's contents. Perhaps Leatherstocking has an issue with it but I haven't seen any unresolved disputes here. However Leatherstocking has complained about material in related pages: Lyndon LaRouche and Views of Lyndon LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk 

::Thanks, Atama. Probably the first thing you could do would be to post your views as an uninvolved editor at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#RfC: Primary sources. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC);

Wouldn't it be better for a mediator to stay neutral?   Will Beback  talk  02:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

::::OK, I'm unfamiliar with the process. Atama, allow me to suggest that you take a look at the ongoing disputes at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche and Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche, and then recommend a next step. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC);

Honestly, this is my first time volunteering as an informal mediator. I know that in informal mediation there are no "rules", but I believe that posting my views on the matter would be equivalent to giving a 3rd opinion, which is a different step in the dispute resolution process. But I will certainly look more closely at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and Talk:Lyndon LaRouche, I've already skimmed over them and I do see where there are disagreements. I think I will start by attempting to summarize what I see as the basic disagreements and then you both can add your input as well. -- Atama^chat 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::Sounds good. Will you be posting this at mediation request? --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC);

I'm sure it can go anywhere as long as the information is all in one place. I don't have any objection to having the discussion at the mediation request page as long as Will Beback agrees to it. -- Atama^chat 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

_(outdent) I'm done with a summary of both articles, and have included them both at the mediation page. Thank you. -- Atama頭 19:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

I promise I have no stake or specific expertise in the LaRouche movement. I just saw the very prominent tag at the top and thought that editing the introduction to bring it more or less in line with wikipedia style suggestions wouldn't be tremendously controversial. Whether or not the article provides an accurate or neutral view of the movement, the lead should at least provide an accurate introduction to the article as it stands. If no one objects I will give it a couple days and then remove the tag. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just one question: is there any independent analysis of "sophisticated" policy or is that a personal opinion? -- Atama頭 06:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Its nothing, really, its just an attempt at distilling whats already in the article. Sophisticated as in, paid for with a lot of grant money and backed up by (self or not)-published papers and the like, not sophisticated as in brilliant. I didn't mean it to sound like a value judgment. It can certainly be cut out or replaced by a different word. I am a big believer in not introducing new or unsourced ideas in the lead but just summarizing what's below. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was just curious. I'm sure someone else would bring it up if I didn't. Thanks for the explanation! -- Atama頭 06:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe complex is a better word. I dunno. We'll see if anyone else has thoughts! I have to say, I used to think LaRouche articles were one of the black holes of wikipedia, especially since there are/were all these specific wikipedia policies that single out LaRouche and his followers as "problematic" to the encyclopedia. But it really does seem like these articles are gradually approaching, if not high quality, at least stability. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dmz5, thanks for helping out. I'd been meaning to work on that intro for a long time now. Procrastination wins! (And yes, "complex" or "elaborate" might be better.)   Will Beback  talk  06:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the final phrase ("due to its exclusive reliance on pamphlets and other print materials to promote its views") should be removed because it is factually incorrect. The LaRouche organizations have about a dozen websites and they have been holding internet webcasts about once a month for the past 10 years. --Silver Pinions (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't noticed that. That isn't in the source, and it doesn't appear to be true either.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is in the source. It says "What was really killing LaRouche's enterprise (in addition, of course, to its peculiar philosophies and inability to keep a simple balance sheet) was that its leader was clinging to a dying medium. Enamored by print, he had failed to exploit the Internet." The article seems poorly researched. --Silver Pinions (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading the material in context, I think the author was describing the past economic problems with the movement that led to the eventual problems with World Comp. In many respects, they are not that different from other organizations, including newspapers, which have started losing money on their print operations as the focus of media has moved onto the web. IIRC the LaRouche movement once made significant revenue from selling expensive subscriptions to EIR, etc.   Will Beback  talk  18:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

After coming to the article yesterday, I started reading some of the third party sources, and I really enjoyed the essay from Washington Monthly that is quoted in the lead. I would propose adding a section to this article about the "impact" of the movement, because that article actually has some specific analysis and relatively recent quotes from LaRouche and affiliates (that could in theory be sourced to multiple 3rd party references) admitting that, despite their work over the past decades, their "movement" has had zero impact on politics or policy. I am very hesitant to add something that might be construed as overly negative, but this seems NPOV and well sourced and might give this article more of a sense of overview of the movement and its influence - rather than just a list of magazines and affiliated people. Any thoughts on this? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. I believe that there are at least several sources that make comments about the impact of the movement. And the movement's own sources have often commented on their impact (though with a very different conclusion than the outside sources), so we could include their side too.   Will Beback  talk  17:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"others"

I removed the section called "others," which seems to have been there for "guilt by association" purposes. If the criterion for inclusion were simply that a person's name was linked with LaRouche in press accounts, you could have hundreds of names in that category. Unless a reliable source has specifically named a person as a member or supporter of the movement, there is no reason to include that person in the article. Otherwise it's OR. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC);

I'm going to restore the names. Both of those individuals achieved either all or a significnat part of their notability from their association with the LaRouche movement. However I'll grant that "Other" was not the most useful heading. I'll restore the entries in a better context.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

::It what you say it true, then the appropriate place to take note of this is in the articles on those individuals.Your "better context" is unacceptable -- there is no source that I know of that says Duggan was a "member," and although "former associates" is an ambiguous term, everyone else that you have in this category was actually a member in some sort of leading position, whereas Frankhouser was a hired hand. And why would you select those two individuals out of many that have been connected in the press with LaRouche? This might be a suitable thing to discuss at the Mediation Cabal, because it seems excessively POV to me, a classic guilt by association tactic.--Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC);

Frankhouse was undoubtedly an associate. If you have a better heading to add him to then please suggest it. But there's no legitimate reason for the deletion. I can provide dozens of sources that connect him to the LaRouche movement, ditto for Duggan.   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• The following year [1975], the NDPC initiated a legal defense campaign on behalf of Roy Frankhouser, Grand Dragon of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.
  • Black fundamentalism Manning Marable. Dissent. New York: Spring 1998. Vol. 45, Iss. 2; pg. 69, 8 pgs
• Ten key associates of Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. were indicted yesterday on federal fraud and conspiracy charges as hundreds of law-enforcement agents raided the political extremist's headquarters in Virginia. ... Among those arrested by was Roy Frankhauser of Reading, Pa., on obstruction of justice charges, authorities said.
  • FEDERAL PROBE PINS TOP AIDES OF LAROUCHE PHILIP SHENON. The Patriot - News. Harrisburg, Pa.: Oct 7, 1986. pg. A.1
• Presenting evidence in a detention hearing, the government revealed that one of the 10 [Lyndon LaRouche] associates arrested Monday, former Ku Klux Klan leader Roy Frankhouser, had begun cooperating with authorities and described conversations he had with LaRouche.
  • Two Larouche followers ordered held for appearance without bail :[METRO Edition]." Minneapolis Star and Tribune, October 10, 1986,
• The alleged LaRouche statement was disclosed by Roy Frankhauser, a LaRouche security adviser and one of 10 associates indicted Monday on fraud and conspiracy charges.
  • Extremist's Ex-Aide Disclosed Alleged Statement FBI Tells of Threat by LaRouche; RONALD J. OSTROW, KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 10, 1986. pg. 19
• Six supporters of political extremist Lyndon H. LaRouche pleaded innocent to charges of credit card fraud brought against them earlier this month by a federal grand jury here. .. The six individuals who pleaded innocent are Jeffrey and Michelle Steinberg, a married couple from Leesburg, Va.; Richard Black of Quincy, Mass.; Elliot Greenspan of Ridgefield Park, N.J.; Michael Billington of Hamilton, Va.; and Roy Frankhauser of Reading, Pa.
  • Six LaRouche Backers Enter Innocent Pleas On Fraud Charges. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition) [serial online]. October 21, 1986:1.
• Six individuals associated with political extremist Lyndon LaRouche pleaded innocent yesterday to obstruction of justice and credit card fraud charges. Appearing before US District Court Magistrate Robert B. Collings in Boston were: ... and Roy Frankhauser, 47, of Reading, Pa.
  • LAROUCHE ASSOCIATES ENTER INNOCENT PLEAS :Boston Globe October 21, 1986:22.
• Six supporters of Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. pleaded not guilty today to charges that they tried to finance Mr. LaRouche's Presidential bids with $1 million in fraudulent charges to credit cards. ... Entering the pleas before United States Magistrate Robert Collings were ... Roy Frankhauser, 47, of Reading,

• Even the government said that Frankhouser was one of only a few people who could actually call LaRouche on the phone.
  • LaRouche Securities Firm Barred :The Washington Post January 23, 1987:c05.
• A former aide advised Lyndon LaRouche to burn documents and send witnesses out of the country to block a federal grand jury investigation into an alleged a credit card fraud scheme that raised more than $1 million for LaRouche's 1984 presidential campaign, a prosecutor said yesterday. Assistant US Attorney John J. E. Markham 2d made the charges while outlining for the jury his evidence in the obstruction of justice trial of Roy Frankhauser, 48, of Reading, Pa. Frankhauser was a LaRouche consultant for nine years.
  • TRIAL OPENS IN CASE OF LAROUCHE ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT ALLEGES OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE William F. Doherty, Globe Staff. Boston Globe Boston, Mass.: Nov 3, 1987. pg. 63
• A former aide to Lyndon H. LaRouche was convicted today of plotting to obstruct a Federal investigation into reports of fraud by the 1984 Presidential campaign of the political extremist. The former aide, Roy Frankhouser, was found guilty by a Federal jury that deliberated for three hours.
  • AIDE TO LAROUCHE GUILTY IN A PLOT, AP, New York Times, Dec 11, 1987
• [Frankhouser] became associated with LaRouche in the mid-1970s after pleading guilty to trafficking in stolen dynamite.
  • Judge Delays Trials of LaRouche, Six Associates; Case of Former Ku Klux Klan Leader Frankhouser Is Severed and Will Be Tried First; John Mintz. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: Oct 21, 1987. pg. a.10

And there are more. Based on these, I don't see how we can say that Frankhouser wasn't a LaRouche associate or aide.   Will Beback  talk  03:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

:He was a contracted employee, not someone who, as far as we know, shared the ideology of the LaRouche movement. However, your move to include him in the article seems intended to create the impression that he and LaRouche had similar goals, hence the guilt by association. You have also presented no evidence that Duggan was a member of the LaRouche movement. If the criterion is "newspaper articles that connect to the movement," you should add all of LaRouche's attorneys and anyone else with whom he had a business relationship. In the meantime, I am adding the NPOV tag, because this is clearly POV pushing. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC);

Steinberg and Spannaus are paid employees too, so being paid isn't a disqualification. I've presented eleven sources that call Frankhouser an "aide", "associate", "supporter", or even "key associate". Do you have any sources that say he was not an associate? As for ideology, even before frankhouser signed on as security consultant LaRouche reached out to him to aid his legal defense after being indicted for selling stolen dynamite and for being involved in a bombing of a school bus. Why would LaRouche come to his aid if there was no affinity? As for others associates, Odin Anderson is a lawyer whose name frequently appears in connection to LaRouche's legal problems. If you think we should add that name I don't see any problem.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeremian Duggan

Please provide a source which documents that Duggan was a member of the LaRouche movement, or else remove him from the "members" section. Also, please provide context for what appear to be cherry-picked quotes in this edit. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC);

You added the Duggan matter to mediation. Do you want to remove it from there and discuss it here instead? There's something wrong with the link you provided - when I click it shows an edit to User:Merovingian. Which quotes are you talking about? The one where LaRouche talks about the members versus non-members? If so, it seems logical to put it in the "members" section, though we might also create an "overview" section and put it there along with some other general comments.   Will Beback  talk  02:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

::There was a break in the link. I fixed it. With regard to Duggan, I would simply like you to provide a source for the claim that he is a member, or move it to a more appropriate section, or delete it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC);

Feel free to move it to a more appropriate section. Please don't delete it.   Will Beback  talk  15:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Context for LaRouche quotes

I'd like to see the original context for the quotes in this diff. The cited newspaper article omits the context. If this is being represented as LaRouche's words, I'd like to be sure that the original context supports the representation. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC);

Articles should be based on secondary sources. These are reliable secondary sources. Evern if we were to look at the primary source, we're not in a position to interpret it.   Will Beback  talk  06:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If this text is expected, then it'd also be reasonable to also expect the original texts of the "nine projections" so that we can confirm them. I know I'm curoious to see them.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in LaRouche movement

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of LaRouche movement's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Witt":

• From Kenneth Kronberg: April Witt. "No Joke", The Washington Post, October 24, 2004
• From Views of Lyndon LaRouche: Witt, April (October 24, 2004). "No Joke; Eight-time presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche may be a punchline on 'The Simpsons,' but his organization -- and the effect it has on young recruits -- is dead serious". The Washington Post. Washington, D.C. p. W.12. Retrieved August 27, 2009.
• From Schiller Institute: Witt, April. "No Joke", The Washington Post, October 24, 2004.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks AnomieBOT!   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

neutrality dispute

The LaRouche organization has been involved in many political battles, has made many allegations against its opponents, and vice versa. This being an encyclopedia, it is unnecessary and a violation of NPOV to systematically list all the allegations made against the LaRouche movement by its opponents, as was done in this edit. The emphasis should be on established facts, such as those cases where LaRouche activists were put on trial. Unproven allegations should be briefly summarized, not catalogued. A few representative examples might be described, but those should also be attributed; anonymous allegations should be omitted. In cases where counter-allegations are known to have been made, as in "operation mop-up," those should be included. WP:NOTSCANDAL applies here. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC);

Since you crossposted this to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-06/LaRouche movement I assume we'll discuss it there when the time comes.   Will Beback  talk  01:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

::It wouldn't hurt to have input from other editors here. --Leatherstocking (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC);

One place or the other, but let's not spread the discussion across multiple pages.   Will Beback  talk  05:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Major deletions: #1

A considerable amount of sourced material was deleted in a set of six edits.[7] The explanation are too cryptic justify the deletion of so much different material, so let's discuss them individually. Some things were deleted for being unsourced, so I'll just source and restore those. Let's start with the first edit, which deleted this text:

• Former members alleged that LaRouche discussed assassinating U.S. President Jimmy Carter.
  • The case grows out of two NBC broadcasts about LaRouche in 1984--one on an NBC Nightly News program, on Jan. 30, the second on the First Camera magazine of March 4, both dealing with LaRouche and his organization and alleging that LaRouche believes Jews are responsible for the evils in the world. The First Camera program also said that an Internal Revenue Service investigation would result in a criminal indictment of the LaRouche organization and that LaRouche once proposed the assassination of President Carter and several of aides. [Broadcasting. 110 (Jan 20, 1986)]
  • In March 1984 NBC-TV's First Camera aired an expose of LaRouche's ties to the Reagan administration and especially to the National Security Council, The report also described the NCLC's anti-Semitism and history of violence--and LaRouche's discussion of a scheme to kill President Carter. [..] At the outset WerBell learned that being LaRouche's handler could be a nervewracking job. LaRouche was persuaded in August 1977 that German terrorists were out to kill him. WerBell sent a Powder Springs police officer, Larry Cooper, to Wiesbaden to reorganize LaRouche's personal security. Cooper sat in on a political discussion with LaRouche and several top NCLC members during which LaRouche suddenly brought up the idea of assassinating President Carter, National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, NATO general secretary Joseph Luns, and David Rockefeller. It could be done, LaRouche argued, with remotecontrolled radio bombs activated from public pay phones. [King 1989]

• The UAW said that members had received dozens of calls a day accusing their relatives of homosexuality, reportedly at the direction of NCLC "security staff".
  • Yet these bands, some of them organized in tiny cells, some with membership running to a thousand and more, have stained the streets of Oakland, Philadelphia, New York and other American cities with death in one ghastly case, with blood in others, and have strewn sidewalks with wounded young men and women. Meetings of opponents have been raided. Heads and bodies have been cracked. While industries — especially the auto manufacturing field — have been targed for disruption. One band known as the National Caucus of Labor .Committees (NCLC) has declared open war on the United Auto Workers union and has dubbed this project "Operation Mop Up Woodcock." This grimly refers to UAW president Leonard Woodcock, whom one of the NCLC leaders sajd the other night, they are out to get. [Riesel 1974]
  • Labor also gets the party's attention. The United Auto Workers is claiming that the NCLC harassed UAW members by calling their homes 30 or 40 times a day and accusing relatives of homosexuality. [Business Week. 1978]
  • Those who publicly dissent from this world-view may find themselvesa, t some point, targetso f the NCLC. An NCLC leaffet dated April 4, 1974 attacks various members of the New York AFL-CIO Central labor Council as "homosexuals," "perverts," and "criminals." These unionists and their families were subjected to a campaign of obscene and threatening phone calls by NCLC cadres, orchestrated by the NCLC Security Staff in New York. Another NCLC leaflet referred to the president of a UAW local in Toledo in terms the mildest of which was "Woodcocksucker." He and his family were also subjected to obscene and harassing phone calls. [Rose 1979]
  • But the LaRouchians themselves began to seek police help during clashes with United Auto Workers members in several states in 1975. The violence was mostly the NCLC's own fault. In a basic scenario repeated over and over, they showed up at plant gates with leaflets naming union officials or rank-and-file workers as drug pushers, homosexuals, or Communists. One leaflet said of a Buffalo UAW member: "He can't go home to his wife with the smell of sperm on his breath...so he sleeps in parks...." The NCLC leadership claimed this was a powerful new technique to appeal to the workers' unconscious minds, but the only result was dozens of assaults on the leafleters. In 1971-72 the LaRouchians had provoked similar assaults by standing in front of Communist Party meeting halls and calling those who entered CIA agents, counterrevolutionaries, and "house niggers." LaRouche had then goaded his followers into participating in Operation Mop Up to get even with their attackers. But the clashes at plant gates were something different: LaRouche hardly could mop up the giant UAW. However, his followers did the next best thing by running to the police to get their assailants arrested. This was justified by the belief that the latter were all fascists, social fascists, CIA agents, drug pushers, and terrorists. [King 1989]

• Reporters, campaign workers, and party officials received calls from people impersonating reporters or ADL staff members who asked what "bad news" they'd heard about LaRouche. Return calls showed that the purported callers were impostors.
  • A reporter at the Keene, N.H., Sentinel recently got a call from a man who said his name was Jerry Stein, and that he worked for the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith. "Stien" said he was concerned about the reputed anti-Semitic tendencies of a Lyndon LaRouche, the former U.S. Labor Party head now running for the Democratic presidential nomination, and asked what sort of "bad news" the paper had printed about him. The reporter later called the A.D.L. No one named Jerry Stein was working there. Scores of mysterious phone calls have been received over the past few weeks by reporters, Democratic Party and campaign workers involved in the Feb. 26 primary campaign. In each case the pattern is the same: the caller idntifies himself and asks questions about LaRoche A call to the organization reveals no such person exists. The result is suspicious, campaign workers, reporters, and party officials now routinely refuse to talk with a caller until confirming the person's identity. [..] The "LaRouchies," as that campaign's workers have been dubbed, deny their people are responsible. "It's a Byzantine dirty trick," said LaRouche spokeswoman Laura Cohen. "I cannot swear that there was never anyone who did anything like that, but as an organization we don't do it and it's not true." [..] Democratic Party officials complain that LaRouche workers harass them and others with calls and other tactics. [..] It's Donald Segretti type stunts," said one Democrat. "It isn't illegal. But it sure is annoying." [Rosenfeld 1980a]
  • Lyndon H. laRouche, the former head of the U.S. Labor Party who is now running as a Democrat, has said that his campaign workers impersonate reporters and others, contending that the covert operation is needed for his security. Mr. LaRouche, who says be is a counter-intelligence expert. said that some New Hampshire newspapers, including The Concord Monitor, The Nashua Telegraph and The Keene Sentinel, had been harassing his supporters. He said that his campaign was engaged in "an undercover number" to retaliate. "Where a press is running a dirty operation against us, like Ewing's little Keene Sentinel." Mr. LaRouche said in an interview yesterday, referring to its publisher, James Ewing, "That's an open target. We can impersonate them all we want to because they are doing it to us. It's just an open field. " The former Presidential candidate of the U.S. Labor Party said that the counter-effort was "necessary for security." He said that his supporters used "all kinds" of covers to investigate alleged threats. Mr. LaRouche said that he was "the executive of a political intelligence operation and these amateurs are not supposed to play games with people of my rank; otherwise they get chewed up. " He has said that there was a plot to set up an "assassination capability" against him. Mr. LaRouche said that the undercover operation was necessary because many of the people being talked-to by his campaign workers "have committed violations" of civil rights and election statutes. He said he has notified the United States Attorney, William Shaheen, of the violations. Mr. Shaheen said that he had received "at least a dozen" complaints from citizens about harassing telephone calls from LaRouche campaign workers, "but to say there is an active investigation is an exaggeration. " [AP 1980]

• Residents reported that armed guards quickly appeared and pointed guns at them when they stopped along the road outside LaRouche's estate. Local critics reported receiving threatening phone calls.
  • According to various local residents, tension surfaced soon after LaRouche arrived and his associates were found pointing weapons at people near, but not on, the LaRouche property. [..] ONE LEESBURG merchant, asking not to be identified, says his first encounter with the LaRouche organization occurred about two years ago when he was confronted by armed guards while making a delivery at LaRouche's estate. "I told them I was just bringing what they had bought," says the merchant. [Gettlin 1986]
  • LaRouche lives in a 13-room Georgian mansion nestled on a 27- acre estate in rural Loudoun County in Virginia, a three-hour drive of Washington, D.C. There are sandbag buttressed guardposts at the gates. Cement barriers along the road leading to the mansion. And sharp metal spikes in the driveway as it nears the front door. Guards wearing military berets are dotted all over the estate. They carry a variety of handguns, Colt Combat Commanders, Walther PPKs, and MAC10s. LaRouche, who is 63 years old, never goes anywhere without a troop of armed bodyguards. He travels in a motorcade, like some Middle Eastern potentate. The heavy security is needed, he says, because he is in imminent danger of assassination by hit teams sent out by the Libyans, the Soviets, narcotics pushers, and maybe even the Queen. [Lowther 1986]
  • Residents who have spoken out against him say they have received threatening phone calls late at night that they believe came from his supporters. A few say they have been followed. Law-enforcement officials say they have no evidence that LaRouche or his followers have broken any laws in Leesburg, and Edward Spannaus, a spokesman for LaRouche, denies the allegations of harassment. But ask someone on the town's brick sidewalks about LaRouche, and that person is likely to glance over his or her shoulder before speaking. Ask over the phone and they will not talk at all. [Wald 1986]
  • Jeweler Stanley Caulkins, 61, was among the vocal critics. Caulkins said that shortly after Monday's raid, his store received the following anonymous telephone call: "Tell Stanley Caulkins he is next on the list. We won't forget him." During the past year, a number of people in Leesburg and surrounding Loudoun County said they received similar calls after speaking out against LaRouche. LaRouche has denied harassing or threatening anyone. [Houston Chronicle 1986b]

• One local lawyer, Pauline Girvin, collected petitions opposing a camp the LaRouche movement wanted to operate. While Girvin was being interviewed on a sidewalk by a TV reporter, someone walked behind her and said "Polly, you're going to die" which the reporter said sounded like a threat. Due to that and what she said were other threatening behaviors, Girvin went into hiding, gave up her practice, sold her home, and left the state.
  • Finally, in February, Girvin said, she was being interviewed by a television news crew outside the county courthouse in Leesburg, Va., when a woman walked past her, turned and said: "Polly, you will die." Local officials eventually vetoed LaRouche's plans for the summer camp. But police declined to act on Girvin's complaints about the harassment, citing insufficient evidence, and she decided to give up her Leesburg law practice, sell her renovated log-and-stone house and move to a different state. "I feel totally helpless," Girvin said during a telephone interview. "It's very frightening when you're a victim of him. . . . I just want to get out from under Lyndon LaRouche. You could go up against him, but you'd be exhausted after three years." [Fireman 1986]
  • Mrs. Harrison spoke against it, as did Pauline Girvin, the lawyer who is now in hiding. She had collected signatures from neighbors on a petition to stop the camp, fearing that it might become a weapons training ground. While Girvin was being interviewed on a Leesburg street by WRC-TV, an NBC affiliate in Washington, someone walked behind her and, according to Girvin, said, "Polly, you're going to die." The television reporter said on the air that the comment sounded like a threat. Law-enforcement officials said it could not be the basis for an arrest. Girvin, in a telephone interview from what she said was "a safe-house," said she left town after receiving telephone threats and after a car repeatedly pulled into and out of her driveway. [Wald 1986]
  • Another LaRouche critic named in the leaflet, Polly Girvin, sold her house and left town after she said that a woman on the street whispered, "Polly, you will die." Other foes said they received threatening phone calls. [UPI 1987]

The edit summary was:

• remove rumors, anonymous allegations, and innuendo per WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:REDFLAG and WP:BLP. [8]

Let's start with the last, most important one. What in these lines violates WP:BLP?   Will Beback  talk  07:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading the sources in the first instance I see an error that should be fixed. It currently says "Former members alleged..." That is incorrect. It should read somethng more like, "Larry Cooper, a Powder Springs, Georgia police captain hired by LaRouche as a security consultant, said in an NBC broadcast interview that LaRouche had proposed the assassination of Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Joseph Luns, and David Rockefeller." For those unaware of the background, LaRouche sued NBC for libel for this and other allegations, and lost. This is a well-known and notable allegation.   Will Beback  talk  09:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like bad removals IMO. Fix the wording issues and put it back. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've restored the material, with the changes described above, and added more citations.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

:::A rumor that appears in a newpaper is still a rumor. The policy that applies is WP:NOTSCANDAL. Unproven allegations, especially coming from anonymous persons, are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Innuendo, such as a report about anonymous phone calls that implies without evidence that LaRouche was to blame, is unacceptable. BLP comes into play because, as we discussed last year, the LaRouche movement is epinomynous. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC) ;

Use of biased sources?

One of the sources used is PublicEye.org. They write on their webpage, "Why We Focus on the Right: While attacks on civil liberties can come from any direction, the political and Christian Right use skillful marketing that exploits the public’s desire for quick solutions and capitalizes on today’s hectic information flow. With clever slogans that oversimplify complex public policy issues, the Right routinely scapegoats others in pursuit of their agenda." Should this be used as a "scholarly" source for ANY Wikipedia article?158.143.133.241 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is calling it a scholarly source. PublicEye.org/PRA meets the requirements for a reliable source, which has been confirmed through previous discussions on the relevant noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  20:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

::That's not the way that I remember it -- please link to the most recent discussion. In any event, we certainly have better sources than Chip Berlet, and the new sections need to be significantly abbreviated and summarized, so we might as well stick with the better sources. It is neither necessary or appropriate to list every newspaper account of a LaRouchite heckling a politician, or someone who received an anonymous phone call and thought it might be LaRouche. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC);

If there's a specific issue here we can address it. I'm not interested in rehashing old discussions.   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

::::You made a claim above, in your response to the visitor: PublicEye.org/PRA meets the requirements for a reliable source, which has been confirmed through previous discussions on the relevant noticeboard. If this is so, please provide the links. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC);

There's no need to bring up more issues - we have plenty on the table already. If you think this is important than addit to the list for mediation.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Major deletions #2

This material was deleted with the edit summary, "remove rumors, anonymous allegations, and innuendo per WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:REDFLAG and WP:BLP":[9]

• One ex-follower said in 1979: "Those guys are maniacs. I've seen them. If you don't buy a paper, you're a pig or smell bad or they call you a Nazi. They get two inches from a person's face and cut them to pieces. They can get anybody to hit them in a second. They love it, getting bloody. They talk about it all the time.
  • According to former members and incidents described in party publications, a frequently used tactic--particularly when members are selling the group's literature or distrupting meetings of other organizations--is to try to incite violence though insults. "Those guys are maniacs," said one former member. "I've seen them. If you don't buy a paper, you're a pig or smell bad or they call you a Nazi. They two inches from a person's face and cut them to pieces. They can get anybody to hit them in a second. They love it, getting bloody. They talk about it all the time." When members do elicit a reaction, they file assault charges and include the incident in accounts of "assassination attempts."
    • "U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy," Howard Blum and Paul Montgomery, New York Times, October 7, 1979

• In the mid-1980s the movement was collecting signatures for an AIDS initiative in California, and there were many complaints about the behavior of the signature gatherers. When a Catholic priest refused to sign a young LaRouche follower accused him of being homosexual. Another signature gatherer shouted "You are going to get AIDS!" to a woman who would not sign.
  • Many of the persons who signed the petitions were not aware of the link between the initiative and the LaRouche group. However, a number of letters and telephone calls protesting harassment by the signature gatherers came in to the secretary of state's office, officials said. According to one complaint, a youth yelled at a Catholic priest in Camarillo, accusing him of being a homosexual, when the priest would not sign the petition. In Huntington Beach, a woman coming from a Post Office was accosted for her signature and when she refused to sign, the petition pusher yelled, "You are going to get AIDS!" according to her letter to the secretary. George E. Hollis of San Diego, a candidate for the Democratic nomination to Congress from the 45th District, dismissed reports of wrongdoing on the part of any LaRouche supporters.
    • LaRouche is linked to petition , Initiative proposal would quarantine AIDS patients; [1,2,3,4,5,6 Edition] Don Davis. The San Diego Union. San Diego, Calif.: May 23, 1986. pg. A.3

• There was an altercation between a member of the public and a LaRouche follower allegedly standing beside a poster that said, "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor", which resulted in battery charges.
  • While testifying during the district court trial, Kevin E. Pearl of Baltimore claimed that Lark E. Lands crumpled literature and spat on him twice outside the post office on June 12. Prosecutors had charged Ms. Lands with battering Pearl during a struggle. Pearl is a grass roots organizer for the National Democratic Policy Committee. Lyndon LaRouche was the chairman emeritus before he withdrew to run for president of the United States. Ms. Lands, 36, lives in Frederick County and works with AIDS victims in Washington. She was outraged by posters she saw outside the post office which she recalled saying: "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor." [...] Dana Scanlon, press spokesperson for the LaRouche Democratic Campaign, said that the National Democratic Policy Committee representatives who visit the Frederick post office want "to help fight AIDS politically, to return to traditional health measures."
    • Olnick, Philip (SEPTEMBER 2. 1987). "Woman who works with AIDS victims found not guilty of battery". THE FREDERICK POST. (FREDERICK. MD).

This material covers interactions between LaRouche movement members and members of the public. I don't see how anything here would violate WP:BLP, or any other policy or guideline. The sources are reliable, and the summaries are correct. These are not exceptional claims because, taken together, they show that this is not extraordinary behavior by movement members.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the material and don't see any conceivable BLP violation (no one is mentioned by name or is even identifiable). Nor do I see any issues with how the sources were summarized. Since there hasn't been any further explanation, I'll restore this material.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:A rumor that appears in a newpaper is still a rumor. The policy that applies is WP:NOTSCANDAL. Unproven allegations, especially coming from anonymous persons, are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Innuendo, such as a report about anonymous phone calls that implies without evidence that LaRouche was to blame, is unacceptable. BLP comes into play because, as we discussed last year, the LaRouche movement is epinomynous. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC);

Major deletions #3

This material was deleted with the edit summary, "remove rumors, anonymous allegations, and innuendo per WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:REDFLAG and WP:BLP":[10]

• After writing about a LaRouche front group called "Citizens for Chicago", his assistant found a note attached to her apartment door that had a bullseye and a threat to kill her cat.
  • To fully appreciate LaRouche and his followers, you have to have had dealings with them. Which I have. A few years ago, something that called itself Citizens for Chicago took a frenzied dislike to Jane Byrne and began selling posters of her that bordered on the pornographic. I became curious and looked into Citizens for Chicago. Its leader lied and lied, but I established that it was one of the many LaRouche front organizations. When I wrote a column exposing it, their response was to distribute handbills and posters claiming that I had undergone a sex change operation. That didn't bother me, since I had evidence to the contrary. But they somehow tracked down the address of my assistant, a female reporter. They managed to get into her high-rise building and find her apartment. And on the doorknob they left one of their handbills. On it was drawn a bull's-eye. And there was a message. "A warning," they said. "We will kill your cat." So let us hope that the primary is the last election this crowd wins. If not, no cat will be safe.
    • 2 WINNERS FROM THE TWILIGHT ZONE; [SPORTS FINAL, C Edition] Mike Royko. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext). Chicago, Ill.: Mar 20, 1986. pg. 3
  • Letters, calls, complaints and great thoughts from readers: Dorothy Sullivan, Chicago: Were you serious or just kidding us when you said some LaRouche people once threatened to kill your assistant's cat? If you were kidding, that is nothing to joke about. Just the thought of cruelty to helpless animals is enough to make me sick. But if you were serious and it actually happened, then these LaRouche people are even sicker and more dangerous than I had thought. Comment: Yes, they did threaten to kill my assistant's cat because they didn't like what I had written about them, but they never followed up on the threat. However, cat-killing is not unknown to the LaRouchites. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that a newspaperman in New Hampshire, who wrote a series of articles about the LaRouchites, found a dead cat on his front porch each day the articles appeared. Fortunately, the series eventually ended, so cats can still be found in that state.
    • LAROUCHITES KEEP FUR FLYING; [SPORTS FINAL, C Edition] Mike Royko. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext). Chicago, Ill.: Mar 31, 1986. pg. 3
  • The best way to understand the LaRouchites--how they think and operate --is to get them mad at you. In that sense, I've been fortunate because they've been mad at me for years. [..] Long before their fluke victories in the Illinois primary made them well known, I was writing about their sleazy attacks on public figures--labeling certain female politicians as prostitutes and their husbands as pimps--and the way they conned people into giving them money. Their response was to threaten to murder a cat belonging to a reporter who worked for me. They never followed through on the threat, possibly because they discovered that the cat had not been declawed. Of course, they are capable of cat-killing, as they demonstrated in New Hampshire, where a reporter wrote a series of articles on their lunacy. Every day that an article appeared, a dead cat was dropped on his doorstep.
    • LAROUCHITES TEST POSITIVE FOR FLEECE; [SPORTS FINAL, C Edition] Mike Royko. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext). Chicago, Ill.: Jul 25, 1986. pg. 3

• • Jailed political extremist Lyndon LaRouche has filed a lawsuit to stop distribution of a newspaper column that he says could incite other inmates to harm him because it calls him a "cat-killer," a lawyer said. The column by Mike Royko, syndicated through the Chicago Tribune, contends that LaRouche followers have killed cats of LaRouche opponents - a claim LaRouche followers deny."I hope that this column finds its way to his fellow inmates," Royko wrote in the column, printed Monday in the Chicago Tribune and distributed to about 500 newspapers. "They should know that they have a cat-killer in their midst. And I hope any cat-lovers among them do whatever they feel is appropriate." Michael Null, the Chicago lawyer who filed the lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court, said Thursday the column is "nothing less than inciting people to violence."
    • Deseret News archives: LAROUCHE FILES SUIT OVER ROYKO COLUMN Published: Friday, Feb. 3, 1989 [11]
  • A judge has refused to block distribution of Chicago Tribune columnist Mike Royko's article calling political extremist Lyndon LaRouche a cat killer. "The court does not believe the speech - although it may be inappropriate and nasty - constitutes `fighting words,"' Cook County Circuit Judge Thomas O'Brien said Friday. [..] LaRouche attorneys had sought to block distribution of the column, contending it was written to "urge or incite Mr. LaRouche's fellow inmates to do physical harm to him."
    • Deseret News archives: JUDGE REFUSES TO QUASH ROYKO COLUMN Published: Sunday, Feb. 5, 1989 [12]

• Leaflets accusing King, a news paper publisher, and the newspaper's lawyer of being criminals, homosexuals, or drug pushers. One leaflet included King's home address and phone number. He says that in 1980 he received a phone call threatening him with rape and murder, one of an estimated 500 abusive or hang-up calls he received by 1985. His family also received calls that included threats to murder King.
  • One man who says he has borne the wrath of LaRouche supporters is Dennis King, a Manhattan free-lance writer who has written extensively about the organization for six years. King declined to comment on the record about the alleged harassment, but he pointed to sworn statements that he has submitted in federal court cases. Steinberg denied that the group harassed King but said King has urged people to harass LaRouche. According to King's affidavits, the anonymous telephone calls started in 1979, soon after he started writing about LaRouche. Some threatened his life, he said. He estimated he has received 500 abusive or hang-up calls at home. Leaflets handed out in New York around that time said the publisher of the newspaper he was then working for was a criminal and that its lawyer was a homosexual, King said. LaRouche publications accused all three of being drug pushers, and at least one article contained King's address and phone number, King said. On Oct. 14, 1980, King said he received a telephone call threatening him with homosexual rape and murder. The caller also described how King was to be tied to a lamppost and beaten with a baseball bat. On Feb. 20 1984, a LaRouche publication, New Solidarity, ran an article entitled, "Will Dennis King Come out of the Closet?" King said. Copies were left throughout his apartment building, he said. The harassment extended to members of his family, King's affidavit said. In November 1980, the employers of King's father, then 79, received letters urging that the father be fired, an affidavit said. His father and other members of the family received numerous anonymous telephone calls about him, King said. The callers said King would be murdered. In a deposition, LaRouche said King is with the "dope lobby" and that LaRouche's supporters have been "monitoring" him since 1979. "We have watched this little scoundrel because he is a major security threat to my life." Another journalist the group has publicly denounced is Pat Lynch, an Emmy-winning NBC television producer who researched a network broadcast about LaRouche. Members of the LaRouche organization have picketed NBC's New York offices with signs saying such things as "Lynch Pat Lynch." In October, on the first day of a libel trial in U.S. District Court in Alexandria in which LaRouche charged that Lynch's broadcast had defamed him, the NBC switchboard said a telephone caller threatened Lynch's life. A spokesman for the LaRouche group said it knew nothing about the threat. An FBI spokesman said an investigation is pending but declined to comment further.
    • "Critics of LaRouche Group Hassled, Ex-Associates Say" By John Mintz Washington Post Staff Writer January 14, 1985
  • Dennis King, who has written extensively about LaRouche and his followers, has been harassed by them for six years and has been sued three times. King recalls two faceto- face encounters with LaRouchians. man who introduced himself as David Feingold from the AFL-CIO struck up a conversation with me on a shuttle flight down to Washington." says King, who edits Nex' Americ'a, a bimonthly published by the Social Democrats, USA. After telling King that he was concerned about the LaRouche "menace," the man tried to draw him out. King later called AFL-CIO headquarters and learned that no such man worked for the organization. He was subsequently able to identify the man as a LaRouche follower named Herbert Quinde from photographs supplied by The Hartford Courant.
    • "Is Lyndon LaRouche using your name?: How the LaRouchians masquerade as journalists to gain information" bv PATRICIA LYNCH COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW, MARCH/APRIL 1985 p42-46

I don't see any BLP violations here.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:A rumor that appears in a newpaper is still a rumor. The policy that applies is WP:NOTSCANDAL. Unproven allegations, especially coming from anonymous persons, are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Innuendo, such as a report about anonymous phone calls that implies without evidence that LaRouche was to blame, is unacceptable. BLP comes into play because, as we discussed last year, the LaRouche movement is epinomynous. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC);

Since you're just copying the same comments to each thread I'll just reply here. There is only one rumor discussed in this material, and that one is noteworthy because the LaRouche movement sued and lost, then appealed and lost again. There is very little about this movement that has been proven in a court of law, and if we restrict our articles to those few facts then these articles could be shortened drastically. Shall we delete all of the unproven allegations made by LaRouche sources? No, because that isn't the standard. Out job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. I disagree with the idea that reports about anonymous members of the LaRouche movement are covered by the BLP policy. I don't see any text in that policy about that. Even if these people were named, the sources are all mainstream and the claims are not exceptional.   Will Beback  talk  05:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Your answer seems evasive. Rumors, gossip, innuendo, and unsubstantiated, anonymous allegations are all equally unacceptable, particularly when we now have over 50% of the article devoted to them. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC);

This all smacks of wikilawyering, and not exactly good wikilawyering at that. I look forward to the application of BLP to the grocery chain Sainsbury's. Or maybe Woolworths. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Royko material is not a rumor, it's straight from the reporter's pen. While we're not mentioning it in the article, LaRouche unsuccessfully sued to prevent newspapers from publishing one of Royko's columns about the cat killings, so the notability is greater than just Royko's own writing. I don't see how this material violates any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Unless there is a problem with the sourcing, or some specific policy language barring this material is presented, I'll restore this.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::::That would fall under the category of an unsubstantiated allegation, one step up from an anonymous unsubstantiated allegation. So in Royko's case, gossip, as opposed to rumor. None of this belongs in an encyclopedia.--Leatherstocking (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC);

If you want to argue that Pulitzer Prize-winning Mike Royko, writing for the Chicago Tribune, is not a reliable source, then let's take that to the WP:RSN.   Will Beback  talk  05:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::Please review WP:SOAP. Mike Royko (according to Wikipedia) is a prize-winning author of opinion pieces, and evidently, attack articles. That's all well and good for a newspaper editorial page. However, your re-working of this Wikipedia article along similar lines is an explicit violation of policy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC);

This material isn't opinion or comentary. It's a neutral description of events that have been reported in reliable sources. It doesn't violate WP:SOAP, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NPOV, or WP:BLP. The LaRouche movement, according to numerous sources, has a reputation for violence and harassment. Simply stating that without showing why would be a disservice to readers.   Will Beback  talk  18:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::On the contrary, there are no events being reported in the material you added, only allegations. With respect to Royko, see WP:RS#Statements of opinion: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. Simply stating that the LaRouche movement has a reputation for violence and harassment is one thing; listing every allegation of that sort that you could Google up is clearly intended to persuade the reader that the reputation is justified, by sheer repetition of allegation, rather than by proven fact. You write, "However there have been few convictions on these charges." Exactly how many? --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC);

OK, so let's take this to WP:RSN and see if anyone else thinks that Royko is an unreliable source. See WP:RSN#Mike Royko.   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the other question, that's a sourced assessment:

• Over the years, members of the U.S. Labor Party and its predecessors have been arrested on a variety of criminal charges--kidnapping, possessoin of guns, assault--but there have been few convictions.
  • "U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy," Howard Blum and Paul Montgomery, New York Times, October 7, 1979

I'll add that citation to the text.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's another, similar reference:

• Although LaRouche publicly eschews violence, over the years members have been charged with a variety of offenses, including assault, possession of weapons, possession of explosives, and kidnapping. There have, however, been few convictions. [..] Over the years, LaRouche followers have been charged with--although infrequently convicted of--criminal acts including assault, kidnapping, possession of weapons, and pos¬session of explosives.
  • "THE LAROUCHE NETWORK " Milton R. Copulos Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation, July 19, 1984

I can add that source too if you think it's necessary.   Will Beback  talk  09:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted this to RSN, and the response has been that Royko is a reliable source. I'm going to restore this material.   Will Beback  talk  04:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

:The issue is not whether Royko is a reliable source for news, but whether his opinion columns are appropriate material for an encyclopedia. I see that on the RSN thread, which has been active for less than one day, you are claiming that the columns in question were presented in the paper as "news." However, the articles on the lawsuit do not refer to them as articles, but rather as "columns." I'd like to see some documentation that they were in fact news articles. --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC);

I've addressed the issue of news on the RSN page. "Column" isn't synonymous with "opinion piece". There are news columns too.   Will Beback  talk  07:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Let me ask again, exactly how many convictions resulted from these charges? With all of your sifting through the media, I would imagine that you can answer that. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC);

I've posted two reliable sources that say, as of 1979 or 1984, that "few" convictions were made. Frankly, I'd guess that Copulos was simply taking that information from the NYT article of 1979. Some of the fundraising in the 1980s involved harassment, and there were some convictions on those charges I believe, but in at least two instances the cases were dropped because of the age or illness of the victims.   Will Beback  talk  19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::Do we have even one documented case of a conviction, or even a trial? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC);

I'm just reporting what the sources say. You're welcome to go over the sources at talk:LaRouche movement/Incidents and see if there's anything important that we've left out.   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::::From what I see in the sources you gathered, the only incident where LaRouche activists were charged with a crime was the "statue climbing" incident, which doesn't fit the "harassment" category. It looks like there are several cases where LaRouche's opponents were tried for various things. --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC);

We include some of those, for example the case of the 70 year-old man who beat up those LaRouche Youth members.   Will Beback  talk  06:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this phrase: his followers have been charged with possession of weapons and explosives along with a numbers of violent crimes including kidnapping and assault from the summary of the Allegations section, because there is no reference to any such charges in the body of the text. The only reference to a LaRouche activist getting charged is for disorderly conduct in the liver incident. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC);

That's sourced information. We can attribute it if there's any doubt.   Will Beback  talk  17:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Tags

Drive-by tagging isn't helpful. Tags that don't have an associated discussion may be removed, and I'll do so unless there's a specific explanation.   Will Beback  talk  03:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

:The "unencyclopedic" tag refers to the fact that a major portion of the article is comprised of unsubstantiated allegations, a violation of WP:NOTSCANDAL. I have also marked the relevant section as a neutrality dispute, because in many of these incidents, such as "Operation Mop-up," the LaRouche side of the story is known, but has been omitted (compare Lyndon LaRouche and National Caucus of Labor Committees. Would you rather address this on this page, or the mediation page? --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC);

Postings by sock of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback  talk  03:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit odd that you're pointing to the "Operation Mop-Up" text - it hasn't changed a word in the last year. If that's what this is about then we can add more to it. The reason I didn't add more to it here is that I think it probably would be best to make it a standalone article so we can have just short summaries in the related articles. But in the meantime we can add somehting like, "...though the movement members said they were acting in self-defense." Any objection?   Will Beback  talk  07:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, here is all we say about it in this article:

• In 1973 it conducted "Operation Mop-up", which violently broke up meetings of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

I'm fine with adding the text I suggested above, and then we can also link to the Operation Mop Up section in the NCLC article, which is much longer.   Will Beback  talk  08:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

NOTSCANDAL does not apply here in anycase. LaRouche Movement is not a person in anything but a legal sense that any company/organisation is a person under the law. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

::::Actually, it does apply, because LaRouche Movement is epinomynous. This was discussed at length last year. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC);

Discussed where? (And the word is "eponymous").   Will Beback  talk  04:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Just because it has a person's name in it, does not make it a person. Brawn GP is no more BLP than the article on Gouda Cheese. The same is true of this. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a predictable result. Anyway, I think that means consensus is now definitely to return the items, Will. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're right. Does anyone object to removing the tags placed by Leatherstocking?   Will Beback  talk  18:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that the editor who placed them was a sock of a banned user, and that no one else feels they are necessary, I'll remove them.   Will Beback  talk  07:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Names for members

I'd like to add a sentence on the most common terms used to refer to LaRouche movement members. The most frequent ones I recall seeing are "LaRouchie" and "LaRouchian". I'll start compiling sources and other terms as I find them. If anyone else finds any please add them.   Will Beback  talk  04:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

LaRouchies

• Whether initial contact with unsuspecting people came at one of the familiar Fusion Energy Foundation tables that LaRouchies set up in airport concourses or on the phone from a crowded "boiler room" in Leesburg, the first transaction was usually only the start.
  • Oct 12, 1986 LaRouche probers detail 9 `bilkings' Affidavits leading to raid on Va. HQ charge illegal fund methods William Hines. Chicago Sun - Times. Chicago, Ill.: Oct 12, 1986. pg. 24

LaRouchian

• For the past 40 years he has promoted off-the-wall economic policies that have been largely ignored by economists and the public alike but have attracted a small army of believers -- mainly younger people known in political circles as LaRouchians.
  • Jun 16, 2005 Democrat on the dark side Peter Morton, Washington Bureau Chief. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Jun 16, 2005. pg. FP.8

LaRouchite

• In addition to publishing two articles in their magazine last summer, the LaRouchites organized a 10-member group that spent six days in Nebraska this month, talking to people about the Franklin allegations.
  • Oct. 28, 1990 LaRouche Article Contains Falsehoods Extremist Group Targets Wadman Robert Dorr. Omaha World - Herald [Omaha, Neb.] 28 Oct. 1990,1b

LaRouchers

• LaRouchers say the IMF should be abolished, and the Federal Reserve nationalized.
  • Jul 7, 1986 LaRouche candidates in Minnesota say voters are beginning to respond Gregor W. Pinney, Staff Writer. Minneapolis Star and Tribune. Minneapolis, Minn.: Jul 7, 1986. pg. 01.A1

References

Please leave at the bottom.