Talk:LaRouche movement/Archive 4

Reagan "ally" is misleading
Saying that the Reagan administration was a ally of the LaRouche movement is very misleading. While it's true that LaRouche played a role in underground talks with White House officals over the creation of SDI, Norman Bailey notes these ties were cut off after they went public. Also, LaRouche opposed Reagan's economic policy whereas the implication is that he approved of everything the Reagan White House did. I think this needs too at least be rephrased. Est300 (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of the assertion either, which I think gives excess weight to minor connections, but I will note that it says the movement "sought" alliances with these groups, including the Reagan administration, not that the alliances were ever made real.   Will Beback    talk    22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the OP, If Associations exist they need to be documented and what type of relationships they were. If those alliances were ever made real in any capacity We need to make that clear and stop giving WP:UNDUE weight in the lead to "connections" that never existed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure where the article gives any such impression that LaRouche was in agreement with Reagan's standard common-sense economic policies. I'm pretty sure the only person being potentially defamed here is the dead.. and rational.. one, so we don't really have to worry about that. There is most definitely a continuum, starting with those who have been smoking Lyndon's crack, followed by the most drunk of the drunkest', and finally followed by rational people who think that pointing out that there is the odd normal bloke around is just a good start. (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "ally" gives the implication that they shared the same goals. In many cases, the Reagan model and the LaRouche model were complete opposites. It appears the phrase has been deleted recently though, so prehaps it doesn't matter anymore. Est300 (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

While the connection to the Reagan Administration was perhaps tenuous, there have been clear connections to other movements, such as Fred Newman's group and with the Nation of Islam. The entire section on alliances was deleted with the edit summary "inherently misleading". That might apply to the Reagan Administration, but not to the other groups. If there's no objection I'll restore the other entries and find the sources to support them.  Will Beback   talk    21:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, you seem to misunderstand WP:V.First find sources and specify the extent and exact nature of relationship in prose. No more this silly "connections" BS. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "perhaps tenuous"? I fear you seek to connect dots where no lines are to be found.  Recall the ArbCom dicta after the BLP case.  They may not be as strong as one might wish, but they absolutely apply here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would not restore the material about the Reagan administration. I don't know who added that. As for the other movements, these connections are already well-sourced elsewhere. Adding the sources here is just a matter of "dotting the 'is'". But BLP does not apply to movements, only to individuals and small groups. If there is something specific from an ArbCom case that applies here please provide a link to the relevant section.    Will Beback    talk    00:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazingly enough, I find LaRouche to be a person. Therefore any claim which impacts on that person, even indirectly, is covered by WP:BLP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When we write about the Republican Party, that doesn't necessarily effect the head of the party. Over and over, the consensus at BLP is that the policy only applies to living people. If you'd like to change the policy then take it up at the policy talk page.    Will Beback    talk    01:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the chief of the Republican party named "Lyndon Republican"? And is Mr. Republican's party referred to as the "Republican movement?" Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So? The man is not the movement. This article devotes very little space to Lyndon LaRouche.   Will Beback    talk    02:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * An interesting example of Wikilawyering to be sure!  The same logic would say that BLP does not apply to "Kennedy Administration" etc.  I fear this is not an argument which will fly at BLP/N, but let's see.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wonderful if sourced else on the Wiki your job to source the statements is made that much easier. Also be sure to discuss the extent and exact nature of relationship in prose. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to add more information if you think it's necessary. I can send you any sources you need that I have access to.   Will Beback    talk    00:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP and the ArbCom decision

 * ''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.
 * ''LaRouche said that a U.S. Attorney who was investigating the movement's fundraising, William Weld, "does not deserve to live. He should get a bullet between the eyes", according to a statement given to the FBI by LaRouche's security consultant, Roy Frankhouser.
 * ''According to one report, experts stated that LaRouche's involvement in the matter allowed his phone solicitors to raise money by saying they needed contributions to fight child abuse in Nebraska.

An editor delete these three passages with the explanation: actually - WP:BLP and the ArbCom decision apply. Could he or another edit point out which part of the BLP policy and which part of which ArbCom case applies to these passages.  Will Beback   talk    02:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the first and third passage, I'd like to understand what the BLP issue was. With respect to the second, I've made it clear who did the talking, and where said talking was done. It's not appropriate to call the statement fact when it's merely a he-said she-said between Frankhouser and the movement. Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As I have said about 12 times, the policy being violated is WP:BLPGOSSIP. These are irresponsible and malicious claims by LaRouche's enemies. The correct response at Wikipedia is to leave them out, even if they appear in newspapers. For example, many hundreds of newspaper articles have covered claims by notable people including Donald Trump that Barack Obama was not born in the US. However, not one of these claims appears in the Obama BLP. Waalkes (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the two bullets that remain looking specifically at issues of gossip. BLPGOSIP states "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." I discuss both, below.


 * Girven
 * Reliable - The Gazette is probably reliable. The Philadelphia Inquirer is reliable.
 * Presented as true - I do not have access to the Gazette article. The inquirer article states the "Polly, you will die" as coming from Girvin, and the move as coming from her. I do not see the hiding.
 * Relevent - I do not have the background to discuss this. Is your allegation that Girvin is not relevent to the subject at hand?
 * Phone Solicitors
 * Reliable - The Omaha World - Herald is reliable.
 * Presented as true - I do not have access to the article. Do you allege the article hedges about LaRouche vs an unreliable speaker here?
 * Relevent - Seems obviously relevent.


 * Thanks for your time in clarifying what part of BLPGOSSIP you believe these passages verify. Per your Obama example, I would note that Citizenship conspiracy theories are, in fact, linked to from the main Barack Obama article. Hipocrite (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, most of the sources for this section can be found at /Incidents.   Will Beback    talk    20:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When it comes to BLP issues, we err on the side of caution. It's the moral, ethical, and responsible thing to do. Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No one questions that. But calling something "gossip" doesn't make it so. 03:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

'Harasment' headings a bit overdo?
few times in a row. are sources talking about harassment as well, or is it some editors opinion / choice to use this word? 64.134.172.251 (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources are in /Incidents. I count 112 appearances of "harass", "harassing", or "harassment".   Will Beback    talk    06:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert warring
I have warned Will Beback a second time for revert warring in this article. The RfC and subsequent discussion have established clear consensus for trimming pejorative information from the article. Revert warring is not helpful and is not condoned by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any revert warring. I see someone making a bold edit, and it being reverted. The next step would be talk. There's no discussion of the proposed edit that I see. Do you? Hipocrite (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Check above. Also, I notice that uninvolved editors at the BLP noticeboard agree that Collect's edits to remove material that violated BLP policy were correct. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. Firstly - Hi, what am I, sliced bread, and secondly, which editors exactly support Collect's edits that are "uninvolved?" Hipocrite (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on that discussion, I have removed the BLP violation. Revert warring is one thing, but revert warring to restore material that violates BLP is much more serious. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am reopening that discussion on BLPN. I would appreciate it if involved editors butted out. Hipocrite (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now thoroughly checked above. Please quote the discussion where the removal of "Governor Hugh Gallen and State Attorney General Thomas Rath both received harassing phone calls "day and night"" discussed? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The RfC established clear consensus to condense the article. Waalkes then suggested removing material concerning allegations, which only one editor, Will Beback objected to.  So, with consensus, Waalkes and Collect have begun removing material as called for in the RfC.  Will Beback has revert warred against consensus to try to keep the material.  That is the current status. Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are two points on which there should be no disagreement. First, the BLP policy says to edit conservatively, or as Cla68 puts it, we err on the side of caution. According to Will Beback, "no one questions that." In practice, this should mean if several editors consider something questionable, it should be taken out until consensus is reached to put it back in. Secondly, there is a clear consensus, as many have pointed out, that the section needs to be reduced in size. That means some things will need to be removed. And yet there is one editor who makes a fuss about every suggestion that might serve to reduce the bloated size of the section. I am putting forward some suggestions here: 1. Remove hearsay. Someone saying that someone else told them that an unnamed LaRouche supporter said such-and-such is hearsay, another name for gossip. I think that WP:LAUNDER is very much on the mark here. 2. Remove innuendo. I see that someone is edit warring over "Governor Hugh Gallen and State Attorney General Thomas Rath both received harassing phone calls "day and night"". Unless there is a source that says "Governor Hugh Gallen and State Attorney General Thomas Rath both received harassing phone calls day and night from LaRouche or from LaRouche supporters," it should be considered irrelevant to this article. Finding someone who "suspects it was LaRouche supporters" is not good enough. 3. Remove allegations from anonymous sources. We've already been over this, several times. I attempted to do it here, and WIll Beback put it right back in, claiming that it had not been discussed. Waalkes (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I support Waalkes suggestions as reasonable and in line with what was mandated by the recently completed RfC. I don't understand how there could be edit warring taking place, because neither Waalkes nor Collect has done anything which wasn't recommended by consensus in the RfC and in subsequent discussion.  Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Girvin death threat, made in front of a TV camera, is not gossip and it hasn't been discussed at BLPN.
 * As for the Gallen material, which identifiable living person is involved?   Will Beback    talk    02:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have any actual evidence that either Girvin or Gallen were threatened by members of the LaRouche movement? If not, those stories don't belong in this article. They belong in articles on Girvin and Gallen. Waalkes (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any actual evidence for the existence of Halley's Comet? Or George Washington? Everything we write is based on reliable sources, not personal experience.   Will Beback    talk    08:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Alas - your argument is pure boojum. Allegations that living people made death threats where they are identifiably part of a small group do indeed fall under WP:BLP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are an expert at making snide remarks, and even entire essays, so it's inappropriate to complain about them elsewhere. In any case, what is the name of the living person who made this death threat?     Will Beback    talk    21:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In case you missed the ArbCom dicat concerning BLPs, I suggest you reread their findings about BLPs. 2) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy requiring, among other things, that all biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy is clear, and it is fairly clear to everyone else that the "LaRouche movement" refers to Lyndon LaRouche who certainly seems to be a living person, and to members of his "movement" (bowel?) who also certainly seem to be living people.  I do not think this is "Night of the Living Dead" time, to be sure.  As for accusing me of snide remarks and snide essays, I would ask you to for one assume good faith, and to read your own remarks.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When the community decides that the BLP policy applies to large international movements then we can talk.   Will Beback    talk    22:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As near as I can tell, the "movement" is quite small. Certainly not as large as Scientology - an area where BLP has, indeed, been invoked, or some NRMs (ditto) and so on.  That you feel it is fine to defame what you singularly call a "large international movement" does not mean you have consensus on your side. Cheers.  Collect (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any consensus to change the BLP policy to apply to international movements with thousands of members. There's no question that BLP applies to living people who take Scientology classes, just as it applies to any other identifiable living individuals. But that's not what we're discussing here.   Will Beback    talk    20:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. The group involved is the small group accused of direct threats - which is not "thousands of members" unless you wish to allege that "thousands" made the threats alluded to by Girvin. Is that your claim, Will?  2.  I know of no reason to say "thousands of members" engaged in illegal activity and death threats - so the material about such clearly relates to a tiny sub-group per WP:BLP.   3.  In each case, the small group is by name connected with a single "living person" and htier acts connected with that "living person."  I trust this is all clear enough for you, Will. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable secondary sources do not describe Larouche's movement in positive terms. The book "Ethnic conflicts and the nation-state" by the United Nations expert Rodolfo Stavenhagen, former deputy director of UNESCO, is an example. Similarly in the book "International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: a documented analysis of the movement" by the political scientist Robert J. Alexander, Larouche's movement is described as an "international movement". Collect now appears to be suggesting otherwise, which seems quite unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually would like it if you accurately reflected what I wrote. What I said was that the group accused of making the threats was a very small group.  I did not say "Larouche has no overseas followers" or anything within a mile of such sentiment.  I never said he was a nice person - he is quite likely despicable.  I do not know of anything in WP:BLP saying "despicable people and their followers are not living people for the purpose of this policy."  This is in accord with people not mentioning LaRouche in "positive terms".  Cheers - and please address what I write. Collect (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What you have written about events in Leesburg, where LaRouche was based at the time, seems to be your own personal interpretation. Which secondary sources talk about tiny numbers? I am also not sure that anybody has agreed that BLP policy applies to political movements.  Mathsci (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How many people were in the "movement" in the town? 20,000 LaRouche followers making threats heard by one person? Somehow I doubt it. The sources do not support any claim whatsoever that the threats were made by any significant number of people, so that straw man is out the window.  If three or four made the threats - I consider that a "small number" of "living people."  See  Cirt is prohibited from editing articles that are substantially biographies of living people if, broadly but reasonably construed, (i) the articles already refer to politics or religion or social controversy; or (ii) his edits introduce to the articles material about politics or religion or social controversy. However, Cirt is permitted to edit other articles that refer incidentally to such living people providing (i) the focus of the articles is not substantially biographical and (ii) his edits are not biographical in nature. where the Arbitration Committee explicitly connected groups of BLPs related to 'politics, religion or social controversy." I bolded politics so you can see that BLPs in that realm were explicitly mentioned by ArbCom.  Cheers - I am sure that the LaRouche articles are, indeed, "political" and related to "living persons."  Collect (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If we write that "a mob of about 50 people threw stones at police", I don't think anyone would say that violates BLP. Even if it was just three people, none of them are identified or identifiable from that information. The "small number" clause of BLP is intended to address very small groups where the people are identifiable, such as partners in the law of "Smith, Brown, and Jones". Again, if you think that there is a consensus to change the BLP policy to apply to unnamed people in an international political movement with thousands of members then I suggest you make that proposal at WT:BLP.   Will Beback    talk    23:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The sarcasm is inappropriate and seems evasive. Are there reliable sources that provide evidence that either Girvin or Gallen were threatened by members of the LaRouche movement? If not, those stories don't belong in this article. Waalkes (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not sarcasm. I'm just pointing out that Halley's Comet exists, even though no court of law has proven its existence.   Will Beback    talk    21:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, reliable sources refer to Halley's Comet, including work by someone actually named Halley, of all thing. Also governments have officially recognized Halley's Comet, which is several miles ahead of the material you wish included. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, so we agree that we can use reliable sources for facts about which we have no personal knowledge.   Will Beback    talk    22:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not recall, moreover, anyone other than you comparing Halley's Comet to a claim about a living person. (bolding quite intentional) Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've revised the New Hampshire paragraph. We should keep Gallen, but drop Girvin, simply because the phone harassment of Gallen and others was organised (see sources) rather than a one-off, and acknowledged by the movement.  -- J  N  466  23:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In general those revisions look fine. However the isue with Girvin wasn't a one-off case of harassment. There were many incidents, of which the death threat was just the most public example. It'd be better to summarize it more briefly than to delete it. We could say something like, "One local lawyer who circulated petitions against the movement received so much harassment, including a death threat, that she gave up her practice and left the state."   Will Beback    talk    23:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We do have a brief to shorten the section; I'd counsel sticking with the best documented and most prominent cases, and summarise the others without going into individual detail. It's not our job to do what this article and others like it did; but we should present a summary that makes clear to the reader that many of LaRouche's opponents in Leesburg felt harassed and intimidated, and some went so far as to leave the area as a result. We have to distil and condense.
 * A more general thought: I think it was a mistake to topicalise alleged violence and harassment as a dedicated subsection. Any outline of the history of the movement would include these conflicts as part of its presentation -- from Operation Mop-up to New Hampshire, to Leesburg etc. – along with other material. I think that in the long term, the most viable solution lies that way: (1) present a history section, following the timeline (2) present a section on the group's philosophy, tenets, publications etc., and (3) present a reception section. -- J N  466  00:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the RFC question was so vague that it did not gives us a clear goal to work towards. The section is already shorter, so the goal has been achieved nominally. Further reference to it isn't helpful - let's just work toward improving the article.
 * Summarizing more briefly is fine, so long as we don't lose the essential material.
 * Regarding the organization, the section is an outgrowth of a section created by some of HK's socks, "Humor". Talk:LaRouche_movement/Archive_2 He insisted, without providing any sources for it, that the movement is known for its humor. When I researched it, I found instead that the movement is known for its lack of humor, and that when it appeared in the same sentence as "joke", it was the butt of the joke. Talk:LaRouche movement/Sources As an outcome of that research, I came across many incidents of harassment and violence, much more than I'd heard about before. Talk:LaRouche movement/Incidents So the section is simply a summary of that material. Rewriting the article with a history section will require fresh research, which would be a considerable project though it might be worthwhile of folks (not including HK socks) are willing to put in the effort. The group's philosophy and tenets are covered in another article, Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. Considering their complexity and novelty, merging them into one article would not be optimal.   Will Beback    talk    06:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, FWIW, the movement did acknowledge the complaints of harassment.
 * Supporters of LaRouche deny that they disrupt or harass adversaries such as those who opposed their summer camp in Virginia. "These people don't like to debate their policies," said a spokesman, Mel Klenetsky. "These people call it disruptive. We call it polemical."
 * 'VERY FRIGHTENING' FOES SPEAK OF HARASSMENT FROM LAROUCHE CAMP Fireman, Ken. Philadelphia Inquirer [Philadelphia, Pa] 30 Mar 1986: .4.
 * So the general issue of harassing petition gatherers was specifically denied by the movement spokesman.   Will Beback    talk    23:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Seriously, does anyone else here think that the RfC question was vague? Waalkes (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not vague, just being used inappropriately. "This section should be shorter" is not equal to "Whatever thing I do to shorten the section is supported by the RFC." Additionally, the statement in the RFC was phrased non-neutrally. A neutral phrasing of the question would have been "Should section X in article Y be shortened?" Not "According to the page size tool, the article LaRouche movement presently has a length of 8,422 words. The section Alleged violence and harassment runs to 4,085 words, and represents more than half the article's body text. Should the section be reworked, and replaced with a shorter summary?" That's a leading non-question, and biases the results. If you need help in conducting a poll, I'm happy to assist, but consider writing it so that whoever reads the question dosen't know what result you want. Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The real problem here is that several editors have attempted to comply with the direction decided in the RfC, only to have one or two other editors respond with revert warring. If not for the revert warring, the RfC mandate would probably already be accomplished and we could move on. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comparing the article as it was in early June, when this discussion began, and the way the article looks today, there has been virtually no change in the article. I find this amazing. Waalkes (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In June, the "alleged violence and harassment section had 4048 words, by one counter's estimate. Today, it has 3600. That's a significant reduction.   Will Beback    talk    20:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We've got a ways more to go. I've yet to see a sound justification for the revert warring that occurred when the rest of us tried to comply with the RfC decision.  Hopefully, it won't happen again. Cla68 (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's get consensus for deletions before we make them. There's no reason to outright delete well-sourced and relevant material.   Will Beback    talk    22:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Petitions
Can someone explain why this text was deleted?  Will Beback   talk    19:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * LaRouche is linked to petition, Initiative proposal would quarantine AIDS patients; Don Davis. The San Diego Union. San Diego, Calif.: May 23, 1986. pg. A.3
 * The clue is in a young LaRouche follower ... individual people say and do some incredibly stupid things at demos, and petition signings. I've been called some choice things in the centre of Oxford when I've refused to sign some petition against animal experiments, actually I'd muttered soto-voice as it were something rather inflammatory, which might of prompted the outburst. But nevertheless I certainly don't hold it against the anti-vivisectionist movement. HTH John lilburne (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, these are allegations made by anonymous persons. Waalkes (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't matter even if there were sworn affidavits. What is being discussed is the actions of one or two individuals not the 'Movement' whatever that is. I think one would need to show that it was policy before ascribing the actions to the movement as a whole. As it stood the article used the incidents, verified or not, as representative of the whole organisation. That is the central problem. John lilburne (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So we have two different reasons. To John lilburne, movements are made up of members. When they are standing on a street corner acting on behalf of the movement, and when newspapers write about them in the context of the movement, then it's reasonable to talk about their activities in the an article about the movement. To Waalkes, the person reporting these complaints is the California Secretary of State. Check the source.   Will Beback    talk    19:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. When Mark Foley was sending messages to minors he wasn't representing the Republican party, and when Bill Clinton was getting blown by an intern he wasn't representing the Democratic party. John lilburne (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody said they were. However when Clinton campaigned for Democratic congressional candidates he was working on behalf of the Democratic Party. In this context, these incidents are reported as being done by members of the movement engaged in movement activities (i.e. collecting petition signatures for a movement initiative), not having sex in private.   Will Beback    talk    20:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good that's a start. Now do you count the door knockers, the leafletiers, and the envelop stuffers to be in the same representative of the Democratic party category as Clinton? John lilburne (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Publications issued on behalf of the Democratic Party could be relevant to discussions of that party. However we're getting pretty far-afield.   Will Beback    talk    22:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument. Does it hold true for things like Planned_Parenthood_Federation_of_America? I know you could say OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but then you'd support the removal of those stings, which were only stings of individuals at PPA clinics? I don't have a strong position on this, and am truly interested. Hipocrite (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But we've not talking about publications of an organisation we're talking about a couple of youngsters standing around a trestle table, or whatever, and losing it, whilst trying to get people to sign some stupid petition. John lilburne (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

@Will Beback: are we playing the WP:LAUNDER game again? You know well that the Secretary of State did not make those allegations. And here's another thing: you insist that we should treat every allegation including the anonymous ones as credible. After spending countless hours collecting these allegations, you didn't find a single one that led to a conviction in court! How can that possibly be, if they are all so "credible"? Waalkes (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * These were complaints filed with the Secretary of State. Are you saying they are just gossip?   Will Beback    talk    21:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is misdirection Will, they are allegations that have not held up in a court of Law. Address Waalkes' larger point. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Waalkes has been calling this material "gossip", so I was addressing one of his complaints. Calling it "misdirection" implies bad faith on my part, when I'm just responding to his points. As for the matter of the official actions, California Secreaty of State March Fong Eu sent a letter to the sponsors of the initiative warning them about the behavior of their petition gatherers. So maybe the best way of rewriting this material is to focus on that official action rather than giving individual examples. We could summarize it like this,
 * The California Secretary of State received numerous complaints from the public about harassment by people gathering signatures to qualify the 'LaRouche Initiative' for the state ballot. She warned initiative sponsors that permission to circulate the petitions could be revoked unless the 'offensive activities' stopped.
 * That should address the concerns expressed here.   Will Beback    talk    01:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, just touching on one aspect of this, I for one don't think we need a conviction to report such complaints, as long as they are RS-covered.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is certainly true. The arguments of Waalkes and co above could equally well be applied to almost every statement in Death of Jeremiah Duggan, which relies on news reports in quality newspapers and the media. There was no conviction in that case but the Schiller Institute in Germany is mentioned prominently in the article.


 * There are also alternatives to shortening a section other than deletion of particular news reports of past events. For example the material can be presented more briefly without removing all reference to it. In the past there have been systematic attempts to remove material casting aspersions on the Larouche movement. With the spurious use of BLP policy, applied to a large international organization, and the labelling of reputable news reports as "gossip-mongering", this seems also to be happening at the moment, amongst other things ... Mathsci (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Next item
Waalkes, or anyone else, please list the next item you think should be trimmed as we work to comply with the RfC mandate. Cla68 (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I have posted some suggestions for allegations that I think should be priority for trimming, and of course I attempted to trim them but I was reverted. Here is a recap:
 * 1. Allegations from unnamed persons that go against BLPGOSSIP. See these edits:[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_movement&diff=451370638&oldid=451369229 ][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_movement&diff=450560581&oldid=449954215 ]
 * 2. Allegations where the source does not actually name LaRouche supporters, but only insinuates that they did it (anonymous calls, etc.) Edits:[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_movement&diff=451368747&oldid=451066542 ]
 * 3. Hearsay, where some famously biased person like Richard Egan claims that he heard second or third hand that LaRouche wanted to blow up the World Trade Center or something like that. Edits:[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_movement&diff=451369229&oldid=451368747 ]
 * I would like to point out that when my edits were reverted, the reasons given were nonsense: "no consensus" and "not explained." Waalkes (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, just because the reporter doesn't name a source does not make the allegation "gossip".   Will Beback    talk    22:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * However it does make the source "unnamed" as in "anonymous." Anonymous sources areno more relaiable than gossip as a rule, Will.
 * 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 a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.
 * is a direct quote from WP:BLP. I rather think it is sufficiently clear, indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It says, "be wary". It does not say, "don't use". When highly reliable newspapers make unexceptional assertions about a political movement that does not fall under the BLP policy. The BLP policy applies to identifiable people, not international political movements. Not a single diff that Waalkes provided refers to an identifiable living person as the alleged perpetrator. In any case, compare his diffs to the current text. Jayen466 has done a more responsible job of summarizing or reducing those than the outright deletions demanded repeatedly by Waalkes.   Will Beback    talk    22:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been exceedingly less than "wary" about using anonymous criminal allegations about unnamed people who are then specifically connected to "LaRouche" who is still, as far as I can tell, a "living person." An ounce more of wariness would make this a far better article than it is - which is a veritable midden of rumours and gossip.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody says or implies that Lyndon LaRouche committed any of these acts.   Will Beback    talk    23:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No -- it implies that people close to LaRouche made criminal threats which were ascribed to anonymous sources. Cheers - but the pin-dancing being used seems to be getting out of hand.   Just be "wary" instead of "midden building."Collect (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does it say or imply that these unnamed people are "close to LaRouche"? Let's not make up things that aren't true for the sake of winning an argument.   Will Beback    talk    00:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But those unnamed people were part of the LaRouche movement? Yes or No?  Waalkes (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They are mentioned by reliable secondary sources in the context of their discussions of the LaRouche movement. Have you read the sources for the material you're asking about?   Will Beback    talk    00:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Waalkes and Collect for removing the items Waalkes listed above. Will objects.  Three for, one against.  Any other objections besides Will? Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote. I gather you haven't even checked Waalke's suggestions, or followed the discussion here.   Will Beback    talk    01:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, please try to keep your comments constructive. Once consensus is established, we can move on it.  Again, anyone else object to removing the material? Cla68 (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Establishing consensus requires discussion. Why do you, Cla68, think that each of the edits proposed by Waalkes should be made to the current article?   Will Beback    talk    01:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Waalkes and Collect's reasoning. Does anyone else object? Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you even looked to see if the text he's talking about is still in the article?
 * We seem to be talking past each other here. Maybe mediation would be helpful.   Will Beback    talk    01:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Waalkes, you currently have consensus to remove the material you propose removing. I suggest waiting a day or so to see if anyone else objects, then you or someone else go ahead and remove it. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cla68, if you don't want to discuss these edits that's OK, but please don't make assertions that aren't supported.   Will Beback    talk    02:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I do not agree with Cla68 and his claimed consensus which looks like a classic case of WP:TAG TEAM. There was no previous support for these deletions on WP:BLPN. The original edits seem properly sourced as MastCell has said there. Moreover BLP violations do not apply to a large political organization which multiple academic textbooks describe in the same terms as the sources here (see the citations previously provided on WP:BLPN). I am also uncertain about the status of the account of Waalkes, who is a single purpose user and possibly an alternative account of another user. These particular edits were explicitly described on Wikipedia Review by banned  in a thread concerning Will Beback in which Cla68 had previously participated. Lastly when Cla68 edited this article in May 2011 when all this content was already present, he raised no objections, so I am wondering what has changed. Yes the article could be shortened, but the RfC made none of the spurious claims about BLP violations suggested by Collect. Since Cla68 is actively devising an RfC/U against Will Beback (recent versions of the page in Cla68's user space look like an "attack page"), none of his editing on this particular article, created by Will Beback, can be viewed in good faith. If editors wish to establish that policies on the biographies of living persons apply to a large political organization with a reputation for harassment well documented in reliable sources, they should seek input yet again from uninvolved editors on WP:BLPN. Involved editors would include Cla68, Waalkes, Collect, ResidentAnthropologist and John lilburne, some of whom participated in the recent ArbCom case on MBLPs.  Mathsci (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, accuse the majority of being a "tag team"? Either make the claim on a noticeboard or drop it.  The fact is that the BLP/N discussions absolutely did include statements about many iffy items crammed into the midden.  And any fiar reading of those discussions would so show to any reader.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, your post is somewhat confrontational which I don't think is very helpful to this discussion, but, if I understand right, you disagree with the reasoning for removal of the material. I remember that you participated in one of the recent BLPN discussions about this type of material, and you disagreed with the majority opinion from the regulars there that the material was inappropriate for this article.  We could, as you suggest, as for a BLPN opinion on every single item in this article which may be problematic.  I don't think that's a very productive approach, however, as with BLP material is usually more effective to err on the side of caution.  Plus, we have the RfC mandate to trim the material. Cla68 (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't operate as a democracy, where the majority rules. It runs by consensus.
 * As for the discussion here, contradictory arguments have been made, and there hasn't been any genuine discussion of the material in question.
 * Finally, this isn't "BLP" material since no identifiable persons are involved. This is an article about an international political movement, not a biography.   Will Beback    talk    03:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * None of Cla68's contributions have so far discussed secondary sources. I cannot see any BLP violations here, since as already stated LaRouche's movement is a large political organization with a well documented reputation for harassment. Cla68 and others will have to take this back to WP:BLPN if they continue to object to the content on BLP grounds. Note also that ResidentAnthropologist attempted unsuccessfully to have the article page indefinitely fully protected in his preferred "conservative version". Mathsci (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP encourages us to to protect the conservative version. I posted that in order to make people talk, there have been several edit wars here the past few weeks. It is really absurd and it is why I have been largely staying out of this clusterfuck. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's one of the reasons to try to avoid a toxic article atmosphere, which revert warring and confrontational talk page posts help create, because it drives editors away. Cla68 (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you discussed secondary sources that would be helpful. That is usually what happens on talk pages of articles and is what I did on WP:BLPN and also higher up on this page, where I cited several academic textbooks. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with Waalkes' reasoning above on removing the specified material on BLP grounds. Kelly  hi! 03:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What reasoning is that, in your own words?   Will Beback    talk    03:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a requirement to restate it in my own words? Very well, I believe the claims in the article don't meet the threshold of our BLP policy, and as a result, should be removed. Is that enough, or is there a 500-word minimum? Kelly  hi! 03:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't just delete stuff that we don't like. It is necessary to have a good reason. If editors now think that BLP applies to entire political parties we should have an interesting time ahead of us.   Will Beback    talk    08:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that's 67% for removal. Cla68 (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am a little unclear about what is being argued about. Cla68 and John lilburne edit warred a week ago to remove material on Polly Girvin. That material is no longer in the article. The other material mentioned by Waalkes has been significantly rejigged by Jayen466. Why is the version of the article prior to these changes still being discussed, without taking into account these changes which have not been contested? That seems quite unhelpful.   Mathsci (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Waalkes' reasoning above on removing this material. I believe the claims suggested for removal don't meet our standards in WP:BLP, and as a group, WP:UNDUE.  &rarr;  Stani Stani  05:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that BLP applies to an international political movement with thousands of members? Would it also apply to a city, nation, or continent? Where do we draw the line?   Will Beback    talk    07:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * With Stanistani's input, we again have consensus for removal of the material. Waalkes or anyone else, if no one else objects, please proceed with the removal of the items in question. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this a vote?   Will Beback    talk    08:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No - it is a WP:CONSENSUS, Will. Cheers - I trust you will accept it rather than post the same claims over and over .... Collect (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to make any of the edits proposed in this section. The edits that needed to be made were already made by Jayen466. I suggest that Cla68's method of calling for consensus is disrupted by outside votestacking. Hipocrite (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And the evidence for that serious charge is? Collect (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, I don't believe that Will and Mathsci have been canvassing for outside support, so I believe you owe them an apology. Cla68 (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, Hipocrite, you were drawn to this thread by discussion on an off-site forum, based on you mentioning it in your initial post, yet you're making accusations of off-site vote-stacking, when your vote may also be a direct result? Are you trying to discredit your own vote?  I personally accept and welcome your opinion, even if you were made aware of this discussion by an outside forum.  The more the merrier, I say. Cla68 (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not drawn here by any off-site forum. Which "initial post" do you refer, exactly? Please use diffs. If you are inventing things, I expect an apology and retraction. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So what pray drew you to my talk page with impertinent questions? John lilburne (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * An off-site forum. Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, in my opinion all editors are welcome to participate in this talk page discussion, so please don't create a hostile atmosphere by accusing them of off-site vote stacking or being sockpuppets. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, we have a majority advocating removal of the material, but not enough to establish consensus. So, we seem to be at an impasse. We probably should ask at BLPN on the BLP-related material.  The other items that Waalkes proposed deleting we may need to utilize a content RfC. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been off Wiki for a few days and just now caught up with this thread. The edits made by Waalkes, were, in my opinion, a valid removal of inappropriate content in line with the RfC to trim the section (in which I was a participant). -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keithbob's input reestablishes consensus (70%) for removal of the items. Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this a vote? Where does it say that there's a consensus when 30% of editors disagree?   Will Beback    talk    00:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Some general questions
Here are some general questions for Will Beback. Will, it is clear that the disputed section is almost entirely your work: you are using Google news, Proquest or other services to assemble very comprehensive lists (like (Talk:LaRouche movement/Incidents)) of allegations that,as  Mathsci's said:  "cast aspersions" on LaRouche or his supporters. I think it would help us move forward if you could answer these questions directly and not evasively: 1. Why do you believe it is necessary to include every one of these allegations instead of making a summary that says something like "LaRouche's opponents have accused members of his movement of heckling, making anonymous calls, using rude language on the street, etc" ? 2. Do also you assemble lists of news items that do not "cast aspersions"? If not, why not? If so, why do you not also include these items indvidually in the same exhaustive way? Waalkes (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Waalkes edited previously using the German IP before registering this account. All the edits so far have been solely concerned with the Larouche movement.  Could Waalkes please give some kind of clarification? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you asserting something which should be on an actual noticeboard? Or just tossing some lettuce into the salad? Waalkes is under absolutely no obligation to answer your query posed in such an obvious manner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Single purpose accounts are always problematic. If you think that there is a need to make a report at a noticeboard, please feel free. Otherwise at the moment I have no idea why you posted these questions on an arbitrator's talk page.  From the dialogue there it seems that you were referring to Lyndon Larouche and to the long-term editing of Will Beback. Perhaps you could clarify that here. Mathsci (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This frankly is not going anywhere, Waalkes approach here was inappropriate, Mathsci is not doing much better. Could we retarget these discussions to the article? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Collect's initial question was clear enough: Suppose that "Gnarphism" is a small religious, social or political movement, and is named after a living person "Jonathan Gnarph." Would allegations that the "Gnarphists" supported criminal activity ascribed to unnamed sources be at all possibly connected to "Jonathan Gnarph" as a charge requiring strong sources per WP:BLP, or is the group sufficiently distant from Mr. Gnarph that the charges do not impact on any living person? Would it make a difference if there were 50 Gnarphists (small group) or 2,000 Gnarphists (large group) in relation to the connection to a living person? Lastly, suppose an editor has a news search set up so that he sees every news article about "Gnarphism," and that his use thereof appears in each case to be to include allegations ascribed to unnamed sources - is that any indication that such an editor might have a possible excessive interest in the topic of "Jonathan Gnarph" and his religious, social or political followers? So "Jonathan Gnarph" = "Lyndon Larouche", "an editor" = "Will Beback" and this is the article. Or am I missing something? Mathsci (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering you are talking a post from another venue and referring to it here, it is obvious that I did not intend it to refer specifically to this article. That you so assert is more a matter of what your pre-occupations may be than with my issue - which also applies to all the BLP-ish articles in the realm of politics, religion and social groupings, per the ArbCom disucssions recently.   Assigning eigenvalues to the terms, then, is non-utile entirely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your explanation seems implausible given the subsequent dialogue with Will Beback. Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the link you provided but thanks for the copy and pasting it for connivence. What I am suggesting altering the path of discussion to be more about content rather than contributors. There has been a unacceptable level of that in recent discussions in multiple forums related to this. This does not mean such such conversation are invalid merely this page is supposed to be about content involving article. Accusations need to be left and the door and pursued in more proper and official forums. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You made these comments about the editing of articles related to the Larouche movement. Is that still your point of view? I haven't noticed you discussing either content or sources. Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That I feel interpersonal animosity is the core of the conflict here rather than concern about about the subject? Yes, I do. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * if there were 50 Gnarphists (small group) - Are there really so few; is all this fuss, and multi 1000s of words over an organisation that could fit into a greyhound bus? John lilburne (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest Waalkes repost his questions on Will Beback's talk page. I suggest Mathsci stop the personal attacks.  I remind everyone that this article does not belong to any one person, so it doesn't really matter for our purposes here what may or may not be motivating any single editor.  What matters is following the mandate established by the RfC to trim this article, and making sure the content is compliant with all policies, especially including BLP. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to identifiable individuals, not entire movements. Where people are named then of course BLP applies to them.   Will Beback    talk    23:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that that is your opinion, but I think most of the regulars at BLPN have disagreed with you. The majority of the editors on this page also appear to disagree with you.  Please feel free, however, to continue to express your opinions in this discussion as expressing opinions, free of BLP violations, personal attacks, and battleground tones, of course, are always welcome. Cla68 (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point to the BLPN threads where there has been a consensus that BLP applies to unnamed members of an international political movement with thousands of members? Just saying that they exist without linking to them is unhelpful, and it's just an editor giving his opinion.   Will Beback    talk    00:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the link. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus there that BLP applies to international political movements. The discussion at the other thread Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard (both now archived), was that the issue wasn't covered by BLP.   Will Beback    talk    06:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

@Waalkes - You ask whether I'd done other research on the movement. I'll re-post what I wrote in an earlier thread: the section is an outgrowth of a section created by some of HK's socks, "Humor". Talk:LaRouche_movement/Archive_2 He insisted, without providing any sources for it, that the movement is known for its humor. When I researched it, I found instead that the movement is known for its lack of humor, and that when it appeared in the same sentence as "joke", it was the butt of the joke. Talk:LaRouche movement/Sources As an outcome of that research, I came across many incidents of harassment and violence, much more than I'd heard about before. Talk:LaRouche movement/Incidents So the section is simply a summary of that material. That's how this came about - I was looking for examples of the movement being known for its humor, but I found examples if its reputation for violence instead.  Will Beback   talk    06:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Trader Joe's
I've tried to identify the "Banicki 2009" source; the only ones I was able to find are and. These sources didn't quite cover the content we had in the article, and I have made a corresponding edit. Are there any sources reporting the outcome of the suit? Are there any other articles by Banicki that I missed?

There are a number of sources in that section and elsewhere in the article that are only identified by a name and year; we need a little more than that, especially for contentious material. -- J N  466  06:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Many of the cites like "Bronstad (2009)" are in /Incidents. We never got around to transferring the full citations. I'll do those now.
 * I recall seeing that the injunctions were granted. We should be able to find a source for it. In regard to the interactions with the public, this section may almost get too little weight. I have a weekly newsfeed from Proquest, which includes newspapers from around the country. Almost every week there is a report in some local newspaper from across the country about a dispute at the local post office, etc., between members of the LaRouche movement and the public.   Will Beback    talk    08:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On Proquest - do you set "LaRouche" as a search term? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Something like that. But Google News probably has many of the the same news stories. For example, this link shows encounters at post offices over the past month.  Will Beback    talk    19:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've summarised the text, added the other Banicki source, and changed the National Law Journal URL to the web archive version, which retains the complete text. -- J N  466  10:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Supermarket demonstrations

 * In 2009, a complaint by Trader Joe's alleged that LaRouche followers protesting Barack Obama's healthcare reform proposal stood outside one of the company's grocery stores in Irvine, California wearing swastikas, bringing some shoppers to tears, and called those who disagreed "bitches" and "Hitler lovers". Some arguments grew heated and on several occasions police were called to remove the activists; the company sought damages and an injunction. 

An editor replaced this material with an incomplete summary: using the edit summary, "shorten paragraph per talk page consensus and per WP:BLP". However I don't see any discussion of this material which reached a consensus, nor is it clear how it would violate WP:BLP. Could the editor please cite the specific passage of BLP that requires its removal? Do editors think that the summarized text fully conveys the nature of the demonstrations?  Will Beback   talk    00:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Store managers reported that they had received numerous complaints from shoppers, and got an injunction barring LaRouche followers from demonstrating in front of their stores in California.
 * I suggest moving your question to the "Next item" section above as that is the relevant discussion. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cla68's first edit was poor, as, with the omission of Trader Joe,  the naming of Kroger in the second sentence now reads very badly. In the edit he claimed there was a BLP violation, but what exactly was it? The user Waalkes, whose edits are solely to articles related to the LaRouche movement, made this edit. Waalkes only seems to delete content, instead of summarising it more briefly. The RfC only suggested condensing content; it did not suggest deletion. I also have no idea why the sentence about the Armenian man, who is named as Henry Gasparian in the cited news report, escapes Cla68's BLP censorship. The same newspaper source reported on subsequent events the following year.  Perhaps Cla68 could explain his reasoning more carefully. Equally well could he please try not to make edits that appear to issue orders to other editors on where to post on this page and pronounce when consensus has been reached? That looks too much like WP:OWN. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * MathSci, once again content not contributors. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The comments were on edits and editing policy. Please allow Cla68 to explain why he justified his first edit by claiming there was a BLP violation. In addition, I see no reason to delete content, only to condense it. Mathsci (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there is some unclear thinking here. We don't have a source that "fully conveys the nature of the demonstrations." There were no newspaper reporters at the so-called "demonstrations", so let's not pretend that we have a reliably sourced description of what happened. We have only allegations made by opponents of the movement, who have a motive to exaggerate and distort. If you think about it, the evidence in these millions of articles supports this interpretation, because it turns out that the only real arrests that are reported in Will's list are arrests of the movement's opponents, people trying to shut down the political activity of the movement. Some of these opponents make claims, like that the organizers were "wearing swastikas," that are so ridiculous that I find it hard to believe that anyone finds them credible. Waalkes (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am quite happy with Jayen466's way of summarising the content concerning Trader Joe's and Kroger in one sentence. It conveys all the previous meaning without unnecessary detail. Mathsci (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I too find it acceptable. I would like to see Jayen use a similar solution for: "An altercation in 1987 between a LaRouche activist and an AIDS worker resulted in battery charges filed against the latter, who said she was outraged by a poster she recalled as saying "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor"; she was found not guilty." What the purported AIDS worker "recalls" is not suitable for an encyclopedia. It is a malicious fantasy by a person trying to come up with a defense against a battery charge. The incident can be summarized without this. This may apply also to other similar cases. Waalkes (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayen466 does seem to be quite good at condensing text without losing any of the meaning or sources. Mathsci (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is here. The woman, an AIDS worker, spat on some of the literature. We could simply say, "who was outraged by the content of some of the material on display; she ...". -- J N  466  21:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hearsay assassination threats
As Collect has said, it is an extremely serious matter to accuse a living person (LaRouche) of plotting or advocating the assassination of public figures. This occurs several times in the article, and the persons making the allegations are pretty shady: Roy Frankhouser ("LaRouche had once said that Weld "does not deserve to live. He should get a bullet between the eyes.") and Dennis King ("Larry Cooper, a Powder Springs, Georgia police captain hired by LaRouche as a security consultant in 1977,[50] said in an NBC broadcast interview that LaRouche had proposed the assassination of Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Joseph Luns, and David Rockefeller.") Perhaps there is a more reliable source for the Larry Cooper allegation, but even if there is, it is still hearsay and shouldn't be in the article. Living persons should not be accused of making assassination threats unless it is on the record and 100% verifiable. Waalkes (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cooper allegation was made on NBC. There's no evidence that Dennis King is not a reliable source. The fact that people from such different backgrounds as Frankhouser and Cooper make similar charges makes the allegation less exceptional. Further, the FBI had expressed concerns that the movement's inflammatory rhetoric regarding Nelson Rockefeller could translate into actual violence.   Will Beback    talk    23:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the NBC broadcast was the subject of considerable attention. LaRouche sued NBC for libel. The suit charged that NBC sought to portray him as "a criminal and murderer", and anti-semite, and "the leader of a hate group, a psychologically unstable cult of followers who have and will perform crimes which plaintiff orders". In his testimony during the trial, he denied making the assassination threat on Carter, and also denied being an anti-semite. The jury found for NBC, and the judge said that calling LaRouche an anti-semite was a fair comment. See "LaROUCHE TO APPEAL NBC LIBEL VERDICT: Presidential Candidate Calls Judge 'Corrupt,' Charges" SHARBUTT, JAY Los Angeles Times Nov 3, 1984.   Will Beback    talk    23:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that Larry Cooper and Roy Frankhouser are "people from such different backgrounds"? They were both spooky types who were referred to LaRouche by the same guy, Mitchell WerBell, and thus in both cases there are reasons to suspect that they were infiltrators/agents provocateurs. Waalkes (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Larry Cooper was a police captain. Frankhouser was arrested over a hundred times. I consider those backgrounds to be quite different. If there are sources for these "reasons to suspect that they were infiltrators/agents provocateurs" then let's add those to the article. If it's just speculation then let's drop it.   Will Beback    talk    07:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cooper was sent to Germany to look after LaRouche's security by Mitch WerBell, according to King. The reason was that Frankhouser told LaRouche that his putative CIA contact "Mr Ed" had warned of an assassination threat related to the killing of Jürgen Ponto, a banker who King says LaRouche much admired. Frankhouser originally introduced WerBell to LaRouche, so these figures are linked, according to reliable sources. That whole complex of interconnections is not well described in my view. -- J N  466  20:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a web of connections. If you think that those connections can be described better, and if this is the best place to do it, then go for it.   Will Beback    talk    21:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Some more suggestions
I am going to be away from the computer for a while, so I have taken a look at the "allegations" section as it presently looks and I have listed some problems that remain. I hope it leads to some sort of progress.


 * "In the mid-1973 the movement formed a Revolutionary Youth Movement to organize street gangs in New York City and other eastern cities." This is written in a misleading way, so it appears that they were forming street gangs. What they were actually doing is going to existing street gangs and trying to educate them about politics and give them something productive to do.
 * "The NCLC reportedly trained some members in terrorist and guerilla warfare." What?! The source doesn't say anything like that.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LaRouche_movement/Incidents&oldid=316091158#1978]
 * "General John K. Singlaub said members of the movement implied in discussions..." Speculation/hearsay.
 * "The movement staged demonstrations that turned violent." Whose fault was that? Does a source say that it was the movement's fault? There are numerous examples, especially under "public altercations," where violence was used against the movement by the movement's opponents, and yet the article is written to suggest that this is somehow the movement's fault, like the old tactic of accusing the rape victim of having dressed provocatively. Waalkes (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "What they were actually doing is..." All I know is what I read in sources. Where do you get your information from? How do you know what they were "actually" doing?
 * We might have missed a citation. Rose (1979) says that "In the summer of 1974 the NCLC held a military training school for selected members at a farm near the villages of Argyle and Salem in upstate New York. Among the subjects covered were explosives and demolition, small arms, small unit tactics, and military history. The explosives and demolition classes were taught by an NCLC technical expert who had been a member of the Puerto Rican terrorist organization MIRA." Blum & Montgomery (1979) say "According to former members, some participants carried guns and attempts were made to acquire a cache of weapons. This wa also a period of guerilla and terrorist training, which began at a hunting lodge in Pennsylvania and was continued at a farm he group acquired near Salem, N.Y., according to former members who led and participated in this training. A report on the guerilla training sessions was filed, according to a law-enforcement official, by a party member who was an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Classes were given by Vietnam veterans and European members who had military or Communist underground experience. According to several who participated, the techniques included garroting, knifing and booby trapping, small-unit maneuvers and the usual toils of boot camp. According to former members, about 50 current members of the U.S. Labor party have undergone aspects of the training. Mr. LaRouche repudiated violence again in 1974 and has persistently denied that the training sessions took place, thought the group has acknowledged giving courses in "unarmed self-defense." " I'll cites to those sources. The NCLC was called "America's brand of terrorists" by Victor Riesel, but we can leave that out unless you'd like to add it.
 * We can quote Singlaub instead of paraphrasing him, if you prefer.
 * Don't read more into the text than what it says. 'Operation Mop-Up' was a series of violent confrontations with leftist groups, and was known to have been instigated by members of the movement, though the movement insists it was all in self-defense. However the passage you're pointing to concerns the movements attacks on certain labor unions, and it doens't say that the movement instigated the violence at those demonstrations.
 *  Will Beback   talk    08:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Re Rose, there seems to be some confusion over the title of that piece. We (along with George/Wilcox, King and dozens of WP mirrors) have "The Swarmy Life and Times of the NCLC". Other sources, incl. the Center for National Security Studies, have "The Stormy Life ..." -- J N  466  22:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen copies the original publication, and it's definitely "Swarmy". Do you have a link or anything for the Center for National Security Studies citation? However I'm not sure what we should do about a faulty citation over which we have no control. I guess we could contact them about their error.    Will Beback    talk    23:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * , also see, . What does "swarmy" mean exactly when it's at home? :) -- J N  466  02:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * user:Swarmy might know what it means. I have no idea. Rose doesn't use the word in the text of the article.   Will Beback    talk    03:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's related, but based on this journal article it appears we should add some material on the harassment of criminologists.   Will Beback    talk    23:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Harassment of politicians

 * We give a list of 26 politicians whose speaking events LaRouche activists have disrupted. We could summarise it ("dozens of speakers, including several presidential candidates"), drop some of the less notable names, and/or put some of the names and sources into an nb footnote. Also note that about a third of the people mentioned aren't actually politicians. Thoughts?
 * Some of the citations to Royko throughout the article still lack titles, URLs (if available) and publication details. -- J N  466  13:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've improved the refs, though I haven't gone looking for URLs.
 * As for the heckling, maybe it should be split into a section of its own. It is one of the movement's claims to fame. I think the list shows a remarkable range of people who hold widely different views on political topics, and that it'd be difficult to summarize it any other way. It's pretty short, but if it were moved into a standalone section then it might be filled out more. There have been additional incidents of note since it was first drafted.   Will Beback    talk    21:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just find it difficult to read. Also, half the names don't mean anything to me (which may partly be because I'm not an American), and I think it's pretty rare for us to provide such a long list of names. Perhaps we should do a list article "List of speakers heckled by the LaRouche movement" :) -- J N  466  21:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We could put it into list format in this article and provide a brief identifier next to each name.   Will Beback    talk    03:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

New Hampshire section
This section has been left in an odd state after this edit. We have a LaRouche spokesman denying responsibility for the cats, but no mention of the cats themselves. Either we mention the cats, and keep the denial, or we lose both the cats and the denial. Which is it to be? The cited sources were The sources look quite solid, so I am leaning towards inclusion, but I am open to argument. Is there any reason to doubt the sources? -- J N  466  20:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mintz, John (14 January 1985). "Critics of LaRouche Group Hassled, Ex-Associates Say", Washington Post.
 * The cats and the interview are a case of cum hoc ergo propter hoc : An encyclopedia is on the safe side without the cats and the denial. Waalkes (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The alleged cat killings are a serious issue. They were raised again by Mike Royko, and LaRouche eventually sued in an unsuccessful attempt to suppress Royko's column from being printed.   Will Beback    talk    23:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We still have the odd state referred to above. So, what say ye? -- J N  466  16:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's put back at least some mention of the original assertion.   Will Beback    talk    19:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Weld material
Hipocrite is mistaken, I did not delete the "Weld material," I moved it into a new section called "Association with Mitch WerBell." Also, I did not "dissemble" in my edit summary -- isn't that what is called a "personal attack"? But one final point -- I still believe that these hearsay allegations about assassination plots should be removed altogether, but I am waiting for consensus to remove them. That would certainly help to shorten the section, which still is weirdly large. Waalkes (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Waalkes, I like the WerBell section. But wasn't it Frankhouser who introduced WerBell to LaRouche? (We currently have it the other way round.) -- J N  466  15:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks JN, I will keep this in mind and research it. Waalkes (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I modified the material a little to put the events in the correct order, per Jayen466's comment.   Will Beback    talk    06:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Will, do you have a source for this edit? Waalkes (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What aspect of it? That Frankhouser introduced LaRouche to WerBell, instead of the other way around?   Will Beback    talk    19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Many of LaRouche's alleged "links" to right-wingers were made at the suggestion of Frankhauser. One of these was Mitchell WerBell, a former contract CIA agent and arms manufacturer with a flair for self-promotion. 
 * AMERICAN EXTREMISTS MILITIAS, SUPREMACISTS, KLANSMEN, COMMUNISTS, & OTHERS JOHN GEORGE & LAIRD WILCOX Prometheus Books Amherst, NY. 1996.
 * That's pretty straightforward.   Will Beback    talk    19:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion
Looking at the ultra-long allegations section, I notice that most of it deals with the NCLC and US Labor Party, in other words, the 1970s. We have articles on both the NCLC and the US Labor Party. If we move that "allegations" material to those articles and replace it here with a one paragraph summary, that would go a long ways toward reducing the "allegations" section to a reasonable size. Waalkes (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems like a simple solution superficially, but it quickly becomes problematic once we look at the sources. Too often, the sources simply refer to "LaRouchites", "LaRouche follower"s, or other general designations that don't indicate precisely which entity the subjects are identifying themselves with that day. Since we're engaged in re-writing this material, we should perhaps review more recent news accounts. In fact, there has been plenty of harassment in the past decade--it didn't end in the 1980s. In many of the recent cases, the labeled entity is the LaRouche Youth Movement/LPAC. Based on WP:WEIGHT, we could justify adding perhaps hundreds of words about altercations and demonstrations involving its members. The activities are basically a continuation of the activities already described here by members of other entities in previous decades, so it's actually more compact to deal with it here. OTOH, the LYM/LPAC article is relatively short, so it has room for growth if we want to add more material on recent demonstrations and altercations.   Will Beback    talk    11:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)