Talk:LaRouche movement/Archive 5

Current lead
The LaRouche movement is an international political and cultural network that promotes Lyndon LaRouche and his ideas. It has included scores of organizations and companies around the world. Their activities include campaigning, private intelligence gathering, and publishing numerous periodicals, pamphlets, books, and online content. It characterizes itself as a Platonist Whig movement which favors re-industrialization and classical culture, and which opposes what it sees as the genocidal conspiracies of Aristotelian oligarchies such as the British Empire. Outsiders characterize it as a fringe movement and it has been criticized from across the political spectrum.

The movement had its origins in radical leftist student politics of the 1960s, but is now generally seen as a right-wing, fascist or unclassifiable group. It is known for its unusual theories and its confrontational behavior. In the 1970s members allegedly engaged in street violence. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of candidates, some with only limited knowledge of LaRouche or the movement, ran as Democrats on the LaRouche platform. None were elected to significant public office.

In 1988, LaRouche and 25 associates were convicted on fraud charges related to fund-raising, prosecutions which the movement alleged were politically motivated and which were followed by a decline in the group's influence which lasted for several years. The movement was rejuvenated in the 2000s by the creation of a youth cadre, the LaRouche Youth Movement, and by their prominent opposition to the Bush/Cheney administration and the Obama health care reform plan.

Discussion

 * No Will -- this article is currently a midden of every single nugatory factoid findable which remotely connects to a single living person.   There is no encyclopedic need for probably 3/4 of the material in this article other than to show how despicable LaRouche is.  But Wikipedia is not here to show how despicable a person is - it is here to give an overview of facts presented by reliable sources.   It is time to clean up the pile here - indeed, long past time.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep referring to LaRouche as "despicable"? I'm not sure that passes BLP. As for the article, it does as you say it should. It gives an overview of facts presented by reliable sources.   Will Beback    talk    13:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If he is not putatively "despicable" then there is even less reason for this midden. This article does far more than just give a summary of facts - it lists factoid by factoid by factoid, and is sufficiently over-detailed as to be unreadable.  Readibility, even of just the first paragraph, is absurd with a calculated Gunning fog index over 17.     I suggest that this alone suggests that the article is woeful and abysmal as far as utility for real people is concerned. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Too many big words, I guess. When we do a Simple English version I'm sure we can fix that.   Will Beback    talk    20:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. Bad writing. Very bad writing.  High school reading is a lot better than you seem to think - and writing such that a person needs up to 20 or more years of education is really not useful for general Internet users.  Mushroom is a pretty techy article - fog index under 14.   Climate change is barely over 10.   Even Adolf Hitler with big German words is under 17.  Average scores across a lot of articles is on the order of 12.  Articles with a fog index of over 17 are, in fact, just really badly written.   I will grant you that Communism is worse, but I doubt one person in fifty makes sense of that introduction .  And with a Fleisch score of 4, I would think you would not make sense of it either.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm splitting this thread because we've gone in a different direction than the OP.
 * We had extensive discussions of the lead a few months ago, and finally arrived at this consensus version. If you'd like to propose a fresh draft to summarize the article, then you're most welcome. It looks like one sentence alone pushes up the score: It characterizes itself as a Platonist Whig movement which favors re-industrialization and classical culture, and which opposes what it sees as the genocidal conspiracies of Aristotelian oligarchies such as the British Empire.  That gets a 24 with this tester. How can we re-write that to maintain the meaning while simplifying the language?   Will Beback    talk    21:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem with the intro is the organization in it's own words section - "It characterizes itself as a Platonist Whig movement which favors re-industrialization and classical culture, and which opposes what it sees as the genocidal conspiracies of Aristotelian oligarchies such as the British Empire," which has an index over 24. I don't know what a "Platonist Whig" is, or what "re-industrialization and classical culture" are, and while "genocidal conspiracies of Aristotelian oligarchies" sound scary, I assume the movement prefers that to "drug-running by the Queen." What would you propose we use to self-describe the movement? Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Try:
 * The LaRouche movement comprises many organizations and companies worldwide which promote the opinions of Lyndon LaRouche. It is viewed by its members as favoring classical culture and opposing conspiracies, and as being a fringe movement by its critics. 
 * The movement began in leftist student politics in the 1960s, but is now variously viewed as right-wing, fascist, or unclassifiable. Larouche and his movement are noted for unusual theories.  In the 1970s, some members allegedly engaged in street violence. In the 1970s and 1980s, the movement supported many Democratic candidates who had little knowledge of the movement.  None were elected.
 * In 1988, after LaRouche and some supporters were convicted on fund-raising fraud charges, which they asserted were politically related, the movement's influence declined. The movement regained some influence with the start of a LaRouche Youth Movement, and by opposition to the Bush-Cheney administration and the Obama health care reform plan.
 * Leaving out jargon which not one person in a hundred can understand, and leaving the details to the body, where they belong. Fog index well under 14.  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the concepts expressed in the "jargon", like "Platonist" and "re-industrialization", are important. We're not here to write an article for children. Most of the technical terms have links where readers can learn more. I've posted the first three paragraphs from the original above. I can't say that Collect's draft is a good replacement.   Will Beback    talk    21:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I demur. We are here to write something a college student could understand - requiring post-graduate degrees to read Wikipedia is inane.  We are not writing Kabbalah.  Leave the arcana to the body - let the lede speak clearly and succinctly as to what ensues.    A fog index of 13 is not exactly talking down to anyone, nor is it dumbing down important stuff.  It is making the encyclopedia do what it is supposed to do - make information readily and simply usable by readers. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No one wants to make a hard-to-read article, but there is a trade-off if improving readability requires deleting significant content. Unfortunately, this draft is rather sloppy with facts too. It would be misleading to say the movement supported many Democratic candidates who had little knowledge of the movement, for example. Or The movement regained some influence with the start of a LaRouche Youth Movement, - I don't know of any source which says the movement has regained influence due to the LYM. While improving the lead is a good goal, let's make sure that it is actually improved and not made worse.  Will Beback   talk    00:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While improving on the lead, (which seems a minor issue) we should focus more on the rest of the text, which has more severe issues, as Collect pointed out. I do not necc. concur that "big words" are a problem: as a reader of LaRouche's writings, I often encounter so-called"big words" like "potential relative population density" which are nevertheless well-defined. Writing (and reading) about LaRouche may require also the use of "big words".  Waalkes (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that point. It's the big words which seem to cause the readability index to go up, but many of them are necessary to properly describe this movement.   Will Beback    talk    00:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

More mess to clean up
The "Harassment of politicians" section is a combination of non-notable trivia and activity that is being mis-categorized as "harassment." Running against a candidate, or campaigning against a candidate, even name calling, is not "harassment." The material on the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations (in the previous section) is being presented in a POV fashion, since many people shared the view that Wadman etc. were dangerous and that there was a coverup. What the SI activists did could be characterized as "whistle-blowing." Calling it "harassment" is taking sides in Wikipedia's voice. Much of what is called "harassment of journalists" is actually just "making allegations" (ironic, isn't it?) Also ironic is that the "public altercations" section is mostly about LaRouche activists being harassed and or assaulted. Waalkes (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Franklin case is when an entity of the LaRouche movement created a special group, lead by James Bevel, to pursue charges of child molestation against people who had been exonerated. It followed one man from job to job and from city to city, spreading allegations of perversion to his neighbors and employers. If someone did that to you I bet you'd feel harassed.   Will Beback    talk    20:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The section title is: "Alleged violence and harassment" then there are numerous sub sections listed by topic. In my opinion the word harassment needs to be removed from the three subsections as it creates POV and undue weight by mentioning the word repeatedly and selectively. A more neutral approach would be to name each subsection by its topic, and leave out the biased adjectives. Currently the section and subsections are as follows:
 * Allegations of violence and harassment
 * 1960s and Operation Mop-Up
 * The USLP vs. the FBI
 * Association with Mitch WerBell
 * Labor unions
 * 1980 New Hampshire presidential primary
 * Leesburg, Virginia
 * Harassment of officials
 * Harassment of politicians
 * Harassment of journalists
 * Public altercations -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason "harassment" is used and repeated it that it is used frequently in sources. Most of the sources are in /Incidents. I count 112 appearances of "harass", "harassing", or "harassment".    Will Beback    talk    20:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Will, i wonder: were the sources compiled in "Incidents" created in a way, that the word "LaRouche" shows up in connection with words like "harass", "attack" or "threaten" by entering those or similar word and "LaRouche" in Proquest or related search programs? Would someone who searches for "harass" + "attack" + "LaRouche" come up with results that match those compiled in "Incidents"? Waalkes (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what point you're making. What's the problem?   Will Beback    talk    22:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Was "harass" one of the search terms used to assemble that list of sources? Waalkes (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Many search terms were used, I'm sure. What's your point? What's the problem?   Will Beback    talk    22:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Arguably, it introduces an element of confirmation bias.
 * I've thought for some time that part of the problem with this section is the way it is titled, given that some of the content is simply a perfectly legitimate overview of notable conflicts and controversies in the movement's history. -- J N  466  00:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Recall that my original impetus for this research was the insistence by a succession of HK socks that we have a (mostly unsourced) section on the humor of the LaRouche movement. When I tried to search for examples of this I found the opposite--refererences that said the movement was known for being humorless, and for harassing critics and perceived opponents. I did not set out looking for it, but once I stumbled upon it I found a substantial amount of information. NPOV#Weight says to devote space in an article proportional to the prominence of the issue or view in secondary sources. The only issue with greater prominence would probably be their views. Those are already covered in great detail in another article and mentioned briefly here per WP:SUMMARY.   Will Beback    talk    17:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Will for copypasting your story in here for a third time now. I think it is great and becomes with every post more and more believable. Cheers, Waalkes (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As a fellow Single-Purpose Account, I hear your pain. AndroidCat (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Headings
I attempted to change the titles as proposed by Keithbob and JN466, and was immediately reverted by Will Beback. Will, you don't own this article, and you have consistently ignored or defied proposals and suggestions of a majority of other editors. Waalkes (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There was clear consensus in the thread above. Revert warring against consensus is disruptive.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 22:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I support Waalkes' changes to the section headings. That makes four editors for, one against. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Make it five. "Harassment" indicates Wikipedia's voice backing the allegations as fact. Absent any convictions for the charge, it is contrary to WP:BLP to claim that any specific living people "harassed" other specific living people.  Collect (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the titles chosen by Waalkes do not help the reader. For proper neutrality, I would suggest "alleged harassment" each time instead of just simply "harassment". Mathsci (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The headings should reflect the contents of the sections. I don't oppose change, but the changes should be improvements. NPOV is not a vote. As for the idea that Wikipedia can't mention alleged criminal activities, such as harassment, unless there is a criminal conviction, that's obviously incorrect. All sorts of activities are potentially criminal. BLP applies to identifiable individuals, not unidentified members of a movement.   Will Beback    talk    00:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For example, how many of the alleged "Mass killings under Communist regimes" have resulted in convictions?   Will Beback    talk    00:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can find mass killings under a LaRouche regime, I would certainly support an article on it. If not, then your analogy is pretty much useless. Collect (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? Were the alleged mass killings ever proven in a court of law? As for this article, which "specific living people" are accused of harassment?   Will Beback    talk    01:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to argue, and no need to personalize this discussion by bringing up other topics that editors here may edit. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We're discussing, not arguing. This issue is very similar to the "mass Killings" issue, so it's directly relevant. Wikipedia does not require a conviction in order to include reports of activities which may violate laws.   Will Beback    talk    02:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Monty Python. 2. Lewis Carroll.  The "analogy" is sufficiently absurd as to find itself in both categories.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect, could you please stop trolling both here and elsewhere. It is a waste of everybody else's time. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NPA please. Your charge is absurd, has been absurd, and shall remain absurd.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The contents of your edits constitute trolling, in case you had missed that. Mathsci (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! I think you mistake something called "substantive discussion" for "trolling."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * By shaping the article in such a way as to make the focus of it a huge list of rumors and unsubstantiated allegations, the article becomes a propaganda vehicle for LaRouche's opponents. Not the opponents of some anonymous members of a movement, but LaRouche's opponents. And LaRouche is still a living person (not that it ought to matter -- propaganda shouldn't belong in any article.) Waalkes (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is about a movement with thousands of members, not about Lyndon LaRouche. I'm not aware of any "propaganda" sources, but if there are any let's address those.    Will Beback    talk    20:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Deliberately propagating unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip is a form of propaganda. One could debate on a case by case basis whether that was what was going on with each individual newspaper story you dredged up. However, those stories were printed long ago, and forgotten. This Wikipedia article, on the other hand, takes a lot of highly dubious material, concentrates it in one location and preserves it online -- that's definitely intentional propaganda. Waalkes (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is all about taking information printed in now-dusty publications and making it more available to readers.   Will Beback    talk    01:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Eh? Not about the person?  See
 * Dennis King writes that LaRouche halted the operation when police arrested several of his followers on assault charges, and after the groups under attack formed joint defense teams.
 * the "COINTELPRO memo", which he says showed "that the FBI was considering supporting an assassination attempt against LaRouche by the Communist Party USA
 * Frankhouser made numerous allegations about LaRouche, including that he said prosecutor William Weld "does not deserve to live. He should get a bullet between the eyes." 
 *  New Hampshire journalist, Jon Prestage, had a tense interview with LaRouche and several of his associates, and was threatened if he used the interview in his story
 * Last I checked, those all specifically deal with a "living person."  Care to rephrase you claim that this article has no connection with a "living person"?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you consider any of those passages to be BLP violations? The article is about a movement, not an individual, though individuals are mentioned in it.   Will Beback    talk    22:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You wrote specifically: This article is about a movement with thousands of members, not about Lyndon LaRouche. Forgive me for showing that to be errant. Collect (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because the article mentions various individuals doesn't mean the article is about them.   Will Beback    talk    01:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLP -- if living people are mentioned in any article, the claims made about them must conform to WP:BLP ( and to material about living persons on other pages).  I am glad you acknolwedge that LarRouch, the person, is, indeed, "mentioned" in this article.  Collect (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No one disputes that.   Will Beback    talk    15:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute and article ownership dispute
For almost a year (at least) now there have been dozens of uninvolved editors coming to this article and pointing out that it is biased and not neutral. I would say that the dispute began in a big way here: Talk:LaRouche movement/Archive 3. Yet because of the intransigence and battlefield tactics of one editor, very little has happened to improve the article. Will's behavior at this article and others conforms very closely to what is described at Ownership of articles, which is a policy. It says there that "An editor who appears to assume ownership of an article should be approached on the article's talk page with a descriptive header informing readers about the topic. Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor. If necessary, ignore attacks made in response to a query. If the behavior continues, the issue may require dispute resolution, but it is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation, etc." So I am doing that. I also added the template for neutrality dispute. The reasons for the dispute have been described in detail on this talk page, over and over, during the past year. Waalkes (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content and not on contributors. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The issues in the old thread linked above were dealt with. If there are fresh issues please describe them.   Will Beback    talk    06:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This thread is not about specific issues -- it's about article ownership. I posted it following the instructions at Ownership of articles (Mathsci, take note.) In fact, every time an issue is raised on this talk page, the same thing happens -- one editor obstructs any improvement until uninvolved editors get exhausted and leave. None of the neutrality issues that have been raised have been resolved. Waalkes (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to engage in mediation that'd be fine.
 * As for the POV tag, just saying there have been complaints in the past isn't helpful. Please present actionable issues which we can address and resolve.   Will Beback    talk    21:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have been a party to all of these discussions, have read all of these complaints, and are well aware where we have made progress and where we haven't. For a start, the Alleged violence and harassment section contains a tag saying "This article may contain excessive, poor or irrelevant examples". It has done so for many months. A majority of editors here on this talk page agree that the tag is justified, with one notable exception: you, who compiled most of this material. It's reminiscent of your current travails at Golden Domes, where editors have been telling you pretty much the same thing: you compile vast quantities of sourced, but undue material, and essentially make the article unreadable. We end up with hundreds of unstructured details. -- J  N  466  21:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jayen466, you seem follow me from topic to topic complaining about whatever I do. As does Cla68 and a few other editors here. Excuse me if I take those complaints from the WR crowd with a grain of salt.
 * The point of Wikipedia is to compile the world's knowledge and make it available to readers. If there is specific material which is unsourced, non-neutral, or otherwise violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines then let's fix it. Vague complaints don't help.   Will Beback    talk    23:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Will, you asked for specifics and "actionable issues." So, Jayen466 provides you with exactly what you requested, and without stopping to take a breath you dismiss it as a "vague complaint" which you will "take with a grain of salt," and you denounce Jayen as part of a conspiracy against you. This sort of behavior is exactly the reason why this article has seen so little improvement over the past year. Waalkes (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not here to talk about behavior. We're here to talk about the article. In what way does it violate WP:NPOV?   Will Beback    talk    08:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh oh, now I'm confused. Weren't you just talking about Jayen's behavior, and announcing that you would continue to ignore what people say about the article? Waalkes (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's focus on the article. Which specific issue or issues warrant the POV tag?   Will Beback    talk    00:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The ones we keep telling you about. Notably, the close to 4,000 words presented under the heading of "alleged violence and harassment" in this present article. -- J N  466  07:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They seem well sourced. Who are these "we" that you speak of? AndroidCat (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not the sourcing, but the weight in this article. See Talk:LaRouche_movement/Archive_3 and subsequent RfC. -- J N  466  08:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The section is shorter now then it was at that time. On what basis do you think it is still violates NPOV?    Will Beback    talk    08:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to know why Jayen466 uses the word "we", Please could he explain? Mathsci (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a nosism. The RfC responses were clearly in favor of trimming the article.  I think we are still working towards fulfilling that mandate. Cla68 (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Summary list of unresolved neutrality issues from past year
1. Instead of using a few well-chosen examples to illustrate the fact that allegations of harassment exist, the article attempts to make the case for LaRouche's political opponents by listing every possible allegation. The bulk listing attempts to create the impression that the allegations, no matter how flimsy, must be at least partially true, despite the fact that there has not been one criminal conviction. See this RfC. 2. The article contains multiple allegations that are attributed to anonymous persons, against the recommendations at WP:BLPGOSSIP. See this discussion. In case the argument is made again, let me point out that the policy is not talking about "allegations without a source citation," it is talking about allegations which appeared in published sources but are attributed to anonymous persons. 3. The article uses inappropriate headings to convey the impression that any kind of conflict between LaRouche and his political opponents constitutes harassment on the part of LaRouche and his supporters. See this edit. These headings attempt to make the case for LaRouche's political opponents using Wikipedia's voice. Waalkes (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not even sure if this article as it stands deserves such an articulate assessment. After months of discussion using tens of thousands of words, it still insults the reader's intelligence by reading like an 8th grade schoolteacher's gushing attempt to convince the students that Adolph Hitler was a very naughty man. We can do better. We do better all the time. What is going wrong? Rumiton (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Take it one step at a time. Recommend a specific change below and we'll discuss it. Cla68 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I would start by asking that my changes to the headings be restored (see "Headings" thread, above.) Waalkes (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, there appears to be consensus for your edit: Jayen, Collect, you, KeithBob, and me for, Will Beback and Mathsci against.  71% in favor.  Anyone dispute these numbers? Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the extreme factionalism evidenced here, having one faction agree with you and be larger is not consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't operated by voting.   Will Beback    talk    23:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not even aware that I had voted. Mathsci (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, then I guess that makes it 84%. I will go ahead an re-implement Waalkes edit since there appears to be clear consensus. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your change. We were not even discussing the section titles and the use of the word "alleged" was a solution that I suggested myself. It was in place for over a week with no objections. You were talking about something completely different (condensing or trimming content). Why are you editing in such a disruptive way, Cla68? The appearance you are giving of OWNING this talk page is quite chilling. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that consensus was fairly clear here, so I'm surprised that you responded by edit warring. No problem, there is a way to see if I was mistaken. Cla68 (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, perhaps you should re-read this short thread from the beginning. Waalkes (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Waalkes, thanks for providing at least a somewhat more specific list. However I think that some of these issues may not be accurate. Let's take issue #2, which cites WP:BLPGOSSIP. BLP applies to identifiable people. If we have a press report which says that "a member of the LaRouche movement did X", that is not an identifiable entry so BLP does not apply. It is common for news reporters to use anonymous or simply unnamed sources, and using such sources so does not violate any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Regarding #3, the headings have been altered to make clear these are "alleged" incidents of harassment. It is incorrect to assert that everyone allegedly harassed by the LaRouche movement has any previous contact with them, or is an opponent of the movement. For example, what evidence do we have that UAW president Leonard Woodcock opposed the LaRouche movement, or did anything to merit the alleged harassment of him? Setting up a false equivalency is bad writing. As for the principal issue, #1, what basis would we use for picking a "few well-chosen examples"? How would that be different from so-called "cherry-picking"?  Will Beback   talk    23:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll on section headings
Do you support these changes to the section headings in this article?

Yes

 * Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rumiton (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC) As a small step in the right direction.
 * Collect (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * per Rumiton. -- J N  466  22:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Waalkes (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suggested this change on Oct 13 2011 -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 22:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Silver seren C 01:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No

 * Yeah, I think I don't support. There are quite a few references to back up those section headings. AndroidCat (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment

 * Apart from Rumiton, this is almost the same WP:TAGTEAM as the one that appeared before in the space of one hour of each other on 9 January after an absence of more than two months away from the article and its talk page. (Waalkes and Keithbob have not commented so far.) Cla68 seems to be involved in some kind of wiki-wide almost military campaign against Will Beback. I would suggest that opinions on this article are sought in a community-wide RfC in these circumstances. The RfC should be devised by someone who hasn't commented here, preferably a neutral administrator. I would suggest Elen of the Roads.  Mathsci (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your accusation of "tagteam" is both unwarranted and absurd. Other than that, you are welcome to your opinions on the issues.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the only way I can explain several users descending on a page after 9 weeks absence. How would you explain that? Mathsci (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some editors have this page watchlisted? As I now have well over 2,200 pages watchlisted, would you grant the extreme likelihood that I have a page where I have previously editted, watchlisted?  Cheers.  (If you wish, I can email you my list of watchlisted pages - but I suspect you would find it both exceeding wide ranging, and exceeding boring to go through).  (reduced to over 2,200 as I had removed a bunch of deleted pages etc. in the past)  Collect (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ^ What he said. Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In addition, discussion means talking in careful terms, referring to sources, compromise, etc.. It does not mean an artificial kind of yes/no polarisation. That is more WP:BATTLEFIELD than wikipedia. Compromise happens only through editors discussing things in a calm way without forcing matters. Mathsci (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree that edit warring is more BATTLEGROUND than straw polls? Cla68 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cla68, you've repeatedly called single reverts "edit warring". Is that your definition?   Will Beback    talk    22:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

With four ayes and no announced nays for the discussion about the edit, I consider this to be a "consensus" at this point. Cheers, but let's move on to the next issue before we bore everyone else to tears. Collect (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is not how WP:BRD works. Mathsci (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be that Wikipedia isn't operated by voting, but in a case like this, I think it will be better to go with the majority rather than than let one editor completely control the article by simply opposing every proposal to improve it. Waalkes (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CONSENSUS which is what I am relying on - it is quite detailed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus means that "decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms."
 * WP:Polls are evil.   Will Beback    talk    23:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Lenght of allegations cataloge
The consensus from the RfC was to reduce the catalog of allegations. For those who argue that anything that has appeared in a newspaper should be in Wikipedia, I would say first of all, that's ridiculous, and secondly, newspapers are often irresponsible and wrong (see WP:OTTO.) Also, WP:BLPGOSSIP applies here. In an article called "LaRouche movement," everything alleged about the movement reflects upon LaRouche the individual living person. I don't think editors should be hunting for loopholes in an important policy when the policy seems to interfere with an agenda. Waalkes (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The material has already been reduced since the RFC. BLP applies to identifiable individuals, not nations, companies, or movements. As for the essay, WP:OTTO, there are plenty of essays on Wikipedia. If any particular source in this article is suspected of being unreliable then let's discuss it. But asserting that newspapers are generally unreliable is not a viable statement on Wikipedia.   Will Beback    talk    01:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Waalkes, please suggest something you think should be removed and we will discuss it. I believe we have a ways to go to fulfill the mandate established by the RfC for removals of allegations. Cla68 (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For a start, I propose the Mike Royko material. He is not a regular journalist, he writes opinion pieces. I see there is something called WP:RSOPINION which cautions about this. It is a prime candidate for reduction. Waalkes (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I always enjoyed reading Royko's columns when he was alive. His opinions, however, on LaRouche appear to be in that grey area that should be avoided for BLP reasons and fall into the mandate given by the RfC.  So, I support removal of the Royko material. Cla68 (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we could take this to WP:RSN. Oh wait, we already have. We had a discussion here on this exact same issue, Talk:LaRouche movement/Archive 2, followed by an RSN thread which confirmed that Royko is a highly reliable source. Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47. Going over the same issues again and again is tendentious.   Will Beback    talk    08:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: The RSN discussion was from 2009. Meanwhile, standards regarding using opinions about living people have been very substantially strengthened. IMO, Royko was an opinion columnist, and his opinions are citable as opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been following the evolution of WP:BLPs pretty closely, and that seems about right to me. I also have a problem with the fact that Royko's writing seems to be at least as much about Royko as it is about LaRouche. To that extent it may be primary material. If so, we probably need a secondary source to describe the altercations that took, or did not take, place. Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Posted at WP:RS/N Collect (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The decision at RSN was that Royko was not an opinion columnist. 18:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh? Really? Not from where I read it.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * RS: News published by commercial newspapers. (Thanks Will). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a reliable source, and it doesn't matter which page it was printed on. [..] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the time frame, Royko writing under a column byline makes it more likely that he is a reliable source, not less. --NellieBly (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with that last remark. While not all columnists were fundamentally reporters, the reporter/columnists were the cream of the crop of reporters. - Jmabel | Talk 02:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems to have been a clear consensus on the source.   Will Beback    talk    19:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And WP:RS and WP:BLP are different now than then, Will. One does not get to post opinions from more than two years ago in a vaccuum, pretending that they all now hold the identical opinions now.  Cheers - but this sort of non-utile, non-discussion about "opinion columnists" is not helping your case one whit.  Collect (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Will Beback. Could Collect please explain what he means by "non-utile"? Mathsci (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to re-hash whether the Mike Royko stuff is reliable in itself. The issue here is which allegations to keep and which to remove in order to make the section appropriate in size. My opinion is that the Royko material is more dubious than some others, so I propose it to be removed. Waalkes (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Collect: What exact changes to WP:RS and WP:BLP are you referring to?    Will Beback    talk    19:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Inter alia, the tightening of use of "contentious opinions" about people in any BLP unless strongly sourced, for one. How many changes do you need pointed out?  There have been quite a few, as you should be aware.   Collect (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the phrase "contentious opinions" in WP:BLP. Can you point to the changes you're referring to?   Will Beback    talk    19:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion(BLP)
 * 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.(BLP)
 * If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.(BLP)


 * Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.(RS)
 *  Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
 * Royko falls squarely into the "editorial opinion" category, and into the "contentious" category for starters. That was his job.  Collect (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * BLP is not applicable to Royko's comments about cat killing because they do not name specific living persons, only the organization. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No identifiable living persons are implicated in anything in our article sourced to Mr. Royko, irregardless of the fact that even if they were, it would still be acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Royko should not be reduced; in fact, there should be one sentence added from him. At the moment, the article says LaRouchers threatened to kill a cat. It does not say that they did kill some cats. Later in the article, it refers to cat killing but with no explanatory text. Binksternet (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus at RSN is that the material is fine. I think that should end this discussion except for the suggestion that Binksternet is making. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that LaRouchers either killed a cat or threatened to kill a cat. There is no source, including Royko, that says they did. Royko merely insinuates that a threat came from LaRouchers, without having evidence to make an actual claim. This is a good example of the sort of thing that should be a priority for removal. There are cases where it may be stated as a fact, for example, that LaRoucher's heckled a politician. That is more acceptable than insinuations. Let me remind you that the topic of discussion is how best to reduce the size of the "allegations" section. Waalkes (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a court of law. All the article is saying is that Royko reported LaRouchers were killing cats, which is a true statement. Cutting out a sentence that is required for the paragraph to make sense is not the way forward. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

@Cla68: I don't think it is necessary to get into a "reliable sources" debate over Royko. It wasn't my idea to do it. My proposal, in more general form, is this. In order to reduce the size of the section, we should prioritize the allegations. Those that come from clearly identified persons who allegedly have first-hand knowledege that they base their accusation on should be kept, while those like Royko who are just reporting their suspicions should be removed. Waalkes (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus here to remove Royko's allegations, that's fine, but it shouldn't be because Rokyo is unreliable. The noticeboard was clear that he is reliable. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He is a "reliable source" but his opinions remain opinions and are not facts just because he was an opinion columnist. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Royko was a highly respected journalist. That was the unanimous view at the last RSN and the consensus of the current RSN (so far). You could only find a single citation which said he was an opinion columnist, as opposed to numerous citation that refer to him as a journalist or reporter. Please don't twist the evidence to meet your own views.   Will Beback    talk    01:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, many journalists have been opinion columnists. There is no contradiction between the terms at all. BTW, how many cites would you like for him being an "opinion columnist"?  I could give a slew if you wish -- just ask and they shall be given unto you.  Try: If you've ever written an opinion column, you know how difficult it can be to find the perfect ending. The column's strength and memorability rests almost solely on that closing line. Even the greats know the pressure. Here's what Mike Royko said on the subject during a 1993 interview: "I sweat out the closer more than I do the lead. I don't worry about the lead. Just get it started somehow, get people into it, and tell the story.", couple thoudsand hits for Royko and "opinion column".    is enlightening in noting Royko's style,    shows him not to be a straight reporter of fact,   mentions his "fictional characters" and "satire."   For the best proof - see "For the Love of Mike: More of the Best of Mike Royko"  By Mike Royko.  Good journalist specializing in opinion and satire.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to be your personal point of view about some books. They seem to be totally unrelated to the sources under discussion. Mathsci (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The noticeboard consensus, in two threads years apart, is that Royko is a reliable source for this material.   Will Beback    talk    03:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Lenght of allegations catalog II
The above mess seems to be the standard tactic to prevent the section from being shortened. I say, "Let's shorten it per the RfC." Someone says, "Where do we start?" So, I pick an example of something that I think would be a good place to start, and then a huge debate starts about the particular example and when the smoke clears nothing has changed. I think we need to establish some general criteria for what stays and what goes. And the idea that removing one allegation is the end of the world has got to go. This section has a gazillion redundant examples of allegations. For example, every time someone receives an anonymous phone call and says "Let's blame it on LaRouche," it isn't necessary to report that individual case. It would be just fine to say "many people say they have received anonymous phone calls that they think came from LaRouche," and let it go at that. Waalkes (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content not contributors. Also could you please use a spell-checker? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been no response to my suggestion, I am implementing it. If any editor has the impulse to immediately go to revert war, please take a moment on this discussion first and submit a better proposal than mine for meaningful reduction of the section as mandated by the RfC. Waalkes (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The response to your suggestion was "what are you proposing." Now that it's clear what you are proposing is shortening the section to a list of names, I have a problem. It appears that you have tried multiple angles to remove the Royko material. What is your specific problem with that material? Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read my post at the beginning of this section. The RfC mandates a significant reduction of the size of this section. Your edit restores the section to its original size, minus a sentence or two. I should add that it also now reports as fact in Wikipedia's voice one of Royko's questionable allegations. We are not going to accomplish a significant reduction by arguing about each individual tidbit. Instead, we should recognize that there is a great deal of redundancy and unnecessary detail, which should be consolidated and summarized. Also please remember, we are discussing speculation by LaRouche's critics about anonymous messages. In my opinion, going on an on with details about this sort of speculation is undue weight. Waalkes (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the material deleted by Waalkes did not involve anonymous phone calls.   Will Beback    talk    20:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see that neither of the editors who opposed my edits has offered an alternative plan for shortening the section. Waalkes (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I recall, in previous discussion shortening has been taken to mean writing more briefly and concisely. It does not mean removing topics or sourced content. Again Waalkes, please comment on content, not on contributors. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, your comment makes no sense, please read the RfC on this topic. Consensus was to shorten, either by removing content or by writing more briefly. Waalkes (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I chose to write the section more briefly. You expanded it. Are you sure that your goal is to shrink the section, or is it really to remove information that you don't want in the article? Hipocrite (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, let's have a look. It appears that you have made two edits to the section under discussion, and the net effect of those edits has been to significantly expand the section. Here's a link to the RfC: Talk:LaRouche_movement/Archive_3. Why don't you familiarize yourself with it, and then maybe we can put our heads together and figure out why it seems to be so difficult to accomplish what the Rfc calls for. Waalkes (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the reason it's so difficult is because you are choosing to interpret the RFC as "I won, you lost, now I get everything I want," as opposed to a mandate to shrink the section. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that was certainly helpful. Would you care to offer any suggestions as to how the section might be shrunk? Waalkes (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. We can tighten the wording without removing information as I did in the diff you linked. Hipocrite (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Why don't you make some specific proposals. Maybe we can finally make some progress here.Waalkes (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm actually serious -- if you could make some specific proposals to reduce the section at LaRouche Movement, I think that would be very constructive. Waalkes (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Waalkes now believes the material is too short, since he has now taken to adding information. Not only that, but he's citing Dennis King, which presumably means he believes that book is a reliable source.   Will Beback    talk    07:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Mess
Would others please continue removal of rumour, innuendo, BLP violations etc.? This article remains a mess of such "stuff" which ought to be cleaned up in the hope of getting a decent article from under all the fat and flab currently oresent. Collect (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you killed your opposition, so now you can whitewash the article! Good on you. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Absurd -- the gist is here -- the silly excess is removed, including BLP violations and unsourced "allegations." No whitewash of any despicable group - just a proper NPOV article.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This is a discussion. The massive revert was improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion, but it's impossible to discuss a total whitewash like the one you engaged in (have you had outside discussions with anyone regarding this article?). As before, pick a specific point and we can discuss it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Try reading the material removed -- including the anonymous allegations etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Anonymous allegations sourced in reliable publications are not prohibited, especially if they are against non-identifiable movements. Hipocrite (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Reminder to all, let's focus on the current content and issues at hand and not about editors or past events. Peace.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Vote fraud
I'll pick a place to start. Let's go with the paragraph in US Political Activites

In 1986, LaRouche movement members Janice Hart and Mark J. Fairchild won the Democratic Primary elections for the offices of Illinois Secretary of State and Illinois Lieutenant Governor respectively. Up until the day following the election, major media outlets were reporting that George Sangmeister, Fairchild's primary opponent, was running unopposed. 21 years later Fairchild asked, “how is it possible that the major media, with all of their access to information, could possibly be mistaken in that way?”[5] Democratic gubernatorial candidate Adlai Stevenson III was favored to win this election, having lost the previous election by a narrow margin amid allegations of vote fraud. However, he refused to run on the same slate with Hart and Fairchild. Instead, Stevenson formed the Solidarity Party and ran with Jane Spirgel as the Secretary of State nominee. Hart and Spirgel's opponent, Republican incumbent Jim Edgar, won the election by the largest margin in any state-wide election in Illinois history, with 1.574 million votes.[6]

What should be changed, and why? Hipocrite (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Examine the proposed edit:
 * In 1986, LaRouche movement members Janice Hart and Mark J. Fairchild won the Democratic Primary elections for the offices of Illinois Secretary of State and Illinois Lieutenant Governor respectively. Up until the day following the election, major media outlets were reporting that George Sangmeister, Fairchild's primary opponent, was running unopposed. 21 years later Fairchild asked, “how is it possible that the major media, with all of their access to information, could possibly be mistaken in that way?”[5] Democratic gubernatorial candidate Adlai Stevenson III was favored to win this election, having lost the previous election by a narrow margin. He refused to run on the same slate with Hart and Fairchild. Stevenson formed the Solidarity Party and ran with Jane Spirgel as the Secretary of State nominee. Hart and Spirgel's opponent, Republican incumbent Jim Edgar, won the election by the largest margin in any state-wide election in Illinois history, with 1.574 million votes.[6]

With
 * In 1986, LaRouche movement members Janice Hart and Mark J. Fairchild won the Democratic Primary elections for the offices of Illinois Secretary of State and Illinois Lieutenant Governor respectively. Up until the day following the election, major media outlets were reporting that George Sangmeister, Fairchild's primary opponent, was running unopposed. 21 years later Fairchild asked, “how is it possible that the major media, with all of their access to information, could possibly be mistaken in that way?”[5] Democratic gubernatorial candidate Adlai Stevenson III was favored to win this election, having lost the previous election by a narrow margin amid allegations of vote fraud. However, he refused to run on the same slate with Hart and Fairchild. Instead, Stevenson formed the Solidarity Party and ran with Jane Spirgel as the Secretary of State nominee. Hart and Spirgel's opponent, Republican incumbent Jim Edgar, won the election by the largest margin in any state-wide election in Illinois history, with 1.574 million votes.[6]

Note no actual salient information is removed. What is removed is "amid allegations of vote fraud." which has nothing to do with the Larouche movement at all, and however and Instead, and that is that! So why are you saying removing "however" and "instead" and "amid allegations of vote fraud" (which has nought to do wuit this article) is a "whitewash"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand your BLP concerns here. Who is the defamed living person? How are they defamed? Or, was this edit not about anonymous accusations about living persons? How can someone tell? Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This edit was primarily a simple one - I did not remove material as violating BLP here because there was nothing I saw in this piece as violating BLP. I did find the "vote fraud" bit which had nothing to do with LaRouche as being irrelevant, and the "however" and "instead" bits are simple style.  Now what here did I did that was a "whitewash"?  Try to find someplace where you actually dispute the edut - not a place where your dispute appears not to exist.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's so hard to tell why you are making your edits when you make a 32k removal in one non-discussed swath. In the edit where you removed the voter fraud bit, you said "cleanup lede, rm material of minor value covered in the body, rm some colorful terms, rm unsourced claims, rm BLP violations, etc., source does not support "Hitler poster" claim, etc.". How am I to know that tis removal was actually none of those things? Should we talk about the Hitler poster next? Hipocrite (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually contiguous edits - but not in one edit, lest anyone here be misapprised. Collect (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the next horrendous edit you will discuss? Collect (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Over a year now there has been discussion of reducing the rumors and allegations section, so that reverting edits on the grounds of their "not being discussed" is ridiculous. Waalkes (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A vast removal of 32K of material needs CURRENT discussion, not unilateral action. LHM 01:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I support removal of the material in question as proposed by Collect and Waalkes. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, there was a clear consensus in the RfC to drastically cull the article of this kind of innuendo, so those who have been edit warring to restore it are, arguably, edit warring against consensus. Cla68 (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Explanation
I am reverting this edit by Hipocrite on the grounds that the material is, in case of the first paragraph, POV editorializing that is redundant and inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and in the case of the second paragraph, superfluous tabloid trivia. And Hipocrite's claim that the edits were "unexplained" is ridiculous. Looking at this talk page, there is ample explanation for why this junk doesn't belong in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.14.125 (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Where is the POV problem, exactly? It appears that the content is attributed to the speaker when relevent, and sourced all over. You say "tabloid trivia," but I don't see tabloid sources. Please use your account. Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite, the reasons for shortening that section have been provided so many times by so many different editors that I am thinking you may have a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Waalkes (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't ask why, a year ago, in an unnoticed RFC populated mostly by people canvassed offwiki a consensus was reached to shrink the article - a consensus which no longer exists - I asked what the POV problem was. What is it, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You assert CANVASS without basis, and claim in esse that most of those who participated were CANVASSed. And you assert that you somehow "know" that the consensus does not exist any longer when the one who opposes the consensus is ... you, and you have made no RfC to change the consensus. .   GZN. Collect (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It dosen't exist any more because myself and Tom Harrison dispute it. If you contend there is still consensus to shrink, have another RFC - the last one is a year old. Hipocrite (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Count me as another editor who still regards the past RfC as valid. The only way to invalidate that RfC would be to get a majority of those who voted in it to repudate their votes.  Right here, right now, we have the IP, Waalkes, Collect, and me, making a consensus to contiue with the RfC's mandate to shrink this article.  According to Hipocrite, only two editors have "dispute" the RfC.  Let's get busy and get this article pared. Cla68 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, JN466's comment in the thread above appears to indicate that he too still thinks the article needs to be pared down. So, that makes five. Cla68 (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, what should be next to go? Someone please make a suggestion. Cla68 (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 v 2 is a consensus? I note before you alledged that you had Jimbo and Peter Cohen on your side, so excuse me for not agreeing. Let's have another RFC, with a more specific focus on what need to go. You make a proposal to change the article, and we'll have an RFC on it, we'll agree not to get in the way or solicit off-wiki, and we'll be done. Deal? Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 v 2 is consensus. Again, unless the voters of the original RfC repudiate their votes, it still stands.  Let's get busy reducing the coatracking material from this article. Cla68 (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not - especially when 3 of the "5" are SPA's/IP addresses. Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

But, if you want to remove some cruft, start with "It calls itself a Platonist Whig movement, favoring re-industrialization and classical culture, and opposes what it views as genocidal conspiracies of Aristotelian oligarchies such as the British Empire," which is just in-universe word salad. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should replace that with something more appropriate. That was Will Beback's parody of the movement. Waalkes (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. I'm glad we agree. Since I don't know or care to learn about your movement, perhaps you could, in standard written English (IE, no "Platonist," "Whig," "Aristotelian," and "oligarchies,") describe what it actually professes to believe, and where said beliefs can be sourced. I would look to other political movements with non-contenious for inspiration - Democratic Party (United States), Tea Party movement, for example, seem to have reasonably stable self-descriptions. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll get to work on it. Meanwhile, please cease your efforts to undercut me by insinuating that I have a conflict of interest. That was Will Beback's tactic against TimidGuy, and we know how well that worked out for him. Waalkes (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you threatening me? Why would you do that, when we just found a point of agreement? Hipocrite (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Two editors are insufficient to assert yhat a CONSENSUS has been "overturned" and to insist that two can do that is fatuous and inane, Add random acronym here. Collect (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus to do anything other than tighten the decrepit prose. If there is, you and yours would be willing to submit to a new RFC, which it's apparent you're not. If all we're RFCing about is "should this be shorter," then all we're gonna get is people reading the hackneyed prose and puking on it. We need to work together to determine how to first fix the prose, created by old edit warring, and then move forward. We're doing that on the first sentence now. You'll need to stop taking a hatchet to the rest of the article while that goes on. Hipocrite (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cher random-acronym-user.  There was, and is, a clear consensus to reduce the excess verbiage in this godawful mess of an article.  That you stand athwart the tide like Canute does not alter the facts.  And I do not think that removing "amid allegations of votre fraud" is "taking a hatchet" to anything at all.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to further converse with you unless you can let old disputes over other things drop. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeppers -- hoilding your breath will certainly change my positions on Wikipedia policies. Collect (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Intro
I'm not happy with this attempt to better write the movement from it's own views - it's the same in-universe word salad that the earlier "Platonist Whig," nonsense was, except now it's written as the amateur psycho-pop that the movement dishes out to college idealists.

The two examples I gave expressed the views of their organizations in question clearly - "The party's socially liberal and progressive platform is largely considered center-left in the U.S. political spectrum," and "American populist political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian." Is there a reason why we can't write this in the same way, exactly? What is the reason that we're saying advertising copy like "defend the rights of all humanity to progress," and pablum like "classical humanist thought in both science and the arts, and campaigns for better living conditions based on an emphasis on what it calls the "physical economy": increasing the productive power of the human individual." I mean, come on. Hipocrite (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:NPOV please/ Collect (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of NPOV. Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous Los Angeles IP's edit was much better. Could someone explain the classical arts and sciences thing so that it could be written for readers to grasp - or we could just leave it out, sticking with the infrastructure development and financial speculation stuff. Hipocrite (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said before, the classical arts and sciences thing is something we need to cover. This is quite a useful little source for those unfamiliar with the movement. For further sources see Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, which is supposed to be a daughter article to this one. In essence, however, we have a POV fork, where this article is almost all about allegations of harassment, combined with lists of members, publications and organisations, and the Views article (while far from perfect) brings a little more colour to what the movement is actually about. I would almost be in favour of merging the two articles.  J N  466  19:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A new approach to the problematic passage
"The LaRouche movement members have had a reputation for engaging in violence, harassment, and heckling since the 1970s.[27][28][29][30] While LaRouche repeatedly repudiated violence, followers were reported in the 1970s and 1980s to have been charged with possession of weapons and explosives along with a number of violent crimes, including kidnapping and assault.[31] However there were few, if any, convictions on these charges.[32]"

That this passage is problematic has been pointed out up above. The approach taken to show why it is problematic has not really, for me anyway, clarified the issue. The question of "anonymous allegations" is too complex and broad to have a simple solution.

But we do a disservice to our readers with such bad writing and poor reporting. Followers were reported to have been charged with possession of weapons and explosives? What does that mean? Reported by whom? If this was reported in a reliable source, we need not say just that it was reported, we can say that it happened. (A good reliable source would give some details: who was charged? with what specific crime?  what was their specific relationship to the LaRouche movement?)

Additionally, the passive voice is something that I generally frown upon for allowing plausible-sounding sentences that cover up a lack of actual information. Members have had a reputation for engaging in violence? A reputation where? Who said it? Were they political opponents, reputable newspaper journalists, judges in a court, etc. We just don't know.

I don't have access to the sources linked, so I can't directly help correct these issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It means that we can't take what Milton R. Copulos Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation wrote as fact - you can read that source at, the quote being "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 kid- napping. There have, however, been few convictions." We could change the section in question to:


 * "LaRouche movement members have engaged in violence, harassment, and heckling since the 1970s.[27][28][29][30] While LaRouche repeatedly repudiated violence, followers were charged with possession of weapons and explosives along with a number of violent crimes, including kidnapping and assault in the 1970s and 1980s.[31] However there were few, if any, convictions on these charges."


 * What do you think about that? Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's much better, but still not quite where I'd like us to be. Because these are really serious allegations about living people, I'd prefer to have an exact quote from a very reliable source, to ensure that we aren't engaging in any inappropriate synthesis.
 * Other sources for violence, Paul L. Montgomery, "How a Radical-Left Group Moved Toward Savagery," New York Times, 1/20/74, p. 1. (courtesy copy ). Harassment and heckling are reasonably trivial to source from the recent obamahitler stuff. Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The "few 'if any convictions" is a bit of a red flag for allegations without solid sourcing. One of the biggest problems for Wikipedia has been, and remains, the use of articles to promote the "truth" with nice disregard for NPOV and BLP concerns. As I have noted, Larouche may be Satan incarnate, but that does not mean he is no longer a "living person." And his articles are vastly longer than are warranted IMHO, using the Joseph Widney edits I made as a guide. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. It's a red flag for nothing but the fact that they were charged but not convicted - unless you think Heritage lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? The source was provided. If you want to shrink the article, provide a concrete proposal to do so. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But, you are right in that there is no source for the "if any" part, and so I've removed it, since we have few convictions reliably sourced. The "if any" language was added here, by banned Leatherstocking, aka Herschelkrustofsky. Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What would be good are some references later than the mid-eighties or even some from this century. All you have at the moment is some evidence of violence a quarter a century or more ago.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the violence is concentrated in the 70s and 80s. I'm no expert on the movement, however. I think that's made clear in the article, but the lede could make it clear regarding the progression from violence to harassment to heckling. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source that says any of these allegations produced one single conviction in court. It is the height of irresponsibility to insist that they be included because we don't know whether there was a conviction. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. See WP:GOSSIP. Waalkes (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. Institutional Analysis #28, "The Larouche Network," Michael Copulus, July 19, 1984. "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 kid- napping. There have, however, been few convictions." Hipocrite (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat what Jimbo said above: A good reliable source would give some details: who was charged? with what specific crime? what was their specific relationship to the LaRouche movement? Waalkes (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's what a primary source would do, yes. This is even better - a secondary source! Can I ask you - do you have a conflict of interest with respect to this page or series of pages? Hipocrite (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Why, do you? And I believe that you are confused about primary and secondary sources. Waalkes (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I do not. Every single one of your edits is related to LaRouche. It is hard to believe that you are not substantially conflicted with respect to the movement. Are you certain that you're not a devotee? Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * With Jimbo's and Peter Cohen's inputs, along with mine, Waalkes, and Collect, we again have a clear consensus for removal of the material. Thus, I will be restoring Collect's edit which had been revert warred. Cla68 (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Jimbo agreed with the whole removal? So did Peter Cohen? Bull. Hipocrite (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cla68 is badly misrepresenting me. I did not favor removal of the passage that this section of the talk page is about, I favored a rewrite to be more specific.  I have no opinion about restoring Collects entire edit, since I've not studied every part of it.  I think that the passage that this section of the talk page is about - allegations of violence - needs to be improved and then restored.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And your position on the found sources and the changes to date? Your objection to that one paragraph is still being used to remove the 32kb of text. Hipocrite (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like Jimbo said "I think that the passage that this section of the talk page is about - allegations of violence - needs to be improved and then restored." It seems like that might be the correct order in which to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.80.38 (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the time this week to look as I'm writing a paper, but there should be plenty of academics who have commented clearly on this - I know the Duggan case has received coverage at academic conference on far right hate. I'll take a peek at the conference digests and see if I can find the papers - if not I'll see if I can get a copy of the paper from the authors (though I'd have to look at how wikipedia handles conference papers for citation purposes!) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with this article is the same as it ever was: it is a huge coatrack. Half of it is devoted to tedious micro-enumeration of controversies and allegations (including a ridiculous in-text list of 26 names), while other aspects of potential interest to the reader – such as the Reagan administration's defense of their contacts with the LaRouche movement in the 1980s, or even elementary aspects like the paramount role of classical music and literature in the movement, are completely absent. This article is a poorly written piece of POV cruft.  J N  466  21:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So add it. Obviously, there are sources - supply them. Hipocrite (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The disputed section should be re-evaluated in light of WP:BLPCRIME. Much of what is there is unsuitable per this policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.148.252 (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Vote fraud
Should the article LaRouche movement contain the comment in the "Political activities" section:
 * (Adlai Stevenson) lost the previous election by a narrow margin amid allegations of vote fraud 18:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Omit. I guess the point the original writers were trying to make was that while the previous election had been close, the LaRouche members' win cost the Democrats dearly, as they lost the next election by a huge margin, but it's an obscure tangent here. -- J N  466  19:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Omit It's a parenthetical reference that doesn't seem worth including. As per other comments. FronkTheFrank (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Omit - not relevant to this article. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Omit and assert consensus thereon at this point (3 weeks without any disagreement). Collect (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Omit Cla68 (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments
No cite of any sort for any connection of "vote fraud" against Adlai Stevenson is given to the LaRouche movement. I consider this a parenthetical observation at best, and an improper unsourced implication of "vote fraud" at worst. Collect (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a fact about the previous election - I don't see how it implicates the LaRouche movement in any vote fraud. It's easy to source that the 1982 Chicago election had substantial allegations of vote fraud - it went to the state supreme court. Hipocrite (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have clarified who alleged who participated in said fraud. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As the person who is "alleged" to be involved is in no way whatsoever associated wit this article, and the "allegations" fall under a WP:BLP requirement for strong sourcing, the "cure" is worse than simply removing the spurious "allegations." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain how this is relevant to an article on the LaRouche movement? 71.95.204.10 (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no explanation. Where is the evidence Stevenson gave a hoot about Lyndon L? --Javaweb (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

PublicEye.org
This is used as a reference in the article. It appears to be a fairly partisan source, as well as self-published. I thought that it had been decided some time ago that books published by Chip Berlet were ok as sources, because they had been fact-checked by independent publishers, but that Berlet's self-published web-based opinions were not reliable. Am I wrong? Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What about "Liberation News Service,""Crawdaddy," "New York Committee to Stop Terrorist Attacks," "the Daily World," "the Militant," "Workers Power," "the Fifth Estate," "the Boston Phoenix," and "the Drummer"? Are those considered good sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.81.198 (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"no reference here to persons, only parties and factions"
I find it ironic that BLPCRIME is invoked to remove references to crimes committed by "followers," "two NCLC organizers," and "two NCLC organizers," but when we refer to identifiable living person "Mark Rudd's faction," at Columbia "assaulting" people, all of a sudden "no reference here to persons, only parties and factions," BLPCRIME no longer applies. Perhaps a double standard? Hipocrite (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was clearly improper to implicitly link Rudd to the violence. The book does, appear, to state that Rudd did head one "faction" so the claims had to be delinked per WP:BLP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed Mark Rudd's name. I had thought that the criteria for BLPCRIME was saying that a person was arrested, but after taking a second look I see that I was mistaken. It just says "accused of a crime." It also says nothing about persons being "identifiable," just living.
 * I started a discussion of BLPCRIME and this article at the BLP noticeboard. Since we still need to reduce the section per the earlier Request for Comment, taking out the allegations of crime where there were no convictions seems to me to be a good place to be reducing. Waalkes (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Cla68 (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

are some of the LaRouche supporters actually Democrats?
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, speaking in a Manhattan neighborhood where supporters of Lyndon H. LaRouche have campaigned for local offices, chastised the Democratic Party yesterday for accepting Mr. LaRouche's followers as legitimate participants in party affairs.

Local Democratic leaders here spent the day trying to explain how a supporter of Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., the extremist politician, was elected Tuesday as chairman of the Harris County Democratic Party

But Ms. Rogers, a follower of the controversial activist Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., says she is in the race “to restore the principles of Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy to the Democratic Party.” 

I know some do not "like" it, but the fact is that LaRouche has members who have been nominees and officeholders in the Democratic Party, and who politically identify themselves as Democrats. Wikipedia has reliable sources for such a claim, unless the New York Times is no longer reliable . Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sources do support that LaRouche followers do usually participate as Democratic Party candidates, at least, recently. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Kesha Rogers won the Democratic Congressional Primary in Houston, Texas this year for the the second time in a row. So the question is, who decides who can be a Democrat? Party bureaucrats, or the rank and file?