Talk:Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement

Dubious content moved from main article
The LaRouche youth state that they are fighting for an "intellectual Renaissance," and in addition to conventional political activity such as distributing literature in the streets, they spend time in what are called Monge brigades, described as leaderless discussion groups where the members work to master important discoveries in classical science and art. Among the topics frequently pursued are the ideas of Plato, Johannes Kepler, Friedrich Schiller, and Carl Friedrich Gauss. There are also performance workshops on the dramas of William Shakespeare and choral compositions of J.S. Bach and other classical composers, as well as African-American Spirituals. Regular "cadre schools" are held in the United States and Europe, where Lyndon LaRouche and other senior members of LaRouche organizations give lectures and take questions from LYM youth.

From 2006 to 2007 members of the "Basement Team" produced an extensive set of computer animations described as a pedagogical tour through Johannes Kepler's New Astronomy and "Harmony of the World", plus another set on the discovery of the orbit of Ceres entitled "The Mind of Gauss." After an anonymous website appeared which discussed the same works by Kepler, team members asserted that it was a plagiarized and inferior copy of their own work. In August of 2008, the team released an hour-long video entitled "The Harvard Yard," in which they elaborate their claim of plagiarism and charge that the "Kepler's Discovery" site was the work of Harvard University.

Beginning in early 2008, the Basement Team began to produce videos, including an 80-minute documentary on the clash between LaRouche's conception of the American System of economics and the Free Trade system. It is entitled "Firewall– in Defense of the Nation State." This was followed by the release on July 3 of a feature-length sequel entitled "1932," narrated by Robert Beltran.

On November 27, 2007, the LYM launched a campaign against social networking websites such as MySpace and Facebook, with the mass distribution of a pamphlet entitled "The Noosphere vs. The Blogosphere: Is the Devil in Your Laptop?". The pamphlet says that Rupert Murdoch, owner of MySpace, and Microsoft, owner of Facebook (Microsoft only owns 2.5% of Facebook), are involved in social engineering to destroy the cognitive powers and potential for political leadership among young people. It also attacks Wikipedia in similar terms.

There are a number of real newspaper articles on the strange pseudointellectual recruiting tactics the LYM uses, the references to dead LaRouche movement sites seem pretty useless. Likewise, the 'what the larouche movement is up to, courtesy of sockpuppets from the larouche movement, completely devoid of independant sources', has to go. John Nevard (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article about the larouche youth movement is biased in extremes, whoever wrote that article is an IDIOT.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.75.245 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

 * The old version of this article was more or less equally balanced between pro-LaRouche fanatics and anti-LaRouche fanatics. The new version is clearly lopsided. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC);


 * The old version was mostly written by a user who was banned and had no right to be editing here at all. The last version before his work was here: As for NPOV, it requires that viewpoints be represented with the weight proportional to their popularity. If you can find 3rd-party sources that cover the material you're concerned about then that would help establish the weight for that viewpoint. But the WLYM is a small and controversial group. The viewpoint of its members is a fringe viewpoint and should not be given excess weight.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ::I don't care who wrote what, what matters is whether the resulting article is any good. Right now it looks like an article written about the McCoys by the Hatfields. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC);
 * Can you be specific? What material is not neutral? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ::::It's the whole article, not individual sentences. The ratio of "criticism" to info about the group's goals and activities looks to be about 2:1, as opposed to the earlier version where it was about 1:1. I would say the typical article on a political group or activist runs about 1:4 at most. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC);
 * The aim isn't to provide any particular balance of positive and negative. The aim is to summarize all significant points of view in proportion to how widespread they are. If the positive viewpoint is only express in publications put out by the movement then that viewpoint is a minority view and shold be given a minority of the space. Can you suggest positive, 3rd-party sources for the topic that we don't already include? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ::::::The article has never had much in the way of high-quality sources. Right now it is dominated by college newspapers who quote Dennis King and Chip Berlet. Now, before you launch into your rap about King and Berlet being distinguished scholars, save your breath. King and Berlet are crackpot conspiracy theorists, no different than LaRouche. So this article has basically been a battle of the fringe sources. Remember that in Reliable Sources it says that fringey sources should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC);
 * Criticize the contributions not the contributer perhaps, but as most of your contributions seem to be conspiracy theorizing about King and Berlet, one begins to wonder. Obviously the WaPo stories would be a better source on the recruiting and advertising of the LYM than the LaRouche organisation, but the article is hugely improved as it stands. John Nevard (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not neutral, and may be an "attack article." I am slogging my way through the very lengthy body of Wikipedia policies that was presented to me when I signed up, but perhaps someone could give me a quick summary of how to proceed. --Macwhirr (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The simple answer is for you to indicate those parts that aren't neutral, and to provide a reliable source which contains the alternate point of view. Self-published sources, in this case the WLYM itself or related organizations, can be used to a limited extent. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Under that policy the page in question should be deleted. That doesn't seem to me to be the best course of action. What this article lacks is a factual report of the WLYM's activities and a viewpoints. It is dominated by the point of view of other groups that oppose the WLYM. Also, it is difficult for genuinely anti-establishment groups like the WLYM to get honest press coverage, because the press represents the establishment and the establishment will defend its interests through blackouts and scandal-mongering. For a straightforward account of the groups activities and goals, you would have to go to the group itself, where you will get an account that cannot be challenged. I clicked on the "history" tab and found that in the past there has been quite a bit of material on the group's actitivies and goals that was deleted. Some of it is on this talk page and described as "dubious," which I believe is incorrect because it comes directly from the organization. If it came from an opposing group, it would be dubious. The section on this page is difficult to read because it has all the coding and formatting info. Macwhirr (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article isn't here just to tell readers what the organization thinks of itself, nor to tell them what its critics think of it. The article should include all points of view in a neutral manner. We probably include too little press coverage, even though it does tend to mostly cover political choral events, disruption, and tabling. What reliable sourced viewpoints do you think are under-represented? Can you provide links or citations? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a political organization, and is worthy of note because it has a substantial following, and it has a following because people agree with its goals and principles. Therefore a useful article should provide a summary of those goals and principles. I would start by putting back in the section (mistakenly) called "dubious" that is seen above on this page. Some of the links are broken or incorrect, but I think that they can be easily corrected using search engines. --Macwhirr (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's start with your first assertion, "it has a substantial following". Do we have any source, either from inside the movement or outside, that quantifies the size of the WLYM? That would be a great thing to add to the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is generally difficult to measure the actual size of political movements. --Macwhirr (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So the size is unknown. In how many countries does it operate? According to one of the self-published sources, there are branches in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique (15 people). The article indicates there's activity in Germany as well. Are there a sources for other coutries? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are plenty of such sources. But can we get back to the issue at hand? This article needs some balance. Do you object if I restore the so-called "dubious" material on this page, once the links are fixed? --Macwhirr (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't restore the removed material until we've discussed it. You haven't addressed the concerns of the editor who removed it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * :::::::::::Mr. Nevard didn't provide any "concerns," other than to say that he finds the group's ideology "strange" and "pseudointellectual." Mr. Nevard is entitled to his opinion, but the editor's job is not to pass judgment on the ideology, only to report on it in a neutral fashion so that the reader can decide for himself. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC);
 * The issue Nevard raised, which I'm concerned about too, is that the material is "completely devoid of independent sources". Are there any other sources that cover this material? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be surprised to find comprehensive coverage of the WLYM principles and goals in the press, because they are an "insurgent" group. However, the obvious choice for accurate reporting on the principles and goals of a political group is the group's own productions, which cannot be accused of misrepresentation. And finally, it seems to me that the least of your worries right now is too much reliance on the WLYM as a source, because the article as it stands is entirely dominated by the opinions of opposing groups. Macwhirr (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposing groups? Who are the "opposing groups"? Do you mean the mainstream media? It'd be helpful to have a "factual report of the WLYM's activities and a viewpoints", but the group's publications alone are not an unbiased source. Rather than pushing to add back the entire disputed section it'd be more helpful if you did your own homework, found good sources, and proposed better quality text. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

By "opposing groups" I don't mean the mainstream media, by which I assume you mean the Washington Post. The other sources are mostly either college papers or activist/journalists like LaRouche himself. It is the activist/journalists that I was mainly referring to, such as Avi Klein, who comes from the neoconservative movement. Macwhirr (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. Is Avi Klein a one-man opposition group? I don't see evidence of any group that opposes the WLYM, although apparently there was a conference in Germany recently that dealt with the modern LaRouche movement. Perhaps we should add a mention of that. It appears that there may be individual opponents but not "opposing groups". When you work on your draft please make sure to find reliable sources, and limit the use of self-published sources to not contentious assertions. See WP:SPS. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the part about the LYM activists who were elected to California Democratic Party positions should be removed. Including it would go a long way toward resolving the neutrality problem. Macwhirr (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A problem is that much of the material is only sourced to the LYM. Were these elections reported anywhere else?   Will Beback    talk    17:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The California Democratic Council, which is the Alan Cranston wing of the party, includes the LaRouche club (Franklin Roosevelt Legacy) on their website, with Quincy O'Neal listed as contact person. However, I searched Wikipedia policies to find one that covers this situation, and I found this:. I don't see any violation in using the LYM sources for this edit. Macwhirr (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those sources are more like what we should have for this article. Self-published sources are good for routine informaiton, like the date of establishment or the officers. They are not suitable for making self-serving claims, or when they become the principle sources for an article.   Will Beback    talk    18:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the LaRouche org's past inroads into the Democratic party (1980s) it is certainly noteworthy if the LYM is assiduously and successfully working in or around the California Dem Party today. LaRouche house organs are not a proper source for this, but if the LYM is indeed working in the DP they would surely have clips, if such existed, from mainstream news sources. The only thing I have found is this which is from 2004 and does not specify if the LaRouche members were LYM members. And electing a tiny handful to a largely powerless county committee--in isolation from any large-scale efforts elsewhere--is not in itself noteworthy. If LYM members were getting large vote percentages in primaries for elected public office, however, that would certainly be worth including if reported in a citable newspaper. Given LaRouche's well-known record as a convicted felon, I doubt that such electoral achievements will be forthcoming unless the LYM members run as stealth candidates, hiding their connection to LaRouche. In such cases, reporting their successes here would be a moot issue.Dking (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is true that county committees are largely powerless, and people often get elected to them by blind luck. Those elections are held at the same time as elections to public office, and the results are published in the press. However, the committee posts that are being discussed here are party caucus positions, which are elected by delegates to the state convention. They are statewide positions and are hotly contested. Considering how big California is, bigger than many nations, these positions are noteworthy. I also found a LaRouche article from 2006 on Los Angeles County Democratic Chair Eric Baumann being the featured speaker at a LaRouche Youth meeting. It includes photos in case someone wants to suggest the article is lying. --Macwhirr (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't confusing anything. The sole citable source I could find, from 2004, said that the candidates for the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee were elected on Election Day at the polls, not by state convention delegates. The article also quoted a party official saying that most people didn't know who they were voting for (these are very obscure posts). Further, it said that LaRouche got 7,125 votes statewide for President, "less than any [other] candidate in a field of ten." Perhaps this should be quoted as an example of the purported success of the LYM. As to the 2006 article Macwhirr found, it is from LaRouche's EIR and thus is not citable here on factual matters regardless of whether or not the Los Angeles Democratic Party chair actually appeared at an LYM meeting.--Dking (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

--Macwhirr (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * :::Remember that in Reliable Sources it says that fringey sources should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities. Thus, LaRouche sources may be used in this article, just as your writings would be appropriate in the article Dennis King. If the material is clearly attributed, the reader can judge its credibility. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC);

Leatherstocking took the neutrality notice down, but I think that this is premature. My main objection to the article is the first paragraph, where it says that "Journalists, cult experts, former members and law enforcement officicials have made a wide variety of accusations of the LaRouche organizations, including calling them a political cult." Of the sources that are listed to support this statement, one is a broken link, one is an opinion piece in a small campus paper, one is an item in what appears to be a local British paper called "Ham & High" which misspells LaRouche's name, and one is the Avi Klein article. I read all of them and there are no "cult experts" cited in any of them. There is only one former member and one (British) law enforcement source cited. I don't think it is appropriate to put these poorly documented accusations in such a prominent position in the article. Macwhirr (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC) :We recently went through a prolonged debate about the lede to Lyndon LaRouche, which had similar problems. I am going to remove the sentence in question, and put a main article link to LaRouche movement. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the neutrality tag, because I was satisfied that the article had been returned to a balanced state, but I see that Will Beback has tilted it once more toward his team's POV. I will raise some specific objections here, in hopes that it can be worked out without putting the tag back.


 * The business about Scott McLemee being an "award winning book critic" is irrelevant to the article, and is sourced to an article which has nothing to do with the LaRouche Youth Movement. This is an attempt to make McLemee's views appear more credible, and it's SYNTH.


 * There are no "cult experts" or "former members" quoted in the cited sources that say the LYM is a cult (read the Avi Klein article carefully -- it doesn't make those claims.) Two of the sources offered are broken links to DailyFreePress and PCC-Courieronline. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC);


 * It's unhelpful to readers to attribute a view or quotation to someone without providing any information about him. We don't have an article on Lemee so we can't just link his name. If you have a better description of him with a source then that's fine too.
 * The line in question says:
 * Journalists, cult experts, former members and law enforcement officicials have made a wide variety of accusations of the LaRouche organizations, including calling them a political cult.
 * And we have press reports that say:
 * ...a Scotland Yard internal report said the organisation appeared to be "a political cult with sinister and dangerous connections", ...
 * Is there any question that there have been a "wide variety of accusations" about LaRouche organizations in the past? We can add more of them but that seems like a sufficient statement.
 * Also, I'd advise you again to stop using the term "team" in discussing other people's editing. It's not consistent with WP:AGF.    Will Beback    talk    17:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * :::The fact that there is no article about McLemee suggests that he may not be notable enough to be mentioned as a critic. Perhaps you ought to author an article about him if you disagree. But regardless, how does being an "award winning book critic" qualify him to offer criticism of political groups? On the other matter, you are avoiding my point. I don't object to the phrase "wide variety of accusations," I object to the unsourced claim that "cult experts" and "former members" are among those making the accusation that they are a political cult. Make it specific to Scotland Yard. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC);
 * No problem.   Will Beback    talk    01:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mexican article
I came across this article from April 24, 2006 on the WLYM in Mexico. "A codazos y jalones sofocan protesta de jóvenes en un acto de Calderón" Google translated:"A landmark elbow and stifle protest by young people in an act of Calderón"   Will Beback    talk    07:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * :This should probably be included, except that I can't make heads or tails out of the Google translation. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC);

Postings by sock of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback    talk    02:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Protests and disruptions
Cross posted from Talk:LaRouche movement

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

History
As one of the two persons actually responsible for the birth of the LaRouche Youth Movement, I can say, authoritatively, that this article is innacurate. I'm tempted to use stronger words. If anyone is serious about the true history: thomas_rooney@hotmail.com. Leave a distinct subject, or it will probably be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.216.201 (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. However Wikipedia policies prevent us from using unpublished first-person accounts as the basis for articles. Instead, we must rely on what has appeared in reliable sources like newspapers, magazines, and books. Unfortunately, the founding of WLYM hasn't been covered extensively. If you're aware of sources that give a more accurate picture it would help us if you could list them.    Will Beback    talk    19:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "Deadlinked" Material
Will just removed some material because  they  are supposed to be dead: "In Argentina, LYM leader Betiana Gonzalez disrupted Gore's speech after he recommended that Argentina reduce its population. A similar incident took place earlier in the year in Montreal, Canada. "

Its webaddress has been changed. The new adresses are: 1. is now  and 2. is now:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.206.223 (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We can't use the LaRouche source for saying that Gore promotes population reduction. I'm not even sure that we should be using purely LaRouche sources for these events, since they are "in-house" sources and contain highly defamatory, partisan references to living people. However I'll restore the text minus the BLP assertion.   Will Beback    talk    21:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with this. Thanks. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't the sources you've offered seem "flip, jocular, or highly biased"? If so, should we be using them?   Will Beback    talk    23:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As i said, i am fine when the article takes bare neutral facts from its source. "In Argentina, LYM leader Betiana Gonzalez disrupted Gore's speech at a Biofuels conference." is okay with me. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But can we use sources that are "flip, jocular, or highly biased"? On another page you seem to say that such sources are inappropriate.   Will Beback    talk    23:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The tone of these sources appears "designed to ridicule" their subject. How does that factor into their use?   Will Beback    talk    00:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Since 81.210 doesn't want us to use "flip, jocular, or highly biased" sources "designed to ridicule" their subject, we're going to have to delete several citations. Hopefully we can find better sources to replace them.   Will Beback    talk    00:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Highly biased sources and sources which ridicule its subject are low-quality sources which should be avoided. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Such as this source, right?    Will Beback    talk    01:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We took this source for the bare facts it includes. As I said, i'm fine with the way it summarizes the event and can be used. By the way, I used "jocular, flippant and highly biased" to characterize the low quality of a very specific article on a different page, not as an editing policy. We shouldn't mix that up. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's use a consistent standard. Do you accept "flip, jocular, or highly biased" sources "designed to ridicule" or not?    Will Beback    talk    01:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already answered this question. A source you used in the "views" article was of low-quality because it is "flippant, jocular and highly biased" and "designed to ridicule" its subject". We shouln't make an editing policy for a different article with a different source out of this. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we should follow the same standards across articles. The source http://spanish.larouchepac.com/node/3544/pdf is definitely flippant and highly biased. Do you disagree?   Will Beback    talk    02:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you have attributed my characterization of a source from another article to another quite different source. I dont think the source is properly characterized by using my statements for another article. You also seem to imply that my reasons why a source is of low quality were meant as editing policy or that i would like to introduce new standards. We should stick to high quality, reliable sources. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do "high quality, reliable sources" engage in flippant, highly partisan commentary? What makes "larouchepac.com" a high quality, reliable source" Does it have a reputation for quality and reliability?   Will Beback    talk    02:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * larouchepac.com is a primary source. It can be used for inside information, such as the information that Betiana Gonzales interrupted an event of Al Gore. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. Also, is the LaRouche Youth Movement the same as the LaRouchePAC?   Will Beback    talk    02:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no policy which explicitly forbids the use of primary sources. They may be used, but with caution and without interpretation. We have cautiously taken the bare facts from a primary source and did not interpreted it, so its fine with me. As of how the WLYM is connected to Larouchepac, i have no idea. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a policy which says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Primary sources may be used, but they still need to be reliable. According to whom is LaRouchePac a reliable source? If LaRouchePAC has no known connection to the LYM, and if it doesn't have a reputation for reliability, then maybe we shouldn't use it as a source for this article.   Will Beback    talk    02:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because I personally do not know how the Larouchepac and the WLYM are exactly connected, this does not mean that "they have no known connection". Please, dont make assertions like this up. Also, the reputation of Larouchepac is not in question. Why are you bringing this reliability issue up? 81.210.206.223 (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If no one knows of a connection between LYM and LPAC, then there's no known connection. That's simple tautology.
 * All sources, primary, secondary, or tertiary, should be reliable. Is anyone here suggesting using unreliable sources? In fact, someone said "We should stick to high quality, reliable sources." So again, is there any indication that LPAC is a reliable source?    Will Beback    talk    03:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Noone is suggesting using unreliable sources. Is there any indication that LPAC is an unreliable source or that is an unreliable source for the documents written by LaRouche? It seems to me that LPAC acts as a publisher for articles from the WLYM. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about Lyndon LaRouche, it's about the "Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement". What evidence do you have that "LPAC acts as a publisher for articles from the WLYM"?   Will Beback    talk    03:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are too many articles published by members of the WLYM at LarouchePAC.com as to seriously doubt the fact LPAC is a reliable source for the WLYM. Please present your evidence that LPAC is not a reliable source. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because members of LYM write articles published by LPAC does not mean that they have a clear relationship. The NYT probably publishes a lot of articles written by members of the Democratic party, but that does mean they are related.
 * It's the responsibility of the person proposing the material to prove the reliability of the source. According to WP:V, "Material must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So a positive reputation for fact checking is required, not simply the lack of a reputation for inaccuracy or even the lack of any reputation. Since we're evidently going to be cleaning up sources, we should clean out those which don't have a reputation for fact-checking and reliability.     Will Beback    talk    04:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let us not question the obvious: The WLYM publishes articles over LPAC, that is a fact, they are both part of the LaRouche-Movement. What you are asking for are intricacies of the relationship of WLYM and LPAC, it suffices to know that LPAC publishes material which originates from the WLYM as well as from other internal sources of the movement. Those documents and articles which  originate from the WLYM must therefore be treated as primary sources. (Primary) selfpublished sources may also be used in articles under WP:SPS in articles about or their activities, [...] as long as    1. the material is not unduly self-serving;    2. it does not involve claims about third parties;    3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;    4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;    5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. Therefore, articles from the WLYM, published over LPAC, may be used and we should, given they fulfil WP:SPS. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * they are both part of the LaRouche-Movement
 * Those documents and articles which originate from the WLYM must therefore be treated as primary sources. Wikileaks publishes the internal documents of the US State Department. Yet no one would say they are part of the same organziation.
 * 1. Much of this information is self-serving
 * 2. Much of it does include claims about 3rd parties.
 * 5. The article does appear to be based more on LPAC and LPUB sources than on secondary sources.
 * 6. Which of the non-LYM LaRouche sources do you think are necessary and why?   Will Beback    talk    07:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hold that there is a difference between an org like wikileaks, which publishes government documents ans an org which writes its own material, so this comparison seems odd to me. Ill have a thorough look at the article and esp. its sources in a few hours. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per "LAPC/LYM" below, I'm now convinced that those two orgs are essentially the same. So long as we acknowledge that in the text, I have no problem with treating them together so far as SPS and content are concerned. We still have a lot of fixing to do to bring it into compliance though.   Will Beback    talk    09:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Known defunct links for this page
1.http://media.www.dailyfreepress.com/media/storage/paper87/news/2006/10/04/Spotlight/Lyndon.Who-2330946-page5.shtml 81.210.206.223 (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

2.http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/youth_movement_files/articles_lym/2007/0404_phillipines.shtml 81.210.206.223 (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

3.http://media.www.dailyfreepress.com/media/storage/paper87/news/2007/01/31/News/Activist.Group.Trespasses.On.Bu.Property-2688148.shtml 81.210.206.223 (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

4. http://www.newuniversity.org/main/article?slug=fifteen_arrested_at_ayn17

5.http://www.newuniversity.org/main/article?slug=ayn_rand_institute_director17

6.http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2006/10/31/News/Activists.Lob.Meat.Condoms-2411743.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dailytrojan.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

7.http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=9df1b5f0-4ea4-42fc-a689-0be6fb129de7

8.http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/11/27/noosphere-vs-blogosphere-devil-your-laptop.html

9.http://www.larouchepac.com/files/pdfs/071127-lpac_myspace.pdf

10.http://larouchepac.com/news/2008/07/02/1932-video.html

11.http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/youth_movement_files/articles_lym/2004/040730_counterpoint_bost.htm

12.http://www.larouchepac.com/static/lym-unleashes-renaissance-athens-america-jenny-getachew-joha.html

13.http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/04/28/wyneal.shtml

14.http://www.filamnation.com/topicdetail.php?uniqueid=141

15.http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/04/27/quincy.shtml

16.http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/05/why_california_3.html

17.http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/otherartic_files/2006/060626_cody_jones.htm

18. Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3HaaPz8hgQ

19. Critical : LaRouchiacs" an Ever-Present Element On Howard's Campus

20. Critical: Letter on LaRouche Youth Movement at UCSD

81.210.206.223 (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for listing these. According to this listing, many have been dead since at least October 2010. Per above, this is a good time to screen out those that don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.    Will Beback    talk    04:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but as always, sources which originate from the movement are WP:SPS and may be used, given they are not unduly self serving. The way we used the quote about Betiana Gonzalez should serve as an example. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, LYM.com is an allowable self-published primary source for Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement for simple facts that don't require any concusions. LPAC and LPub don't seem to be connected to the Youth Movement though - is there any sources which connects them?
 * Also the article needs be be based mainly on secondary sources. While we can use LYM for some information, the article should mostly use secondary or tertiary sources.   Will Beback    talk    06:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, let us not jump to conclusions about which organization is connected or not. You inserted a few days ago the information that the WLYM received a substantial amount of money from the LPAC, so there is reason to assume, that those organizations are interconnected. If you produce some recent information how those interlocking entities are connected or should be treated as separate organization, please show them to me. Until then i believe it would be best to include pages from larouchepac or larouchepub if they contain materail which can be used under the mentioned policies. We can decide on a case-to-case basis if there are reasons to exclude in include. Furthermore, I think this article should not reach the massive size of the bio or the views. 06:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.206.223 (talk)
 * As you say, let's not jump to conclusions. Let's rely instead on what we find in reliable sources. LPAC pays many vendors, but payment of a bill does not necessarily prove the existence of a relationship. Otherwise, FedEx might be viewed as connected LPAC. Once we have established that LPAC and LYM are the same entity then we can treat LPAC publications as self-published by LYM. Until then, we'd be basing it just on guesses and I'm sure no one wants to do that.
 * I've fixed a few of the deadlinks and removed a blog of some kind that didn't have any relevant info that I could see. http://sdmegacoalition.blogspot.com/2008/04/special-programs-at-malcolm-x-library.html   Will Beback    talk    07:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, If LYM is LPAC, and it's paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to itself every year, then that might be an interesting campaign finance issue. Are we sure that that's even allowed?   Will Beback    talk    07:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work, Will do far. I couldnt have done this so quickly. Now, I think it is too early to assume anything about the organizational structure. I will look for sources too which give some insight about this, but i dont we will find many. Therefore, it is also to early to assume that LPAC = LYM. I read that a few paragraphs above, a founding member of the LYM offered his help with the history of the org. Maybe he is still interested in providing some background. I would also not jump too quickly to the conclusion, that LPAC pays itself. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we can't assume anything about the internal structure of these groups, or the connections between them, beyond what we can find in reliable sources. However if LPAC does not equal LYM then LPAC publications are not self-published by LYM. Maybe it'd be better to remove them until we can determine the relationship between them.   Will Beback    talk    07:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I personally dont like to reason on assumptions. As Wikipedia operates by concensus, it may be best to provide at least some reliable background information before we exclude valuable information. Anyway, I also dont think that the organizational structure of the org should play such an important role, information from and about the LYM is clustered in many of the org's sites. Again, what is important is that the article confirms to WP:NPOV,V,SPS and due weight. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, we agree that we shouldn't make any assumptions. Let's not assume a connection between separate entities either. I have no problem with using LYM websites as SPS, within the SPS rules. Anyway, the best place to start is with fixing the URLs and citations. There's no point in arguing over sources that don't exist any more.   Will Beback    talk    08:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted below and above, I've looked and found evidence that LPAC and LYM are sufficiently the same to be treated together. We can discuss particular issue in "LPAC/LYM", and keep this thread for handling the dead links.    Will Beback    talk    09:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's set a deadline of the end of the month to delete dead links and te material based on them.   Will Beback    talk    03:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Coming up.   Will Beback    talk    10:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

LPAC/LYM
I'm seeing evidence that LYM and LPAC are substantially, if not legally, the same operation: one hand caring for the other. Does anyone object to treating them as the same entity, meaning that information on them both could be added here, including a redirect, and that their websites would qualify as SPS for each other?  Will Beback   talk    09:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Barbara Boyd treasurer of the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee and a spokeswoman for the LaRouche Youth Movement, founded in 2000 called accusations against the group gossip.
 * As part of the mobilization for the next 90 days, LaRouche has formed a new political action committee, the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee, which will deploy teams of LYM organizers to "battleground states" around the nation. 
 * In California, two LPAC LYM organizers powerfully intervened into a top level meeting of the California State Student Association in Pomona on March 19. 
 * In Richmond, Virginia, an LPAC/LYM team will be on hand this week, for the opening days of the legislature. Mid-West. The latest backing of the HBPA came Jan. 7 in Ohio, with unanimous passage of a resolution by the City Council of East Cleveland. 
 * Eastern states. In Albany, New York, an LPAC/LYM team is on hand, where the legislature faces a $4 billion budget shortfall, waves of home foreclosures, and credit collapse. In Boston, the LYM/LPAC team at the Massachusetts State House will hoist a huge banner in its rally for the HPBA.
 * The first question came from LPAC/LYM Aaron Yule, who brought up the whole strategic dimension of Gore and his hedge fund--"Blood and Gore." 
 * ''LaRouche PAC/LaRouche Youth Smoke Out Sister Lynne Cheney
 * Lyndon LaRouche's opening address to the Nov. 9, 2004 LaRouche PAC webcast was opened by the LaRouche Youth Movement chorus singing Bach's motet Jesu, meine Freude.
 * Oyang Teng of LaRouche PAC/LaRouche Youth Movement Editorial staff, and Rick Lopez of LPAC/LYM Washington, D.C. bureau, on "Killing the NASA Manned Space Program Is an Impeachable Offense." Hosted by Marcia Merry Baker.
 * EIR's Anton Chaitkin and LaRouche PAC/LaRouche Youth Movement activist Dennis Mason, on "It's Time for ...
 * EIR's Michele Steinberg and Seattle LaRouche PAC/LaRouche Youth Movement activist Riana Nordquist, on ...
 * As Lyndon LaRouche characterizes it in his breakthrough paper, The New Politics, “What was done by the LPAC’s LYM in catalyzing the ’18-35’ surge among young Americans in crucial sections of the voting population ...
 * Lyndon LaRouche PAC: Lyndon LaRouche, 88, holds the rare distinction of being an eight-time unsuccessful presidential candidate. The Lyndon LaRouche PAC seeks to advance his political agenda, advocating for expanded nuclear power, colonization of Mars, and the impeachment of President Barack Obama. The committee has spent a stunning $13 million since the start of 2007, but just $3,855 (0.03%) of it went to political donations. Almost six million dollars went to LaRouche Youth LLC, a for-profit led by people affiliated with the PAC, for grassroots lobbying and advocacy. No expenditure details are disclosed. Nearly $500,000 of the PAC’s spending went to “petty cash,” also un-itemized. The PAC also paid $7,000 in fines in 2006 to the FEC for failure to file required disclosure reports. Treasurer Barbara Boyd said that the PAC pays LaRouche Youth LLC to create web content and do field organizing, public advocacy, and canvassing for the PAC. She categorized the large petty cash expenditures as “under the FEC guidelines for such, to reimburse expenses incurred in direct political organizing activities throughout the country,” and said it goes mainly for automobile gas and maintenance, parking, and tolls. Still, while it may be within FEC guidelines, the PAC’s methods essentially let it avoid disclosure of much of its spending. It’s an issue, says Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center. “Any of these actions that lessen transparency and don’t give the public and the press an opportunity to see what’s really going on is concerning.”
 * Does anyone disagree that LPAC and LYM are essentially the same organization, and that we can report on them both here and use their websites as self-published sources for each other?   Will Beback    talk    10:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objections, I'll move forward with adding material on LPAC to this article.   Will Beback    talk    00:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a section on LPAC.   Will Beback    talk    01:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Queen and Drugs
The only sentence of marginal relevance to the topic of this article, the LYM, is "Members of the LYM now deny that he ever accused the Queen of England of drug trafficking", the rest is OT. Delete section? 81.210.206.223 (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought we were working on fixing the dead links?   Will Beback    talk    20:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've proposed moving this section to the "Views" article.   Will Beback    talk    03:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objection, I've proceeded with the move.   Will Beback    talk    22:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Basement team
We don't have any 3rd-party sources for the Basement team. The article should be based mostly on secondary sources. If we can't find any mention of this team and the video controversy in independent sources then maybe we should delete it.  Will Beback   talk    03:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Length and other issues
The Lenght of this article is increasing day by day. I had suggested keeping it as succinct as possible. It also reads not like an article, but more like a bricolage of sources, emphasizing particularities which have only minor relevance for the subject of the article, e.g. the details of the registration ID of LPAC. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A good way of keeping the article short is to focus on topics which have received attention in reliable secondary sources. I don't think a nine-digit number is excessive, but I'd be happy if we got rid of all the primary-sourced material.    Will Beback    talk    04:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Before you insert every available source secondary please consider that this looks more like a blog. We should keep an eye on the quality of the source. If this is a blog, as it seems, it was written by J.H. Freeman, now an intern at AP. . Does the opinion of a non-professional writer count nowadays as [WP:RS]? This is just an example of many. And don't get me started on the many spelling errors now in the article ;) 81.210.206.223 (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this page, it is not a blog. As for spelling errors, let's fix them where we find them. ;)   Will Beback    talk    05:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that university newspapers written by undergraduates qualify as RS? 81.210.206.223 (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The criteria for reliability focuses more on the editorial process rather than the salary of the writer. This appears to be a publication of Northwestern University's school of journalism, Medill School of Journalism. I cleaned up a few spelling errors. Are there any left?   Will Beback    talk    06:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The line "A 2009 report says that the LPAC website, Larouchpac.com, appeared to have deliberately copied the look of the barackobama.com website, though the contents were entirely different.[53]" is a contentious claim. The source merely asserts this and offers no proof. What do you know about the editorial process at the school of journalism at nortwestern? Does such a contentious, unproven assertion warrent inclusion as source? Opinions? 81.210.206.223 (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't require that reliable sources offer proof of their assertions. If you'd like to say that calling two websites similar is contentious, then that's just because you disagree. It's certainly not an issue which has been debated widely. Have you seen the 2009 websites? If not, what grounds are there for saying it's a remarkable assertion?
 * Compared to the many citations to deadlinks which may be entirely unverifiable, this seems like a minor issue.   Will Beback    talk    07:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The assertion that LPAC "deliberately copied the look of [...] barackobama.com. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's actually "...appeared to have deliberately copied..." What makes that contentious?   Will Beback    talk    07:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It implies unlawful conduct by the editors of larouchepac.com. Anyway, this assertion has no encyclopedic value at all. We should therefore delete it. 81.210.206.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC).
 * On issues of alleged plagiarism, how do you define "encyclopedic value"?   Will Beback    talk    07:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We're going OT here. My question was if the undergraduate university journal qualifies as RS. I'm taking this to WP:RSN. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to hear your position on "encyclopedic value", since you raised that point.   Will Beback    talk    07:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Personal,unproven and contentious opinions by undergraduate writers should not enter an encyclopedia. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So are you saying we should only allow source which have been written by college graduates? What about videos? Can we use videos created by non-college graduates? How do we determine the college educations of authors - very few articles include their author's resumes.   Will Beback    talk    07:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we could also include every unwarrented comparison that has ever been drawn, because this is what this line is about: The editor asserts that X looks like Y, offers no proof and implies plagiarism. That is no material for an encyclopedia. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shall we delete the material from the "Basement team" section which makes just such an assertion?   Will Beback    talk    07:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's rather wait how RSN goes.81.210.206.223 (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we ask them about the "Harvard Yard" video too, since it also alleges plagiarism on the basis of the opinions of its undergraduate creators? Or are they more or less the same thing and we can apply the same principle to both?   Will Beback    talk    07:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, Im interested in the outcome of the RSN. Are those two cases comparable at all?81.210.206.223 (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the two cases are very similar.   Will Beback    talk    08:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is clearly undue weight for the comment. The source is not about LaRouche, but is about health care and is essentially just a conglomeration of comments by random people. There is a brief discussion about LaRouche, they quote a comment someone makes about LaRouche and then there is a short paragraph stating "Larouchpac.com looks like a deliberate imitation of barackobama.com, down to the layout, design and color scheme. Similarities abruptly end there. Spread throughout the site are videos satirizing well-known Democratic Party leaders including Obama. One image at first glance looks like the iconic poster of the 1939 Academy-Award winning film “Gone With the Wind.” But instead of Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh, it depicts Obama passionately embracing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi." The source then goes on to discuss comparisons that have been made between Obama and Nazism. I really don't think there is enough weight in this comment to include it in the article. If the source was entirely about LaRouche's website or the organization, then perhaps, but this offhand comment is really not important enough to include. Silver  seren C 07:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that we can only use source if it is entirely about the topic in question? In other words, if the source only mentions LYM/LPAC in passing or devotes only a few paragraphs to it then we can't use it? I haven't seen anything like that in the policies or guidelines. It certainly isn't in WP:NPOV.   Will Beback    talk    04:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been established that "Wikipedia highlights what reliable sources highlight". Now there's a proposal that we highlight what a sources mentions in a passing comment. This seems contradictory. Please explain the logic behind that. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia highlights what reliable sources highlight" - where has this been established? In the past at RSN, editors have agreed that even footnotes can be reliable and suitable sources.   Will Beback    talk    07:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You wrote in in the content policies for the LaRouche BLP. "Content policies The content policies (V, NOR, and NPOV) say we should reflect the views of reliable secondary sources, and should highlight issues in rough proportion to their inclusion in those sources. Primary sources may be used to augment secondary sources with caution, though not for anything contentious; see PTST and BLPPRIMARY. Self-published sources by LaRouche may also be used with caution for anything non-contentious to augment secondary ones, subject to BLPSPS. Looking at each section in these terms:" 81.210.206.223 (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, those are not my words. However they are basically correct. We should present material in with weight proportional to the prominence they have within reliable sources. The assertion in question is given correct weight in the article. It's a short mention. We don't belabor the issue or use it as the basis for a long section on the website's appearance.   Will Beback    talk    07:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They're SV's word, that's correct. However, it is a passing comment in an article about health care. Other editors have commented that they are not comfortable with its inclusion and I agree with Silverseren that it is undue weight. Maybe we should start a RfC about this issue. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How do we identify it as a "passing comment"? That seems like a vague term. The author devotes 183 words to the topic of the websites and LaRouche's views on healthcare, out of a total of 748 words. In other words 24% of the article is spent on his discussion of LaRouche. That doesn't seem like a passing comment to me. It appears that there is no genuine policy-based objection to this material. It is adequately sourced and neutrally presented. It is certainly better sourced than the self-published allegation that Harvard University engaged in plagiarism of a LYM website.   Will Beback    talk    08:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence in dispute is just 20 words. "Larouchpac.com looks like a deliberate imitation of barackobama.com, down to the layout, design and color scheme. Similarities abruptly end there." 20 out of 748. It is not highlighted at all and it is a genuine passing comment. Are you proposing we should abandon a content policy to include passing comments?81.210.206.223 (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't highlight it either, we just mention it. Which content policy are you referring to? Please quote the policy language which requires us to omit this material.   Will Beback    talk    08:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Passing comment? This is from a 6079-word article about Schwarzenegger, not about the LYM. A very small part of it, 200 words at most, is about LYM activities. Does that qualify as a "passing comment" and if so shouldn't we delete it too?  Will Beback   talk    08:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ''According to Harley Schlanger, a LaRouche spokesperson, LYM's first major campaign was during the 2003 recall of California Governor Gray Davis when it distributed over a million leaflets across the country picturing Arnold Schwarzenegger alongside Adolf Hitler, and tens of thousands of other pamphlets in California.
 * The difference between this article and the Medill article is that this one's topic is Schwarzenegger and Davis. The Medill article is about healthcare, with a passing comment on Larouche. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How is that difference significant? The article isn't about LYM or LaRouche, but about Schwarzenegger and Davis with a "passing comment" about LYM.   Will Beback    talk    05:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Anton Chaitkin and Jeffrey Steinberg
I see no evidence that Anton Chaitkin and Jeffrey Steinberg, the authors of this article, are members of the LYM. It is they who make these criticisms. I've removed this text until we can establish their membership.  Will Beback   talk    07:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The LYM has criticized Campus Watch and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, claiming that they act as "thought police" to stifle opposition to the Iraq war and the Bush administration.
 * "John Train's Press Sewer: Is Goebbels on Your Campus?," Executive Intelligence Review, October 13, 2006 (accessed February 3, 2007).

LYM is the Youth Organisation of the Larouche Movement
There should be clear differences between the several organizations of the LaRouche Movement. It has been asserted, but not proven, that the LYM is LPAC. I tend to disagree, for lack of positive evidence. The fact that they work in unison, or share accomodations or resources does not mean that they are identical. Most political parties have youth movements, like the Republican party or the Democratic Party, which share ressources in the same way the Larouche Movement does apparently. Because of the addition of the material on the LPAC, the LYM article is has now comfortably exceeded the size of the articles on the youth wing of the Democratic and Republican party combined. We should follow the example of those two articles: remove the material on LPAC and move it to the LaRouche Movement page. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, LPAC is more notable than LYM. It'd make more sense to move this article to the LPAC title and put the LYM material in the movement article, or to split them into two articles. However if we can't find a connection between LYM and LPAC then using LPAC as a source for LYM is problematic. Have you reviewed the material I posted linking them?   Will Beback    talk    21:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it seems as if you are trying to synthesize a connection between the two based on how the LYM is funded and the fact that the LYM and LPAC sometimes collaborate in their activities. However, the sources do not explicitly make the connection that they are the same thing, so I don't believe that it is appropriate for you to try and say they are in this article. LPAC should either go into its own article or it should be moved somewhere else. (I just wanted to make this comment, i'm not going to get into a long drawn out argument here). Silver  seren C 21:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article never says they are the same thing, and I'm not sure we have any source which connects them explicitly. I think this is perhaps comparable to covering the biographies of a husband and wife in the same article. They are separate people, but joined together. One problem with splitting the articles is that the funding is mixed up so it'd mean some redundancy, but that's not the end of the world. The other problem is with the sources. Much of the material on LYM is self-published by LPAC. While LPAC is a reliable as an SPS for itself, if we decide that LYM and LPAC are distinct entities then we wouldn't be able to use LPAC sources for the LYM article.   Will Beback    talk    21:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have, even before i made the proposal to move the LPAC material somewhere else, reviewed the material linking them, it does not positively confirm that LPAC/LYM are the same operation, but we can neither synthesize nor claim a relationship based on inconclusive evidence. However, I second the motion to split from the article the LPAC material. It might be turned into its own article or, for simplicity's sake,(Do we really need another Larouche article?) be turned over to the Larouche - Movement article. The material about the funding seems not vital to this article, the other two political youth movements don't mention their respective funding either, however, this seems not problematic to me either. Now the sources: I have noticed that the WLYM publishes articles about their activities in "EIR" and "larouchepub.com", they seem to have a journal of their own and a website. The material found therein may suffice for claims regarding their own activities under WP:SPS. By the way, yes, it's me, 81.210. Waalkes (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this same editor as user:81.210.206.223?   Will Beback    talk    00:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the comparison to the Young Republicans: that articles has sections on "Organizational structure", "National Convention of Young Republicans", and "National Leadership". Do we know anything about the structure or leadership of the LYM beyond Barbara Boyd's role of spokesperson? How many national conventions have they held. OTOH, the Young Republicans article does not have sections on "Pedagogy and campaigns". Should we delete that to make it more like the model article?
 * Regarding the comparison to the Young Democrats of America, that article is quite short. Should we cut this article down to a comparable size? It's mostly composed of lists of the leadership (which will quickly grow obsolete). Again, what do we know about the leadership of the LYM? That article does not have a section "Democratic Party involvement" - should we delete that from this article to make it more like this model article?
 * My point is that those topics are nothing like like this topic, and that includes what kind of information is available about them.
 * I'd be fine with having an LYM article which is based only on reliable secondary sources and the LYM website and journal, and a separate LPAC article with material from secondary sources and its own publications and website. I'd object to having separate articles which cite each other's self-published sources. However I do think that this present scheme is preferable, since they are so closely connected and so many people identify themselves as belonging to "LYM/LPAC" or similar designations. But if the consensus is to split them and and remove SPSes from other entities then I could accept that.    Will Beback    talk    07:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)