Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-01 Lyndon LaRouche: cult leader category?

Mediation Case: 2006-10-01 Lyndon LaRouche: cult leader category?
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Kestenbaum 07:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Lyndon LaRouche


 * Who's involved?
 * Numerous folks, including myself (Kestenbaum), Dr U, ManEatingDonut, NathanDW, Astor Piazzolla, Calton, Will Beback, Cberlet.


 * See entries in history where the category "Cult leaders" has been added and deleted at least a dozen times now, and two sections on the talk page ("categories", March 2006, and "Cult leader category", Sept 2006 to present).


 * What's going on?
 * Some critics describe Lyndon LaRouche's political organization as a "cult", or a "political cult". That charge is appropriately documented in the article.  Some of the editors want to take this a step further and include LaRouche in Category:Cult leaders.  Others, including myself, think this is highly POV and not appropriate under WP:LIVING.


 * As mentioned above, the "cult leaders" category has been added and deleted from the LaRouche article at least a dozen times since March 2006. Just yesterday (9/30), after it had been gone for a couple weeks, Will Beback added it back in.  I removed it, citing the discussion on the talk page.  Within half an hour, User Calton put it back, with the note "been there, done that".


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I'd like someone who isn't involved to examine the issue and help resolve this, so we don't waste our time racking up dozens more reverts and re-reverts on this. Naturally, I am hoping that experienced outsiders to the discussion will see it my way, but I'm willing to stand back and let them make an independent determination.


 * (There are other disputed points about the article, and I understand some of the editors are consistently pro-LaRouche or anti-LaRouche, but I'm most interested in the categorization issue.)


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * I have never before asked for any Wikipedia mediation or intervention of any kind, and I am hoping I'm approaching this in the right way. But I don't see any reason to be secretive about it.  I am not anonymous -- my name and contact information are readily available through my user page.

UPDATE. The alternate category Category:Leaders of alleged cults has been suggested. It is accaptable to me at least, and (depending on what others think) this may well resolve the issue. Kestenbaum 03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response
Cases of catogorisation are always hard - there's not really any middle ground. Either an article belongs to a catogory or not.

I myself do not believe that "cult" is a useful way to describe a movement, I do not think that it's encyclopaedic to do so. But that's me, and a number of users can give well-justified reasons for labelling LaRouche this way and if I recommend that the cult leader catogory not be applied, somebody else in ignorance of this mediation, or ignoring it, will simply come by and add it. And if we agree to have the catogory added, someone, using WP:LIVING or a non-defamotory sensibility like my own, will remove it.

Because I do not feel that calling something a cult is a useful thing for an encyclopaedia to do, I'd be happiest for the article to clearly state (as it already does) that a significant number of noteworthy commentators think LaRouche encourages cult-like behaviour in his followers and not use this problematic catogory. I don't think that this would be enough to settle the issue, though. Any thoughts?--G ood I ntentions talk 01:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Good Intentions. You should not state as a matter of fact that it is a cult. However, there is nothing wrong with stating that "Some commentators have called the LaRouche movement a cult because ____." And then provide citations to such commentators. HeBhagawan 21:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it is a matter of fact that the group is alleged to be a cult. However the matter is now moot because the category was deleted. -Will Beback 08:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, this case should be closed. HeBhagawan 04:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Having looked at other cases of catogory controversy, I'd like to offer the following:

I think the opening paragraph to this article is the least flattering I've ever seen on Wiki. Considering the sound pounding that LaRouche receives from all comers, considering the notewrothy distance between being a 'cultish' figure and leading the True Believers down to Jonestown, I think adding a non-descriptive and inflammatory catogory to this article is a bit mean-spirited. But I'm here as mediator, not as arbiter. I recommend that the article keep its current form and omit this catogorisation, mostly because this catogory really doesn't do anything useful. What would those who want to add the catogory need for this to be happy? --G ood I ntentions talk 03:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to be a party to the mediation then you're welcome to join in and we can find a new mediator. Otherwise giving your own opinion doesn't help to settle the dispute. LaRouche's chief role is as the elader of a movement, a movement that many have alleged is a cult. I think the encyclopedia should reflect reality. As a compromise I've suggested that we include LaRouche in the "leaders of alleged cults" category instead of "cult leaders". The person who requested the mediation, Kestenbaum, has indicated that it is acceptable. Unless another party to the mediation has a comment I think we're done here. -Will Beback 03:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that Good Intentions' proposal reflects a neutral point of view. Because it does not jibe with the POV that Will Beback wishes to push, Mr Beback pretends that GI is now a "party to the mediation." Mr Beback cloaks his POV pushing by saying he wants to "reflect reality." I support the proposal of Good Intentions. --ManEatingDonut 14:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's too bad if you aren't willing to compromise. Can you say honestly that the LaRouche Movement hasn't been alleged to be a cult? If it has been then why shouldn't we categorize Lynn as its leader? Is Helga the leader? -Will Beback 19:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A biographical article is either included in a category, or it's not. As the saying goes, you can't be a little bit pregnant. In the body of the article, NPOV protections apply, that is, rebuttal material may be introduced. Not so with a category. There is no possible accusation against LaRouche -- Nazi, Communist, you name it -- that his enemies like Chip Berlet have not at some time made. However, it would be ridiculous to include him in all of those categories... particularly when WP:LIVING says be careful. You ought to ask yourself why you are so eager to use this category. Your POV is already all over the article. --ManEatingDonut 20:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
I am not sure I am entitled to enter a comment here, but I feel that this specific discussion (on the cult categorization) belongs here. Please, do remove my entry if I have misunderstood the purpose of this entrance. Briefly, I am Swedish and I have followed the LaRouche movement in Sweden for more than 25 years. I have never been a member of the movement, but I have always aimed at being well-informed of its actions. I have always been sharply critical against the movement, primarily of the following four reasons:


 * Their furious hate campaigns against Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme.
 * The successive destruction of the lives of the members, alienation, economic problems, unability to lead an ordinary life...
 * Their history of meeting disturbance, slander, defamation, violence and threats of violence.
 * Their appearance as salvators, offereing solutions to all conceivable problems, similar to "churches" of various colors...

I don't take their "political" views seriously, and I do not care the least for their talk of the complex domain, non-linear economic models (did anybody ever see an equation?), tuning, nuclear energy, drugs, British Monarchy or whatever. Their views are secondary to the way they have behaved historically. Therefore, I am a proculter in the LaRouche case. As I have mentioned on the talk page, anybody who wants to share the testimonies of the ex-members should browse the factnet.org entry on the LaRouche movement. --Astor Piazzolla 09:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where we are with this mediation. I think the compromise that's been offered is to use the ":Leaders of alleged cults" category. Have there been responses from all sides? What consensus have we reached? -Will Beback 22:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I can think of several examples of political movements that were considered highly "disruptive" by defenders of the status quo, and which made strong demands on their members, including suffering hardships and putting themselves in harm's way. As two examples, the White Rose and the American Civil Rights Movement. I suppose you could call such organizations "political cults," but only a malicious person would do so. --172.193.219.30 21:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Who is this writing? Are you a party to this mediation? -Will Beback 23:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Will, it's the same thing each time a LaRouche discussion take place in Wikipedia. You always encounter these anonymous users, who very often reason by the manner above: "Saying that the LRM is a cult is equivalent to saying that the American Civil Rights Movement is a cult. Hence you are a malicious person". We do recognize that way of reasoning, don't we? --Astor Piazzolla 10:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)