Talk:LaRouche movement/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

forgive my ignorance?

But is the current picture the best we can do for this movement or is this picture a fair representative of the movement's Political Advocacy? Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll try to answer. There are six photographs in the article, but I'll assume you're talking only about the first one. As can be seen just from the other five pictures, the movement commonly engages in street activities. This is also amply supported by secondary sources. Second, the movement is well-known for using inflammatory slogans, both written and spoken, which are know to include crude language on occasion. This too is supported by secondary sources. Lastly, global warming has been a major issue of the political movement for at least the past decade. I don't think that any one photograph can summarize a a political movement, but I think this photograph is representative of the movement's style of public organizing. Another often-cited method involves choral singing, but we don't have available images of public performances. Last time I checked on Flickr there weren't any with free licenses. Whenever we get one that'd be good to add to the article somewhere.   Will Beback  talk  08:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Example farm

An editor added a template suggesting that more descriptive text be added to "Alleged violence and harassment" section.[1] If there's any more specific input it'd be appreciated. Otherwise I'll go back to the sources and see what more can be added to describe the examples that are already included.   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC) :Right, that's the only part of the template that doesn't make sense. The rest of it is clear: excessive examples. I think the recommendation may mean that we should add descriptive text in place of excessive examples, in other words, a summary. See also Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. Horace Wheatley (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that examples are a problem. Many of these are so unusual that it'd be hard to understand what's being discussed without specifics.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the examples take up about 20% of the article, which gives the impression that someone is trying to make a point. For the most part they are not so unusual, and would lend themselves readily to a summary. They are also of very uneven quality -- some are from known individuals, but many are simply "some guy said the LaRouchites were rude and insulting." Those could be trimmed. If they are retained, perhaps the article should be re-named, because as it stands the reader would expect a simple overview of the movement, and this looks more like an attempted indictment. --24.119.91.248 (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Degen ref

• Degen, Wolfgang, "Nur die Legende hat ein langes Leben", Wiesbadener Kurier, 19 April 2007 (German); Google translation.

This appears to be the full reference for the missing Degen ref, from the article Death of Jeremiah Duggan AndroidCat (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I've restored the material and fixed the citation.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Owned?

Begging everyone's pardon, but what the hell is that "This article is OWNED by WillBeback and SlimVirgin" crap at the top of the page, and how did it get there when I don't see any markup for it in the code? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Carson (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hunh, funny; I don't see it. What browser are you using? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've since reverted it. I tracked it down to an innocuously-named template apparently constructed specifically for vandalism. The template itself has also been deleted. Erik Carson (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Duggan

I reverted the deletion of a paragraph on J. Duggan. The discussions on other pages have been exclusively about the inclusion of Duggan material in the Lyndon LaRouche biography. Some people in those discussions, including Jayen466 who'd been leading the issue, have said that the material is appropriate in this article. Therefore deleting it with reference to those discussions is inappropriate.   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I consider inclusion of such an element a transitive relation. →StaniStani  06:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's standard that if people say an issue doesn't belong in one article but does belong in another, that that's a good reason to delete it from the other article. If you have a reason for deleting it from this article, then make it here. I'm especially mystified by the deletion of a citation regarding a separate person's membership in the movement. I don't think anyone has suggested that all sources which concern Duggan need to be deleted from all articles.   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to remove unfounded accusations, you prefer to add them back. I'm moving on, as I don't obsess over LaRouche. →StaniStani  06:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

I'll admit to knowing nothing about this subject. However, there are a number of issues with this article that would not be tolerated on any other.

1. The image File:LaRouche supporters.jpg is inappropriate. How on earth can this neutrally represent an organisation - it seems designed to ridicule. On any other article the lead image would be a logo or some self-identifying image (or none whatsoever).
2. On no other article would we allow a bunch of negative quotations in the lead. The sentence "has also been referred to variously as Marxist, fascist, anti-Semitic, a political cult, a personality cult, and a criminal enterprise" violates WP:WEASEL/ No doubt it has been referred to as all of these, but then so have the Republican and Democratic parties and I could find reliable citations to prove that.
3. "The LaRouche movement is reported to have had close ties to the Ba'ath Party of Iraq" again this violates WEASEL. "is reported to have"? By whom? Is the report significant? Credible? Authoritative?

This is just from a very quick skim read.--Scott Mac 14:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your opinions on a subject you know nothing about. ;)

1. The image is neutral and topical. I don't see how it could be described as "designed to ridicule": it's just two members standing holding their publications. The movement is known for its street organizing and its confrontational slogans. The photo itself was taken by a semi-professional photographer and is more graphically interesting than other photos of the movement, which is why it's in the lead. The movement is not know for using logos or other symbols.
2. Intros can always be improved. This one could do with a compete re-write so as to better summarize the article. I'll start working on it and incorporate your suggestions. The last two paragraph could be moved into a "characterizations" section.
3. Since the material concerns the subject's opposition to the invasion of Iraq, their connections to the ruling party are relevant. The source is an article on an anti-war coalition written by award winning journalist Jason Berry, but it's also reported in other reliable sources. I'll see if I can improve the wording.

There's much more material to add to this article.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a constructive reply. 1) I don't think "graphically interesting" is a reason for incorporating a photograph. If there's no logo then I'd suggest not giving headline prominence to any image might be more neutral. Any image should be "typical" and I doubt that this one is uncontroversially so. 2) I think we're on the same page. 3) Of course a connection to the ruling party could be very relevant, but is there evidence that one exists, or that significant and informed sources are alleging such? Many things are "reported" somewhere, in itself that doesn't mean we should give any weight to the report. If a reliable source is saying it, it might be better so word it explicitly "according to Jason Berry..."--Scott Mac 20:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the photo is non-neutral, but I also don't see a problem with moving it down to a less prominent location. As for the Ba'ath party connection, it's reported by several sources including one scholarly journal and a book by an editors of the New York Times. Judging by the footnotes of the book, the author seems to have used LaRouche publications as his sources for the assertion. Maybe something like, "According to multiple sources..."?   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If LaRouche admit the connection, then that would indeed be the strongest source.--Scott Mac 21:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the footnote is vague and refers to sources which are not accessible. Johnson simply cites "reports in New Solidarity", one of their defunct periodicals. We do have four separate sources for the assertion, and no conflicting reports denying a connection. We could say, "According to multiple sources, including Jason Berry and George Johnson, ..."   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made these changes, attributing the view to "multiple sources, including journalists Jason Berry and George Johnson". I've moved most of the POV material out of the intro and down to a renamed "characterizations" section. The lead still needs to be re-written to reflect the article.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we pick a photo for the lead? Here are the most relevant files in the Commons.

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 3
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6

I think they're all usable, technically. I like #5 the best but I recognize that others don't. #4 also has a strong composition and typical though older signage. #6 is less bold but it still has a nice composition and more recent signage. #1 is used in a couple of other articles already and doesn't show people so it is not the best choice here. #2 is not a great picture due to the minivan which muddies the composition. #3 is a pretty good picture but the exaggerated colors make it less suitable for an encyclopedia article. There are also two pictures of a Swedish group, but it wouldn't make sense to put that in the lead. All in all I guess I'd favor #6. Any other opinions? Are there any free pictures that'd be better? There are some good Flickr pictures of singing members, but the licenses aren't quite right.   Will Beback  talk  08:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Since there was no further input I've added #6 to the intro.   Will Beback  talk  09:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Intro

Per the above comments, the old intro was inadequate and a new one required. I've drafted this, intended as a better summary of the important points of the article with a balanced POV.

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 student politics of the 1960s, and moved to the far right in the mid-1970s. It became known for its its unusual theories and its confrontational behavior. In the 1970s members allegedly engaged in street violence. In the 1970s and 1980s thousands of candidates, some with only limited knowledge of LaRouche or the movement, ran on the LaRouche platform. None were elected to significant public offices. Its influence declined for several years after the conviction of LaRouche and 25 associates in 1988 on fraud charges related to fund-raising, prosecutions which the movement alleged were politically motivated. 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. LaRouche's wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, heads political and cultural groups in Germany. There are also parties in France, Sweden, and other European countries, and branches or affiliates in Australia, Canada, the Philippines, and several Latin American countries.

Estimates of the movement range from five hundred to one thousand members in the United States, spread across more than a dozen cities, and about the same number abroad. Members engage in political organizing, fund-raising, cultural events, research and writing, and internal meetings. It has been categorized as a political cult by some journalists. According to reporters, members believe they are solely responsible for the protection of civilization and some work long hours for little pay to further their mission. The LaRouche movement has been accused of repeatedly harassing public officials, politicians, journalists, ex-members, and critics. The movement has had a number of notable collaborators and members.

It's actually a bite more history than is in the article itself, reflecting material spread across other articles. We should probably add a short history to the "overview" section.   Will Beback  talk  07:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad start. You describe the movement well, and the overall treatment is reasonably NPOV. Suggestions: "It has been have categorized it as a political cult by some journalists." - has a superfluous 'have' and 'it' inside the sentence. Needs a comma after 'pamphlets.' Change "In the 1970s it allegedly engaged in street violence." - to "In the 1970s members allegedly engaged in street violence." Change "They have allegedly harassed public officials, politicians, journalists, ex-members, and private citizens." - to "The LaRouche Movement has been accused of repeatedly harassing public officials, politicians, journalists, ex-members, and critics." →StaniStani  09:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Good corrections.   Will Beback  talk  10:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Posted.   Will Beback  talk  10:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• The statement about "moved to the far right in the mid-1970s" in the lead is a little too definite to be neutral. Some commentators say it's hard to place the movement in left–right terms; others say they never really joined the right, although they did forge some transient alliances of convenience with right-wing groups. And do we have a source for "In the 1970s and 1980s thousands of candidates, some with only limited knowledge of LaRouche or the movement, ran on the LaRouche platform."? --JN466 06:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. The "moving from left to right"-theory is probably POV. I am also at a loss as where the "Thousands of candidates.." sentence originates, I have never seen it before. Waalkes (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to settle this "Moved right" issue. My impression is that the majority of sources say he moved to the right, and only a small number of sources contradict that view. While we shouldn't exclude minority views, we shouldn't give them prominence either. I suggest the only way to settle this is to compile sources and see what the dominant view is. Talk:LaRouche movement/political orientation.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper memes can be deceptive. The expert sources who have spent some time and effort analysing the movement, incl. how it is viewed among actual right-wing groups, agree that matters are a bit more complex. --JN466 08:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Give the dog a rest. Unlike that WP meme, this is a matter which has been reported on and analyzed for over three decades. It's not an imaginary dog.

There are many views from journalists and scholars. While I'm sure most would agree that the subject is complex, It looks like the majority also agree that the person and the movement moved from far left to far right. A few say that they retain elements of both, and a few say they are neither right nor left, and a very few say they are left-wing. There's a clear mainstream view. If you like, we can add a caveat with appropriate weight, like saying that "some writers believe LaRouche retains some leftist ideas". But notice that even those sources which discuss that view also give at least lip service to the mainstream view.   Will Beback  talk  08:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Do we have a source for "In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of candidates, some with only limited knowledge of LaRouche or the movement, ran on the LaRouche platform"? How did LaRouche get these people to run for him if they didn't really know him? --JN466 00:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I too, would like to see a source for the "hundreds of candidates" statement. Also, I would like to see more evidence to support putting a definitive "moved to the right" statement in article. The LaRouche organization, from what I understand, has consistently run on the Democratic party's platform and LaRouche endorsed Barrack Obama John Kerry for president. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In some cases they knocked on the doors of apparently random people and asked them if they'd like to run for office.

As for Cla68's assertion, we don't engage in original research by deciding on our own whether someone is right wing or not, or whether they are prominent contrarians on climate change.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I should add that, while LaRouche has sought the Democratic nomination, he has never run on the Democratic party platform. He directly opposes much of it, including the planks on global warming which he calls a fraud and a hoax. Though he gave a late and tepid endorsement of Kerry (reported almost nowhere) his supporters heckled and insulted Kerry. He has strongly attacked Democratic candidates Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Al Gore and Barack Obama. The officials of the Democratic National Committee reject his membership in the party.   Will Beback  talk  02:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If Jayen466 would like to add a list of groups with which the movement has had alliances, etc, then we can add that to the article and summarize it in the intro. However that shouldn't replace the coverage of the movement's own place on the political spectrum. I'm disappointed that the well-sourced material was simply deleted.   Will Beback  talk  03:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that revert warring is starting to break out here over this content, and I encourage the editor in question to avoid engaging in that type of behavior regarding this article, as it is counterproductive and unnecessarily confrontational. I support Jayen's edit. Will, you didn't include any sources in your response. If you recall, when I was building the Eurasian Land Bridge article, a topic which I believe a couple of regular editors here had labeled as a "figment of LaRouche's imagination", I had found a short article written by Qazwini, Sciacca in the The Virginian-Pilot [2] mentioning a LaRouche movement member participating in a primary debate as a Democratic party candidate (the citation was from a wire service so no page number was available). So, no original research is going on here and I feel that such accusations are unhelpful for the current content discussion. Thus, back to the original question...Will, what are the sources for the "hundreds of candidates" assertion? Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Citations for LaRouche and his movement moving from the far left to the far right are in Talk:LaRouche movement/political orientation. It was inappropriate for Jayen to remove material that he knew was so well sourced. I'm surprised you'd support that kind of editing.

Asserting that LaRouche is not right-wing because he endorsed Kerry would be original research. Maybe I misunderstood the comment.

I don't know what "a short article written by Qazwini, Sciacca in the The Virginian-Pilot [3]" is supposed to say. That link has nothing to do with anyone running on the Democratic platform, and I don't know who "Qazwini, Sciacca" is. Could you give a better citation?

The citations for the hundreds of candidates, some of them unfamiliar with the LaRouche platform, are in the lead.   Will Beback  talk  05:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Cla68 was referring to "RACE FOR 9TH DISTRICT; As races go, Joe would've loved this one" Joe Sciacca. Boston Herald. Boston, Mass.: Sep 10, 2001. pg. 004, which mentions a debate of minor candidates for the Democratic nomination for a congressional seat. The Eurasian Land Bridge is part of the LaRouche platform, not the Democratic Party platform.   Will Beback  talk  05:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche candidates identify with the Democratic party, which doesn't support the assertion of LaRouche "moving to the far right", but does support Jayen's edit. Could you point to where in the article it discusses this "move to the far right"? Also, why didn't you discuss Jayen's edit first before reverting it? I'm fairly confident that Jayen would have been more than willing and able to discuss it. Cla68 (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't Jayen466 discuss his edit, which deleted well-sourced material? The burden is on the person making the edit. He still hasn't come back here to discuss it. Ever heard of WP:BRD? It does not forbid reverting. It does call for discussion. Where's Jayen466? Should I send an engraved invitation to rejoin the discussion?

A) LaRouche candidates seek Democratic Party nominations but they do not run on the Democratic Party platform (your assertion), which is one of the reasons they are disavowed by the party. B) It's not for us to decide whether LaRouche and his movement are left wing or right wing. That'd be original research. If dozens of sources say that X is Y, then we don't get to say that we think X is really Z because we believe so. We report what the best available sources say. In this case, that includes many scholarly and other high quality sources. This isn't Otto Middleton.   Will Beback  talk  09:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, fortunately we do have sources to back that up: far right and African-Americans, African-American Muslims, and and again. Based on those sources, Jayen's edit that you reverted was right on the money. Is Will the only one who objects to readding Jayen's sentence, "The movement had its origins in radical leftist student politics of the 1960s, but sought alliances with a variety of other groups including the far right, American muslims and African American groups from the mid-1970s onwards" using the sources I just linked to? More verbiage can be added to the article using those sources also. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The vast preponderance of sources say that the movement moved to the right. Jayen466 deleted that material without a clear reason. I'm fine for listing the groups that the movement allied with, and adding a summary to the intro, but not with deleting the well-sourced material.   Will Beback  talk  04:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

How about a compromise of, "The movement had its origins in radical leftist student politics of the 1960s, but was accused of moving to the far right at the same time it sought alliances with a variety of other groups including American muslims and African American groups from the mid-1970s onwards." ? Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've created a section for "Alliances with other groups". Editors can fill it in. As for your proposed text, let's not muddy the waters. The movement had its origins in radical student politics of the 1960s, and moved to the far right in the mid-1970s. It has formed short-term alliances with various groups including the Liberty Lobby, the Nation of Islam, and the New Alliance Party.   Will Beback  talk  05:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're unwilling to compromise, then I guess we'll have to go with the consensus, which right now is two editors for, one against. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not willing to compromise on neutrality. But I am willing to add the groups you're insist on. Two against one is not consensus.   Will Beback  talk  05:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sixty-six percent is consensus. This edit isn't "my insistence". I'm saying that I support readding the sentence that Jayen added and you reverted without prior discussion, namely, "The movement had its origins in radical leftist student politics of the 1960s, but sought alliances with a variety of other groups including the far right, American muslims and African American groups from the mid-1970s onwards". Cla68 (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"Sixty-six percent is consensus"? That's hilarious.

The existing text is accurate and NPOV. What's the problem?   Will Beback  talk  06:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a question about the 66% consensus issue. We may need to re-write that policy. Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Sixty-six percent is consensus.   Will Beback  talk  06:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer is that 66% is not consensus.   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Who's engaged in "edit warring" now?

Why was well-sourced material deleted?   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No discussion? That's too bad.

As a second compromise offer, I suggest this text. The movement had its origins in radical student politics of the 1960s, and moved to the far right in the mid-1970s, when it sought alliances with a variety of other groups including the far right, American Muslims and African American groups. That incorporates the "alliances" material while still retaining the very well-sourced "moved to the far right" material.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind discussing the intro with me again after the savage dustup elsewhere about "lube 'n' sh*t", I could support your proposed wording if you removed the first instance of the word 'far'. As a suggestion, a compromise between 'moved to' and 'accused of moving to' could be 'was perceived to be moving to'. →StaniStani  23:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the neologism dispute, so that's no problem.

Everything we find in reliable sources could be prefaced by "described as", "said to", "perceived to be" and similar terms that place the assertions at arm's length. They are sometimes useful when the sources are sketchy, or when there's a significant dispute. But that's not the case here.

We have about 20 sources for "far right", 10 sources that use "extreme right-wing", 6 that use "radical right-wing" or similar, 3 which use "ultra right-wing" and one which uses "extremely conservative". About 8 use "fascist". In all, about 48 sources which refer to something beyond the mainstream right-wing. By comparison, only about 14 simply use "right-wing" though several of those add other epithets, like "bizarre" or "cult", so I don't think that simply using "right" without an additional adjective would correctly summarize the sources. I'm fine with any of those: "far", "extreme", "radical", or "ultra". To my mind they have more or less the same meaning.

How about this? According to outside observers, the movement had its origins in radical student politics of the 1960s, and moved to the far/extreme/radical/ultra right in the mid-1970s. They formed alliances with... The "outside observers" makes it clear that these are observations, and contrast these views with the movement's different view of itself which are already given in the first paragraph.   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Could we examine your sources in more detail here? I'd toss the Chip Berlet stuff right out as axe-grinding. →StaniStani  04:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If we toss out one source then that leaves 47 which refer to some form of extreme right-wing orientation. So it doesn't make much difference. However I don't understand the basis for tossing Chip Berlet. Please explain.   Will Beback  talk  04:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OTOH, forget Berlet for the time being. Even discarding ten sources leaves an overwhelming predominance for one general view. That's what we should be summarizing.   Will Beback  talk  10:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-05-28/LaRouche movement

Any active editors here who want to participate are welcome to join.   Will Beback  talk  04:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Stanistani, Cla68 has dropped out of this discussion, apparently, but you've stuck around. I'll add you to the mediation instead. You can agree or disagree to participate.   Will Beback  talk  19:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If I might say hello. It seems to me that intelligent editors here are being bamboozled by lazy sources. The terms Left and Right haven't been seen very much in public debate since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and they weren't that helpful even before that. Joseph Stalin was a popular leader who came from a Socialist power base and became a dictator who murdered millions. Adolph Hitler was a popular leader who came from a Socialist power base and became a dictator who murdered millions. Does calling them Left or Right help in furthering our understanding? Maybe rather than sticking with those terms, some intelligent paraphrasing might be helpful and produce something that can be agreed on? $0.02. Rumiton (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Given the roots of the movement, and their odd claim to be 'FDR Democrats', plus their crypto-fascist bent, it's possible conventional 'left' or 'right' labels simply don't apply. It would make sense to leave that part out completely from the intro, at least. →StaniStani  06:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could charge any source with being lazy, but that's a hash indictment without any reason to support it. Many of the sources are published by academic presses - ostensibly the highest quality of sources available. Ultimately, we're here to summarize reliable sources, not to make up our own definitions. If 10 sources said that a particular building was painted kelly green, but we thought it looked more like forest green, we'd still say it was described as kelly green.

The terms Left and right, in a political context, date back to the French Revolution and I don't see any sign of them disappearing. Since these are such widely held views, I think they are appropriate for the lead. We do want to inform the readers about the basics of the movement. The intro includes the movement's own view of itself. If we removed the outside views then we'd violate NPOV by only giving one side. Can anyone suggest a better way of summarizing the sources at Talk:LaRouche movement/political orientation?   Will Beback  talk  08:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I just read them over. I would say they disagreed with each other. Summary? "The LaRouche movement's placement on the common political spectrum from 'left to right' is indeterminate." →StaniStani  08:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a few sources which disagree, but there is a strong majority which says the movement moved from the far left to the far right, and a tiny minority which say something else. Why would we summarize the few and ignore the dozens, including highly reliable scholarly sources? How many sources do you count that say the movement isn't on the right? How many say it is on the right?   Will Beback  talk  08:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How about this? According to most outside observers, the movement had its origins in radical student politics of the 1960s, and moved to the far/extreme/radical/ultra right in the mid-1970s. However a few observers say that the movement never changed, that it has both leftist and rightist aspects, or that it fits into neither category. That covers all of the sources we have.   Will Beback  talk  08:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find that particularly informative, and it could teeter on the edge of point. I feel sure a better summation could be arrived at without resorting to synthesis. The essence of the sources' opinions might be reported, as Stanistani said, and the disagreements noted, just without stepping into the left-right trap. Rumiton (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The shift from far left to far right is very unusual and perhaps even unique in American politics. A number of authors or editors have even incorporated that shift into the titles of the pieces. So it is an important and existential aspect of the movement. That said, there's always more than one way to summarize the same sources. I'm open to other alternatives. What is the WP:POINT issue?   Will Beback  talk  16:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave the summation to involved editors. The good rules of any organisation, if taken literally and extended further than they were intended to, produce absurdities. Wikipedia is like that, and point is intended to stop people doing this. I thought your suggestion, which I took to be tongue-in-cheek, for including left, right, both and neither in the lead might serve as an illustration of the problem. Rumiton (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Along the lines of what Stanistani and Rumiton are saying, because of the differing opinions and ambiguity in the sources about which part of the political spectrum the LaRouche movement fell under starting in the 1970s, it probably would be safer not to try to define the LaRouche Movement's political orientation in Wikipedia's voice. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why the proposal starts, " According to most outside observers, ..." That's not "Wikipedia's voice".   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• For the benefit of other editors who may not have access to the source, the source for the sentence "In the 1970s and 1980s thousands [later changed to hundreds] of candidates, some with only limited knowledge of LaRouche or the movement, ran on the LaRouche platform" is Bennett p. 362, which reads:

  La Rouchians shrewdly exploited some of the themes being used by the Posse Comitatus: in agricultural downstate areas they pointed to the villainy of bankers, the need to protect family farms, the dangers of drug traffic in big cities. The results would not be easily replicated. In primaries later that spring and in the general election in November, La Rouchians were swamped by alerted party machines; their legislative initiative in California calling for the quarantining of AIDS patients was overwhelmingly rejected. Lyndon La Rouche had enjoyed his moment in the spotlight, insisting after Illinois that he represented the "forgotten majority," and that like "the Wallace phenomenon some years ago," voters "want me to stick it to Washington," to confront "the sneering face of the eastern liberal establishment." But his political organization, despite recruiting many candidates (some of whom were unaware of his history or program), did not represent the cutting edge of a mass movement. Although he claimed almost thirty thousand members of his NDPC in more than forty states, observers argued that his hard-core following in the mid-I980s remained very small, numbering at most a few thousand.

• It adds later on,

  "a man who made the long leap from the radical Left. But like Robert Welch in the days of his assault on Dwight Eisenhower, La Rouche's right‐wing vision of an America led by traitors, of famous Democrats and Republicans who are "agents of Soviet influence," has no chance of finding a real following."

• The New York Times source Will added here says,

  The upset victories of two LaRouche candidates in last month's Illinois Democratic primary have brought him a barrage of national attention unlike anything his movement has experienced in its 20-year odyssey from the far left to its present eccentric positions, which defy description in conventional political terms.

• To LaRouche himself, left and right are false distinctions. The term "far right" is usually associated with supremacism and opposition to the concept of racial equality, a position that the LaRouche movement most emphatically does not subscribe to, as witnessed by the number of Jews and African Americans (including a couple of civil rights legends) who have played leading roles in their organisation. That's also a reason why the actual American far right does not consider LaRouche an ally -- there's too many Jews and other ethnic minorities in the movement for their liking. The Reagan administration could be added to the groups he sought alliances with, successfully for some time. --JN466 18:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There are various views about how to describe the political orientation of LaRouche and his movement. He sees himself as a Whig, most observers place him on the right or far-right, and a few use other descriptions. NPOV does not say that if there are differing views on a topic then just don't mention it at all. It says the opposite: include all significant views found in reliable sources. It's a significant and widely held view that LaRouche moved from the far left to the right or far-right. Omitting it would violate NPOV.

I have no objection to adding the Reagan Administration to the list of alliances. I'm sure we can find a source which makes an assertion like that, though the question of whether Reagan was more right or far-right is perhaps better left to other forums. The fact that some groups eventually ended their alliances, or rebuffed them in the first place, is appropriate to add too, if we have sources for those assertions.   Will Beback  talk  06:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: the New York Times article quoted above by Jayen466 also says:

• More recently, as his philosophy has undergone a polar change to right-wing extremism, Mr. LaRouche has revised his description of the early days. For example, a 1974 article in one of his publications said he was briefly attached to the Communist Party International, then became a sort of hardened Trotskyite. Today, Mr. LaRouche says I was never in the Communist Party, adding that I went there a few times, talked to them a few times, and when I found out what they were, departed.

So it's a common description, found in the best sources. While the "eccentric positions" of LaRouche and the movement may "defy description in conventional political terms" that doesn't mean that their basic position in the political spectrum is impossible to describe. Many authors do so.   Will Beback  talk  07:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

[4]. Will that do? --JN466 11:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It'd be best to discuss the proposals on this page first.

• Having characteristics common to European fascist organizations but holding recruitment drives that recurrently target the African American and American muslim communities, LaRouche groups can appear to have a bizarre nature to outsiders. The three-dimensional model, though, suggests that while perhaps unusual, LaRouche may nonetheless be understood as a multicultural right-wing centralist, espousing a European model of fascism with global ambitions but also having an inclusive multicultural orientation and membership. Mattias Gardell (2003). Gods of the blood: the pagan revival and white separatism. Duke University Press. p. 338. ISBN 9780822330714. Retrieved 22 May 2011.

Is "targeting for recruitment" the same as "seeking alliances with"? That might not be the best summary. We can get more specific than "American Muslims": LaRouche specifically formed an alliance with Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam. He may have recruited in African American communities, but I can't think of what other Black groups with which he "sought alliances". Maybe we it'd be mre straightforward to say this:

• The movement had its origins in radical student politics of the 1960s and in the mid-1970s, according to many outside observers, it moved to the right wing, the far right, or even towards fascism. However a other observers say that the movement never changed, that it has both leftist and rightist aspects, or that it fits into neither category. It has sought alliances with many groups, including the Liberty Lobby, the Reagan Administration, and the Nation of Islam, and has recruited a multicultural membership.

That seems like a better summary of Gardell and the other sources.   Will Beback  talk  19:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to get away from labels, especially labels present in newspaper one-liners by journalists who haven't actually researched the movement, but only mention it in passing. All the more so when the well-researched sources agree that labelling the movement is problematic, and contradictory labels are used -- the convenience for the reader of having a label is entirely destroyed when we say that all sorts of labels and non-labels have been applied. Describing the policies and alliances that were pursued, and the movement's multicultural composition, does a better job of communicating the difficulties involved in assigning the group to a fixed point on the political spectrum. (As for African-Americans, Marable e.g. describes approaches to dozens of black leaders.) The present wording does a reasonable job, and takes on board your concern that a majority (but by no means all) of the more recent news sources tend to label it a right-wing movement.

I'd rather we did some work on the Alleged violence and harassment section, tagged since Sept. 2010. That section is just ridiculously overblown with micro detail (especially compared to how sketchy the rest of the article is). It currently makes up 60% of the entire article! --JN466 01:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep this thread for the "Intro" section and start other threads for other sections. Let's also make proposal on the talk page before implementing them - is that OK?

As for the political orientation of the LaRouche movement, we can toss out all of the newspapers and non-scholarly books if we want to use just the best available sources. Even so, we still have an overwhelming preponderance who say that the movement moved from the far left to the right or far right.

Can you say specifically what you object to in my proposal? It's closer to the sources that are being cited, and is more precise.   Will Beback  talk  03:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The sentence "according to many outside observers, it moved to the right wing, the far right, or even towards fascism. However a other observers say that the movement never changed, that it has both leftist and rightist aspects, or that it fits into neither category." is just a catastrophe. It's not readable. You have to remember that we are writing for a reader who wants to understand something. That sentence will just leave them flummoxed. --JN466 09:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I am also currently doing some source research to see if characterisations of the movement have actually changed since the late 1980s, when they had their most notable far-right contacts. (I'm intrigued that there is even a recent source saying he used to be a right-wing extremist and is now a left-wing extremist!) While they supported Reagan in the 1980s, they later came to be vehemently opposed to Bush, supporting Democrat candidates instead. That may have confused some journalists. (Coming back to the African American thing briefly, Berlet says "While LaRouche rhetoric can seem bonkers, his followers are successful in recruiting students on college campuses and in networking with some Black Nationalist groups.") --JN466 09:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The sentence needs to cover the range of views, not hide them. I'm not tied to that word order. We might also want to add the concept that the movement occupies a "third dimension" on the political spectrum, a view expressed by several sources who say that the movement doesn't fit into the right/left continuum.

If the movement was a leftist student group in the 1960s, then a right-wing group in the 1970s, and then became something else in the 1980s (and since) then that'd certainly be worth including.

The Black Nationalist group which the movement allied with is NOI, and that was in the mid-1990s. It also allied, even more closely, in the mid-1970s with a NY street gang called "The Outlaws", but that connection is more obscure. (It's covered in an extensive investigative piece in the Village Voice, "Marx & the Outlaws Recruiting in the ghetto", [posted on the web]. It's also described in King, but it received little other attention.)

Here's another attempt at a comprehensive and accurate summary:

• The movement had its origins in radical student politics of the 1960s. In the mid-1970s, according to many outside observers, it moved to the right wing, the far right, or even towards fascism. However other observers disagree, saying that the movement is still left-wing or that it occupies a position on a third dimension of the political spectrum. It has sought alliances with many groups, including the Liberty Lobby, the Reagan Administration, and the Nation of Islam, and has recruited a multicultural membership.

I've put the alliance in chronological order, if that's OK.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If there's no objection I'll post this version.   Will Beback  talk  09:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I'll add it.   Will Beback  talk  07:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Will, your recent addition of that sentence to the intro was objected to specifically by Jayen above. I thought it was clear that all the other contributors to this discussion found that any labeling of LaRouche as "right-wing" or, especially, "fascist" was problematic. Why do you feel that your edit is supported by "consensus"? Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I edited it to address Jayen's concern about the readability of the material. He never responded so I assumed he had no further complaints.

It's common in Wikipedia articles about political movements and parties to characterize their place on the political spectrum. The Republican Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States... The party's platform generally reflects American conservatism in the U.S. political spectrum and is considered center-right, in contrast to the center-left Democrats. Do you also object to identifying the Republican Party as "center-right"?   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I was preoccupied with the santorum matter ... I don't think the rewrite did improve the readability; it was basically the same wording as before. I agree with SmokeyJoe's comment over at WT:Consensus about "scratching-for-descriptions without traction". I've done a revert, but added "fascist or unclassifiable" as other descriptors in common use. --JN466 09:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've asked a few times if we could work on the draft on the talk page. Is there a problem with that request?

The LaRouche movement is first and foremost a political group. It is famously hard-to-describe. Yet many high quality sources do so. Just as we describe other political groups as being "liberal", "Leftist", "Maoist", "center-right", etc., so too should we attempt to describe this movement's positions. I think we're getting close to doing that correctly.

Any objection to replacing American Muslims with Nation of Islam? That's the one and only American Muslim group with which there was an alliance, though it was rather brief and inconsequential. Does it even belong in the intro?  Will Beback  talk  10:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Changed to Nation of Islam; I'm not sure if it was the one and only such group, but even if not, you're right that it's the relevant alliance most commented on. --JN466 11:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Which "other African American groups" are we referring to?   Will Beback  talk  00:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

See Berlet and Marable above. --JN466 11:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Berlet refers to "networking with some Black Nationalist groups". A network isn't the same thing as an alliance, and we've already mentioned the NOI, a Black Nationalist group. Manning refers to the complex and changing relationships between LaRouche and various black leaders, but not so much to any groups per se. One of his references is to LaRouche's appearance at the National African American Leadership Summit, where he was booed off the stage, so it's hard to describe that as an "alliance". He also refers to endorsements from individuals in the mid-1990s.

• LAROUCHE'S empire was seriously threatened when in 1989 he and six of his top aides were convicted of federal fraud and tax evasion charges, receiving prison sentences of up to fifteen years. It was during the federal government's successful prosecution of LaRouche that the organization accelerated its efforts to cultivate friends and allies among black Americans. From his prison cell, LaRouche launched his 1992 presidential campaign by selecting the Reverend James Bevel as his running mate. A surprising number of African American leaders endorsed the campaign; among the most prominent were the Reverend Hosea Williams, field director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and county commissioner of De Kalb County Georgia, and Amelia Boynton Robinson, a civil rights movement veteran and a 1990 recipient of the Martin Luther King Jr. Freedom Medal. In the LaRouche newspaper the New Federalist, African-American supporters of LaRouche stated: "It is time to secure the victories of the civil rights movement that was led by Dr. Martin Luther King, and guarantee the economic and moral future of our posterity For these reasons we hereby endorse the LaRouche-Bevel candidacy, and encourage all citizens to join our new movement and vote LaRouche-Bevel on Nov. 3." The endorsers of this statement included Joseph Dickson, publisher of the Birmingham World newspaper; the Reverend Floyd Rose, former editor of the Macon Reporter; and Mattie Harkness, former president of the Pickens County, Alabama, chapter of the NAACP. -Black fundamentalism Manning Marable. Dissent. New York: Spring 1998. Vol. 45, Iss. 2; pg. 69, 8 pgs

So "alliances with ...other African American groups" does not seem like the best summary. Maybe "various African American leaders" would be closer to the mark?   Will Beback  talk  16:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In response to Jayen466's revert:[5] We already cover the collaborators and members at the end of the intro. The "collaborators" include some of the black leaders like Bevel and Robinson. Why shouldn't we put the sought-for alliances with outside groups in the same place?

It's getting a bit frustrating when editors just revert without discussion. Are no editors here willing to participate in mediation?   Will Beback  talk 

Since there's no further response I'm going to move the "alliances" material to put it next to the members and collaborators material, and alter it to refer to African American leaders rather than groups.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If anyone disagrees please discuss it before reverting.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Will has deleted the text about alliances sought with right-wing groups, or moved it to the end of the lead, four times now [6][7][8][9], and I don't see anyone on the talk page supporting either. Deleting that passage or moving it to the end of the lead separates it from the observation that the movement started out on the classic left, but then abandoned that position. According to reliable sources, these alliances were what marked the shift away from classical leftism, and caused the movement to be viewed as right-wing, or unclassifiable. A Marxist group that allies with the Reagan administration and the Liberty Lobby no longer qualifies as a Marxist group. So could we please leave the passage where it originally was, until and unless there is a talk page consensus and a supporting rationale supported by more than one editor to move it? --JN466 00:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The sentence about alliances did seem rather abrupt where it was placed in the lead, but from a copy editor's POV, I hope bringing the date of the search for righter wing alliances to the start of the sentence makes it clear that this was part of the changing dynamic that the group began in this period. Rumiton (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'll add my support for Jayen's version of the lede. I thought this was settled already since only one editor is of a contrary opinion. Cla68 (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Contentious statements

• I wonder if we are using the same definition? My dictionary says, Contentious: Causing or likely to cause an argument. I think there are, as Cla pointed out, any number of statements in this section that would likely cause an argument, since they are opinions presented in Wikipedia's voice. Here are some of them:

A LaRouche organization distributed almost-pornographic posters of Illinois politician Jane Byrne, and called other female politicians "prostitutes" and their husbands "pimps".

LaRouche followers have a long reputation for heckling politicians and disrupting meetings

LaRouche's movement has persistently harassed journalists who have covered it.

From time to time over the years, suspicions regarding a potential LaRouche connection to the murder have surfaced. (A particularly nasty example, surely.)

Also the occasional and uncritical use of the word "followers" carries a stigma of cultism. From the 1970s to the 2000s, LaRouche followers have staffed card tables in airports and in front of post offices, state offices, college quads, and grocery stores... Rumiton (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You've misquoted the text. We don't use 'Wikipedia's voice' in this sentence:

• A LaRouche organization distributed almost-pornographic posters of Illinois politician Jane Byrne, and called other female politicians "prostitutes" and their husbands "pimps", according to Mike Royko.[81]

You just left off the attribution. Mike Royko is a notable 'voice'.   Will Beback  talk  12:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the Palme assassination - that's actually in a different section than we're discussing. It's factually true that the LaRouche connection has reappeared occasionally. Let's discuss it separately.   Will Beback  talk  02:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If one looks at all the examples I have given I think it is clear that Wikipedia's voice is being lent to contentious views of the subject. Rumiton (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The only one of these that makes an assertion without a source is "LaRouche's movement has persistently harassed journalists who have covered it". That's basically a summary of the material that follows. I'll remove it, though I think it aids readers. The assertion that the movement has a reputation for heckling politicians is sourced, and is also a reasonable summary of Lieberman's quote. Witt, of the Washington Post, writes:

• LaRouche, who expresses loathing for timid conformists, wears belligerence like a badge. He and his supporters accuse perceived enemies of slander, crimes, plots and perversions. [..] Sometimes she thinks about showing up at one of LaRouche's speeches and disrupting it the way LaRouche activists disrupt other people's events. [10]

We can add "According to the Washington Post".   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the use of "followers", that's one of the more neutral terms used by sources. "Supporters" is another term we could use for variety. I think it's best to avoid more specific terms, like "LaRouchites", as those definitely have a connotation.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

'Supporters' is a more neutral term and should be the preferred term, in my opinion, unless an alternative term is being used or quoted from a specific source. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what makes "supporters" more neutral than "followers". But I checked the Proquest newspaper archive and did a rough survey, looking for ["lyndon larouche" + follower] and ["lyndon larouche" + supporter]. They're in the same ballpark, about 2700 hits for the first and 3100 for the second. The article does favor "followers" over "supporters", by about 31 to 9. I'll review the sources and switch more of them to "supporters", or whichever terms the sources use. If sources use terms like "LaRouchies", which many do, should we use those instead?   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• 18-He was opposed by Mel Logan, a coal miner, who despite running as a Democrat is a follower of Lyndon LaRouche's political movement.
• 33-Although LaRouche publicly eschews violence, over the years members have been charged with a variety of offenses, including assault, possession of weapons, possession of explosives, and kidnapping. There have, however, been few convictions .
• 36-With the help of a small band of disciples, he fomented violence during anti-war protests.
• 37-...repel an expected invasion by Lyndon LaRouche's Labor Committee (as I recall).
• 44-Doug Jenness, a member of the defense squad, recalls that about forty LaRouchians "filtered into the hall, some wearing leather jackets. They had staves concealed under blankets. When Storey started speaking, they stood up and moved forward, putting on brass knuckles and displaying nunchukas."
• 65-At churches and supermarkets in this county seat, Mr. LaRouche's supporters have handed out leaflets asserting that five residents allied themselves knowingly with persons and organizations which are part of the international drug lobby.
• 73-Some LaRouche supporters have distributed leaflets describing a top FBI official as a homosexual, and have demonstrated against William Weld, the U.S. attorney in Boston, by chanting, "Weld is a fag."
• 72-LaRouche followers picketed the federal Post Office and Court building on several occasions and passed out leaflets accusing Weld of involvement in drug trafficking. Last Christmas, they sang a jingle advocating that he be hanged in public, ending with the words: When his tongue and eyes stick out, then justice will be done.
• 74-When Mitchell asked who they were, the two identified themselves as followers of Lyndon LaRouche.
• 77-One man appeared unmoved when a labor party member suggested that political assassination might be a part of the Labor Party effort.
• 79-In August 1982, LaRouche followers held a Washington press briefing to denounce Kissinger as a homosexual and release information claiming to link him, through an Italian Masonic lodge, with the murder of Aldo Moro. [..] A year later, LaRouche was in the news again when Nancy Kissinger, wife of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, was accused of attempting to choke a Fusion Energy Foundation demonstrator at Newark Internal Airport.
• 83-They were there, said the "LaRouchies," as they've become known, "to exorcise the demons out of Neil Hartigan's soul."
• 86-President Bush was confronted Wednesday by a supporter of political extremist Lyndon LaRouche, who refused to release his grip during a handshake with the President until the Secret Service stepped in, a White House spokesman said.
• 131-I mentioned that they were distributing handbills. Unsigned, of course. The LaRouchites--like people who make obscene phone calls--don't like to leave their names.
• 54-Perhaps more significant, the jury ordered LaRouche to pay $3 million to NBC on the network's counterclaim that LaRouche and his followers had played "dirty tricks" on the network and had interfered with its newsgathering activities by, for example, impersonating NBC reporters and producers. (Lynch 1985)
• 135-George E. Hollis of San Diego, a candidate for the Democratic nomination to Congress from the 45th District, dismissed reports of wrongdoing on the part of any LaRouche supporters.
• 136-Pearl is a grass roots organizer for the National Democratic Policy Committee.

Here are excerpts from many of the sentences using the word "followers", listed by footnotes from the current version.[11] Several use "followers" some use "supporters", a couple use "members", and there are a handful of other terms. If there are no objections, I'll use the terms from these sources.   Will Beback  talk  06:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that most of these sources were being deliberately somewhat provocative in their choice of descriptors. This group might thoroughly deserve any pejoratives that come their way, but Wikipedia still has an obligation to choose more neutral wording. Maybe a good yardstick would be "Would group members choose this word to describe themselves?" We could then guess what word they might prefer and choose something in the middle. Is that too much guesswork? Rumiton (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a lot of speculation and guesswork. I'm not aware, off hand, of any source that says what members of the movement call themselves. Using the terms from reliable sources seems like the sensible approach. Just because member of the Church of Latter Day Saints don't use the term is no reason why Wikipedia articles shouldn't refer to "Mormons".   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with that. A description of a movement should first describe the movement as its members see themselves, then list outside opinions. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should include how members describe themselves first. I'm just saying that we should not use the preferred term exclusively. Any sources for what they call themselves?   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The subject's own website, [[12]], describes his associates as "members" and "volunteers." Perhaps this primary source would be acceptable for this innocuous information. In a piece dated yesterday he also clarifies his current political stance: In any competent attempt to deal with the actual principles of modern warfare, it is essential that the measure associated with a mistaken, sense-certainty-based notion of a proper standard of measure, must be discarded. That must be done in favor of what I shall restate here, as a truly Riemannian notion of the transcendental, as this is to be reconsidered from the vantage-point of V. I. Vernadsky’s presentation of the universal physical principle of the Noösphere. Of course, we would need a source to explain this to us, and we may not be likely to find one. Rumiton (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the page you're referring to. The home page http://www.larouchepac.com/ has an "Outreach" section with links marked "Membership"

"Contribute" "Volunteer" "Subscribe", etc. But that's just standard language. Is there a page where the references are in prose?   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The link works for me, but I think we are talking about the same page. They describe how to "become a member" or "volunteer." Maybe "standard language" is the language they use? Rumiton (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the page for LPAC, about which we have an article, LaRouche PAC. In that article we refer to the members as "members", following the lead of the secondary sources. This article, however, concerns many organizations, so I don't think the LPAC page can be viewed as representative of what people in the movement were called long before LPAC was formed.   Will Beback  talk  02:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the new organisation uses such unexceptional terms, it seems quibblesome to suspect its relatives and predecessors of anything dramatically different. Rumiton (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the general sentiment expressed here, that in the sections of the article where the topic is permitted to self-describe, we should use their terminology. In other instances we should generally use the term used in the source unless there are some special circumstances to consider.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine, when referring to LPAC, to also use the terms they use for their people: members, volunteers, contributors, and subscribers. But we shouldn't use "volunteers" generally because we don't know who is volunteering and who is paid. Likewise for "contributors" and "subscribers". "Members" is a fine word to use and we can add it to the rotation with other terms. But on the whole, we should probably use those terms used by the secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Per the discussion here, I've added a line to the "members" section about what LPAC members are called. That's next to a sentence on what secondary sources call them. We don't have a listing of more generic terms used by secondary sources, such as "devotees", "disciples", etc., but I don't see a real need for that.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Alleged violence and harassment section

That section has been tagged since Sept. 2010. It's full of micro detail and makes up more than half the article, well in excess of 4,000 words. It's totally undue, especially since we are not covering many central aspects of the movement at all. Can we work on reducing that? --JN466 09:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tagged (repeatedly) by HK's socks. The only reason I haven't removed it again is that he'd probably just create another sock to restore it. Rather than delete sourced material, it's better to add more. Which central aspects of the movement are we not covering?   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to say that repeated warnings of the menace posed by "HK socks" and what they may or may not do probably won't help us resolve content issues. Let's please focus on resolving the content concerns amongst ourselves. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I only mentioned it because Jayen466 used a tag placed by HK's sock as a reason for looking at this section. I'll gladly stop mentioning HK as soon as he stops being a factor in the editing of this topic.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you feel that "HK socks" are a constant, imminent menace to this topic area? Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Central aspects we are not covering, off the top of my head, are its Neoplatonist philosophy; the importance of classical music and singing; the value placed on studying the classics, maths and science; Civil Rights activism and outreach to Black Americans; opposition to colonialism/globalization; perhaps also views on industrial/agricultural development, including in the Third World. Some (though not all) of these topics are presently addressed in the Views of ... article. If we followed ResidentAnthropologist's RfC suggestion and made that article about political positions, then the relevant items that are outside the article's new scope could be transferred here to avoid duplication. --JN466 00:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding views to the article. ResidentAnthropologist's proposal doesn't cover that, but we don't need his permission. ;) How do we decide which views are those of the movement and which belong to LaRouche personally?   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any objection to my doing some work to produce a shorter summary of this 4,000-word section on alleged violence and harassment? It presently makes up close to 50% of the body of the article, and I think we can get the point across in a less prolix manner. --JN466 22:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No objection. Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I object. The material is well-sourced and relevant. My recent experience on this page is that editors simply make changes without seeking consensus first. If Jayen would like to make major changes to the article then I'd request that he create a draft page, Talk:LaRouche movement/draft, and allow us all to work on it.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Before we do that, let's do an RfC to get some outside input on whether shortening the section would be appropriate. --JN466 00:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is a good time for a major re-write of stable material, considering that some are seeking to have the ArbCom review editing of this topic.   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Length of the "Alleged violence and harassment" section

According to the page size tool, the article LaRouche movement presently has a length of 8,422 words. The section Alleged violence and harassment runs to 4,085 words, and represents more than half the article's body text. Should the section be reworked, and replaced with a shorter summary? (See prior discussion above this section.) --JN466 00:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason given for shortening this section. WP:WEIGHT tells us to determine the amount of space in an article should be based roughly on the prominence of issues in reliable secondary sources. That seems to be the case with this material. Why delete well-sourced, relevant material?   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I consider the section in its present state WP:UNDUE. For this weight to be justified, all published sources about the LaRouche movement should devote about half of the bulk of their coverage of the movement to incidents of alleged violence and harassment. This is far from being the case; and what we have here is a prime example of a WP:COATRACK. Google News search for LaRouche movement: [13]. Google Scholar: [14]. Google Books: [15]. Having said that, allegations and reports of violence and harassment are unquestionably a topic that must be covered in this article, but it should be done in summary style, listing particularly prominent cases only, rather than as an enumeration of dozens of major and minor such incidents that takes up more than half the article's body. --JN466 01:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the "LaRouche movement" is know by various names, so searching for that term alone will not result in complete coverage.   Will Beback  talk  02:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting WP:UNDUE/WP:WEIGHT. It does not say that all sources on a topic must have equal treatment of an issue. That would be absurd. there are countless article that contain material that's not even mentioned in many relevant sources. Nor is this a COATRACK, since all of the material is about elements of the LaRouche movement.

Anytime I see someone complain about WP:UNDUE I have to ask what they think is the appropriate weight and why. Based on the numerous reliable sources covering this topic, some at great length, how much weight are you proposing devoting to this material?   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, when it comes to weight, some topics are mainly covered in other articles. The US political activities, for example, are covered in at least three other articles, while their scientific publishing is in a fourth article. This is just one of the articles in Category: LaRouche movement. On weight issues we need to remember that it's just part of a series.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Shorten. I may be an involved editor, although checking the article history it looks like I've only made a single edit to the actual article. I see several problems with the "violence" section. First of all, it's much too long and detailed for the size of the article. The details can definitely be summarized. Second, it presents a lot of opinion in Wikipedia's voice. Cla68 (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the overall length of the LaRouche movement articles, minus biographies. It undercounts the actual length because it excludes text in lists

LaRouche movement	8422
U.S. Labor Party	2349
North American Labour Party	367
Party for the Commonwealth of Canada	88
Fusion Energy Foundation	3444
Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement	2567
Schiller Institute	2595
National Caucus of Labor Committees	1423
Executive Intelligence Review	764
European Workers Party	541
Citizens Electoral Council	1682
Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität	266
Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns	1191
LaRouche criminal trials	5971
Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement	8607
	40277

The material in question is just over 4000 words, or about 10%. That seems entirely reasonable and not undue weight at all.   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, you know as well as I do that there are multiple references to violence and harassment in these other articles as well. National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees#Operation_Mop_Up, U.S._Labor_Party#Criticism, European_Workers_Party, et al. --JN466 22:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. One would expect that of important and widely reported material. That shows the issue is pervasive.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, I think there is a certain roundness, if not an actual circularity, to your reasoning here. Rumiton (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Major issues get significant coverage. Major issues are relevant to multiple related articles. I don't see the circularity. Please explain.   Will Beback  talk  05:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yous said, "On weight issues, we need to remember that it is just part of a series." Then when it was pointed out to you that the rest of the series also gave a lot of space to allegations and reports of violence, you said, "Certainly, one would expect that of important and widely reported material." IOW, you acknowledged that the violence coverage may have been excessive for one article, then denied it was excessive when shown it occurred throughout a series of other articles as well. Rumiton (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The matter is mentioned briefly in other articles, where specifically relevant, and in depth in this article. That's consistent with good encyclopedia writing. I'm sure this material can be improved -- everything on Wikipedia can be improved. Let's focus on specific remedies. Which statements do you think are contentious?   Will Beback  talk  12:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Condense. I wouldn't call this apparent emphasis on the group's bully boy tactics undue, but as a copy editor I just find the section repetitious. It almost seems that we have said, "Look, sources tell us that these people are deeply weird and have done a lot of anti-social and anti-democratic things, and in case you don't believe us, here are 16 different ways of telling you about them." The point could be made more sharp by pruning down the verbiage, especially removing the repetition. Also agree with Cla that contentious statements are appearing here in the voice of Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • To which contentious statements are you referring? We should deal with those right away.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll move this list to a new section, to avoid distracting the RFC. #Contentious statements   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Shorten. This article may be stable, but it is also about a stable: The stable the poor horse lived in before it was allegedly poisoned by the LaRouche-Movement. This rumor, reported by an unnamed businessman to a local newspaper and other similar rumors threaten the repution of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. I agree with Jayen that this article is a COATRACK and thus support the move to shorten the article. Waalkes (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • — Waalkes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Content fork into dedicated article - The violence/harassment material, upon cursory examination, appears to be properly sourced, so it is appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. However, the material is a bit large in relation to the other sections in the article, which is an overview article and should touch on sub-topics in a broad-brush fashion. WP:Content fork may be the best solution: move the violence/harassment material into a new article, and replace it in this article with a short summary. --Noleander (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • That'd be acceptable to me, if folks think that the topic is notable enough for a standalone article. Given the number of sources it may well qualify, though many discuss individual incidents rather than the pattern.   Will Beback  talk  02:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Shorten. The numerical balance alone dictates that, quite obviously.-The Gnome (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on numerical balance, how long should the material be? It's received extensive coverage in secondary sources, which is the metric suggested by WP:NPOV for deciding the depth of coverage within an article.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The text on the movement's alleged violence and harassment takes up almost half the entire article. This would be, perhaps, justified, if this were a violence-only movement --but it clearly is not. The sections on harassment of politicians and journalists are unnecessarily detailed! The movement is a political fringe movement, which has, however, a significant influence. But there's extremely limited, neutral presentation of the movement's ideology, a presentation that should be sourced from texts written by its own proponents (mainly La Rouche himself). On the other hand, the section titled Characterizations, which purports to present the opposition to the LaRouche ideology is also inadequate. For example, why include in there the opinion of another fringe group, the John Birch Society? Where's the notion of notability in this?? I happen to know enough about the subject to know that criticism of the LaRouche Movement extends beyond the fringe. The section itself ("Characterizations") needs a different title. Actually, there should be IMO two sections, one after the other, titled "Ideology" and "Opposition to the LaRouche Movement". In sum: Interested editors should cut down, and with gusto, most of the Yellow Pages-level details (another example: there's an overwhelming amount of info on American and international affiliates!) and expand generously the parts about the movement's ideology and the opposition to it. -The Gnome (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, I cannot but offer my congratulations for the amount of work and the dilligence that have obviously gone into the current text. Excellent work! My itty bitty advice to the responsible contributors is "Don't fall in love with the material". The purpose is to present an encyclopaedic article, when all is said and done. Editing in Wikipedia (just like editing in film making) often means cutting down material we have worked very hard for. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Gnome. When I started serious writing, a publisher told me I must "be prepared to murder my darlings." I have no objection to doing it with "gusto". Let us begin. Rumiton (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Gnome, regarding the percentage of space devoted to the allegations of violence and harassment: First, this movement does have a reputation for those behaviors, though it is not their exclusive activity. Second, this is just one article out of 15 about the LaRouche movement (not countnig about ten biographies of people chiefly known for their involvement in the movement). Per WP:SUMMARY, many other topics are covered in standalone articles. My calculation is that the material represents less than 10% of the text on the movement. If 10% is too much, then how much is the right amount? How do we decide the correct weight to devote to this or any topic? Third, Noleander has suggested splitting the section into a standalone article, which would solve the weight problem. Do you have an opinion on that proposal?   Will Beback  talk  05:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The BLP policy says "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." If you start by omitting the allegations which come from anonymous persons, the section will shrink to a more manageable size. Waalkes (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of any passages in particular?   Will Beback  talk  09:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There are anonynmous sources galore in this article. "George Johnson quotes "a member" saying "We're not very nice," etc. A student who asked a critical question of LaRouche at a rally was reportedly abused verbally by campaign workers and called a "prostitute" by a LaRouche aide. According to one report, experts stated that LaRouche's involvement in the matter allowed his phone solicitors to raise money by saying they needed contributions to fight child abuse in Nebraska. Federal authorities were reported to be concerned that the movement's hatred of Rockefeller would turn violent. There are many more like these. Waalkes (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's standard across Wikipedia to use reports in reliable sources, even when those reports use anonymous sources. In yuor first example, George Johnson and the NYT are our source.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, before you introduced WP:RS, we were talking about WP:BLP. Don't switch topics, please. Do you have to add anything in regard to my examples and WP:BLP concerning the aforementioned anonymous sources? Waalkes (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's all one topic. I don't think that the BLP policy is meant to cover "a member", "experts", or "Federal authorities", none of whom are otherwise identifiable.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically, of course, that is true. Someone has to "carry the can" when Wikipedia makes a statement, and using only reliable sources ensures that WP is not the one to do it. The validity of the information is determined by the sources themselves. But when a RfC results in such widespread disapproval and we don't make changes, we may need to defend ourselves against charges of applying rules to evade the spirit of community consensus, (gaming the system). Rumiton (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. An RFC can help us interpret policies, but we're not here to vote on how long part of an article should be. If people can give policy reasons for devoting a particular amount of space to a topic then that's helpful. Just saying "it's too long, it should be shorter" is the equivalent of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and isn't really as valid argument. If you think it should be shorter please say how much shorter, and give a reason why that's the correct length.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. I have seen this argument used before, but like most assertions, there can be a counter argument. I would suggest that Wikipedia has evolved into one of the most effective democracies there is. When it started, none of the rules and guidelines as we now use them existed. Editors wrote pretty much the truth as they saw it, which was more like anarchy than democracy. Then someone said the magic words, "I don't like it". They presented their case for using only reliable sources, and presented it eloquently enough to sway people into agreeing with them. Since then the rule has evolved further and been joined by many others, all of them produced by the same democratic process. Nothing in this process trumps consensus. It seems to me that requests for comment are just that: attempts at reaching consensus where a rigid application of the rules has produced a situation that many view as untenable. Rumiton (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I have no objection whatsoever to spinning off the section about the movement's alleged confrontational/violent conduct to a separate Wikipedia entry. There's enough reportage, article and books written about the mostly confrontational nature of the movement's brand of political activism to justify its own, separate Wikipedia entry. But be prepared, then, to cut down even more significantly (with more gusto!) the respective section in the main article ("LaRouche movement"). Regards, The Gnome (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:Summary, if we split it off then we'd leave a short summary, something like a couple of short paragraphs.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Shorten The first paragraph in the section is a prime example. It makes a derogatory statement and then repeats it four more times (including a block quote) before mentioning that "there have been few, if any, convictions on these charges". A clear case of undue weight and POV. There is more of the same in the rest of the section. Also the sheer bulk of the section as compared to the rest of the article and the content outline is clearly and obviously excessive in my opinion. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

To repeat the question I've asked others contributing here: what is the proper weight and how do we determine it? WP:NPOV says to give issues weight depending on their prominence in published sources. This topic is covered prominently in many sources. Should we use a different measure instead?   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment FWIW, my own opinion is that the section is probably too long, although there is admittedly some difficulty, based in part on what Will Beback has said above, as to how much weight to give it. As far as I remember, at least for the past several years, I could say that these allegations are the primary reason the group is notable at all. My own personal choice in general is to not make the section of a main article any longer than the three to five paragraphs which are counted as the preferred length of a lede section. If there is more material than can be presented in that length, that material would belong in the dedicated article. This article has no less than 9 subsections of the subsection on this subject. I have to assume that is too much weight, even if the subject is one of the few things the group gets attention for. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, we could work on making the immediate child article on the subject a bit of a priority and work on the relevant content there, and maybe thereafter come back to figure out how much space to give this material? I would think that the sections on History, Philosophy/Beliefs, Criticism, and Organization at least would all be counted as among the main subtopics, and that this material might be the bulk of the content of a Criticism section of roughly proportional length to those other sections. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the sensible comments. FYI, the sources that the section summarizes are mostly excerpted here: Talk:LaRouche_movement/Incidents. Over 175 sources, some of which specifically say that the movement is known for violence or harassment. There are no "History" or "Organization" sections or articles per se - that material is spread across many pages and sections. There is an entire article devoted to Philosophy/Beliefs, Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, which is more than twice as long as the "Violence and harassment" section of this article. Nowadays the use of "Criticism" sections is deprecated and the preference is to spread the critical material into the relevant sections.   Will Beback  talk  21:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Shorten. for me it also looks like a WP:COATRACK -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • A "coatrack" is an article which contains significant material that isn't about the topic. The topic of this article is the LaRouche movement and all of the material in question is about the movement. Is there any specific material you think is especially off-topic?   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Question to Will: I guess one of the questions which might be relevant is exactly which article is, in general, counted as the "main" article on the subject of LaRouche and his followers, his bio or this article. I honestly don't know enough about the subject myself to have any real reasons for a preference, but I tend to think maybe this article would be better as the central article. If this were the primary, then I would think a bit of article restructuring might be called for. Were that to happen, these might be among the most heavily covered aspects in that section. If it were to remain as a first-generation child article of the LaRouche bio (or whatever) then the question would be the prominence of other directly relevant articles to this one. If individual organizations involved in these allegations have separate articles, the bulk of the material would, presumably, be included in them, with summaries here.

In any event, I myself, as an individual, think that the individual related groups are effectively "sub" topics. So, if there were a small number of serious sex scandals in the Eastern Catholic churches, the Catholic sex scandals article would still be the primary location for them. As the movement seems to me to be the more central topic, over individual groups, I would think that they would be covered here, possibly in a "history of the movement" section. Maybe. Also, FWIW, I'm an old enough geezer to remember having seen Lloyd Dobyns' NBC expose on the group when it first came out (it was after the local football game). As I remember, the show ended with Dobyns saying something that closely resembled "this group is dangerous", which I found a shocking and maybe unprecedented statement to make as the summary of the subject in a national news program. Also, maybe, a separate bibliography at the end of the article might be useful. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that careful analysis. It's hard with a man and his movement to decide which one is the best single "parent" article. My inclination would be to regard both this movement article and the bio article as being roughly equal in importance. Since you mention the Catholic Church, let me extend the comparison - which is that logical parent there, Jesus Christ or Christianity? It'd be hard to pick.

I certainly agree that a reorganization of this article, and the articles on constituent organizations, could improve coverage of the topic. There are so many elements to the movement that it's difficult to organize them comprehensively and logically. One problem, especially regarding this section, is that writers often fail to specify which organization a particular group belongs to. Indeed, the supporters themselves may use different designations on different days, or wear several hats at once. It's rather like reporters writing about "Christians" without bothering to identify the denominations.

A history section or article is a great idea. Right now that information is spread across many sections and articles. If this material on violence and harassment were redistributed rather than lumped together it might seem less overwhelming.

I hadn't heard about the Lloyd Dobyns expose, but NBC did at least a couple of reports on LaRouche. (From then on he accused them of being drug dealers and of trying to assassinate him). It's remarkable that a number of journalists have felt the need to explicitly warn about the movement.

A bibliography is a great idea. The article currently lists some of the movement's publications and a couple of LaRouche's books, but it'd be useful to list the most important 3rd-party works about LaRouche as well. While there's only one full-length book on LaRouche and the movement, there plenty of chapters in other books and long articles in newspapers and magazines. I don't know if it's worth converting all the 238 footnotes into a different format, since many citations are used only once.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

John Carter, the simplest reorganization to effect would be to split off the entire "Violence" section as a standalone article, leaving just a summary here. That would address the concerns about weight. Any thoughts on that?   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. The FA on the criminal trials is definitely something I am inclined to leave alone, given its FA status, and I very much commend the work involved in getting it to that point, particularly on contentious matters like this. I know that I very much doubt I could do anything similar myself. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

Consensus seems to be that the section in this article should be trimmed (with a number of editors advocating the creation of a spin-off article). Could we start work on this? --JN466 14:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the RFC was so vague it gives us little guidance. I asked several respondents which parts they think should be deleted or trimmed and received little response. Rumiton had some specific issues, but those have mostly been handled separately. What's your suggestion?   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? I made a very specific suggestion. I suggested removing the allegations from anonymous sources because they violate BLP. You responded by defending the use of anonymous sources. Waalkes (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I just reviewed the list of sources for this section, footnotes 29 through 139. With the exception of Associated Press and other wire reports, only a few are anonymous, and of those most appear in reliable sources, such as the New York Times or BusinessWeek. A few more do not have the byline in the citation, but the source itself has a byline. So aside from other issues, removing anonymous sources would not have a significant impact on the overall length of the material.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary style. --JN466 13:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean WP:SUMMARY? It says:

• Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text may be summarized within the present article. A link should then be provided to a more detailed article about the subtopic.

So would you suggest splitting the section into a standalone article and leave a summary?   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I only see one or two editors suggesting starting a separate article, but the opinions on shortening the section are almost unanimous. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

But, despite requests, no one offered any other method of shortening the section other than splitting it off. (Aside from Waalkes request to remove the few unsigned sources). Jayen466, who started the RFC, appears to endorse splitting. The material is certainly notable enough for a standalone article, considering how many sources say the movement is notable for violence.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a simple and practical proposal. Eliminate all allegations, except those that led to a conviction in a court of law. That should reduce the size of the section somewhat, and it would also be the responsible way to write an encyclopedia. Waalkes (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you propose that as the standard for all LaRouche related articles? Strip them down to only those topics that have determined by juries? That would shrink the whole topic down radically to a couple of paragraphs. But in reality that's not the standard followed anywhere on Wikipedia. This information is well-sourced and neutrally presented. The most commonly expressed preference for how to shorten the section, including by the proposer, is to follow WP:SUMMARY. Let's not make this more complicated than it has to be.   Will Beback  talk  12:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment really makes no sense, as it is a strawman-argument to argue for a generalized case when a specific proposal was made. Again, for an encyclopedia we want the articles to be primarily factual, and there is plenty of factual material we can use about the LaRouche movement. On the other hand, allegations are not considered to be facts until they have been confirmed in court. The obvious solution is to keep the unsubstantiated allegations to a minimum, and yet in this article it seems we are keeping them to a maximum. Waalkes (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, that's not the standard used anywhere else on Wikipedia. This material has good sources. The movement is well-known for the behavior covered in this section, as demonstrated by the numerous sources describing it.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus here is clearly to trim the material. The idea of removing all the allegations sounds as good as any other suggestion to accomplish that. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the simplest way to shorten the section would be to spin it off, and the one supported by the most editors in the RFC as well as by policy.   Will Beback  talk  03:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

First, your "argument" : "This material has good sources. The movement is well-known for the behavior covered in this section, as demonstrated by the numerous sources describing it." is the same as of July, when Rumiton pointed already at the circularity of your reasoning. (see above; Rumiton's comments from July). You also seem to count differently than other people. Also, I think you are misrepresenting what is in BLPGOSSIP. "Anonymous sources" doesn't mean that the author of the newspaper article is anonymous; it means that allegation in the article against the LaRouche movement comes from an unnamed person, such as "a student" or "a Leesburg busisnessman." That way, no one takes responsibility for it. Waalkes (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Waalkes, only one person has objected to your idea, so there appears to be a mandate to proceed accordingly. Why don't you start listing the material you want to remove below? Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There's been no policy-based reason giving for cutting material as opposed to splitting it off, which would satisfy the RFC. Waalkes (an SPA) and Cla68 do not form a consensus. Therefore I'll go ahead and split it off and if folks have legitimate policy-based reason to remove material from there we can discuss that separately.   Will Beback  talk  04:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. There is overwhelming consensus to replace the section with a shorter summary. Consensus about a spin-off article to hold all the existing material seems less solid.. If a spin-off article is created, it will probably go to AfD, and we'll have to see what the community makes of an Alleged violence and harassment by the LaRouche movement article. --JN466 08:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't want a split then why did you recommend following WP:SUMMARY? Did you even read it?   Will Beback  talk  08:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the consensus is overwhelming to trim the material, to speed things up, why don't we simply take turns removing sections of text? If anyone objects to the removal, then they can say so here on the talk page and we can discuss whether it should be added back. Waalkes, would you like to go first? Cla68 (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. RFC or no, there are only a handful of legitimate reasons for deleting material, and they are mostly expressed in the core content policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. Material that clearly violates or or more of those can and should be removed. However suggesting that a single-purpose account with a clear bias should take the lead is really inappropriate. Since Jayen466 started this ball I suggest that he'd be the best person to handle drafting a summary of the content.   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Here are some examples of allegations that come from anonymous sources or are otherwise weaselly, in the order that they appear in the article.

1. "He quotes a member saying: "We're not very nice, so we're hated. Why be nice? It's a cruel world. We're in a war and the human race is up for grabs."[35]"
2. A student who asked a critical question of LaRouche at a rally was reportedly abused verbally by campaign workers and called a "prostitute" by a LaRouche aide.[62]
3. Weaselly: "Following a tense interview with LaRouche, who was accompanied by armed guards, Prestage was threatened if he used the interview. When he reported the incident, he found one of his cats dead on his doorstep the following morning, and another dead cat on each of the subsequent days that the series ran.[63]" All presidential candidates are "accompanied by armed guards," usually called "secret service protection." No evidence is offered that LaRouche activists were connected with dead cats -- it's pure innuendo.
4. "Major fallout" section should have been simply deleted as it has no source.
5. "Residents reported that armed guards quickly appeared and pointed guns at them when they stopped along the road outside LaRouche's estate.[65] Local critics reported receiving threatening phone calls.[64][66]"
6. "While Girvin was being interviewed on a sidewalk by a TV reporter, someone walked behind her and said "Polly, you're going to die" which the reporter said sounded like a threat.[64] Due to that and what she said were other threatening behaviors, Girvin went into hiding, gave up her practice, sold her home, and left the state.[67]" No evidence that LaRouche supporters were involved, just innuendo.
7. "Two young followers told of calling FBI agents in the middle of the night to tell them dirty jokes in 1974,[69] and such calls were reported again in 1978.[70] When LaRouche's political contributions were being investigated by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), the general counsel received harassing phone calls all through the night.[68]"
8. "LaRouche said that a U.S. Attorney who was investigating the movement's fundraising, William Weld, "does not deserve to live. He should get a bullet between the eyes", according to a statement given to the FBI by LaRouche's security consultant, Roy Frankhouser.[71]" Frankhouser was an infiltrator of the movement, not "LaRouche's security consultant."
9. " The grand jury rejected the charges of criminal behavior; the woman was found guilty of lying about the alleged rape and sentenced to prison for perjury." What does this have to do with the LaRouche movement?
10. "According to one report, experts stated that LaRouche's involvement in the matter allowed his phone solicitors to raise money by saying they needed contributions to fight child abuse in Nebraska.[74]"
11. "The LaRouche movement is known for smearing political opponents, and for disrupting meetings and news conferences along with other forms of harassment." Unsourced statement, POV language.
12. "One follower was quoted as saying "We might have to kill Rockefeller. Maybe that's violence, but it might be necessary".[76]"
13. "A security aide to LaRouche, Forrest Lee Fick, told NBC that there was discussion within the movement about killing Kissinger.[36]" Fick was an infiltrator, not a "security consultant."
14. "One ex-follower said in 1979: Those guys are maniacs. I've seen them. If you don't buy a paper, you're a pig or smell bad or they call you a Nazi. They get two inches from a person's face and cut them to pieces. They can get anybody to hit them in a second. They love it, getting bloody. They talk about it all the time.[34]" Waalkes (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Waalkes, I've taken the liberty of numbering your entries for easier reference. Unfortunately, you did not copy over the full citations. I think that most or all of these have proper sources including mainstream newspapers. For example, item #1 is sourced to:

• Johnson, George (1983). Architects of fear : conspiracy theories and paranoia in American politics. Los Angeles; Boston: J.P. Tarcher ; Distributed by Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0874772753 : 9780874772753.), pp. 191–192.

That is not an anonymous source. Rather, Johnson is a well-respected former senior at the New York Times.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe removal of all the examples Waalkes lists would put us in compliance with the mandate that was dictated by the consensus in the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

@Will Beback: Once again, the issue is not whether the author of the article is anonymous. I know who Johnson is. But the person making the allegation ("a member") is anonymous, and that's a problem under BLPGOSSIP. @Cla68: I think there are two problems with the section. The anonymous allegations should be removed to comply with policy. Then, there is still a problem with repetition. Dozens of examples are used when one or two would be sufficient to illustrate the point. It looks like this was done to amplify or exaggerate criticisms of the movement. I agree with Jayen that a summary would be better (he never advocated WP:SUMMARY -- that's a fabrication.) Waalkes (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is a clear consensus from the RfC to reduce the section. A good beginning step would be to remove the allegations from anonymous sources cited in the examples section above. I think this should be done now, without hesitation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think editors here misunderstand how journalists work. First, they often interview people who prefer not to be named in print. That does not make the reporting inherently inaccurate, nor does it make the reporting "gossip". Second, when the name of the person is irrelevant they may simply leave it out to avoid distracting details. Separately, just because we do not name people in this article does not mean that the people are unnamed in the original sources. Do editors here think that the article would be improved by changing text which says "One member said..." to "A member named John Smith said..."? Lastly, I don't see how reporting what an unnamed person said can violate BLP, unless they are saying something about a living person. To recap, we delete material which violates policies, not just because of a vote.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to individual examples:

3. That's incorrect. Candidates only receive Secret Service protection once they're nominated. This is not anonymous reporting. This is a widely reported matter, with more sources available.

4: I agree we can omit the "major fallout" section. It was added recently by a new editor who admitted that he had no sources.

5: These are widely reported instances of harassment. Are we trying to whitewash the movement? In any case, we can add the names of the people who reported have armed guards approach them when they stopped outside the estate.

"That's just funny," Agnes Harrison, one of those accused of being drug pushers, said of the accusations. Harrison, a 35-year resident who with her husband has long been active in historic preservation and environmental causes, she said it was not the oratory that frightened her. "We like our eccentrics," she said. A few months ago, however, when her 43-year-old son and his four small children stopped their car near her house, on a public road overlooking the LaRouche complex, six armed men in three jeeps quickly appeared and asked, from inside an electrified fence, what they wanted. [..] One afternoon shortly after LaRouche moved to Leesburg, Mayor Robert Sevila, who practises law there, drove with four other lawyers to see LaRouche's estate. Sevila said a guard stood in the guardhouse with a gun held across his chest. "In unison, it was almost like we all said, 'Holy cow,' " Sevila said. "That shook me up tremendously."

6: This is another widely reported incident, which happened in front of a news camera. It is not an anonymous source.

7: We can add the names of the two young followers. Jack Anderson specifically says that it was LaRouche people who were harassing the FBI agents. The phone calls to the general counsel were made by Jeffrey Steinberg, head of LaRuoche's counterintelligence bureau. We can add his name.

8: There's no evidence that Frankhouser was an "infiltrator". Now you're just making things up. He is often described as a security consultant, or something like that, even by LaRouche himself.

9: Read the whole paragraph. While the court denied there was a crime, the LaRouche team insisted that a crime had occurred and subsequently harassed the person they thought responsible.

10: This is based on a newspaper report which says:

Wadman was cleared by the Franklin grand jury, but he became the victim of an extremist group that sent people to Omaha to keep the Franklin story alive for its own fund-raising purposes. The Lyndon LaRouche group pursued Wadman to his new job as police chief in Aurora, Ill., distributing literature accusing him of sexual abuse in Omaha. Wadman resigned under pressure as Aurora's police chief. He took the same job in Wilmington, N.C. The accusations followed him there too, and he quit.

11: That's just a topic sentence which summarizes the material that follows. We can delete it, though I think topic sentences help readers.

13: Again, no one has called Fick or Frankhouser "infiltrators". They were hired as security consultants. However, if there is a good source for it we could add that designation as well.

14: This is reported in the New York Times. It's not gossip just because the speaker isn't named.

Most of these issues are either spurious or fixable. I'll go ahead and make some of the remedies.   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Waalkes, why don't you post the summary that you propose, and we can discuss it? Cla68 (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As for example 1, note that the member is named in the source (Paul Goldstein). --JN466 11:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

@Will Beback: First you say the section cannot be shortened because (supposedly) no one has made specific suggestions. Then, when specific suggestions are made, you object at great length to every one of them. Which means the section still cannot be shortened. These are the tactics of obstructionism. @Cla68: Well, there is a consensus to reduce the section. I'm pointing out some material which I think is especially shady as a starting point for the reduction. If it is removed the section is still quite long. Waalkes (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Waalkes, you can't remove material just because you don't like it. I've restored three individual deletions that you made, while leaving the rest. Two of them involved Frankhouser and Frick, which you apparently object to simply because of their job descriptions. The third is the on-camera death threat. Those are well-source, neutrally presented, and relevant. Even with them restored, the section is now significantly shorter than when we started. Mission Accomplished: the preference of those commenting on the RFC has been achieved.   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Will, you are the only one who has objected to removal of the material, so there is clear consensus to do so. If you disagree, please reread this section and the RfC that preceeded it. Just to make sure, is there anyone else besides Will who disagrees with Waalkes' edit? If not, anyone please reremove the material in 24-hours or so. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The section is now shorter, so the vague RFC question is now fulfilled. As for those specific passages, they are well-sourced, relevant, and neutrally presented.[16] With two of them, Waalkes said they should be deleted for spurious reasons - that the two people were infiltrators rather than security consultants. Do you or anyone else agree that the sources show they were primarily described as infiltrators?   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)