Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:20, 18 April 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the LaRouche movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Politics C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Lawsuits and trials /Incidents /Sources

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Straw poll on section headings

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

Yes

• Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Rumiton (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC) As a small step in the right direction.
• Collect (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• per Rumiton. --JN466 22:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Waalkes (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, I suggested this change on Oct 13 2011 -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Silverseren 01:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No

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

Comment

• Apart from Rumiton, this is almost the same WP:TAGTEAM as the one that appeared before in the space of one hour of each other on 9 January after an absence of more than two months away from the article and its talk page. (Waalkes and Keithbob have not commented so far.) Cla68 seems to be involved in some kind of wiki-wide almost military campaign against Will Beback. I would suggest that opinions on this article are sought in a community-wide RfC in these circumstances. The RfC should be devised by someone who hasn't commented here, preferably a neutral administrator. I would suggest Elen of the Roads. Mathsci (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your accusation of "tagteam" is both unwarranted and absurd. Other than that, you are welcome to your opinions on the issues. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It is the only way I can explain several users descending on a page after 9 weeks absence. How would you explain that? Mathsci (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps some editors have this page watchlisted? As I now have well over 2,200 pages watchlisted, would you grant the extreme likelihood that I have a page where I have previously editted, watchlisted? Cheers. (If you wish, I can email you my list of watchlisted pages - but I suspect you would find it both exceeding wide ranging, and exceeding boring to go through). (reduced to over 2,200 as I had removed a bunch of deleted pages etc. in the past) Collect (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

^---- What he said. Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

With four ayes and no announced nays for the discussion about the edit, I consider this to be a "consensus" at this point. Cheers, but let's move on to the next issue before we bore everyone else to tears. Collect (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not how WP:BRD works. Mathsci (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be that Misplaced Pages isn't operated by voting, but in a case like this, I think it will be better to go with the majority rather than than let one editor completely control the article by simply opposing every proposal to improve it. Waalkes (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS which is what I am relying on - it is quite detailed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus means that "decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's norms."

WP:Polls are evil.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Lenght of allegations cataloge

The consensus from the RfC was to reduce the catalog of allegations. For those who argue that anything that has appeared in a newspaper should be in Misplaced Pages, I would say first of all, that's ridiculous, and secondly, newspapers are often irresponsible and wrong (see WP:OTTO.) Also, WP:BLPGOSSIP applies here. In an article called "LaRouche movement," everything alleged about the movement reflects upon LaRouche the individual living person. I don't think editors should be hunting for loopholes in an important policy when the policy seems to interfere with an agenda. Waalkes (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The material has already been reduced since the RFC. BLP applies to identifiable individuals, not nations, companies, or movements. As for the essay, WP:OTTO, there are plenty of essays on Misplaced Pages. If any particular source in this article is suspected of being unreliable then let's discuss it. But asserting that newspapers are generally unreliable is not a viable statement on Misplaced Pages.   Will Beback  talk  01:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Waalkes, please suggest something you think should be removed and we will discuss it. I believe we have a ways to go to fulfill the mandate established by the RfC for removals of allegations. Cla68 (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

For a start, I propose the Mike Royko material. He is not a regular journalist, he writes opinion pieces. I see there is something called WP:RSOPINION which cautions about this. It is a prime candidate for reduction. Waalkes (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I always enjoyed reading Royko's columns when he was alive. His opinions, however, on LaRouche appear to be in that grey area that should be avoided for BLP reasons and fall into the mandate given by the RfC. So, I support removal of the Royko material. Cla68 (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we could take this to WP:RSN. Oh wait, we already have. We had a discussion here on this exact same issue, Talk:LaRouche movement/Archive 2#Major deletions #3, followed by an RSN thread which confirmed that Royko is a highly reliable source. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47#Mike Royko. Going over the same issues again and again is tendentious.   Will Beback  talk  08:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: The RSN discussion was from 2009. Meanwhile, standards regarding using opinions about living people have been very substantially strengthened. IMO, Royko was an opinion columnist, and his opinions are citable as opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been following the evolution of WP:BLPs pretty closely, and that seems about right to me. I also have a problem with the fact that Royko's writing seems to be at least as much about Royko as it is about LaRouche. To that extent it may be primary material. If so, we probably need a secondary source to describe the altercations that took, or did not take, place. Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Posted at WP:RS/N Collect (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The decision at RSN was that Royko was not an opinion columnist. 18:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh? Really? Not from where I read it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• RS: News published by commercial newspapers. (Thanks Will). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• This is clearly a reliable source, and it doesn't matter which page it was printed on. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Given the time frame, Royko writing under a column byline makes it more likely that he is a reliable source, not less. --NellieBly (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• I concur with that last remark. While not all columnists were fundamentally reporters, the reporter/columnists were the cream of the crop of reporters. - Jmabel | Talk 02:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems to have been a clear consensus on the source.   Will Beback  talk  19:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And WP:RS and WP:BLP are different now than then, Will. One does not get to post opinions from more than two years ago in a vaccuum, pretending that they all now hold the identical opinions now. Cheers - but this sort of non-utile, non-discussion about "opinion columnists" is not helping your case one whit. Collect (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback. Could Collect please explain what he means by "non-utile"? Mathsci (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessary to re-hash whether the Mike Royko stuff is reliable in itself. The issue here is which allegations to keep and which to remove in order to make the section appropriate in size. My opinion is that the Royko material is more dubious than some others, so I propose it to be removed. Waalkes (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

@Collect: What exact changes to WP:RS and WP:BLP are you referring to?   Will Beback  talk  19:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Inter alia, the tightening of use of "contentious opinions" about people in any BLP unless strongly sourced, for one. How many changes do you need pointed out? There have been quite a few, as you should be aware. Collect (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the phrase "contentious opinions" in WP:BLP. Can you point to the changes you're referring to?   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion(BLP)

Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.(BLP)

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.(BLP)

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.(RS)

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Royko falls squarely into the "editorial opinion" category, and into the "contentious" category for starters. That was his job. Collect (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP is not applicable to Royko's comments about cat killing because they do not name specific living persons, only the organization. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Royko should not be reduced; in fact, there should be one sentence added from him. At the moment, the article says LaRouchers threatened to kill a cat. It does not say that they did kill some cats. Later in the article, it refers to cat killing but with no explanatory text. Binksternet (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus at RSN is that the material is fine. I think that should end this discussion except for the suggestion that Binksternet is making. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that LaRouchers either killed a cat or threatened to kill a cat. There is no source, including Royko, that says they did. Royko merely insinuates that a threat came from LaRouchers, without having evidence to make an actual claim. This is a good example of the sort of thing that should be a priority for removal. There are cases where it may be stated as a fact, for example, that LaRoucher's heckled a politician. That is more acceptable than insinuations. Let me remind you that the topic of discussion is how best to reduce the size of the "allegations" section. Waalkes (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a court of law. All the article is saying is that Royko reported LaRouchers were killing cats, which is a true statement. Cutting out a sentence that is required for the paragraph to make sense is not the way forward. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

@Cla68: I don't think it is necessary to get into a "reliable sources" debate over Royko. It wasn't my idea to do it. My proposal, in more general form, is this. In order to reduce the size of the section, we should prioritize the allegations. Those that come from clearly identified persons who allegedly have first-hand knowledege that they base their accusation on should be kept, while those like Royko who are just reporting their suspicions should be removed. Waalkes (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If there is consensus here to remove Royko's allegations, that's fine, but it shouldn't be because Rokyo is unreliable. The noticeboard was clear that he is reliable. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

He is a "reliable source" but his opinions remain opinions and are not facts just because he was an opinion columnist. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Royko was a highly respected journalist. That was the unanimous view at the last RSN and the consensus of the current RSN (so far). You could only find a single citation which said he was an opinion columnist, as opposed to numerous citation that refer to him as a journalist or reporter. Please don't twist the evidence to meet your own views.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, many journalists have been opinion columnists. There is no contradiction between the terms at all. BTW, how many cites would you like for him being an "opinion columnist"? I could give a slew if you wish -- just ask and they shall be given unto you. Try: If you've ever written an opinion column, you know how difficult it can be to find the perfect ending. The column's strength and memorability rests almost solely on that closing line. Even the greats know the pressure. Here's what Mike Royko said on the subject during a 1993 interview: "I sweat out the closer more than I do the lead. I don't worry about the lead. Just get it started somehow, get people into it, and tell the story.", couple thoudsand hits for Royko and "opinion column". is enlightening in noting Royko's style, shows him not to be a straight reporter of fact, mentions his "fictional characters" and "satire." For the best proof - see "For the Love of Mike: More of the Best of Mike Royko" By Mike Royko. Good journalist specializing in opinion and satire. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be your personal point of view about some books. They seem to be totally unrelated to the sources under discussion. Mathsci (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The noticeboard consensus, in two threads years apart, is that Royko is a reliable source for this material.   Will Beback  talk  03:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Lenght of allegations catalog II

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

Please comment on content not contributors. Also could you please use a spell-checker? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Some of the material deleted by Waalkes did not involve anonymous phone calls.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see that neither of the editors who opposed my edits has offered an alternative plan for shortening the section. Waalkes (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I recall, in previous discussion shortening has been taken to mean writing more briefly and concisely. It does not mean removing topics or sourced content. Again Waalkes, please comment on content, not on contributors. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, your comment makes no sense, please read the RfC on this topic. Consensus was to shorten, either by removing content or by writing more briefly. Waalkes (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I chose to write the section more briefly. You expanded it. Are you sure that your goal is to shrink the section, or is it really to remove information that you don't want in the article? Hipocrite (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's have a look. It appears that you have made two edits to the section under discussion , and the net effect of those edits has been to significantly expand the section. Here's a link to the RfC: Talk:LaRouche_movement/Archive_3#RfC:_Length_of_the_.22Alleged_violence_and_harassment.22_section. Why don't you familiarize yourself with it, and then maybe we can put our heads together and figure out why it seems to be so difficult to accomplish what the Rfc calls for. Waalkes (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the reason it's so difficult is because you are choosing to interpret the RFC as "I won, you lost, now I get everything I want," as opposed to a mandate to shrink the section. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was certainly helpful. Would you care to offer any suggestions as to how the section might be shrunk? Waalkes (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We can tighten the wording without removing information as I did in the diff you linked. Hipocrite (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Why don't you make some specific proposals. Maybe we can finally make some progress here.Waalkes (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm actually serious -- if you could make some specific proposals to reduce the section at LaRouche Movement, I think that would be very constructive. Waalkes (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, Waalkes now believes the material is too short, since he has now taken to adding information. Not only that, but he's citing Dennis King, which presumably means he believes that book is a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  07:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Mess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote fraud

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

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

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

Examine the proposed edit:

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

With

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

Note no actual salient information is removed. What is removed is "amid allegations of vote fraud." which has nothing to do with the Larouche movement at all, and however and Instead, and that is that! So why are you saying removing "however" and "instead" and "amid allegations of vote fraud" (which has nought to do wuit this article) is a "whitewash"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand your BLP concerns here. Who is the defamed living person? How are they defamed? Or, was this edit not about anonymous accusations about living persons? How can someone tell? Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This edit was primarily a simple one - I did not remove material as violating BLP here because there was nothing I saw in this piece as violating BLP. I did find the "vote fraud" bit which had nothing to do with LaRouche as being irrelevant, and the "however" and "instead" bits are simple style. Now what here did I did that was a "whitewash"? Try to find someplace where you actually dispute the edut - not a place where your dispute appears not to exist. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's so hard to tell why you are making your edits when you make a 32k removal in one non-discussed swath. In the edit where you removed the voter fraud bit, you said "cleanup lede, rm material of minor value covered in the body, rm some colorful terms, rm unsourced claims, rm BLP violations, etc., source does not support "Hitler poster" claim, etc.". How am I to know that tis removal was actually none of those things? Should we talk about the Hitler poster next? Hipocrite (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually contiguous edits - but not in one edit, lest anyone here be misapprised. Collect (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Over a year now there has been discussion of reducing the rumors and allegations section, so that reverting edits on the grounds of their "not being discussed" is ridiculous. Waalkes (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• A vast removal of 32K of material needs CURRENT discussion, not unilateral action. LHM 01:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• I support removal of the material in question as proposed by Collect and Waalkes. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way, there was a clear consensus in the RfC to drastically cull the article of this kind of innuendo, so those who have been edit warring to restore it are, arguably, edit warring against consensus. Cla68 (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A new approach to the problematic passage

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

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

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

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

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

It means that we can't take what Milton R. Copulos Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation wrote as fact - you can read that source at , the quote being "Although LaRouche publicly eschews violence, over the years members have been charged with a variety of offenses, including assault, possession of weapons, possession of explosives, and kid- napping. There have, however, been few convictions." We could change the section in question to:

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

What do you think about that? Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Other sources for violence , Paul L. Montgomery, "How a Radical-Left Group Moved Toward Savagery," New York Times, 1/20/74, p. 1. (courtesy copy ). Harassment and heckling are reasonably trivial to source from the recent obamahitler stuff. Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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

No, it's not. It's a red flag for nothing but the fact that they were charged but not convicted - unless you think Heritage lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? The source was provided. If you want to shrink the article, provide a concrete proposal to do so. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

But, you are right in that there is no source for the "if any" part, and so I've removed it, since we have few convictions reliably sourced. The "if any" language was added here, by banned Leatherstocking, aka Herschelkrustofsky. Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What would be good are some references later than the mid-eighties or even some from this century. All you have at the moment is some evidence of violence a quarter a century or more ago.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• C-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics