Misplaced Pages

Talk:LaRouche movement: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:27, 20 July 2011 editWaalkes (talk | contribs)275 edits →RfC: Length of the "Alleged violence and harassment" section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:16, 28 September 2024 edit undoChopinAficionado (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,222 edits Update banner shell 
(609 intermediate revisions by 60 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{controversial}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes |American-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}}
}}
{{LaRouchetalk}} {{LaRouchetalk}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{controversial}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 6
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:LaRouche movement/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=1 |units=month |index=/Archive index |auto=long|
*] *]
*] *]
*] *]
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask1=/Archive <#> |mask2=/Trials |mask3=/Incidents |mask4=/Sources
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}


== Who is Weld?==
"According to courtroom testimony by FBI agent Richard Egan, Jeffrey and Michelle Steinberg, the heads of LaRouche's security unit, boasted of placing harassing phone calls all through the night to the general counsel of the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) when the FEC was investigating LaRouche's political contributions.


During the grand jury hearings followers picketed the courthouse, chanted "Weld is a fag", distributed leaflets accusing Weld of involvement in drug dealing, and "sang a jingle advocating that he be hanged in public"."
== forgive my ignorance? ==
This is the first and only mention of Weld in this article. Who is this?

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? ] (]) 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 20:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
<s>: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 ]. ] (]) 00:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)</s>
::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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. --] (]) 04:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

== Degen ref ==

*Degen, Wolfgang, , ''Wiesbadener Kurier'', 19 April 2007 (German); .
This appears to be the full reference for the missing Degen ref, from the article ] ] (]) 23:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks for finding that. I've restored the material and fixed the citation. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Hunh, funny; I don't see it. What browser are you using? <i>&mdash;&nbsp;] (])</i> 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. ] (]) 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 05:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
:I consider inclusion of such an element a transitive relation. <font color="red">&rarr;</font>''''']]''''' 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. <font color="red">&rarr;</font>''''']]''''' 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.
#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).
#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 ]/ 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.
#"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.--] 14:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks for offering your opinions on a subject you know nothing about. ;)
:# 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.
:# 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.
:# 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 ], 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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..."--] 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..."? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
::If LaRouche admit the connection, then that would indeed be the strongest source.--] 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 ] and ], ..." &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we pick a photo for the lead? Here are the most relevant files in the Commons.
<gallery>
File:Obama Hitler political sign.jpg |1
File:And they look like such nice kids too!! aaargh....jpg |2
File:LaRouche Seattle.jpg |3
File:LaRouche Supporters, 7th and H NW.jpg |4
File:LaRouche supporters.jpg |5
File:More Larouche.jpg |6
</gallery>
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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 08:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
:Since there was no further input I've added #6 to the intro. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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.
{{quote box|
The '''LaRouche movement''' is an international political and cultural network that promotes ] and ]. 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 ], and by their prominent opposition to the Bush/Cheney administration and the Obama health care reform plan. LaRouche's wife, ], 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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." <font color="red">&rarr;</font>''''']]''''' 09:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
::Good corrections. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 10:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

::Posted. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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."? --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 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. ] (]) 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. ]. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
:::]. 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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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? --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 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 <s>Barrack Obama</s> John Kerry for president. ] (]) 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 03:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately, it appears that 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 ] 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 '']'' 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? ] (]) 22:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
::::Citations for LaRouche and his movement moving from the far left to the far right are in ]. 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 '']'' " 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. ] (]) 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 ]? 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 09:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Well, fortunately we do have sources to back that up: , , and . 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, ] and ] 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. ] (]) 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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 ] and ] groups from the mid-1970s onwards." ? ] (]) 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.'' &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. ] (]) 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 05:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Sixty-six percent is consensus. 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, ] and ] groups from the mid-1970s onwards". ] (]) 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? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 06:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
::I've posted a question about the 66% consensus issue. We may need to re-write that policy. ]. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 06:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
::The answer is that 66% is not consensus. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 05:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

:::Who's engaged in "edit warring" now?
:::Why was well-sourced material deleted? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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'. <font color="red">&rarr;</font>''''']]''''' 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. <font color="red">&rarr;</font>''''']]''''' 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 10:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)



*]
Any active editors here who want to participate are welcome to join. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. ] (]) 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. <font color="red">&rarr;</font>''''']]''''' 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 ]? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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." <font color="red">&rarr;</font>''''']]''''' 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? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 08:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
{{od}} Personally, I don't find that particularly informative, and it could teeter on the edge of ]. 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. ] (]) 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 ] issue? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. Misplaced Pages is like that, and ] 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages's voice. ] (]) 06:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::That's why the proposal starts, " According to most outside observers, ..." That's not "Misplaced Pages's voice". &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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 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 Will added 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 ], successfully for some time. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
:::. Will that do? --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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! --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 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.") --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 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", . 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::If there's no objection I'll post this version. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 09:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Seeing no objection, I'll add it. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Will, your recent 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"? ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] as "center-right"? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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 over at ] about "scratching-for-descriptions without traction". I've done a , but added "fascist or unclassifiable" as other descriptors in common use. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 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 ] with ]? 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?&nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 11:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Thanks. Which "other African American groups" are we referring to? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::See Berlet and Marable above. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 11:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


] ] (]) 22:08, 28 April 2024 (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 ], 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? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 16:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
::In response to Jayen466's revert: 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? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b>
:::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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
:::If anyone disagrees please discuss it before reverting. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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 , 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? --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
==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? --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 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? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. ] (]) 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
::::Do you feel that "HK socks" are a constant, imminent menace to this topic area? ] (]) 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 ] 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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 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? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 22:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
::No objection. ] (]) 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, ], and allow us all to work on it. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
===RfC: Length of the "Alleged violence and harassment" section===
{{rfctag|pol|reli|soc|rfcid=A2919E3}}
According to the page size tool, the article ] presently has a length of 8,422 words. The section ] 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.) --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 00:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
:I don't see any reason given for shortening this section. ] 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? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
:I consider the section in its present state ]. 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 ]. Google News search for LaRouche movement: . Google Scholar: . Google Books: . 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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 01:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070430074257/http://www.larouchepac.com:80/pages/breaking_news/2007/04/27/quincy.shtml to http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/04/27/quincy.shtml
::::BTW, the "LaRouche movement" is know by various names, so searching for that term alone will not result in complete coverage. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 02:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081109211214/http://www.larouchepac.com:80/news/2008/02/19/italian-senator-exposes-secret-plan-fascism-europe.html to http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/02/19/italian-senator-exposes-secret-plan-fascism-europe.html
::I think you're misinterpreting ]/]. 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.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080908023438/http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/02/19/lisbon-treaty-based-program-british-fascist-oswald-mosley.html to http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/02/19/lisbon-treaty-based-program-british-fascist-oswald-mosley.html
::Anytime I see someone complain about ] 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? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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 ]. On weight issues we need to remember that it's just part of a series. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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 Misplaced Pages's voice. ] (]) 03:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
Here's the overall length of the LaRouche movement articles, minus biographies. It undercounts the actual length because it excludes text in lists


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
{|
| ] ||8422
|-
| ] ||2349
|-
| ] ||367
|-
| ] ||88
|-
| ] ||3444
|-
| ] ||2567
|-
| ] ||2595
|-
| ] ||1423
|-
| ] ||764
|-
| ] ||541
|-
| ] ||1682
|-
| ] ||266
|-
| ] ||1191
|-
| ] ||5971
|-
| ] ||8607
|-
| ||40277
|-
|
|}
The material in question is just over 4000 words, or about 10%. That seems entirely reasonable and not undue weight at all. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. ], ], ], et al. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 22:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
::Certainly. One would expect that of important and widely reported material. That shows the issue is pervasive. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Will, I think there is a certain roundness, if not an actual ], to your reasoning here. ] (]) 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages can be improved. Let's focus on specific remedies. Which statements do you think are contentious? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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 Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 09:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
**To which contentious statements are you referring? We should deal with those right away. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
***I'll move this list to a new section, to avoid distracting the RFC. ] &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 04:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 10:57, 24 February 2016 (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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 21:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
**<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. ] may be the best solution: move the violence/harassment material into a new article, and replace it in this article with a short summary. --] (]) 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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 02:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Shorten'''. The numerical balance alone dictates that, quite obviously.-] (]) 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 ] for deciding the depth of coverage within an article. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
:::The text on ] 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 ] and ] are unnecessarily detailed! The movement is a political fringe movement, which has, however, a significant influence. But there's extremely limited, ] 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 ], 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 ] 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 ]-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. -] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages (just like editing in film making) often means cutting down material we have worked very hard for. Cheers. -] (]) 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. ] (]) 08:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::::::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 ], 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? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. ] (]) 08:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Are you thinking of any passages in particular? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font
color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 09:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::::::::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. ] (]) 21:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:::::::Personally, I have no objection whatsoever to spinning off the section about the movement's alleged confrontational/violent conduct to a separate Misplaced Pages entry. There's enough reportage, article and books written about the mostly confrontational nature of the movement's brand of political activism to ] its own, separate Misplaced Pages entry. But be prepared, then, to cut down even more significantly (with more ''gusto''!) the respective section in the main article ("LaRouche movement"). Regards, ] (]) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203083630/http://www.patriotledger.com/your_vote/election-1/x128165993/Frank-meets-LaRouche-candidate-Brown-in-only-primary-debate to http://www.patriotledger.com/your_vote/election-1/x128165993/Frank-meets-LaRouche-candidate-Brown-in-only-primary-debate
'''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. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 13:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218141859/http://www2.timesreview.com/ST/Stories/T071609_Obama_ES to http://www2.timesreview.com/ST/Stories/T071609_Obama_ES
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080404043228/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2001-2/poland.htm to http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2001-2/poland.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
==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 Misplaced Pages's voice. Here are some of them:


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:::''A LaRouche organization distributed almost-pornographic posters of Illinois politician Jane Byrne, and called other female politicians "prostitutes" and their husbands "pimps".''


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 22:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
:::''LaRouche followers have a long reputation for heckling politicians and disrupting meetings''


== Far right? ==
:::''LaRouche's movement has persistently harassed journalists who have covered it.''


Although the article says this organization is far right the other substantive portions of the article seem to indicate that the group is left wing and supports parties generally seem as on the left E.g. Democrats in the United States. Should this be removed? ] (]) 03:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::''From time to time over the years, suspicions regarding a potential LaRouche connection to the murder have surfaced.'' (A particularly nasty example, surely.)
:The categorization includes it under ]. ] (]) 18:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


== Europe section ==
:::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...'' ] (]) 12:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


I'm copying the whole of the current Europe section here because I'm going to delete most of it from the article. My reasons for deletion are that it has a lot of unreferenced statements, relies excessively and (in parts) exclusively on primary sources, and because most of it does not contain anything controversial despite being in the Controversy section of the article. It's just like a list of "Look this European country also has a branch of the movement, and this European person said they like LaRouche". I won't delete the stuff that is actually about something controversial.
::::You've misquoted the text. We don't use 'Misplaced Pages's voice' in this sentence:
So here's the copied European section:
::::*''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.''
::::You just left off the attribution. ] is a notable 'voice'. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 12:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


<!--The first paragraph of this section jumps from BüSo to Patriot party and then back to BüSo again. Might make sense to change order-->The LaRouche Movement has a major center in Germany. The {{lang|de|]}} (BüSo) (Civil Rights Movement Solidarity) political party is headed by ], LaRouche's widow. It has nominated candidates for elective office and publishes the ''{{lang|de|Neue Solidarität}}'' newspaper.{{cn|date=August 2024}} Zepp-LaRouche is also the head of the German-based ]. <!-- Die Europäische Arbeiterpartei --> In 1986, Zepp-LaRouche formed the "Patriots for Germany" party, and announced that it would run a full slate of 100 candidates. The party received 0.2 percent of the 4 million votes and "failed to elect any candidates to the parliament".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1986_245831|title=Narrow state election victory gives boost to Kohl coalition|work=]|date=June 16, 1986|access-date=January 30, 2008|archive-date=January 14, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090114071838/http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1986_245831|url-status=live}}</ref> In Germany, the leader of the Green Party, ], reported receiving harassing phone calls that she attributed to BüSo supporters. Her speeches were picketed and disrupted by LaRouche followers for years.<ref>{{cite news|title=LaRouche Stirs in Germany |author=James M. Markham |work=The New York Times|date=June 30, 1986}}</ref>], a student from the UK attending a conference organized by the Schiller Institute and LaRouche Youth Movement in 2003, died in Wiesbaden, Germany, after he ran down a busy road and was hit by several cars. The German police said it appeared to be suicide. A British court ruled that Duggan had died while "in a state of terror."<ref name=Witt>, By April Witt, ''The Washington Post'' Sunday, October 24, 2004; Page W12</ref> Duggan's mother believes he died in connection with an attempt to recruit him. The German public prosecution service said her son committed suicide.<ref name=Degen>Degen, Wolfgang, , ''Wiesbadener Kurier'', April 19, 2007 (German); .</ref> The High Court in London ordered a second inquest in May 2010, which was opened and adjourned.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100523045903/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8694448.stm |date=May 23, 2010 }}, BBC News, May 20, 2010.</ref> In 2015, a British coroner rejected the suicide verdict and found that Duggan's body bore unexplained injuries which indicated an "altercation at some stage before his death."<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170703071242/http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-32828147 |date=July 3, 2017 }}, BBC News, 20 May 2015</ref>''Solidarité et progrès'' (Solidarity and Progress), headed by ], is the LaRouche party in France. The party was previously known as ''Parti ouvrier européen'' (European Workers' Party) and ''Fédération pour une nouvelle solidarité'' (Federation for a New Solidarity). Its newspaper is ''Nouvelle Solidarité''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.solidariteetprogres.org/ |title=Solidarité &; Progrès – Actualit&eacute |publisher=Solidariteetprogres.org |access-date=2008-11-23 |archive-date=May 11, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511224753/http://www.solidariteetprogres.org/ |url-status=live }}</ref>{{primary source inline|date=August 2024}} Cheminade ran for ] in ], ] and ], finishing last each time. The French LaRouche Youth Movement is headed by Élodie Viennot. Viennot supported the candidacy of Daniel Buchmann for the position of mayor of Berlin.{{cn|date=August 2024}}]]]Sweden has an office of the Schiller Institute (Schillerinstitutet)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nysol.se/ |title=LaRoucherörelsen i Sverige |website=Nysol.se |access-date=2008-11-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090122022519/http://www.nysol.se/ |archive-date=January 22, 2009 |url-status=dead }}</ref>{{better source needed}} and the political party ] (EAP). The former leader of the EAP, ], started as a member of the ] (SSU), and was assigned to investigate the EAP and the ELC. After joining the EAP, he had his membership in SSU revoked. Following the ] on February 28, 1986, the Swedish branch of the EAP came under scrutiny as literature published by the party was found in the apartment of the initial suspect, ]. Soon after the assassination, ] television in the U.S. speculated{{cn|date=August 2024}} that LaRouche was somehow responsible.<ref name=brainwash>{{Cite web|url=https://larouchepub.com/exon/exon_toc.html|title=Has Your Neighbor Been Brainwashed About Lyndon LaRouche?|website=larouchepub.com|access-date=September 7, 2020|archive-date=September 16, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200916092832/https://larouchepub.com/exon/exon_toc.html|url-status=live}}</ref>{{primary source inline|date=August 2024}} Later, the suspect was released. No connection with LaRouche was shown.{{cn|date=August 2024}}In Denmark, four candidates for parliament on the LaRouche platform (Tom Gillesberg, Feride Istogu Gillesberg and Hans Schultz)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.schillerinstitut.dk/ |title=Schiller Instituttet i Danmark |publisher=Schillerinstitut.dk |access-date=2008-11-23 |archive-date=October 11, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071011054136/http://schillerinstitut.dk/ |url-status=live }}</ref>{{primary source inline|date=August 2024}} received 197 votes in the ] (at least 32,000 votes are needed for a local mandate). The Danish LaRouche Movement (Schiller Instituttet)'s first newspaper distributed 50,000 copies around Copenhagen and ].<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071109233029/http://www.sive.dk/kampagneaviser.htm |date=November 9, 2007 }} Schiller Instituttes Venner webpage</ref>{{primary source inline|date=August 2024}}The {{lang|it|Movimento Solidarietà{{snd}}Associazione di LaRouche in Italia}} (MSA) is an Italian political party headed by Paolo Raimondi that supports the LaRouche platform.{{cn|date=August 2024}}Ortrun Cramer of the Schiller Institute became a delegate of the Austrian ] in the 1990s, but there is no sign of ongoing relationship.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.ispac-italy.org/ngoprof.php?Org_ID=105 |title=Non-governmental, Individual Experts, Academic, Scientific, Research and Professional Organizations |access-date=July 23, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041214011804/http://www.ispac-italy.org/ngoprof.php?Org_ID=105 |archive-date=December 14, 2004 |url-status=dead }}</ref>{{better source needed}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.larouchepub.com/tv/tlc_programs_2000.html |title=LaRouche Connection Master List 1995–present |publisher=Larouchepub.com |access-date=2008-10-23 |archive-date=August 4, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070804164245/http://www.larouchepub.com/tv/tlc_programs_2000.html |url-status=live }}</ref>{{primary source inline|date=August 2024}}Polish newspapers{{which|date=August 2024}} have reported that ], leader of the populist ] party, was trained at the Schiller Institute and has received funding from LaRouche, though both Lepper and LaRouche deny the connection.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2001-2/poland.htm |title=Antisemitism and Racism |publisher=Tau.ac.il |access-date=2008-11-23 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080404043228/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2001-2/poland.htm |archive-date=April 4, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2001/011228poland_lies.html |title=LaRouche Committee Denounces Polish Press Lies |publisher=Larouchepub.com |access-date=2008-11-23 |archive-date=December 14, 2004 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041214131939/http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2001/011228poland_lies.html |url-status=live }}</ref>], leader of the ], has stated multiple times that she supports LaRouche's ideals.{{cn|date=August 2024}}In February 2008, the LaRouche movement in Europe began a campaign to prevent the ratification of the ], which, according to the U.S.-based LaRouche Political Action Committee, "empowers a supranational financial elite to take over the right of taxation and war making, and even restore the death penalty, abolished in most nations of Western Europe."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/02/19/italian-senator-exposes-secret-plan-fascism-europe.html |title=Italian Senator Exposes Secret Plan for Fascism in Europe &#124; LaRouche Political Action Committee |publisher=Larouchepac.com |access-date=2008-11-23 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081109211214/http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/02/19/italian-senator-exposes-secret-plan-fascism-europe.html |archive-date=November 9, 2008}}</ref>{{primary source inline|date=August 2024}} LaRouche press releases suggest that the treaty has an underlying fascist agenda, based on the "]" ideas of Sir ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/02/19/lisbon-treaty-based-program-british-fascist-oswald-mosley.html |title=Lisbon Treaty Based on Program of British Fascist Oswald Mosley &#124; LaRouche Political Action Committee |publisher=Larouchepac.com |access-date=2008-11-23 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080908023438/http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/02/19/lisbon-treaty-based-program-british-fascist-oswald-mosley.html |archive-date=September 8, 2008}}</ref>{{primary source inline|date=August 2024}} ] (]) 21:25, 1 August 2024 (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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 02:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::If one looks at all the examples I have given I think it is clear that Misplaced Pages's voice is being lent to contentious views of the subject. ] (]) 12:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


:Actually decided against deletion and instead moved everything non-controversial to the International section, and kept the controversial stuff in the Controversy section. The relevant edits: ] (]) 21:50, 1 August 2024 (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.''
:::::::We can add "According to the Washington Post". &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


{{outdent}} {{reflist-talk}}
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. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 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. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 13:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:16, 28 September 2024

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.
Article policies
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 
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.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Mediation, arbitration,
requests for clarification, and
other discussions about the
LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement,
AN/I, 2005-8
Arbitration 2006
Arbitration 2005
Arbitration 2004
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Mediation 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Template talk
Categories
This box:

Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

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


Who is Weld?

"According to courtroom testimony by FBI agent Richard Egan, Jeffrey and Michelle Steinberg, the heads of LaRouche's security unit, boasted of placing harassing phone calls all through the night to the general counsel of the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) when the FEC was investigating LaRouche's political contributions.

During the grand jury hearings followers picketed the courthouse, chanted "Weld is a fag", distributed leaflets accusing Weld of involvement in drug dealing, and "sang a jingle advocating that he be hanged in public"." This is the first and only mention of Weld in this article. Who is this?

William Weld 2605:A601:A0C0:AA00:7700:61AA:B056:8B0B (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on LaRouche movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 10:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LaRouche movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Far right?

Although the article says this organization is far right the other substantive portions of the article seem to indicate that the group is left wing and supports parties generally seem as on the left E.g. Democrats in the United States. Should this be removed? 73.48.251.0 (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The categorization includes it under Category:Syncretic political movements. Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Europe section

I'm copying the whole of the current Europe section here because I'm going to delete most of it from the article. My reasons for deletion are that it has a lot of unreferenced statements, relies excessively and (in parts) exclusively on primary sources, and because most of it does not contain anything controversial despite being in the Controversy section of the article. It's just like a list of "Look this European country also has a branch of the movement, and this European person said they like LaRouche". I won't delete the stuff that is actually about something controversial. So here's the copied European section:

The LaRouche Movement has a major center in Germany. The Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität (BüSo) (Civil Rights Movement Solidarity) political party is headed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, LaRouche's widow. It has nominated candidates for elective office and publishes the Neue Solidarität newspaper. Zepp-LaRouche is also the head of the German-based Schiller Institute. In 1986, Zepp-LaRouche formed the "Patriots for Germany" party, and announced that it would run a full slate of 100 candidates. The party received 0.2 percent of the 4 million votes and "failed to elect any candidates to the parliament". In Germany, the leader of the Green Party, Petra Kelly, reported receiving harassing phone calls that she attributed to BüSo supporters. Her speeches were picketed and disrupted by LaRouche followers for years.Jeremiah Duggan, a student from the UK attending a conference organized by the Schiller Institute and LaRouche Youth Movement in 2003, died in Wiesbaden, Germany, after he ran down a busy road and was hit by several cars. The German police said it appeared to be suicide. A British court ruled that Duggan had died while "in a state of terror." Duggan's mother believes he died in connection with an attempt to recruit him. The German public prosecution service said her son committed suicide. The High Court in London ordered a second inquest in May 2010, which was opened and adjourned. In 2015, a British coroner rejected the suicide verdict and found that Duggan's body bore unexplained injuries which indicated an "altercation at some stage before his death."Solidarité et progrès (Solidarity and Progress), headed by Jacques Cheminade, is the LaRouche party in France. The party was previously known as Parti ouvrier européen (European Workers' Party) and Fédération pour une nouvelle solidarité (Federation for a New Solidarity). Its newspaper is Nouvelle Solidarité. Cheminade ran for President of France in 1995, 2012 and 2017, finishing last each time. The French LaRouche Youth Movement is headed by Élodie Viennot. Viennot supported the candidacy of Daniel Buchmann for the position of mayor of Berlin.

LaRouche supporters in Stockholm protesting against the Treaty of Lisbon

Sweden has an office of the Schiller Institute (Schillerinstitutet) and the political party European Worker's Party (EAP). The former leader of the EAP, Ulf Sandmark, started as a member of the Swedish Social Democratic Youth League (SSU), and was assigned to investigate the EAP and the ELC. After joining the EAP, he had his membership in SSU revoked. Following the Olof Palme assassination on February 28, 1986, the Swedish branch of the EAP came under scrutiny as literature published by the party was found in the apartment of the initial suspect, Victor Gunnarsson. Soon after the assassination, NBC television in the U.S. speculated that LaRouche was somehow responsible. Later, the suspect was released. No connection with LaRouche was shown.In Denmark, four candidates for parliament on the LaRouche platform (Tom Gillesberg, Feride Istogu Gillesberg and Hans Schultz) received 197 votes in the 2007 election (at least 32,000 votes are needed for a local mandate). The Danish LaRouche Movement (Schiller Instituttet)'s first newspaper distributed 50,000 copies around Copenhagen and Aarhus.The Movimento Solidarietà – Associazione di LaRouche in Italia (MSA) is an Italian political party headed by Paolo Raimondi that supports the LaRouche platform.Ortrun Cramer of the Schiller Institute became a delegate of the Austrian International Progress Organization in the 1990s, but there is no sign of ongoing relationship.Polish newspapers have reported that Andrzej Lepper, leader of the populist Samoobrona party, was trained at the Schiller Institute and has received funding from LaRouche, though both Lepper and LaRouche deny the connection.Nataliya Vitrenko, leader of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, has stated multiple times that she supports LaRouche's ideals.In February 2008, the LaRouche movement in Europe began a campaign to prevent the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, which, according to the U.S.-based LaRouche Political Action Committee, "empowers a supranational financial elite to take over the right of taxation and war making, and even restore the death penalty, abolished in most nations of Western Europe." LaRouche press releases suggest that the treaty has an underlying fascist agenda, based on the "Europe a Nation" ideas of Sir Oswald Mosley. Nakonana (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually decided against deletion and instead moved everything non-controversial to the International section, and kept the controversial stuff in the Controversy section. The relevant edits: Nakonana (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. "Narrow state election victory gives boost to Kohl coalition". Houston Chronicle. June 16, 1986. Archived from the original on January 14, 2009. Retrieved January 30, 2008.
  2. James M. Markham (June 30, 1986). "LaRouche Stirs in Germany". The New York Times.
  3. "No Joke", By April Witt, The Washington Post Sunday, October 24, 2004; Page W12
  4. Degen, Wolfgang, "Nur die Legende hat ein langes Leben", Wiesbadener Kurier, April 19, 2007 (German); Google translation.
  5. "Fresh inquest into student death" Archived May 23, 2010, at the Wayback Machine, BBC News, May 20, 2010.
  6. Student Jeremiah Duggan's death not suicide, coroner rules Archived July 3, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, BBC News, 20 May 2015
  7. "Solidarité &; Progrès – Actualit&eacute". Solidariteetprogres.org. Archived from the original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
  8. "LaRoucherörelsen i Sverige". Nysol.se. Archived from the original on January 22, 2009. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
  9. "Has Your Neighbor Been Brainwashed About Lyndon LaRouche?". larouchepub.com. Archived from the original on September 16, 2020. Retrieved September 7, 2020.
  10. "Schiller Instituttet i Danmark". Schillerinstitut.dk. Archived from the original on October 11, 2007. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
  11. Schiller Instituttet Kampagnaviser Archived November 9, 2007, at the Wayback Machine Schiller Instituttes Venner webpage
  12. "Non-governmental, Individual Experts, Academic, Scientific, Research and Professional Organizations". Archived from the original on December 14, 2004. Retrieved July 23, 2007.
  13. "LaRouche Connection Master List 1995–present". Larouchepub.com. Archived from the original on August 4, 2007. Retrieved 2008-10-23.
  14. "Antisemitism and Racism". Tau.ac.il. Archived from the original on April 4, 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
  15. "LaRouche Committee Denounces Polish Press Lies". Larouchepub.com. Archived from the original on December 14, 2004. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
  16. "Italian Senator Exposes Secret Plan for Fascism in Europe | LaRouche Political Action Committee". Larouchepac.com. Archived from the original on November 9, 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
  17. "Lisbon Treaty Based on Program of British Fascist Oswald Mosley | LaRouche Political Action Committee". Larouchepac.com. Archived from the original on September 8, 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
Categories:
Talk:LaRouche movement: Difference between revisions Add topic