Jump to content

Talk:LaRouche movement: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Update banner shell
 
(39 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{controversial}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes |American-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}}
}}
{{LaRouchetalk}}
{{LaRouchetalk}}
{{controversial}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 5
|counter = 6
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d)
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:LaRouche movement/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:LaRouche movement/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month |index=/Archive index |
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=1 |units=month |index=/Archive index |auto=long|
*[[/Trials|Lawsuits and trials]]
*[[/Trials|Lawsuits and trials]]
*[[/Incidents]]
*[[/Incidents]]
Line 18: Line 22:
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#> |mask=/Trials |mask=/Incidents |mask=/Sources
|mask1=/Archive <#> |mask2=/Trials |mask3=/Incidents |mask4=/Sources
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
}}


== Vote fraud ==
== 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.[41]

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

<blockquote>
In 1986, LaRouche movement members Janice Hart and Mark J. Fairchild won the Democratic Primary elections for the offices of Illinois Secretary of State and Illinois Lieutenant Governor respectively. Up until the day following the election, major media outlets were reporting that George Sangmeister, Fairchild's primary opponent, was running unopposed. 21 years later Fairchild asked, “how is it possible that the major media, with all of their access to information, could possibly be mistaken in that way?”[5] Democratic gubernatorial candidate Adlai Stevenson III was favored to win this election, having lost the previous election by a narrow margin amid allegations of vote fraud. However, he refused to run on the same slate with Hart and Fairchild. Instead, Stevenson formed the Solidarity Party and ran with Jane Spirgel as the Secretary of State nominee. Hart and Spirgel's opponent, Republican incumbent Jim Edgar, won the election by the largest margin in any state-wide election in Illinois history, with 1.574 million votes.[6]
</blockquote>

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

:Examine the proposed edit:
::''In 1986, LaRouche movement members Janice Hart and Mark J. Fairchild won the Democratic Primary elections for the offices of Illinois Secretary of State and Illinois Lieutenant Governor respectively. Up until the day following the election, major media outlets were reporting that George Sangmeister, Fairchild's primary opponent, was running unopposed. 21 years later Fairchild asked, “how is it possible that the major media, with all of their access to information, could possibly be mistaken in that way?”[5] Democratic gubernatorial candidate Adlai Stevenson III was favored to win this election, having lost the previous election by a narrow margin. He refused to run on the same slate with Hart and Fairchild. Stevenson formed the Solidarity Party and ran with Jane Spirgel as the Secretary of State nominee. Hart and Spirgel's opponent, Republican incumbent Jim Edgar, won the election by the largest margin in any state-wide election in Illinois history, with 1.574 million votes.[6]''
With
::''In 1986, LaRouche movement members Janice Hart and Mark J. Fairchild won the Democratic Primary elections for the offices of Illinois Secretary of State and Illinois Lieutenant Governor respectively. Up until the day following the election, major media outlets were reporting that George Sangmeister, Fairchild's primary opponent, was running unopposed. 21 years later Fairchild asked, “how is it possible that the major media, with all of their access to information, could possibly be mistaken in that way?”[5] Democratic gubernatorial candidate Adlai Stevenson III was favored to win this election, having lost the previous election by a narrow margin amid allegations of vote fraud. However, he refused to run on the same slate with Hart and Fairchild. Instead, Stevenson formed the Solidarity Party and ran with Jane Spirgel as the Secretary of State nominee. Hart and Spirgel's opponent, Republican incumbent Jim Edgar, won the election by the largest margin in any state-wide election in Illinois history, with 1.574 million votes.[6]''
Note ''no'' actual salient information is removed. What ''is'' removed is "amid allegations of vote fraud." which has nothing to do with the Larouche movement at all, and ''however'' and ''Instead,'' and that is that! So why are you saying removing "however" and "instead" and "amid allegations of vote fraud" (which has nought to do wuit this article) is a "whitewash"? Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
: I'm trying to understand your BLP concerns here. Who is the defamed living person? How are they defamed? Or, was this edit not about anonymous accusations about living persons? How can someone tell? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 16:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::This edit was primarily a simple one - I did not remove material as violating BLP here '''because there was nothing I saw in this piece as violating BLP.''' I did find the "vote fraud" bit which had nothing to do with LaRouche as being irrelevant, and the "however" and "instead" bits are simple style. Now what here did I did that was a "whitewash"? Try to find someplace where you '''actually''' dispute the edut - not a place where your dispute appears not to exist. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 16:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::: It's so hard to tell why you are making your edits when you make a 32k removal in one non-discussed swath. In the edit where you removed the voter fraud bit, you said [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_movement&diff=prev&oldid=487491512 "cleanup lede, rm material of minor value covered in the body, rm some colorful terms, rm unsourced claims, rm BLP violations, etc., source does not support "Hitler poster" claim, etc."]. How am I to know that tis removal was actually none of those things? Should we talk about the Hitler poster next? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 16:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::Actually contiguous edits - but not in one edit, lest anyone here be misapprised. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 19:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Over a year now there has been discussion of reducing the rumors and allegations section, so that reverting edits on the grounds of their "not being discussed" is ridiculous. [[User:Waalkes|Waalkes]] ([[User talk:Waalkes|talk]]) 05:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*A vast removal of 32K of material needs CURRENT discussion, not unilateral action. [[User:Lithistman|L]][[User_talk:Lithistman|H]][[Special:Contributions/Lithistman|M]] 01:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
*I '''support''' removal of the material in question as proposed by Collect and Waalkes. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 04:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
**By the way, there was a clear consensus in the RfC to drastically cull the article of this kind of innuendo, so those who have been edit warring to restore it are, arguably, edit warring against consensus. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 04:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

== A new approach to the problematic passage ==

"The LaRouche movement members have had a reputation for engaging in violence, harassment, and heckling since the 1970s.[27][28][29][30] While LaRouche repeatedly repudiated violence, followers were reported in the 1970s and 1980s to have been charged with possession of weapons and explosives along with a number of violent crimes, including kidnapping and assault.[31] However there were few, if any, convictions on these charges.[32]"

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

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

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

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

: It means that we can't take what Milton R. Copulos Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation wrote as fact - you can read that source at [http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1984/07/the-larouche-network], the quote being "Although LaRouche publicly eschews violence, over the years members have been charged with a variety of offenses, including assault, possession of weapons, possession of explosives, and kid- napping. There have, however, been few convictions." We could change the section in question to:

:<blockquote>LaRouche movement members have engaged in violence, harassment, and heckling since the 1970s.[27][28][29][30] While LaRouche repeatedly repudiated violence, followers were charged with possession of weapons and explosives along with a number of violent crimes, including kidnapping and assault in the 1970s and 1980s.[31] However there were few, if any, convictions on these charges.</blockquote>

: What do you think about that? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 13:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
::I think that's much better, but still not quite where I'd like us to be. Because these are really serious allegations about living people, I'd prefer to have an exact quote from a very reliable source, to ensure that we aren't engaging in any inappropriate synthesis.
: Other sources for violence [http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1299&dat=19740125&id=waleAAAAIBAJ&sjid=B4wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6208,1251030], Paul L. Montgomery, "How a Radical-Left Group Moved Toward Savagery," New York Times, 1/20/74, p. 1. (courtesy copy [http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.PressArticles85]). Harassment and heckling are reasonably trivial to source from the recent obamahitler stuff. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 13:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


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

: No, it's not. It's a red flag for nothing but the fact that they were charged but not convicted - unless you think Heritage lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? The source was provided. If you want to shrink the article, provide a concrete proposal to do so. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 14:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
: But, you are right in that there is no source for the "if any" part, and so I've removed it, since we have few convictions reliably sourced. The "if any" language was added [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_movement&diff=321895303&oldid=321821800 here], by banned Leatherstocking, aka Herschelkrustofsky. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 14:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
::What would be good are some references later than the mid-eighties or even some from this century. All you have at the moment is some evidence of violence a quarter a century or more ago.--[[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]] ([[User talk:Peter cohen|talk]]) 15:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
::: I believe the violence is concentrated in the 70s and 80s. I'm no expert on the movement, however. I think that's made clear in the article, but the lede could make it clear regarding the progression from violence to harassment to heckling. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 15:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source that says any of these allegations produced one single conviction in court. It is the height of irresponsibility to insist that they be included because we don't know whether there was a conviction. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. See [[WP:GOSSIP]]. [[User:Waalkes|Waalkes]] ([[User talk:Waalkes|talk]]) 20:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

: Sure. [http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1984/07/the-larouche-network] Institutional Analysis #28, "The Larouche Network," Michael Copulus, July 19, 1984. "Although LaRouche publicly eschews violence, over the years members have been charged with a variety of offenses, including assault, possession of weapons, possession of explosives, and kid- napping. There have, however, been few convictions." [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 20:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::I'll repeat what Jimbo said above: A good reliable source would give some details: who was charged? with what specific crime? what was their specific relationship to the LaRouche movement? [[User:Waalkes|Waalkes]] ([[User talk:Waalkes|talk]]) 20:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::: That's what a primary source would do, yes. This is even better - a secondary source! Can I ask you - do you have a conflict of interest with respect to this page or series of pages? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 20:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::::No. Why, do you? And I believe that you are confused about primary and secondary sources. [[User:Waalkes|Waalkes]] ([[User talk:Waalkes|talk]]) 20:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::::: No, I do not. Every single one of your edits is related to LaRouche. It is hard to believe that you are not substantially conflicted with respect to the movement. Are you certain that you're not a devotee? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 21:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
*With Jimbo's and Peter Cohen's inputs, along with mine, Waalkes, and Collect, we again have a clear consensus for removal of the material. Thus, I will be restoring Collect's edit which had been revert warred. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 22:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:: Jimbo agreed with the whole removal? So did Peter Cohen? Bull. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 10:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Cla68 is badly misrepresenting me. I did not favor removal of the passage that this section of the talk page is about, I favored a rewrite to be more specific. I have no opinion about restoring Collects entire edit, since I've not studied every part of it. I think that the passage that this section of the talk page is about - allegations of violence - needs to be improved and then restored.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]]) 10:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:::: And your position on the found sources and the changes to date? Your objection to that one paragraph is still being used to remove the 32kb of text. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 19:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::It looks to me like Jimbo said "I think that the passage that this section of the talk page is about - allegations of violence - needs to be improved and then restored." It seems like that might be the correct order in which to proceed. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.3.80.38|99.3.80.38]] ([[User talk:99.3.80.38|talk]]) 21:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I don't have the time this week to look as I'm writing a paper, but there should be plenty of academics who have commented clearly on this - I know the Duggan case has received coverage at academic conference on far right hate. I'll take a peek at the conference digests and see if I can find the papers - if not I'll see if I can get a copy of the paper from the authors (though I'd have to look at how wikipedia handles conference papers for citation purposes!) <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> --[[User:Narson|<span style="color:#1100;">'''Narson'''</span>]] ~ [[User_talk:Narson|<span style="color:#900;">''Talk''</span>]] • </span> 11:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

*The problem with this article is the same as it ever was: it is a huge coatrack. Half of it is devoted to tedious micro-enumeration of controversies and allegations (including a ridiculous in-text list of 26 names), while other aspects of potential interest to the reader – such as the Reagan administration's defense of their contacts with the LaRouche movement in the 1980s, or even elementary aspects like the paramount role of classical music and literature in the movement, are completely absent. This article is a poorly written piece of POV cruft. '''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 21:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

:: So add it. Obviously, there are sources - supply them. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 11:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

== Explanation ==

I am reverting [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_movement&diff=490787329&oldid=490784462 this edit] by Hipocrite on the grounds that the material is, in case of the first paragraph, POV editorializing that is redundant and inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and in the case of the second paragraph, superfluous tabloid trivia. And Hipocrite's claim that the edits were "unexplained" is ridiculous. Looking at this talk page, there is ample explanation for why this junk doesn't belong in the article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.146.14.125|99.146.14.125]] ([[User talk:99.146.14.125|talk]]) 14:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Where is the POV problem, exactly? It appears that the content is attributed to the speaker when relevent, and sourced all over. You say "tabloid trivia," but I don't see tabloid sources. Please use your account. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 14:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

::Hipocrite, the reasons for shortening that section have been provided so many times by so many different editors that I am thinking you may have a bad case of [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. [[User:Waalkes|Waalkes]] ([[User talk:Waalkes|talk]]) 15:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

::: I didn't ask why, a year ago, in an unnoticed RFC populated mostly by people canvassed offwiki a consensus was reached to shrink the article - a consensus which no longer exists - I asked what the POV problem was. What is it, exactly? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 11:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::You assert CANVASS without basis, and claim ''in esse'' that '''most of those who participated were CANVASSed'''. And you assert that you somehow "know" that the consensus does ''not'' exist any longer when the one who opposes the consensus is ... you, and you have made no RfC to change the consensus. . GZN. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::: It dosen't exist any more because myself and Tom Harrison dispute it. If you contend there is still consensus to shrink, have another RFC - the last one is a year old. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 12:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Count me as another editor who still regards the past RfC as valid. The only way to invalidate that RfC would be to get a majority of those who voted in it to repudate their votes. Right here, right now, we have the IP, Waalkes, Collect, and me, making a consensus to contiue with the RfC's mandate to shrink this article. According to Hipocrite, only two editors have "dispute" the RfC. Let's get busy and get this article pared. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 12:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Actually, JN466's comment in the thread above appears to indicate that he too still thinks the article needs to be pared down. So, that makes five. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 12:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::So, what should be next to go? Someone please make a suggestion. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 12:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::: 4 v 2 is a consensus? I note before you alledged that you had Jimbo and Peter Cohen on your side, so excuse me for not agreeing. Let's have another RFC, with a more specific focus on what need to go. You make a proposal to change the article, and we'll have an RFC on it, we'll agree not to get in the way or solicit off-wiki, and we'll be done. Deal? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 13:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::: 5 v 2 is consensus. Again, unless the voters of the original RfC repudiate their votes, it still stands. Let's get busy reducing the coatracking material from this article. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 14:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::: No, it is not - especially when 3 of the "5" are SPA's/IP addresses. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 14:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


During the grand jury hearings followers picketed the courthouse, chanted "Weld is a fag",[78] distributed leaflets accusing Weld of involvement in drug dealing, and "sang a jingle advocating that he be hanged in public".[79]"
But, if you want to remove some cruft, start with "It calls itself a Platonist Whig movement, favoring re-industrialization and classical culture, and opposes what it views as genocidal conspiracies of Aristotelian oligarchies such as the British Empire," which is just in-universe word salad. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 14:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
This is the first and only mention of Weld in this article. Who is this?
:Yes, we should replace that with something more appropriate. That was Will Beback's parody of the movement. [[User:Waalkes|Waalkes]] ([[User talk:Waalkes|talk]]) 17:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:: Good. I'm glad we agree. Since I don't know or care to learn about your movement, perhaps you could, in standard written English (IE, no "Platonist," "Whig," "Aristotelian," and "oligarchies,") describe what it actually professes to believe, and where said beliefs can be sourced. I would look to other political movements with non-contenious for inspiration - [[Democratic Party (United States)]], [[Tea Party movement]], for example, seem to have reasonably stable self-descriptions. Thanks. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 17:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::I'll get to work on it. Meanwhile, please cease your efforts to undercut me by insinuating that I have a conflict of interest. That was Will Beback's tactic against TimidGuy, and we know how well that worked out for him. [[User:Waalkes|Waalkes]] ([[User talk:Waalkes|talk]]) 18:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::: Are you threatening me? Why would you do that, when we just found a point of agreement? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 18:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


[[William Weld]] [[Special:Contributions/2605:A601:A0C0:AA00:7700:61AA:B056:8B0B|2605:A601:A0C0:AA00:7700:61AA:B056:8B0B]] ([[User talk:2605:A601:A0C0:AA00:7700:61AA:B056:8B0B|talk]]) 22:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Two editors are ''insufficient'' to assert yhat a CONSENSUS has been "overturned" and to insist that two can do that is fatuous and inane, Add random acronym here. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 18:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
: There is no consensus to do anything other than tighten the decrepit prose. If there is, you and yours would be willing to submit to a new RFC, which it's apparent you're not. If all we're RFCing about is "should this be shorter," then all we're gonna get is people reading the hackneyed prose and puking on it. We need to work together to determine how to first fix the prose, created by old edit warring, and then move forward. We're doing that on the first sentence now. You'll need to stop taking a hatchet to the rest of the article while that goes on. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 18:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Cher random-acronym-user. There was, and is, a clear consensus to reduce the excess verbiage in this godawful mess of an article. That you stand athwart the tide like Canute does not alter the facts. And I do not think that removing "amid allegations of votre fraud" is "taking a hatchet" to anything at all. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 18:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:::: I'm not going to further converse with you unless you can let old disputes over other things drop. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 18:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::Yeppers -- hoilding your breath will certainly change my positions on '''Wikipedia policies'''. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 21:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== Vote fraud ==


I have just added archive links to {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on [[LaRouche movement]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=706628156 my edit]. 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:
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=6D9E2FF}}
*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
*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
*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


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
Should the article [[LaRouche movement]] contain the comment in the "Political activities" section:
:(Adlai Stevenson) ''lost the previous election by a narrow margin amid allegations of [[vote fraud]]'' 18:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
*'''Omit'''. I guess the point the original writers were trying to make was that while the previous election had been close, the LaRouche members' win cost the Democrats dearly, as they lost the next election by a huge margin, but it's an obscure tangent here. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 19:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 10:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Omit''' It's a parenthetical reference that doesn't seem worth including. As per other comments. [[User:FronkTheFrank|FronkTheFrank]] ([[User talk:FronkTheFrank|talk]]) 20:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Omit''' - not relevant to '''this''' article. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] &#x007C; [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 15:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Omit''' and assert consensus thereon at this point (3 weeks without any disagreement). [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 16:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Omit''' [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 20:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


== Comments ==
== External links modified ==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
No cite of ''any'' sort for ''any'' connection of "vote fraud" against Adlai Stevenson is given to the LaRouche movement. I consider this a parenthetical observation at best, and an improper unsourced implication of "[[vote fraud]]" at worst. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 18:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


I have just modified 3 external links on [[LaRouche movement]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=779607369 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
* It's a fact about the previous election - I don't see how it implicates the LaRouche movement in any vote fraud. It's easy to source that the 1982 Chicago election had substantial allegations of vote fraud - it went to the state supreme court. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 18:47, 7 May 2012 (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
* I have clarified who alleged who participated in said fraud. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 18:54, 7 May 2012 (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.
As the person who is "alleged" to be involved is in no way whatsoever associated wit this article, and the "allegations" fall under a [[WP:BLP]] requirement for strong sourcing, the "cure" is worse than simply removing the spurious "allegations." Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 20:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Could you explain how this is relevant to an article on the LaRouche movement? [[Special:Contributions/71.95.204.10|71.95.204.10]] ([[User talk:71.95.204.10|talk]]) 01:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
:There is no explanation. Where is the evidence Stevenson gave a hoot about Lyndon L? --[[User:Javaweb|Javaweb]] ([[User talk:Javaweb|talk]]) 20:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 22:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
== Intro ==


== Far right? ==
I'm not happy with [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_movement&diff=491236664&oldid=491229420 this] attempt to better write the movement from it's own views - it's the same in-universe word salad that the earlier "Platonist Whig," nonsense was, except now it's written as the amateur psycho-pop that the movement dishes out to college idealists.


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? [[Special:Contributions/73.48.251.0|73.48.251.0]] ([[User talk:73.48.251.0|talk]]) 03:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The two examples I gave expressed the views of their organizations in question clearly - "The party's socially liberal and progressive platform is largely considered center-left in the U.S. political spectrum," and "American populist political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian." Is there a reason why we can't write this in the same way, exactly? What is the reason that we're saying advertising copy like "defend the rights of all humanity to progress," and pablum like "classical humanist thought in both science and the arts, and campaigns for better living conditions based on an emphasis on what it calls the "physical economy": increasing the productive power of the human individual." I mean, come on. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:The categorization includes it under [[:Category:Syncretic political movements]]. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 18:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


== Europe section ==
:See [[WP:NPOV]] please/ [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 20:02, 7 May 2012 (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.
:: I'm well aware of NPOV. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 20:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
So here's the copied European section:


<!--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|[[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 ''{{lang|de|Neue Solidarität}}'' newspaper.{{cn|date=August 2024}} Zepp-LaRouche is also the head of the German-based [[Schiller Institute]]. <!-- 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=[[Houston Chronicle]]|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, [[Petra Kelly]], 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>[[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."<ref name=Witt>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110514004846/http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46883-2004Oct20?language=printer "No Joke"], 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, [https://web.archive.org/web/20080313011614/http://www.main-rheiner.de/region/objekt.php3?artikel_id=2793524 "Nur die Legende hat ein langes Leben"], ''Wiesbadener Kurier'', April 19, 2007 (German); [https://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20080313011614%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.main-rheiner.de%2Fregion%2Fobjekt.php3%3Fartikel_id%3D2793524&sl=de&tl=en Google translation].</ref> The High Court in London ordered a second inquest in May 2010, which was opened and adjourned.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8694448.stm "Fresh inquest into student death"] {{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>[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-32828147 Student Jeremiah Duggan's death not suicide, coroner rules] {{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 [[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''.<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 [[President of France]] in [[French presidential election, 1995|1995]], [[French presidential election, 2012|2012]] and [[French presidential election 2017|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.{{cn|date=August 2024}}[[File:EAP demonstrerar mot EU - 2008-05-01 - 1.jpg|thumb|LaRouche supporters in Stockholm protesting against the [[Treaty of Lisbon]]]]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 [[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{{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 [[2007 Danish general election|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]].<ref>[http://www.sive.dk/kampagneaviser.htm Schiller Instituttet Kampagnaviser] {{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 [[International Progress Organization]] 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 [[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.<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>[[Nataliya Vitrenko]], leader of the [[Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine]], 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 [[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."<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 "[[Europe a Nation]]" ideas of Sir [[Oswald Mosley]].<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}} [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 21:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Anonymous Los Angeles IP's edit was much better. Could someone explain the classical arts and sciences thing so that it could be written for readers to grasp - or we could just leave it out, sticking with the infrastructure development and financial speculation stuff. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 20:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:As I said before, the classical arts and sciences thing is something we need to cover. [http://www.insidehighered.com/views/mclemee/mclemee132 This] is quite a useful little source for those unfamiliar with the movement. For further sources see [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement]], which is supposed to be a daughter article to this one. In essence, however, we have a POV fork, where this article is almost all about allegations of harassment, combined with lists of members, publications and organisations, and the Views article (while far from perfect) brings a little more colour to what the movement is actually about. I would almost be in favour of merging the two articles. '''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 19:53, 8 May 2012 (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: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_movement&diff=1238054665&oldid=1238054287] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_movement&diff=1238055545&oldid=1238054665] [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 21:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
==PublicEye.org==
[http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/nclc3.html This] is used as a reference in the article. It appears to be a fairly partisan source, as well as self-published. I thought that it had been decided some time ago that books published by Chip Berlet were ok as sources, because they had been fact-checked by independent publishers, but that Berlet's self-published web-based opinions were not reliable. Am I wrong? [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 23:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
:What about "Liberation News Service,""Crawdaddy," "New York Committee to Stop Terrorist Attacks," "the Daily World," "the Militant," "Workers Power," "the Fifth Estate," "the Boston Phoenix," and "the Drummer"? Are those considered good sources? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.3.81.198|99.3.81.198]] ([[User talk:99.3.81.198|talk]]) 05:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 18:16, 28 September 2024


Who is Weld?

[edit]

"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.[41]

During the grand jury hearings followers picketed the courthouse, chanted "Weld is a fag",[78] distributed leaflets accusing Weld of involvement in drug dealing, and "sang a jingle advocating that he be hanged in public".[79]" 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)[reply]

[edit]

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

Far right?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Europe section

[edit]

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.[citation needed] 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".[1] 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.[2]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."[3] Duggan's mother believes he died in connection with an attempt to recruit him. The German public prosecution service said her son committed suicide.[4] The High Court in London ordered a second inquest in May 2010, which was opened and adjourned.[5] 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."[6]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.[7][non-primary source needed] 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.[citation needed]

LaRouche supporters in Stockholm protesting against the Treaty of Lisbon

Sweden has an office of the Schiller Institute (Schillerinstitutet)[8][better source needed] 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[citation needed] that LaRouche was somehow responsible.[9][non-primary source needed] Later, the suspect was released. No connection with LaRouche was shown.[citation needed]In Denmark, four candidates for parliament on the LaRouche platform (Tom Gillesberg, Feride Istogu Gillesberg and Hans Schultz)[10][non-primary source needed] 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.[11][non-primary source needed]The Movimento Solidarietà – Associazione di LaRouche in Italia (MSA) is an Italian political party headed by Paolo Raimondi that supports the LaRouche platform.[citation needed]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.[12][better source needed][13][non-primary source needed]Polish newspapers[which?] 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.[14][15]Nataliya Vitrenko, leader of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, has stated multiple times that she supports LaRouche's ideals.[citation needed]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."[16][non-primary source needed] LaRouche press releases suggest that the treaty has an underlying fascist agenda, based on the "Europe a Nation" ideas of Sir Oswald Mosley.[17][non-primary source needed] Nakonana (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: [1] [2] Nakonana (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.