Talk:Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement

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
Enforcement, Hershelkrustofsky socks, Sep 19, 2008 Enforcement, MaplePorter, Sep 19, 2007 Clarification, Nathan/DLTN, July 23, 2007 Enforcement, Herschelkrustofsky (HK) Clarification, Tsunami Butler", Apr 1, 2007 Clarification, Appeal, Jan 24, 2007 Clarification, ManEatingDonut, Nov 22, 2006 Clarification, LaRouche, Oct 23, 2006 HK probation, Apr 15, 2006 HK/BirdsOfFire, Mar 31, 2006 HK blocked, Sep 29, 2005
Arbitration 2006
HK banned, May 5, 2006.
Arbitration 2005
N_ and others, Nov 2005. Cognition's statement, Nov 22, 2005. Modification of LaRouche 2, Dec 23, 2005. HK indef probation, Dec 23, 2005 LaRouche 2, Jan 25, 2005–Feb 17, 2005. LaRouche 2 talk LaRouche 2 evidence LaRouche 2 proposed decision LaRouche 2 proposed decision talk
Arbitration 2004
LaRouche 1, July 4—Sep 13, 2004. LaRouche 1 talk LaRouche 1 evidence LaRouche 1 evidence talk LaRouche 1 proposed decision LaRouche 1 proposed decision talk
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Med cabal talk, Feb 17, 2007 Med cabal/Tsunami Butler, Nov 26, 2006
Mediation 2004
HK and AndyL, July 3, 2004 HK and DJSupreme23, Jun 14, 2004 HK and Adam Carr, Nov 15, 2004 HK and SlimVirgin, Dec 16, 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche Lyndon LaRouche 1, Jan 17–Jun 17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 2, Jun 20–22, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 3, Jun 21–24, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche draft, June 24-25, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 4, Jun 25–July 5, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 5, Jul 05–Aug 1, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish, June–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche HK list, July–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche HK list archive Lyndon LaRouche 6, Aug 6-9, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 7, Aug 11-17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche omissions, Sep 9-10, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 8, Aug 18–Sep 28, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 9, Sep 18–Oct 11, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 10, Dec 2004–Jan 20, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche archive, material missing Lyndon LaRouche 11, Jan 20–Jul 19, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche 12, Jul 2005–Nov 12, 2006 Lyndon LaRouche 13, Nov 2006—Feb 18, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 14, Feb 18, 2007 - August 1, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 15, August 8, 2007 - November 18, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 16, November 20, 2007 - Lyndon LaRouche 17 Lyndon LaRouche 18
Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement Political views temp Political views 1, Aug 21–Nov 29, 2004 Political views 2, Dec 2004–Jan 11, 2005 Political views 3, Jan 2005–Oct 02, 2006 "Cooked quotes", Jan 22–23, 2005 Political views mediation, Feb 27–Mar 04, 2006 Political views 4, Oct 23, 2006–Oct 11, 2007 Political views 5, Oct 11, 2007–Nov 28, 2007 Political views 6, Nov 28, 2007–Apr 12, 2008 Political views 7, Apr 15, 2008–Sep 24, 2008
Talk:Amelia Boynton Robinson Talk:American School (economics) Talk:American School (economics)/Archive 1 Talk:American School (economics)/Archive 2 Talk:Anti-Defamation League Talk:Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität Talk:Dirigisme Talk:Helga Zepp-LaRouche Talk:Jeremiah Duggan Talk:Jeremiah Duggan 1, Nov 14–Dec 6, 2004 Talk:Jeremiah Duggan 2, Dec 2004–Jan 2005 Talk:John Train Salon Talk:Kenneth Kronberg Talk:LaRouche Movement Talk:LaRouche Youth Movement Talk:Schiller Institute Talk:Schiller Institute/Archive 1 Talk:Synarchism Talk:Tavistock Clinic Talk:Tavistock Institute Talk:Tavistock Institute 1, Nov '04–June '06 Talk:LaRouche criminal trials Zayed Center
Template talk
Template talk:LaRouche Template talk:LaRouchetalk
Categories
HK sockpuppets

Dubious content moved from main article

The LaRouche youth state that they are fighting for an "intellectual Renaissance," and in addition to conventional political activity such as distributing literature in the streets, they spend time in what are called [[Gaspard Monge|Monge]] brigades, described as leaderless discussion groups where the members work to master important discoveries in classical science and art.<ref name=autogenerated1>http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:JasPGTg9CrsJ:larouchein2004.net/pages/youth/2004/040204eccs.htm+LYM+%22monge+brigade%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=opera 403 Forbidden]</ref> Among the topics frequently pursued are the ideas of [[Plato]], [[Johannes Kepler]], [[Friedrich Schiller]], and [[Carl Friedrich Gauss]].</ref><ref>http://www.larouchepub.com/lym/2007/3407kepler_harmonies.html LYM Announces Advance in Kepler Studies]</ref> There are also performance workshops on the dramas of [[William Shakespeare]] and choral compositions of [[Johann Sebastian Bach|J.S. Bach]] and other classical composers, as well as African-American [[Spiritual (music)|Spiritual]]s.<ref>[http://www.larouchepac.com/enwiki/static/lym-unleashes-renaissance-athens-america-jenny-getachew-joha.html LYM Unleashes Renaissance in the Athens of America | LaRouche Political Action Committee]</ref><ref name=autogenerated2/> Regular "cadre schools" are held in the United States and Europe, where Lyndon LaRouche and other senior members of LaRouche organizations give lectures and take questions from LYM youth.<ref>[http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:JasPGTg9CrsJ:larouchein2004.net/pages/youth/2004/040204eccs.htm+LYM+cadre+schools&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=opera 403 Forbidden]</ref> From 2006 to 2007 members of the "Basement Team"<ref>[http://www.wlym.com/~animations/harmonies/site.php?goto=contact.html Contact Us]</ref> produced an extensive set of computer animations described as a pedagogical tour through [[Johannes Kepler]]'s [[New Astronomy]][http://wlym.com/~animations/newastronomy.html] and "Harmony of the World",[http://www.wlym.com/~animations/harmonies/index.php] plus another set on the discovery of the orbit of [[Ceres]] entitled "The Mind of Gauss."[http://wlym.com/~animations/ceres/index.html] After an anonymous website appeared which discussed the same works by Kepler, team members asserted that it was a plagiarized and inferior copy of their own work.<ref>[http://www.larouchepub.com/lym/2007/3436kepler_or_incompetence.html Kepler's Discovery, or the Hoofprint of Incompetence?]</ref> In August of 2008, the team released an hour-long video entitled "The Harvard Yard," in which they elaborate their claim of plagiarism and charge that the "Kepler's Discovery" site was the work of [[Harvard University]].[http://www.larouchepac.com/enwiki/static/2008/08/17/harvard-yard-video-high.html] Beginning in early 2008, the Basement Team began to produce videos, including an 80-minute documentary on the clash between LaRouche's conception of the American System of economics and the [[Free Trade]] system. It is entitled "Firewall{{ndash}} in Defense of the Nation State."[http://www.larouchepac.com/firewall] This was followed by the release on July 3 of a feature-length sequel entitled "1932," narrated by [[Robert Beltran]].[http://larouchepac.com/news/2008/07/02/1932-video.html] On [[November 27]], [[2007]], the LYM launched a campaign against [[social networking]] websites such as [[MySpace]] and [[Facebook]], with the mass distribution of a pamphlet entitled "The [[Noosphere]] vs. The [[Blogosphere]]: Is the Devil in Your Laptop?".<ref>http://www.larouchepac.com/files/pdfs/071127-lpac_myspace.pdf</ref> The pamphlet says that [[Rupert Murdoch]], owner of MySpace, and [[Microsoft]], owner of Facebook (Microsoft only owns 2.5% of Facebook), are involved in [[social engineering]] to destroy the [[cognition|cognitive]] powers and potential for political leadership among young people. It also attacks [[Wikipedia]] in similar terms.<ref>[http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/11/27/noosphere-vs-blogosphere-devil-your-laptop.html The Noosphere vs. The Blogosphere: Is the Devil in Your Laptop? | LaRouche Political Action Committee]</ref>

There are a number of real newspaper articles on the strange pseudointellectual recruiting tactics the LYM uses, the references to dead LaRouche movement sites seem pretty useless. Likewise, the 'what the larouche movement is up to, courtesy of sockpuppets from the larouche movement, completely devoid of independant sources', has to go. John Nevard (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article about the larouche youth movement is biased in extremes, whoever wrote that article is an IDIOT.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.75.245 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The old version of this article was more or less equally balanced between pro-LaRouche fanatics and anti-LaRouche fanatics. The new version is clearly lopsided. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC);

The old version was mostly written by a user who was banned and had no right to be editing here at all. The last version before his work was here:[1] As for NPOV, it requires that viewpoints be represented with the weight proportional to their popularity. If you can find 3rd-party sources that cover the material you're concerned about then that would help establish the weight for that viewpoint. But the WLYM is a small and controversial group. The viewpoint of its members is a fringe viewpoint and should not be given excess weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

::I don't care who wrote what, what matters is whether the resulting article is any good. Right now it looks like an article written about the McCoys by the Hatfields. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC);

Can you be specific? What material is not neutral? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

::::It's the whole article, not individual sentences. The ratio of "criticism" to info about the group's goals and activities looks to be about 2:1, as opposed to the earlier version where it was about 1:1. I would say the typical article on a political group or activist runs about 1:4 at most. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC);

The aim isn't to provide any particular balance of positive and negative. The aim is to summarize all significant points of view in proportion to how widespread they are. If the positive viewpoint is only express in publications put out by the movement then that viewpoint is a minority view and shold be given a minority of the space. Can you suggest positive, 3rd-party sources for the topic that we don't already include? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::The article has never had much in the way of high-quality sources. Right now it is dominated by college newspapers who quote Dennis King and Chip Berlet. Now, before you launch into your rap about King and Berlet being distinguished scholars, save your breath. King and Berlet are crackpot conspiracy theorists, no different than LaRouche. So this article has basically been a battle of the fringe sources. Remember that in Reliable Sources it says that fringey sources should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC);

Criticize the contributions not the contributer perhaps, but as most of your contributions seem to be conspiracy theorizing about King and Berlet, one begins to wonder. Obviously the WaPo stories would be a better source on the recruiting and advertising of the LYM than the LaRouche organisation, but the article is hugely improved as it stands. John Nevard (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not neutral, and may be an "attack article." I am slogging my way through the very lengthy body of Wikipedia policies that was presented to me when I signed up, but perhaps someone could give me a quick summary of how to proceed. --Macwhirr (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is for you to indicate those parts that aren't neutral, and to provide a reliable source which contains the alternate point of view. Self-published sources, in this case the WLYM itself or related organizations, can be used to a limited extent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

::The policy called "Attack articles" says that "a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject" is an attack article. Under that policy the page in question should be deleted. That doesn't seem to me to be the best course of action. What this article lacks is a factual report of the WLYM's activities and a viewpoints. It is dominated by the point of view of other groups that oppose the WLYM. Also, it is difficult for genuinely anti-establishment groups like the WLYM to get honest press coverage, because the press represents the establishment and the establishment will defend its interests through blackouts and scandal-mongering. For a straightforward account of the groups activities and goals, you would have to go to the group itself, where you will get an account that cannot be challenged. I clicked on the "history" tab and found that in the past there has been quite a bit of material on the group's actitivies and goals that was deleted. Some of it is on this talk page and described as "dubious," which I believe is incorrect because it comes directly from the organization. If it came from an opposing group, it would be dubious. The section on this page is difficult to read because it has all the coding and formatting info. Macwhirr (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't here just to tell readers what the organization thinks of itself, nor to tell them what its critics think of it. The article should include all points of view in a neutral manner. We probably include too little press coverage, even though it does tend to mostly cover political choral events, disruption, and tabling. What reliable sourced viewpoints do you think are under-represented? Can you provide links or citations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

::::It's not a question of telling readers what the organization thinks of itself. It is a political organization, and is worthy of note because it has a substantial following, and it has a following because people agree with its goals and principles. Therefore a useful article should provide a summary of those goals and principles. I would start by putting back in the section (mistakenly) called "dubious" that is seen above on this page. Some of the links are broken or incorrect, but I think that they can be easily corrected using search engines. --Macwhirr (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with your first assertion, "it has a substantial following". Do we have any source, either from inside the movement or outside, that quantifies the size of the WLYM? That would be a great thing to add to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::I used that word mainly because of the number of countries where they are active, and because they have an article in Wikipedia. I think it is generally difficult to measure the actual size of political movements. --Macwhirr (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So the size is unknown. In how many countries does it operate? According to one of the self-published sources, there are branches in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique (15 people). The article indicates there's activity in Germany as well. Are there a sources for other coutries? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::That's what search engines are for: http://larouchepub.com/other/2004/site_packages/jlp_death/3108jlp_lym_tribute.html, http://www.larouchepub.com/lym/2007/3441lym_strategy_future.html, http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/11/19/british-attempt-silence-larouche-argentine-congress-fails.html. I'm sure there are plenty of such sources. But can we get back to the issue at hand? This article needs some balance. Do you object if I restore the so-called "dubious" material on this page, once the links are fixed? --Macwhirr (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't restore the removed material until we've discussed it. You haven't addressed the concerns of the editor who removed it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::Mr. Nevard didn't provide any "concerns," other than to say that he finds the group's ideology "strange" and "pseudointellectual." Mr. Nevard is entitled to his opinion, but the editor's job is not to pass judgment on the ideology, only to report on it in a neutral fashion so that the reader can decide for himself. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC);

The issue Nevard raised, which I'm concerned about too, is that the material is "completely devoid of independent sources". Are there any other sources that cover this material? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I spoke to this in my second post, four days ago. I would be surprised to find comprehensive coverage of the WLYM principles and goals in the press, because they are an "insurgent" group. However, the obvious choice for accurate reporting on the principles and goals of a political group is the group's own productions, which cannot be accused of misrepresentation. And finally, it seems to me that the least of your worries right now is too much reliance on the WLYM as a source, because the article as it stands is entirely dominated by the opinions of opposing groups. Macwhirr (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Opposing groups? Who are the "opposing groups"? Do you mean the mainstream media? It'd be helpful to have a "factual report of the WLYM's activities and a viewpoints", but the group's publications alone are not an unbiased source. Rather than pushing to add back the entire disputed section it'd be more helpful if you did your own homework, found good sources, and proposed better quality text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I will work on that for a couple of days and then do it. By "opposing groups" I don't mean the mainstream media, by which I assume you mean the Washington Post. The other sources are mostly either college papers or activist/journalists like LaRouche himself. It is the activist/journalists that I was mainly referring to, such as Avi Klein, who comes from the neoconservative movement. Macwhirr (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. Is Avi Klein a one-man opposition group? I don't see evidence of any group that opposes the WLYM, although apparently there was a conference in Germany recently that dealt with the modern LaRouche movement. Perhaps we should add a mention of that. It appears that there may be individual opponents but not "opposing groups". When you work on your draft please make sure to find reliable sources, and limit the use of self-published sources to not contentious assertions. See WP:SPS. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the part about the LYM activists who were elected to California Democratic Party positions should be removed. Including it would go a long way toward resolving the neutrality problem. Macwhirr (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A problem is that much of the material is only sourced to the LYM. Were these elections reported anywhere else?   Will Beback  talk  17:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

::The only thing I could find on the WWW is this[2], which is probably a blog. The California Democratic Council, which is the Alan Cranston wing of the party, includes the LaRouche club (Franklin Roosevelt Legacy) on their website, with Quincy O'Neal listed as contact person.[3] However, I searched Wikipedia policies to find one that covers this situation, and I found this:[4]. I don't see any violation in using the LYM sources for this edit. Macwhirr (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Those sources are more like what we should have for this article. Self-published sources are good for routine informaiton, like the date of establishment or the officers. They are not suitable for making self-serving claims, or when they become the principle sources for an article.   Will Beback  talk  18:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the LaRouche org's past inroads into the Democratic party (1980s) it is certainly noteworthy if the LYM is assiduously and successfully working in or around the California Dem Party today. LaRouche house organs are not a proper source for this, but if the LYM is indeed working in the DP they would surely have clips, if such existed, from mainstream news sources. The only thing I have found is this[5] which is from 2004 and does not specify if the LaRouche members were LYM members. And electing a tiny handful to a largely powerless county committee--in isolation from any large-scale efforts elsewhere--is not in itself noteworthy. If LYM members were getting large vote percentages in primaries for elected public office, however, that would certainly be worth including if reported in a citable newspaper. Given LaRouche's well-known record as a convicted felon, I doubt that such electoral achievements will be forthcoming unless the LYM members run as stealth candidates, hiding their connection to LaRouche. In such cases, reporting their successes here would be a moot issue.Dking (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

::::::You are confusing two types of committees. It is true that county committees are largely powerless, and people often get elected to them by blind luck. Those elections are held at the same time as elections to public office, and the results are published in the press. However, the committee posts that are being discussed here are party caucus positions, which are elected by delegates to the state convention. They are statewide positions and are hotly contested. Considering how big California is, bigger than many nations, these positions are noteworthy. I also found a LaRouche article from 2006[6] on Los Angeles County Democratic Chair Eric Baumann being the featured speaker at a LaRouche Youth meeting. It includes photos in case someone wants to suggest the article is lying. --Macwhirr (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't confusing anything. The sole citable source I could find, from 2004, said that the candidates for the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee were elected on Election Day at the polls, not by state convention delegates. The article also quoted a party official saying that most people didn't know who they were voting for (these are very obscure posts). Further, it said that LaRouche got 7,125 votes statewide for President, "less than any [other] candidate in a field of ten." Perhaps this should be quoted as an example of the purported success of the LYM. As to the 2006 article Macwhirr found, it is from LaRouche's EIR and thus is not citable here on factual matters regardless of whether or not the Los Angeles Democratic Party chair actually appeared at an LYM meeting.--Dking (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Remember that in Reliable Sources it says that fringey sources should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities. Thus, LaRouche sources may be used in this article, just as your writings would be appropriate in the article Dennis King. If the material is clearly attributed, the reader can judge its credibility. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC);

::::I have found additional sources to corroborate the LYM election successes. --Macwhirr (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Leatherstocking took the neutrality notice down, but I think that this is premature. My main objection to the article is the first paragraph, where it says that "Journalists, cult experts, former members and law enforcement officicials have made a wide variety of accusations of the LaRouche organizations, including calling them a political cult." Of the sources that are listed to support this statement, one is a broken link, one is an opinion piece in a small campus paper, one is an item in what appears to be a local British paper called "Ham & High" which misspells LaRouche's name, and one is the Avi Klein article. I read all of them and there are no "cult experts" cited in any of them. There is only one former member and one (British) law enforcement source cited. I don't think it is appropriate to put these poorly documented accusations in such a prominent position in the article. Macwhirr (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC) :We recently went through a prolonged debate about the lede to Lyndon LaRouche, which had similar problems.[7] I am going to remove the sentence in question, and put a main article link to LaRouche movement. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the neutrality tag, because I was satisfied that the article had been returned to a balanced state, but I see that Will Beback has tilted it once more toward his team's POV. I will raise some specific objections here, in hopes that it can be worked out without putting the tag back.

• The business about Scott McLemee being an "award winning book critic" is irrelevant to the article, and is sourced to an article which has nothing to do with the LaRouche Youth Movement. This is an attempt to make McLemee's views appear more credible, and it's SYNTH.

• There are no "cult experts" or "former members" quoted in the cited sources that say the LYM is a cult (read the Avi Klein article carefully -- it doesn't make those claims.) Two of the sources offered are broken links to DailyFreePress and PCC-Courieronline. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC);

It's unhelpful to readers to attribute a view or quotation to someone without providing any information about him. We don't have an article on Lemee so we can't just link his name. If you have a better description of him with a source then that's fine too.

The line in question says:

• Journalists, cult experts, former members and law enforcement officicials have made a wide variety of accusations of the LaRouche organizations, including calling them a political cult.

And we have press reports that say:

• ...a Scotland Yard internal report said the organisation appeared to be "a political cult with sinister and dangerous connections", ...

Is there any question that there have been a "wide variety of accusations" about LaRouche organizations in the past? We can add more of them but that seems like a sufficient statement.

Also, I'd advise you again to stop using the term "team" in discussing other people's editing. It's not consistent with WP:AGF.   Will Beback  talk  17:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

:::The fact that there is no article about McLemee suggests that he may not be notable enough to be mentioned as a critic. Perhaps you ought to author an article about him if you disagree. But regardless, how does being an "award winning book critic" qualify him to offer criticism of political groups? On the other matter, you are avoiding my point. I don't object to the phrase "wide variety of accusations," I object to the unsourced claim that "cult experts" and "former members" are among those making the accusation that they are a political cult. Make it specific to Scotland Yard. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC);

No problem.   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mexican article

I came across this article from April 24, 2006 on the WLYM in Mexico. "A codazos y jalones sofocan protesta de jóvenes en un acto de Calderón" Google translated:"A landmark elbow and stifle protest by young people in an act of Calderón"   Will Beback  talk  07:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:This should probably be included, except that I can't make heads or tails out of the Google translation. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC);

Postings by sock of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Protests and disruptions

Cross posted from Talk:LaRouche movement#Protests and disruption

The movement is well-known for using disruption of public events as a tool for promoting its message. Across decades and multiple organizations, LaRouche followers have beaten, heckled, or sang. The list is long. Many are incidents attributable to specific organizations, recently the WLYM. But since these events are a common thread across the movement it's probably best to treat them in one place, with summaries and links in relevant articles. We can start compiling research at Talk:LaRouche movement/Incidents.   Will Beback  talk  09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

History

As one of the two persons actually responsible for the birth of the LaRouche Youth Movement, I can say, authoritatively, that this article is innacurate. I'm tempted to use stronger words. If anyone is serious about the true history: thomas_rooney@hotmail.com. Leave a distinct subject, or it will probably be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.216.201 (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. However Wikipedia policies prevent us from using unpublished first-person accounts as the basis for articles. Instead, we must rely on what has appeared in reliable sources like newspapers, magazines, and books. Unfortunately, the founding of WLYM hasn't been covered extensively. If you're aware of sources that give a more accurate picture it would help us if you could list them.   Will Beback  talk  19:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

About 80 % of the Sources in this article do not work, thus most of what is said in this article cannot be verified. Please flag this page and fix the problem. 81.210.205.36 (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)