Jump to content

Talk:LaRouche movement: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Intro: cmt
Line 184: Line 184:


*'''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)
*'''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)

*'''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)


==Comments==
==Comments==

Revision as of 20:50, 8 May 2012

WikiProject iconPolitics C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating 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:


Lenght of allegations catalog II

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

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

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

The response to your suggestion was "what are you proposing." Now that it's clear what you are proposing is shortening the section to a list of names, I have a problem. It appears that you have tried multiple angles to remove the Royko material. What is your specific problem with that material? Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my post at the beginning of this section. The RfC mandates a significant reduction of the size of this section. Your edit [1] restores the section to its original size, minus a sentence or two. I should add that it also now reports as fact in Wikipedia's voice one of Royko's questionable allegations. We are not going to accomplish a significant reduction by arguing about each individual tidbit. Instead, we should recognize that there is a great deal of redundancy and unnecessary detail, which should be consolidated and summarized. Also please remember, we are discussing speculation by LaRouche's critics about anonymous messages. In my opinion, going on an on with details about this sort of speculation is undue weight. Waalkes (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the material deleted by Waalkes did not involve anonymous phone calls.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

As far as I recall, in previous discussion shortening has been taken to mean writing more briefly and concisely. It does not mean removing topics or sourced content. Again Waalkes, please comment on content, not on contributors. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, your comment makes no sense, please read the RfC on this topic. Consensus was to shorten, either by removing content or by writing more briefly. Waalkes (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I chose to write the section more briefly. You expanded it. Are you sure that your goal is to shrink the section, or is it really to remove information that you don't want in the article? Hipocrite (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's have a look. It appears that you have made two edits to the section under discussion [2][3], and the net effect of those edits has been to significantly expand the section. Here's a link to the RfC: Talk:LaRouche_movement/Archive_3#RfC:_Length_of_the_.22Alleged_violence_and_harassment.22_section. Why don't you familiarize yourself with it, and then maybe we can put our heads together and figure out why it seems to be so difficult to accomplish what the Rfc calls for. Waalkes (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason it's so difficult is because you are choosing to interpret the RFC as "I won, you lost, now I get everything I want," as opposed to a mandate to shrink the section. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was certainly helpful. Would you care to offer any suggestions as to how the section might be shrunk? Waalkes (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We can tighten the wording without removing information as I did in the diff you linked. Hipocrite (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Why don't you make some specific proposals. Maybe we can finally make some progress here.Waalkes (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm actually serious -- if you could make some specific proposals to reduce the section at LaRouche Movement, I think that would be very constructive. Waalkes (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, Waalkes now believes the material is too short, since he has now taken to adding information.[4] Not only that, but he's citing Dennis King, which presumably means he believes that book is a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  07:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mess

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

Yes, you killed your opposition, so now you can whitewash the article! Good on you. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd -- the gist is here -- the silly excess is removed, including BLP violations and unsourced "allegations." No whitewash of any despicable group - just a proper NPOV article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a discussion, but it's impossible to discuss a total whitewash like the one you engaged in (have you had outside discussions with anyone regarding this article?). As before, pick a specific point and we can discuss it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading the material removed -- including the anonymous allegations etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous allegations sourced in reliable publications are not prohibited, especially if they are against non-identifiable movements. Hipocrite (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vote fraud

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

In 1986, LaRouche movement members Janice Hart and Mark J. Fairchild won the Democratic Primary elections for the offices of Illinois Secretary of State and Illinois Lieutenant Governor respectively. Up until the day following the election, major media outlets were reporting that George Sangmeister, Fairchild's primary opponent, was running unopposed. 21 years later Fairchild asked, “how is it possible that the major media, with all of their access to information, could possibly be mistaken in that way?”[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]

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

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. Collect (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand your BLP concerns here. Who is the defamed living person? How are they defamed? Or, was this edit not about anonymous accusations about living persons? How can someone tell? Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This edit was primarily a simple one - I did not remove material as violating BLP here because there was nothing I saw in this piece as violating BLP. I did find the "vote fraud" bit which had nothing to do with LaRouche as being irrelevant, and the "however" and "instead" bits are simple style. Now what here did I did that was a "whitewash"? Try to find someplace where you actually dispute the edut - not a place where your dispute appears not to exist. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's so hard to tell why you are making your edits when you make a 32k removal in one non-discussed swath. In the edit where you removed the voter fraud bit, you said "cleanup lede, rm material of minor value covered in the body, rm some colorful terms, rm unsourced claims, rm BLP violations, etc., source does not support "Hitler poster" claim, etc.". How am I to know that tis removal was actually none of those things? Should we talk about the Hitler poster next? Hipocrite (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually contiguous edits - but not in one edit, lest anyone here be misapprised. Collect (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 [5], the quote being "Although LaRouche publicly eschews violence, over the years members have been charged with a variety of offenses, including assault, possession of weapons, possession of explosives, and kid- napping. There have, however, been few convictions." We could change the section in question to:

LaRouche movement members have engaged in violence, harassment, and heckling since the 1970s.[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.

What do you think about that? Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 [6], Paul L. Montgomery, "How a Radical-Left Group Moved Toward Savagery," New York Times, 1/20/74, p. 1. (courtesy copy [7]). Harassment and heckling are reasonably trivial to source from the recent obamahitler stuff. Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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. Collect (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. It's a red flag for nothing but the fact that they were charged but not convicted - unless you think Heritage lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? The source was provided. If you want to shrink the article, provide a concrete proposal to do so. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But, you are right in that there is no source for the "if any" part, and so I've removed it, since we have few convictions reliably sourced. The "if any" language was added here, by banned Leatherstocking, aka Herschelkrustofsky. Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would be good are some references later than the mid-eighties or even some from this century. All you have at the moment is some evidence of violence a quarter a century or more ago.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Waalkes (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. [8] 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." Hipocrite (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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? Waalkes (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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? Hipocrite (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Why, do you? And I believe that you are confused about primary and secondary sources. Waalkes (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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? Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Cla68 (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo agreed with the whole removal? So did Peter Cohen? Bull. Hipocrite (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hipocrite (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.80.38 (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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!) --Narson ~ Talk • 11:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. JN466 21:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So add it. Obviously, there are sources - supply them. Hipocrite (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

I am reverting 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.14.125 (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Waalkes (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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? Hipocrite (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Collect (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hipocrite (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Cla68 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Cla68 (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, what should be next to go? Someone please make a suggestion. Cla68 (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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? Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Cla68 (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not - especially when 3 of the "5" are SPA's/IP addresses. Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should replace that with something more appropriate. That was Will Beback's parody of the movement. Waalkes (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hipocrite (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Waalkes (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you threatening me? Why would you do that, when we just found a point of agreement? Hipocrite (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Collect (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Hipocrite (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Collect (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to further converse with you unless you can let old disputes over other things drop. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeppers -- hoilding your breath will certainly change my positions on Wikipedia policies. Collect (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vote fraud

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)
  • 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. --JN466 19:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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. Collect (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Collect (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how this is relevant to an article on the LaRouche movement? 71.95.204.10 (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

I'm not happy with 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.

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. Hipocrite (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPOV please/ Collect (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of NPOV. Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Hipocrite (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, the classical arts and sciences thing is something we need to cover. 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. JN466 19:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:LaRouche_movement&oldid=491458653"