Jump to content

Talk:LaRouche movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joe Bodacious (talk | contribs) at 20:06, 5 May 2013 (→Examiner?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:


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 [1], 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 [2], Paul L. Montgomery, "How a Radical-Left Group Moved Toward Savagery," New York Times, 1/20/74, p. 1. (courtesy copy [3]). 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. [4] 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]
The disputed section should be re-evaluated in light of WP:BLPCRIME. Much of what is there is unsuitable per this policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.148.252 (talk) 13:25, 3 June 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]

There is no explanation. Where is the evidence Stevenson gave a hoot about Lyndon L? --Javaweb (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

PublicEye.org

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? Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.81.198 (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"no reference here to persons, only parties and factions"

I find it ironic that BLPCRIME is invoked to remove references to crimes committed by "followers," "two NCLC organizers," and "two NCLC organizers," but when we refer to identifiable living person "Mark Rudd's faction," at Columbia "assaulting" people, all of a sudden "no reference here to persons, only parties and factions," BLPCRIME no longer applies. Perhaps a double standard? Hipocrite (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly improper to implicitly link Rudd to the violence. The book does, appear, to state that Rudd did head one "faction" so the claims had to be delinked per WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Mark Rudd's name. I had thought that the criteria for BLPCRIME was saying that a person was arrested, but after taking a second look I see that I was mistaken. It just says "accused of a crime." It also says nothing about persons being "identifiable," just living.
I started a discussion of BLPCRIME and this article at the BLP noticeboard. Since we still need to reduce the section per the earlier Request for Comment, taking out the allegations of crime where there were no convictions seems to me to be a good place to be reducing. Waalkes (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Cla68 (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

are some of the LaRouche supporters actually Democrats?

[5] Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, speaking in a Manhattan neighborhood where supporters of Lyndon H. LaRouche have campaigned for local offices, chastised the Democratic Party yesterday for accepting Mr. LaRouche's followers as legitimate participants in party affairs.

[6] Local Democratic leaders here spent the day trying to explain how a supporter of Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., the extremist politician, was elected Tuesday as chairman of the Harris County Democratic Party

[7] But Ms. Rogers, a follower of the controversial activist Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., says she is in the race “to restore the principles of Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy to the Democratic Party.”

I know some do not "like" it, but the fact is that LaRouche has members who have been nominees and officeholders in the Democratic Party, and who politically identify themselves as Democrats. Wikipedia has reliable sources for such a claim, unless the New York Times is no longer reliable <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sources do support that LaRouche followers do usually participate as Democratic Party candidates, at least, recently. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kesha Rogers won the Democratic Congressional Primary in Houston, Texas this year for the the second time in a row. So the question is, who decides who can be a Democrat? Party bureaucrats, or the rank and file?

Examiner?

Apparently examiner.com is considered a bad source for Wikipedia? Anyone know why? If an exception can be made for a particular page, this article could be useful here: http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=%22Banking+on+Congress,+%E2%80%98Week+of+Action%E2%80%99+begins+Monday+in+D.C.%22&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest (this is the only way I can manage to put a link here. Someone must really dislike the Examiner.)

Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:LaRouche_movement&oldid=553675190"