Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Collect (talk | contribs) at 07:05, 10 January 2012 (→Headings: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the LaRouche movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Politics C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Lawsuits and trials /Incidents /Sources

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

New Hampshire section

This section has been left in an odd state after this edit. We have a LaRouche spokesman denying responsibility for the cats, but no mention of the cats themselves. Either we mention the cats, and keep the denial, or we lose both the cats and the denial. Which is it to be? The cited sources were

• Mintz, John (14 January 1985). "Critics of LaRouche Group Hassled, Ex-Associates Say", Washington Post.
• Dennis Tourish; Tim Wohlforth (2000). On the edge: political cults right and left. M.E. Sharpe. p. 77. ISBN 978-0-7656-0639-6. Retrieved 21 September 2011.

The sources look quite solid, so I am leaning towards inclusion, but I am open to argument. Is there any reason to doubt the sources? --JN466 20:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The cats and the interview are a case of cum hoc ergo propter hoc : An encyclopedia is on the safe side without the cats and the denial. Waalkes (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The alleged cat killings are a serious issue. They were raised again by Mike Royko, and LaRouche eventually sued in an unsuccessful attempt to suppress Royko's column from being printed.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• We still have the odd state referred to above. So, what say ye? --JN466 16:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's put back at least some mention of the original assertion.   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Weld material

Hipocrite is mistaken, I did not delete the "Weld material," I moved it into a new section called "Association with Mitch WerBell." Also, I did not "dissemble" in my edit summary -- isn't that what is called a "personal attack"? But one final point -- I still believe that these hearsay allegations about assassination plots should be removed altogether, but I am waiting for consensus to remove them. That would certainly help to shorten the section, which still is weirdly large. Waalkes (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Waalkes, I like the WerBell section. But wasn't it Frankhouser who introduced WerBell to LaRouche? (We currently have it the other way round.) --JN466 15:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JN, I will keep this in mind and research it. Waalkes (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I modified the material a little to put the events in the correct order, per Jayen466's comment.   Will Beback  talk  06:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Will, do you have a source for this edit? Waalkes (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What aspect of it? That Frankhouser introduced LaRouche to WerBell, instead of the other way around?   Will Beback  talk  19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Many of LaRouche's alleged "links" to right-wingers were made at the suggestion of Frankhauser. One of these was Mitchell WerBell, a former contract CIA agent and arms manufacturer with a flair for self-promotion.
  • AMERICAN EXTREMISTS MILITIAS, SUPREMACISTS, KLANSMEN, COMMUNISTS, & OTHERS JOHN GEORGE & LAIRD WILCOX Prometheus Books Amherst, NY. 1996.

That's pretty straightforward.   Will Beback  talk  19:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion

Looking at the ultra-long allegations section, I notice that most of it deals with the NCLC and US Labor Party, in other words, the 1970s. We have articles on both the NCLC and the US Labor Party. If we move that "allegations" material to those articles and replace it here with a one paragraph summary, that would go a long ways toward reducing the "allegations" section to a reasonable size. Waalkes (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a simple solution superficially, but it quickly becomes problematic once we look at the sources. Too often, the sources simply refer to "LaRouchites", "LaRouche follower"s, or other general designations that don't indicate precisely which entity the subjects are identifying themselves with that day. Since we're engaged in re-writing this material, we should perhaps review more recent news accounts. In fact, there has been plenty of harassment in the past decade--it didn't end in the 1980s. In many of the recent cases, the labeled entity is the LaRouche Youth Movement/LPAC. Based on WP:WEIGHT, we could justify adding perhaps hundreds of words about altercations and demonstrations involving its members. The activities are basically a continuation of the activities already described here by members of other entities in previous decades, so it's actually more compact to deal with it here. OTOH, the LYM/LPAC article is relatively short, so it has room for growth if we want to add more material on recent demonstrations and altercations.   Will Beback  talk  11:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Despicability and Gunning fog index

Current lead

The LaRouche movement is an international political and cultural network that promotes Lyndon LaRouche and his ideas. It has included scores of organizations and companies around the world. Their activities include campaigning, private intelligence gathering, and publishing numerous periodicals, pamphlets, books, and online content. It characterizes itself as a Platonist Whig movement which favors re-industrialization and classical culture, and which opposes what it sees as the genocidal conspiracies of Aristotelian oligarchies such as the British Empire. Outsiders characterize it as a fringe movement and it has been criticized from across the political spectrum.

The movement had its origins in radical leftist student politics of the 1960s, but is now generally seen as a right-wing, fascist or unclassifiable group. It is known for its unusual theories and its confrontational behavior. In the 1970s members allegedly engaged in street violence. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of candidates, some with only limited knowledge of LaRouche or the movement, ran as Democrats on the LaRouche platform. None were elected to significant public office.

In 1988, LaRouche and 25 associates were convicted on fraud charges related to fund-raising, prosecutions which the movement alleged were politically motivated and which were followed by a decline in the group's influence which lasted for several years. The movement was rejuvenated in the 2000s by the creation of a youth cadre, the LaRouche Youth Movement, and by their prominent opposition to the Bush/Cheney administration and the Obama health care reform plan.

Discussion

No Will -- this article is currently a midden of every single nugatory factoid findable which remotely connects to a single living person. There is no encyclopedic need for probably 3/4 of the material in this article other than to show how despicable LaRouche is. But Misplaced Pages is not here to show how despicable a person is - it is here to give an overview of facts presented by reliable sources. It is time to clean up the pile here - indeed, long past time. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep referring to LaRouche as "despicable"? I'm not sure that passes BLP. As for the article, it does as you say it should. It gives an overview of facts presented by reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  13:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If he is not putatively "despicable" then there is even less reason for this midden. This article does far more than just give a summary of facts - it lists factoid by factoid by factoid, and is sufficiently over-detailed as to be unreadable. Readibility, even of just the first paragraph, is absurd with a calculated Gunning fog index over 17. I suggest that this alone suggests that the article is woeful and abysmal as far as utility for real people is concerned. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Too many big words, I guess. When we do a Simple English version I'm sure we can fix that.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Bad writing. Very bad writing. High school reading is a lot better than you seem to think - and writing such that a person needs up to 20 or more years of education is really not useful for general Internet users. Mushroom is a pretty techy article - fog index under 14. Climate change is barely over 10. Even Adolf Hitler with big German words is under 17. Average scores across a lot of articles is on the order of 12. Articles with a fog index of over 17 are, in fact, just really badly written. I will grant you that Communism is worse, but I doubt one person in fifty makes sense of that introduction <g>. And with a Fleisch score of 4, I would think you would not make sense of it either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm splitting this thread because we've gone in a different direction than the OP.

We had extensive discussions of the lead a few months ago, and finally arrived at this consensus version. If you'd like to propose a fresh draft to summarize the article, then you're most welcome. It looks like one sentence alone pushes up the score: It characterizes itself as a Platonist Whig movement which favors re-industrialization and classical culture, and which opposes what it sees as the genocidal conspiracies of Aristotelian oligarchies such as the British Empire. That gets a 24 with this tester. How can we re-write that to maintain the meaning while simplifying the language?   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It seems to me that the problem with the intro is the organization in it's own words section - "It characterizes itself as a Platonist Whig movement which favors re-industrialization and classical culture, and which opposes what it sees as the genocidal conspiracies of Aristotelian oligarchies such as the British Empire," which has an index over 24. I don't know what a "Platonist Whig" is, or what "re-industrialization and classical culture" are, and while "genocidal conspiracies of Aristotelian oligarchies" sound scary, I assume the movement prefers that to "drug-running by the Queen." What would you propose we use to self-describe the movement? Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Try:

The LaRouche movement comprises many organizations and companies worldwide which promote the opinions of Lyndon LaRouche. It is viewed by its members as favoring classical culture and opposing conspiracies, and as being a fringe movement by its critics.

The movement began in leftist student politics in the 1960s, but is now variously viewed as right-wing, fascist, or unclassifiable. Larouche and his movement are noted for unusual theories. In the 1970s, some members allegedly engaged in street violence. In the 1970s and 1980s, the movement supported many Democratic candidates who had little knowledge of the movement. None were elected.

In 1988, after LaRouche and some supporters were convicted on fund-raising fraud charges, which they asserted were politically related, the movement's influence declined. The movement regained some influence with the start of a LaRouche Youth Movement, and by opposition to the Bush-Cheney administration and the Obama health care reform plan.

Leaving out jargon which not one person in a hundred can understand, and leaving the details to the body, where they belong. Fog index well under 14. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the concepts expressed in the "jargon", like "Platonist" and "re-industrialization", are important. We're not here to write an article for children. Most of the technical terms have links where readers can learn more. I've posted the first three paragraphs from the original above. I can't say that Collect's draft is a good replacement.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I demur. We are here to write something a college student could understand - requiring post-graduate degrees to read Misplaced Pages is inane. We are not writing Kabbalah. Leave the arcana to the body - let the lede speak clearly and succinctly as to what ensues. A fog index of 13 is not exactly talking down to anyone, nor is it dumbing down important stuff. It is making the encyclopedia do what it is supposed to do - make information readily and simply usable by readers. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No one wants to make a hard-to-read article, but there is a trade-off if improving readability requires deleting significant content. Unfortunately, this draft is rather sloppy with facts too. It would be misleading to say the movement supported many Democratic candidates who had little knowledge of the movement, for example. Or The movement regained some influence with the start of a LaRouche Youth Movement, - I don't know of any source which says the movement has regained influence due to the LYM. While improving the lead is a good goal, let's make sure that it is actually improved and not made worse.   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

While improving on the lead, (which seems a minor issue) we should focus more on the rest of the text, which has more severe issues, as Collect pointed out. I do not necc. concur that "big words" are a problem: as a reader of LaRouche's writings, I often encounter so-called"big words" like "potential relative population density" which are nevertheless well-defined. Writing (and reading) about LaRouche may require also the use of "big words". Waalkes (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on that point. It's the big words which seem to cause the readability index to go up, but many of them are necessary to properly describe this movement.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

More mess to clean up

The "Harassment of politicians" section is a combination of non-notable trivia and activity that is being mis-categorized as "harassment." Running against a candidate, or campaigning against a candidate, even name calling, is not "harassment." The material on the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations (in the previous section) is being presented in a POV fashion, since many people shared the view that Wadman etc. were dangerous and that there was a coverup. What the SI activists did could be characterized as "whistle-blowing." Calling it "harassment" is taking sides in Misplaced Pages's voice. Much of what is called "harassment of journalists" is actually just "making allegations" (ironic, isn't it?) Also ironic is that the "public altercations" section is mostly about LaRouche activists being harassed and or assaulted. Waalkes (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Franklin case is when an entity of the LaRouche movement created a special group, lead by James Bevel, to pursue charges of child molestation against people who had been exonerated. It followed one man from job to job and from city to city, spreading allegations of perversion to his neighbors and employers. If someone did that to you I bet you'd feel harassed.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• The section title is: "Alleged violence and harassment" then there are numerous sub sections listed by topic. In my opinion the word harassment needs to be removed from the three subsections as it creates POV and undue weight by mentioning the word repeatedly and selectively. A more neutral approach would be to name each subsection by its topic, and leave out the biased adjectives. Currently the section and subsections are as follows:
• Allegations of violence and harassment
  • 1960s and Operation Mop-Up
  • The USLP vs. the FBI
  • Association with Mitch WerBell
  • Labor unions
  • 1980 New Hampshire presidential primary
  • Leesburg, Virginia
  • Harassment of officials
  • Harassment of politicians
  • Harassment of journalists
  • Public altercations -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason "harassment" is used and repeated it that it is used frequently in sources. Most of the sources are in /Incidents. I count 112 appearances of "harass", "harassing", or "harassment".   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Will, i wonder: were the sources compiled in "Incidents" created in a way, that the word "LaRouche" shows up in connection with words like "harass", "attack" or "threaten" by entering those or similar word and "LaRouche" in Proquest or related search programs? Would someone who searches for "harass" + "attack" + "LaRouche" come up with results that match those compiled in "Incidents"? Waalkes (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're making. What's the problem?   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Was "harass" one of the search terms used to assemble that list of sources? Waalkes (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Many search terms were used, I'm sure. What's your point? What's the problem?   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Arguably, it introduces an element of confirmation bias.

I've thought for some time that part of the problem with this section is the way it is titled, given that some of the content is simply a perfectly legitimate overview of notable conflicts and controversies in the movement's history. --JN466 00:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Recall that my original impetus for this research was the insistence by a succession of HK socks that we have a (mostly unsourced) section on the humor of the LaRouche movement. When I tried to search for examples of this I found the opposite--refererences that said the movement was known for being humorless, and for harassing critics and perceived opponents. I did not set out looking for it, but once I stumbled upon it I found a substantial amount of information. NPOV#Weight says to devote space in an article proportional to the prominence of the issue or view in secondary sources. The only issue with greater prominence would probably be their views. Those are already covered in great detail in another article and mentioned briefly here per WP:SUMMARY.   Will Beback  talk  17:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Will for copypasting your story in here for a third time now. I think it is great and becomes with every post more and more believable. Cheers, Waalkes (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Headings

I attempted to change the titles as proposed by Keithbob and JN466, and was immediately reverted by Will Beback. Will, you don't own this article, and you have consistently ignored or defied proposals and suggestions of a majority of other editors. Waalkes (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There was clear consensus in the thread above. Revert warring against consensus is disruptive.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I support Waalkes' changes to the section headings. That makes four editors for, one against. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Make it five. "Harassment" indicates Misplaced Pages's voice backing the allegations as fact. Absent any convictions for the charge, it is contrary to WP:BLP to claim that any specific living people "harassed" other specific living people. Collect (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the titles chosen by Waalkes do not help the reader. For proper neutrality, I would suggest "alleged harassment" each time instead of just simply "harassment". Mathsci (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The headings should reflect the contents of the sections. I don't oppose change, but the changes should be improvements. NPOV is not a vote. As for the idea that Misplaced Pages can't mention alleged criminal activities, such as harassment, unless there is a criminal conviction, that's obviously incorrect. All sorts of activities are potentially criminal. BLP applies to identifiable individuals, not unidentified members of a movement.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

For example, how many of the alleged "Mass killings under Communist regimes" have resulted in convictions?   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can find mass killings under a LaRouche regime, I would certainly support an article on it. If not, then your analogy is pretty much useless. Collect (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

How so? Were the alleged mass killings ever proven in a court of law? As for this article, which "specific living people" are accused of harassment?   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to argue, and no need to personalize this discussion by bringing up other topics that editors here may edit. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We're discussing, not arguing. This issue is very similar to the "mass Killings" issue, so it's directly relevant. Misplaced Pages does not require a conviction in order to include reports of activities which may violate laws.   Will Beback  talk  02:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Monty Python. 2. Lewis Carroll. The "analogy" is sufficiently absurd as to find itself in both categories. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• C-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics