Wikipedia

Template talk:LaRouche movement/Archive 1

< Template talk:LaRouche movement
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Will Beback in topic Critics

Relevance

How is the Jeremiah Duggan article not related to the series of LaRouche related articles? That the issue is embarrassing does not diminish its relevance. AndyL 21:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is an article about someone who has no significant role in, or relationship to, LaRouche or his movement. It pertains to a malicious effort by opponents of LaRouche to exploit the private tragedy of the Duggan family for their own purposes. And beyond that, if you think it is appropriate to add every article where LaRouche is mentioned, or relevant, to your template, it will become very large. I think it might be appropriate to re-open discussion on, for example, Leo Strauss. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This isn't an article with a passing mention of LaRouche but an article about an issue which primarily concerns the LaRouche movement. If you revert the template one more time I'm going to take out an RFC on your behaviour since its clearly POV and motivated by a political desire to shield the LaRouche movement from an issue which causes it embarrassment. The question is not whether Duggan has a significant role in the LaRouche movement but whether the LaRouche movement has a significant role in the debate around Duggan's death. It does. AndyL 22:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whether the LaRouche movement has any role, let alone a significant one, in Duggan's death is a matter of dispute. It is clear, Andy, that your sole interest in this matter is that it offers you an opportunity to propagandize against LaRouche. As far as I am concerned, this matter of the template is a POV conflict, like many that you and I have been involved in. I would suggest mediation. Also, I would like you to explain why this should not be treated like any other edit conflict, and I have no idea what an RFC is. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschell, considering that I edit on a broad variety of topics while 90% of your edits are related to the LaRouche movement or topics related to LaRouche I think you're on thin ice casting any dispersions regarding my motivations. Frankly, I think LaRouche is an irrelevent crank whose only contribution to political discourse is comic relief while you see him as a Great Man of history so clearly your motivation in editing LaRouche articles is much greater than mine. It's clear you're little more than a propagandist for Lyndon LaRouche and your goal on wikipedia is to, where possible, enhance LaRouche and where that's not possible, engage in damage control in regards to embarassing issues.

The Duggan article is clearly LaRouche related. You have not been able to refute that.

An RFC is a request for comment on an editor's behaviour, in this case your pov intervention, and is the first step in what is essentially a disciplinary process. You have absolutely no ground to stand on when it comes to your arguments for not including the Duggan case in the LaRouche template given that it is self-evident that the article is 100% LaRouche related and I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you since your motivation is simply to protect LaRouche. So let me be clear, remove Duggan from the list again and I will start an RFC or, for that matter, take the matter directly to arbitration. As for mediation, I see no middle ground between the two binary opposite choices of a) including the Duggan article and b) not including it... so I see no point in attempting mediation, particularly since the issue is clear cut to anyone not wearing ideological blinders. AndyL 04:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Consistency

I note that C Colden added two more LaRouche-related pages to the template, and then SlimVirgin deleted them. Whatever the policy is, it should be applied consistently. I prefer a template that includes only the central group of articles, spun off from the original Lyndon LaRouche article. However, if the consensus is that it should also include articles that prominently feature LaRouche or his ideas or organization, then it must include all articles that fit that description -- it must not be done selectively to advance someone's POV agenda. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, stop pretending that everyone else is trying to advance their POV and you are the NPOV warrior. You know very well it's the other way round. Virtually all your edits since you started using this user name have been LaRouche-related. Why does Frederick Wills have an entry in the first place? Only because you created him so you could mention LaRouche. He would otherwise be of no interest. Slim 16:59, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I certainly have a POV, as do you, Slim -- and the NPOV policy is designed to create, shall we say, a level playing field where we may both edit responsibly. Your remarks about Frederick Wills are unwarranted and possibly racist. And what is at issue here, is the following: are you arguing that Fred Will is less relevant to the history of the LaRouche organization, than is Jeremiah Duggan? Fred Wills was, after all, a member of the LaRouche organization, in addition to being a political figure of some international stature in his own right. Duggan was neither. So on what basis to you argue for the inclusion of Duggan, and the exclusion of Wills?

I will repeat that my personal position is that the template should apply strictly to articles spun off from the original LaRouche article. I can see (sort of) Andy's argument for adding any article where LaRouche is a central topic of discussion -- but if that is the case, the rule must be applied consistently. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, don't accuse me of being racist just because i want to delete one of your propaganda pages. A Google search for your Frederick Wills produces 48 results, most of them LaRouche-related, and this for a man of international stature who was active politically since the 60s or 70s. A search for Jeremiah Duggan combined with the word LaRouche, on the other hand, produces 312 results, and that's in just 19 months. Regarding your argument about the template, LaRouche is not a central topic for discussion in the Wills article. If you are going to list someone just because he was a member of the LaRouche organization, then you must list them all. The Wills article should be deleted, in my view.
I don't have time to argue with you about these issues. I'm going to delete material that I regard as original work stemming directly or indirectly from the LaRouche organization, and material I consider might be perceived as promotion of Lyndon LaRouche, following the ruling of the Arbitration Committee. I'm not going to discuss it any more. Slim 23:01, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Fred Wills

I've been searching and searching and have found no evidence that Fred Wills was "closely related" to Lyndon LaRouche. Wills is not mentioned in any of the other LaRouche articles, and barely mentioned on any of the La Rouche websites. Wills did serve on a board with LaRouche's wife, but that is the closest relationship that I can find. Therefore, I am removing Wills' name from the template. -Willmcw 05:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If that is the criterion that is agreed upon by consensus, then Jeremiah Duggan should also be removed. --HK 06:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Possibly so. I'm not sure what criterion that is being proposed. I think that perhpas one is needed. I'm no expert, but I don't believe anyone is saying that Duggan and LaRouche were associates, close or otherwise. A search on Wills and LaRouche [1] brings up 92 entries, while the search on [2] Duggan and LaRouche brings up 400. The most famous thing Duggan did was die, supposedly in some connection to a LaRouche organization; the most famous thing Wills did was be Foreign Minister of Guyana, which no one connects to LaRouche. My initial reaction is that neither are "closely related". Anyway, let's deal with Wills first. -Willmcw 07:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Duggan article is entirely about his death which is a LaRouche related issue. Moreover, unlike Wills, much of the material linking the two is from non-LaRouche sources. AndyL 13:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Duggan's death is regarded as "closely related" to the LaRouche organization by the Washington Post, London Times, Guardian, Independent, and a British coroner's court. The article is entirely based on those sources, except for the ones you and Weed Harper later inserted. The Wills connection, on the other hand, is merely asserted by the LaRouche organization, but without saying what he did for them. As this is an encyclopedia, we have to go with the reputable, published sources. Slim 15:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche sources

Slim, I asked you a question a few weeks back at Talk:Jeremiah Duggan, and I think it would be useful for you to answer it now. Here is the relevant exchange:

The problem with using LaRouche publications as sources is that they tend to give certain impressions that, when checked, turn out not to be accurate. There is no need in this article for a list of everyone who attended the conference. Simply state which ones, if any, were government officials. Slim 23:11, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Slim, would you care to cite an example of an "impression" you got from a LaRouche publication that turned out not to be accurate? --HK 06:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--HK 16:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, you're kidding me. LaRouche publications are full of uncheckable, long-winded diatribes. The particular exchange you've lifted from the Jeremiah Duggan Talk page was when Weed Harper said or implied that several government officials had attended the conference that Duggan was at. Closer inspection revealed that not to be correct. Weed was taking his information from a LaRouche publication. But that apart, let's start with the LaRouche claim that an article in a British woman's magazine in 1999 was evidence that the British royal household was planning to assassinate him. Do you believe that the British royal household, or any other part of the British establishment or government, is or was then planning to murder Lyndon LaRouche? Because it seems to me that if you do, you shouldn't be editing the Wikipedia; and if you don't, you shouldn't be editing it using sources you yourself don't believe. Slim 16:24, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, and you profess to be such a stickler for accuracy. Your closer inspection of Weed's edit did not produce the results that you assert: for example, Ambassador Kim Song-woo (Secretary General, East Asian Common Space Secretariat, Seoul, Korea) is a government official, hence the title, "Ambassador." (Interested 3rd parties may view the context at Jeremiah Duggan). Similarly Dr. Bi Jiyao (Academy of Macro-Economic Research, State Development Planning Commission, China) -- the State Development Planning Commission is run by what? By the State. Dr. Zbigniew Kwiczak (Former Minister at the Polish Embassy in Moscow) is a former government employee. Again, I submit that you are letting an excess of POV get the better of you.

That's not various government officials, as was stated. Just because an industry is nationalized doesn't make people who work for it "government officials" in the sense understood in most countries. This is exactly the problem with LaRouche publications. And I bet if I check who the two supposedly current ones are, they may also turn out to be former somethings. Slim 00:36, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Again, we're not talking, in the case of the Chinese gentleman, about a nationalized industry, but rather an academy operating under the aegis of a planning commission. And your skepticism about the two ambassadors reveals more about your POV than about the crediblity of LaRouche sources; if you could cite an example of a case where a LaRouche publication had been factually incorrect, your skepticism might appear more legitimate. Compare the general lack of skepticism in many mainstream publications, those which you cite approvingly, in the case of the Bush/Blair claims about Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction." --HK 13:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
With respect to the article in EIR [3], which discusses the article in Take a Break magazine: the assertions made by EIR are not as simple as your comments suggest. EIR calls the Take a Break article an "unmistakable death threat." It also quotes an anonymous "well-connected British source" who calls the article a "trial balloon," a "flier," and a "reconnaissance in force." Does the issuance of a threat constitute proof of an intent to carry out the threat? I don't know. Is the "British royal household, or any other part of the British establishment or government" capable of authorizing a political assassination? I suspect so. Recent evidence certainly suggests that the U.S. government is -- there are indications that the U.S. government was involved in some way in Operation Condor, for example. And last but not least, Princess Diana has been quoted saying that the Royal Family intended to "bump off" her lover, which assessment carries some weight, considering that technically, the Princess was a member of said Royal Family.
However, Slim, what you are indicating here is that you disagree with some analysis in EIR. I'm asking for an example of a factual inaccuracy, to back up your claim that EIR is not a reputable source. --HK 00:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Parti pour la république du Canada (Québec)

I've added Parti pour la république du Canada (Québec), as it has a separate article of its own. -Willmcw 01:14, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Janice Hart

Is there a reason for having Janice Hart included in the template? Her only connection to LaRouche seems to be that she ran for public office on the LaRouche platform. Many other people have too. I don't think it makes sense to list every LaRouche-related candidate on the template. Perhaps a section of the Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns can be devoted to other LaRouche-related electoral activities. -Willmcw 22:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Her election victory was rather notable given that it resulted in Adlai Stevenson III leaving the ticketAndyL

OK, so that is what makes her notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (she wouldn't be notable otherwise). But why is her connection to LaRouche so significant that she is on the Template? She is not mentioned in any of the articles, and there is no assertion that they were closely-related, or have even met. This would make as much sense as including a failed Republican candidate for Illinois Secretary of State on a George Bush template. The connection seems too minor. Hart should be mentioned in an article on LaRouche's polical activities, by all means. But why on the template? -Willmcw 23:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Because the only reason she's of interest is that she was a LaRouche candidate, I suppose. I don't know what was special about her as opposed to any other candidate. I think she should be here simply for having assaulted an Archbishop with a piece of raw liver. SlimVirgin 03:02, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
That earns her a spot on this template? Huh. I don't know if there's a count kept anywhere, but if we add together all the American, Canadian, and Australian candidates associated w/ LaRouche, I believe it'd easily be over a hundred people (I think they ran something like 90 people in the last Australian election alone). I'm not suggesting deleting the article, just the reference on the Template, which gives her far more prominence than she deserves. -Willmcw 04:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

She isn't signficant simply because she was a LaRouche candidate. She's signficant because she is one of only two LaRouche candidates who have actually ever succeeded in winning an election, in her case the 1986 Democratic primary in Illinois for Secretary of State. Mark Fairchild is the only other LaRouche candidate to have one an election, in the same 1986 Illinois primary for another state wide position. It was a major news story in 1986 and led to the LaRouche movement getting intense national attention for the first time. Also, her only significance is her membership in the LaRouche movement. AndyL 01:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It might make sense to include what you just wrote in one of the articles. I still have my doubts about including minor characters in the template, but I'll leave her there until there's a reason to do otherwise. Thanks for your input. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC).

I also have my doubts about including minor characters in the template, a category which would certainly include Jeremiah Duggan. The inclusion of the Duggan article strikes me as more an indication of POV warfare than of an effort to make Wikipedia a comprehensive encyclopedia. --HK 17:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prop 64

I've added California Proposition 64 (1986). I put it alphabetically, which perhaps gives it too much prominence - it could also be filed under "Prop 64". Or maybe a subsection for political issues, such as political views, prez campaigns, Hart, and Prop 64? -Willmcw 23:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've changed "related individuals" to "related individuals and issues," and moved it there. --HK 17:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. -Willmcw 19:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ive re-ordered the articles to place the LaRouche-specific articles in one place, the individuals in another, the active organizations in a third, and the defunct org.s in a fourth category. Further, rather than alphabetical order I've tried to place them in order of importance. I hope this makes for a more logical sequence. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That looks good, Will. SlimVirgin 06:00, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

EAP - }

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I added the Swedish branch, European Workers Party (EAP), to the template. I also remove a "hanging" curly brace just before the defunct section. The result of this removal is that all sections have the same indent. OK? --Astor Piazzolla 08:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am so sorry for my mistake when deleting the curly brace, as I thereby destroyed the function of the template in conjuction with articles. I've now put it back. My misteak. So sorry! --Astor Piazzolla 09:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Duggan

Latest comment: 17 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

What is the argument behind giving Jeremiah Duggan equal billing with Helga Zepp LaRouche or Amelia Boynton Robinson? His connection to the movement seems tenuous at best. --172.190.95.144 05:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have read the previous discussion, and I see that Frederick Wills, who was a member of the LaRouche movement and an officer of one of their organizations, was removed from the template. Why? --172.196.107.243 15:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please register a username so that you can have a consistent identity for communication purposes. Regarding Wills, he seems to have had minimal involvement with LaRouche, compared to the rest of his career. On the other hand, it's his invovlement with LaRouche for which Duggan is known. -Will Beback 20:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am the same person who asked the previous questions. The purpose of the template is to assist people in learning about the LaRouche movement, right? From what I read in the article, Jeremiah Duggan was never actually a member. Wills, on the other hand, was an officer in the group. I don't see how that can be considered "minimal." I would see Duggan's involvement as "minimal," since all he did was attend a conference. Please expand upon your reasoning. --ManEatingDonut 00:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting a name, it's easier then saying "hey you." I've never heard that the LaRouche movement has "members" in a formal sense. Nor have I heard that Wills was an officer (chairman, treasurer, secretary, etc.). What office did he hold? Simply lending his name to an institution is not an indication of major involvement. -Will Beback 08:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wills is listed on the Schiller Institute board of directors [4]. These are all people who should be on the template, if there are Wikipedia articles about them. I don't know whether the LaRouche movement has members in the formal sense, but in any event I doubt that Duggan would be one. --ManEatingDonut 15:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Schiller Institute is just one of many components of the LaRouche movement, we don't have space to list the officers, directors, staff, etc. of all of them. Other than lending his name to the project, it isn't clear how much involvement Wills actually had. Do you have any sources for it? Do we have any non-LaRouche sources for Wills involvement in Schiller?
I see your point, but it seems that any one of these people would be more relevant than Duggan. Why is Duggan on the template? Also, it appears that William Warfield was quite active with the LaRouche movement. --ManEatingDonut 06:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Like Wills, Warfield is not notable because he associated with the movement, he is an independently notable person who participated later in life. Many people are or were active with the LaRouche movement, but we can't list them all in the template. LaRouche Movement is a more complete listing. -Will Beback 07:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Again I see your point. But why is Duggan on the template? All he did was attend a conference. --ManEatingDonut 15:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Duggan was recruited by the LaRouche movement. According to a British court, he died in connection with that recruitment. His death is the only thing that made him notable. It is probably the only issue that caused the LaRouche movement to make international headlines. It is certainly the only one (to the best of my knowledge) that caused them to be investigated by Scotland Yard and discussed by the European Parliament. That makes the Duggan issue much more notable in terms of LaRouche than, say, Frederick Wills. SlimVirgin (talk)

I read the Duggan article, and it does not say anywhere in that article that Duggan was recruited. It does not mention any political activity that he carried out, such as distributing literature on the streets (which as far as I know is the main thing people do after being recruited by LaRouche.) I disagree about it being the only issue that caused the LaRouche movement to make international headlines -- I just did a Google News search as an experiment and found these: [5][6]. As to Scotland Yard, I'm sure you are right on that one. As far as that making Duggan "more notable in terms of LaRouche," I don't quite get your reasoning. I don't think you can learn much about the "LaRouche movement" by studying a fellow who was never in it. --ManEatingDonut 22:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that I have researched Warfield a bit, I think he should be on the template. It is true that he was already notable - so was Amelia Robinson. But both of them appear to have been almost full time activists with the LaRouche movement (I assume Robinson still is, despite her advancing years.) And I am still puzzled over the inclusion of Duggan, who was never in the movement. I think the template should be changed, but I will wait for an answer from Mr Beback and Mr Virgin. --ManEatingDonut 16:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No response, so I will edit the template. --ManEatingDonut 13:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you get no response, it's likely to mean that people disagree. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there should be discussion. I shouldn't have to guess at your intentions. Only three people have voiced an opinion one way or the other, and I think you you should be courteous enough to respond to my questions, rather than just reverting. That is how one arrives at "consensus." --ManEatingDonut 00:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I did respond and said I disagreed. If I don't respond again, it means I continue to disagree. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I came as a result of the RFC request. Obviously, you both feel very strongly about this situation. In my humble opinion, the Duggan article has a place in this page. I understand that it is disputed, but the article is realitively well written. It points out that not only that LaRouche may or may not have been involved, but it is very NPOV and represents the facts.
I am not saying that LaRouche was involved in the death. I am saying the article would not be in an encyclopedia if it wasn't for the publicity it brought to LaRouche. For this reason, it should be included in my opinion.--Connor K. 21:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
What RfC request? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Connor, what is your opinion on the exclusion of William Warfield? --ManEatingDonut 00:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

An analogous case

I note that there is a Template:Israelis, and the article Rachel Corrie does not appear on it, even though there is a section for Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One could argue that Rachel Corrie would not be notable except in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So I would like to hear from SlimVirgin about why inclusion of the Rachel Corrie article would not be appropriate for the Israelis template, yet Jeremiah Duggan is appropriate for inclusion in the LaRouche template. --ManEatingDonut 22:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that that template also does not list the president or prime minister of Israel, or any other individuals. Small political movements are different from nation-states. The case is not analogous, -Will Beback 23:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Will, I have not yet heard your rationale for including Duggan on the template. For people who want to learn something about the LaRouche movement, his story would be at best of trivial interest. It seems to be on the template for purposes of POV pushing. How do you respond? --ManEatingDonut 01:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I gave my rationale above. -Will Beback 07:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate? Mainly you just talk about why you think Wills and Warfield should be excluded. In both those cases, it is clear that they had a personal involvement and commitment to the LaRouche movement over a period of years, not just attendance at one conference. --ManEatingDonut 14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I can make it any clearer than I did when I wrote it in August. -Will Beback 22:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Horizontal footer template

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  • I think we should change this box to a horizontal footer template with Template:Navbox. That would leave much more room to expand the series, without disrupting the formatting of each article it is placed on. Thoughts? Cirt 05:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC).
How much expansion is needed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Issues about the "People" section

Latest comment: 14 years ago29 comments3 people in discussion

Shouldn't Webster Tarpley be excluded from the 'Members' section at the righthand sidebar? Webster Tarpley has officially parted ways with the LaRouche movement for a decade now and he has made statements (direct quote here): "LaRouche of course is totally discredited", and such and such. So it doesn't seem like it makes much sense to include Webster Tarpley as a 'LaRouche' member any longer - unless the intent is to tar him with the same brush through guilt by association.84.28.82.149 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This may not be the best place to discuss that template, but we might as well leave it here. Tarpley was one of the LaRouche movement's earliest members, and he was a prominent member for decades, even running for public office on the LaRouche platform. Much of his current prominence appears to be tied to a book he wrote on behalf of the LaRouche movement, the Bush bio, which I don't believe he's renounced. The Wikipedia article on him simply says that Tarpley "broke away" from the LaRouche movement in the 1990s, but I can't find a source for Tarpley denouncing LaRouche in general, or for the specific quote you've provided.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
He said it in a recent interview with Alex Jones. Can't remember the specific date. Anyways, if you have followed the guy's guest appearances, he has reiterated time and time again he no longer puts any validity in the LaRouche movement and thinks it's bankrupt. You can't exactly chastise him for co-authoring a book - George Bush The Unofficial Biography with a LaRouche member back in the heydays of his career. Also, I find it peculiar I find your particular nick - Will Beback - on nearly every Wiki article that wants the status quo upheld on... certain matters (the Prescott Bush article, now the LaRouche article linking Webster Tarpley to him). Not that I'm insinuating anything, mind you (wink wink)...
To name but one example, why can Fritz Thyssen be 'acquitted' of all ties with the Nazi party, but Tarpley can not disassociate himself from LaRouche even while reiterating time and time again he has broken ties with them a long time ago and has made statements to the tune of 'totally discredited' and 'a dubious movement'?
I would sincerely request somebody else but you - so not Will Beback - to look at this since I doubt your sincerity on this matter.84.28.82.149 (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
And on a related matter, why should he 'renounce' his book, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography? Why would he 'renounce' something that is firmly based on fact and the research he has put into it? Or is it merely because it was affiliated with 'LaRouche' that he should 'renounce' it? This doesn't make any sense - it betrays your motives if anything.
Once again, I want somebody else with authority to look into this matter here - because I don't trust the way you put a spin on this.84.28.82.149 (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
First, remember that "assume good faith" is a policy. I've edited over 22,000 Wikipedia pages; it's hard to avoid me. Regarding the Bush book, it's a LaRouche publication which expresses the LaRouche worldview and was co-written with one of LaRouche's most senior followers. As for Tarpley's career with LaRouche, Tarpley was a senior follower for at least 20 years. LaRouche wasn't discredited suddenly in 1993, or whenever Tarpley left. LaRouche hasn't changed his views much since 1975. LaRouche and Tarpley are both known for espousing conspiracy theories, and those theories appear similar. The article on Tarpley clearly says that he broke away from the LaRouche movement, so no one who reads that would get the impression that he is still a follower. This situation is comparable to Sen. Arlen Specter, who recently switched his affiliation to the Democrats but who had been a prominent Republican for decades. We wouldn't delete him from articles that discuss his past Republican activities just because he's left that party.   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
What if those 'conspiracy theories' actually had some validity to them? Ever pondered that? Just because one builds a messianic cult around a particular movement (such as LaRouche), does not mean that all the information they impart is inaccurate or wrong. Similarly, Tarpley's stuff on the Venetian oligarchy - while of course deriving from LaRouche - is still very much grounded in basic historical fact for anyone who wants to muster up the time to actually do some research or delve into the historybooks. So don't just discount out of hand a wealth of knowledge by using an Orwellian/obfuscatory term such as 'conspiracy theory'. It's really a demagogic statement if anything, and implies you simply do not regard the information to be valid.
Lastly, as to this whole 'assume good faith' policy - first of all, it's very convenient to hide behind bureaucratic measures here - which is why I want to use this opportunity to show your two-facedness here by alleging you assume in good faith - yet when I go to your Discussion page, I see repeatedly people complaining to you that you paint your political opponents under the very broad brush of 'LaRouche agent' or 'LaRouche sockpuppet'. So it's pretty much established that you have it out for LaRouche - and fine, I don't have any interest in the guy either. But don't then apply that to ex-members who have left the movement since, say, 1994/1995, and have already admitted the whole thing is a messianic cult and that the goalposts are always shifting.
And on that same note, this continual childlike infatuation with employing the word 'conspiracy theory' against people or authors you don't agree with - if anything - is very tiresome and above all childlike. It's an Orwellian term that really doesn't mean much of anything - especially when the vast majority of what these 'conspiracies' espouse is actually grounded in fact and most of it is obfuscated by various third parties and interested parties. If you deny there is a 'ruling oligarchy', then you have simply not read the works of Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Jacques Ellul and countless other well-established individuals, who have all admitted to this in their books. Heck, even President Woodrow Wilson talked about a power above government, above the president in his book 'The New Freedom'. I take it all of these 'credible' people - who have all assumed high places of authority - are somehow 'conspiracy theorists' as well and some barely established Wikipedian here lives in an alternative dimension where such things simply do not exist and government by and for the people prevails.
But this all is delving off-topic. In any case I still kindly request somebody else look into this and come to some sort of consensus, since I think it is not warranted to associate Tarpley with this group any longer.84.28.82.149 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not "two-faced" and I would remind you that civility is a requirement. I never said that conspiracies don't exist. Many conspiracy theories have been proven true. There was a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln, and even the "official" version of 9/11 includes a conspiracy. I'm simply saying that Tarpley and LaRouche are both known as conspiracy theorists, and that their theories appear similar. On the other hand, you keep saying that Tarpley has called LaRouche "discredited" and the movement "a messianic cult", but I don't see any evidence of these statements. If you want to argue that Tarpley has repudiated LaRouche then you need to prove that. Regarding the past, George H.W. Bush hasn't been president since 1992, and served for only four years, yet we still include him among the list of U.S. Presidents. Tarpley was a senior follower of LaRouche for over twenty years. Are you proposing that we erase the past? I just did a search in a newspaper archive that goes back to about 1985. "Tarpley + LaRouche" gets 28 hits, and "Tarpley - LaRouche" gets 29 hits. So his notability is due at least as much to what he did with LaRouche as to what he's done apart from LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Webster Tarpley has made those comments 'repeatedly' on shows like The Alex Jones Show and Farther Down The Rabbit Hole with Paula Gloria (and the thing about the messianic cult thing is from a secondary source - Alex commenting on Webster Tarpley's thoughts on LaRouche and why he left them). But since Wikipedia doesn't consider links to YouTube or the Alex Jones Show for that matter 'credible sources', we're left with one of those funny Wikipedia-instigated Catch 22s where Webster can neither prove, nor disprove he can no longer support LaRouche with a clear conscience - because he does not have access to mainstream media channels of information, and that is apparently the only source of information Wikipedia wants to cover.84.28.82.149 (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Self-published sources can't be used for descriptions of living people, but they can be used a sources for the authors' other opinions. I looked on Tarpley's website and it doesn't seem to have any content besides the list of his books.   Will Beback  talk  18:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't this be more appropriate at Template talk:LaRouche movement? Incidentally, I agree with Mr. IP number that the inclusion of individuals other than Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche on the template is inappropriate and a POV battleground. I think the "people" section of the template should be removed. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC);
The template covers the "LaRouche movement". One man, or even a man and his wife, do not constitute a "movement". Several notable poeple have been been prominently connected to the movement, which is why they're included in the template.   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::The organizations which are cited on the template are the "movement," and there is no basis for disputing the inclusion of any of those organizations. On the other hand, assigning individuals to the template is clearly contentious and a POV battleground, and entirely unnecessary. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC);
Are you saying that Anton Chaitkin and Michael Billington are not a part of the movement?   Will Beback  talk  01:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
::::No. As far as I know, those two cases are undisputed, which does not alter the fact that the inclusion of individuals on the template is unnecessary. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC);
Nobody seriously disputes that anyone on this list was a member of the LaRouche movement. If we were to exclude people I'm not sure why we'd keep Zepp-LaRouche. If she's just notable as his wife, then that's not a good reason, and if she's just notable as a member then she's no different than Chaitkin or Tarpley. I see you've AfDed the articles on Duggan and Kronberg, even though both of those have more sources than the Zepp-LaRouche article. Why not AfD Tarpley too?   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I overlooked your claim that "Nobody seriously disputes that anyone on this list was a member of the LaRouche movement." In fact, Duggan was not a member of the LaRouche movement. I've asked you to provide evidence that he was, and you have yet to produce any. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC);
::::::The Zepp-LaRouche article is actually about herself, not Lyndon, unlike the Duggan and Kronberg articles. As for Tarpley, I am unfamiliar with him, but he appears to have some notability in his own right. I have no problem with leaving Zepp-LaRouche off the template, along with all other individuals other than Lyndon. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC);
But why leave them off?   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Because several of them are contentious, including the one under discussion here, and there is really no reason to include them. It creates an opportunity for POV warring, and we really don't need more opportunities of that sort. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC);
Several? Please list the contentious ones. Also, please describe the POV being "pushed" by the inclusion of these articles in the template.   Will Beback  talk  16:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::To my knowledge, those would be Jeremiah Duggan, Webster Tarpley, and Kenneth Kronberg. The latter two were members, but their listing is contentious for other reasons. In the case of Tarpley, Mr. IP believes there is guilt by associating him with LaRouche when he has parted company. In the cases of Duggan and Kronberg, it is violation of WP:NOTSCANDAL.--Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC);
Tarpley was a members for over 20 years, Krongberg a member for at least 30 years. Will we delete Billington when he leaves or dies too? I hope not. "Mr IP" specifically warns, elsewhere, about Orwell's "memory hole". There's no gossip on that template, so I don't know why you're referring to them as scandals.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::Neither Duggan nor Kronberg were deemed notable until there was speculation that their suicides were somehow caused by LaRouche. That's the scandal I refer to. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan (2nd_nomination) both Jayen466 and Thincat have objected to the LaRouche infobox at Jeremiah Duggan. Since, unlike the other persons on the template, Duggan was never a member of any LaRouche organization, I propose that we remove him for starters. I think that in the long run, the best solution would be to eliminate the "People" section of the template, since I don't see what it accomplishes, and I can see the merit in the "guilt by association" complaint about Tarpley. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC);
There's no clear definition of "member of the LaRouche movement". These are people whose notability is derived from their connection to the LaRouche movement.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That's way too subjective. That's why the best solution would be to simply remove "People." With the organizations, there is a clearly identifiable link to LaRouche. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC);
There's nothing subjective about it. Are you suggesting that Duggan and Kronberg have notability independent of their connection to the LaRouche movement? Can you find a single article that discusses them that doesn't mention the LaRouche movement?   Will Beback  talk  03:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Of course not. That's why there is a WP:COATRACK problem. But the template is supposedly there to help people get informed about the movement, not about (in the case of Duggan) a person that is connected to it largely by pure coincidence and/or hostile speculation. --Leatherstocking (talk);
I could argue that a reader would learn about the movement by reading how they handled this death, and by how two governments have regarded it. Taking an example form another topic, Ronald Goldman's had no connection to O.J. Simpson other than the waiter served Simpson's ex-wife at a restaurant. Yet, the two men have been connected by "hostile speculation" and Goldman is on the "O.J. Simpson murder trial" template. I'm not saying the circumstances are in any way similar, but fate has a way of bringing together people and organizations in ways that don't always make sense. We're just here to report and summarize.   Will Beback  talk  07:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::But editors are necessarily selective about what gets "reported and summarized," and the process is inevitably colored by POV. Is there some sort of noticeboard for templates? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC);
The list on;ly includes people whose notability is significantly tied to the LaRouche movment. (With the possible exception of Robinson). The template does not include, for example, David P. Goldman or Laurent Murawiec because they are not notable for being members, even though they were.   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Reformatted to footer template

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Update: Reformatted to footer template, using {{Navbox}} [7]. :) Cirt (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks good, Cirt, thanks for doing it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) Cirt (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Issues about "People" section

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Comments by involved editors

Comments by Leatherstocking

Does the "People" section create POV problems, such as guilt by association? Leatherstocking (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

More specifically:

  • Should Jeremiah Duggan be removed on the grounds that Duggan was never a member of the LaRouche movement, and his connection to the movement is either coincidental or due to hostile speculation?
  • Should Webster Tarpley be removed on the grounds that he has left the movement and dissociated himself from it?
  • Should the entire "People" section be removed on the grounds that it is unnecessary and has been contentious?

Please see previous section for earlier discussion of these issues. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Responses to Will Beback's questions:

1. The IP editor in the section above complained that Tarpley did not wish to be associated with LaRouche, and the template implies that there is an ongoing association. Tarpley or his supporters may feel that, due to all the controversy that surrounds LaRouche, the association harms Tarpley's reputation. I used the term "guilt by association" because it appears in WP:BLP.
2. It is speculation to suggest that there was a connection between the movement conference and Duggan's suicide. If there were any evidence turned up after all the inquiries, then it would no longer be appropriate to use the word "speculation."
3. Webster Tarpley writes "...Berlet suggests that I am a sock-puppet for LaRouche. LaRouche drove me out of his organization in 1997, more than ten years ago. I have nothing in common with LaRouche, whose supporters have repeatedly slandered me, albeit in terms slightly different from those used by Berlet."[8]
4. I filed this RfC after seeing the complaint by the IP account, above, and the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan (2nd nomination). I'm sure that you saw them also.
5. I have no idea who is and who is not a sock of HK, beyond seeing your frequent claims that anyone who disagrees with you is a sock. I'm not privy to any evidence. Regarding the insinuation that I am "acting on his behalf," see WP:NPA. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC) ;

Comments by Will Beback

  1. Could you please explain exactly what you mean by "guilt by association" in this context? Where does the guilt come in?
  2. What is "hostile speculation"? Isn't it a fact that Duggan died while attending a movement conference, under circumstances that have been investigated by the British government?
  3. What evidence is there that Tarpley has disassocated himself from the movement? There is evidence that his notabiltiy substantially derives from this involvement in the movement. If Billington, a lifetime member, were to leave the movement tomorrow would we remove his name too?
  4. The template has been pretty much the same for the last five years.[9] Aside from this very recent dispute, how has the template been contentious?
  5. Haven't all the past efforts to delete Duggan from the template come from HK and his socks? Is this another example of editing on his behalf?   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    Regarding this last point by Will Beback, I would like to see some diffs/evidence about the similarity of this posting and prior activity by socks of Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cirt (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    The actual deletions are here: [10][11][12] The postings can be seen on this page in #Relevance, #Consistency, #Fred Wills, #LaRouche sources, #Duggan, and #An analogous case.   Will Beback  talk  03:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    Diffs of the talk page postings would probably be helpful as well. Cirt (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 22:06, 17 Nov 2004 It is an article about someone who has no significant role in, or relationship to, LaRouche or his movement. It pertains to a malicious effort by opponents of LaRouche to exploit the private tragedy of the Duggan family for their own purposes.
  • 15:36, November 18, 2004 Whether the LaRouche movement has any role, let alone a significant one, in Duggan's death is a matter of dispute.
  • 22:01, November 23, 2004 And what is at issue here, is the following: are you arguing that Fred Will is less relevant to the history of the LaRouche organization, than is Jeremiah Duggan? Fred Wills was, after all, a member of the LaRouche organization, in addition to being a political figure of some international stature in his own right. Duggan was neither. So on what basis to you argue for the inclusion of Duggan, and the exclusion of Wills?
  • 06:38, January 7, 2005 If that is the criterion that is agreed upon by consensus, then Jeremiah Duggan should also be removed.
  • 17:50, January 16, 2005 I also have my doubts about including minor characters in the template, a category which would certainly include Jeremiah Duggan. The inclusion of the Duggan article strikes me as more an indication of POV warfare than of an effort to make Wikipedia a comprehensive encyclopedia.
  • 05:52, August 19, 2006 What is the argument behind giving Jeremiah Duggan equal billing with Helga Zepp LaRouche or Amelia Boynton Robinson? His connection to the movement seems tenuous at best.
  • 00:46, August 21, 2006 The purpose of the template is to assist people in learning about the LaRouche movement, right? From what I read in the article, Jeremiah Duggan was never actually a member. Wills, on the other hand, was an officer in the group. I don't see how that can be considered "minimal." I would see Duggan's involvement as "minimal," since all he did was attend a conference.
  • 15:00, August 21, 2006 Wills is listed on the Schiller Institute board of directors [13]. These are all people who should be on the template, if there are Wikipedia articles about them. I don't know whether the LaRouche movement has members in the formal sense, but in any event I doubt that Duggan would be one.
  • 06:47, August 22, 2006 I see your point, but it seems that any one of these people would be more relevant than Duggan. Why is Duggan on the template?
  • 15:00, August 22, 2006 But why is Duggan on the template? All he did was attend a conference.
  • 22:20, August 22, 2006 I read the Duggan article, and it does not say anywhere in that article that Duggan was recruited. It does not mention any political activity that he carried out, such as distributing literature on the streets (which as far as I know is the main thing people do after being recruited by LaRouche.) I disagree about it being the only issue that caused the LaRouche movement to make international headlines -- I just did a Google News search as an experiment and found these: [14][15]. As to Scotland Yard, I'm sure you are right on that one. As far as that making Duggan "more notable in terms of LaRouche," I don't quite get your reasoning. I don't think you can learn much about the "LaRouche movement" by studying a fellow who was never in it.
  • 16:22, August 27, 2006 And I am still puzzled over the inclusion of Duggan, who was never in the movement. I think the template should be changed, but I will wait for an answer from Mr Beback and Mr Virgin.
  • 22:16, November 6, 2006 So I would like to hear from SlimVirgin about why inclusion of the Rachel Corrie article would not be appropriate for the Israelis template, yet Jeremiah Duggan is appropriate for inclusion in the LaRouche template.
  • 01:03, November 7, 2006 Will, I have not yet heard your rationale for including Duggan on the template. For people who want to learn something about the LaRouche movement, his story would be at best of trivial interest. It seems to be on the template for purposes of POV pushing. How do you respond?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs)
Yes, that does seem oddly similar to above... Cirt (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

Comment by Cirt

  • Support inclusion, as relevant to the topic. I reformatted the template to a footer template using {{Navbox}}, so there is plenty of room to add entries. It is helpful for the reader to be able to see all possible articles and information on the topic within the navigational footer template. :) Cirt (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I am responding to the RFC at the community portal and I think he people section on the template is useful. However the concern that it can be misused by people who are out to attack the LaRouche Movement is a legitimate one, especially if it exploits a tradgedy. I think it should only include people who are/were "Key" people in the movement. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::I agree, although I would be satisfied if it were to include only people who have publicly expressed support for the ideas and goals of the movement. That would prevent the problem you describe. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC);
There's no clear way of determing which people are "key" because of the convoluted and obscure hierarchy of the movement. For example, the membership of the controlling National Executive Committee is secret. On the other hand, people listed as serving on boards apparently have limited involvement.   Will Beback  talk  05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
::::With my proposed guideline, that the person makes some sort of public statement of support for the movement's ideas, we don't have that problem. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC);
So simply signing a petition or saying a New Bretton Woods agreement might be a good idea would be sufficient to get someone onto this template?   Will Beback  talk  05:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Relation to category:LaRouche movement

Latest comment: 14 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

At first, the "people" section only included articles that were within category:LaRouche movement, starting with a few and then Cirt added the rest of them. Now Leatherstocking has added more articles that are not in the category. I think we should limit the template to those who are categorized as part of the movement, a decision which needs to be made at each article independently. So to start the ball rolling I'll add those articles to the category, but if it is removed by other editors then the articles should be removed from the template.   Will Beback  talk  20:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could create more subcategories. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
What subcategories would you suggest?   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Researchers of the movement, Organizations affiliated with it, etc. Cirt (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
My criterion for the additions was simple: I looked for Wikipedia articles where the subject was mentioned as a present or former collaborator with the movement, based on agreement with the movement's philosophy and goals. I excluded figures such as J. Gordon Edwards (entomologist and mountaineer) who merely had articles published in LaRouche-affiliated publications. I see that Friedwardt Winterberg was removed dues to an "OTRS ticket." What is an OTRS ticket? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC);
An OTRS ticket is an email to the Wikimedia contact email address, usually a complaint. It's considered a slightly more formal way of addressing Wikipedia than just editing, since email at least offers a small measure of traceability. In this case, it was (I think) an email from the article subject claiming that what was written about him was untrue and defamatory. I don't have OTRS access, so I can't verify that. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Winterburg, and editors supporting his point of view, has been very upfront about his opinions of being lumped in with LaRouche. If Leatherstocking wants to make a case for including Winterburg on the categeory and template, he should make it on that article's talk page. Based on past experience, I can predict a similar reaction in regard to Eric Lerner being on the template, so I'll remove it. Again, if anyone wants to argue in favor of including Lerner the best place for that would be on the Lerner talk page.   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I've posted requests to Talk:Stanislav Menshikov and Talk:Sergey Glazyev to supply the sources used as the basis for adding them to the list.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
We should remove all living persons unless the affiliation has been written about by reliable sources, per BLP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted Leatherstocking, because the first entry of his I looked at used only a LaRouche source. Only reliable sources are allowed per BLP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Do I understand you correctly, that you are disputing the sourcing at one article, and you felt that it was appropriate to bulk-revert four other articles as well, without examining the sources at those articles? The fact of the matter is that there are third party sources provided at each and every one of those articles. You neglected to specify which article you found lacking, but in case it was the Vitrenko article, see my response to Will Beback at Talk:Nataliya Vitrenko. I have restored the five names to the template, and I would encourage you to actually go to the articles an look at the sources. If you find them inadequate in any way, we can discuss them on a case by case basis. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC);
BLP doesn't work that way. We don't restore then discuss. We remove immediately and without discussion where there is doubt. We restore them only when the reliable secondary sources are clear. Please provide them here on talk for each of the names you want to add, and please read the policy. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind saving you a trip to the articles in question:
Any questions? --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Unless there are any further objections, I will re-add those names to the template. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC);
I don't object to the specific entriues, but I'm concerned that the threshold is being set too low. As currently envisioned by Leatherstocking, this criteria would seem to include Victor Gunnarsson. Is there a logical reason to exclude him based on that criteria?   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I assume that you're kidding, but in case you're not, no, signing a petition falls below the threshold I suggested, as would buying a newspaper or making a campaign contribution (although the latter would be very easy to verify.) -Leatherstocking (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that everyone who ever had an article published by a LaRouche-related periodical, or spoke at a LaRouche conference, has therefore been a member of the movement. Using the same logic, Judy Collins would be a member of the Yippies. I suggest that we use Winterberg as a standard for scientists. If we don't include Winterberg as a member then I don't see how we could include scientists who've only submitted a single paper, or only spoken at one conference.   Will Beback  talk  05:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added Gunnarsson because I found two sources that say he was a member of the EWP.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
::Please. I'm registered as a Democrat, so do I go on the Barack Obama template? I agree with what you said about Winterberg -- the standard needs to be higher than just casual contact. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC);
If you were notable enough for an article, and were arrested in part due to your membership Obama's movement, then yes, you too would beloing on the template.   Will Beback  talk  17:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Critics

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion

We have Category:Critics of the LaRouche Movement. Is there any reaons we shouldn't include those names in the tamplate too?   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:Can you cite examples of other templates that include those sorts of entries? --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC);
Template:Sathya Sai Baba.   Will Beback  talk  01:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Template:Aum Shinrikyo   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
:Can you cite something more comparable, such as a BLP or a political movement? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC);
Those are comparable. The "LaRouche movement" isn't a BLP, though it includes BLPs. If there's no objection I'll go ahead and add it.   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
:::I have looked at templates for groups that are more similar to the LaRouche movement, including Template:Nation of Islam and Template:Ralph Nader, and found no such feature. Do you feel that readers of the LaRouche articles may have trouble finding the criticism? That seems unlikely.--Leatherstocking (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC);
The difference is that there is no "Category:Critics of Ralph Nader" or "Category:Critics of Nation of Islam". Any logical reason to leave it out of this template?   Will Beback  talk  04:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::Well, to pursue this reasoning further, I see that there is a "Category:Critics of Objectivism," which does not appear on Template:Objectivism. There doesn't seem to be a consistent standard we can refer to here. Again, do you think readers have difficulty locating the criticism in the LaRouche articles? It seems to me that it is always conveniently placed for maximum emphasis. --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC);
BTW, there is no " Template:Objectivism".   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
If we include members then it only seems to be neutral to include critics as well.   Will Beback  talk  06:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::But in addition to members, you have Jeremiah Duggan and Roy Frankhouser, non-members who are included in the "people" section in order to link to various accusations against LaRouche. The template as it stands seems to be pretty standard. Maybe you should start a discussion at Category talk:United States political leader templates.--Leatherstocking (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC);

Postings by sock of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback  talk  04:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Since there doesn't appear to be any reasons not to do so I'll go ahead and add it.   Will Beback  talk  17:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:LaRouche_movement/Archive_1&oldid=1129408842"