Jump to content

Template talk:LaRouche movement: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Will Beback (talk | contribs)
112,162 edits
→‎Critics: neutrality
Will Beback (talk | contribs)
112,162 edits
Line 151: Line 151:


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. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 05:25, 25 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. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 05:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

:I've added Gunnarsson because I found two sources that say he was a member of the EWP. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 01:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


==Critics==
==Critics==

Revision as of 01:14, 26 October 2009

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:

Issues about the "People" section

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
But why leave them off?   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

RfC: Issues about "People" section

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."[1]
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)[reply]

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.[2] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The actual deletions are here: [3][4][5] 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)[reply]
    Diffs of the talk page postings would probably be helpful as well. Cirt (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 [6]. 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: [7][8]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Update: Reformatted to footer template, using {{Navbox}} [9]. :) Cirt (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


Relation to category:LaRouche movement

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)[reply]

Alternatively, we could create more subcategories. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What subcategories would you suggest?   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Researchers of the movement, Organizations affiliated with it, etc. Cirt (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't mind saving you a trip to the articles in question:
Any questions? --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are any further objections, I will re-add those names to the template. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Critics

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)[reply]

Can you cite examples of other templates that include those sorts of entries? --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Sathya Sai Baba.   Will Beback  talk  01:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Aum Shinrikyo   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite something more comparable, such as a BLP or a political movement? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:LaRouche_movement&oldid=322049394"