Template talk:LaRouche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation, arbitration, and requests for clarification, LaRouche movement, 2004-2007

Requests for clarification 2006 and 2007
"Request for appeal ...", Tsunami Butler, Jan 24, 2007.
"LaRouche again", SlimVirgin, Nov 22,2006.
"Lyndon LaRouche", ManEatingDonut, Oct 23, 2006.

Mediation 2006 and 2007
Informal mediation, November 2006
Informal mediation talk, February 2007

Arbitration 2006
Herschelkrustofsky banned, May 5, 2006.
Herschelkrustofsky enforcement, Apr 15, 2006.
Herschelkrustofsky enforcement request, May 5, 2006.

Arbitration 2005
Nobs01 and others, November 2005.
Cognition's statement in Nobs01 and others, Nov 22, 2005.
Modification of LaRouche 2 in Nobs01 and others, Dec 23, 2005.
Herschelkrustofsky indefinite probation in Nobs01 and others, Dec 23, 2005.
LaRouche 2, Jan 25, 2005–Feb 17, 2005.
LaRouche 2 talk
LaRouche 2 evidence
LaRouche 2 proposed decision
LaRouche 2 proposed decision talk

Arbitration 2004
LaRouche 1, July 4—Sep 13, 2004.
LaRouche 1 talk
LaRouche 1 evidence
LaRouche 1 evidence talk
LaRouche 1 proposed decision
LaRouche 1 proposed decision talk

Mediation 2004
Herschelkrustofsy and AndyL, July 3, 2004.
Herschelkrustofsky and DJSupreme23, June 14, 2004.
Herschelkrustofsky and Adam Carr, November 15, 2004.
Herschelkrustofsky and SlimVirgin, December 16, 2004.

1 Relevance
2 Consistency
3 Fred Wills
4 LaRouche sources
5 Parti pour la république du Canada (Québec)
6 Janice Hart
7 Prop 64
8 EAP - }
9 Duggan
- 9.1 An analogous case

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] EAP - }

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)

[edit] Duggan

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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/r/Template_talk%7ELaRouche_fdb7.html"