Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-06/LaRouche movement

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	LaRouche movement
Status	Closed
Request date	01:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Will Beback, Leatherstocking
Mediator(s)	Atamachat
Comment	Closed after one editor shown to be a LaRouche organization sockpuppet. - 22:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|LaRouche movement]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|LaRouche movement]]

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Who is involved?

Just a list of the users involved. For example:

• User:Will Beback
• User:Leatherstocking

What is the dispute?

The "LaRouche articles" have historically been POV battlegrounds, but from late 2008 through early 2009 there was a period of stability and blessed relief. Then, a few months ago, the situation began to heat up again. One editor, Will Beback, evidently feels that the articles portray LaRouche in too favorable a light, and he wants to reduce the amount of favorable coverage while increasing the ratio of negative material from LaRouche's critics. He has become increasing aggressive, issuing deadlines and other ultimata. Coleacanth and Maybellyne have responded in an increasingly aggressive way. Civility is on the wane, stress is mounting.

What would you like to change about this?

I would like everyone to slow way down. There is no hurry to change the articles. They have been stable. There is plenty of time to discuss changes; they don't have to be implemented within 4 hours of being proposed.

How do you think we can help?

Outside input has been very helpful. Both sides seem to respond to it.

Mediator notes

Hello, hopefully as an uninvolved outside user I can provide some insight into this dispute. Feel free to contact me any way you wish about any ideas or concerns you have. Thank you. -- Atama^chat 22:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion

I dispute Leatherstocking's characterization of my motive for editing the LaRouche articles. My issue is not with the amount of favorable material- it's with the amount of material sourced only to LaRouche-published sources, the lack of various important incidents or views, and assorted minor issues. The other editors that he lists above have been determined by Checkuser to be the same person, undoubtedly banned user Herschelkrustofsky, whose socks Leatherstocking keeps supporting.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify, your objection to the article is not that there is too much of a pro-LaRouche POV, it is because the sources are unreliable. The fact that the sources are favorable of LaRouche (because they are organizations that support LaRouche) is not your concern. A dubious source critical of LaRouche would be just as objectionable, is that right?

Also, I don't think that Leatherstocking has denied that those editors were sockpuppets (in fact, in this edit he removed them from the "Who is involved?" list). Though he might have agreed with their views at the time, that shouldn't be held against him; he didn't know they were sockpuppets. -- Atama^chat 00:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add, I find it very unfortunate that sockpuppetry has been involved in these disputes. I think this article could be considered a great example of why that practice is so harmful to Wikipedia. The use of socks can give a false sense that consensus is building for a particular opinion, when in reality it might only be one legitimate editor and one banned sockmaster who are advocating that view. At this point Will Beback is legitimately suspicious of any outside opinion from unestablished editors on those talk pages. At Talk:Lyndon LaRouche, Will is confronted by an IP editor who begins an argument that the material isn't neutral, which prompts the response, "And who might you be?" It must be difficult to assume good faith from such editors given the history of those articles.

I can also see how this would be difficult for Leatherstocking, who might side with an editor in a dispute and later find that the editor has been a sock all along. That can sabotage even the most thoughtful debate. -- Atama^chat 01:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the sockpuppets won't come up again, so let's just leave that aside.

The issue with the sources is beyond a simple matter of reliability, though that's a factor too. It is more about the over-use of primary sources. LaRouche and his senior followers publish scores of articles and speeches every year. They are known for being ecletic and rambling, and for making unusual or even outlandish claims about all sorts of people and topics. They depict LaRouche as being an important figure in international politics and the most important economist in the world, and the only man who can save civilization. Most of his positions are decidedly on the "fringe". Some of his views have been reported in passing by reliable sources, but there are very few sources in English that discuss them in any depth. Those that do are denigrated by Leatherstocking, despite qualifying as reliable or even highly reliable sources by Wikipedia criteria. Instead, he prefers that we use brief reports printed by the state-run media of China and Russia. There do appear to be a few Russian academic sources that discuss some of LaRouche's economic views, but they have problems including a lack of reliable translations and clear provenance.

Leatherstocking's theory appears to be that if a reliable source refers to LaRouche as an economist, then that brief mention alone justifies using primary sources to synthesize a long overview of LaRouche's economic ideas, even ideas that aren't mentioned in the secondary sources.

I think the better approach, and the one consistent with Wikipedia policies like

WP:PSTS, is to rely mainly on secondary sources (even Russian ones if necessary) and to use primary sources in a supporting role.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Summary of Lyndon LaRouche dispute

Here is a summary of the current disagreements expressed at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche as I understand them. Please correct any inaccuracies you see, and please update me on whether or not you still feel there is a dispute for each item:

1. The reliability of textfiles.com as a source. I believe neither editor accepts that every document at that site is reliable, Leatherstocking has stated that they are reliable on a "case-by-case" basis, while Will Beback says that nothing at the site can be considered reliable enough for a BLP. (Emphasis mine.)
2. Leatherstocking stated that text which should be attributed to Dennis King and Linda Hunt are being used in the SDI section in an off-topic manner and not being properly attributed, and the deletion of the views of General Paul-Albert Scherer was inappropriate. (And that removal was done by Dennis King himself, am I reading that correctly?) I see that in the current state of the article, Scherer's quote is included, King is attributed, and Hunt is attributed to space colonization (which is also moved outside of the SDI section). Can this be considered resolved now?
3. The LaRouche-Lerner debate is alleged to be given too much
   undue
   weight for its relative importance in the biography, and is only sourced to self-published LaRouche web sites. Will Beback considers this to be the case, and asks for secondary sources both to verify the accuracy of the information and show how it is notable, while Leatherstocking considers it important as the only confrontation with the economics establishment.
4. Leatherstocking objects to the deletion of material that is positive of LaRouche, because it skews the article away from neutrality, and that is a concern in a BLP. Will Beback counters that the material was "improper" (in response to an IP) and gave specific justifications for specific edits.
5. Will Beback recommends renaming the Criticism section to Reception, while Leatherstocking feels that the change would be too euphemistic for the actual content of the section.

If there are other, current disputes that are unresolved regarding this particular article please list them here. Thank you. -- Atama^chat 00:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to read and digest all of this. Regarding #5, my main issue with that section isn't the title, though that's debatable. My concern is that the material doesn't provide an objective survey of the significant critics and criticisms. The distortions are probably due in part to the past involvement of two of those critics, with whom HK and Leatherstocking have engaged in long-runing disputes. I think it'd be best to start from scratch.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there was a dispute about the formatting of block quotations. I'm not sure if Leatherstocking wants to pursue that.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Leatherstocking? He's restoring the edits of another probable sock, and is leaving comments on talk pages. But nothing here.   Will Beback  talk  18:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On

Views of Lyndon LaRouche

article, I'll drop him a line when I'm done with that.

Just to let you know, what I'm doing is reading each of these articles, which by the way are fascinating (I think all of you who have worked on adding content have done an excellent job), and then I'm reading whatever disputes seem current on the talk pages. Reading the articles helps me understand what the talk page disputes are about. I'm then trying to simplify the points of disagreement as much as possible to try to get past them and come up with a larger consensus if at all possible. I apologize for the time it's taking but I want to be informed so that I can understand the problems; I'm almost completely ignorant of the LaRouche movement and its controversies and I'm not trying to be an expert, but I do need to at least understand the basis for the disputes. Also I'm fixing typos as I go, just because I can't stand to leave them alone, but I definitely don't plan on making any real changes to the articles or even suggest such changes.

I hope to have the summary for the "Views" article done shortly. Thank you.-- Atama頭 19:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's thorough! OK, I hadn't realized that we were waiting for that process.   Will Beback  talk  19:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't waiting on anything, really, anyone can comment on anything at any time. I just thought that Leatherstocking might be waiting on an update before commenting. I'm confident that he wants to participate in this process because he went through all the trouble to get it started. Since I've written up a summary of the other article, I'll drop him a line to let him know. -- Atama頭 19:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the SDI dispute is still active.   Will Beback  talk  20:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of

Views of Lyndon LaRouche

dispute

Here is a summary of the current disagreements expressed at

1. There is a dispute on how to use primary sources. Leatherstocking prefers using primary sources because they are the clearest way to express LaRouche's views, and that secondary sources can misrepresent those views. Will Beback prefers using secondary sources because using primary sources requires deciphering LaRouche's writing, which can be difficult. I see this as an issue of trust; does Wikipedia trust the analysis done by secondary sources, or does Wikipedia do the analysis itself? I believe that
   WP:V
   both apply in this dispute.
2. There is a dispute on the notability of particular views. Leatherstocking has stated that LaRouche is involved in economics and physical science, by profession, and so his views on such matters are important to include in the article, and has objected to the removal of those views. Will Beback has stated that some of those particular views are obscure even among LaRouche literature, and including them gives undue weight to those views and makes a bloated article even longer.
3. In contrast to the previously-named dispute, Leatherstocking has stated that LaRouche's criticism of homosexuality is given "exceptional weight."
4. In relation to the previous two disputes, Leatherstocking has stated that Will Beback is opposed to using Russian and Chinese sources in favor of much older American sources.
5. There seems to be a dispute regarding the highlighting of quotes criticizing LaRouche. Leatherstocking stated that since the article is called "Views of Lyndon LaRouche", and the article is intended to be about views that LaRouche holds, rather than views that others hold about LaRouche himself, that such an emphasis is inappropriate. I can't quite tell if this dispute is more about how LaRouche's quotes are highlighted versus his critics' quotes (using quotation boxes), or the inclusion of such criticisms altogether.

If there are other, current disputes that are unresolved regarding this particular article please list them here. Thank you. -- Atama頭 19:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; I have only limited time each day to participate at Wikipedia, so it is often difficult for me to keep up. I will speak frankly here: it appears to me that Will wants to pack these articles with criticism, while obstructing any balancing information from LaRouche. I think that's what is actually behind the "primary vs. secondary sources" debate. Will seems to support the use of secondary sources which are critical of LaRouche, while opposing the use of secondary sources which are supportive, so the issue is not whether secondary sources are good or bad. I support the use of both primary and secondary sources, especially on the "Views" article, which after all is supposedly about LaRouche's views. A technique of LaRouche's opponents is to produce a sort of parody of LaRouche's views and then attack the parody as a straw man, and if we exclude primary sources, the reader is likely to get a misleading picture of LaRouche's views.

Hopefully this weekend I will have time to respond more fully to the work you have done. --

talk) 00:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand if you are busy. When you have more time perhaps you can elaborate with examples. Thank you for responding here. -- Atama頭 01:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome any secondary source that meets Wikipedia standards. Leatherstocking is defending original research drawn from primary sources. I'm the only one who's actually added information from the China Youth Daily source that Leatherstocking and HK fought to include. But if we don't have a secondary source for material then we should not treat that as an invitation to use primary sources instead. There are countless statements by LaRouche that could be picked from his writings to make him sound foolish, so it would be shortsighted to think that relying purely on LaRouche sources would result in an article which depicts him favorably. Likewise, it's quite possible to write a neutral article without ever using any primary sources. As with most topics, there are a variety of views on LaRouche. Every significant view should be presented neutrally, with a weight proportionate to its prominence. But facts found only in primary sources and which require synthesis to combine into a whole, like the current economics section, do not belong in Wikipedia articles.   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requests from Mediator in this case

Before this mediation gets moving full-speed I thought that I would make a few requests. I hope these are seen as reasonable, and keep in mind that I just want this mediation to be as smooth and drama-free as possible; these are not demands and they aren't even "conditions", I don't plan on closing the case and giving up if any of them aren't honored.

Both of you seem to be exceedingly mature and very civil editors, and also very knowledgable about Wikipedia policies. Possibly (probably) more than myself. So I don't expect any problems going forward, and don't bring any of this up because I anticipate difficulties in this discussion.

As much as possible (and I know it's probably not entirely possible) I would like to keep this discussion about content. It would be very helpful to focus on what changes to make in the text of the articles, not the misbehavior or bias of the editors working on the article. All of the LaRouche-related articles have been very controversial to edit and have had numerous arbitrations and mediations, because the LaRouche movement and Lyndon LaRouche himself are controversial, so it's almost inevitable that these discussions involve a question of editors' "agendas". But if at all possible let's try to avoid it.

I'd also like to not have this be a pro-LaRouche/anti-LaRouche discussion. That will pretty much go nowhere. I don't intend to take a side in that debate and as a mediator I really shouldn't. I know that we have BLP and POV issues to worry about, and it will be necessary to discuss how negative or positive the articles are regarding LaRouche and the movement, but it would be helpful if that's as far as it goes. We should strive to be as neutral to the subject as we can, whatever our personal feelings are, and should avoid trying to judge how "important" or "crackpot" the theories and rhetoric might be.

As I said, if this discussion strays away from content discussion I'm not going to throw up my hands and quit, but please let's try to keep it focused on content if we can. Thank you. -- Atama頭 17:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the tone and content of your statement, except for the last point. I don't see how we can avoid discussing the importance of the matters we're dealing with. There are issues concerning due weight and fringe theories. Is there a way we discuss those without talking about the relative importance of LaRouche and his ideas?   Will Beback  talk  18:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have said "important"; I should have said "good". Of course the importance is... important. That's how we know if undue weight is being given, or whether or not something merits inclusion. For example, LaRouche's alleged anti-semitism is more important than his favorite flavor of ice cream. I just meant we shouldn't judge the value of the man, his movement, and his ideas. -- Atama頭 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for that clarification. I agree entirely.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm away for the weekend. Unfortunately my free time and Leatherstocking's don't seem to coincide.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me. --

talk) 20:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This case has been open for a week, but Leatherstocking has only made one significant post, and that was back on the 21st. Atama put substantial effort into reviewing the dispute. If Leatherstocking doesn't have time to be involved in this then perhaps we should drop it.   Will Beback  talk  18:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what Leatherstocking has to say. This is an entirely voluntary process, all the way around. If he has decided that this process was a mistake then I will close it with no prejudice toward anyone. If he needs a little more time I can wait. If you're uncomfortable with waiting, Will, then we can close it for that reason also. Everyone has to be on board. I think if the mediation is closed I'll copy the summaries over to the relevant talk pages to be available there so that something can be salvaged from the process. I'm hopeful that this can continue though. -- Atama頭 19:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me what I am supposed to be doing wrong here. Atama posted a summary, which is acceptable to me. He posted a request that we not speculate about other editors' agendas, which is also acceptable to me. What have I failed to do, which is preventing this process from going forward? I initiated the request, and made my views available in some detail at the time. Tell me what you need from me, and I shall provide it. --

talk) 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

So are we done then?   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the dispute resolved? It doesn't appear so to me. Despite the fact that the one uninvolved editor to comment at "Views" on the topic of primary sources supported their use, provided that secondary sources were used to establish topic notability, Will has resumed deletions as if nothing had happened. I am impressed by Atama's thoroughness and courtesy, and I hope the mediation goes forward. --

talk) 01:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Cla68 is not an "uninvolved" editor whose opinion I respect in this matter. Among other things, he has misinterpreted policy regarding using primary sources. If this is still in doubt I'll start a thread on a noticeboard. I'm fine with mediation going forward, but if Leatherstocking is too busy to particiapte I hope he won't hold up the rest of us.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make one very specific proposal here. It would be helpful to the mediation process if Will would agree to cease making major deletions or other highly controversial edits until the matter is resolved. My limited time is largely taken up trying to keep track of dozens of controversial edits he is making every day. I would prefer to concentrate on the mediation process. --

I'm very willing to participate in discussions here but I'm not interested in suspending editing.   Will Beback  talk  17:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be a bad idea to at least slow down the editing. Like I said, this is my first time as a mediator so I don't have a lot of experience. I do know that informal mediation has no "rules", except what everyone agrees to. I've looked at other recent cases and I've seen a mediator request that the articles in dispute not be edited at all during the mediation (they watchlisted them and reverted vandalism). I don't know that we need to go that far, but perhaps it would be best to limit editing to fairly minor changes; fixing typos, reverting vandalism, etc. That might not be possible because I know that the two of you aren't the only ones editing those articles, and someone other than you two might make a major content change that requires a response but we can try.

Also, I'll go a bit further in structuring the discussion to get things moving. I think we agree on the major points of contention so we can tackle them one at a time, and I think I've hit on the most important disagreement which I'll address first. And it's a touchy one because it has been prominent in two Arbcom cases so far (at least two). I think it's best to get that out of the way first. -- Atama頭 17:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we are focused on a particular issue and actively discussing it then I'm willing to stop making related edits temporarily to help the mediation process. I'm not willing to stop editing an entire list of topics for an indefinite period. Many of these issues have been raised for years and progress on them has been halted by a succession of sock accounts used by an banned editor who wrote much of the material that we're now addressing. Those socks are blocked (at least until the next batch arrives) and it's time to fix the long-standing problems.   Will Beback  talk  18:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misrepresenting the situation. The "LaRouche articles" went through a long period of peace, quiet and stability. A few months ago you made some initial deletions, including at

talk) 20:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If you want to speculate on my motivations for editing that's a different topic. I suggest we focus on content instead. As I wrote above, I'm willing to hold off editing whichever particular topic we're addressing in mediation, for a reasonable period of time to allow discussion.   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this would mean that while we're discussing primary sources, neither Leatherstocking nor Will Beback should be adding or removing such sources from the articles, is this acceptable? The same would apply to other topics. -- Atama頭 00:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're focusing now on the matter of primary sources, I'll refrain from deleting or adding any material from primary sources until we resolve the matter, move on to another topic, or the mediation goes dormant.   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I only agree if Leatherstocking agrees too. I guess we can deal with the additions of other editors later.   Will Beback  talk  16:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche sources

Out of all the disagreements that were mentioned above I think this is the one causing the most disharmony within the articles in question. Care must be taken in how LaRouche and his adherents are sourced in the articles. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, it is stated that, "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense."

I think that we can all agree that LaRouche's views are controversial. I think we can further agree that the majority view from those who don't follow LaRouche is to view LaRouche and his movement with skepticism. Per

On the other hand, if we want to state that LaRouche believes that the world is heading for an economic collapse, and do so within the appropriate articles (Views of Lyndon LaRouche for example) then quoting LaRouche is entirely appropriate. That should be the only appropriate time to use such sources.

Does everyone agree with this? -- Atama頭 17:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you've said, but there's a further problem which your analysis doesn't cover. LaRouche publishes dozens of speeches and articles a year, and his immediate followers publish dozens more. Each of those tend to cover many topics. So over the last 35 years LaRouche has probably made statements on hundreds of topics. The dispute is how to decide which ones to quote.

WP:PSTS

says "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." My belief is that if a reliable secondary source says something like "LaRouche favors apple pie" then we can supplement that with a self-sourced quote from him on the subject of apple pie because the outside source has established the notability of that view. However I believe that another editor thinks that if a source says "LaRouche eats food", then that is sufficient justification to search through various primary sources for quotes about LaRouche's views on various specific foods, even if the actual topics have never been mentioned in secondary sources. I think that ends up being original research since we have no guide for which of those ideas are notable and which aren't. The "Views" article is already over 100k in size, which is about the limit for an article. We should focus on those issues that are described in secondary sources, and remove those that are only covered in primary sources.

We should also note that some of the LaRouche sources that are most heavily relied upon are unsigned, undated articles hosted on websites but never published in print. Are those reliable sources for LaRouche just because they are on one of his movement's websites? Even within the LaRouche universe, some sources are probably better than others and the anonymous web articles would be at the bottom of the ranking.   Will Beback  talk  18:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSTS

says this about primary sources:

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."'

That's a policy, not a guideline. What you describe in your latter paragraph, "undated articles hosted on websites but never published in print", would seem to be completely unverifiable per that policy. I don't see how there's any other way to interpret that passage. I will concede that the policy goes on to state:

"Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages."

And that is why we are here, discussing this. But the debate should be about which reliably published primary sources are allowed. Primary sources that aren't reliably published should not be referenced, ever, at least for anything controversial (and just about everything in these articles is controversial). -- Atama頭 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atama, I think you overlooked something important in your reference, above, to

The ArbCom restriction supplements, but doesn't replace, Wikipedia policy. Like any articles, those about LaRouche should rely mainly on secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leatherstocking, the enforcement that I quoted does not say that it is restricted to non-LaRouche articles. It says that original research that derived from LaRouche that is re-inserted or that is inserted during an edit-war can lead to a ban. Now, it doesn't say that it can't be included in Wikipedia at all (and the remedy that you quoted definitely implies that in LaRouche-related articles such information is allowed). The purpose of my quoting that remedy intially in this section was meant to be a reminder about to why this subject can be senstive; fighting over its inclusion can lead to a topic-ban. You can see in the second RfAr that "re-insertion" is highlighted; this seems to be a confirmation that Arbcom was particularly strict about not edit-warring in regards to including this material compared to simply introducing it. As far as I see neither of you have been edit-warring. I certainly don't assume that Arbcom has completely forbidden LaRouche sources from the articles.

Will does have a good point, that the Arbcom excluding LaRouche-based articles from that remedy should not be taken to mean that

WP:PSTS or other policies are to be ignored or bent. Primary sources from LaRouche and his movement should be treated like any other primary source. -- Atama頭 22:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding the anonymous web articles discussed above, I think that for Wikipedia purposes they have been "published", even though they've never appeared in print. But the lack of a printed copy, along with the lack of an author or date, further reduces the value of the source. We should be using the best available sources, and I'm not sure such web postings qualify.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are they "published" because they are recreations of previously-published materials, or "published" because they appear on the web site? I have to admit I'm not familiar with the sources you're talking about. (Is this the "textfiles.com" web site?) Remember too that the policy says "reliably published", not just published, and gives a university press or mainstream news outlet as examples.

I'm thinking back about other articles I've worked on. There should be some wiggle-room here, and common sense should apply. For example, I've referenced a person's self-published biographical web site for information about his early life, because it wasn't controversial, it was relevant to the article, and there wasn't any other place to find that info. In another example, in an article on a video game I've quoted the publisher's web site for info about the game itself. This falls under

WP:SPS, could the LaRouche materials you're debating be considered self-published? -- Atama頭 22:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The web articles are "published" in the broad sense of "made available to the public". There are two separate sets of web articles, which we might need to treat differently. There are a number of files on "textfiles.org" and simialr sites that purport to be from the LaRouche movement. In some cases there is no information about their original source. The main example of this is "The role of the LaRouche movement in world history"

Then there are the anonymous, undated articles on the LaRouche movement sites. A key example would be "Has Your Neighbor Been Brainwashed About Lyndon LaRouche?" That's a compilation of articles, some of which make extremely negative assertions about their enemies, in many cases living people. In particular, see " The John Train Salon Delivered Perjured Testimony in the 'Get LaRouche' Trials". This is an active point, material from there has been re-inserted repeatedly, as recently as an hour ago.[1] I don't think there's any question that a person's own website can be used for uncontroversial assertions about themself, such as their birthdate, alama mater, or resume. But contentious claims about himself or others should have better sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V

policy states, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field." However, it then goes on to give conditions. Among those conditions are that "the material is not unduly self-serving" which would undoubtedly rule out some of the sources. Also the source must not "involve claims about third parties" which would rule out the negative assertions about their enemies. It also can't "involve claims about events not directly related to the subject" which I'm sure would apply to a lot of LaRouche material. The source should have "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", which probably isn't too much of a concern (we can be confident that the movement's web site is posting information endorsed by the movement). Finally, you have to be certain that "the article is not based primarily on such sources" which I'm sure wouldn't apply to any of the LaRouche articles.

The conflict here is that we want to expand the articles with information about what the movement's (and LaRouche's) views are. Setting policy aside for a moment, you would logically think that we can trust the movement to express their views, or at least we can quote them when we're writing what the movement claims that their views are. For example, the movement claims to not be anti-semetic, but others state that that it is, so a web site created by the movement wouldn't be a reliable source for the issue aside from showing that the movement at least denies it.

So I have a question for you both. Do you think that there are enough references from secondary sources (or "reliably published" primary sources) to provide adequate information? What, specifically, would we lose from the articles if

WP:PSTS

is strictly adhered to?

As to the textfiles.org site, if we can't verify that the info actually came from the LaRouche movement then I can't see any way it can be included. This especially important when talking about information that puts the movement in a negative light; I can imagine that anyone could write something inflammatory, upload it to a web site, and claim that it came from the movement to hurt their image. -- Atama頭 23:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very broad question. I think that the most essential part of

talk) 00:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

We have a number of secondary sources for LaRouche economic theories and programs. We have the words of him and his followers reported in mainstream newspapers, plus reports of their political platforms, etc., we have at least two mainstream books (one of them from a university press), we have the long Russian seminar paper, and we have the Chinese articles. Which of LaRouche's views are not expressed in one or another of those sources?   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that LaRouche's ideas should be treated fairly, and we should strive to be neutral. Those are core principles of this project. The question though, is what is fair? How do we judge what is fair? To avoid original research, we shouldn't look through our own eyes, but the eyes of secondary sources. We shouldn't "stack the deck" with the views of his enemies, but at the same time we should try to portray the prevailing opinion of Larouche and his ideas. If 9 out of 10 secondary sources are critical then the article should reflect this. Being neutral doesn't mean that the article should strive to say as much positive about him as negative. Not to be dramatic, or try to equate the two personalities, but look at Adolf Hitler#Legacy. The article is clear that Hitler and Nazism are "typically regarded as gravely immoral". That section does go on to give examples of people who weren't so critical of Hitler, though it does make it clear that these are exceptions. If what we have from secondary sources is mostly critical of LaRouche then that is what the article should portray. Now, we have some secondary sources that praise LaRouche's economic track record, and that can certainly help the article not be too terribly negative. That's a good thing. Is there more?

Also, we do have the latitude to

ignore policy when doing so can improve the encyclopedia. But I don't think that trying to keep the article verifiable is gaming the system. We don't want to misrepresent LaRouche's views, certainly, but the question is, how do we objectively determine whether those views are misrepresented? Whose criteria do we use? This isn't a rhetorical question, I think it's an important one. What sources are there that neither demonize nor worship him? -- Atama頭 04:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with your approach. There are many journalistic sources that present a balanced view of LaRouche, quoting both detractors and supporters. (We can use those to source the views of the movement on reported issues or events.) From the parts I've seen of it on Google books, the entry in International Trotskyism seems to be fairly neutral, and it may be the longest recent source in English (eight pages, double column, pp 944-952). There are some sources that discuss narrow aspects of LaRouche or his following, such as the 1986 political activity in Illinois or the 1986 AIDS initiative, in a neutral manner, though only a few are very long (and notice the dates). The

ISBN 0385238800), is by far the longest and most detailed source, and it's reliable for facts (published by Doubleday), but his interpretations are not neutral. The Chinese sources are mostly interviews with softball questions. The Russian sources seem very sympathetic to LaRouche, but only address his economic theories, so far as I know. In the blogosphere, LaRouche has received unprecented attention in the last months and days due to the Obama=Hitler campaign against health care reform, but it's been superficial with few exceptions.   Will Beback  talk  05:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding the general view of LaRouche, I came across this recent reference to LaRouche by Congressman Ed Royce. While it wouldn't add it as a source, it's illustrative of the general view:

• The one thing Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians and Peace and Freedom all agree with is that Lyndon LaRouche is a nut case. [2]

Again, I wouldn't necessarily add it to an article, but it is an indication of how folks regard LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  08:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To put it very simply, when we have a direct quote from LaRouche that contradicts a secondary source's characterization of his views, there may be a problem of misrepresentation. This has come up numerous times. There have also been big disputes over inaccurate "summaries" of LaRouche's views, done by Wikipedia editors. --

talk) 15:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you answer the specific question: Which of LaRouche's views are not expressed in one or another of the secondary sources?   Will Beback  talk  15:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question. LaRouche has seeming endless views on every topic imaginable. Only a few of those are in secondary sources. The ones we are interested in are the ones that have been confirmed as notable by those secondary sources, and we do have such sources for his views on economic forecasting and science, which seem to be the bone of contention here. --

talk) 20:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm asking about the material in the articles today. Which of LaRouche's views (as described in current Wikipedia articles) are not expressed in one or another of the secondary sources? In other words, if we relied solely on 3rd-party sources what views would be left out?   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Leatherstocking is saying that the answer is nothing. Anything that belongs in the article could be verified by secondary sources. So I don't think we really have a conflict here after all. Will, if you feel that there is currently something in any of the LaRouche articles that has no verification by a secondary source, maybe you can give an example below this current discussion and allow Leatherstocking to respond? If there truly isn't anything then I think we might actually all be in agreemnt. -- Atama頭 20:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's what Leatherstocking is saying. But here's a three-paragraph chunk of text sourced solely to LaRouche publications. (Discussion continued below)  Will Beback  talk  21:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche believes that capitalism is not, as Marxists argue, the principal enemy of progress. He argues that an oligarchical faction within the financial community is in fact the principal enemy of progress. This elite conspiracy, he says, predates and transcends both capitalism and socialism.^[1]

He has argued that a fundamental question of economics is the problem of diminishing resources.^[

Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky). Such revolutions, he says, are contingent on the viability of the culture, on its capacity to absorb and transmit new ideas. He believes that the most historically successful culture is what he calls the classical culture of Ancient Greece during the time of Plato, or the culture of Europe in the centuries following the Renaissance.^[2]

LaRouche supports extensive government intervention, both in terms of regulating sectors of the economy that are essential to the well-being of the nation (infrastructure), and in terms of providing credits for investment in

space program and nuclear energy, with an emphasis on nuclear fusion.^[3][4][5]

— 

1. ^ LaRouche, Lyndon, "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites," Campaigner, December 11, 1999
2. ^ LaRouche, Lyndon, "Visualizing the Complex Domain," Executive Intelligence Review, July 11, 2008
3. ^ LaRouche, Lyndon, "Deficits As Capital Gains: How To Capitalize A Recovery," LaRouche PAC statement, January 30, 2006
4. ^ LaRouche, Lyndon, "LaRouche Calls for Launching of `Super-TVA': Candidate Pushes Emergency Infrastructure Jobs," LaRouche PAC statement, November 9, 2002
5. ^ LaRouche PAC statement, "Chronology of Bering Strait Project"

Is Leathersticking saying that we can replace those sources with secondary sources? If so then we're all in agreement about the proper strategy.   Will Beback  talk  21:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we need to "replace" them with secondary sources, exactly. They should be verified with secondary sources (which also has the side-effect of weeding out the non-notable stuff from what Leatherstocking has said are "endless views"). But the primary sources don't have to be removed completely, if they serve to provide detail on already-verified information. To give an example, at the very beginning the text says, "He argues that an oligarchical faction within the financial community is in fact the principal enemy of progress." If a secondary source confirms that, then great. Afterward, the text elaborates by saying, "This elite conspiracy, he says, predates and transcends both capitalism and socialism." That's a direct quote being attributed to LaRouche, and if taken from a primary source is perfectly allowable because it doesn't contradict what the secondary source has already verified. This allows us to keep the article verifiable and at the same time we still get to maintain the information derived from the primary source. This seems to be following both the spirit and the letter of

WP:PSTS. Does this technique seem acceptable to the both of you? -- Atama頭 22:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If the same information is found in secondary sources, then we should use those as the main sources. If it isn't in secondary sources then maybe we shouldn't include it. My concern is that views which are mentioned barely if at all in secondary sources are being given excess weight. We should use the secondary source to guide us to which views are notable, and to how much weight to give them. A view that has been reported a hundred times deserves more weight than one reported only once.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we can't include it. Primary sources are explicitly allowed for "descriptive claims", and the example given in policy is a cited quotation from a book which is further interpreted by a secondary source. In these articles, we can directly quote LaRouche from his primary sources if those views are further interpreted by a secondary source. In the example above, we can quote LaRouche's words from "The Campaigner" if what he is saying has been evaluated by someone else, perhaps the Chinese or Russian sources we have. The thing is, we can't do such an evaluation because that's original research. Wikipedians can't read LaRouche's articles, derive conclusions from them, and then write that up in the article. Doing so is using Wikipedia as a secondary source, when we are supposed to be a tertiary source. But again we can use those primary sources as long as analysis is done by someone else (like a published journalist or author). -- Atama頭 23:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we can include appropriately short quotations from LaRouche sources to illustrate the summaries or evaluations made by secondary sources, but the main sources should be secondary and the bulk of the material should come from them, not the "endless" publications of the LaRouche movement. Let's see if Leatherstocking can find secondary sources for the above assertions.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that once the notability of a topic has been confirmed by secondary sources, then primary sources may be used to provide a more detailed explication of LaRouche's views (bear in mind that we are mainly discussing the "LaRouche's views" article here. It is something of a special case where a primary source becomes unusually relevant.) Also, I think that in controversial areas (which would include most of LaRouche's views,) there should be a sort of reciprocal relationship between primary and secondary sources: if a view attributed to LaRouche by a secondary source is disputed, it should be crosschecked with primary sources to verify that LaRouche actually holds that view. I suggest this because some editors have attempted to introduce as sources various purported "secret, internal" documents, obtained by anonymous sources by unknown means. --

talk) 01:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree that a simple mention of a broad concept (like "economics") establishes notability sufficient to merit digging through the "endless" publications to find related topics of interest to Wikipedia editors. Primary sources must not be used as the basis for a summary - that's explicit in the policy. What secondary sources do we have for the large chunk of text copied above?   Will Beback  talk  01:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of notability isn't really relevant here.. We can use notability as a litmus test about what to choose to include in the articles, sure, since there seems to be so much to choose from. Per

WP:N

, notability only applies to the suitability of the article's inclusion in Wikipedia, it doesn't govern content. We don't have to prove notability for anything that's included in the articles, per guidelines.

The real problem is, first, verifiability.

WP:PSTS

. Any evaluation done by editors is original research and shouldn't be included in the article. To clarify, I'm not saying that those sources don't belong, but we should be sparing in how they're included (and again, this is coming right out of the policy).

I can't see why cross-checking secondary sources with primary sources is needed. If editors have attempted to introduce "secret" documents that are unverifiable, refer them to

WP:RS

. You don't counter an unreliable source with another unreliable source. On the other hand, it wouldn't seem right to leave out primary sources if they can be used to refute claims made by secondary sources and no analysis is done. If someone says that LaRouche is anti-semitic, and LaRouche denies that claim, quoting him from a primary source saying "I'm not anti-semitic" seems appropriate (this is common sense). On the other hand, if we make the claim that he's not anti-semitic because he has Jewish associates, and use a source showing a roster of people working for him with Jewish surnames, that's definitely original research.

I think that we can definitely compromise here. We don't need to remove all primary sources, both the Arbcom restrictions and Wikipedia policy allow their use. But it's also important to follow policy and use them with restrictions to avoid adding original research to the article. I hope that walking a middle path could satisfy everyone. -- Atama頭 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are reasonable suggestions. I think we can shift the balance of the articles more toward secondary sources. We got off on the wrong foot due to editors issuing ultimata and making massive and controversial deletions. I will also say, knowing that this is controversial, that the process has been hindered by the banning of knowledgeable pro-Larouche editors who were contributing useful research. I do not have extensive knowledge of LaRouche's writings or where to look for secondary sources, but I can use Google as well as the next person and perhaps I can contribute something in that regard. I will confess that I am a bit reluctant, because I am concerned about being labeled "pro-LaRouche" if I add material that appears favorable to LaRouche. From what I have seen, being labeled "pro-LaRouche" leads to bans. --

talk) 05:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stick to discussing content, and leave personal comments out of this mediation.   Will Beback  talk  06:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leatherstocking, I'm sure that whatever you can come up with that's verifiable (whether pro or anti) will be appreciated. If it makes you feel better, sanctions were leveled against anti-LaRouche editors in the 2nd RfAr (as I'm sure you're aware) so that door can swing both ways. Will, I assume you're okay with that compromise also? -- Atama頭 06:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atama, could you restate the compromise proposal? I'm not quite sure what it is.   Will Beback  talk  06:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche sources part II

Secondary sources are generally preferred over primary sources, though primary sources are allowed with restrictions. Primary sources, when used, should be quoted, not analyzed (analysis being a summary or conclusion derived from the primary source). Those quotes should be used to provide added detail to information which is already sourced to secondary sources. Those quotes can also be used to show that LaRouche or the movement disagrees with information provided by a secondary source (such as a critic making a negative claim). Care must be taken that each article relies on secondary sources more than primary sources. -- Atama頭 06:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I agree to that.   Will Beback  talk  06:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a useful guide to disputed sections, but I think it is overly restrictive in prohibiting a summary of primary sources. For example, there is a non-controversial introductory section in "Views" where it simply enumerates positions LaRouche has taken on various issues. I don't see the need to expand, replace or delete that. --

talk) 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That shouldn't be a problem because there won't be any views in the article that rely solely on primary sources, right? -- Atama頭 16:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree about including summaries of primary sources, unless those sources are named in secondary sources to indicate their notability. Picking primary sources based on editor's interest, and then summarizing to highlight selected themes, would be inconsistent with

WP:SYNTH.   Will Beback  talk  16:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, the assertion that material found in reliable secondary sources needs to be confirmed using LaRouche primary sources is totally contrary to

WP:PSTS.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course it would be, but that's not what's being suggested. I'm saying the opposite; material found in LaRouche primary sources needs to be confirmed in reliable secondary sources if article content will be based off of it. That seems to be what

WP:PSTS suggests we should do. -- Atama頭 21:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, he's responding to something I wrote earlier. Very well. However, if a secondary source reports a statement by LaRouche that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest he had previously defended,

WP:REDFLAG

applies.

I have a question: I know from reading the ArbCom decisions that LaRouche sources are considered OR, although I don't understand why. They are a mixture of competent research and wild speculation, as are many sources (Dennis King comes to mind) that are routinely used at Wikipedia. However, what is the policy when LaRouche articles are cited or reproduced in reliable sources? --

talk) 00:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you agree to the compromise proposed by Atama?   Will Beback  talk  04:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Leatherstocking, I think that it wouldn't be OR because at that point you're quoting a secondary source which has presumably done the analysis and everything. I assume that the reliable source is doing some kind of analysis on that quote to put it in context, so we don't have to. In addition, if it's a reliable source I think we can trust them to vet their sources; they wouldn't be reproducing the LaRouche articles if they couldn't authenticate them. -- Atama頭 15:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the proposed compromise, I'd like some clarification. I'll take a specific example: my view is that in the case of "economic forecasting," since multiple sources have confirmed the notability of both LaRouche's forecasts and his forecasting method, then it is permissible to include a primary-source description of this method. Is this consistent with Atama's proposal? I also thing that for very brief position statements on topics that are uncontestably notable (not, for example, "psychosexual organizing theories,") no secondary source confirmation should be necessary. I am referring now to the "overview" section, which I think is fine as is. I compared it to some other articles including

talk) 15:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:V

says, in clear language:

• Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

So the article should not be based on primary sources, even if there are secondary sources that say similar things. We should use the 3rd-party sources for the basis of the material, and just make sparing use of the primary sources. And the "overview" section needs a complete overhaul to make sure that it is an objective compi;lation of LaRouche's key views, not a random assortment of miscellaneous ideas and programs.   Will Beback  talk  19:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire overview section is original research. It relies entirely on primary sources. That's a perfect example of what would need to be changed. -- Atama頭 20:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on further review, it doesn't rely 100% on primary sources. The Independent of Massilon, OH and State Journal Register are secondary sources, but it still relies mainly on primary sources which should be changed. -- Atama頭 20:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some preliminary searches, I believe that it will be possible, with a lot of drudge work, to find secondary sources for most of the disputed material. However, I want to make an argument, which I will base on the "common sense" provisions of PSTS, as well as

talk) 15:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

LaRouche's views are well-reported in the media and other secondary sources. There is no special exemption in

WP:PSTS for biographies of those who feel that reporters aren't sympathetic. If Leatherstocking feels that the secondary sources he's added are truly reliable, then there shouldn't be any problem with re-writing the material to use them as the basis. If Leatherstocking is sayin gthat LaRouche's view are automaticlly notable simply because he's run for president, I'd point him to articles like Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton to see how much space is devoted to their "notable" views.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Leatherstocking, did you see the mediator's request at #Requests from Mediator in this case, above? It seems like you haven't. We've previously discussed another block of text with no secondary source, the Lerner debate at Lyndon LaRouche#1970s. Thta issue was raised by me on August 17 at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#LaRouche Lerner debate. I'll go ahead and delete it tomorrow if there's nothing more.   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that you had agreed to stop deleting while the mediation process was underway. This discussion is now complicated by the fact that SlimVirgin has also begun editing the articles in question, and is deleting substantial amounts of material that has perfectly adequate secondary sources. Will you support the restoration of such material? Regarding your reference to

talk) 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I agreed to stop adding or deleting material from primary sources, if you'd agree too. You never agreed (so far as I can see), and you continued to add such material. There's still no source 3rd-party source for the so-called LaRouche-Lerner debate. I looked in some Lerner bios and they didn't mention the debate. If there's nothing more about it I'll delete it today.   Will Beback  talk  18:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche's views may be notable, sure. But notability isn't the barrier to article content inclusion, the main barrier to that is verifiability. That's the main concern with using the primary sources, or at least relying on them as sources. Also, again when you analyze those primary sources you're doing original research. So just forget notability, the notability guideline makes it very clear that it doesn't apply to article content, just articles themselves. -- Atama頭 02:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is the main concern, yes. But articles should focus on those matters for which a person is notable. We may be able to verify Barack Obama's view of 'Mission Impossible III, but he's not a film critic and his opinions of movies are trivia. Likewise, if a film actor were to give an opinion on Afghanistan on a blog, and it wasn't reported anywhere else, it'd probably be irrelevant to his notability and irrelevant to the bio. If we have sources that say LaRouche is known for A, B, and C, then we should focus on those issues and not devote much space to R or K, which aren't mentioned in the 3rd-party sources. But that's mostly a theoretical issue because if we mainly use 3rd-party sources then we'll automatically tend to give correct weight to the most notable topics.   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something here? As far as I can see, there is zero problem with verifiability when quoting LaRouche from his own published output. And from what I have seen watching previous conflicts at these LaRouche articles, there is sometimes a significant problem with verifiability when hostile secondary sources are presenting purported views of LaRouche. --

talk) 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you acknowledge that this is policy:

• Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

We seem to be having trouble agreeing on that.   Will Beback  talk  18:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the problem with verifiability is

WP:V policy. Relying extensively on LaRouche primary sources wouldn't be appropriate. -- Atama頭 23:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Does Leatherstocking agree?   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bullet-type listing of positions on clearly important issues would not run afoul of any of the points in

talk) 01:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The comment above isn't clear to me. Before we move on I'd like to make sure we agree that the Larouche articles should be based on reliable, 3rd-party sources. Does Leatherstocking agree?   Will Beback  talk  01:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious that having the article comprised mainly of secondary sources is identical to saying that the article should be based on reliable, 3rd party sources. Clearly the two of you are coming at the concept from two completely different directions; Will wants to challenge the existing material that lacks secondary sources, Leatherstocking wants to provide secondary sources to defend the material. Between those two aims you meet in the middle. -- Atama頭 02:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from Leatherstocking whether he agrees with

WP:V that article, specifically the LaRouce articles, should be based on reliable 3rd-party sources. Once we have agreement on that core issue then we can move on to the next issue.   Will Beback  talk  02:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Absolutely. I'll all for it, as long as you don't define "based on 3rd party sources" as meaning "using exclusively 3rd party sources." The little manifesto by Atama at the beginning of this section is fine with me. Now I'd like to hear from Will on the topic of SlimVirgin's deletion of material with reliable 3rd party sources. --

talk) 15:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Great, I think we can mark as resolved the issue of the use of LaRouche sources. We've also beeen discussing the issue of the notability of ideas. If the articles are based on 3rd-party sources then we won't be including concenpts that aren't in those sources. If there's no object I propose we mark that as resolved too. As for Leatherstocking's question, we have a list of items to be discussed. I suggest that he add new items to one of the lists, and that if Atama has time we move to the whatever the next question of importance is.   Will Beback  talk  17:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hang on: I just came across this edit: [3] We have a secondary source that simply includes "deregulation" as being on a list of things LaRouche opposes. In other words, the source devotes about two words to the topic. And here Leatherstocking is adding 43 words of text from a primary source. How is that an example of using 3rd party sources as the basis for this article?   Will Beback  talk  17:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have two thoughts on this. First, I think that the article can still be considered "based" on 3rd party sources if the majority of the material in the article is derived from them. If the entire article consisted of 3rd party sources that gave little to no coverage for the content that it was referencing, supplemented by large swaths of text taken from LaRouche sources, then that would be violating

WP:PSTS does allow the primary sources to be quoted for descriptive purposes. It seems to me that Leatherstocking is using the primary source in the proper manner; the secondary source (Smith) draws the conclusion that deregulation is opposed by the LaRouche movement (this is the analysis done by a secondary source that the policy says is necessary). The primary source (EIR) then is quoted for descriptive purposes. As long as this isn't the norm throughout the article I would think that this is the proper way to utilize these sources per policy. -- Atama頭 18:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

But it is done throughout the article. I agree with the idea that if we have, for example, 100 words derived from secondary sources, and if those sources do not contain LaRouche's views, that we might then go to a LaRouche source for a proportionate quotation, say 25 words. However if we can find LaRouche's view in a secondary source that's preferable. Using two words of a secondary source to justify 43 words from a primary source seems entirely out of whack. If this were the only case it'd be insignificant, but this is the pattern. Beacuse the article is so large and with so many different topics covered, I think that we need to look at individual sections or entries when we're judging how much is based on primary sources.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atama's views coincide with mine here. There is no mathematical formula for good editing -- common sense must prevail. -

talk) 00:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If we base the article on 3rd-party sources, then we all in agreement. But Leatherstocking's recent edit is not based on secondary sources. It is based almost entirely on the LaRouche source. If Leatherstocking commits to this being the only time that it happens, then it's forgivable, but if it's the pattern that's going to be maintained and followed then it's not consistent with

WP:V. I think thae best thing would be to corral the secondary sources and rewrite most of the article from there, using the laRouche sources sparingly.   Will Beback  talk  01:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

To avoid stalling the mediation, I am willing to give Leatherstocking the benefit of the doubt and assume that, in the future, he will edit these articles so as to improve their secondary sourcing, and avoid using primary sources more than sparingly, in accordance with

WP:V. This last edit in question, regarding deregulation, can be improved in the future by finding a secondary source that discusses his views or proposals on that minor topic. Unless Leatherstocking wants to discuss this further I suggest we mark this as resolved and move to the next itme on the list.   Will Beback  talk  16:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggest that if everyone considers this issue resolved (for now at least) that I can archive the bulk of this discussion by moving it to the talk page (with a link from this page so it's easy to find). That way we can clear up this space for the next issue. -- Atama頭 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add one additional observation, to clarify my views. There is no "correct ratio" of primary to secondary sources. My original understanding was that the secondary sources were necessary to establish the notability of specific subtopics in an article; I have now corrected that, as I understand that notability per se is not an issue for subtopics, but rather we are avoiding original research. At any rate, once we have established that a subtopic belongs in the article, my view is that the optimum relative mix of primary and secondary sources will be determined by what works best to make the information clear and intelligible to the reader. --

talk) 20:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If by that you mean that every part of an article should be based on reliable 3rd-party sources then we agree. If you mean that Wikipedia material can be based on LaRouche sources then we disagree. If the latter, then I suggest we ask for general input at a noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no correct ratio of primary or secondary sources, perhaps. But when it comes to

self-published sources

, if you needed a ratio then if more than 50% of the material is derived from those self-published sources then it's difficult to say that the article is not "based" on those sources. But since this isn't a math test, it's an encyclopedia article, we shouldn't need to go through and word-count, it shouldn't be difficult to judge how the article is balanced overall when it comes to sources.

Now I think that Will is proposing something new right now, that "every part" of an article should be based on 3rd party sources. I'd like to clarify, by "part" do you mean "section"? What if a couple of very small sections are weighted toward information derived from primary sources? For example,

Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Video games is a very small section and at the moment consists entirely of LaRouche primary sources, except for the responses. It could use a secondary source for verification but would that entire section need to be based mostly on secondary sources? -- Atama頭 21:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

"Based on" would seem to mean well-over 50%. Or more to the point, pretty much every assertion should be found in a reliable 3rd-party source, though primary sources can be used for illustrative quotes, etc.

Leatherstocking appears to be saying that is some parts of the article have plenty of secondary sources then its OK for other parts to have none, to be based entirely on primary sources. I don't think that's consistent with the policy.

WT:V#Articles should be based on third-party sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That seems reasonable. I think that's our only sticking point. It would be a good idea for Leatherstocking to give his side over there but I think I'll stay out of it myself. -- Atama頭 22:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion over there has run its course. The consensus there appears to support the use of 3rd-party sources over primary sources.   Will Beback  talk  17:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Third party over primary sources" was never the issue. The issue was the exclusion of primary sources, and there is no consensus at

talk) 15:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The issue is what "articles should be based oin third party sources" means in practice. No one is trying to exclude primary sources. But the the policy itself, and the consensus of editors commenting, seem to agre that articles (or even sections of articles) should not be based on primary sources. Leatherstocking and I have found a number of secondary sources for the "Views" article, so now it should be re-written to be based on those sources. Primary sources may still be used sparingly for illustrative quotes, etc.   Will Beback  talk  16:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Well, Squidfryerchef figured out that

Views of Lyndon LaRouche

was exactly the article that spurred the question originally. Once that was out, the discussion essentially became a mirror of this one (and others about the LaRouche articles). And ended with no solid consensus (as Leatherstocking pointed out). But I guess there's one good thing out of that discussion; it shows that opened up to a wider audience, our discussion here seems inline with what the general consensus would be, which is the following:

• Secondary sources are preferred over primary ones, and we shouldn't be analyzing primary sources ourselves.
• Primary sources can be useful and sometimes necessary to show the views of a person or group.
• Lyndon LaRouche and his movement might not even be reliable sources about their own views.

I think the sticking point is that 3rd one. In that other discussion, Protonk stated, "There are hundreds of good examples where the subject of a biography would characterize their actions or motivations in a way which would mislead readers if we presented it primarily." But that doesn't completely invalidate the 2nd point. How do we reconcile that? -- Atama頭 22:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are ample secondary sources that describe LaRouche's views and even quote him or his spokespersons. Therefore the instances in which we would need to rely on primary sources as the exclusive source for those views are very few and should be the exception. If the views are not mentioned in secondary sources then they probably aren't notable. Protonk, in that thread, suggested that this article should contain enough information for someone reading a LaRouche pamphlet to understand the main themes. But I don't think that's a reasonable standard, and it would require significant OR on our part to analyze primary sources. I don't see the problem with using secondary sources as the basis for the articles, and using primary sources only sparingly for illustrative quotes and trivial facts. That practice would mean that we don't have to investigate the general reliability of the primary sources, since they wouldn't be significant sources for the articles.   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question then is, what do we do when the secondary sources are critical of LaRouche? In particular I'm talking about sources like David King and Chip Berlet, who are openly anti-LaRouche. I haven't seen claims that they are unreliable, but obviously whatever coverage they give is almost certain to be negative. Should we be sparing in the use of those sources as well?

On a different topic, I look at Lyndon LaRouche and I look at the sources (both notes and references) and I see them populated by a very wide selection, many of which seem to be very reliable. There is a segregated area in the references section titled "LaRouche publications" which is roughly 1/4 of the entire section.

It's not as easy to make a comparison at

Views of Lyndon LaRouche

, where the references aren't segregated, but I went through and counted all the LaRouche "direct sources" and I came up with 62 out of 203, or about 30%. So it's about the same. What I counted as a LaRouche source was anything from EIR, Schiller Institute, a LaRouche PAC or other LaRouche site, anything that said LaRouche wrote it, or anything that was a recording of LaRouche. I didn't include GG Pirogov in that count however, because I assumed that he was presenting LaRouche's views and isn't part of the movement himself so he'd be a secondary source.

Seeing as both articles rely on LaRouche publications roughly a quarter to a third of the time, can you consider that either article is "based" on such sources? Or is there a flaw in the way I made my determination? (There might very well be.) -- Atama頭 00:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is considered reliable by WP standards, I don't see why it would matter whether it's tone or overall impact is positive or negative.

As for the proporstions of sources in the two articles, it should be remembered that they are both in flux. The biography has been significantly reworked in the past weeks. Most especially for this discussion, in recent weeks Leatherstocking has tacked on secondary sources to material that is based on primary sources. Simply adding a citation does not mean the material is now based on that source. If, as I've proposed, we actually rewrite the material so it's based on those cited sources then that will address that problem. Lastly, there's the issue of how we measure the degree to which an article is based on secondary sources. I don't think that just looking at the references section is a valid measurement. If one section has nine secondary sources, and another section has only one primary source, then that doesn't mean that 90% of the article is based on secondary sources. It'd mean that half of it is.   Will Beback  talk  01:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What now?

It has been a week since the last comment. I thought we'd come to an agreement over the use of sources but apparently not, this has even spilled over into

WT:V led to an unresolved discussion. It seems to me though, that both of you are working well together despite your disagreements. Even though there are clearly unresolved issues with the articles, do you both feel that mediation is necessary? I wanted to point out that I've kept an eye on the articles now and then to look for major flare-ups in terms of content disputes, and I've read over the talk pages, and things seem to be pretty calm. I'll be happy to continue the mediation but I wanted to query you both as to whether we should. Thanks! -- Atama頭 17:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

First of all, Atama, let me express my appreciation for your diligence and I think your efforts have been productive. The mediation was interrupted by what I felt was highly disruptive behavior by SlimVirgin, and she tried her best to get me banned. There is still an unresolved matter at

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2

. You may recall that I expressed reservations about what might happen if I were to begin to actively edit LaRouche articles (" I will confess that I am a bit reluctant, because I am concerned about being labeled "pro-LaRouche" if I add material that appears favorable to LaRouche.") Well, it appears that my concerns were fully justified.

However, I would like to continue this mediation. In my opinion, the main area of conflict has shifted to

talk) 00:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Leatherstocking and I agree on one thing at least: our appreciation to Atama for helping out here.

Leatherstocking mistates the current situation and imputes bad faith, which isn't helpful in mediation. If he wants to add a different topic to mediation then let's spell it out clearly without bias or imputing motives to other editors.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your kind words. If you both feel that the mediation is helpful, and I personally don't at all mind continuing it, let's do so.

I do think we might be at a bit of an impasse regarding the primary/secondary source issue. I think we've come to some understandings, in that secondary sources are preferred (in the form of reliable third-party sources) but primary sources aren't necessarily forbidden, especially when trying to show the views of LaRouche and his movement. However, reaching a specific compromise between those two things has been elusive and will probably be impossible. That means that there are going to be disputes about specific sources, how many of what kind of source is necessary/allowed, etc. I think we might have to live with that and deal with them on a case-by-case basis, which of course means more arguments. I just hope that there will be a bit more guidance to those source disputes now as a result of our discussion. I think we should move on, though, and a particular issue has been brought up that I think we can explore, regarding foreign language sources at Lyndon LaRouche. I'll start a new section about that below. -- Atama頭 19:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language sources at Lyndon LaRouche

Leatherstocking mentioned that there is a dispute at the biographical LaRouche article about the use of foreign language sources. He suggests that Will objects to foreign language sources because they are more sympathetic to LaRouche than English language sources. Will says that's not a correct summary of the dispute.

I'm assuming that the dispute in question is Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Moving right along -- questions for SlimVirgin. In that section of the talk page, Leatherstocking is questioning SlimVirgin's deletion of a section of text sourced to Slovo. My summary of the particular dispute is as follows:

1. Will questions whether Slovo is a reliable source, which spills over into
   Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Slovo
   .
2. Leatherstocking uses Google Translate to learn that it's a social-political newspaper.
3. Will doesn't seem to dispute that it's a reliable source (please correct me if I'm wrong here).
4. Will then questions whether or not the translation is accurate and asks that it be presented as a paraphrase, not a quotation.
5. Leatherstocking accepts that suggestion pending a confirmation from a Russian speaker.
6. Will warns Leatherstocking to be careful about re-writing quotations to fix grammar.

There is quite a bit more discussion occurring on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche but nothing else that seems related to the foreign language source issue. But I haven't read everything in detail yet so I may have missed something, please point out any more that I may have missed.

Personally, I do agree with Will about fixing grammar in quotations. In some cases, grammar was incorrect coming from the mouth (or pen, or typewriter) of the original speaker, and to preserve the accuracy of quotations you should keep any errors.

The manual of style

has specific guidelines on how to handle quotations, and states, "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation." It does not specifically address translated quotations, but if you assume that the translation is accurate, then I would suggest treating that translation the same as you would the original text you are quoting (don't change anything unless it's completely necessary). However, in this case the original translator isn't known, and Leatherstocking is admittedly not a Russian linguist, so it doesn't seem that we can treat any current translation as an accurate quote.

Is there more to this dispute that I don't know about? I honestly don't see what's particularly troubling about this, it almost seems like the two of you have already reached a compromise on this, if we discount the accusations of bad faith. -- Atama頭 19:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of information here: the error in grammar, which I fixed, was produced by the "Google Translate" software, a computer translating program which does not necessarily produce grammatically correct translations. If there were a grammatical error in an original quote, I would not touch it, for the reasons you mention. --

talk) 20:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That's true enough. I've used Google Translate to evaluate foreign language sources before and it does a good enough job that I can tell what is being said, but it doesn't get it perfect. So we can't consider those translations to be a perfect quote. It looks like you acknowledge that and you've agreed not to treat the text as a quote until we get a legitimate translation from a human being. I suggest that when that happens, that perhaps there is a comment for that section saying that so-and-so translated the text, to document it in case someone disputes it in the future. -- Atama頭 21:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issues

There are many unresolved issues concerning neutrality, which is a subject and often elusive quality. There is plenty of published criticism of LaRouche, which is amply present in each LaRouche-related article. However, there are other ways of slanting an article in a negative way, after the listing of criticism has more or less reached the saturation point. I am listing three areas of concern.

Coatracking

There are two articles which I think are clear examples of what is meant by

Jeremiah Duggan

. I think that probably both should be deleted following the example of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis King. In the meantime, however, I think it is inappropriate to include lengthy synopses of these articles in the LaRouche bio. As Will points out, this has been debated many times, and the synopses were removed until SlimVirgin restored them last month. LaRouche never even met Jeremiah Duggan, and although LaRouche obviously knew Kronberg, there is no reason to give so much weight to it in the LaRouche bio other than to place LaRouche in a negative light. I would like to see an agreement that coatracking is to be avoided.

Guilt by association

Resolved

talk) 16:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

We can't deal with three issues at once. Leatherstocking should pick one and we can discuss it.   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's start with "guilt by association." --

talk) 15:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Let's deal with Frankhouser. He was a significant figure in the life of Lyndon LaRouche. For seven years he was one of LaRouche's closest associates. LaRouche reached out to him, aiding his legal defense during a trial in which he was accused of aiding a a school bus bombing. Frankhouser went on to become LaRouche's well-paid security consultant for seven years. Depending on how one looks at events, Frankhouser was partly responsible for the criminal prosecutions. Numerous mainstream articles connect them, so the connection is not original research. Due to the length, depth, and significance of the relationship, the space devoted to it is not excessive. By comparison, the article spends considerable space on issues for which there is, at best, only a single 3rd-party source.   Will Beback  talk  16:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of questions. If we have reliable sources connecting Frankhouser to LaRouche then it seems appropriate to acknowledge the connection. Do we have reliable sources showing that the movement shares Frankhouser's views? If not, wouldn't it be appropriate to work to ensure that the text doesn't imply that it does? Also, I realize that it can be murky to determine who is or isn't part of "the movement" but since there's a dispute, do we have a good source explicitly stating that Frankhouser is a member of the movement? Maybe a compromise would be to still allow Frankhouser's connections to be show in the article but try to avoid the implication that he is an actual member of the movement rather than a peripheral supporter. -- Atama頭 17:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen a source which suggests he as a supporter at all. He seems to have been a hired consultant. It looks also like he may have been some sort of government plant, an infiltrator or provocateur who conned the organization into thinking he was some sort of back-channel to the intelligence community. --

talk) 00:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Look again at the quoted sources posted in Talk:LaRouche movement#"others".   Will Beback  talk  01:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't asserting that Frankhouser, LaRouche, or his movement share views, though some sources have made suggestions to that effect. There are two separate articles that mention Frankhouser. In LaRouche movement he is included in a list of "associates". We have at least 11 sources that call Frankhouser an associate, supporter, or aide to LaRouche. (see Talk:LaRouche movement#"others". Then, in the bio page, Lyndon LaRouche, there is a short section on the connection between the two men. That's a rewrite of material taken from a noted New York Times article that was added by another editor. I rewrote it to broaden the coverage using more sources, but it's about the same length as before. As for Frankhouser's relation to LaRouche and the movement, LaRouche sought him out. It may be more accurate to say LaRouche supported Frankhouser's views than the other way around. LaRouche had perhaps his greatest prominence in the years from 1979 to 1989, and for seven of those years Frankhouser was one of his most trusted aides, described as one of the few people who could call LaRouche directly. It was discovered during the investigations and trials that Frankhouser and his friends had been making up CIA and other government connections, feeding LaRouche a steady stream of made-up intelligence reports and warnings of imaginary assassination attempts. Once the investigations began Frankhouser advised LaRouche and other top aides to destroy evidence and hide witnesses, supposedly on orders from the CIA. It was that obstruction of justice which led to the indictments of LaRouche and 11 supporters in the huge Bostion trial. Once Frankhouser was arrested he began cooperating with the FBI and gave damaging testimony about private conversations which included an order to assassinate Henry Kissinger, and a suggestion that the federal prosecutor should be shot. So the connection with Frankhouser had a profound effect on the world-view of LaRouce and his movement, as well as directly affecting their actions in ways that led to their prosecution. Mainstream sources devote considerable attention to their relationship, with a couple of long articles on that topic alone.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "It may be more accurate to say LaRouche supported Frankhouser's views than the other way around," and that "the connection with Frankhouser had a profound effect on the world-view of LaRouce and his movement." Do you have any sort of source for these rather bold conclusions, or is that your own contribution to the debate? I have read the citations, and I see no claim that LaRouche endorsed or supported Frankhouser's views in any way, shape or form. From what I can tell, LaRouche thought he was dealing with a government spook, which may have been the case, since as you say, he seemed to be engaged in setting up LaRouche for legal troubles. --

talk) 05:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Let's not get into an esoteric discussion of their views. Let's stick to the matter at hand. As I asked below, could you quote the text that that makes the insinuation so we can work on it directly?   Will Beback  talk  15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation might be more productive if Leatherstocking could quote the text that he thinks has "the effect of insinuating that the LaRouche movement shares Frankhousers real or feigned neo-Nazi predilections". Then we can address that text directly and rewrite it as necessary.   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you change the beginning of the section from Blum wrote that U.S. Labor Party members were exchanging almost daily information with

talk) 01:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

We have multiple sources that say the initial contact between them was initiated by the LaRouche movement during Frankhouser's trial in 1975. Have you read those sources? How would you summarize them?   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like we have two different views of LaRouche's association with Frankhouser. One view is that LaRouche wanted him as an advisor in order to have an "in" to US intelligence, because LaRouche believed he was connected to US intelligence agencies, and that was his only interest in the man. The other is that LaRouche knew that the man was a neo-Nazi and leader in the KKK and supported those views in seeking his advice. Even though the former view paints LaRouche to possibly be a victim of a con artists, and the latter paints him as a man who at least tolerates if not supports extremist hate views, they might not be mutually exclusive. If we have sources verifying both, we should present both, since we are less concerned with the "truth" than we are with what we can verify with our sources. Can't we combine the two?

Blum wrote that U.S. Labor Party members were exchanging almost daily information with Roy Frankhouser, who had been an informant for the ATF and other law enforcement agencies, and became a security consultant for LaRouche after convincing him that he was actively connected to U.S. intelligence agencies. In 1975 LaRouche aided Frankhouser's defense effort. Frankhouser was a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon and American Nazi Party member who was being tried on charges of dealing in stolen dynamite, and of involvement in the bombing of a school bus which left one man dead.

Would that work? -- Atama頭 16:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definately. --

talk) 20:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The trouble with that text is that the chronology is scrambled. Frankhouser and the movement were in daily contact in the late '70s, and he wasn't hired until about 1979. Why wouldn't we start with the the first event, in 1975? As curretnly drafted, the contacts are discussed in the next paragraph, and the hiring is discussed two paragraphs later, all in chronological order. Can we draft something that maintains the historical order of events?   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just mashed the two sets of text together in a sloppy and lazy fashion, like a toddler playing with Play-Doh. If Leatherstocking doesn't object to your proposal (which sounds logical to me) you could probably rewrite it better than I could. -- Atama頭 21:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading between the lines, it appears that Leatherstocking may be concerned about including Frankhouser's affiliations in the first sentence. Going on that assumption, here's a prpoosed draft of the first paragraph:

• In 1975, LaRouche created a legal defense campaign for Roy Frankhouser, who was being tried on charges of dealing in stolen dynamite relating to the bombing of a school bus which left one man dead. During the trial it became known that Frankhouser had been an informant for the ATF and other law enforcement agencies. Frankhouser, a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon and American Nazi Party member, claimed he was working on behalf of the government and only received five years of probation instead of the decades in prison he could have received.^[1][2]

The "daily contact" and "security consultant" issues are mentioned in the later paragraphs.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to speak for Leatherstocking, but I believe he was also concerned about the lack of attribution to Blum, and I would assume he would prefer that it be mentioned that Frankhouser had convinced LaRouche of his ties to US intelligence agencies. Do you think those could be worked in also? -- Atama頭 00:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with attribution is that much of this is sourced to multiple sources. But we could add Blum as the source for the specific assertion about being in daily contact, in the second paragraph. Something like, By the late 1970s, members of the LaRouche movement had begun exchanging almost daily information with Frankhouser, according to the New York Times. The final paragraph discusses Frankhouser's assertions about CIA connections, but we could add the "after convincing him that he was actively connected to U.S. intelligence agencies" text to the second paragraph as well.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and made these changes.   Will Beback  talk  03:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The version still places the description of Frankhouser as a Klan terrorist before the admission of his government ties, which carries the insinuation that LaRouche approved of Klan terrorism. --

talk) 06:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Frankhouser was a Klan member before he was a government informer. I don't see how moving the clause over ten words changes the impression it would give readers. However to compromise I've moved it down to the next sentence. Are we done?   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That section is better now. How do you know that Frankhouser was a Klan member before he was a government informer? I would also like an agreement that such tactics are to be avoided. Responding to these edits now dominates my time at Wikipedia, and as I feared, I am now getting abuse from other anti-LaRouche editors such as JoshuaZ. I wonder if you are even conscious of the tremendous bias in your editing approach; take for example the page your created,

talk) 15:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

1. I know the life history of Roy Frankhouser because I just wrote his biography.

2. Please leave comments about editors out of this. Comment on the content, not the contributor. If you keep making negative comments of that type I'll withdraw from this process.

3. Virtually all of the material in Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research is a result of discussions with HK or you. The long thread at BLPN last winter resulted in most of it. I'm not aware of any topic on Wikipedia in which too much research is a bad thing.

Let's mark this one resolved.   Will Beback  talk  19:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that this article (which I found in Roy Frankhouser) shows Frankhouser to be a Grand Dragon of the KKK in Pennsylvania as early as 1965. -- Atama頭 14:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that. However, there is not likely to be a source that conclusively establishes when he developed a connection to the government, since that information would be secret, especially if he was sent into the Klan as an infiltrator or provocateur. --

talk) 16:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Ooooooh... I see what you're saying. My mistake, I thought you meant "how do we know he joined the KKK before becoming an informer on LaRouche". You're absolutely right, I guess there's no way to know when he originally became an informer for the government because the government would have hushed it up. I assume that now that Frankhouser has died, a Freedom of Information Act request might get that info, but if nobody has made such a request there is no source. Anyway if this is resolved I'll shut up now. :) -- Atama頭 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote management

Resolved

Because LaRouche expresses himself in a convoluted and polemical way, it is possible to extract quotes out of context and present them in such a fashion as to make LaRouche appear to be incoherent. Sometimes this is done by hostile journalists, as in these examples: [7] This presents an opportunity for hostile editors, because it was done by a "reliable source," and all that is necessary is to quote it. In other cases, this is done by the editors themselves, as in this example: [8] (which ironically comes from a primary source, after all the disparaging of the use of primary sources.) Sometimes key elements are removed from a quote to change its meaning; in this diff [9] I restore the quote in its entirely, replacing the "sculpted" version. Another editor raised a very interesting point[10] at

WP:MOSQUOTE

.

This is another instance where I am concerned that the newspaper article presents what are supposed to be quotes but omits the context, perhaps to the effect of making LaRouche look wierder than he actually is. --

talk) 05:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't really understand what you want us to do. Articles should be based on secondary sources. We don't usually demand to see the source's sources. If we were to look at the primary sources would it be appropriate for us to decide that the secondary source has it wrong, and that our own personal interpretations are more accurate? No, it would not be. If there are other secondary sources that have different views then we can include those too, of course.   Will Beback  talk  06:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out in this comment, the mere fact that the material is sourced is not sufficient. If there is a danger of misrepresentation, the solution is simply to omit the material in question. It is certainly not vital to the article. --

talk) 16:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a danger of misrepresenting anything, so I don't see how that is helpful. The quotes in question, "golden souls", is found in several sources and in different contexts. The article is about the movement, and the movment is made up of members. The quote has LaRouche giving his view of the movemenet and its members, and how they differ from everyone else. So it's relevant to the topic. Unlike the material that I was discusing in the link, this material is not duplicated in another WP article.   Will Beback  talk  18:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:QUOTE which is an essay. So it's really up to your discretion whether or not a direct quote or an analysis of the quote from a secondary source is appropriate. Leatherstocking, you're saying that "there is a danger of misrepresentation", which means you're disputing the newspaper as a reliable source. That's going to be difficult to argue with a publication like The Washington Post. A question, though, can you actually contradict this analysis or are you just saying that we can't trust a paper of record? -- Atama頭 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe the quotation is compliant with

WP:QUOTE: it is verifiably sourced, it is in the body of the article, it isn't an overuse of quotations, and it is properly formatted.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It seems to be, but as I stated before that is an essay, not even a guideline. Leatherstocking is well within his rights to reject that essay if he wants. If you both agree that the essay is applicable and should be used as an objective guide, then great, but I would assume that Leatherstocking would be reluctant to do so. -- Atama頭 22:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you said before, it really doesn't cover whether to use quotes, just how to do so.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of inclusion is that the onus passes back and forth depending on the sourcing. If information is unsourced, it is the burden of the person adding or restoring (or asking to keep) the information to verify it. If the information can be verified by a source, it is the burden of the person asking to change or remove the information to show that the source is unreliable. That's why I've asked Leatherstocking about the Washington Post articles above. The Post is generally considered a very reliable source. If he can show through something like an official transcript that it's obvious that the newspaper changed the meaning of LaRouche's words by selective quoting and/or removing context, then obviously the source can't be considered reliable, that's just common sense. But if he objects to the articles because he believes there's a chance that the quotes were misrepresented, I would say that the verifiability of the quotes has not been sufficiently challenged. Will, you said before, "If we were to look at the primary sources would it be appropriate for us to decide that the secondary source has it wrong, and that our own personal interpretations are more accurate?" My answer to that would be only if it was blatantly obvious. One example would be if the paper quoted LaRouche as saying "The United States is an evil empire" and his actual words were "Enemies of the United States have called it an evil empire". Something along those lines would fall under

WP:IAR in my view. -- Atama頭 23:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

[outdent]As luck would have it, there is an archived text of the LaRouche autobiography that is referenced by the Post article, on the anti-LaRouche "LaRouche Planet" site.[11] And, as it turns out, what is in the Post is indeed a misrepresentation of the quote as it appears in context, because when LaRouche speaks of "the poor donkeys, the poor sheep, whose consciousness is dominated by the infantile world-outlook of individual sensuous life," he is not describing "everyone who is not his follower"; he is describing Plato's theory of bronze, silver and golden souls which appears in "The Republic." So this is a good example of the problem I am trying to address.

More generally, I'm saying that we should avoid the implication that we are quoting a primary source when we don't know the context. A person who didn't follow the footnotes would have assumed that the source was a LaRouche publication. We make decisions every day about what is appropriate to quote from reliable sources, and what is not. I'm saying that in a case like this, it were better to avoid it, even before there was clear evidence that the quote was out of context. Will often seems to be saying that anything that appears in American papers should be put in the article without question, and I am saying that we should exercise editorial judgement in cases like these. I would go on to say that we should acknowledge that there is an adversarial relationship between the US press and LaRouche and exercise particular caution about attributing quotes to LaRouche, although I don't know whether Will would be willing to go along with that.

Incidentally, one facet in

talk) 00:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

According to whom is Larouche not referring to non-members? According to Leatherstocking? Is Leatherstocking a reliable source for this encyclopedia?   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'd have to tentatively agree that LaRouche doesn't actually say that his followers are golden souls. One might infer this, but he never explicitly states it. The closest he comes is to say, "The objective of my life is to contribute to bringing men and women out of the wretched condition of sensuous donkeys and incompletely human 'silver souls,' to contribute to making of our species a race of 'golden souls.'" At best he's expressing the wish to make his followers "golden souls", but doesn't say anywhere that they've accomplished that. On the other hand, he comes close enough that it seems to be splitting hairs. In your refutation above, Leatherstocking, you ironically chose to ignore context by saying that he is only describing Plato's theories. He's describing Plato's theories and saying that he'd like to use them to improve the human race, by guiding them, and of course he would be attempting to do this with his followers. (I do acknowledge that the wrong philosopher was quoted, Socrates rather than Plato, although I can't tell if the error was on the part of the Wikipedia editor or the Washington Post since that article is hidden behind a pay-per-view wall.)

But you see what we're doing, we're analyzing his words ourselves which is

synthesis. We're not supposed to be doing that. We are supposed to rely on a secondary source to analyze the information. If that source doesn't like LaRouche, well, that's what we have to work with. I don't think it's fruitful to acknowledge the adversarial relationship between the press and LaRouche. We don't consider the press a reliable source because journalists are heartless automatons without personal opinions who report information without any inherent bias. They're generally reliable sources because journalists are supposed to suppress that bias in their reporting (much as we try to do when we edit articles) and because their facts are supposed to be checked with editorial oversight to get things right before it's published. If we make a blanket statement that the press hates LaRouche, then there are no reliable sources left. Also, I don't see other controversial figures being given the same latitude. For example, some allege that the press is biased against conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly

, for various reasons (because the press is left-leaning, because those commentators attack the press, because those commentators steal viewers from network news...). Yet that doesn't stop us from quoting the mainstream media on those pages either.

I do understand where you're coming from but unfortunately I believe that what you are requesting is a very big exception and I imagine it would be untenable. I don't really know how these articles can be sourced if we can't trust the press. Certainly quoting LaRouche over and over again isn't going to be feasible. Do you have a suggestion? -- Atama頭 01:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an additional bit of clarification here. I'm not suggesting that we suppress criticism of LaRouche, or that he be given any special "kid gloves" treatment that other controversial figures do not receive. I have been making a very specific objection to the fact that views are incorrectly being attributed to LaRouche himself, which is a serious BLP problem. It might make more sense to dispense with the quote altogether, and simply say that "Mr. Mintz of the Post thinks LaRouche has a contemptuous attitude toward non-members." --

talk) 05:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. My suggestion is that in these "grey areas," it is better to err on the side of caution per BLP, and simply omit the disputed material. There are plenty of other things we can cite from the press, and the "golden souls" issue is a bit esoteric anyway. We're supposed to writing an encyclopedia. --

talk) 01:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It appears the "golden souls" was used more than once by LaRouche. On the research page I've added a citation, from before the 1979 autobiography, in which a senior aide uses the term. One of the reasons we prefer using secondary sources is that they can synthesize many sources. If there is any secondary source that gives a different view we can include that too.   Will Beback  talk  03:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Golden souls" is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that Mr. Mintz, writing for the Post, misrepresents LaRouche's comments about "poor donkeys, poor sheep" to make it appear that LaRouche is simply making a disparaging comment about anyone who doesn't agree with him. Wikipedia does differentiate between different kinds of reliable sources. Newspapers are considered to be generally reliable for reporting events and factual material, but I would not assume that a journalist would be the ideal source for analyzing a philosophical essay.

WP:RS

clearly notes that scholarly sources would be preferable for something like that. And beyond that, the RS doctrine is not absolute. There will be individual cases in which a normally reliable source makes a mistake, and that mistake should not be used.

However, let me return to my central point here. I think that good editorial judgment includes knowing when to avoid using quotes that may be problematic. That would generally include quotes where the context is in doubt, such as when short "sound bytes" are excerpted from a discussion of a complex idea, or when a quote has been chopped up and lots of ellipses inserted. BLP instructs to edit cautiously, and I think we can avoid neutrality disputes if we have an agreement from editors to exercise that sort of caution. --

talk) 05:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

In the future, it'd help if you'd be clear about what's in dispute so we don't spend a day arguing about other issues. If I'm not mistaken, on another page you're asserting that a Russian psychologist is competent to comment on an American economist, so I don't know what basis we're using to decide who's competent about which topics. If there is a dispute over whether the Washington Post then let's take that to the reliable sources noticeboard. If there is a different view of this found in a reliable source then let's include that too. In the context of this dispute, if the assertion seems questionable then let's just attribute the view to the Washington Post. There's no question that they've said published this, and readers can decide for themselves if it's a reliable source or not.   Will Beback  talk  07:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you would respond to my more general point, because the Post article was just one of numerous examples. I'll reiterate: I think that good editorial judgment includes knowing when to avoid using quotes that may be problematic. That would generally include quotes where the context is in doubt, such as when short "sound bytes" are excerpted from a discussion of a complex idea, or when a quote has been chopped up and lots of ellipses inserted. BLP instructs to edit cautiously, and I think we can avoid neutrality disputes if we have an agreement from editors to exercise that sort of caution.--

talk) 15:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't understand how your point applies to editing. We should base articles on secondary sources, including quotations. You have inserted plenty of quotations yourself, so I don't see you saying we shouldn't use quotations. As I pointed out elsewhere, you added an assertion from a Chinese website that says Larouche made nine accurate forecasts. I'd like to see the context of those forecasts. Is my concern over context a sufficient reason to delete that material?   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not rocket science. I'm saying that when LaRouche, or any Living Person, is quoted by a critic, we should be alert to the possibility of misrepresentation, and avoid using quotes where that possibility exists. As I mention twice above, the danger signs include short "sound bytes" excerpted from a discussion of a complex idea, or a quote that has been chopped up and lots of ellipses inserted. When the opportunity exists to compare it with a primary source, we should do that, as I did with the "sheep and donkeys" quote. My other point, which has not been addressed yet, is that we should definitely avoid doing any "quote management" of our own. --

talk) 20:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You seem to be saying that our interpretations of primary sources trump the interpretations found in reliable secondary sources. I disagree with that entirely.   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<--) I would hope that Will would agree that "quote management" is to be avoided by editors per

MOS:QUOTE

. The other issue regarding the reliance on primary sources is problematic. For example, the possibility exists that the primary source you quoted in the "sheep and donkeys" is inaccurate. Why should we give LaRouche's own web site more credibility than a major newspaper? They have just as much of a reason to falsify and/or twist the information than a critic of LaRouche, and without the public exposure and editorial oversight of the newspaper. You're only assuming that the transcript is accurate.

My purpose of this argument is not necessarily to challenge the accuracy of that particular transcript, but to point out why Wikipedia policy cautions us strongly in regards to the use of primary and self-published sources. -- Atama頭 21:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in case it wasn't clear, the transcription of LaRouche's book is on a anti-LaRouche website which is generally unreliable as a source. This means, however, there is little danger that this site would alter LaRouche's book in a way that works to LaRouche's advantage. But beyond that, don't we get into a bit of an absurd loop when we question whether a person is a reliable source for his own beliefs? According to

talk) 01:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

MOS:QUOTE specifically allows for the proper use of ellipses. I'm not sure what "quote management" means, it's not a term I've seen elsewhere. If a person is quoted in a secondary source, and the quotation has ellipses, then preserving the quoted text in the form found in the secondary source seems appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe that what Leatherstocking is referring to is "fixing" the quote in any manner. That means making copyedits or other alterations of the text to "clarify" the quote. The "Minimal change" section should explain things. Ellispses are permitted but not when "doing so would remove essential context or alter the meaning of the text". Leatherstocking gave an example earlier of a case in which he feels that ellipses were used in a manner that did alter the meaning of the quote. -- Atama頭 23:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not "fixing the quote in any manner," but fixing the quote in such a way as to make the subject appear more extreme or ridiculous, or otherwise alter the meaning in order to push POV. Also,

talk) 01:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The source is the Washington Post. Does anyone think that our article misrepresents what they printed? I don't see anyone saying that. We're here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. We're not here to interpret primary sources from unreliable websites. We've all looked at that primary source in question and no one says that the primary source is misquoted. This is just a matter of weighing our interpretation over that of a highly reliable secondary source. I've edited the text to attribute it as their interpretation. I'm open to adding any related or differing significant views. But there's nothing wrong with the quotations, the sources, or our use of them. Also, in case it needs to be pointed out again,

WP:QUOTE is an essay.   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Here I disagree. If the Post is misrepresenting the quoted material, and in this case I believe it is, it is our responsibility not to use it as a source in this instance. I have started

talk) 15:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I was actually going to suggest opening up this particular issue to a wider audience, since it's a touchy subject with no clear right or wrong answer (to me at least). Our guidelines and policies don't seem to have accounted for this kind of dilemma and seeking a wider consensus is a good course of action. -- Atama頭 16:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any mechanism for deciding the correct interpretation of a primary source like this. Noticeboards will have to do, but those just take the views of a few Wikipedians. Do the off-the-cuff opinions of non-experts really outweigh a relaible source? And how does this apply to the Chinese website's claim that LaRouche has made nine correct forecasts? If I go to a noticeboard and present evidence that the website is incorrect would that be a proper reason to delete the assertion?   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking here about the manipulation of quotations. You seem to be headed off in an unrelated direction, since no quotations are being sourced to the Chinese publication you mention. --

talk) 15:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see a big difference between quotations and other assertions.

You said above that "Golden souls" is not in dispute. Yet today you commented it out. Why?   Will Beback  talk  19:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no basis for saying that we misrepresent the source, I'm going to restore it.   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While that issue is at RSN, let me ask about another assertion by Leatherstocking. He wrote at the top:

• Sometimes key elements are removed from a quote to change its meaning; in this diff [12] I restore the quote in its entirely, replacing the "sculpted" version.

To be honest, I don't see any significant material that was omitted. Could Leatherstocking explain precisely what "key elements" were missing? How was the meaning changed?   Will Beback  talk  05:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit struck me as a bit comical, since you took a simple sentence and divided it up into 3 segments. The parts you left out are "Mr. King may be trying to tie together the whole unruly package with too neat a ribbon" and "not least of which." By deleting "too neat a ribbon," it looks like you are trying to avoid the implication that King is a conspiracy theorist, which is a notable criticism of King which seems to upset you. "Not the least of which" is a phrase which is intended to emphasize the fact that members of LaRouche's inner circle are Jewish; by omitting it, you chose to deemphasize that fact. --

talk) 15:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think your view that those are "key elements" of Johnson's book review, or that the editing changed the meaning in any significant way, is incorrect. What the edit did is to reduce unnecessary verbiage.   Will Beback  talk  19:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question, is there any harm in including the full quote? Although I know you disagree with his reasoning, but Leatherstocking does have concern that removing that text also means removing some important context. It's also a relatively small amount of text. -- Atama頭 20:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's little harm, which is why I didn't contest his edit. But I object to Leatherstocking asserting that I changed the meaning by removing unnecessary words.   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... So maybe Leatherstocking could clarify that there is no accusation that you did so to deliberately change the meaning, but it could appear that way? I don't think it's productive to question each other's motives here, if we can't assume good faith from one another then this can't work. Leatherstocking wanted the quote "fixed", Will doesn't object, so that should be the end of it. If we go down the road of worrying about motives then that could lead to accusations that Will wants to smear LaRouche and protect his critics, and accusations that Leatherstocking wants to protect LaRouche and advocate for him. I personally assume good faith out of both of you or I wouldn't be here. -- Atama頭 20:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using phrases like "hostile editors" or writing that:

• ..I am now getting abuse from other anti-LaRouche editors such as JoshuaZ. I wonder if you are even conscious of the tremendous bias in your editing approach; take for example the page your created, Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research -- the selection of the topics on which you conducted your searches indicates that you are spending enormous amounts of time digging up derogatory coverage of LaRouche, not trying to write a neutral, balanced article.

Does not appear to exhibit good faith. I'd appreciate if he sticks to addressing content issues, and avoid commenting on his views about my motives or purported biases. Mediation is for content issues. If there's a behavioral problem then the ArbCom is the right venue.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I gave the impression of questioning Will's motives. I am disappointed that the discussion at

talk) 00:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Please leave out the "inflammatory" language. The comment to which you linked concerns material that was duplicated between articles, and wasn't directly relevant to the LaRouche bio. And yes, we will use the reliable source. That material it covers is directly relevant to the topic of that article, the LaRouche movement. If there's nothing more here I suggest we mark this thread resolved.   Will Beback  talk  03:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I have mentioned twice, my purpose in raising the various examples in this section was to seek a general agreement that quotations should be handled with great care. But with respect to the "golden souls, sheep and donkeys" controversy, there is one solution that I can see. Although I think that LaRouche's peculiar take on the Platonic dialogues is highly esoteric and off-topic for the "movement" article, if it is absolutely necessary that it be included, we could simply supply enough of the original quote so that the reader has enough context to know what LaRouche is talking about. --

talk) 05:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The writings of LaRouche are obtuse and hard to interpret, as I think you've mentioned yourself. We should avoid quoting from primary sources, especially when we have adequate secondary sources. If we have another secondary source with a different view of this materil or of Larouche's view of members and non-members, then let's add that. Cherrypicking quotes won't improve the situation. However the book is available on line so readers can find the whole thing if they want to read more. As for a general agreement, all material, whether quotes or other assertions, should be treated with care. I don't see any need for special rules for this issue.   Will Beback  talk  05:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for cherrypicking quotes, I'm afraid the horse is already out of the barn on this one: if we're going to use the "sheep and donkeys" quote, we have an obligation to provide enough context so that it cannot be misinterpreted. --

talk) 15:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Which reminds me again of the CYD claim of nine correct forecasts. Can we see the original sources of those forecasts, so that readers won't misinterpret the claims? In other words, no. We rely on secondary sources. To give the proper "context" for the "poor sheep" phrase we'd have to put in a few hundred words of text. Fortunately, there's no need to do that since we already have a secondary source which has provided an interpretation. I don't understand what the big deal is with this material anyway - are you aware of LaRouche giving a view of humanity that contradicts the Washington Post's interpretation? Why is this so important?   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the RSN discussion yielded a very useful suggestion. Deal with the sources on an individual basis. I don't think it's healthy to consider all news sources unreliable simply because of a belief (possibly justified) that the mainstream media dislikes LaRouche. In the case of this "poor sheep" dispute, the only portion of the analysis that has had reasonable doubt attributed to it is the suggestion that LaRouche calls his followers "Golden Souls". He declared that he wants them to be Golden Souls, and wants to lead them to that state, but doesn't say that they have achieved that. What if that portion was omitted from the article? That seems like a fair compromise. As to the quote cherrypicking, a secondary source did that and made the quote notable by writing an article about it. Perhaps the focus in the article shouldn't be "look what LaRouche said" but rather, "look what a reporter said about LaRouche". -- Atama頭 16:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the dispute was over "poor donkeys". Atama, have you ever looked at the sources in Talk:LaRouche movement/Sources#"Golden souls"? I think we're getting too stuck on what's in the autobiography. Based on the secondary sources, it appears that the term was used in various contexts. Some sources that mention the term don't attribute it to the book, and we also have a primary source in which one of LaRouches' senior aides using the term a year before the book was published. While we don't need to use the phrase, it is relevant to discuss how LaRouche views his following. If need be we could write material that excluded "golden souls", but I don't see the need for that. I've altered the material again, to make the attribution even more prominent.[13]   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute was over whether LaRouche was referring to non-members of his movement when wrote of "donkeys and sheep." Will's new re-write eliminates that problem, but creates a new one: by eliminating the reference to Plato's Republic, he gives the reader the impression that LaRouche has simply coined some bizarre New Age lingo about "Golden Souls." It should be made clear that the referenced term (and the entire context) comes from Plato. --

talk) 00:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I've added something about Plato per your request. Dennis King devotes a whole paragraph to comparing LaRouche to Plato.   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of

WP:NOTSCANDAL

Note that I do not consider the previous section resolved, and I am awaiting comments from Atama. In the meantime, I am copying this post from Talk:LaRouche movement:

The LaRouche organization has been involved in many political battles, has made many allegations against its opponents, and vice versa. This being an encyclopedia, it is unnecessary and a violation of NPOV to systematically list all the allegations made against the LaRouche movement by its opponents, as was done in this edit. The emphasis should be on established facts, such as those cases where LaRouche activists were put on trial. Unproven allegations should be briefly summarized, not catalogued. A few representative examples might be described, but those should also be attributed; anonymous allegations should be omitted. In cases where counter-allegations are known to have been made, as in "operation mop-up," those should be included.

talk) 01:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd be happy to discuss that as soon as the current discussion is resolved.   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, before we get to this I'd like for us to discuss whatever issues are keeping the {POV} tag on Lyndon LaRouche. It's been there longer.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved NPOV issues at Lyndon LaRouche

The problem there is that any coverage of LaRouche's professional activities and accomplishments has been submerged in extensive, highly detailed coverage of criticism and allegations, in violation of

talk) 15:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If I'm not mistaken, you've determined each of the items we've discussed so far. I'm asking that, once we resolve the quote issue, that we next address whatever issues are keeping the {POV} tag on the biography. If there aren't any then we can take down the tag and deal with the "movement" article POV issues.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute was over whether LaRouche was referring to non-members of his movement when wrote of "donkeys and sheep." Will's new re-write eliminates that problem, but creates a new one: by eliminating the reference to Plato's Republic, he gives the reader the impression that LaRouche has simply coined some bizarre New Age lingo about "Golden Souls." It should be made clear that the referenced term comes from Plato. --

talk) 01:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Here are a number of unresolved issues:

• We've been over the question of primary sources at some length. However, I would like to see a consistent application of policy here. After much material has been deleted from Lyndon LaRouche on the grounds that it is sourced to primary sources (the Abba Lerner debate, for example,) in another setting we find an entirely different standard being applied: referring to this version of Dana Beal, Will writes: "I count 26 sources, and every section seems to be sourced. Are there specific assertions that seemm undersourced to you?" Note that the first section entitled "History and activism," taking up two thirds of the article, is either unsourced or sourced to an autobiographical account written by Beal.
• Some material at Lyndon LaRouche is repeated in other articles. Will has argued for the retaining of all criticism and allegations of misconduct, while removing material that pertains to LaRouche's professional life and activism, so that the article is seriously unbalanced. For example, the section on Kenneth Kronberg now appears in Kenneth Kronberg, Schiller Institute, and LaRouche movement, in addition to Lyndon LaRouche. In contrast, material on the Fusion Energy Foundation, which LaRouche founded, was removed, with the argument that it would be more appropriate in a different article. Likewise a thumbnail description of LaRouche's presidential platforms, which was removed today.[14]
• Will has objected to the inclusion of rebuttal material in the Kenneth Kronberg section on the grounds that he says the section is excessively long. He has on two occasions "trimmed" the rebuttal material, while leaving the allegations against LaRouche intact, citing section.[15][16] Compare this to
  talk) 01:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Will has gone to the point of edit warring now[17][18][19][20] to exclude a basic summary of LaRouche's presidential campaign platforms from his bio. This goes to the heart of the neutrality problem; it looks, as I said at the beginning of this mediation, like Will is aiming for a "criticism only" BLP. --

talk) 20:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Shall I comment about how your edits look, and speculate on your motivations too? Would it help this mediation if I talk more about you? Or would it be better to stick to discussing the content?   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Once the "quotes" thread is resovled I'll respond here.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with the present wording of the "golden souls" paragraph. --

talk) 01:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Please mark the thread "{resolved}" if that's the case.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leatherstocking, can you write out your specific issues with the current contents of

WP:NPOV, and for which you applied the {POV} tag? Please cite the exact text that's problematic so we can fix whatever needs fixing.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

As I have said, the problem is that the article is overly weighted toward criticism and allegations of misconduct, relative to the space devoted to LaRouche's professional and political activity (also a violation of

WP:BLP#Criticism and praise

.)) To rectify the situation, I would propose the following:

• We restore the deleted/moved material on LaRouche's campaign platforms.
• We add material on "meetings with foreign leaders" and on LaRouche's personal role in the Fusion Energy Foundation, which I will find, from primary sources if necessary (notability already established from secondary sources.) I bought a copy of his autobiography from Amazon.com, which is likely to provide some.
• The section on Jeremiah Duggan should go. It has no relation to a bio of LaRouche.

If these changes are acceptable, I would withdraw the dispute tag. --

talk) 00:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

1. There is a short summary of LaRouche's campaign platforms. That's sufficent since we have subsidiary articles on his views and on his campaigns. Se

WP:SUMMARY

.

2. We can add material on meetings that are found in reliable secondary sources. Thearticle shouldbe based on secondary sourcs, not on LaRouche's autobiography, which readers can also obtain.

3. It doesn't need to be a section, but I think some mention of Duggan is appropriate, and another editor feels strongly that it belongs.

Please say how these issues violate NPOV policy.   Will Beback  talk  00:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:SUMMARY

); meanwhile, criticism and allegations of misconduct, for which we also have other articles, is being retained in an extended and detailed form. Am I making this sufficiently clear? I also disagree with you on two assumptions: the first is that campaign platforms are an expression of "views." They are a form of activism. LaRouche didn't just write an essay on those policies and post it on the web, he and his supporters went out and aggressively campaigned for those policies, and I can't think of anything more directly relevant to a biographical article. Second, it appears that you are back to the assumption that "having an article based on secondary sourcs" means the exclusion of primary sources. I was under the impression that we had resolved that. The notability of LaRouche's founding of FEF and meetings with foreign leaders has already been established by secondary sources, and primary sources are permissible to add detail and clarification.

When you say that "another editor feels strongly that Duggan belongs," I assume you mean SlimVirgin. I don't dismiss her opinion, but I would point out that there were numerous comments at

talk) 05:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

What specific part of

WP:PSTS. As for Duggan, I suggest we deal with that outside of this mediation unless you want to invite Slimvirgin to join.   Will Beback  talk  06:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I just wanted to note that the autobiography might be more acceptable than some other primary sources, as a published source (I assume it wasn't self-published). -- Atama頭 17:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd regard it as self-published. The 1979 one was published by New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing House, and the 1987 version was published by Executive Intelligence Review. Both of those are LaRouche movement entities.   Will Beback  talk  19:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts, well thanks for clarifying. -- Atama頭 19:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atama, do you find my description of the NPOV dispute, about 5 posts up, to be in any way unclear? --

talk) 05:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I've been distracted recently with another issue (in which I was also accused of being someone's sockpuppet, fortunately CU confirms that I'm not). I guess I should ask, do you think that

WP:SUMMARY suggests that would be okay. To be fair, we should be consistent and negative info present in the Views article should also be summarized in the biography just as is being done to the less-negative and/or positive info, not detailed. Consistency is what I think that Leatherstocking is looking for to preserve NPOV. I think I can understand the objection to coverage of Duggan in the article, but Will doesn't seem to object to a reduction of the amount of coverage he would need, and if SlimVirgin doesn't object either that might be a good compromise (mention him but don't go into detail). I can't really see how the inclusion/exclusion of meetings with foreign leaders is a NPOV issue, as much as it is a RS/OR issue. -- Atama頭 20:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The longest section of the article, in its present version, is "Criticism of the U.S. Labor Party," when we have an entire article devoted to

talk) 01:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

LaRouche platform

There seems to be an an unproductive edit dispute concerning Larouche's political platforms. From my point of view, Leatherstocking is insisting on using a dubious Russian web article as the main source for the platform for all of LaRouche's eight presidential campaigns. This is despite that fact that we have scores of U.S. sources from mainstream newspapers and other reliable English language sources. A neutral editor on the topic has agreed that it is not a suitable source for this information.[21] We should be using the best possible sources for this information. The list of planks is quite different from what the other sources say, and skews them considerably. It also ignores the fact that over the years various items were added and subtracted. The discussions about this haven't brought us closer together. I'd like to ask Leatherstocking to stop insisting on using this dubious source, and to base the platform material on known, reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  06:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The neutral editor also proposed that we use a primary source to flesh out the platform. That's fine with me, but I also proposed that Will take the Russian source to

talk) 15:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If you think it's the best source for this information then take it to RSN. We have dozens of US newspapers, of known reliability, to use as sources for this material. The other issues are the length and the way of handling change over time. The material should be kept shorter than the full treatment at "Views", and we need to reflect that different issues were more proiminent at different times.   Will Beback  talk  18:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just found that Leatherstocking's "reliable source" was simply copied from a LaRouche publication. This isn't the first time this exact same situation has occurred. It's unacceptable and I won't allow any more foreign language sources unless they are obviously reliable.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly a groundbreaking discovery. The article says, at the end, that the material is drawn from LaRouchepub and Spekulant, so the degree of drama here is unnecessary. Since our two proposed versions are virtually identical, I suggest that we work out a compromise wording on the SDI part and move on to other pressing business. --

talk) 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, it is "groundbreaking", or something-breaking. This morning you were defending the source as reliable. Now I've discovered, with no help from you who added the source, that it's simply a copy of a an official LaRouche bio. That does it for these strange foreign websites as sources.

WP:V says that foreign sources should only be used when there isn't an English-language one, and we have no lack of reliable English-language sources. The only thing these foreign sources is good for are the opinions of the writers.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course, I'm all for compromise, but claiming the source to be reliable when you knew that it was actually a copy of a LaRouche source is troubling. Leatherstocking, the only way to collaborate in a productive way is if we are able to trust each other, but if you are presenting a source as a reliable, third-party source that you know truly isn't, that trust is hard to maintain. I can't really blame Will for being frustrated by this. Are all of the foreign language sources similarly untrustworthy? -- Atama頭 18:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another problematic edit

Will deleted material in this edit that I believe is essential for neutrality. Mr. Rose makes lurid accusations against the movement, while claiming to have been a "leading member." LaRouche, who headed the movement, disputes Rose's claim to have been a "leading member." I don't believe the use of a SPS here violates policy, because LaRouche is speaking about the movement which he leads. --

talk) 01:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

A self-published source may not be used to attack a 3rd-party, especially one who may be a living person. That's a core policy.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche is speaking about Rose, not his movement. I understand using self-published sources for some things, we've discussed it at length, but using one in an attack against another person (by discrediting them) is really pushing it. I notice that Rose's claims weren't even being disputed in the text that Will removed, which makes it look like an ad hominem attack. If LaRouche did claim that Rose wasn't a senior member it seems appropriate to include that dispute. -- Atama頭 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Closed

Leatherstocking has been found to be a sockpuppet and connected to the Larouche organization. I can't express how disappointed I am. I feel that both Will and myself worked very hard to make this work under the assumption that we all had the intention of improving Wikipedia. It's eerily prescient that the last post I made before this one was a warning that our assumption of good faith was being stretched. Also, I recall how initially the issue of sockpuppets was addressed. Essentially, this entire exercise was like having a conversation with a man in the next room and then checking later to see that it was a parrot all along. In any case, seeing as how there is only one party in this dispute that is allowed to edit Wikipedia, I believe that this mediation has no reason to stay open. -- Atama頭 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^ SHENON, PHILIP (Oct 8, 1986). "LAROUCHE WARNS U.S. ON ANY MOVE TO ARREST HIM". New York Times.
2. ISBN 9780813108872
   .