Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:19, 23 January 2012

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

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

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

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

Politics C‑class

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

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

Archives

Lawsuits and trials /Incidents /Sources

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

More mess to clean up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguably, it introduces an element of confirmation bias.

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

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

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

As a fellow Single-Purpose Account, I hear your pain. AndroidCat (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Headings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collect, could you please stop trolling both here and elsewhere. It is a waste of everybody else's time. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA please. Your charge is absurd, has been absurd, and shall remain absurd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The contents of your edits constitute trolling, in case you had missed that. Mathsci (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL! I think you mistake something called "substantive discussion" for "trolling." Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

By shaping the article in such a way as to make the focus of it a huge list of rumors and unsubstantiated allegations, the article becomes a propaganda vehicle for LaRouche's opponents. Not the opponents of some anonymous members of a movement, but LaRouche's opponents. And LaRouche is still a living person (not that it ought to matter -- propaganda shouldn't belong in any article.) Waalkes (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a movement with thousands of members, not about Lyndon LaRouche. I'm not aware of any "propaganda" sources, but if there are any let's address those.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Deliberately propagating unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip is a form of propaganda. One could debate on a case by case basis whether that was what was going on with each individual newspaper story you dredged up. However, those stories were printed long ago, and forgotten. This Misplaced Pages article, on the other hand, takes a lot of highly dubious material, concentrates it in one location and preserves it online -- that's definitely intentional propaganda. Waalkes (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is all about taking information printed in now-dusty publications and making it more available to readers.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Not about the person? See

Dennis King writes that LaRouche halted the operation when police arrested several of his followers on assault charges, and after the groups under attack formed joint defense teams.

the "COINTELPRO memo", which he says showed "that the FBI was considering supporting an assassination attempt against LaRouche by the Communist Party USA

Frankhouser made numerous allegations about LaRouche, including that he said prosecutor William Weld "does not deserve to live. He should get a bullet between the eyes."

New Hampshire journalist, Jon Prestage, had a tense interview with LaRouche and several of his associates, and was threatened if he used the interview in his story

Last I checked, those all specifically deal with a "living person." Care to rephrase you claim that this article has no connection with a "living person"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider any of those passages to be BLP violations? The article is about a movement, not an individual, though individuals are mentioned in it.   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You wrote specifically: This article is about a movement with thousands of members, not about Lyndon LaRouche. Forgive me for showing that to be errant. Collect (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because the article mentions various individuals doesn't mean the article is about them.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BLP -- if living people are mentioned in any article, the claims made about them must conform to WP:BLP ( and to material about living persons on other pages). I am glad you acknolwedge that LarRouch, the person, is, indeed, "mentioned" in this article. Collect (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No one disputes that.   Will Beback  talk  15:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute and article ownership dispute

For almost a year (at least) now there have been dozens of uninvolved editors coming to this article and pointing out that it is biased and not neutral. I would say that the dispute began in a big way here: Talk:LaRouche movement/Archive 3#This article is not neutral. Yet because of the intransigence and battlefield tactics of one editor, very little has happened to improve the article. Will's behavior at this article and others conforms very closely to what is described at Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles, which is a policy. It says there that "An editor who appears to assume ownership of an article should be approached on the article's talk page with a descriptive header informing readers about the topic. Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor. If necessary, ignore attacks made in response to a query. If the behavior continues, the issue may require dispute resolution, but it is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation, etc." So I am doing that. I also added the template for neutrality dispute. The reasons for the dispute have been described in detail on this talk page, over and over, during the past year. Waalkes (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on content and not on contributors. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The issues in the old thread linked above were dealt with. If there are fresh issues please describe them.   Will Beback  talk  06:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This thread is not about specific issues -- it's about article ownership. I posted it following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles (Mathsci, take note.) In fact, every time an issue is raised on this talk page, the same thing happens -- one editor obstructs any improvement until uninvolved editors get exhausted and leave. None of the neutrality issues that have been raised have been resolved. Waalkes (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like to engage in mediation that'd be fine.

As for the POV tag, just saying there have been complaints in the past isn't helpful. Please present actionable issues which we can address and resolve.   Will Beback  talk  21:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been a party to all of these discussions, have read all of these complaints, and are well aware where we have made progress and where we haven't. For a start, the Alleged violence and harassment section contains a tag saying "This article may contain excessive, poor or irrelevant examples". It has done so for many months. A majority of editors here on this talk page agree that the tag is justified, with one notable exception: you, who compiled most of this material. It's reminiscent of your current travails at Golden Domes, where editors have been telling you pretty much the same thing: you compile vast quantities of sourced, but undue material, and essentially make the article unreadable. We end up with hundreds of unstructured details. --JN466 21:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayen466, you seem follow me from topic to topic complaining about whatever I do. As does Cla68 and a few other editors here. Excuse me if I take those complaints from the WR crowd with a grain of salt.

The point of Misplaced Pages is to compile the world's knowledge and make it available to readers. If there is specific material which is unsourced, non-neutral, or otherwise violates Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines then let's fix it. Vague complaints don't help.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Will, you asked for specifics and "actionable issues." So, Jayen466 provides you with exactly what you requested, and without stopping to take a breath you dismiss it as a "vague complaint" which you will "take with a grain of salt," and you denounce Jayen as part of a conspiracy against you. This sort of behavior is exactly the reason why this article has seen so little improvement over the past year. Waalkes (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We're not here to talk about behavior. We're here to talk about the article. In what way does it violate WP:NPOV?   Will Beback  talk  08:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh, now I'm confused. Weren't you just talking about Jayen's behavior, and announcing that you would continue to ignore what people say about the article? Waalkes (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's focus on the article. Which specific issue or issues warrant the POV tag?   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The ones we keep telling you about. Notably, the close to 4,000 words presented under the heading of "alleged violence and harassment" in this present article. --JN466 07:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

They seem well sourced. Who are these "we" that you speak of? AndroidCat (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not the sourcing, but the weight in this article. See Talk:LaRouche_movement/Archive_3#Alleged_violence_and_harassment_section and subsequent RfC. --JN466 08:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The section is shorter now then it was at that time. On what basis do you think it is still violates NPOV?   Will Beback  talk  08:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know why Jayen466 uses the word "we", Please could he explain? Mathsci (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a nosism. The RfC responses were clearly in favor of trimming the article. I think we are still working towards fulfilling that mandate. Cla68 (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Summary list of unresolved neutrality issues from past year

1. Instead of using a few well-chosen examples to illustrate the fact that allegations of harassment exist, the article attempts to make the case for LaRouche's political opponents by listing every possible allegation. The bulk listing attempts to create the impression that the allegations, no matter how flimsy, must be at least partially true, despite the fact that there has not been one criminal conviction. See this RfC. 2. The article contains multiple allegations that are attributed to anonymous persons, against the recommendations at WP:BLPGOSSIP. See this discussion. In case the argument is made again, let me point out that the policy is not talking about "allegations without a source citation," it is talking about allegations which appeared in published sources but are attributed to anonymous persons. 3. The article uses inappropriate headings to convey the impression that any kind of conflict between LaRouche and his political opponents constitutes harassment on the part of LaRouche and his supporters. See this edit. These headings attempt to make the case for LaRouche's political opponents using Misplaced Pages's voice. Waalkes (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not even sure if this article as it stands deserves such an articulate assessment. After months of discussion using tens of thousands of words, it still insults the reader's intelligence by reading like an 8th grade schoolteacher's gushing attempt to convince the students that Adolph Hitler was a very naughty man. We can do better. We do better all the time. What is going wrong? Rumiton (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Take it one step at a time. Recommend a specific change below and we'll discuss it. Cla68 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess I would start by asking that my changes to the headings be restored (see "Headings" thread, above.) Waalkes (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, there appears to be consensus for your edit: Jayen, Collect, you, KeithBob, and me for, Will Beback and Mathsci against. 71% in favor. Anyone dispute these numbers? Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the extreme factionalism evidenced here, having one faction agree with you and be larger is not consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't operated by voting.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not even aware that I had voted. Mathsci (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, then I guess that makes it 84%. I will go ahead an re-implement Waalkes edit since there appears to be clear consensus. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your change. We were not even discussing the section titles and the use of the word "alleged" was a solution that I suggested myself. It was in place for over a week with no objections. You were talking about something completely different (condensing or trimming content). Why are you editing in such a disruptive way, Cla68? The appearance you are giving of OWNING this talk page is quite chilling. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought that consensus was fairly clear here, so I'm surprised that you responded by edit warring. No problem, there is a way to see if I was mistaken. Cla68 (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, perhaps you should re-read this short thread from the beginning. Waalkes (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Waalkes, thanks for providing at least a somewhat more specific list. However I think that some of these issues may not be accurate. Let's take issue #2, which cites WP:BLPGOSSIP. BLP applies to identifiable people. If we have a press report which says that "a member of the LaRouche movement did X", that is not an identifiable entry so BLP does not apply. It is common for news reporters to use anonymous or simply unnamed sources, and using such sources so does not violate any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. Regarding #3, the headings have been altered to make clear these are "alleged" incidents of harassment. It is incorrect to assert that everyone allegedly harassed by the LaRouche movement has any previous contact with them, or is an opponent of the movement. For example, what evidence do we have that UAW president Leonard Woodcock opposed the LaRouche movement, or did anything to merit the alleged harassment of him? Setting up a false equivalency is bad writing. As for the principal issue, #1, what basis would we use for picking a "few well-chosen examples"? How would that be different from so-called "cherry-picking"?   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll on section headings

Do you support these changes to the section headings in this article?

Yes

• Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Rumiton (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC) As a small step in the right direction.
• Collect (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• per Rumiton. --JN466 22:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Waalkes (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

No

Comment

• Apart from Rumiton, this is almost the same WP:TAGTEAM as the one that appeared before in the space of one hour of each other on 9 January after an absence of more than two months away from the article and its talk page. (Waalkes and Keithbob have not commented so far.) Cla68 seems to be involved in some kind of wiki-wide almost military campaign against Will Beback. I would suggest that opinions on this article are sought in a community-wide RfC in these circumstances. The RfC should be devised by someone who hasn't commented here, preferably a neutral administrator. I would suggest Elen of the Roads. Mathsci (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your accusation of "tagteam" is both unwarranted and absurd. Other than that, you are welcome to your opinions on the issues. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It is the only way I can explain several users descending on a page after 9 weeks absence. How would you explain that? Mathsci (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps some editors have this page watchlisted? As I now have well over 2,200 pages watchlisted, would you grant the extreme likelihood that I have a page where I have previously editted, watchlisted? Cheers. (If you wish, I can email you my list of watchlisted pages - but I suspect you would find it both exceeding wide ranging, and exceeding boring to go through). (reduced to over 2,200 as I had removed a bunch of deleted pages etc. in the past) Collect (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

^---- What he said. Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• In addition, discussion means talking in careful terms, referring to sources, compromise, etc.. It does not mean an artificial kind of yes/no polarisation. That is more WP:BATTLEFIELD than wikipedia. Compromise happens only through editors discussing things in a calm way without forcing matters. Mathsci (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you disagree that edit warring is more BATTLEGROUND than straw polls? Cla68 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Cla68, you've repeatedly called single reverts "edit warring". Is that your definition?   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

With four ayes and no announced nays for the discussion about the edit, I consider this to be a "consensus" at this point. Cheers, but let's move on to the next issue before we bore everyone else to tears. Collect (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not how WP:BRD works. Mathsci (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be that Misplaced Pages isn't operated by voting, but in a case like this, I think it will be better to go with the majority rather than than let one editor completely control the article by simply opposing every proposal to improve it. Waalkes (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS which is what I am relying on - it is quite detailed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus means that "decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's norms."

WP:Polls are evil.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Lenght of allegations cataloge

The consensus from the RfC was to reduce the catalog of allegations. For those who argue that anything that has appeared in a newspaper should be in Misplaced Pages, I would say first of all, that's ridiculous, and secondly, newspapers are often irresponsible and wrong (see WP:OTTO.) Also, WP:BLPGOSSIP applies here. In an article called "LaRouche movement," everything alleged about the movement reflects upon LaRouche the individual living person. I don't think editors should be hunting for loopholes in an important policy when the policy seems to interfere with an agenda. Waalkes (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The material has already been reduced since the RFC. BLP applies to identifiable individuals, not nations, companies, or movements. As for the essay, WP:OTTO, there are plenty of essays on Misplaced Pages. If any particular source in this article is suspected of being unreliable then let's discuss it. But asserting that newspapers are generally unreliable is not a viable statement on Misplaced Pages.   Will Beback  talk  01:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Waalkes, please suggest something you think should be removed and we will discuss it. I believe we have a ways to go to fulfill the mandate established by the RfC for removals of allegations. Cla68 (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

For a start, I propose the Mike Royko material. He is not a regular journalist, he writes opinion pieces. I see there is something called WP:RSOPINION which cautions about this. It is a prime candidate for reduction. Waalkes (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I always enjoyed reading Royko's columns when he was alive. His opinions, however, on LaRouche appear to be in that grey area that should be avoided for BLP reasons and fall into the mandate given by the RfC. So, I support removal of the Royko material. Cla68 (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we could take this to WP:RSN. Oh wait, we already have. We had a discussion here on this exact same issue, Talk:LaRouche movement/Archive 2#Major deletions #3, followed by an RSN thread which confirmed that Royko is a highly reliable source. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47#Mike Royko. Going over the same issues again and again is tendentious.   Will Beback  talk  08:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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