Talk:LaRouche movement

Mediation, arbitration, requests for clarification, and other discussions about the LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement, AN/I, 2005-8
Enforcement, Hershelkrustofsky socks, Sep 19, 2008 Enforcement, MaplePorter, Sep 19, 2007 Clarification, Nathan/DLTN, July 23, 2007 Enforcement, Herschelkrustofsky (HK) Clarification, Tsunami Butler", Apr 1, 2007 Clarification, Appeal, Jan 24, 2007 Clarification, ManEatingDonut, Nov 22, 2006 Clarification, LaRouche, Oct 23, 2006 HK probation, Apr 15, 2006 HK/BirdsOfFire, Mar 31, 2006 HK blocked, Sep 29, 2005
Arbitration 2006
HK banned, May 5, 2006.
Arbitration 2005
N_ and others, Nov 2005. Cognition's statement, Nov 22, 2005. Modification of LaRouche 2, Dec 23, 2005. HK indef probation, Dec 23, 2005 LaRouche 2, Jan 25, 2005–Feb 17, 2005. LaRouche 2 talk LaRouche 2 evidence LaRouche 2 proposed decision LaRouche 2 proposed decision talk
Arbitration 2004
LaRouche 1, July 4—Sep 13, 2004. LaRouche 1 talk LaRouche 1 evidence LaRouche 1 evidence talk LaRouche 1 proposed decision LaRouche 1 proposed decision talk
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Med cabal talk, Feb 17, 2007 Med cabal/Tsunami Butler, Nov 26, 2006
Mediation 2004
HK and AndyL, July 3, 2004 HK and DJSupreme23, Jun 14, 2004 HK and Adam Carr, Nov 15, 2004 HK and SlimVirgin, Dec 16, 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche Lyndon LaRouche 1, Jan 17–Jun 17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 2, Jun 20–22, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 3, Jun 21–24, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche draft, June 24-25, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 4, Jun 25–July 5, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 5, Jul 05–Aug 1, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish, June–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche HK list, July–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche HK list archive Lyndon LaRouche 6, Aug 6-9, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 7, Aug 11-17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche omissions, Sep 9-10, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 8, Aug 18–Sep 28, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 9, Sep 18–Oct 11, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 10, Dec 2004–Jan 20, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche archive, material missing Lyndon LaRouche 11, Jan 20–Jul 19, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche 12, Jul 2005–Nov 12, 2006 Lyndon LaRouche 13, Nov 2006—Feb 18, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 14, Feb 18, 2007 - August 1, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 15, August 8, 2007 - November 18, 2007 Lyndon LaRouche 16, November 20, 2007 - Lyndon LaRouche 17 Lyndon LaRouche 18
Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement Political views temp Political views 1, Aug 21–Nov 29, 2004 Political views 2, Dec 2004–Jan 11, 2005 Political views 3, Jan 2005–Oct 02, 2006 "Cooked quotes", Jan 22–23, 2005 Political views mediation, Feb 27–Mar 04, 2006 Political views 4, Oct 23, 2006–Oct 11, 2007 Political views 5, Oct 11, 2007–Nov 28, 2007 Political views 6, Nov 28, 2007–Apr 12, 2008 Political views 7, Apr 15, 2008–Sep 24, 2008
Talk:Amelia Boynton Robinson Talk:American School (economics) Talk:American School (economics)/Archive 1 Talk:American School (economics)/Archive 2 Talk:Anti-Defamation League Talk:Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität Talk:Dirigisme Talk:Helga Zepp-LaRouche Talk:Jeremiah Duggan Talk:Jeremiah Duggan 1, Nov 14–Dec 6, 2004 Talk:Jeremiah Duggan 2, Dec 2004–Jan 2005 Talk:John Train Salon Talk:Kenneth Kronberg Talk:LaRouche Movement Talk:LaRouche Youth Movement Talk:Schiller Institute Talk:Schiller Institute/Archive 1 Talk:Synarchism Talk:Tavistock Clinic Talk:Tavistock Institute Talk:Tavistock Institute 1, Nov '04–June '06 Talk:LaRouche criminal trials Zayed Center
Template talk
Template talk:LaRouche Template talk:LaRouchetalk
Categories
HK sockpuppets

• Lawsuits and trials
• /Incidents
• /Sources

forgive my ignorance?

But is the current picture the best we can do for this movement or is this picture a fair representative of the movement's Political Advocacy? Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll try to answer. There are six photographs in the article, but I'll assume you're talking only about the first one. As can be seen just from the other five pictures, the movement commonly engages in street activities. This is also amply supported by secondary sources. Second, the movement is well-known for using inflammatory slogans, both written and spoken, which are know to include crude language on occasion. This too is supported by secondary sources. Lastly, global warming has been a major issue of the political movement for at least the past decade. I don't think that any one photograph can summarize a a political movement, but I think this photograph is representative of the movement's style of public organizing. Another often-cited method involves choral singing, but we don't have available images of public performances. Last time I checked on Flickr there weren't any with free licenses. Whenever we get one that'd be good to add to the article somewhere.   Will Beback  talk  08:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Example farm

An editor added a template suggesting that more descriptive text be added to "Alleged violence and harassment" section.[1] If there's any more specific input it'd be appreciated. Otherwise I'll go back to the sources and see what more can be added to describe the examples that are already included.   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC) :Right, that's the only part of the template that doesn't make sense. The rest of it is clear: excessive examples. I think the recommendation may mean that we should add descriptive text in place of excessive examples, in other words, a summary. See also Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. Horace Wheatley (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that examples are a problem. Many of these are so unusual that it'd be hard to understand what's being discussed without specifics.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the examples take up about 20% of the article, which gives the impression that someone is trying to make a point. For the most part they are not so unusual, and would lend themselves readily to a summary. They are also of very uneven quality -- some are from known individuals, but many are simply "some guy said the LaRouchites were rude and insulting." Those could be trimmed. If they are retained, perhaps the article should be re-named, because as it stands the reader would expect a simple overview of the movement, and this looks more like an attempted indictment. --24.119.91.248 (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Degen ref

• Degen, Wolfgang, "Nur die Legende hat ein langes Leben", Wiesbadener Kurier, 19 April 2007 (German); Google translation.

This appears to be the full reference for the missing Degen ref, from the article Death of Jeremiah Duggan AndroidCat (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I've restored the material and fixed the citation.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Owned?

Begging everyone's pardon, but what the hell is that "This article is OWNED by WillBeback and SlimVirgin" crap at the top of the page, and how did it get there when I don't see any markup for it in the code? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Carson (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hunh, funny; I don't see it. What browser are you using? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've since reverted it. I tracked it down to an innocuously-named template apparently constructed specifically for vandalism. The template itself has also been deleted. Erik Carson (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Duggan

I reverted the deletion of a paragraph on J. Duggan. The discussions on other pages have been exclusively about the inclusion of Duggan material in the Lyndon LaRouche biography. Some people in those discussions, including Jayen466 who'd been leading the issue, have said that the material is appropriate in this article. Therefore deleting it with reference to those discussions is inappropriate.   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I consider inclusion of such an element a transitive relation. →StaniStani  06:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's standard that if people say an issue doesn't belong in one article but does belong in another, that that's a good reason to delete it from the other article. If you have a reason for deleting it from this article, then make it here. I'm especially mystified by the deletion of a citation regarding a separate person's membership in the movement. I don't think anyone has suggested that all sources which concern Duggan need to be deleted from all articles.   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to remove unfounded accusations, you prefer to add them back. I'm moving on, as I don't obsess over LaRouche. →StaniStani  06:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

I'll admit to knowing nothing about this subject. However, there are a number of issues with this article that would not be tolerated on any other.

1. The image File:LaRouche supporters.jpg is inappropriate. How on earth can this neutrally represent an organisation - it seems designed to ridicule. On any other article the lead image would be a logo or some self-identifying image (or none whatsoever).
2. On no other article would we allow a bunch of negative quotations in the lead. The sentence "has also been referred to variously as Marxist, fascist, anti-Semitic, a political cult, a personality cult, and a criminal enterprise" violates WP:WEASEL/ No doubt it has been referred to as all of these, but then so have the Republican and Democratic parties and I could find reliable citations to prove that.
3. "The LaRouche movement is reported to have had close ties to the Ba'ath Party of Iraq" again this violates WEASEL. "is reported to have"? By whom? Is the report significant? Credible? Authoritative?

This is just from a very quick skim read.--Scott Mac 14:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your opinions on a subject you know nothing about. ;)

1. The image is neutral and topical. I don't see how it could be described as "designed to ridicule": it's just two members standing holding their publications. The movement is known for its street organizing and its confrontational slogans. The photo itself was taken by a semi-professional photographer and is more graphically interesting than other photos of the movement, which is why it's in the lead. The movement is not know for using logos or other symbols.
2. Intros can always be improved. This one could do with a compete re-write so as to better summarize the article. I'll start working on it and incorporate your suggestions. The last two paragraph could be moved into a "characterizations" section.
3. Since the material concerns the subject's opposition to the invasion of Iraq, their connections to the ruling party are relevant. The source is an article on an anti-war coalition written by award winning journalist Jason Berry, but it's also reported in other reliable sources. I'll see if I can improve the wording.

There's much more material to add to this article.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a constructive reply. 1) I don't think "graphically interesting" is a reason for incorporating a photograph. If there's no logo then I'd suggest not giving headline prominence to any image might be more neutral. Any image should be "typical" and I doubt that this one is uncontroversially so. 2) I think we're on the same page. 3) Of course a connection to the ruling party could be very relevant, but is there evidence that one exists, or that significant and informed sources are alleging such? Many things are "reported" somewhere, in itself that doesn't mean we should give any weight to the report. If a reliable source is saying it, it might be better so word it explicitly "according to Jason Berry..."--Scott Mac 20:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the photo is non-neutral, but I also don't see a problem with moving it down to a less prominent location. As for the Ba'ath party connection, it's reported by several sources including one scholarly journal and a book by an editors of the New York Times. Judging by the footnotes of the book, the author seems to have used LaRouche publications as his sources for the assertion. Maybe something like, "According to multiple sources..."?   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If LaRouche admit the connection, then that would indeed be the strongest source.--Scott Mac 21:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the footnote is vague and refers to sources which are not accessible. Johnson simply cites "reports in New Solidarity", one of their defunct periodicals. We do have four separate sources for the assertion, and no conflicting reports denying a connection. We could say, "According to multiple sources, including Jason Berry and George Johnson, ..."   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made these changes, attributing the view to "multiple sources, including journalists Jason Berry and George Johnson". I've moved most of the POV material out of the intro and down to a renamed "characterizations" section. The lead still needs to be re-written to reflect the article.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we pick a photo for the lead? Here are the most relevant files in the Commons.

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 3
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6

I think they're all usable, technically. I like #5 the best but I recognize that others don't. #4 also has a strong composition and typical though older signage. #6 is less bold but it still has a nice composition and more recent signage. #1 is used in a couple of other articles already and doesn't show people so it is not the best choice here. #2 is not a great picture due to the minivan which muddies the composition. #3 is a pretty good picture but the exaggerated colors make it less suitable for an encyclopedia article. There are also two pictures of a Swedish group, but it wouldn't make sense to put that in the lead. All in all I guess I'd favor #6. Any other opinions? Are there any free pictures that'd be better? There are some good Flickr pictures of singing members, but the licenses aren't quite right.   Will Beback  talk  08:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Since there was no further input I've added #6 to the intro.   Will Beback  talk  09:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Intro

Per the above comments, the old intro was inadequate and a new one required. I've drafted this, intended as a better summary of the important points of the article with a balanced POV.

The LaRouche movement is an international political and cultural network that promotes Lyndon LaRouche and his ideas. It has included scores of organizations and companies around the world. Their activities include campaigning, private intelligence gathering, and publishing numerous periodicals, pamphlets, books, and online content. It characterizes itself as a Platonist, Whig movement which favors re-industrialization and classical culture, and which opposes what it sees as the genocidal conspiracies of Aristotelian oligarchies such as the British Empire. Outsiders characterize it as a fringe movement and it has been criticized from across the political spectrum.

The movement had its origins in radical student politics of the 1960s, and moved to the far right in the mid-1970s. It became known for its its unusual theories and its confrontational behavior. In the 1970s members allegedly engaged in street violence. In the 1970s and 1980s thousands of candidates, some with only limited knowledge of LaRouche or the movement, ran on the LaRouche platform. None were elected to significant public offices. Its influence declined for several years after the conviction of LaRouche and 25 associates in 1988 on fraud charges related to fund-raising, prosecutions which the movement alleged were politically motivated. The movement was rejuvenated in the 2000s by the creation of a youth cadre, the LaRouche Youth Movement, and by their prominent opposition to the Bush/Cheney administration and the Obama health care reform plan. LaRouche's wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, heads political and cultural groups in Germany. There are also parties in France, Sweden, and other European countries, and branches or affiliates in Australia, Canada, the Philippines, and several Latin American countries.

Estimates of the movement range from five hundred to one thousand members in the United States, spread across more than a dozen cities, and about the same number abroad. Members engage in political organizing, fund-raising, cultural events, research and writing, and internal meetings. It has been categorized as a political cult by some journalists. According to reporters, members believe they are solely responsible for the protection of civilization and some work long hours for little pay to further their mission. The LaRouche movement has been accused of repeatedly harassing public officials, politicians, journalists, ex-members, and critics. The movement has had a number of notable collaborators and members.

It's actually a bite more history than is in the article itself, reflecting material spread across other articles. We should probably add a short history to the "overview" section.   Will Beback  talk  07:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad start. You describe the movement well, and the overall treatment is reasonably NPOV. Suggestions: "It has been have categorized it as a political cult by some journalists." - has a superfluous 'have' and 'it' inside the sentence. Needs a comma after 'pamphlets.' Change "In the 1970s it allegedly engaged in street violence." - to "In the 1970s members allegedly engaged in street violence." Change "They have allegedly harassed public officials, politicians, journalists, ex-members, and private citizens." - to "The LaRouche Movement has been accused of repeatedly harassing public officials, politicians, journalists, ex-members, and critics." →StaniStani  09:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Good corrections.   Will Beback  talk  10:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Posted.   Will Beback  talk  10:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• The statement about "moved to the far right in the mid-1970s" in the lead is a little too definite to be neutral. Some commentators say it's hard to place the movement in left–right terms; others say they never really joined the right, although they did forge some transient alliances of convenience with right-wing groups. And do we have a source for "In the 1970s and 1980s thousands of candidates, some with only limited knowledge of LaRouche or the movement, ran on the LaRouche platform."? --JN466 06:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. The "moving from left to right"-theory is probably POV. I am also at a loss as where the "Thousands of candidates.." sentence originates, I have never seen it before. Waalkes (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to settle this "Moved right" issue. My impression is that the majority of sources say he moved to the right, and only a small number of sources contradict that view. While we shouldn't exclude minority views, we shouldn't give them prominence either. I suggest the only way to settle this is to compile sources and see what the dominant view is. Talk:LaRouche movement/political orientation.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper memes can be deceptive. The expert sources who have spent some time and effort analysing the movement, incl. how it is viewed among actual right-wing groups, agree that matters are a bit more complex. --JN466 08:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Give the dog a rest. Unlike that WP meme, this is a matter which has been reported on and analyzed for over three decades. It's not an imaginary dog.

There are many views from journalists and scholars. While I'm sure most would agree that the subject is complex, It looks like the majority also agree that the person and the movement moved from far left to far right. A few say that they retain elements of both, and a few say they are neither right nor left, and a very few say they are left-wing. There's a clear mainstream view. If you like, we can add a caveat with appropriate weight, like saying that "some writers believe LaRouche retains some leftist ideas". But notice that even those sources which discuss that view also give at least lip service to the mainstream view.   Will Beback  talk  08:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Do we have a source for "In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of candidates, some with only limited knowledge of LaRouche or the movement, ran on the LaRouche platform"? How did LaRouche get these people to run for him if they didn't really know him? --JN466 00:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I too, would like to see a source for the "hundreds of candidates" statement. Also, I would like to see more evidence to support putting a definitive "moved to the right" statement in article. The LaRouche organization, from what I understand, has consistently run on the Democratic party's platform and LaRouche endorsed Barrack Obama John Kerry for president. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In some cases they knocked on the doors of apparently random people and asked them if they'd like to run for office.

As for Cla68's assertion, we don't engage in original research by deciding on our own whether someone is right wing or not, or whether they are prominent contrarians on climate change.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I should add that, while LaRouche has sought the Democratic nomination, he has never run on the Democratic party platform. He directly opposes much of it, including the planks on global warming which he calls a fraud and a hoax. Though he gave a late and tepid endorsement of Kerry (reported almost nowhere) his supporters heckled and insulted Kerry. He has strongly attacked Democratic candidates Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Al Gore and Barack Obama. The officials of the Democratic National Committee reject his membership in the party.   Will Beback  talk  02:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If Jayen466 would like to add a list of groups with which the movement has had alliances, etc, then we can add that to the article and summarize it in the intro. However that shouldn't replace the coverage of the movement's own place on the political spectrum. I'm disappointed that the well-sourced material was simply deleted.   Will Beback  talk  03:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that revert warring is starting to break out here over this content, and I encourage the editor in question to avoid engaging in that type of behavior regarding this article, as it is counterproductive and unnecessarily confrontational. I support Jayen's edit. Will, you didn't include any sources in your response. If you recall, when I was building the Eurasian Land Bridge article, a topic which I believe a couple of regular editors here had labeled as a "figment of LaRouche's imagination", I had found a short article written by Qazwini, Sciacca in the The Virginian-Pilot [2] mentioning a LaRouche movement member participating in a primary debate as a Democratic party candidate (the citation was from a wire service so no page number was available). So, no original research is going on here and I feel that such accusations are unhelpful for the current content discussion. Thus, back to the original question...Will, what are the sources for the "hundreds of candidates" assertion? Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Citations for LaRouche and his movement moving from the far left to the far right are in Talk:LaRouche movement/political orientation. It was inappropriate for Jayen to remove material that he knew was so well sourced. I'm surprised you'd support that kind of editing.

Asserting that LaRouche is not right-wing because he endorsed Kerry would be original research. Maybe I misunderstood the comment.

I don't know what "a short article written by Qazwini, Sciacca in the The Virginian-Pilot [3]" is supposed to say. That link has nothing to do with anyone running on the Democratic platform, and I don't know who "Qazwini, Sciacca" is. Could you give a better citation?

The citations for the hundreds of candidates, some of them unfamiliar with the LaRouche platform, are in the lead.   Will Beback  talk  05:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Cla68 was referring to "RACE FOR 9TH DISTRICT; As races go, Joe would've loved this one" Joe Sciacca. Boston Herald. Boston, Mass.: Sep 10, 2001. pg. 004, which mentions a debate of minor candidates for the Democratic nomination for a congressional seat. The Eurasian Land Bridge is part of the LaRouche platform, not the Democratic Party platform.   Will Beback  talk  05:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche candidates identify with the Democratic party, which doesn't support the assertion of LaRouche "moving to the far right", but does support Jayen's edit. Could you point to where in the article it discusses this "move to the far right"? Also, why didn't you discuss Jayen's edit first before reverting it? I'm fairly confident that Jayen would have been more than willing and able to discuss it. Cla68 (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't Jayen466 discuss his edit, which deleted well-sourced material? The burden is on the person making the edit. He still hasn't come back here to discuss it. Ever heard of WP:BRD? It does not forbid reverting. It does call for discussion. Where's Jayen466? Should I send an engraved invitation to rejoin the discussion?

A) LaRouche candidates seek Democratic Party nominations but they do not run on the Democratic Party platform (your assertion), which is one of the reasons they are disavowed by the party. B) It's not for us to decide whether LaRouche and his movement are left wing or right wing. That'd be original research. If dozens of sources say that X is Y, then we don't get to say that we think X is really Z because we believe so. We report what the best available sources say. In this case, that includes many scholarly and other high quality sources. This isn't Otto Middleton.   Will Beback  talk  09:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, fortunately we do have sources to back that up: far right and African-Americans, African-American Muslims, and and again. Based on those sources, Jayen's edit that you reverted was right on the money. Is Will the only one who objects to readding Jayen's sentence, "The movement had its origins in radical leftist student politics of the 1960s, but sought alliances with a variety of other groups including the far right, American muslims and African American groups from the mid-1970s onwards" using the sources I just linked to? More verbiage can be added to the article using those sources also. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The vast preponderance of sources say that the movement moved to the right. Jayen466 deleted that material without a clear reason. I'm fine for listing the groups that the movement allied with, and adding a summary to the intro, but not with deleting the well-sourced material.   Will Beback  talk  04:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

How about a compromise of, "The movement had its origins in radical leftist student politics of the 1960s, but was accused of moving to the far right at the same time it sought alliances with a variety of other groups including American muslims and African American groups from the mid-1970s onwards." ? Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've created a section for "Alliances with other groups". Editors can fill it in. As for your proposed text, let's not muddy the waters. The movement had its origins in radical student politics of the 1960s, and moved to the far right in the mid-1970s. It has formed short-term alliances with various groups including the Liberty Lobby, the Nation of Islam, and the New Alliance Party.   Will Beback  talk  05:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're unwilling to compromise, then I guess we'll have to go with the consensus, which right now is two editors for, one against. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not willing to compromise on neutrality. But I am willing to add the groups you're insist on. Two against one is not consensus.   Will Beback  talk  05:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sixty-six percent is consensus. This edit isn't "my insistence". I'm saying that I support readding the sentence that Jayen added and you reverted without prior discussion, namely, "The movement had its origins in radical leftist student politics of the 1960s, but sought alliances with a variety of other groups including the far right, American muslims and African American groups from the mid-1970s onwards". Cla68 (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)