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

• /Archive 1
• Lawsuits and trials
• /Incidents

Lawsuits

Aside from the criminal cases covered in LaRouche conspiracy trials, the movement was involved in a number of other lawsuits. Some were libel cases, some involved the use of government property for solicitations, some were about FOIA requests, etc. As an aid to research, I'm going to start compiling a list of significant cases here. Once it's reasonably complete we can decide how to summarize them for the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• PS: Cases concerning the FEC and ballot access are more relevant to the campaign articles, but for convenience we can compile them here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Moved to Lawsuits and trials. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Some concerns

These LaRouche articles suffer from a sort of urban sprawl. Why is it necessary to have the "Ideological figures" section? I imagine any political theorist would have a similar list of historical figures that he likes and dislikes. But why have such a thing in an encyclopedia? I also wonder about the long list of personnel, researchers, etc. Are all these people notable? Color me Mauve (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is on a sprawling movement, including political parties and publications. Listing the leading members is certainly encyclopedic.   Will Beback  talk  06:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

::What about the historical likes and dislikes? It's almost fancruft. Color me Mauve (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the writings of the LaRouche movement? Have you read any of them or heard members speak? One of the characteristics, identified by commentators, is the focus on the importance of certain individuals throughout history. How many LaRouche movement speeches or articles don't mention one of these people? We could move the material to the "views" article, I suppose. This article s focused on organizations and members, rather than ideology, so that might be a better fit.   Will Beback  talk  17:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck through postings by sock of banned user:Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good day, Mr. Beback. It seems that the article in question in written in a format promoting this movement. An example of this would be the "Historical Greats" v. "Historical Opponents" sections. There are fewer than ten citations between the two lists, and there really isn't any explanation, other than "the founder doesn't like it for x reason". X reason is provided without support; in addition, it seems that this article is becoming overly long, considering that the movement is (to my knowledge) not mainstream in politics in the United States or elsewhere. Because there are few citations, and the "influences" are spurious at best, I will be deleting these two sections wholesale. If you disagree, feel free to revert it (I'm just being bold). Cheers, Murphy2010 (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Being bold is generally a good thing. However I think the deletion was not the best way to proceed. If a lack of sources is the problem the solution is to add more sources. While the movement is not in the mainstream, it is nonetheless notable. As anyone who'd read much of their literature knows, they focus on individuals (good and bad) to an unusual degree. These lists help put their worldview into context. So I suggest that we restore the material and add more sources where they're needed.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you have a point. I'll go ahead and revert it (if you have not already done so). I'm just not sure how a section called "Historical Greats" adds scholarly, encyclopedic material to something like this. The section header is not encyclopedic in tone, and the list format could probably be struck and redone using prose, with cited examples. But anyway, thanks for getting back to me; I've been here awhile (from my contribution history), but I'm still relatively inexperienced with policy. I'll be more conservative about my edits next time. Murphy2010 (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In the previous discussion (with a banned user who was editing surreptitiously) I suggested moving the material to Views of Lyndon LaRouche, the article devoted to the political, economic, and cultural views of LaRouche. IIRC, the information was added here instead because some of the material comes from associates rather than LaRouche himself, but perhaps that's a distinction without a difference. Prose is preferred to lsits in theory, but in practice lists are used frequently. Adding information about why the people are viewed that way could make the list much, much longer. Some editors have added that information already. But it can be hard to summarize the information without straying from the original intent. Certainly the list can and should be better cited. Thanks for your input and involvement.   Will Beback  talk  04:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"populist"

Editor Mrdie made an unsourced addition to the intro, indicating that the subject is "clearly populist." It's not clear to me. A search of LaRouche writings turns up this: "Contemporary populism is typical of that form of mental disease."[1] --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep it in one place. --Mrdie (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"ideological greats/opponents"

Removed this page. It contains unsourced data and nothing of real note. How do we know they're opponents? If you want to revert it back, do so, but there's nothing to suggest these opponents/greats are real. 130.184.44.10 (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll see that there are many sources for the material you've deleted. The movment is well-known for its Manichean approach to the world, and its views of individuals, bith historic and comntemporary. This is has been discussed here before.   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's true, then source it. But you have yet to source anything, so it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.44.10 (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Will, on this talk page you have asserted that "One of the characteristics, identified by commentators, is the focus on the importance of certain individuals throughout history," and that "The movment is well-known for its Manichean approach to the world, and its views of individuals, bith historic and comntemporary." Do you have reputable sources for these assertions? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

External links

Trimmed down EL sect, added {{No more links}}. There are still way too many links in the sect. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Economy

I have always wondered how the LaRouche movement is able to finance its operations. Several publications, companies, parties, two headquarters etc. A week ago I got a nice-looking newspaper, printed in colour, from the European Workers' Party (EAP) - a party which here in Sweden has never got more than ca 350 votes in the national elections. Does anyone have more information on how the movement is able to finance itself? /Marxmax (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that topic doesn't seem to be well covered, at least for the current movement. Back in the 1980s, the movement was prosecuted for various fraudulent fundraising methods, including making unauthorized charges on credit cards of people who subscribed to their magazines, and soliciting large loans with no intent to repay them. See LaRouche criminal trials. There's no indication that they still use any illegal fundraising though. At times the movement has made some money by selling its intelligence reports. Sources do mention the solications on the streets, centered around card tables and conducted mostly by college-aged members. But the overall financial situation is unknown, so far as I'm aware.   Will Beback  talk  17:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Protests and disruption

The movement is well-known for using disruption of public events as a tool for promoting its message. Across decades and multiple organizations, LaRouche followers have beaten, heckled, or sang. The list is long. Many are incidents attributable to specific organizations, recently the WLYM. But since these events are a common thread across the movement it's probably best to treat them in one place, with summaries and links in relevant articles. We can start compiling research at Talk:LaRouche movement/Incidents.   Will Beback  talk  09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:LaRouche movement/Incidents now has over a hundred excerpts of sources that discuss incidents of violence, harassment, or heckling by members of the LaRouche movement. Some instances were quite widely reported, but since the reports were much alike they haven't all been included. If anything is missing please complete the record. This'll soon be the basis for an appropriately weighty section.   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are any missing sources this would be a good time to add them. I'll soon start summarizing the material, so it'd be good to have a complete record.   Will Beback  talk  05:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeremiah Duggan

Shouldn't he at least get a mention at the schiller institute (where he was when he died) section or somesuch? --Narson ~ Talk • 11:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Duggan is already linked but with no explanation. Maybe it'd make more sense to include a sentence under "Europe", where the Schiller I. is mostly discussed.   Will Beback  talk  16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

NIF

Source text:

• The NIF regime spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbyists and sympathizers to promote its image and will use anyone to do its bidding. Lyndon LaRouche and his Schiller Institute aggressively campaign on behalf of the regime. The group sponsors "fact finding" visits to Sudan to show how much "progress" the NIF has made. In September 1996 and February 1997, the institute organized trips for several state legislators. The targets of this campaign largely have been African-Americans; Sudan portrays the strain in relations with the US as a race issue.
  • "End Africa's Longest War" Harry Johnston and Ted Dagne The Christian Science Monitor, May 06, 1997

Wikipedia text:

• The LaRouche movement, and the Schiller Institute in particular, were reported in 1997 to have campaigned aggressively in support of the National Islamic Front government in Sudan. They organized "fact finding" trips to show the "progress" the regime had made, chiefly targeting African Americans.

Is that an accurate summary?   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sort of. I'm not sure what the proper approach should be. The CSM is making an editorial comment through the use of scare quotes and the term "targeting." If we reproduce their language, we should acknowledge this by saying that the Monitor, which editorially opposes the government of Sudan, expressed its skepticism by saying xyz. Alternatively, we could use a neutral and factual formulation like ''The LaRouche movement, and the Schiller Institute in particular, were reported in 1997 to have campaigned aggressively in support of the National Islamic Front government in Sudan. They organized trips to Sudan for state legislators, particularly those of African descent. --Coleacanth (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we know about CSM's views, other than to extrapolate on our own. It's not entirely clear to me whether the trips were organized for African American legislators, or just whether the overall campaign was directed at African Americans. Maybe the would be close like this: "They organized trips to Sudan for state legislators as part of a campaign directed at African Americans."   Will Beback  talk  03:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, we also have a much vaguer source:

• Lyndon LaRouche's organization, ... has cooperated with Islamists in Sudan,...
• Fascism By Walter Laqueur [2]

That at least tells us that the cooperation isn't entirely in the imagination of the CSM.   Will Beback  talk  03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Letters to the Editor are not reliable sources for anything more than the writers' opinions, which are rarely notable. They sometimes point to material that may be in previous editions or other sources, which is useful from a research point of view. These two are interesting because they come from presumably opposite sides. The first is in response to a proposal to build an Islamic Saudi Academy somewhere in Virginia I believe, and the second appears to be in response to general political coverage during the 2000 presidential campaign.

• For those of us who oppose the building of the Saudi school, we have been vilified, demonized and even compared to the Ku Klux Klan by none other than a representative of Lyndon LaRouche. These are the same LaRouchites who support the radical Islamic government of the Sudan, so if the Saudi school wants to associate itself with that organization, all the better for us in proving our point.
  • The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Feb 15, 1998. pg. V.02
• I also find it quite ironic that the media who are the first to criticize nations such as China, Sudan, and Malaysia for human rights abuses and for not supporting so-called democratic reforms( all of which are groundless allegations from the Anglophile/Wall Street circles who control the media ) are also guilty of the same nefarious behavior, especially of its lying about Mr. LaRouche. [..] At present, the Democratic National Committee is desperately trying to keep Mr. LaRouche off the ballot in some states. Again, these are the same hypocrites who are the first to cry foul at nations like China and Sudan for groundless human rights abuses.
  • Daily Herald. Arlington Heights, Ill.: Jan 30, 2000. pg. 17

While we can't use these as sources, they buttress the point that the LaRouche movement, at least during this time period, was supportive of the Islamists in Sudan.   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any question about the movement's support for the government of Sudan. What is at issue is the scare quotes, which don't belong in an encyclopedia article. It's too much of an editorial comment. Also, from the Christian Science Monitor quote it is clear that the fact finding tours were for state legislators. --Harry Angstrom (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is unclear what is meant by "targets," we should avoid speculation. We can directly quote the CSM, or leave it out. I found this which provides the names of the members of one fact-finding delegation, and it looks to me like it's about half and half black and white. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The text is clear enough: "The targets of this campaign largely have been African-Americans..." The paraphrase, "a campaign directed at African Americans", is very close. Since Cole's research show that not all legislators were African Americans, it's not so clear that his suggested language, " particularly those of African descent", is correct (though the African AMerican legislators may have been over-represented in the mission).   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Humor

The LaRouche movement ridiculed actress Jane Fonda on account of her support for environmental causes. Activists raising money for the Fusion Energy Foundation had placards in the 1980s that said "Nuclear plants are built better than Jane Fonda", "Nuke Jane Fonda", and "Feed Jane Fonda to the Whales". In March 2008, following the collapse of Bear Stearns, a LaRouche activist appeared outside their offices costumed as Benito Mussolini with the addition of Mickey Mouse ears on his uniform. He proclaimed himself to be "Benito Mouse-olini," come to hail what he called the return of fascism in the policies of Felix Rohatyn. The following month, a LaRouche Youth activist attended the California State Democratic Convention and performed a satirical impression of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Sources that mention "humor"

Or "joke", "laugh", "laughter", "amuse", "amusement", "funny"

• Amid the tension, the campaign has also produced a good deal of humor, much of it at the expense of Michael Gelber, disciple of radical right-wing candidate Lyndon LaRouche and self-described "particle beam-weapon" candidate. Gelber often brings laughter from crowds when he blames the nation's racial problems on diplomat Averell Harriman, and charges that The Globe is a "mouthpiece of the KGB (the Soviet secret police*.
  • THAT LONG AND GRUELING ROAD... Charles Kenney Globe Staff (Globe Staff members Walter V. Robinson, Ed Quill and Robert L. Turner contributed to this report). Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Aug 21, 1983. pg. 1
• To a casual observer, Mr. LaRouche is a bit of a joke - a quixotic right-winger who supports President Ronald Reagan's defence policy and has an unusual fear of conspiracies and assassination.
  • UNITED STATES Oddball tycoon wins some battles JOHN KING. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Jan 26, 1984. pg. P.8
• (Would you like a sample from the humor column of the LaRouche publication, New Solidarity? Q.: What's the meaning of the gay rights movement? A.: A Nazi faggot dancing the hora.)
  • THE LINKS BETWEEN LaROUCHE AND NEW YORK CORRUPTION; [Op-Ed] 1977., Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York, has served in the Senate since. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Apr 1, 1986. pg. A.31
• "They are a Soviet front," LaRouche maintained in a one-hour telephone interview yesterday. "There are some things I know, but it's probably better not to put them up front at this point." As for the connections of his local opponents to drugs and communists, LaRouche said, "I know a good deal about that . . . We have dossiers on a number of these people." He added, "We get along fine with the normal local citizens." Loudoun County Supervisor Frank Raflo said, "All this would be funny if it wasn't so serious." A scrappy man with red suspenders under his suit coat, Raflo has assumed leadership of the local LaRouche opposition.
  • LAROUCHE EVOKES FEAR IN VA. TOWN WITH THE CANDIDATE CAME GUNS AND HIS BODYGUARDS Rex Springston. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Apr 4, 1986. pg. 1
• Klenetsky knows people laugh at LaRouche's claim that Queen Elizabeth II is involved in the drug trade, but he's quite content to explain it in detail, and wrap Weld up in the same package.
  • LOOKING AT THE WORLD AS LYNDON LAROUCHE SEES IT; HIS ENEMIES LIST AN ECLECTIC MIX; [THIRD Edition] Thomas Oliphant, Globe Staff. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Apr 6, 1986. pg. 24
• The Leesburg Garden Club, according to Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., is a nest of Soviet fellow travelers, and its members are clacking busybodies in this Soviet jellyfish front, sitting here in Leesburg oozing out their funny little propaganda and making nuisances of themselves.At first Leesburg laughed. But if residents laugh now, they look over their shoulders first.
  • SMALL TOWN IN VIRGINIA TENSE HOST TO LaROUCHE MATTHEW L. WALD, Special to the New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Apr 11, 1986. pg. A.14
• Having children is virtually forbidden among the hard-core members. Pregnancy slows down production. Children divert attention and cause a change in values. So members are coerced into having abortions. That's funny in a way because the LaRouchites have been trying to ingratiate themselves with right- to-life organizations by saying they are against abortion.
  • FOR LAROUCHITES, IT'S ALL A HOAX; [SPORTS FINAL, C Edition] Mike Royko. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext). Chicago, Ill.: Apr 14, 1986. pg. 3
• Because what he did was so stupid, Frank doesn't want his real name used. He's afraid that his friends will laugh at him, and he's probably right. Frank is one of the growing number of gullible people who are now admitting that they were fleeced for big money by the LaRouchites.
  • HE'S GOT PRINCIPLE BUT LITTLE INTEREST; [SPORTS FINAL, C Edition] Mike Royko. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext). Chicago, Ill.: Apr 29, 1986. pg. 3
• Lyndon LaRouche is no joke. One theory is that two of his followers won in this spring's Illinois primary because of voter disinterest. According to another view, the outcome reflected popular support for LaRouche's ideas, some of which are so bizarre as to inspire uneasy chortles.
  • Exposing Lyndon LaRouche to public view; [METRO Edition] Minneapolis Star and Tribune. Minneapolis, Minn.: Jun 2, 1986. pg. 08.A
• In last spring's primary, because no one was paying attention, candidates from Lyndon LaRouche's not-so-funny farm of political extremists beat the Democratic organization's candidates for lieutenant governor and secretary of state.
  • Politics Illinois-style: the wimp versus the liar; [FIN Edition] George F. Will. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Jul 17, 1986. pg. A.19
• From all over the country, reports are coming in about elderly people who mistakenly believed they were loaning money because the fast-talking LaRouchites convinced them America was in danger of financial collapse, or drug pushers were taking over the world, or the Russians were coming and the LaRouchites were going to fight them off. It's now clear that for years the LaRouchites have been operating a multi-million dollar con game. What makes it almost funny is that most of the victims were political conservatives who didn't have the faintest idea that their money was being funneled to Lyndon LaRouche, who was once a great admirer of Joe Stalin.
  • LAROUCHITES TEST POSITIVE FOR FLEECE; [SPORTS FINAL, C Edition] Mike Royko. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext). Chicago, Ill.: Jul 25, 1986. pg. 3
• Other issues of New Solidarity published last week attacked the state's Roman Catholic bishops-who strongly oppose Proposition 64-for aligning with "the degraded homosexual culture so pervasive in California" and made a vulgar joke about gays receiving Communion at a Catholic mass in West Hollywood, a city with a high percentage of gay residents.
  • Paper Tied to LaRouche Attacks Gay Movement; [Home Edition] KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 6, 1986. pg. 21]
• Often, the tactic is simply to skewer their foes in LaRouche's many publications. For instance, in 1980 a call went over the group's national teletype for jokes about President Carter and Senator Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that could get the LaRouche presidential campaign some publicity.
  • Raid Stirs Reports of LaRouche's Dark Side; [FINAL Edition] Kevin Roderick, Los Angeles Times. San Francisco Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). San Francisco, Calif.: Oct 14, 1986. pg. 1
• Political extremist Lyndon LaRouche was the subject of seemingly countless jokes recently at a Los Angeles fund-raising dinner organized to help defeat Proposition 64, the LaRouche-sponsored AIDS quarantine measure on tomorrow's ballot. Some people think he may have been the subject of too many jokes. Politicians on both sides of the initiative see a danger in focusing on LaRouche rather than debating the public-health aspects of the proposition. The proposition calls for all people with acquired immune deficiency syndrome to be quarantined and would prohibit all carriers of the AIDS virus, whether or not it is active in them, from holding jobs as food-handlers and from working at or attending schools. Sen. Pete Wilson, R-Calif, an early opponent of the proposition, warned the dinner crowd: "We cannot laugh this man off. He and his henchmen have qualified ... an evil measure (for the ballot)."
  • AIDS initiative talk centers on LaRouche; [1,2,3,4,5,6 Edition] Gerry Braun. The San Diego Union. San Diego, Calif.: Nov 3, 1986. pg. A.3
• In her colorful campaign, [Sheila] Jones has arrived in disguise and revealed her identity midway through debates to which she has not been invited, has marched on media organizations that do not include her name in opinion polls and has held news conferences during which she and her supporters make jokes at the expense of the reporters in attendance.
  • LAROUCHIE DEMANDS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY; [SPORTS FINAL, C Edition] Cheryl Devall. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext). Chicago, Ill.: Feb 16, 1987. pg. 5
• In spring 1985, a LaRouche group deluged Loudoun with leaflets that attacked Ms. Harrison and other foes of its plans to open a sumer youth camp that critics feared would become a paramilitary facility. It wrote: "All of these persons . . . are part of a highly organized nest of Soviet fellow travelers . . . and all have allied themselves knowingly with persons and organizations which are part of the international drug lobby." "My friends burst out laughing from these extreme statements," Ms. Harrison recalled. "I had to say, 'It is funny, isn't it?' But he didn't go to this trouble to be funny. That's what bothered me."
  • LAROUCHE FOES IN LOUDOUN HOPE FOR CONVICTION United Press International. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Oct 12, 1987. pg. B-2
• One needn't deprecate the intelligence or sincerity of these widespread legions in noting a similarity to the early days of Hitlerism. Their number, though probably under 5,000, is perhaps greater than the number of committed Nazis around Hitler at a time his candidates for the Reischtag were still deemed a joke. Their tactics -- the Big Lie, as in the Dukakis rumor, and their readiness for violent confrontation -- are strikingly similar. In Lyndon LaRouche, they have a leader every bit as unprincipled and as muddle- headed as the fuhrer. Indeed, LaRouche has produced his own version of "Mein Kampf" -- a rambling autobiography written in 1978 and oddly entitled "The Power of Reason."
  • LaRouche gang thrives on Big Lie; [1,2,3,4,5 Edition] LIONEL VAN DEERLIN. The Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Aug 9, 1988. pg. B.7

• DEAR MR. ANSWER-IT-ALL: I'm thoroughly depressed by this whole election here in Orange County. The candidates are boring, the issues non-existent. It's so sad. Can you find anything humorous in this fall's campaign? -- MOROSE IN MISSION VIEJO
• DEAR MOROSE: Humor? Are you kidding MR. ANSWER-IT-All? For humor you need look no farther than Orange County's 39th Congressional District where MR. ANSWER-IT-ALL's favorite congressman, "Dynamite" Bill Dannemeyer is running against Don Marquis, a follower of Lyndon LaRouche. In other words, we have a congressman who believes that AIDS is spread by spores running against a man who believes the Queen of England is at the center of the worldwide drug conspiracy. After three or four bottles of the Chateau Neuf de Cote de La Habra Pinot Noir 1988, MR. ANSWER-IT-ALL is sure you'll see the humor too.
  • Answer man gives it to you straight; [EVENING Edition] Bob Emmers:The Register. Orange County Register. Santa Ana, Calif.: Oct 24, 1988. pg. B.01
• For his part, Stretton acknowledged that a major reason he entered the May 15 primary was to deny the Democratic nomination to Hadley. Stretton said in March that "Hadley has expressed a number of views that clearly place him as the man from 'cuckoo-land.' " "Although laughable," Stretton said, "one should also realize that his LaRouchian views are fascist in nature and the LaRouchian philosophy has strong anti-Semitic undertones. There is nothing funny or acceptable about this man's run for Congress and any of his followers."
  • A LAROUCHE CANDIDATE RETURNS Frederick Cusick. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: May 6, 1990. pg. C.4
• And while Virginia's press and political establishment may dismiss [Nancy Spannaus] as the longest of long shots and laugh off her ideas as loopy, they cannot, in good conscience, simply ignore her.
  • AUDIENCE AT GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE WON'T HEAR ALL SIDES; [FINAL Edition] Earl Swift. Virginian - Pilot. Norfolk, Va.: Jul 9, 1993. pg. D.1
• SHEILA JONES, LaRouche Gubernatorial Candidate: When the Democratic Party decided to join in putting in bondage the American people and I'm not talking about losing just jobs, but actually putting, NAFTA is, there are secret accords that place the United States Congress, the United States President under the dictatorship of the International Monetary Fund and GATT. They now need a scapegoat and the scapegoat is the LaRouche movement. However, the population is not amused.
• DEVALL: And neither are the Illinois Democrats who learned the hard way not to laugh at a group they once regarded as a political joke. In Chicago, I'm Cheryl Devall reporting.
  • LYNDON LAROUCHE SUPPORTERS RUNNING AGAIN IN ILLINOIS All Things Considered. Washington, D.C.: Jan 28, 1994. pg. 1
• [Sheila Smith, Democratic candidate for Illinois lieutenant governor] said LaRouche backers have "weird, almost funny ideas," such as a push to colonize Mars and accusations that the Queen of England is a drug trafficker. But "there's nothing funny" about other platforms such as their "conspiracy-driven rhetoric," she added.
  • Koehler asks for investigation of LaHood's campaign finances; [M1,M2 Edition] BERNARD SCHOENBURG STAFF WRITER. State Journal Register. Springfield, Ill.: Feb 11, 1994. pg. 11

• But LaRouche recently finished his prison term. And now they are back. Once again his chattels have managed to get into the Democratic primary for all of the major state offices, and many local spots. And once again, Illinois has a chance to become a national joke. Well, I don't want to again take calls from snickering reporters around the country, asking me to explain our stupidity.
  • THEY'RE BACK AND LOOKING FOR DUPES; [NORTH SPORTS FINAL Edition] Mike Royko.. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext). Chicago, Ill.: Mar 11, 1994. pg. 3
• [the Schiller Institue] also reared its venomous head in November when it chose to mark the 55th anniversay of Kristallnacht (the so-called night of broken glass which gave German Jews intimations of the Holocaust that was to follow) by leafleting homes in Newton because "that's where the Jews are." Sure, it is easy to dismiss these folks as simple lunatics and to laugh at their bizarre allegations. But the spreading of hatred should never be a laughing matter.
  • Op Ed Haters on campus: All for a fee; [03 Edition] Rachelle G. Cohen. Boston Herald. Boston, Mass.: Jun 24, 1994. pg. 027

• Such perverse sentiments have been exacerbated by a series of articles suggesting a new suspect in the Oklahoma bombing last April in which 168 people were killed. According to the latest edition of the New Federalist, a journal that has been dropping on people's front lawns in Washington in the past few days, the bombing was not carried out by the right-wing militias as everyone suspected: it was part of a conspiracy involving Buckingham Palace. According to the journal put out by Lyndon LaRouche in jail for tax fraud the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are behind a European effort to destabilise the Clinton presidency and it is they who have created the climate of distrust and division in America. The one merit of such journals is their occasional ability to amuse.
  • Queen blamed for American unrest;Inside Washington. James Adams. The Times. London (UK): Jul 30, 1995. pg. 1

• Tonight's CBS Evening News and 48 Hours show Oklahoma City bombing suspect Timothy McVeigh talking to his lawyer in Denver on Wednesday. Tonight at 10 ET/PT, Hours and ABC's Turning Point also look at the anniversary of the bombing. But the shows that precede each newsmag -- so-called "lead-ins" that can affect the next show's ratings -- couldn't be more different. Point's is a comedy clip show: Who Makes You Laugh? Hours' is decidedly drier fare: a paid half-hour with Democratic presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche talking about U.S. foreign policy. "It's not exactly what I would have chosen," muses Hours producer Catherine Lasiewicz.
  • NBC spells out format for cable news channel; [FINAL Edition] Peter Johnson. USA TODAY (pre-1997 Fulltext). McLean, Va.: Apr 18, 1996. pg. 03.D
• There's not a Frank Lloyd Wright urn so priceless as the image of David Brennan reportedly phoning Jim Thompson Monday night, and asking him to cut off Tom Donovan at the knees. After all, it's Donovan who put Thompson on the CBOT board. Raw ineptitude hasn't given Big Jim a laugh this big since the Lyndon LaRouche slate derailed Adlai Stevenson's gubernatorial bid in 1986.
  • NOT A KERNEL OF WISDOM IN CBOT COUP BID; [CHICAGOLAND FINAL Edition] David Greising. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Apr 16, 1999. pg. 1
• LYNDON LaRouche's followers had a table set up in Hallidie Plaza on Thursday, and one pamphlet had a picture of our vice president with the headline "The Pure Evil of Al Gore." I had a good laugh, but then I got back to the office and read that Gore had just said, through a spokeswoman, that "localities should have the right to teach creationism." This isn't pure evil, of course. It's pure stupidity, cowardice and pandering in an attempt to get a few votes. But it's coming from a man who claims to be a leader in the field of environmentalism, which is supposed to be related to science.
  • Tree hugger turns Garden hugger; [SECOND Edition] ROB MORSE, EXAMINER COLUMNIST. San Francisco Examiner. San Francisco, Calif.: Aug 27, 1999. pg. A.2
• Don't stare . . .
• OK, there are approximately 2.7 million people in Chicago -- almost as many as in the entire state of Iowa -- so you might see some strange-looking people. This is especially true if you're near the NBC Tower when a Jerry Springer show is taping -- or by the Wrigley Building when one of those Lyndon LaRouche goofs with a loudspeaker is at full volume. Don't gawk, point or laugh out loud -- because then you are inviting attention. Do like regular Chicagoans: Keep walking and look straight ahead with a blank expression (it's amazing how much you can see with peripheral vision).
  • A VISITOR'S GUIDE TO A PLACE WE CALL HOME BE PREPARED TO HAVE A GOOD TIME --BUT WATCH OUT FOR THOSE CARDINAL FANS; [Chicagoland Final Edition] Mike Conklin, Tribune staff writer. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: May 7, 2000. pg. 1
• [Roger] Ham, who also works at Schiller Institute, recalled Ferguson reciting all of Shakespeare's sonnets from memory while the two were campaigning for LaRouche in New Hampshire in 1988. But Ham said Ferguson has a sense of humor that shows itself through witty puns and jokes. Ferguson's wife, Cloret, said her husband once dressed up in a baby diaper and a white wig to mimic Newt Gingrich, who was visiting Massachusetts. "He's pretty courageous," said Cloret, who married Ferguson in January. "I don't know how many men would dress up in a diaper and a white wig and have a baby bottle in the middle of November. He's that kind of person."
  • William Ferguson; [SOUTH* Edition] Karen Eschbacher. The Patriot Ledger. Quincy, Mass.: Aug 23, 2001. pg. 1
• Post-mortem logic: Ferguson's forecasts of global economic collapse draw raised eyebrows from his debate opponents. But a comment he made during a debate in Braintree this week drew some laughs: "What good does it do to have the right to sue an HMO if they've already killed you?" he asked.
  • HEARD in the HALLS; [RUN OF PAPER Edition 2] Linda Shepherd. The Patriot Ledger. Quincy, Mass.: Sep 1, 2001. pg. 12

• In the section "Defying Conventions," Krassner describes how he became the recipient of other people's paranoia. In 1981, knucklehead reactionary (and perpetual presidential hopeful) Lyndon LaRouche published a dossier claiming that Krassner, Burroughs, Bruce and Norman Mailer were recruited by British intelligence's chief brainwashing facility, the Tavistock Institute. Their alleged mission was to deride laws, morality and decency with smut peddled in the name of humor and creative expression.
  • Book Review; A Counterculture Figure Invokes the Spirit of Days Long Gonzo; [HOME EDITION] TONY PEYSER. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Jul 11, 2002. pg. E.2
• LaRouche refuses to go away. Although a minor party might offer a friendlier reception, LaRouche insists on running as a Democrat. He says he is in good health for his age and jokes that there are probably Democrats who wish he weren't.
  • LaRouche; [Final Edition] SHARON THEIMER. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee, Wis.: May 4, 2003. pg. 14.A
• [Howard] Dean appeared loose during the day, cracking dry political jokes about Lyndon LaRouche Jr. with UW-Madison students and chugging a flagon of cream soda at the Sprecher Brewery in Glendale.
  • A disappointed Dean keeps supporters guessing about campaign's future; [Final Edition] GRAEME ZIELINSKI. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee, Wis.: Feb 18, 2004. pg. 13.A

• The downtown Boston Sheraton, where New Mexico Democrats stayed, had a near carnival atmosphere, with delegates, party officials and even protesters from the Lyndon LaRouche campaign milling about and merchants hawking humorous anti-Bush paraphernalia.
  • SECURITY ULTRA-TIGHT AT GOP AFFAIR, STEVE TERRELL, PHOTO: KNIGHT RIDDER TRIBUNE. The Santa Fe New Mexican. Santa Fe, N.M.: Aug 31, 2004. pg. A.1
• The last thing this country needs is a president void of a sense of humor, and Kerry is fast establishing himself as the most inherently dour candidate this side of the notoriously cheerless Lyndon LaRouche.
  • St. Paddy's breakfast could help Kerry lighten up; [All Editions] JOE FITZGERALD. Boston Herald. Boston, Mass.: Mar 17, 2004. pg. 008

Singing staffers praise LaRouche [..] A group of 30 to 40 LaRouche-ites marched through the second level of the Sheraton Boston on Thursday morning as Democrats were scurrying between meetings and caucuses. The LaRouche bunch carried banners for their man, passed out copies of LaRouche's A Real Democratic Platform for Nov. 2004, all while singing a spooky- sounding but moving multiharmony song. One member said the melody was that of a Mozart piece, but the lyrics were written for the cause:

"Dubious is the convention/If LaRouche you fail to mention. As long as you deny as truth/that this economy is doomed/You lie/We die "

The group marched out of the hotel, stopping near the entrance to sing more songs -- including a version of We Shall Overcome with verses insulting John Kerry and Vice President Dick Cheney.

— CONVENTION NOTEBOOK STEVE TERRELL. The Santa Fe New Mexican. Santa Fe, N.M.: Jul 30, 2004. pg. A.7

• It's easy to laugh at him and the whole "beast-man" thing, but maybe we should also keep an eye on him. In today's curious political climate, any damn thing is possible, and the dark Stephen Spender-Richard Mellon Scaife conspiracy may yet prevail.
  • JON CARROLL; [FINAL Edition] Jon Carroll. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Jul 30, 2004. pg. E.24

Discussion

This section used to be well-written and entertaining. Now it's about as engaging as an IRS audit. --Harry Angstrom (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles are not supposed to be entertaining. I removed some unsourced material but we still have two items that only have primary sources and they need upgradiing to secondary sources. And the topic sentence does not appear to be borne out by the material, so it should get a source or be deleted. But so long as you don't delete sourced material, or add unsourced assertions feel free to rewrite it. As indicated above, I'm collecting research on incidents that involve the movement. I'll soon start drafting a summary of it. We could expand this section, perhaps retitling it "Violence, harassment, heckling, and humor", since it all appear to be part of the same continuum.   Will Beback  talk  18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As Maybellyne pointed out,[3] we need sources that call these items humorous. Let's just leave it out for the time being pending such a source. The Fonda material can be folded into the imminent "harassment" section.   Will Beback  talk  06:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Will, as I peruse the policy pages I have learned that it is considered bad form to quote another editor out-of-context to give the impression that he or she holds views they do not hold (Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility.) You added something to the humor section which in my humble opinion was not funny. Since your bias against the LaRouchians is not exactly a state secret, I thought you might be engaging in a bit of Poisoning the well. You insisted that it be kept in the article because it appears in a newspaper article, which I'm sure is nominally correct, but I doubt that the newspaper article in question presented it as humorous (in which case it might belong in the article.) Since you are prone to using sources which are not available on the net, I asked for the text to be posted here. I did not suggest that the other quotes, which in my view are obviously funny because they involve a delicious irony, should be removed pending confirmation from some newspaper that they are actually funny. I would be embarrassed to make such a suggestion, which I fear might be seen as a sign of Anal retentiveness. I hope that any misconceptions about my views have now been cleared up. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem duly noted. I have no bias against LaRouche. I have never made a derogatory comment about him, and all of my edits have been consistent with NPOV. If you like to discuss me then please find another place to do so besides article talk pages.

The way people express bias around here is through the manipulation of sources. They insist upon adding material that is irrelevant and/or from dubious sources, and they resist and delete material that is relevant and from appropriate sources. I believe this is also called "gaming the system." --Maybellyne (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You made perfect sense with your first comment:

• (→Humor: please provide text from source on the talk page, to prove that the source thinks it's funny) [4]

That's all I'm asking for - a source that says these are humor. If we don't have such a source then this is original research. We're giving a lot of weight to incidents reported in few (or no) secondary sources. Is this the appropriate weight for this material?   Will Beback  talk  07:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I searched on "humor" and added all I found the the "sources" section above. Then I broadened the search and added everything from about 1984 through 1986 (there were hundreds of hits, mostly false). From what I see so far, they seem to tend to say either that LaRouche is a joke, or isn't a joke, but not that he or his movement use humor. There is one that refers to humorous materials targeting GW Bush. There are some more jokes or references to jokes we could add.   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that you are looking for just about anything except examples of humor by the LaRouchians. You don't like this section, you've made that sufficiently clear, so what is left but for you to just trash it by adding unfunny and irrelevant stuff? --Maybellyne (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding what I find. Why did you delete the joke? It was clearly labelled as LaRouche movement humor by the source.   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It does look like you are being deliberately disruptive to make a point, and I respectfully request that you cut it out. --Coleacanth (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added the only thing explicitly labeled as humor and it was deleted. Other well-sourced material has been deleted too. I'm not the one being disruptive.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are. Your objective is to say that the LaRouche movement has no sense of humor, by loading the section with things that aren't funny. This is biased editing and violates WP:POINT. If you want to add criticism, which seems to be your strong point, there is a "criticism" section, as has been pointed out. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Take it to a noticeboard if you think that this material is poorly sourced or non-neutral. But please don't just keep deleting the same sourced material over and over. Tha is disruptive.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Leatherstocking cited WP:POINT,, but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with this situaiton:

• If you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Wikipedia, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it – and such behavior may get you blocked.

I don't have any issue with any proposal, practice, or policy. Another editor created a section for humor, and I've added various sourced assertions regarding humor and the LaRouche movement. With no basis in policy my contributions keep getting removed. That is disruptive and if it continues I'll seek remedies.   Will Beback  talk  04:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The section is about the use of humor by the LaRouche movement. You have made clear that you don't find anything the LaRouche movement does to be funny. You argued for deleting the section. Other editors disagreed with you. You then attempted to impose your will on others by adding material that was off-topic, apparently hoping that you could make such a mess of this section that other editors would agree to your original demand to delete the section altogether. The fact that something appeared in a newspaper and mentions the word "LaRouche" and/or "humor" does not automatically make it on topic. But, why am I explaining this to you? I think you can figure it out for yourself. You probably knew it all along, which causes me to wonder whether you are being deliberately annoying to drive away other editors. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

After a dozen or two socks, I don't place any credence in claims about "others" on this page. "Other", singular, perhaps. Anyway, it's only your opinion that some of these are humorous, while you deleted one that has a source directly saying that it was quoted from a LaRouche movment newspaper's humor column. Whether you or I find it funny is besides the point. If you don't like this material then file an inquiry at a noticeboard. It is sourced and neutral, and it's disruptive to remove it.   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You quoted an embittered opponent of the LaRouche movement, Moynihan, making an unverified allegation. None of your edits have been intended to demonstrate the use of humor by the movement; quite the contrary. Other editors suggested that your material ("sourced"? perhaps. "neutral"? Give me a break) should go under "criticism," where it would be appropriate. You rejected these suggestions, because your intent was to disrupt the "humor" section which you wish to see deleted. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we could find a source for "embittered", but "opponent" is probably safe. How's this:

• According to Moynihan, an opponent of the LaRouche movement, New Solidarity once ran a joke that said,...

How's that for attribution? Moynihan isn't condemning them, so it's not criticism. It is humor, which is what this section is about.   Will Beback  talk  06:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you are asking me to believe that Moynihan isn't condemning them? Do you believe this yourself? --Maybellyne (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What does that matter? This section is about humor. This is a joke. There's no legitimate basis for saying that Moynihan made it up. None of the items you've added are labeled as humor by third parties, not even the Jane Fonda placards. So let's add this joke. Is the attribution acceptable?   Will Beback  talk  07:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: I've finished the research. I broadened the search a little more. Included is a joke by LaRouche, a joke by Ferguson, a reference to jokes by Jones, and a lyric that some might find funny but which isn't called humor.   Will Beback  talk  08:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

All of this is a textbook case of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. If you've had your fun and are ready to desist, say so, but if not, the recommended course of action is mediation. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gaming the system? I don't see anything on that page which applies here. Could you please explain?   Will Beback  talk  18:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has presented a reason for the deletions, except that they personally don't find the materials funny. Since humor is not universal, that's not a good standard. One of the items was labeled specifcally as humor, and the other is a frequently cited slogan that is certainly hyperbole, which is one of the forms of humor. So I'm going to restore the sourced material that is presented with a neutral point of view. I'll used the attribution discused above for Moynihan.   Will Beback  talk  17:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policies with bad faith, by finding within their wording apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. In doing this, the gamester separates policies and guidelines from their rightful place as a means of documenting community consensus, and attempts to use them selectively for a personal agenda.

Sometimes gaming the system is used to make a point. Other times, it is used for edit warring, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view. In all of these, gaming the system is an improper use of policy and is forbidden. An appeal to policy which does not further the true intent and principle of the policy is an improper use of that policy.

That is a very precise description of Will's behavior. How do we apply for mediation? --Coleacanth (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)