Talk:National Caucus of Labor Committees

:::::::As I understand it, "notable" is the standard WP terminology for deserving your own article. For this article, I was trying to use common sense -- leading members would be either officers of the organization (in which case I wouldn't use just NC members, there are too many of those,) or editors of publications, authors of books (which is recognition of an important research contribution) or heads of organizations (Paul Gallagher was head of FEF.) --Niels Gade (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC);[reply]

How many members of the NC are there? I've only seen the names of a few. Is there a list somewhere? Is there a list of officers? If we're going to include the head of the FEF we need to establish the connection between it and the NCLC. ·:·

:::::::::According to your Heritage Foundation source, the FEF is an NCLC front. --Niels Gade (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC);[reply]

Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the connection between being a leader of a political organization and publishing a book. Regarding the Frankhouse membership, it's asserted in the "membership" section above, in which a journalist says "All the individual defendants are members of the NCLC..." At the time Frankhouse was among those defendants. Anyway, it's a moot point if we go with the conventional Wikipedia definition of "notability", which would not include Frankhouse, Phau, Roth, Spannaus, et al. because they do not have WP articles written about them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PH, I don't understand your edit[48] - why did you restore Phau, Gallagher, and Kronberg, but not Greenberg, Park, or Steinberg? What criteria are you using? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::::I took out Phau, and I provided reasons for the ones I left in. Also, if you read the article "United States v. LaRouche," you will see that Frankhouser was not tried with the NCLC defendants. He was tried in a different trial. --Polly Hedra (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC);[reply]

What criteria are you using for determing notability? Your own judgment? If so that's not objective. How does writing a book make one notable, and is everyone who's ever written a book notable? What're our source for Chaitkin or Salisbury ever having been members? You appear to have removed sourced entries and added unsourced entries.

Further, we should really include the current officers of this organization in the list of members. Presumably there's a chairman or president, a secretary, a treasurer, etc. If we can track down the bsic information on this organization we should include those obvious entries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::One of Berlet's entries refers to "NCLC mayoral candidate Tony Chaitkin." --Terrawatt (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC);[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "Cberlet entries" - can you provide referencs for the meberships Salisbury, Chaitkin, et al? Can you explain what criteria is being used to include and exclude known members? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::::Cberlet added this: "One incident took place April 23, 1973 at a debate featuring Labor Committee mayoral candidate Tony Chaitkin.<"Look at This: Communist Party Needs 'Trotskyist' Goons!," New Solidarity, Vol. IV, No. 4, April 30-May 4, 1973 (Published Weekly by the National Caucus of Labor Committees), pp. 1, 4-5.> And no, I can't explain the criteria. Other people seem to be doing that. --Terrawatt (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC);[reply]

I suppose we can make the logical inference that a "candidate" is also a "member" without violating WP:OR. As for the list, you did appear to be contributing to its entries.[49] I don't care too much what criteria we apply so long as it is neutral and verifiable. WP-style "notability" is well-defined and convenient, but we can use other criteria if they meets the requirements. Also, we still need sources for some people being "former" members. Does the NCLC make announcements about these things? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::::::I think that both Tarpley and Molly Kronberg have made public statements to the affect that they are no longer affiliated. In the case of MK, making a statement on Chip Berlet's web page leaves little room for doubt. --Niels Gade (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC);[reply]

So you consider MK's statements on Chip Berlet's webpage to be a reliable source? Also, how can we find the officers of the organization? The names of members of the NC? Further, we should describe what type of legal entity the NCLC is - is it incorporated, or a 501(c)3, or a PAC, etc? Do you know? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this article was an incoherent mess. I re-wrote it, providing sources, eliminating some unsourced info and trivia. I also took the material out of "criticism" and put it into the history section, along with balancing accounts from LaRouche. --Polly Hedra (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC);[reply]

I reverted your edit because it did too much at once without any prior discussion. You remoevd a lot of sourced, relevant material. Please discuss here the individual changes you'd like to make. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::You didn't raise of peep of complaint when Cberlet did his "grand re-write" on December 18. If all major changes should be discussed before implementation, we should go back to this version until everything has been discussed. But I think PD's version looks like an actual article and not just Chip Berlet's scrapbook, so I vote for the PD version. --Terrawatt (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC);[reply]

As far as I can tell, Cberlet didn't delete anything. I'm gogint to restore the sourced material, since no specific objections to the reliability of the sourcess has been raised here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user: Niels Gade has proposed that the criteria for "leading members" should be: "leading members would be either officers of the organization (in which case I wouldn't use just NC members, there are too many of those,) or editors of publications, authors of books (which is recognition of an important research contribution) or heads of organizations (Paul Gallagher was head of FEF.) " Let's compile a list of folks who have been published by LaRouche-related publishers and see if that makes sense. People published by more than one entity are only listed once.

National Caucus of Labor Committees [50]

• Jim Rumley
• Noam Chomsky
• Steve Fraser
• Tony Pappert

New Benjamin Franklin House [51]

• Anton Chaitkin
• Carol Schitzner White
• Christopher White
• David Goldman
• Friedrich August Heydte
• Helga Zepp-LaRouche
• Hulan E. Jack
• Jeffrey Steinberg
• Konstandinos Kalimtgis
• Nancy B. Spannaus
• Nora Hamerman
• Robert Dreyfuss
• Thierry LeMarc

Executive Intelligence Review [52][53]

• Aglaja Beyes-Corleis
• Allen Douglas
• Allen Douglas
• Anno Hellenbroich
• Barbara Spahn
• Barbara Spahn
• Carol Cleary
• Criton Zoakos
• Dean Andromidas
• Dennis Small
• Fernando Quijano
• Gretchen Small
• Gretchen Small
• H Graham Lowry
• H. Graham Lowry
• Hector Apolinar
• John Grauerholz
• John Grauerholz
• Jonathan Tennenbaum
• Joseph Brewda
• Judith Wyer
• Judith Wyer
• Kathy Burdman
• Konstantin George
• Linda Everett
• Lothar Komp
• Luba George
• Luis Vásquez M
• Mark Burdman
• Mary Burdman
• Michael Billington
• Michael Liebig
• Mohamed Alí Seineldín
• Molly Hammett Kronberg
• Nancy Coker
• Richard Cohen
• Rogelio Maduro
• Sara Madueño
• Sara Madueño
• Sergei Glazyev
• Stanislav M. Menshikov
• Stanley Ezrol
• Stanley Ezrol
• Steven J Bardwell
• Thierry Lalevee
• Vin Berg
• W. Allen Salisbury
• Warren J. Hamerman
• Webster Tarpley
• William Engdahl
• Yára Nogueira Müller

"Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations"[54]

• Edward Spannaus

"Campaigner Publications"[55][56]

• Gabriele Dannenberg
• Hans Bandmann
• Jacques Cheminade
• Richard Sober
• Scott Thompson
• Stefanie Pauls
• Wolfgang Lillge
• Wolfgang Lillge

"Schiller Institute"[57][58]

• Paul Gallagher
• Amelia Boynton Robinson
• William F. Wertz
• Michael J Minnicino

"LaRouche PAC"[59]

• Debra Freeman
• Jessica Tremblay

This seems like a very long list and doesn't even include all of the officers, publication editors, or heads of subsidiaries. Nor can we really be sure that everyone here is a member. I propose that we don't include those members whose only claim to being "leading" is the publication by a NCLC-affilated publisher. I suggest again that we either use the conventional WP standard of notability, or that we include those who have been reported to be members (listed above under #Membership). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::I'm quite sure that Noam Chomsky is not an NCLC member, because LaRouche has written articles very critical of him. Hulan Jack was a close supporter of the movement, but I doubt that he was an NCLC member. I think that a good measure of being a "leading member" would be authorship of books or editors of publications, since they are fewer and arguably more significant than people who just had articles published in periodicals. Jeff Steinberg might be an exception because he is a high-profile spokesman for LaRouche. I think Nancy Spannaus qualifies because she was editor of New Solidarity and New Federalist, and also edited a volume of source documents on the economic theorists of the American Revolution. Carol White and Robert Dreyfus also authored books, but both have left the organization. You might want a separate category for former members. You have a lot of Europeans on your list, who technically would be members of ICLC but not NCLC. --Niels Gade (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC);[reply]

This is a list of people who have authored books published by LaRouche-affiliated publishers (though a few article writers may have gotten in by mistake). Obviously, all of these people are not "leading members" so that isn't a useful criterion. LaRouche has been critical of former members, so criticism alone isn't evidence of non-membership. I'd be happy to list or mark former members, but that has to be verifiable. This article covers the ICLC too, but we could have separate lists if we can verify the info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::::Not all the publications on your list are actually books -- some are EIR reprints, etc. Also, EIR publishes books by people who are not NCLC members. So, if you narrow it down to actual books, written by actual NCLC members, it should be more manageable. --Niels Gade (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC);[reply]

OK, so how do we determine which ones are NCLC members? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::::::Well, for starters, you can cross-check your list of those who have published, or headed organizations, with your list of NCLC members here, plus Tony Chaitkin which Terrawatt documents above. I would also propose (others may disagree) that anyone who is identified as an "advisor" or "spokesman" for LaRouche in a LaRouche publication should be assumed to be an ICLC member -- I found this cite which identifies Jonathan Tennenbaum as such. --Niels Gade (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC);[reply]

We can do that. I think we should add those who were convicted on of crimes committed on behalf of the organization. They seem to have been pciked for prosecution due to their leading roles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::Niels suggested that you include "anyone who is identified as an "advisor" or "spokesman" for LaRouche in a LaRouche publication" and instead, you have used Dennis King as a source. He is far too biased, and is likely to use the term "advisor" or "spokesman" to describe people that he wants to use for guilt by association purposes. Also, your comment that leading members may have been picked for prosecution is plausible, but also original research, so unless you have a source (which the prosecution would never provide) you should forget that one. --Terrawatt (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC);[reply]

Unless you have a source saying that "leading members" of the NCLC are those who've had books published then maybe we should omit that criteria as well. Maybe folks who aren't identified as leading members in sources shouldn't be included. That would keep the list quite short. As for sources, reliable sources are relaible sources - we can't just limit it to LaRouche publications. Many newspaper and magazine articles have identified people as being spokesmen, advisors, and subsidiary heads, and there's no good reason to exclude those sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no further discussion or objections, I'll proceed to compile a list of advisors, spokesman, directors, NC members, indicted members, and reported members who've had a book published by a LaRouche publisher whcih we can use as the list of "leading members". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::::If you have a bonafide reliable source that says so-and-so is a leading personality in the NCLC, fine. But the list you have above contains too much conjecture. --Terrawatt (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

It's mostly based on what Niels Gade suggested. If you wnt to adopt a standard that requires specific sources calling people "leading members" then probably none of the current entries would belong. Since even the pro-LaRouche editors can't agree, I'm going to remove the list of "leading members" until we can all agree on objective, verifiable criteria. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::::::Let me clarify. I don't have a real problem with your list at Talk:National Caucus of Labor Committees#Leading members? except that it includes a few persons who are notable supporters, not members. I do have a problem with your list at Talk:National Caucus of Labor Committees#Membership. Also, as I said above, your claim that those who were prosecuted are automatically "leading members" is OR and self-serving to your POV. --Terrawatt (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

What is your criteria for inclusion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the present list is fine -- it probably ought to include Nancy Spannaus as editor of the various papers, and Jeff Steinberg as head of counterintelligence. I could go either way on those. I suggest that, rather than get all worked up about some formula for inclusion or exclusion, we use standard editorial judgment. If someone feels that a name has been included without proper documentation, bring it up for discussion. If someone feels that a name has been unjustly excluded, bring it up for discussion. We don't need a humongous list -- it begins to look like stalking rather than an encyclopedia article. --Niels Gade (talk) 06:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

No, we need to have an onjective, verifiable criteria, not just a decision among a couple of you as to which names you'll allow. Unless we can decide on such a criteria we should either delete the list or use the usual WP standard of notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a source that actually identifies two leading members:

• Thus leading NCLC members who had readily supported Mop Up, such as [Christine] Berl and [NCLC security chief Jose] Torres, challenged LaRouche's credibility during the spring of 1974.[60]

So we can have two properly-sourced entries. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

:::::"Properly sourced"? From Dennis King's self-published web site? --Polly Hedra (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

From his book, which most of us agree is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::"Most of us"? Maybe a poll is in order. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

I was including you due to your statement, "I have no problem with using King and Berlet as a source when they are cited by legitimate publications, because those publications may be expected to excercise some discretion about which of their theories are suitable for responsible publication." The King bio was published by a major publiser, and widely reviewed in mainstream media. What reason is there to call that book unreliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::::Extreme bias, wild conspiracy theories, transparent propaganda techniques. Those are the main reasons. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

According to whom? The book meets the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. Are you saying that Doubleday is a purveyor of propoganda? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in terms of accuracy you yourself confirmed that these people were members. I don't know what your source is, but it confirms the reliability of the King book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::::::No, it confirms the reliability of one, non-controversial claim in the King book. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

So, as I said before, we have at least two properly-sourced entries. I'm curious to know what source Niels Gade is using for members. Is there a list or does he know the names of all past and present members by heart? If there is a list it'd obviously be very helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue here is simple and fundamental to Wikipedia's iron clad rule of Verifiability:

  The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.[emphasis from page]

  If there is no reliable source for a member they must be stricken even if true. Again, from WP:V:

  The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

  If an editor added these members, they must provide reliable sources which is defined as:

  A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

  Published works are best. And again:

  Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.

  Be sure your source provides such structures. And more:

  In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

  More:

  Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

  ∴ Therefore | talk 08:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it simple: once we have established that the person is an NCLC member, a "leading member" is one who has

Fine with me. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

• That's an arbitrary set of criteria. Ther's no source that says that the leading members are those who have published books. Furthermore, there's no available list of members of the NCLC, and very few sources that connect the NCLC to any of the alleged subsidiaries or publications, including EIR, the Schiller Institute, etc, so until we have lists of "organizations founded by the NCLC" and of "publications published by the NCLC" those criteria are impossible to fulfill. In the absence of a workable, objective, and verifiable criteria of our own creation I strongly suggest that we simply use the generic Wikipedia standard for notability, which is the existence of a Wikipedia biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:*The criteria do not appear arbitrary to me, and you do have a partial list of NCLC members, culled from your googling. Those criteria are a reasonable basis for shortening the list to those about whom the article has something of interest to say. It appears to me that you are making an unnecessary fuss about this. Eventually those people that appear on the list in the article now may have articles about them, as some already have, but I think you are putting the cart before the horse and I don't see why. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

• • What sources do we have that indentify the Schiller Institute or the EIR subsidiaries of the NCLC? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

***The Heritage Foundation article[61], which I believe you have cited in your edits, refers to them all as interchangeable parts of the "LaRouche network." If you believe that this is all too ambiguous, I would suggest that you nominate this article for deletion and redirect to LaRouche movement. I would probably support it. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

I assume you're referring to this passge:

• Because the LaRouche network contains such a large and ever-changing list of political organizations, publications, and business enterprises, it is useful to categorize the network's elements into three groups: publications and publishing enter- prises, political groups, and businesses. A list of current and former elements of the network includes:
• Political Groups
• The National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) The International Caucus of Labor Committees (ICLC) The National Democratic Policy Committee The Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF) The Lafayette Academy for the Arts and Sciences The Humanist Academy The LaRouche Campaign (TLC) The U.S. Labor Party (dormant) The National Anti-Drug Coalition The Club of Life The Revolutionary Youth Movement The National Unemployed and Welfare Rights Organization (NUWRO) The International Workingman's Association (IWA) The Labor Organizer's Defense Fund The Committee for a Fair Election (CFE) (dormant)
• Publications and Publishing Enteprises
• New Solidarity (a newspaper) New Solidarity International Press Service (NSIPS) Fusion Magazine International Journal of Fusion Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) Investigative Leads (an EIR spin-off) War on Drugs The Young Scientist The New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Company Campaigner Magazine Campaigner publications American Labor Beacon (reported to be currently in the hands of dissident members of the network) NSIPS Speakers Bureau
• Business Enterprises
• Computron Technologies (now bankrupt) Compittype (a financial printing firm) WoXld Composition Services* PMR Printing Company, Inc.

If this article were titled the "LaRouche network", or even the "LaRouche movement" then this source would be good for showing that these organizations belong to those broad concepts. But this article is about the NCLC, and that passage simply says that the NCLC is one of many parts of the LaRouche network, not that it is the head and these other groups are all subsidiaries. If there's a reference that speaks of "the NCLC's EIR news service" or says that the "FEF is a front group for the NCLC" then we can use that. Please provide the sources before assuming that Computron was owned by the NCLC. As for this article, there are sufficient sources that do talk about the NCLC to establish its notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::OK, I changed my proposal to get us out of this conundrum. --Terrawatt (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

So where do we find this list of "cothinker, LaRouche-affiliated organizations"? Why would peeople who've had books publised by a "cothinker, LaRouche-affiliated organizations" necessarily be leading members of the NCLC? Do you have a source for that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::Will, I think you could answer that question yourself. First of all, list appears at LaRouche movement and is corroborated by the Heritage Foundation article. Secondly, you don't need a source that says people who have had books published by "cothinker, LaRouche-affiliated organizations" would be leading members of the NCLC -- you just cross-reference the list of authors with the list of NCLC members, and look for matches. All of this fuss is beginning to look like WP:POINT. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

We can't use Wikipedia as a source. The Heritage Foundation article doesn't indicate the relationship between the NCLC and these other groups. It simply says that they are all part of the LaRouche network and that the NCLC is the core of the network. If we can verify that some entities are subsidiaries, then the heads of those subsidiaries could be listed as such. I still don't see any reason to assume that having a book published makes one a leading member. I suggested that the leading members were indicted, to which Terrawatt replied "If you have a bonafide reliable source that says so-and-so is a leading personality in the NCLC, fine." and "Also, as I said above, your claim that those who were prosecuted are automatically 'leading members' is OR and self-serving to your POV." Likewise, the claim that authors are automatically 'leading members' is OR and "self-serving to your POV". Unless we have a source calling certain folks or categories of folks "leading members" then we should revert back to the generic "notable members" system used in the rest of Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unreasonable to list Kronberg and Tarpley as "former members." If you follow the link to Webster Tarpley, it is stated clearly in that article that he broke with LaRouche. In the case of Molly Kronberg, it is not OR but rather simply obvious that one does not make the kind of statements that she made in her interview with Berlet if one intends to stay in the organization. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

• Provide a source and I won't object. Lots of folks criticize organizations to which they belong, so mere criticism is not evidence of leaving a group. As for Tarpley, what's our source showing he was ever a member of the NCLC? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Your recent nominees from the Dennis King book were at one time members, but all resigned years ago -- Christine Berl, Torres (I think the first name is incorrect,) Warren Hamerman. I have no idea where you could find a cite for this. It seems silly to include people who left years ago due to a fundamentalist reading of Wiki-policy. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

Wikipedia is cultish about this stuff. Here is another highly instructive cartoon. --Leon Pringle (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NG, it's hard enough to find citations for people being members, and it's apparenlty just about imposible to find sources for people being former members. So long as we don't try to list some folks as "current members' then we don't need to spend too much time worrying about current status. This is no different from the issues we face in other types of articles. For articles about settlements we don't worry if everyone in the list of "notable residents" is still a resident. Having once been a resident is sufficient. Likewise in articles about colleges we don't worry about whether "notable faculty" are still carrying a full load, or even are still alive. Should we find sources that say a person dropped their membership in the NCLC then we can also include that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::I removed Torres and Berl for several reasons -- because I don't trust Dennis King as a source (too biased, and certainly capable of designating someone as "leading" for his own reasons,) but also because I understood the criteria to be that the persons had published, been editors of publications, or headed affiliated organizations. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

That was proposed, but we never agreed upon it. Torres and Berl are the only people who are called "leading members" in a reliable source. If the source we have for them isn't good enough then how do we justify adding unsourced entries? Since this is so contentious, and since there's no acceptable standard, I suggest we only include those people who are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and who are sourced as being members. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some unsourced members I've moved from the article.

• Anton Chaitkin, author of Treason in America (a history of political opposition to the ideals of the American Revolution,) and co-author of The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush, which claimed to expose the ties of Prescott Bush and Averell Harriman with the Nazi Party of Germany. Chaitkin's father was Jacob Chaitkin, who was the legal cousel and strategist for the boycott against Nazi Germany carried on by the American Jewish Congress in the 1930s.[62]^[1]
• Webster Tarpley, co-author of The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush.

While it's clear that these folks have been followers of or spokesman for LaRouche, it's not clear that they were ever members of the NCLC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Chaitkin has been called a "candidate" of the NCLC, but we don't have a source for him as a "member". The USLP is identified as a subsidiary of the NCLC, and the NDPC could be too. How about extending NCLC member to "candidates for statewide or federal office running on the NCLC, USLP, or NDPC tickets." If we include candidates of those groups then we can add Tarpley, Nancy Spannaus, Janice Hart, and some other notables. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::I think that this is all very tendentious. It is downright absurd to assert that Chaitkin would be a candidate without being a member. And putting in people like Berl and Torres, who were minor figures who quit in the '70s, is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia the butt of jokes on "The Simpsons." --Niels Gade (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

We have a source, one that you confirmed from your own personal (and extensive) knowledge of the LaRouche movement, saying that Berl and Torres were leading members of the NCLC. This article has a list of "leading members", the rest of whom have no source calling them "leading members". Yet you insist on including those unsourced entries while excluding the sourced entries. That appears more tendentious than anything. So, returning to the question above, shall we assume that candidates of the USLP and NDPC were members of the NCLC? If not why not? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've sorted it alphabetically. While there may be former members on the list unless we have a source we shouldn't differentiate possibly current members from possibly former members. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone has a source that denies Berl and Torres were "leading members" I think we should restore the names to the list. Niels claims, without any evidence whatsoever, that they were "minor members". We can't write this article based on one editor's recollections. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who calls Carol White "Schnitzer"? I have never seen her referred to in that way. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

Check Google. ["Carol Schnitzer" larouche]. For that matter, check ["Carol Larrabee" larouche]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::It looks like your favorite authors, Chip Berlet and Dennis King, use that name. However, on the books and articles she authored, her name is given as Carol White. It appears that your use of her maiden name is intended as a form of harassment, so I am reverting it. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

You are making the error of assuming bad faith and I don't appreciate it. I got that name from the WorldCat library archive which I cite above as the source. Here it is again.[63] I don't care what she's called. The shorter name is used on other books so that's fine too though less unique. I believe there are sources for the name changes, judging by the Google searches. Is she on the list of current members? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has found a source that disputes the source that says Torres and Berl were leading members of the NCLC I'm going to restore them to the list. If anyone can find sources for the other entries on that list that'd be even better. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::Have you established that they edited publications, authored books, or led LaRouche-affiliated organizations? --Terrawatt (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

No, I've established that they have been called "leading members". Have you established that any of the people now on the list have been called "leading members"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::::Will, please desist from these semantic games. It's an editorial decision, not a question of whether you can google the words "leading member." The criteria that Terrawatt mentions seem reasonable to me, and I'm certainly not going to accept the formulation, without any basis given, of a critic as fanatical as Dennis King. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

It's hardly a "semantic game" to suppose that a list of leading member should include people called "leading members" in a reliable source. If the list isn't made up of people called "leading members" then it should be retitled to make its criteria explicit: "Members who have authored a book, edited a publication, or led a LaRouche-affiliated organization". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::::::::This is silly. Making judgments like this is the job of editors. Otherwise, Wikipedia could be edited by a computer that was programmed to search the web for keywords. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

I removed three people who didn't appear to meet the criteria. The list looks pretty complete except for one glaring omission: Nancy Spannaus, editor of New Solidarity and New Federalist. She was also co-editor of Political Economy of the American Revolution, which was a compilation of source documents, so she and White would not be considered "authors." --Niels Gade (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

Can you please explain in more detail why you deleted three sourced enties, each of whom was the leader of a LaRouche-affiliated organization? Are you saying that businesses aren't organizations, or that businesses haven't been an important part of funding the movement? And what about PANIC, which collected hundreds of thousands of signatures and enormous press coverage, leading some to call it the LaRouche movement's greatest electoral success? If the plan is to only allow non-profit organizations then we're going to have to establish which organizations have which tax status. Once again this appears to be an arbitrary list of whoever a few Wikipedia editors think should be on the list, rather than an objective list of people who meet rational critieria. Will Beback NS (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And is it incorrect that M. Kronberg was editor of the new Federalist? Will Beback NS (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::I remember Spannaus as the main editor, but if you have a source that says, Kronberg was Managing Editor or something like that, go ahead, restore it. The entry for Kronberg that was deleted didn't say anything about her being an editor. As far as local organizations or businesses are concerned, I am in favor of a more restrictive approach so that the list doesn't get overly long. I thought you were in favor of that approach also, since earlier you wanted only those persons with Wikipedia articles. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

Another editor wrote in another article that Kronberg was the NF editor. I asked for a cite, but never got one. I'll go delete that assertion. As for the standards, I was proposing usung Wikipedia's standard for notability, rather than the arbitrary manner this list is being compiled. I'm not aware of many other businesses or local organizations, so excesive length shouldn't be a problem. The Caucus Distributors was clearly a major part of the LaRouche movement and a principle funder of the NCLC. If we exclude the president of it, P. Rubinstein, then this list will be a joke. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::Do you have a source that says that the Caucus Distributors funds the NCLC? Or that the NCLC actually has a budget to be funded? All we have is that it is a philosophical organization. We don't have any source that says it carries out activities that would require funding. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

If the NCLC doesn't publish books and distribute boks and magazines then why are we including authors and editors? If they do publish and distribute then money is involved. Also the NCLC has run candidates in elections, another activity that involves money. Training security teams in paramilitary tacts requires money. While we do have an unsourced statement calling the NCLC a "philosphical association" we don't any any source for the exact legal nature of the NCLC - is it a non-profit or a corporation, or what? We should find that out to include in the article. While the concept that it's just a "philosphical association" is one of the viewpoints that we can include, it's not the only viewpoint. As for sources, we can cover that below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to have become a target for vandals, which is odd because I would think that it's a somewhat obscure topic. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's related to a vandal I blocked, and has nothing to do with this article per se. Sorry for the trouble. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A

• During the 2000 presidential campaign, the LaRouche Committee received $1,448,389 in federal matching funds. The Committee spent the bulk of these funds for advertising and fund-raising services by seven vendors that LaRouche and several of his political associates created in the mid-1980's to provide and distribute material advocating LaRouche's political, philosophical, and scientific views. LaRouche was the vendors' sole client. Some of these vendors had provided services to LaRouche's 1988, 1992, and 1996 presidential campaigns...The seven vendors were American System Publications, Inc., Eastern States Distributors, Inc., EIR News Services, Inc., Hamilton Systems Distributors, Inc., Mid-West Circulation Corp., Southeast Literature Sales, Inc., and Southwest Literature Distributors, Inc.
  • LaRouche Com New vs. FEC, US.FEDERAL.ca12
  • Federal Circuits, D.C. Circuit (March 03, 2006)
  • Docket number: 04-1311
  • Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/20189710

B

• Another means by which the LaRouche network establishes links to business is through the operation of commercial firms that specialize in printing services and computer software. ...Included among the firms linked to LaRouche are Computron Technologies Inc., The New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Company, World Composition Services, and PMR Printing Company. ...Because the LaRouche network contains such a large and ever-changing list of political organizations, publications, and business enterprises, it is useful to categorize the network's elements into three groups: publications and publishing enterprises, political groups, and businesses. A list of current and former elements of the network includes:...Business Enterprises: Computron Technologies (now bankrupt), Computype (a financial printing firm), World Composition Services, PMR Printing Company, Inc....Another means by which the LaRouche network establishes links to business is through the operation of commercial firms that specialize in printing services and computer software. ...Included among the firms linked to LaRouche are Computron Technologies Inc., The New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Company, World Composition Services, and PMR Printing Company.
  • Institutional Analysis #28 "The Larouche Network" by Copulos, Milton R., Heritage Foundation [64]

C

• ... Mr. LaRouche and the National Caucus of Labor Committees, his central organization. Also charged are the LaRouche Campaign, Independent Democrats for LaRouche, Caucus Distributors Inc. and Campaigner Publications Inc.
  • "Trial for LaRouche and 7 Starting Tomorrow" AP. New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Sep 20, 1987. pg. A.27

D

• Promissory notes that an elderly widow received in exchange for $40,000 in loans to organizations that raised money for Lyndon LaRouche were unlicensed securities, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled. The decision, to be filed today, affirms a ruling by state Commerce Commissioner Michael Hatch. He had ordered the organizations to stop offering or selling unfiled promissory notes or debt instruments without obtaining an opinion letter from the Department of Commerce. The woman, identified only as "MM," gave money to Caucus Distributors, Campaigner Publications Inc. and Independent Democrats for LaRouche in 1984 and 1985.
  • "Elderly woman's promissory notes for loans were securities, court rules;" Margaret Zack, Staff Writer. Star Tribune. Minneapolis, Minn.: Apr 5, 1988. pg. 03.B

E

• A federal judge declared a mistrial Wednesday in the fraud and conspiracy trial of political extremist Lyndon LaRouche, six aides and five LaRouche organizations after complaints from jurors that the case was taking too much time....The four organizations charged with fraud are the LaRouche Campaign, Independent Democrats for LaRouche, Caucus Distributors Inc. and Campaigner Publications Inc.
  • "JUDGE CALLS LAROUCHE MISTRIAL;" Associated Press. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: May 5, 1988. pg. 8

F

• The incorporation papers of Caucus Distributors, Inc.—the most successful of LaRouche’s telephone fund-raising entities—affirm outright that its purpose is to promote the "political ideas and beliefs" of the National Caucus of Labor Committees.
  • King, Dennis (1989) Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, Doubleday [65]

G

• [The prosecution] said Caucus Distributors Inc. and Campaigner Publications Inc., which raise money, publish and distribute material for the LaRouche organization, also have not filed tax returns.
  • "LAROUCHE, FOLLOWERS ACCUSED OF TAX EVASION AND CREDIT FRAUD" William M. Welch. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Jan 29, 1987. pg. 16

I

• 'Prosecutors say more criminal charges are expected against the LaRouche network of companies and groups, which they say are really operated jointly under the auspices of the National Caucus of Labor Committees-the political group LaRouche convened in the late 1960s. A national executive committee oversees policy, according to members. In a 1981 memo to National Caucus of Labor Committees members, LaRouche disclosed how the small New York group had grown into a large money-making international organization. He said it required income of $225,000 a week in gross sales to keep its programs going-or $11.7 million a year... The grand jury in Boston heard testimony that a single account of Campaigner Publications Inc., which publishes some of the LaRouche literature sold in airports, handled $4.5 million in a four-month period of 1984. And the empire includes a dozen such companies and committees...Much of what comes in stays in. The organization's own companies typeset, print and distribute all the literature, with a staff of about 250 in Leesburg....On the Proposition 64 campaign, much of the $200,000 spent to gather signatures was sent to California by a New York unit, Caucus Distributors Inc., and was largely paid in salary to local LaRouche candidates....The grand jury said, after a two-year investigation, that unauthorized charges were made to the credit cards of about 1,000 people who bought New Solidarity and other LaRouche publications, such as Executive Intelligence Review and Fusion magazine.
  • "Authorities See Pattern of Threats, Plots Dark Side of LaRouche Empire Surfaces" KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 14, 1986. p. 1

J

• 'An FBI affidavit, filed in 1985 in connection with a Massachusetts federal grand jury probe of the LaRouche network's finances, states that just one of three Manhattan bank accounts of Campaigner Publications, a LaRouche propaganda arm, handled total credits of more than $4.5 million in a four-month period in 1984, maintaining an average balance of $95,000. This account was one of dozens maintained at that time by NCLC-controlled businesses, political fronts and regional offices across the country and in various foreign countries...LaRouche entities are closely interlocked, often sharing office space, telephone switchboards and staff, and all headed by top NCLC members. Flow charts and financial reports of the NCLC show the cash going into one kitty. Mr. LaRouche, using intelligence-community jargon, has referred to business spinoffs as conducting "proprietary" activities. A former LaRouche follower, Eric Lerner, stated in a 1979 affidavit filed in a commercial dispute with LaRouche loyalists that he had been pressured by NCLC leaders to "funnel" profits from an engineering business to the U.S. Labor Party (an electoral arm of the NCLC) in violation of election laws. "It is the policy of the USLP to use corporations as fronts for the USLP and as channels for funding of USLP," Mr. Lerner charged, citing the case of Computron, a software firm once associated with Mr. LaRouche.
  • "The Empire of Lyndon LaRouche". Dennis King and Patricia Lynch. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: May 27, 1986. pg. 1

K

• [NBC] asks LaRouche to admit that those expenses are paid by some 20 organizations linked to him, including his presidential campaign committees, which have received nearly $1 million in federal matching money during two elections, his National Caucus of Labor Committees and his various magazines and other organizations. Some of them, including Caucus Distributors Inc., are among the LaRouche- related entities under investigation for alleged credit card fraud by a federal grand jury in Boston, according to government prosecutors.
  • "NBC MOVES AGAINST LAROUCHE" William M. Welch. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: May 27, 1986. pg. 9

L

• Another arm of the LaRouche empire, Caucus Distributors Inc., supplied most of the $215,000 spent to gather signatures for the AIDS initiative.
  • "Medical Experts Assail Initiative on AIDS Officials Dismiss Claims Made by Supporters of LaRouche-Backed Prop. 64;" ROBERT STEINBROOK, KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 3, 1986. pg. 3

M

• The corporations named in the indictment were Campaigner Publications Inc. and Caucus Distributors Inc., which were described as fund-raising entities controlled by Mr. LaRouche....The three campaign committees indicted were the LaRouche Campaign, Independent Democrats for LaRouche and the National Caucus of Labor Committees.
  • "U.S. CHARGES AIDES TO LaROUCHE WITH CREDIT-CARD FRAUD SCHEME" PHILIP SHENON, Special to the New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Oct 7, 1986. pg. A.1

N

• Prosecutors say more criminal charges are expected against the LaRouche network of companies and groups. Prosecutors say they are really operated jointly under the auspices of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, the political group LaRouche convened in the late 1960s. A national executive committee oversees policy, according to members....The organization's own companies typeset, print and distribute all the literature, with a staff of about 250 in Leesburg. On the Proposition 64 campaign, much of the $200,000 spent to gather signatures was sent to California by a New York unit, Caucus Distributors Inc., and was largely paid in salary to local LaRouche candidates.
  • "Raid Stirs Reports of LaRouche's Dark Side" Kevin Roderick, Los Angeles Times. San Francisco Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). San Francisco, Calif.: Oct 14, 1986. p. 1

O

• The National Caucus of Labor Committees, LaRouche's central political organization, is charged with conspiring to obstruct justice. All the individual defendants are members of the NCLC, which the government says set strict, daily money-raising quotas for LaRouche followers throughout the country. The LaRouche Campaign, the political extremist's campaign organization up until Walter Mondale won the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination, is charged with 51 counts of wire fraud for allegedly receiving donations charged to credit-card accounts without authorization. Independent Democrats For LaRouche, his 1984 campaign organization from the time Mondale got the nomination until the general election, is charged with 59 counts of wire fraud. Caucus Distributors Inc., a New York-based organization which operated under the NCLC to support LaRouche money-raisers, allegedly was involved in all 116 wire fraud counts. Caucus also is charged with one count of mail fraud for allegedly soliciting a campaign loan with no intention of repaying it, one count of conspiring to obstruct the investigation and one count of contempt of court. Campaigner Publications Inc., an organization which raised money and distributed literature for LaRouche and his campaigns, is charged with four counts of wire fraud for allegedly accepting money raised through unauthorized credit-card charges, three counts of mail fraud for allegedly soliciting loans with no intention of repaying them.
  • "FOLLOWING LAROUCHE LEADS TO FAR SIDE OF EXTREMISM -- PARANOIA RUNNING RAMPANT AS KEY FIGURES GO ON TRIAL" JOHN MINTZ. Seattle Times. Seattle, Wash.: Sep 23, 1987. pg. B.6

P

• With financial help from his wife's family, Kronberg created World Composition Services (WorldComp), a typesetting company that he operated out of LaRouche's offices. At the time, WorldComp was a cutting-edge venture, the first company of its kind to use computer typesetting in New York. Kronberg came to control PMR as well, which printed most of the group's pamphlets, books, and newspapers...In one case, bankruptcy proceedings revealed that Computron, a well-respected software company owned and managed by high-ranking cadres, was spending $5,000 to $10,000 a week to cover 20 percent of the organization's budget...In 1978, she had helped to open the New Benjamin Franklin Publishing House in order to serve as the publisher of Dope Inc., a massive project that famously named the Queen of England as the head of the international drug trade. It was first serialized in Executive Intelligence Review and later published as a book...
  • "Publish and Perish" Avi Klein. The Washington Monthly. Washington: Nov 2007. Vol. 39, Iss. 11; pg. 21, 7 pgs

There are businesses that were created to "provide and distribute material advocating LaRouche's political, philosophical, and scientific views", and whose "sole client" is LaRouche. Businesses have been included, along with publishing houses and political groups, as "elements" of the LaRouche movement. Business organizations were tried alongside LaRouche and other NCLC members. Some of the firms have even been repeatedly descrobed as "organizations". Businesses are at least as important to the movement as books and magazines. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::So what is your point? None of these cites mention the NCLC. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

My point is that business enterprises are an integral part of the LaRouche network. There's no reason to put non-profit groups like FEF on a different basis than for-profit groups like the Caucus Distributors. Also, I've added more cites that connect the NCLC to the various companies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor removed several books, with the comment that they were EIR special reports.[66] A) Are EIR special reports not books? The ones I included are over 100 pages long. B) What's our source for their being EIR special reports? The WorldCat site lists them as books. Is there a list somewhere of EIR reprints and books? Unless someone has a reliable counter-source I think they should be reinstated. Will Beback NS (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:They are soft-bound, magazine sized publications, and there are hundreds of them. If you want to list all the authors, this article will become very long. I couldn't find a comprehensive web listing, but this link should give you an idea: [67] --Niels Gade (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

I don't see the deleted items - again, what's our source for those titles not being books? Will Beback NS (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption is that anything over 100 pages long is a book:

• AIDS global showdown : mankind's total victory or total defeat : featuring Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.'s plan for victory - 192 pages [68]
• An Emergency war plan to fight AIDS and other pandemics - 138 pages [69]
• Project Democrary : the parallel government behind the Iran-Contra affair - 341 pages [70]
• Global showdown : the Russian imperial war plan for 1988 - 366 pages [71]

So we need a source that shows that a 366 page publication called a "book" by a neutral, reliable sources is not, in fact, a book.

Also, Dope Inc was first published in EIR in serial form, so it too is an EIR reprint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is complicated. Many EIR Special Reports were published in glossy magazine stock wraps, newsprint innards, 8 1/2 x 11, formats. Some were softcover perfect-bound, 8 1/2 x 11, paperbacks with white paper. The former is usually classified as a report, the latter can be classified as a report of book, often depending on the length. But absent any other published source on this obscure publishing history, I think Will Beback's suggestion of including authors of anything over 100 pages is a suitable compromise, at least until PRA publishes a bibliography of LaRouchite books and reports.--Cberlet (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::Typically a book is written by one author or a small group of authors. The EIR reports were written by large teams, probably everybody on the EIR staff that was researching the topic. It would actually make more sense to me to have an article on EIR -- it is an influential publication, and probably more notable than the NCLC. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

EIR is full of deranged garbage and conspiracist lunacy, and it is primarily distributes by fawning sychophants of the LaRouchite cult. The last thing we need here is another LaRouchite cult entry.--Cberlet (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::::Of course, people can, and do, make similar comments about your organization, PRA. So rather than using talk pages for soapboxing, it would be better to try to participate usefully in discussion of the article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

Getting back to the topic at hand, do we have any source for these publications not being books? Also, since Dope Inc and George Bush, The Unauthorized Biography were both serialized in magazines first, the distinction between reprints and books appears indistinct. If users are concerned that this list will grow too long, rather than keep changing the criteria I suggest we use the standard Wikipedia criterion for inclusion in s list of notables: the existence of a Wikipedia article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no one can find a source to the contrary, I'm going to assume that things called "books" are books and restore the deleted material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we don't have any sources saying that the leading members of the NCLC are those who've published books, we do have sources that say the NEC is the most important body in the organization. Some call it the "governing" body" or the "highest" authority. It seems that the members of the NEC are the leading members of the NCLC so we shold include NEC members in our list. However I'm having trouble finding a list of the NCLC NEC. Is the membership secret? Or have I just looked in the wrong places? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative list, drawn from a variety of sources some of which aren't necessarily reliable. This isn't intended as a final list, just a start.

• Allen Salisbury [72][73]
• Christine [74]
• Gerry Rose [75]
• Warren, Gerry, Webster, Mel, Will, D.Small [76]
• Fernando Quijano [77]
• Tony Chaitkin [78]
• Nancy Spannaus [79]
• Jeff, Tony, Nancy, Ed (at the time), Will, Gerry, Dennis. [80]
• Kenneth Dalto [81]
• Warren J. Hamerman [82]
• Tony Papert [83]

The best source would be a LaRouche site. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::With all due respect, these sources reek. I suggest that you just consider the present version of the article an acceptable compromise, and move on. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC);[reply]

I said the sources aren't great, that they were just used to start compiling the list. What's a better source for the NEC membership? They are the leading members of the NCLC, aren't they? We have multiple (very good) sources that say so. Most organizations have a list of their senior officers, advisory groups, etc. By comparison, the CEC lists its NEC. Is the NCLC NEC membership secret? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further some of the sources seem adequate. [84] and [85] appear reliable. As I said before the best source would be a LaRouche site, but the organization doesn't post the names of its leadership then we have to rely on other sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I click this link, I get a message saying that it is unavailable. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC);[reply]

You're right - it uses a dynamic link from a search rather than a hard link to the specific document. You can find the document by searching from this page.[86] If I can't figure out a way to make a direct link I'll move it to a "further reading" section and add a notation on how to access it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should think that the FOIA document should suffice. However, Dennis King also claims the NCLC was a COINTELPRO target. [87] --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]

There are several books about COINTELPRO, and none of them mention the NCLC. That program ended in 1971, and this allegation concerns 1973. The matter covered in the King book, which I certainly agree is a reliable sources, is about Tony Papert, who isn't even mentioned in this article. The criteria for inclusion in the category is that entries should be "confirmed targets". Let's keep looking for confirmation, and in the meantime we should leave off the category.   Will Beback  talk  17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::Hey, guess what! Dennis King says the Tony Papert was a founding member of the NCLC.[88] Is that "confirmed" enough for you? --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]

When Tony Papert gets an article then we can add it to the category.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::::Don't be silly. Papert was targeted for his role in the NCLC, which is clear from the source. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]

The trouble with using Google Book's snippet view is that you only see snippets. In the broader context, it appears that the King is referring to the SDS Labor Committee, not the National Caucus of Labor Committees. It's pretty well known that the SDS was a target of COINTELPRO, as confirmed by reliable 3rd-party sources.[89]   Will Beback  talk  06:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::::::It is well known that the NCLC is a continuation of the SDS Labor Committee. That, combined with the FOIA document (which in and of itself is solid proof,) establishes that the category is appropriate. The fact that you have a book, as yet unnamed, which omits this is no reason to delete the category. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]

"It is well known that the NCLC is a continuation of the SDS Labor Committee." What circles do you travel in that this is well known? We don't even mention this "fact" in the article, just like we don't mention Papert. Regarding the letter, it is here strictly for decorative purposes. It's not a usable source.   Will Beback  talk  17:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::::It may not be in this article, but it is in Lyndon LaRouche. It's also in the Heritage Foundation report on LaRouche, which is cited in this article.[90]. And why exactly is it that the FOIA document is not a source? The government doesn't willing divulge information about its covert operations, and FOIA is typically the only way to get that information. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]

Please re-read WP:PSTS. If we started using primary source files for Wikipedia articles, such as this one, then we'd be in serious violation. The FBI?FOIA letter never even mention "COINTELPRO". As for SDS Labor Committee and Tony Papert, they aren't mentioned in this article. If they are really important parts of this topic then we should start by adding them. For the record, are you saying that you think Dennis King's book is a reliable source?   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::::::Generally, I would agree with your assessment of King's book at the mediation cabal page, that it's "reliable for facts, but his interpretations are not neutral." By "not neutral," I would mean "given to heavy-handed propaganda and far-fetched conspiracy theories." You have asked me before for a blanket endorsement of King as a source, and as always, I refer to WP:REDFLAG -- it depends entirely on how exceptional the claim is. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]

Since we both agree that King's book is a reliable source for facts, I've gone ahead and added material from it. I've made a general rewrite of the origins of the NCLC and other history material. Some of the sources conflict or at least don't agree, so it may have to be much longer if we want to fully reflect all views. Regarding COINTELPRO, as a compromise I've created Tony Papert as a redirect to this page, and added the "targets" category to it. Since he appears to be an important member, I've added his name to the list of "selected members".   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should National Caucus of Labor Committees be removed from Category:COINTELPRO targets? Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC) ;[reply]

See previous discussion. We have solid sources that demonstrate that the NCLC was originally called the "SDS Labor Committee,"[91] and that the Labor Committee was a target of COINTELPRO.[92] There is no reason to believe that the FBI discontinued COINTELPRO activity against the NCLC, and good reason to believe that it did not, in the form of this photostat of a document obtained by FOIA lawsuit. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]

We have a source that says Tony Papert was a target. Papert is in the category. The FBI letter is on an entirely different matter, and came two years after the end of the COINTELPRO program. Further, it's a primary source. There is ample scholarship on COINTELPRO and none of it seems to mention the NCLC.   Will Beback  talk  16:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::Are you arguing that Papert was a target because of some aspect of his personal life, and not due to his leading role in the Labor Committee? That's hardly plausible. And would you be so kind as to name the "scholarship" to which you have so often referred? --Leatherstocking (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying there's no 3rd-party source that confirms the NCLC was a target of COINTELPRO. If you want to see the books written on the topic then "COINTELPRO" has a list. I checked a couple and could not find any mention of the NCLC or LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postings by socks of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback  talk  02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Caucus of Labor Committees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216113652/http://www.etext.org/Politics/LaRouche/larouche.program.03 to http://www.etext.org/Politics/LaRouche/larouche.program.03
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516195203/http://www.larouchepub.com/tv/tlc_programs_1991-1995.html to http://www.larouchepub.com/tv/tlc_programs_1991-1995.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]