Misplaced Pages

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:36, 23 April 2016 editClpo13 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,651 edits RfC: Do selective deletions of material make this article non-neutral?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:11, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,879,760 editsm top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB 
(93 intermediate revisions by 53 users not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
|currentstatus=FFAC |currentstatus=FFAC
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|blp=other|listas=Larouche, Lyndon|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes |1=
{{WikiProject Biography| living=yes {{WikiProject Biography| politician-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Virginia| importance=low}}
| class=B
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}}
| politician-work-group=yes
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes |American-importance=low}}
| listas=Larouche, Lyndon }}
{{WikiProject Virginia| class=B {{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|NH=yes|NH-importance=Low}}
| importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Economics}}
}} }}
{{Annual readership}}
<!-- ((bot-generated}} --> <!-- ((bot-generated}} -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 26 |counter = 26
|algo = old(60d) |algo = old(61d)
|archive = Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive %(counter)d
}}<!--Automatically goes to a new archive page if the archive is over 250 kB, threads with no new comments in the last 60 days get moved to the current archive page. Archiving is done once a day around midnight UTC--> }}<!--Automatically goes to a new archive page if the archive is over 250 kB, threads with no new comments in the last two months get moved to the current archive page. Archiving is done once a day around midnight UTC-->
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months }}


{{Press
{{Online source|year=2004 |section=January 2004
|year=2004
|section=January 2004
|title=LaRouche for president: The campaign that keeps on going |title=LaRouche for president: The campaign that keeps on going
|org=Loudon Times-Mirror |org=Loudon Times-Mirror
|date=January 27, 2004 |date=January 27, 2004
|url=http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=10876575&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506040&rfi=6 |url=http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=10876575&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506040&rfi=6
|year2=2006
}}
{{Online source|year=2006 |section=June 2006 |section2=June 2006
|title=Can History Be Open Source? Misplaced Pages and the Future of the Past |title2=Can History Be Open Source? Misplaced Pages and the Future of the Past
|org=The Journal of American History |org2=The Journal of American History
|date=June 2006 |date2=June 2006
|url=http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html |url2=http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html
|year3=2009
}}
{{Online source|year=2009 |section=Featured |section3=Featured
|title=Sierra Madre Actor Takes a Stand Against LaRouche Propaganda |title3=Sierra Madre Actor Takes a Stand Against LaRouche Propaganda
|org=The Sierra Madre Weekly |org3=The Sierra Madre Weekly
|date= December 1, 2009 |date3= December 1, 2009
|url=http://sierramadreweekly.com/featured/sierra-madre-actor-take-a-stand-against-the-larouche-propaganda-camp/ |url3=http://sierramadreweekly.com/featured/sierra-madre-actor-take-a-stand-against-the-larouche-propaganda-camp/
}} }}
<br clear="all" /> <br clear="all" />
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Lyndon LaRouche}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Lyndon LaRouche}}
<inputbox>

== Untitled ==

bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche
break=yes
width=60
searchbuttonlabel=Search Lyndon LaRouche talk archives
</inputbox>
*] *]
*] *]
Line 74: Line 62:
}} }}
{{LaRouchetalk}} {{LaRouchetalk}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (Mann-Chestnut hearings) ]. <!-- {"title":"Mann-Chestnut hearings","appear":null,"disappear":{"revid":608302989,"parentid":608287400,"timestamp":"2014-05-13T00:32:13Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
}}


== Policies and sources == == Policies and sources ==
Line 96: Line 87:
*, before 1987. *, before 1987.
*, 1987–present. *, 1987–present.
*Mintz, John. , ''The Washington Post'', includes a series on LaRouche. *Mintz, John. , ''The Washington Post'', includes a series on LaRouche
== Spelling error ==

== Christopher Toumey ==

This article seems to rely heavily on commentary by someone named Christopher Toumey. Who is he, and what makes him an authority? The source links seem to be broken -- they all lead to something that says "Toumey 1996", but that's the end of the line. What is "Toumey 1996"? ] (]) 16:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Toumey, a cultural anthropologist, published '''Conjuring Science: Scientific Symbols and Cultural Meanings in American Life''' in 1996, which discusses LaRouche's claims about AIDS and his false assertions of scientific authority (pp. 84-95). ] (]) 01:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

== You've got to be kidding me ==

Ten days ago I tried to initiate a discussion about a source that appears frequently in this article, Christopher Toumey, who seems to have no stature as a commentator. Also, the quotes from him in the article cannot be verified online. It looked to me to be something that fell short of Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing. Ten days have gone by and there has been zero response on this page. Meanwhile, some fellow has repeatedly deleted a huge swath of the article with no discussion at all, including material that is sourced to serious news publications with a circulation in the millions. I thought that the policy was to discuss any major changes in an article. I'm sorry, but Misplaced Pages seems to me to be playpen for people who do whatever they damn well please, with no responsible oversight. How could anyone take it seriously? ] (]) 14:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:At least five experienced generalist editors have reverted this hagiographic content, {{U|Not the original Jack Bruce|}}. There is ''no consensus'' for its inclusion. On the other hand, you show all the signs of being a "throwaway" single purpose account engaged in a slow motion edit war determined to keep this stuff in the article, and not a person who is here for the broad purpose of improving the encyclopedia. This is not another LaRouche controlled publication. Your efforts are unlikely to work here. Sorry. ] ] 07:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|John from Idegon|Not the original Jack Bruce|Cullen328|Dave Dial}}{{ping|Solntsa90|Volunteer Marek|Xcuref1endx}} Editors should assume ]. The problem seems to be whether or not to keep content that was removed in February 2016, the content had been there since at least January 2014. Perhaps it would be helpful for editors either wanting to keep or remove material to expand on theirs reasons why on this talk page rather than in the confines of an edit comment. ] (]) 10:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
:::It is clear to me that this article needs trimming. It is too long. The thing that struck me was that it seems to rely on "indy" commentators who may not be reliable sources. I identified one of these commentators, Christopher Toumey, in a post on this talk page, and waited to see what others would say, because that seemed like the most responsible way to proceed. No one responded. Then an editor came along and without initiating any discussion, deleted a very large segment of the article. I reverted the deleting, making a request for discussion on the talk page, which was ignored. A second editor deleted again, saying (in an edit summary, not on the talk page) that the sources were sketchy. Among these "sketchy" sources were the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, UPI, Xinhua, People's Daily, and Russia Today, all major publications.

:::One of the deleting editors left a message on my talk page in which he advised me to read BRD (he later denied having left that message.) I read BRD. It advises editors to make a "bold" edit (deleting a sizeable part of an article seems to qualify) and then "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version." It also says "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante)." As well, it says "Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion"." None of these policies were followed by the deleting editors. I would be happy to discuss proposed deletions and if reasonable explanations are offered, I won't object. I would also like to get a response to my question about Christopher Toumey. ] (]) 22:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've answered your question in the previous section. This took me less than five minutes of searching on Google. ] (]) 01:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

===Discussion on content removal===

Removal one and edit comment:
* - rmvd unreliable sources

Removal two and edit comment:
* - rmvd completely unsourced section

===Edit war===
{{ping|Nomoskedasticity|Solntsa90|Volunteer Marek}} please discuss the merits of inclusion and omission instead of ]. ] (]) 10:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
:Don't moan at me about edit-warring when I've made only one edit. ] (]) 10:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
:Sorry, I didn't mean to single anyone out in particular. If you check the history you if see their is no consensus for inclusion or omission, and there has been over ten reverts. Why do you think the material should be included or omitted? ] (]) 11:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

== Fully protected... ==


self-defence Correct spelling is: self-defense <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)</small>
I have locked down the article for 3 days; please continue the discussion. ] (]) 17:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


==Living person biography-lock==
== External links modified ==
He's been dead since last year. So why is there still the tag about his being a living person? Are the cultists responsible for keeping that lock there?] (]) 02:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


:Even though I am one of the leading published critics of the LaRouche groups,I am uncomfortable with using the term "cultists" to refer to other Misplaced Pages editors. Can we simply refer to them as "pro-LaRouche editors?" ] (]) 12:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::], good conduct is most important in Misplaced Pages.
::I see no editorial dispute. Anyone can make edits to Misplaced Pages. Everything I see labels him as deceased. What is the issue? ]] 12:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Fair enough. I am alright with Berlet's suggestion.] (]) 18:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
::::Blue Raspberry, the point is: when you put the cursor over the lock symbol it says the article is protected for living persons. As you said, he does not appear to be living, so should we not remove that lock?] (]) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Dogru144}} Sorry, I missed your message a year ago.
:::::{{ping|Lectonar}} ] in 2016. The tooltip on the lock does say that it is in place as a biography of a living person. LaRouche has been in heaven since February 2019, so no longer living. Per the request here, could we try without semi-protection until and unless problems arise? ]] 00:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
::::I plain missed that he died. Anyway, this article's subject was a big topic in Misplaced Pages once, with big problems. Which makes me not very comfortable with complete unprotection. So I will meet you in the middle: I will put it on pending-changes protection, so that everyone can edit it, but there will be a little stopper for vandalism trying to trickle in. The frequency of edits as it is now will not put too much of a strain on pending-changes reviewers. Note: any admin who wants to unprotect completely: go right ahead, no need to ask me. Cheers and happy editing. ] (]) 06:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Lectonar}} Great response, thanks! ]] 20:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


It's locked so the perjorative and non-objective tone STAYS. Stop complaining. He was nuts. Right? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121112145307/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pat-lynch to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pat-lynch


== Lydon LaRouche ==
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).


It is clear that the LaRouche movement and organisation, founded by its name giver, is a political fascist sect. They practice brainwashing. Sometimes they function as suborganisations and thus try to avoid prosecution. Directly or indirectly they are responsible for many destroyed existences, even up to deaths and suicides. A dangerous organisation! Stay away from them and anyone supporting or trivialisinf them. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}


== ] has an ]==
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 21:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 20:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
== Removal of sources ==


== Supreme Court cases? ==
Why were the sources removed? And why were they removed selectively (other material sourced to New York Times, Wall Street Journal etc. were left in the article)? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


This page currently says "At least ten appeals were heard by the United States Court of Appeals, '''and three were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court'''", and the page ] vaguely implies similar things. However, I am having a devil of a time actually finding any LaRouche-based SCOTUS cases or decisions (with the exception of United States v. Kokinda, which is tangential). I am hoping someone can point me to those cases, and we should cite/link to them on this page or the criminal trials page. However, I suspect that none exist, and what this wikipedia article may be trying to say is that appeals were made to the Supreme Court, which denied them; if that's so, then none of the cases were ever '''heard''' by the Supreme Court. That would explain why I can find, eg, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/1989/01/01/sg890463.txt, but no follow up. ] (]) 12:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
==RfC: Do selective deletions of material make this article non-neutral?==
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=1FB7A4C}}
In February, a large amount of material was deleted from ]. The only explanation offered, in one of the edit summaries, was that the sources were "sketchy". Among the sources for the deleted material were the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Corriere della Sera, and Xinhua. Other material sourced to these same publications was retained in the article. The deleted material depicted the subject in a relatively favorable light, while the retained material was unfavorable. Requests for an explanation on the talk page have gone unanswered. Should this article be considered non-neutral and display the "neutrality dispute" message? ] (]) 15:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


:I haven't been able to find any either. I guess the description on the other page ], "three were appealed to the ]," is the more accurate one. ] (]) 15:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=703959707&oldid=703959318
] (]) 16:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''', the article has not been made non-neutral by the removal of text which tried to make LaRouche seem like a respected thought leader in global politics when he is actually a fringe character. It's not the removal in February that made this article non-neutral, it was the much earlier additions of such text. So the removals fixed the problem. ] (]) 00:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::So, just to be clear: in your few, the source, for example New York Times, is not the problem, but rather that the viewpoint was incorrect? So we retain the negative comments from that source, but purge the positive comments? That's an odd approach to neutrality. ] (]) 16:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:::There was one statement sourced to ''The New York Times'' : {{tq|a Mexican official told ''The New York Times'' that LaRouche had arranged the meeting by representing himself as a Democratic Party official.}} That's hardly a positive statement. The problem is that it was included in a larger block of content misrepresenting LaRouche as a major figure in world politics by throwing out a whole bunch of insignificant meetings. See ]. ]<sub>(])</sub> 16:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''', that diff shows a badly needed purge of ]-violating content. ] (]) 08:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:11, 12 November 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lyndon LaRouche article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Former featured article candidateLyndon LaRouche is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
WikiProject iconVirginia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States: New Hampshire Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (assessed as Low-importance).

Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:


Toolbox
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
Arbitration 2006
Arbitration 2005
Arbitration 2004
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Mediation 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Template talk
Categories
This box:
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Policies and sources

Content policies

See WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS:

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ...

"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Sources

LaRouche lived all his adult life in New York (1953–1983) or Virginia (1983–present), which means the two major newspapers of record are The New York Times and The Washington Post. Both have written extensively about him, including several extended investigative and analysis pieces from the 1970s to the 2000s. These articles provide the structure of much of this article—in that we highlight what they highlight. For their archives on LaRouche see below. For the books we use see here.

Spelling error

self-defence Correct spelling is: self-defense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.251.31 (talkcontribs) 03:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Living person biography-lock

He's been dead since last year. So why is there still the tag about his being a living person? Are the cultists responsible for keeping that lock there?Dogru144 (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Even though I am one of the leading published critics of the LaRouche groups,I am uncomfortable with using the term "cultists" to refer to other Misplaced Pages editors. Can we simply refer to them as "pro-LaRouche editors?" Chip.berlet (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
No personal attacks, good conduct is most important in Misplaced Pages.
I see no editorial dispute. Anyone can make edits to Misplaced Pages. Everything I see labels him as deceased. What is the issue? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am alright with Berlet's suggestion.Dogru144 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Blue Raspberry, the point is: when you put the cursor over the lock symbol it says the article is protected for living persons. As you said, he does not appear to be living, so should we not remove that lock?Dogru144 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dogru144: Sorry, I missed your message a year ago.
@Lectonar: You applied semi-protection in 2016. The tooltip on the lock does say that it is in place as a biography of a living person. LaRouche has been in heaven since February 2019, so no longer living. Per the request here, could we try without semi-protection until and unless problems arise? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I plain missed that he died. Anyway, this article's subject was a big topic in Misplaced Pages once, with big problems. Which makes me not very comfortable with complete unprotection. So I will meet you in the middle: I will put it on pending-changes protection, so that everyone can edit it, but there will be a little stopper for vandalism trying to trickle in. The frequency of edits as it is now will not put too much of a strain on pending-changes reviewers. Note: any admin who wants to unprotect completely: go right ahead, no need to ask me. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@Lectonar: Great response, thanks! Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It's locked so the perjorative and non-objective tone STAYS. Stop complaining. He was nuts. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.211.14.248 (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Lydon LaRouche

It is clear that the LaRouche movement and organisation, founded by its name giver, is a political fascist sect. They practice brainwashing. Sometimes they function as suborganisations and thus try to avoid prosecution. Directly or indirectly they are responsible for many destroyed existences, even up to deaths and suicides. A dangerous organisation! Stay away from them and anyone supporting or trivialisinf them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliachay (talkcontribs) 19:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Supreme Court cases?

This page currently says "At least ten appeals were heard by the United States Court of Appeals, and three were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court", and the page LaRouche criminal trials vaguely implies similar things. However, I am having a devil of a time actually finding any LaRouche-based SCOTUS cases or decisions (with the exception of United States v. Kokinda, which is tangential). I am hoping someone can point me to those cases, and we should cite/link to them on this page or the criminal trials page. However, I suspect that none exist, and what this wikipedia article may be trying to say is that appeals were made to the Supreme Court, which denied them; if that's so, then none of the cases were ever heard by the Supreme Court. That would explain why I can find, eg, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/1989/01/01/sg890463.txt, but no follow up. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any either. I guess the description on the other page LaRouche criminal trials, "three were appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court," is the more accurate one. 23impartial (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Categories: