Talk:Lyndon LaRouche


 * Talk page archives
 * Talk page index
 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Australian media coverage
 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/works
 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research

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."

Spelling error
self-defence Correct spelling is:  self-defense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.251.31 (talk • contribs) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.
 * I see no editorial dispute. Anyone can make edits to Wikipedia. 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)
 * Sorry, I missed your message a year ago.
 * 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Great response, thanks!  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:26, 2 July 2021 (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 (talk • contribs) 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 Wikipedia (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)