| Revision as of 06:08, 9 September 2004 editHerschelkrustofsky (talk | contribs)2,877 edits →May I play the devil's advocate?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:11, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,827,237 editsm →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
*] |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
*] |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
*] |
|
|
|
{{Article history|action1=FAC |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|action1date=23:21, 22 December 2005 |
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Lyndon LaRouche/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=not promoted |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=32386777 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|blp=other|listas=Larouche, Lyndon|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography| politician-work-group=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Virginia| importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes |American-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|NH=yes|NH-importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
<!-- ((bot-generated}} --> |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 26 |
|
|
|algo = old(61d) |
|
|
|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 two months get moved to the current archive page. Archiving is done once a day around midnight UTC--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Press |
|
*] of wild fabrications and propagandistic slurs in the present version. |
|
|
|
|year=2004 |
|
|
|section=January 2004 |
|
|
|title=LaRouche for president: The campaign that keeps on going |
|
|
|org=Loudon Times-Mirror |
|
|
|date=January 27, 2004 |
|
|
|url=http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=10876575&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506040&rfi=6 |
|
|
|year2=2006 |
|
|
|section2=June 2006 |
|
|
|title2=Can History Be Open Source? Misplaced Pages and the Future of the Past |
|
|
|org2=The Journal of American History |
|
|
|date2=June 2006 |
|
|
|url2=http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html |
|
|
|year3=2009 |
|
|
|section3=Featured |
|
|
|title3=Sierra Madre Actor Takes a Stand Against LaRouche Propaganda |
|
|
|org3=The Sierra Madre Weekly |
|
|
|date3= December 1, 2009 |
|
|
|url3=http://sierramadreweekly.com/featured/sierra-madre-actor-take-a-stand-against-the-larouche-propaganda-camp/ |
|
|
}} |
|
|
<br clear="all" /> |
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Lyndon LaRouche}} |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive index |
|
|
|mask1=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive <#> |
|
|
|mask2=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive<#> |
|
|
|mask3=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Australian media coverage |
|
|
|mask4=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/works |
|
|
|mask5=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research |
|
|
|leading_zeros=no |indexhere=no |template= |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{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 == |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Content policies=== |
|
|
See ] and ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"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 ... |
|
==Irresponsible edit warriors== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"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— |
|
I am trying to clear up some of the material on the Herschel Krustofsky list. People who revert these edits should have the courtesy of participating in the discussion on the list. ] 14:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
# it is not unduly self-serving; |
|
|
# it does not involve claims about third parties; |
|
|
# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; |
|
|
# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; |
|
|
# the article is not based primarily on such sources." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Sources=== |
|
You are trying to smuggle various LaRouchite fantasies back into the article. These will of course be reverted. ] 14:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
LaRouche lived all his adult life in New York (1953–1983) or Virginia (1983–present), which means the two major ] 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 ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*, before 1981. |
|
Your accusation is impolite and wrong. I didn't insert anything; I took out material which is obvious POV, and which you did not defend in the talk pages. ] 19:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*, 1981–present. |
|
|
*, before 1987. |
|
|
*, 1987–present. |
|
|
*Mintz, John. , ''The Washington Post'', includes a series on LaRouche |
|
|
== Spelling error == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
self-defence Correct spelling is: self-defense <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
Attn. ] and ]: this article is listed under category ]. It is poor Wikiquette to revert numerous edits, which have been thoroughly discussed on the talk pages, without participating in the discussion. --] 20:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Living person biography-lock== |
|
==Anonymous Sources== |
|
|
|
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) |
|
After the big fuss made about quoting Ramsey Clark, I think that the allegations from anonymous sources should be removed. Imagine if Herschel or myself tried to put in a pro-LaRouche quote from an anonymous source! An anonymous source cannot be put under the same sort of scrutiny that Ramsey Clark was. It looks like someone is trying to make sure that Fred Newman doesn't come under that sort of scrutiny. |
|
|
|
::], 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">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
Also, accusations that come from Dennis King should be identified as coming from him, and not simply presented as fact. As far as no one discreditting Dennis King, what is there to discredit? He was a guy scratching our a living as "Caspar the friendly ghost writer", selling term papers to college students. Then he was paid by a bunch of rich right-wingers to write an attack on LaRouche, which was circulated to a tiny group of die-hard LaRouche-haters, and then it wound up in the discount bins at K-Mart. Then Dennis vanished back into obscurity. ] 19:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lydon LaRouche == |
|
:It looks like someone is trying to make sure that Fred Newman doesn't come under that sort of scrutiny. |
|
|
Does it really? What I wrote was: |
|
|
:Ironically, Newman has been accused of similar psychological abuse and of copying LaRouche's methods in his own group, the International Workers Party. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
Please explain how this statement "make(s) sure that Fred Newman doesn't come under that sort of scrutiny"?] 20:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] has an ]== |
|
:That's not what you originally wrote. And anyway, it's wrong. Who on earth has accused Newman of "copying LaRouche's methods"? ] 20:25, 19 Aug 2004 (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) |
|
That is what I wrote prior to your comment above. As for who would accuse Newman of copying LaRouche - quite a number of people: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Supreme Court cases? == |
|
:Newman often bragged about how much he learned from LaRouche, and, as noted below, the reported organizational operations of LaRouche’s group are frighteningly similar to those of Newman’s group. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
:Like LaRouche’s National Caucus of Labor Committees, Newman runs a very tightly con-trolled organization. Like LaRouche, Newman has created numerous organizations (most only paper) with divergent names; some to attract particular individuals, some solely to make money, many with names so similar to true left organizations that unknowing individuals are often fooled (e.g., Rainbow Alliance and Rain-bow Lobby, which have no connection to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition; the Unemployed and Welfare Council, which attacked the Na-tional Welfare Rights Organization, etc.). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
(Newman then went on to form the IWP and to apply his own brand of totalitarian psychotherapy to lure and maintain cadre as slave labor, while mimicking LaRouche’s use of transient front groups, as well as his clever habit of accumulating millions of dollars in federal matching funds through pretentious presidential campaigns.) |
|
|
|
|
|
: the fact that the IWP's fascination (and rivalry) with Lyndon LaRouche (aka Lyn Marcus) clearly remained intact a full two years after their brief 1973 alliance is indicative of a lingering obsession. As you will note, the paper even quotes LaRouche with occasional reverence. (For LaRouche's early theories, see LaRouche's Beyond Psychoanalysis, "The Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party," and "The Case of Ludwig Feuerbach." See also Washington Post and Political Research Associates.) This article also reveals how the IWP's political tactics eerily shadowed that of the NCLC (in fact, the IWP's venture in to electoral politics may have been motivated by LaRouche's 1975 presidential campaign). Finally, I somehow suspect that Newman has not yet matured beyond the fixation with "power and authority" as outlined herein. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] 21:36, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Dennis King== |
|
|
|
|
|
Attention Weed Harper: We have already been through this argument several times with Herschelkrustofsky. King's book is the only published biography of LaRouche. Until someone writes a better one (and god knows why anyone would bother), he is the best source. His book was published by a reputable publisher. Until such time as he is ''shown'' to be an unreliable source, we are entitled to cite him. I remind you that Herschelkrustofsky asserted that King had forged his citation of the article in which LaRouche said that only 1.5 million Jews died during World War II. I located the LaRouche article proving that King was right and Herschelkrustofsky was wrong. So spare us further histrionics on this subject. ] 23:47, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
What Herschel asserted was that King provided no quote. Don't put words in his mouth. And King could be Mother Theresa as far as I am concerned, his opinions and theories should still be attributed to him. Opinions and theories are not the same as verifiable research. I think this article would be better if some of the opinions and theories were trimmed. ] 20:22, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
The article is now so long that sadly it is necessary to split it in two. I think splitting it along biographical / ideological lines is a good way to do it, but I am open to other suggestions. ] 00:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:By eliminating large segments of your own theories and gratuitous attacks, you could make the article quite manageable. --] 13:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
We could have an article called ] that deals specifically with the legal case. ] 01:29, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==POV Sources== |
|
|
|
|
|
Just because someone has their own web page doesn't make them a source worthy of inclusion in a Misplaced Pages article. I can see why you fellows kept them anonymous for so long. Weed is correct in making the point that if Ramsey Clark's opinion requires a lengthy disclaimer -- after all, he was only Attorney General and a recognized authority on the misuse of the criminal justice system for political purposes -- then there ought to be some discussion of the background, qualifications, and political biases of Dennis King, John Foster Berlet, Tim Wohlforth, Scott McLemee (who the hell is he?), and various disaffected members of Fred Newman's group. |
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest that the inclusion of such "sources" is just a disguised form of inserting your own POV. --] 21:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Scott McLemee is a journalist who wrote the article "Spotlight on the Liberty Lobby" for the fall 1994 issue of ''Covert Action Quarterly''. My source for the new Wohlforth quote is not his website but his book "On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left" coauthored with Dennis Tourish of the University of Aberdeen. ] 21:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Bizarre Article== |
|
|
|
|
|
This article is loaded with trivia from the 1970s, when LaRouche was pretty much an insignificant figure. He didn't develope any real influence until he was released from prison in the 90s, and the article doesn't cover that period. How useful is that? |
|
|
--- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Actually, the limited electoral success of the LaRouche movement was in the 80s and ended with his imprisonment. He had some access as well with the Reagan administration but none to succeeding administrations. Saying that "he didn't develop any real influence until he was released from prison" is an inaccurate statement. As for "trivia" from the 1970s I suppose it might be convenient from LaRouche's standpoint not to mention anything that happened prior to around 1980 (and indeed, his official biography on LaRouche sponsored websites pretty much ignores his days as a "leftist" and the transition to his current views) but this is not an official biography and his history is germane. By the way, in future please log in when you make edits. Making signficiant edits while not logged in is a violation of wikietiquette. ] 21:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't have a log-in, and Misplaced Pages does not require me to have one -- it just says that it brings "many benefits." If you have a bone to pick with me, e-mail me at peter_abelard@ausi.com. Plus, it wasn't until the 90s that LaRouche was elected to the Universal Ecological Academy of Moscow (BTW, in Russia "ecological" doesn't mean a bunch of greenies), and made an honorary citizen of Sao Paolo. |
|
|
|
|
|
LaRouche had more influence in the Clinton administration than with Reagan. You won't find it in the media, but it's true. You don't measure LaRouche's influence by electoral results -- you measure it by the spread of his ideas. It's not like professional sports with a scoreboard. And the most important development in the history of the LaRouche movement is the beginning of the LaRouche youth movement about four years ago. LaRouche never gets any real media coverage, he relies on face-to-face discussions and distribution of literature, and that is going on now on a much wider scale than ever before. The real history of the LaRouche movement is just beginning. --] 04:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Free School courses== |
|
|
Herschel, LaRouche's explanation for giving courses in Marxist economics is from his autobiography. ] 02:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:Your point being?--] 13:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
A google reveals five references to the "Universal Ecological Academy of Moscow", all at LaRouche websites. Conclusion: like the Eurasian Landbridge, it is a LaRouche fantasy. ] 04:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:You seem to have confused "googling" with "research."--] 13:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Fot telling whether an organisation is currently in existence or a figment of your imagination it is actually quite effective, as was shown with the Eurasian Landbridge. ] 13:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Claims made in the article == |
|
|
|
|
|
There are many claims made in the article with no evidence. For example, the claim that LaRouche opposed abortion. See ] 14:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
LaRouche doesn't answer the question. He states he opposes the "pro-life movement" but doesnt' give his views on abortion. Perhaps you can explain the "anti-Mathusian" position of the organization he founded, the "Club of Life". What are its views on abortion?] 15:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
He states that he opposes single issue politics. He has no view on abortion per se. Besides, you put it in the article to make it look like LaRouche was part of the pro-life movement. That is untrue.] 15:09, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
What does "Club of Life" do? What is their position on abortion? Do they favour restrictions on it or are they against restrictions?] 15:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Abortion Policy: |
|
|
:He received a 10% score from Planned Parenthood and a 75% from the National Right to Life Committee. |
|
|
|
|
|
::13. ABORTION POLICY: |
|
|
::* National Right to Life Committee |
|
|
::Pro-life in every way (against euthanasia, capital punishment, etc). |
|
|
] 15:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Coming over from Requests for Comment== |
|
|
Hi. I have come over here from ] after someone posted there links to two old versions of this article and asked for votes of preference between the two. I don't see any reference to this request or to any voting here on this talk page, and the two versions have apparently been superseded by more recent versions. Is there any current interest in garnering outside voters for these two versions, or can the voting request be removed from the Requests for Comment page? --] 08:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Protected== |
|
|
Sorry I didn't get the protection notice and stuff done last night, my connection went belly-up just as I clicked "protect". Please try to hash out the arguments here instead of in the article history. ] 15:37, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==May I play the devil's advocate?== |
|
|
|
|
|
I've been looking at these talk pages, and two things jump out at me. First, that the participants are mostly highly polarized pro- or anti-LaRouche, and second, that virtually every participant has encountered LaRouche activists first hand on the street. |
|
|
|
|
|
LaRouche is a revolutionary, and everything he says is a challenge to the status quo, whether in politics, science, or art. The news media defend the status quo, and Misplaced Pages is part of the news media (it seems that you can put any opinion you like in a Misplaced Pages article as long as it has appeared in other media.) I doubt that any person has ever supported LaRouche based on media coverage -- they support LaRouche because they have read his pamphlets first hand. |
|
|
|
|
|
My suggestion to Herschel and Weed is the following: why not stop making a fuss, and let Adam, Andy, 172 and Bcorr make the article just as outlandish and over-the-top as they like? People will compare it to LaRouche's literature, and see that it is completely fake, and get angry, and be more likely to support LaRouche. Don't you think that will serve your purpose better than if the article is a lukewarmish "consensus" article? --] 04:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no, C Colden, It's not. The point of Misplaced Pages is to take '''NO STANCE''' on anything. See: ]. ] 02:32, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The article in question is light years away from NPOV, and doesn't seem to be getting perceptibly closer. --] 06:08, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
"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—
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.
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)
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)
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)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
