Rich Holton (rich_holton@yahoo.com) [050120 01:15]:
What makes a reference a terrible one? Is the source biased by funding or other interests? Then that is a fact that should be included in an article on the source, at least. Not that you're suggesting this, but obviously a source should not be considered "terrible" simply because you don't agree with it. I do not see it as WiWikipedia'sole to judge "truth", but rather to describe "facts". I have only a vague concept of LaLaRouchend his ideas, and from what I know he sounds like a crackpot. But WiWikipedias not the place to analyze his ideas and attempt to stomp out his movement. Our job is to document him and his ideas, and to document significant reactions to him and his ideas. We leave it up to other groups, and up to individuals, to discern the truth. For me, that is a core element of NPNPOV
For a comparison, see the articles in [[Category:Scientology]] or the article on [[L. Ron Hubbard]]. NPOV is tricky, but we try our best, with references by the ton.
(Even then it sometimes isn't enough - see the expressions of incredulity on [[Talk:Xenu]] or [[Talk:Mission Earth (novel)]]. What does one do when this shit really is unbelievable?)
- d.