Rich Holton (rich_holton(a)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.