On 7/12/05, Snowspinner snowspinner@gmail.com wrote: A request for clarification on whether or not the parts of the ruling
regarding the status of LaRouche sources are still in force would probably not be out of line.
The arbcom ruled that material stemming from LaRouche's publications constituted original research, though I'd have to check the precise wording. They ruled that LaRouche publications could be used, as primary sources, in articles closely related to LaRouche, but material stemming from LaRouche in articles not about him could be deleted on sight by any editor.
This ruling didn't just apply to the particular LaRouche editors at that time. It applied across the board, and there's no reason to suppose it was intended to expire.
It's an important ruling because LaRouche's publications routinely publish absolute nonsense - not just POV, but lunatic ramblings - including my personal favorite, which gives the flavor of the thing for those not familar with LaRouche, that an article in a British woman's magazine was a code from MI6 that the royal household intended to assassinate LaRouche because of his criticism of the Queen as a drug dealer. LaRouche's security staff passed the coded threat to the White House in case the Queen's people were also intending to harm the president.
That's what we're dealing with here, the Platonic form of original research.
Sarah