I was looking at the RFK article, got to the article on his assination ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_assassination) and in the process of doing some minor cleanup became astounded by the amount of cruft in this article. Fully half of it is various conspiracy theories, badly presented in varying manners, none of which comply with our standard format and style guidelines, overstating proof and presenting opinion as fact ['television program on the Robert Kennedy case entitled "Conspiracy Test: The RFK Assassination<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_Test:… which provides powerful scientific evidence that Sirhan Sirhan<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_Sirhan>did not act alone.'], and worse, it's spreading. The Sirhan Sirhan article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_Sirhan) is swelling with fringecruft as well, a third of that article devoted to conspiracy theories. We have a full, extremely large page devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories, all of which have been rather fully debunked. Are articles with large kook sections an artifact of coverage, the more literate 'pedia editors avoid them knowing their bunk and hence dont get much cleanup, or are they being claimed by 'true believers' to box out everyone else? -- -Brock